RE: Another Reason Christians are Dangerous
February 2, 2017 at 10:44 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2017 at 11:11 am by Drich.)
(February 1, 2017 at 9:49 am)Faith No More Wrote:(January 31, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Drich Wrote: essentily 100 years is being way generous. 1950 is when we seriously started identified and started accurate recording the data points we now use. The fact that you think any different, and chose to speak without checking MAKES the moron I said you where.
http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm
The link above is a complete history of science surrounding climate change. While I do not support it's final conclusion as the article does not take into consideration the data points that would ultimately affect climate rendered by a "3d huluhoop effect the earth's orbit would have in conjunction with solar output, I believe the article does indeed correctly follow how climate change via green house gas verse solar sunspots cycles would have..
Again, I am saying solar out put in conjunction with orbit over century long cycles determines climate (As did the last 500 years of science) this article maps out sunspots effect out a particular type of solar output/cosmic rays. But the article does accurately describe how and when our knowledge of climate change data was and is gathered.
So 1950 sport that means with 67 years of data youre people claim the sky is falling, and because I am not in a panic makes me the less credible??!?! Again the Sky is falling junk started in the late 90's AND inorder for to believe this bunk you have to ignore over 500 years of solar science and observation, even several mini Iceages with in the last 3 or 400 years, all of which is completely contrary to what your sky is falling doctrine tells you...
You know what you douche bags had you go for the last 10 years or so. give it a rest and let the adults run the world again. Maybe next time you all can do something with aliens or 'alien credits.' Some special tax that will help those who pay it avoid being probed
Lol, yeah, it's not like we can't dig into the layers of ice in the Antarctic to test the composition of the atmosphere and temperature of the earth for the last several thousands of years. If everyone stayed as stupid as you, we'd still have lead in our gasoline.
So, while we have only been studying the climate for decades now, we actually have data about the climate for thousands of years. How do you think we know about all of those ice ages and stuff, ya fuckin' tool?
Sure, it's just a natural warming from sunspots and the orbit. It all just coincidentally started when we started burning fossil fuels. Once again, the proven-to-be retarded, ignorant internet crusader knows more than 99% of the people with degrees in the field.
Tell me, what's it like to feel so superior when you're actually so goddamn stupid? It's just really hard for me to imagine someone someone with your level of self-awareness.
Glob...
What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???
Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.
Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.
You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!
The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.
The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.
To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat
(February 1, 2017 at 10:18 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote:in 1491 97% of 'scientists' believed the earth to be flat as well..(February 1, 2017 at 11:51 am)Drich Wrote: No I'm saying the .gov makes nasa a puppet of .govhttp://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Give it a few years and you'll see what I mean.
Most recently when clinton took office there was a huge hole in the ozone #Nasa.gov
When bush II took office the ozone hole magically became a naturally reoccuring natural phenoma and HFC's weren't the only factor. Again #Nasa.gov
Now that trump is in office let us wait and see what happens when some of the non global warming money hits Nasa and let's wait and see how quickly you are to quote Nasa.gov in the near future concerning this topic.
You are the one ignoring 5-0-0 -y-e-a-r-s Of Scientific evidence for this junk science Al gore decided to make popular and tried to cash in on.
Glob...
How do you not see that if you are right and global warming is due to increased carbon emissions the only way to stop this is to reduce the population? Or learn a cheaper way to 'scrub' carbon from oxygen that will work on a planetary scale?
Since we are doing nothing to curtail either, that means a simple reduction in emissions will have zero effect. So what do you guys do, of course you tax the stupid because they won't know any better. they don't know under you model you are planning for a slow agonizing planetary death. Again IF your junk science is right.
NOW Say I'm right. Or rather 500 years of past scientific discovery concerning global climate change is right. and carbon/air simply unlocks the potential energy stored in the radiant heat coming from the sun, making the sun the reason for warmer and colder weather. (making warmer weather marginally hotter and colder weather not as cold to more avaiable carbon there is.) That would allow the political eliete to tax the stupid people and call it whatever "The sky is falling branding they like" and the problem will correct itself in a few years.
Ever wonder why we don't TSIF term "Global warming anymore?" and why we moved on to climate change?
Because when ever you b-holes settle on a direction (warming or cooling) the climate changes again. So unless we have no weather changes you have a TSIF term that covers everything the weather does if it is not the same as the day before.
Again, give it a few years.. let the none global warming money have a chance to sink in and change the minds of 'science.'
Then you'll be able to see what science really is.. a whore. There is someone out there willing to research and back whatever crazy theory you want he just needs the money to convince people like you
%97 of scientist believe global climate change is real. Did the Clinton's and Al Gore pay them all? The fact is there's no such thing as "big science." But big oil has enough money to fill a football stadium and they still can only bribe 3% of scientists. The name didn't change from global warming because it isn't getting hotter. It's because the warming can have a lot worse side effects.
Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk
That said, know I acknowledge global climate change is a 'thing.' Why? because we are not in an ice age any more.
I am disputing the reason they say climate change is happening. I pointing to increased solar out put as well as an orbit that takes us closer to the sun.
Why? read the last article in my last post.
(February 1, 2017 at 9:49 am)Faith No More Wrote:(January 31, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Drich Wrote: essentily 100 years is being way generous. 1950 is when we seriously started identified and started accurate recording the data points we now use. The fact that you think any different, and chose to speak without checking MAKES the moron I said you where.
http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm
The link above is a complete history of science surrounding climate change. While I do not support it's final conclusion as the article does not take into consideration the data points that would ultimately affect climate rendered by a "3d huluhoop effect the earth's orbit would have in conjunction with solar output, I believe the article does indeed correctly follow how climate change via green house gas verse solar sunspots cycles would have..
Again, I am saying solar out put in conjunction with orbit over century long cycles determines climate (As did the last 500 years of science) this article maps out sunspots effect out a particular type of solar output/cosmic rays. But the article does accurately describe how and when our knowledge of climate change data was and is gathered.
So 1950 sport that means with 67 years of data youre people claim the sky is falling, and because I am not in a panic makes me the less credible??!?! Again the Sky is falling junk started in the late 90's AND inorder for to believe this bunk you have to ignore over 500 years of solar science and observation, even several mini Iceages with in the last 3 or 400 years, all of which is completely contrary to what your sky is falling doctrine tells you...
You know what you douche bags had you go for the last 10 years or so. give it a rest and let the adults run the world again. Maybe next time you all can do something with aliens or 'alien credits.' Some special tax that will help those who pay it avoid being probed
Lol, yeah, it's not like we can't dig into the layers of ice in the Antarctic to test the composition of the atmosphere and temperature of the earth for the last several thousands of years. If everyone stayed as stupid as you, we'd still have lead in our gasoline.
So, while we have only been studying the climate for decades now, we actually have data about the climate for thousands of years. How do you think we know about all of those ice ages and stuff, ya fuckin' tool?
Sure, it's just a natural warming from sunspots and the orbit. It all just coincidentally started when we started burning fossil fuels. Once again, the proven-to-be retarded, ignorant internet crusader knows more than 99% of the people with degrees in the field.
Tell me, what's it like to feel so superior when you're actually so goddamn stupid? It's just really hard for me to imagine someone someone with your level of self-awareness.
Glob...
What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???
Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.
Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.
You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!
The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.
The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.
To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat
