Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[jem]

you two think co2 only discriminates in one direction... its preposterously ignorant. Really why don't you 2 wise up and read this... again and again until you understand it.



from the NASA link above... (I will bold the words for you like you all were in science 101)

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. Play it!


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

 

[futurecurrents]

you two are scientifically illiterate.
from the NASA link above... (I will bold the words for you like you all were in science 101)

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. Play it!


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

So what? On balance GHG's warm. You seem confused about how they really work.

 

[Ricter]

you two are scientifically illiterate.
from the NASA link above... (I will bold the words for you like you all were in science 101)

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. Play it!


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Blah blah blah, same shit different year.

Read it!

 

[jem]

Ricter, your response is again a non sequitor. I am not citing to the slayers or their opinion. I am citing to the NASA scientists directly.

read this.... from your quote... I can't believe you are remaining so ignorant on this subject.


"Yes, of course the upper atmosphere is going to deflect and re-radiate the energy of solar storms, that’s why we don’t burn to a cinder when they happen. There’s nothing new here, this is what the upper atmosphere (thermosphere) does. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHG’s) in the lower atmosphere also re-radiates long wave infra red energy (LWIR) as backradiation coming up from the surface of the Earth as it dumps the shortwave solar energy absorbed returns as LWIR (heat) and makes its way to the top of the atmosphere."

Blah blah blah, same shit different year.

Read it!

 

[jem]

That is the crux of the issue. You can't just make that assumption.

you have not shown that on net adding man made co2 is causing warming.
1. at some point adding more gas may not keep you any warmer but it does block warming rays. we have shown you science which indicates that adding more co2 gets logarithmically (spell) less warming.

2. you have not shown that we are in a closed system. co2 levels might be set by the change in ocean temps as i have shown you in many studies. Any excess (read man made co2) might be off gassed or absorbed. We have a lot of negative feedbacks... otherwise we would have burned up.

So what? On balance GHG's warm. You seem confused about how they really work.

 

[futurecurrents]

That is the crux of the issue. You can't just make that assumption.

you have not shown that on net adding man made co2 is causing warming.
1. at some point adding more gas may not keep you any warmer but it does block warming rays. we have shown you science which indicates that adding more co2 gets logarithmically (spell) less warming.

2. you have not shown that we are in a closed system. co2 levels might be set by the change in ocean temps as i have shown you in many studies. Any excess (read man made co2) might be off gassed or absorbed. We have a lot of negative feedbacks... otherwise we would have burned up.

It's amazing how being a good lawyer means essentially being a good liar. You're pretty good. I hope you're proud.

 

[jem]

its not lawyering its science.
its the absence of evidence that is your team's issue.

you have zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming.
Plus, we have science showing co2 levels trail change in ocean temps.

When you try to argue the lagging variable (co2 trails change in ocean temps) is the cause you have to overcome a lot of scientific stumbling blocks.

It's amazing how being a good lawyer means essentially being a good liar. You're pretty good. I hope you're proud.

 

[futurecurrents]

its not lawyering its science.
its the absence of evidence that is your team's issue.

you have zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming.
Plus, we have science showing co2 levels trail change in ocean temps.

When you try to argue the lagging variable (co2 trails change in ocean temps) is the cause you have to overcome a lot of scientific stumbling blocks.

That's some good lying there. Well done ...........lawyer!

 

[jem]

that is the problem when you sell greenhouse gases for a living yet you pretend you are really against them.
you just resort to trolling when confronted by the truth.

If I were lying, why don't you link to the peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming. Oh I know... there isn't any.

Yet you pretend you have science on your side.

That's some good lying there. Well done ...........lawyer!

 

[Buy1Sell2]

There is no evidence to support man made global warming. It's likely that changes in environment are cyclical and more long term inluding inputs such as the the Earth's precession. How arrogant that man would record temps for a hundred or so years and claim that they were able to ascertain that temps were rising due to man's hand.--Izzy