Global Warming: For Experts Only

[jem]

we have posted 100s of peer reviewed articles showing its the sun and the moon and the tides at least in part... and you don't even have one peer reviewed article stating its man made co2.

Beside you are the the the troll who argued Moscow is not in Europe. No one takes you seriously.

 

[futurecurrents]

Only if you equate "climate change" with Hansen's hypothesis. No one is anti climate change unless they are insane. People have completely lost sight of the crucial issue, which is whether man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to result in a catastrophic increase in the Earth's surface temperature.

Which if course it is already and will to a much greater extent going forward insofar as paid liars and ideological nutjobs like jem like you are listened to.

Of course your employers don't want that knowledge out there. They want to keep the Koch bros et al happy don't they?

And it's amazing how little relevant science is in your pile of bullshit. A lot of red herrings and fluff but nothing of substance.

 

[gwb-trading]

Which if course it is already and will to a much greater extent going forward insofar as paid liars and ideological nutjobs like jem like you are listened to.

Of course your employers don't want that knowledge out there. They want to keep the Koch bros et al happy don't they?

And it's amazing how little relevant science is in your pile of bullshit. A lot of red herrings and fluff but nothing of substance.

Just how many times are you going to repost this nonsense. Just how many times have the moderators warned you about continually reposting nonsense.

After 300 or 400 times it is abusive to the forum.

 

[futurecurrents]

we have posted 100s of peer reviewed articles showing its the sun and the moon and the tides at least in part... and you don't even have one peer reviewed article stating its man made co2.

Beside you are the the the troll who argued Moscow is not in Europe. No one takes you seriously.

We don't even need an article. Two charts prove it. The one I posted above and this one which shows the reduction of outward radiation from the earth over the time due to the increase of greenhouse gasses.

You and piezoe seem to have problems with basic logic. See the dips? That is how much less the satellites have measured of those wavelengths. Do you guys have adjoining cubicles?

If you guys need more explanation let me know. As if logic and evidence would change the propaganda that you two liars spew. LOL


How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

 

[futurecurrents]

Just how many times are you going to repost this nonsense. Just how many times have the moderators warned you about continually reposting nonsense.

After 300 or 400 times it is abusive to the forum.

Yes, we know that to you and your cronies that facts and actual science are nonsense, and that posting facts makes you angry. And I understand that you want to censure the best single evidence that you are full of shit. But fuck you, I will keep posting it when it is relevant. Which it is nearly all the time.

Your stubborn ignorant bullshit is offensive to the forum. Put me on ignore if it bothers you fuckface.

 

[gwb-trading]

I understand that you want to censure the best single evidence that you are full of shit. But fuck you, I will keep posting it when it is relevant. Which it is nearly all the time.

Your stubborn ignorant bullshit is offensive to the forum. Put me on ignore if it bothers you fuckface.

Futurecurrents is as charming as ever.

 

[gwb-trading]

 

[jem]

1. if you click on the al gore sponsored website at skeptical science and read the comments you learn your graphs don't tell the whole story. Your analysis is hardly peer reviewed and it debated.

2. NASA also proves that co2 cools. So we don't know the impact of add more co2 at this stage.

3. you have not shown that the earth does not off gas or observe man made co2

4. the data shows co2 trails temperature.

So once again all you have shown is that co2 has some warming properties. Something we do not deny

We don't even need an article. Two charts prove it. The one I posted above and this one which shows the reduction of outward radiation from the earth over the time due to the increase of greenhouse gasses.

You and piezoe seem to have problems with basic logic. See the dips? That is how much less the satellites have measured of those wavelengths. Do you guys have adjoining cubicles?

If you guys need more explanation let me know. As if logic and evidence would change the propaganda that you two liars spew. LOL


How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

 

[futurecurrents]

Stop being disingenuous. My patience is no more infinite than yours.

Salby has not published for peer review in all the years he could have.

As far as Shaviv is concerned, if you are a scientist then you will at least understand that it is the SCIENCE not the SCIENTIST that matters.
What the hell are you trying to prove by listing Shaviv's achievements while ignoring the point!
What he proposes is not supported by peer reviewed science itself. Peer review that has equal or more eminent science and scientists to apply to the issue. How many more times!?

I have every respect for Shaviv's work and there is no doubt he is brilliant, which makes it all the more perplexing as to why he would do this kind of thing.

The subject is not really directly in his field, but what he suggested is not supported by basic scientific fact which he has been made aware of. Even more weird is why he tried to dodge the problem when it was brought to his attention and gave no scientific valid response that beholds a scientist of his stature.

It is also perplexing as to why you have been suckered into the you tube global warming denial jerking circle .

You said


"I have every respect for Shaviv's work and there is no doubt he is brilliant, which makes it all the more perplexing as to why he would do this kind of thing.

The subject is not really directly in his field, but what he suggested is not supported by basic scientific fact which he has been made aware of. Even more weird is why he tried to dodge the problem when it was brought to his attention and gave no scientific valid response that beholds a scientist of his stature.

It is also perplexing as to why you have been suckered into the you tube global warming denial jerking circle ."
"


Just like piezoe! It's the same answer for both Shaviv and pie of course. Money. Fossil fuel money. Do you believe me yet? Pie is simply not credible. Every scientist referred to by him is an industry whore, a fraud, a fool and or an attention whore. A quick google search confirms this, yet they are held in high esteem by him.

Piezoe is working for a think tank or something similar. He is exactly what they want out there.

 

[futurecurrents]

1. if you click on the al gore sponsored website at skeptical science and read the comments you learn your graphs don't tell the whole story. Your analysis is hardly peer reviewed and it debated.

2. NASA also proves that co2 cools. So we don't know the impact of add more co2 at this stage.

3. you have not shown that the earth does not off gas or observe man made co2

4. the data shows co2 trails temperature.

So once again all you have shown is that co2 has some warming properties. Something we do not deny

So you admit the charts are correct. Interesting that both and pie dodge their factualness.

Your red herrings are exactly what a think tank operator would do.

Talk about anything but the facts.