Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[BigNBushy]

Why would you doubt a religious zealot "would make that claim if untrue."

I've known several people the world considers scientists. Their main goal is accuracy.

They will/might exaggerate, or stretch the truth, but they don't lie about their data, as a rule.

Pilt Down Man (or whatever/ however it's spelled) ruined and discredited an entire generation of scientists in England.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Comparing the validity of statements made on "the walking dead" zombie series with something said by one of the leading scientific minds in the world on an information based show is something I would expect from buck.

i can find no confirmation of your assertion the mr tyson said this (but i didnt try too hard, or watch the show...) , and i can find no support for this claim even if he did say it. (which i did dig into pretty good)

it remains hearsay.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I've known several people the world considers scientists. Their main goal is accuracy.

They will/might exaggerate, or stretch the truth, but they don't lie about their data, as a rule.

Pilt Down Man (or whatever/ however it's spelled) ruined and discredited an entire generation of scientists in England.

let us also not forget the "Tasaday" tribe in the philippines.

that shit was hilarious and made hundreds of "scientists" look like blithering idiots, cost the US several million in research grants, and ultimately turned out to be a scam perpetrated by simple fishing village dwellers to bilk the Intelligentsia out of fat sacks of cash.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you completely miss the point of a feedback cycle.

water vapor comes and goes like the weather, relatively stable based on region, about 4% in the wettest tropics, about 2% in the driest and coldest areas, so on and so forth.

CO2 no go. CO2 stay long time. CO2 take many many moon to go to tree or ocean. trees and oceans finite.

take millions and billions of years of sequestered CO2 and put it in air over 100-200 years, CO2 go way up. CO2 go way up and no go away. trap more heat.

trap more heat create more water vapor. more water vapor trap more heat in turn. feedback cycle intensifies.

we are talking about EFFECTS, not AMOUNTS.

so now you wish to argue that a pebble thrown into a pond in central ohio is the ultimate cause for a tsunami in kuala lumpur two years later.

1 )11000 years ago, a "Super Alarming Warming Trend" began, and continues apace. (Fact)
2 ) glaciers and icecaps began retreating, and it continues to this day (Fact)
3 ) the seas began warming and it continues today (Fact)
4 ) the warming seas are gassing off large amounts of CO2 and increasing atmospheric water vapour concentrations, this trend is continuing as well (Fact)
5 ) in 2007, i pissed into the river while fishing, so the warm urine i added to the pacific ocean, and my exhalations of CO2 into the atmosphere are the root cause of global warming. (wild supposition, but look at all the facts nearby, it must be true!!)

even a cursory examination of this graph will demonstrate that even when co2 levels were VERY low, sudden and precipitous warming still occured
even when co2 levels were high, sudden and precipitous cooling still occurred

something is driving the glacial cycle, and Co2 aint it.

many climatologist assert that carbon dioxide increases in pre-human glacial retreats was a byproduct of ocean warming, not the driver of the event, and the cooling of the ocean trapped Co2 as a byproduct of ocean cooling in past glacial advances

the argument that human produced increase in CO2 COULD be causing some warming is logical, but the question remains "How Much Of the Warming Is From Human Influence???"

the real answer seems to be "Not Much"

 

[Harrekin]

i'm still waiting for you to cite the claim that water vapor has a "hundredfold effect over CO2 on greenhouse effect".

not that there is a certain amount of it, but the effect it has.

like i said, red claims always and invariably trace back to politically biased, shady-funded sources. this will be no different.

maybe PM red and ask him where he got the claim from rather than waving your hands in the air like you even understand what you are talking about.

Are you honeslty asserting CO2 has the same ir reflective/absorbing properties as water vapour.

Ha ha!

Ha ha ha ha ha!

See how they recoil in retardism when you actually present "the science"??

 

[Dr Kynes]

Are you honeslty asserting CO2 has the same ir reflective/absorbing properties as water vapour.

