Remember me
▼ Content

What is the Greenhouse Effect?



Page 1 of 5123>>>
What is the Greenhouse Effect?16-08-2017 10:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect23/IntrotoGreenhouseEffect.pdf

It seems like most of the debate surrounding Climate Change involves whether or not there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas, or the Greenhouse Effect. So much needless discussion involves going round and round, never settling on any kind of agreement as to whether there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas.

Either the science community has joined together in a conspiracy to fool the world about Climate Change, or Greenhouse Gases are real. If you want a technical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect, refer to the link above. It's provided by the Georgetown University, which is not for destroying the current world order [unlike NASA and NOAA, supposedly].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-08-2017 17:37
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect23/IntrotoGreenhouseEffect.pdf

It seems like most of the debate surrounding Climate Change involves whether or not there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas, or the Greenhouse Effect. So much needless discussion involves going round and round, never settling on any kind of agreement as to whether there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas.

Either the science community has joined together in a conspiracy to fool the world about Climate Change, or Greenhouse Gases are real. If you want a technical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect, refer to the link above. It's provided by the Georgetown University, which is not for destroying the current world order [unlike NASA and NOAA, supposedly].


There is research that can be done to verify specifically how GHGs effect our atmosphere. They haven't been done. The Greenhouse effect is supposed to be the opposite of what ozone does. The ozone layer reflects heat back out into space.
The most dangerous greenhouse gases destroy ozone. CO2 has a GWP of 1 while F-gases can go into the 1,000's. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
I think from a scientific perspective that the documentation describing climate change is lacking. I don't think we're even close to understanding natural climate change and as a result we can't know for sure how AGW is contributing to it.


Jim
16-08-2017 18:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding natural climate change and as a result we can't know for sure how AGW is contributing to it.


James I could not agree with you more on that statement


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-08-2017 18:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect23/IntrotoGreenhouseEffect.pdf

It seems like most of the debate surrounding Climate Change involves whether or not there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas, or the Greenhouse Effect. So much needless discussion involves going round and round, never settling on any kind of agreement as to whether there is such a thing as Greenhouse Gas.

Either the science community has joined together in a conspiracy to fool the world about Climate Change, or Greenhouse Gases are real. If you want a technical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect, refer to the link above. It's provided by the Georgetown University, which is not for destroying the current world order [unlike NASA and NOAA, supposedly].


There is research that can be done to verify specifically how GHGs effect our atmosphere. They haven't been done. The Greenhouse effect is supposed to be the opposite of what ozone does. The ozone layer reflects heat back out into space.
The most dangerous greenhouse gases destroy ozone. CO2 has a GWP of 1 while F-gases can go into the 1,000's. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
I think from a scientific perspective that the documentation describing climate change is lacking. I don't think we're even close to understanding natural climate change and as a result we can't know for sure how AGW is contributing to it. Jim


If we look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
we can see not only are these temperature variations cyclic and completely normal but that our present one is right on schedule and actually cooler than previous ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Shows that we are at one of the coldest periods in the last 65 million years.

So - the Earth's temperature is FAR below normal. The cyclic warm period we're in is directly on schedule. Even the thousand year warm periods are directly on schedule.

Question - why isn't the extremely low temperatures blamed on man?
16-08-2017 19:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Wake wrote:
Question - why isn't the extremely low temperatures blamed on man?


Careful there. They actually have a better argument with cold, and I'm sure some are pissed at Algore for not riding a "cooling" train.
They would have better arguments for reduced rainfall, reduced food production, species extinction, deadly cold spells......oh gees, the list would be miles long, and the "solution" would be exactly what is now.
Come to think of it, it was a real dumb move on their part. As elections are sometimes won by focusing peoples anger, they're finding it tough to focus anger on warmth. After all, people often pack up their life and move south for that only reason. It would have been a lot easier channel feelings against cold. Most people here hate it and can't wait for spring.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-08-2017 19:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.
16-08-2017 19:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-08-2017 19:53
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: ....we can see not only are these temperature variations cyclic and completely normal....

For 390(+?) straight months, every monthly global temperature has been over the 20th century average. Over 20 years ago, AGW denier liar whiners declared a return to lower global temperatures. Once the solar TSI began running low, they doubled down on their prediction. Yet, global temperatures aren't coming down & won't come down while man-made GHG emissions continue to rise powerfully, unlocking positive feedbacks, not only to man-made GHGs, but also to phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor AND its positive feedbacks.
16-08-2017 20:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.


