Global Warming Theory Disproved a Century Ago

global warming religion ^ | 10/04/18 | Reasonmclucus

[kathsua]

The scientists probably know the truth. They're probably as crooked as the liberals who cry global warming.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The temperatures which are reported to be rising are those close to the ground. There’s a good reason (besides solar output) this is expected — the amount of particulates in the air has decreased with modern successes in emission control. More solar radiation hits the ground through this clearer air. In turn this warms the air near the ground.

[Nifster]

A classic experiment in thermodynamics

[arrogantsob]

Thanks for posting.

[SunkenCiv]

Well yeah.

[RainMan]

Ping for later reuse

[Bob434]

it doesn’t matter what the real facts are, the ‘new truth’ (as dictated by the rabid thugs on the left) is that ‘man is evil, man is causing the plan et to heat up, and man must pay pay pay $$ because man is so evil’

Sadly many low information people believe this, which is a majority of the world- so they think man is causing climate change- and nothing will convince them otherwise because they are driven by a misguided inner sense of guilt

[Pinkbell]

Marking

[Secret Agent Man]

Real science always kicks the ass of pseudoscience.

[Steve Schulin]

I’ve forgotten more about radiative forcing than I remember, but this article isn’t so useful in countering the alarmism about CO2 and climate. This article does accurately convey the fact that the use of the term greenhouse in such phrases as “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” can be misleading. But is that meaningful in assessing the risk of increasing atmospheric CO2? There’s all kinds of such potentially misleading language used to describe phenomena and stuff. We know that what we call sunrise would be more accurately described as having much more to do with the rotation of the earth than with the movement of the sun, for example.

[HypatiaTaught]

The temperatures which are reported to be rising are those close to the ground.
___________________________________________

Additionally, they specifically select only a few locations that show increase an in surface temperature while not calculating others that show a decrease in temperature.

Their proof of glow bull warming...

[NoCmpromiz]

PFL

[Gene Eric]

A Century Ago, the scientific community wasn’t infected with the third-rate scumbags that now deceive, omit, and outright lie in order to secure their paychecks.

Science by virtue of its “scientists” is definitively political.

[HypatiaTaught]

but this article isn’t so useful in countering the alarmism about CO2 and climate.

---

I disagree.

The article explained that C02 is even less likely to function as a barrier to Infra Red, IR. Basically if this experiment did not show significant increase in temperature, there is no way C02 is going to. That trapping IR with C02 is like trying to capture mice with a chain linked fence. I think rather simple to explain to others.

Especially leftists rats. ; )

[CptnObvious]

The scientists probably know the truth.

But they follow the money instead.

[Sacajaweau]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

[jonascord]

Bkmrk

[garrynewman]

Yes, it’s all nonsense contrived by scientists for the sake of intimidation of the masses

[politicianslie]

The temperatures which are reported to be rising are those close to the ground.

The temperatures are increasing explanation is MUCH simpler than that.

If you look at the following graph, you will notice two lines of tempertures:

1. BLUE LINE: Measured temperatures

It is quite obvious that MEASURED tempertures in the 1930's were slightly hotter thant the tempertures in the last few decades

2. RED LINE: ADJUSTED tempertures

It is quite obvious that the real temperatures are adjusted LOWER before about year 2000 and adjusted HIGHER after year 2000.

This is an official, off the NOAA web page graph. WHY did the scammers adjust tempertures down and then up which shows warming over the last 100+ years when actual temperture readings show that is not true?

The scammers "believe" that increasing levels of CO2 causes temperature increases so they CORRECT actual reading to show that. The computer CO2 climate change models have to be right so they ADJUST the recorded tempertures to show that is true even when it is not true.

SUMMARY:

You probably believe that the temperture increases being reported are measured tempertures but the NOAA graph shows that is NOT true. What is being reported is ADJUSTED temperture changes!

It really is that easy to fool the public!

[exDemMom]

I’ve pointed out here and on other forums that the phenomenon of fluorescence—the absorption and almost immediate release of a photon from an atom or molecule—is not unique to CO2, nor does it support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One of the biggest problems I run across is that most people have zero understanding of fluorescence, and thus do not understand my explanations. They hear the doomsayers say that carbon dioxide absorbs IR, and think that means it is getting hotter, but they don’t even understand that absorption is a component of fluorescence.

The multitudes of scientific publications that presumably establish that AGW is a thing do no such thing. Typically, they explain an observation or results from controlled studies, then toss in a phrase like “because of global warming” along with the explanation of what they think is really going on. That does not establish AGW driven by CO2 any more than Christine Blasey Ford’s contradictory and uncorroborated claims established that Brett Kavanaugh is a sex predator.

Once, I read a study in Science magazine that purported to show that the sea levels really are rising because of AGW. While the article was touted as smoking gun proof, the details showed otherwise. An island had actually risen, so that the sea level was lower when measured on the island. But the researchers applied some sort of “correction” due to other geological processes going on in the area and “found” that the sea level was higher than measured, and that they had therefore found incontrovertible proof of sea levels rising from AGW!

I could go on and on. The bottom line is that the AGW hypothesis still has not been demonstrated experimentally, is not theoretically plausible, and has value only to a certain political class who sees it as a mechanism to gain compliance from people who balk at giving politicians absolute control of their lives. I am glad Trump ditched the Paris accords.