Ha ha!

Ha ha ha ha ha!

See how they recoil in retardism when you actually present "the science"??

no, apparently he is asserting that CO2 absorbs a shitload more IR radiation and holds way more heat than water.

this is the only way that water vapour (being more than 100x more abundant than Co2) could fail to have 100X Co2's effect on greenhouse warming.

ALSO, apparently, when water vapour traps heat, it alchemically transmutes that heat energy into a mysterious new, Non-Newtonian/Non-Einsteinian Meta-Thermodynamic form that dissipates into the aether rapidly, while Co2 holds and maintains that heat over the period of hundreds of years (somehow) through the power of... ??? ummm... Magnets! yeah that's the ticket...

 

[Harrekin]

no, apparently he is asserting that CO2 absorbs a shitload more IR radiation and holds way more heat than water.

this is the only way that water vapour (being more than 100x more abundant than Co2) could fail to have 100X Co2's effect on greenhouse warming.

ALSO, apparently, when water vapour traps heat, it alchemically transmutes that heat energy into a mysterious new, Non-Newtonian/Non-Einsteinian Meta-Thermodynamic form that dissipates into the aether rapidly, while Co2 holds and maintains that heat over the period of hundreds of years (somehow) through the power of... ??? ummm... Magnets! yeah that's the ticket...

AFAIK I can remember, but I'm drunk and high, water vapour is 4x worse than CO2 regarding its infrared properties.

 

[Dr Kynes]

AFAIK I can remember, but I'm drunk and high, water vapour is 4x worse than CO2 regarding its infrared properties.

claims vary between 5x (after "baselining" the cooling effects of evaporation and cloud/snow/ice/ocean surface albedo) to 20x (just the water vapour, no "baselining")

4x worse greenhouse effect/mole is the well established value of Methane over Co2.

it is well established that water is at least 5x more powerful, Mole For Mole at trapping heat radiation than Co2, and there is 100x more of it in the air at any given time, meaning water vapourt has an extremely conservative 500x more power to control the temperature than Co2, meaning red's assertion is not only supported, but the only inaccuracy is his gross underestimation of the power of water.

for shame red.

why you wanna rob water of it's self-esteem like that?

implying that it is only 100x more powerful than Co2 is disgraceful!

meanwhile, Bucky has now firmly entrenched himself in the sticky morass that is Water Denialism

that Tar Baby doesnt just stick, it also stinks.

it's gonna take weeks for Bucklefuckle to wash the stench of failure off

 

[MuyLocoNC]

meanwhile, Bucky has now firmly entrenched himself in the sticky morass that is Water Denialism

that Tar Baby doesnt just stick, it also stinks.

it's gonna take weeks for Bucklefuckle to wash the stench of failure off

Actually, this is where UB exclaims "Nuh-Uh"

Pad (science) comes in and says (science) the word science a few times (science), because (science), you know...science.

Then SeaBiscuit plods in, declares (insert any lib here) the winner and babbles something about biometric safety technology being the solution to global warming.

 

[UncleBuck]

so now you wish to argue that a pebble thrown into a pond in central ohio is the ultimate cause for a tsunami in kuala lumpur two years later.

1 )11000 years ago, a "Super Alarming Warming Trend" began, and continues apace. (Fact)
2 ) glaciers and icecaps began retreating, and it continues to this day (Fact)
3 ) the seas began warming and it continues today (Fact)
4 ) the warming seas are gassing off large amounts of CO2 and increasing atmospheric water vapour concentrations, this trend is continuing as well (Fact)
5 ) in 2007, i pissed into the river while fishing, so the warm urine i added to the pacific ocean, and my exhalations of CO2 into the atmosphere are the root cause of global warming. (wild supposition, but look at all the facts nearby, it must be true!!)

even a cursory examination of this graph will demonstrate that even when co2 levels were VERY low, sudden and precipitous warming still occured
even when co2 levels were high, sudden and precipitous cooling still occurred

something is driving the glacial cycle, and Co2 aint it.

