-->
@Vegasgiants
You still didn’t provide a link in direct response to my posts. AND you didn’t answer the obvious point I made.
NASA refuting NASA, how rich!! Proves biased agendas.
Climate change is real
Posts
Total:
263
-->
@TWS1405_2
Does nasa support AGW theory?
Don't answer
-->
@Vegasgiants
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Does nasa support AGW theory?Don't answer
Classic intellectual cowardice deflection.
Classic intellectual cowardice deflection.
The TWS Greatest Hits! So banal
-->
@TWS1405_2
As I said.....don't answer. Don't you dare. Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not over the whole height of the atmosphere.
More blocking = more heat trapped
Co2 = more blocking
Whats unclear?
Bricks don't block light anymore than a tile. Both block completely
Bricks? Didnt I already explain why Co2 blocks more heat than Oxygen?
You are going far with denying 99% of scientists. That sounds crazy.
Scientists were wrong many times, but they were right a lot more.
Scientists are our best bet in this fight. I cant rely on your calculations.
More than the rocky surface? I think not. Besides, "trapping" works both way. If it traps relevant bands of IR in Earth's atmosphere it also traps them outside of Earth's atmosphere.
"This traps more" is not a relevant argument. Thats distraction.
It traps heat in itself. No matter which way heat comes, it traps.
Heat stays in the Earth's atmosphere irrelevant of way it comes.
Its like a sponge. Water that would normally pass gets trapped.
Same with Co2. Heat that goes near our planet gets absorbed.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Dude. Science does not prove things. Lol
Expound please.
-->
@DavidAZ
I really shouldn't have to. My god this is basic stuff
[IWantRoseveltAgain] The TWS Greatest Hits! So banal
IWRA's ignorant hits, so childish.
-->
@Vegasgiants
You really are useless on this site. Do you have something to say besides "no it's not!"? Can you bring any real information to the table?
-->
@Best.Korea
Not over the whole height of the atmosphere.More blocking = more heat trappedCo2 = more blockingWhats unclear?
More depth of concrete = more light trapped
Concrete = more blocking
What's unclear?
When you show me you understand why more concrete doesn't necessarily block more light we can return to the atmosphere.
No matter which way heat comes, it traps.Heat stays in the Earth's atmosphere irrelevant of way it comes.
*sigh* If there was radiation from the sun in the relevant bands (and there is, 5 watts per square meter) and there was no carbon dioxide (or any other gas that interacted with it) it would go straight through the atmosphere and be absorbed by the planet surface. Be absorbed farther from the rocky surface and closer to the radiate surface means the rocky surface is less cooled as there is an immediate path back out to space for the energy.
Its like a sponge.
No it's the opposite of a sponge. Heat energy (maximum disorder kinetic energy) is always moving to bring about temperature equilibrium.
Heat that goes near our planet gets absorbed.
"near", we're talking about radiation. EM wavefronts don't bend back towards the Earth after missing it There is no "near" it either hits or it doesn't.
-->
@DavidAZ
Like this
And proofs only exist in math. In science everything is a theory. Science only offers evidence. My god this is basic
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I like how you equalize concrete to Co2, and density with depth. There is nothing to debate here. I dont care enough to bother.
The official nasa position
The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.1 It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.
-->
@Vegasgiants
And proofs only exist in math. In science everything is a theory. Science only offers evidence.
Semantics. Science brings ideas to be proved.
-->
@DavidAZ
I've written off Vega already as a troll, so I'm not addressing him here but you're both wrong. Science isn't a relabel of 'ideas' or 'evidence'.
Science is an epistemological algorithm built on the foundation of rationality. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Reason doesn't preclude proof and therefore neither does science. Reason operates on premises and evidence is a type of premise which allows logic to operate on phenomenal concepts instead of pure abstractions.
Phenomenal in this case means relating to reality as presented to our senses. Numbers in mathematics is an example of a non-phenomenal concept even though it has plenty of uses in modeling phenomenal concepts.
Science is by definition about phenomenal concepts which is why a chain of reasoning that has no evidence (sensory basis relating to common reality) is not scientific even though it can be absolutely true (mathematical proofs, metaphysical axioms).
When Vega says science offers evidence that is putting the cart before the horse. Science eats evidence and poops theories with predictive power. Without science there is still plenty of evidence, just no reasonable understanding of the phenomena.
Without science there is still plenty of logic that can be done, but it doesn't relate to evidence (and thus specific reality).
Science is the strategy for combining evidence with reason to produce theories. Some of those theories are proven in the sense that the evidence which would need to be denied to allow for falsehood is so universal and repeatable that the only other alternative is the matrix. Anyone who calls that "not really proven" need not be taken seriously.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah, I kinda realized Vega isn't worth talking to when he couldn't answer a simple question of how much AGW was responsible for the current temperature rise.
Instead he kept regurgitating the 97% statistic that only includes scientists that simply claim "AGW exists" with no mention on how much it matters.
At least he didn't claim Nasa had any doom prophecies. Because NASA doesn't, even though it's "government science"
-->
@DavidAZ
A sixth grader knows that is false. You are dismissed. You don't understand basic science
As usual ....dream.... you are completely and utterly wrong. I get you guys now. You don't understand basic science
-->
@Greyparrot
Now you are just lying.