Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

How was that post supposed to refute the proposition that "proving your theory can survive peer review analysis would make your argument stronger?"

 

Obviously you didn't read my linked post then. My rebuttal to your point about peer review is right towards the top of it.

 

When I called your question out as a Redefinition Fallacy as well as a Bulverism Fallacy. My "credentials" and my "credibility" are both completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is the argumentation that I have presented you. Address the arguments, not the person.

...and that one link, whether or not you deem it to be "holy", is not science. Science is not a link found on a website. It is not some governmental agency or organization. It is not some online publication of sorts. It is a set of falsifiable theories. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is science. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is science. Planck's Law is science. The Ideal Gas Law is science.

 

Science that was developed and supported by people with actual credentials and credibility.

Do you have either? Can you provide a link to anyone with actual credentials or credibility who supports your interpretation of the theory?

 

There is no requirement to have "credentials" or "credibility" in order to form a theory. Anyone can do it.

Irrelevant questions.

 

Definitely relevant questions.

Do you have any credibility or credentials? Can you provide a single link to an individual with credibility or credentials who supports your interpretation of the theory?

 

RQAA.

 

Yep.

 

You are dodging with an acronym.

Just say no if that's the answer. Provide a single link if you can.

 

Sorry. Just checking to see if your sense of humor was back. It's not.
But to answer your question.The CO2 molecule reemits it's IR.

Well yes it does. But not like it does in space.

Sure it does. On average it's 58 degrees. With a much smaller swing than the moon.

 

Delete

 

Who really cares? If Humans ever make Mars habitable, we will be long since dead and it has nothing to do with the theory we are discussing here. Open a new thread on it.

 

Even funnier when he was trying to pull Star Trek out of thin air and equate it to melting glaciers. lol

 

And the latter causes the former how, exactly?

 

Meteor Strikes are violent and create fire and molten rock?

 

Still waiting on you to just answer those two basic questions.

 

Even if they do, the contribution to the heat content of the biosphere is trivial, as most of it radiates into space in short order.

 

Yes, I agree (depending on the severity of the strike obviously).

But the point I am making is that there are identifiable reasons why glaciers melt.

 

I say that is a load of bull.

There is no association between the variables of the Big Bang Theory--whether things can just happen (Stephen Hawking) or a God was involved in creation of a universe or this is just a simulation in God’s quantum computer on the event horizon of the singularity--and whether man is causing Global Warming or any climate change. That is how YOU create a null hypothesis here; there is no relationship between the bull and science.

Not all theories begin as circular arguments, such as a person proving the bible using the bible.

“A set of falsifiable theories” would not be science, but just knowledge of a set, because science builds upon one truth at a time; science does not build upon falsity but upon knowledge of what is true to the best of our ability.

 

Its all a strawman designed to loot your paycheck.

A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume. Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2

 

A) Strawman does not mean what you think it means.
B) The cause of climate change is humans increasing the amount of a Greenhouse effect, by increasing the amount of Greenhouse Gases in the upper atmosphere. If humans were increasing the amount of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, that would also be a source of concern. And, coincidentally, one of the side effects of a warmer climate is that the atmosphere will be able to hold onto more water vapor before it hits a critical saturation point and turn into rain.

 

But the increase in water vapor is a result - not a cause of increasing temperatures.

 

Which simply means that you have no ability to understand then what the graph is trying to express to you. The forcing is simply the entire function, not the differentiated view, and frankly lots of issues surrounding the forcing explanation, but I doubt that discussion is in your wheelhouse.

Again, you simply don't either understand the data, or are purposefully mischaracterizing it. The assertion that man made CO2 is entirely the reason for CO2 availability improvement is to ignore the natural process entirely. It also entirely ignores the historic empiric data that implies that warmth adds carrying capacity for CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what we see today. Attempting to attribute only the ~<4% of total output to the entirety of available CO2 is laughable.

Still doesn't explain or otherwise undercut the natural distribution of CO2 being contributory. By attempting to isolate isotopal distribution and then claim authoritatively that the additional distribution at altitude is, while testable, unable to demonstrate effective modification, as also testable temperature values then demonstrate. If, as the skeptical science blogger asserts, CO2 distribution is required at altitude to effect temperatures, this lack of evidence at altitude certainly disappoints this meager assertion.

There is no confusion. So, simply stated, what is the "optimal global temperature" ? What should it be? If, as you suggest it is important, that fact that you, nor anyone for that matter can actually cite a real number for what "optimal" should be is the single most egregious sophistry in the current climate debate. The calculation that acceleration is occurring is meaningless unless you can actually create and stand by a target. By tying your current argumentation to a global value that historically is pretty low, creating the "urgency" is dishonest at best, and assuming that CO2 distribution of scarcity from the same time point as "normal" or "optimal" is insane. Frankly your math doesn't add up. I know, it's on purpose, but it does demonstrate that this is simply the only way that you can normalize your assertion. For your math to actually work, if man is perhaps responsible for ~<1% of the current warming, that makes man responsible for less than .009 F of actual warming, not 1F or worse, your transposition of that value then as 1C. Your shoddy demonstration is just that, shoddy, full of mistake, and more, it's dishonest. For your end calculation to actually mean something, it would have to mean that on the global scale, 20C has been observed in average warming, something that clearly hasn't happened. So why assert it?

 

False.

There is an ever increasing quantity of water on our planet.
No one can stop it.
In a few million years Earth will be covered in water.

Here is 2.5 hours of new water being created in our atmosphere.

 

CO2 is a strawman. Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, by far.

There is an ever increasing quantity of water on our planet.
No one can stop it.
In a few million years Earth will be covered in water.

Here is 2.5 hours of new water being created in our atmosphere.