many climatologist assert that carbon dioxide increases in pre-human glacial retreats was a byproduct of ocean warming, not the driver of the event, and the cooling of the ocean trapped Co2 as a byproduct of ocean cooling in past glacial advances

the argument that human produced increase in CO2 COULD be causing some warming is logical, but the question remains "How Much Of the Warming Is From Human Influence???"

the real answer seems to be "Not Much"

not only have you STILL failed to cite the study, but now you are denying that CO2 drives temps, which is outright retarded since temperature and CO2 basically hold hands going up and down.

you are fucking retarded.

 

[UncleBuck]

no, apparently he is asserting that CO2 absorbs a shitload more IR radiation and holds way more heat than water.

no, you fucking retard.

it stays around much longer.

i find it hard to believe you are this stupid, so i have to blame it on further lying and dishonesty on your part.

water vapour (being more than 100x more abundant than Co2)

only in the wettest places on earth, otherwise it's as low as 50x or less.

in which case, we could write "~50%" and NOT because you got caught in yet another lie.

,,,could fail to have 100X Co2's effect on greenhouse warming.

or it could be that CO2 stays around for a long, long time and drives a feedback cycle that water vapor on its own does not.

it's pretty basic science, and you are trying to play mega-dumb in a futile and retarded attempt to defend something red1966 picked up from a fucking heartland institute study in all likelihood.

 

[UncleBuck]

claims vary between 5x (after "baselining" the cooling effects of evaporation and cloud/snow/ice/ocean surface albedo) to 20x (just the water vapour, no "baselining")

4x worse greenhouse effect/mole is the well established value of Methane over Co2.

it is well established that water is at least 5x more powerful, Mole For Mole at trapping heat radiation than Co2, and there is 100x more of it in the air at any given time, meaning water vapourt has an extremely conservative 500x more power to control the temperature than Co2, meaning red's assertion is not only supported, but the only inaccuracy is his gross underestimation of the power of water.

for shame red.

why you wanna rob water of it's self-esteem like that?

implying that it is only 100x more powerful than Co2 is disgraceful!

meanwhile, Bucky has now firmly entrenched himself in the sticky morass that is Water Denialism

that Tar Baby doesnt just stick, it also stinks.

it's gonna take weeks for Bucklefuckle to wash the stench of failure off

still waiting for you to cite the study, which you are utterly unable to do.

your back of the eggo box calculations are less than impressive and your denial of how CO2 sticks around versus water vapor is downright laughable.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually, this is where UB exclaims "Nuh-Uh"

Pad (science) comes in and says (science) the word science a few times (science), because (science), you know...science.

Then SeaBiscuit plods in, declares (insert any lib here) the winner and babbles something about biometric safety technology being the solution to global warming.

i've caught you parroting retarded science from lolblogs before, perhaps you have some idea of where red got his retarded and laughable claim.

 

[Dr Kynes]

no, you fucking retard.

it stays around much longer.

i find it hard to believe you are this stupid, so i have to blame it on further lying and dishonesty on your part.



only in the wettest places on earth, otherwise it's as low as 50x or less.

in which case, we could write "~50%" and NOT because you got caught in yet another lie.



or it could be that CO2 stays around for a long, long time and drives a feedback cycle that water vapor on its own does not.

it's pretty basic science, and you are trying to play mega-dumb in a futile and retarded attempt to defend something red1966 picked up from a fucking heartland institute study in all likelihood.

ha ha ha ha

even when your trying to make a factual point you fail miserably.

had you read the material provided you would know Water Vapour Concentrations vary from nearly 0% to upwards of 6% with a widely accepted global average of 4%

but even when you're trying to make a (semi) valid point, you do it without benefit of citations, or even a basic understanding of the material.

these numbers are only controversial in the minds of dullards who think MSNBC stands for "The National Academy Of Sciences"

but then Co2 is also not equally distributed around the planet. (In B4 "but but but .... wind and shit...")

water vapour is concentrated in the tropics where solar radiation is higher
Co2 is concentrated in temperate zones where solar radiation is weaker
both fall off precipitously in arctic zones where solar radiation is weakest

thus, the weighting of water (even if concentrations and ir absorption were equal) would still be greater, and water would still be more potent in greenhouse warming than co2.

 

[UncleBuck]

ha ha ha ha

even when your trying to make a factual point you fail miserably.

had you read the material provided you would know Water Vapour Concentrations vary from nearly 0% to upwards of 6% with a widely accepted global average of 4%

but even when you're trying to make a (semi) valid point, you do it without benefit of citations, or even a basic understanding of the material.

these numbers are only controversial in the minds of dullards who think MSNBC stands for "The National Academy Of Sciences"

but then Co2 is also not equally distributed around the planet. (In B4 "but but but .... wind and shit...")

water vapour is concentrated in the tropics where solar radiation is higher
Co2 is concentrated in temperate zones where solar radiation is weaker
both fall off precipitously in arctic zones where solar radiation is weakest

thus, the weighting of water (even if concentrations and ir absorption were equal) would still be greater, and water would still be more potent in greenhouse warming than co2.

i love how you can't cite anything beside your own take on this.

come back when you have the study that red is citing, because that's where all the LOLs are waiting at.

 

[Dr Kynes]

i love how you can't cite anything beside your own take on this.

come back when you have the study that red is citing, because that's where all the LOLs are waiting at.

red didnt cite a study. he saiud he had heard a factoid, and YOU asked me to check out it's veracity:

Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. Then when somebody does do something about, everybody complains. Really? Water vapor has a hundredfold effect over co2 on greenhouse effect, but you want to worry about the least influential factor?

this statement is accurate.

he did not assert water was 100x more powerful mole for mole, or that water was 100x more mean spirited, only that it is a 100x more powerful factor in Greenhouse Warming, which is only partially true, since it is about 500X mmore powerful by my reckoning using the LOWEST numbers published by reputable papers and scientists.

 

[BigNBushy]

red didnt cite a study. he saiud he had heard a factoid, and YOU asked me to check out it's veracity:



this statement is accurate.

he did not assert water was 100x more powerful mole for mole, or that water was 100x more mean spirited, only that it is a 100x more powerful factor in Greenhouse Warming, which is only partially true, since it is about 500X mmore powerful by my reckoning using the LOWEST numbers published by reputable papers and scientists.

This has been a thorough ass whooping.

Well done Dr.K. I don't share your belief that climate change is fiction, but I've never seen such a lopsided argument.

 

[UncleBuck]

... it is about 500X mmore powerful by my reckoning using the LOWEST numbers published by reputable papers and scientists.

your back of the eggo box calculations do not qualify as "published by reputable papers and scientists".

you need to find out where red1966 gleaned this "factoid" (factness unverified) from.

there's a reason why neither one of us can find any credible scientific publication on the statement that "Water vapor has a hundredfold effect over co2 on greenhouse effect".

if water vapor were that powerful of a greenhouse gas, then the tropics would quickly descend into a boiling inferno hellscape. but that's not what happens. a gust of wind blows water vapor away. CO2 no so much. that stuff tends to hang around for "hundreds and thousands" of years and contributes to a feedback cycle that water vapor does not accomplish on its own.

if you didn't have shit where your brains should be, you'd know i was sending you on a fool's errand, since we will inevitably come to find out that red came across this "factoid" where he gets all of his global warming "factoids": political front groups and exxon mobil or koch brothers funded "studies" whose conclusions were reached before the study even began.

 

[heckler73]

What the hell is this under the toilet paper stuck to my shoe?
Oh my...

Spoiler: Pada is not allowed to

http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html

 

[sheskunk]