You know that he is going to tell you about the temperatures being above the 17th century average - that man caused it to be warmer than the little ice age centuries before he had the ability to generate "greenhouse gases".

He has been mentally deprived since birth. But what can you expect from an Indian.
16-08-2017 20:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: Shows that we are at one of the coldest periods in the last 65 million years.

Ah....so the strong GHG levels in the 65 million year old ancient atmosphere was sequestered in the ground (cooling the Earth), till oil, coal & carbon exploring, pumping, & burning raised GHG levels, to warm Earth temperatures.
Wow.... that's what AGW scientists have been saying. Its good that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" agrees.
Beyond that, Earth temperatures are lifting a thousand (million?) times quicker than they were lowered.
Edited on 16-08-2017 20:07
16-08-2017 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.


Weather forecasting is a bit like watching waves on the sea and predicting when and how they will hit the shoreline.

No one can predict a storm system that hasn't formed yet. No one can predict a wave hitting the shoreline that hasn't formed yet.

Prediction gets better when one forms and seems to following the usual track, just like watching a wave approach a shoreline.

Prediction gets better the closer the thing is to the 'shoreline', or the region the forecaster is building the forecast for.

Sometimes these guys fail to predict a different air mass moving a different way that blindsides them and their predictions.

Forecasters also know the local terrain and how it typically affects air as it moves over it in different directions.

A 10 day 'long range' forecast is usually decent, still a lot of variables. Anything longer than 10 days for the forecast is literally guessing. All anyone knows at that point is the season.
A 3 day forecast is much better. It can accurately position most of the storm activity.
A 24 hour forecast is the point where you can make pretty solid bet that conditions at a particular place in the region will experience a certain kind of weather.
The 12 hour forecast is able to more accurately describe weather in finer detail, hour by hour.

Even the 12 hour forecast can dramatically miss though.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-08-2017 23:21
16-08-2017 23:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Fairly accurate, but you live in the Northwest, Correct? so I'll forgive you. To be clear, I refer to a "storm system" as an area of low pressure causing "storminess", given that it has available moisture to work with. They actually can predict these with unbelievable accuracy, before they are formed. A Midwest blizzard watch/warning will go up before the low has actually even formed, typically in the southwest conus. As a strong winter low takes shape over Arizona/TX, OK panhandle regions, it pulls air in to it's center from all directions. These things can easily be in or near Canada 24 hrs after forming, but not before dumping foot+snow amounts in the Midwest. They do no follow the "typical" path, because there isn't one. The low will tend to ride the zone of baroclinicity, typically close to the upper level jet. Our golden path for the low is over St Louis as this normally places the heaviest deformation zone snows in Iowa. Jet placement can be tricky because it can be dependent on the strength of the low.
What amazes me is the high degree of predictability at 72 hours before a major system. When these watches come out, they are usually followed 24-48 hrs later by a warning and normally not adjusted north or south by more than 30 miles. 50 miles 3 days out is considered a bad miss.

Now when you're talking about a spring storm system of the same magnitude, that is a different animal. You can certainly see the dynamic setup, but there is no way to pinpoint individual storm cell location....maybe that's what you meant in the first place?

Edited on 16-08-2017 23:49
17-08-2017 00:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fairly accurate, but you live in the Northwest, Correct?

Yes I do.
GasGuzzler wrote:
so I'll forgive you.

I didn't know it was a crime.
GasGuzzler wrote:
To be clear, I refer to a "storm system" as an area of low pressure causing "storminess", given that it has available moisture to work with.

That is one way to look at it, but not quite right. A weather system is any mass of air that is different in humidity or temperature from another mass of air. These cause fronts. Large masses can be tracked by ground stations as they approach your area. It is possible to more or less predict where a cyclonic low will begin to form. Here in the Pacific Northwest, there is very little to go on. We have very little monitoring out at sea, and our weather tends to come from the southwest. Fortunately, our weather is usually pretty benign, consisting mostly of stratus clouds extending in from the nearby ocean.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They actually can predict these with unbelievable accuracy, before they are formed.

They actually are already formed. They just may not have enough to gather clouds around it yet, or it may be the remnants of an earlier low.
GasGuzzler wrote:
A Midwest blizzard watch/warning will go up before the low has actually even formed, typically in the southwest conus.

Those lows actually DID form, out at sea. Their strength varies as they cross the land.
GasGuzzler wrote:
As a strong winter low takes shape over Arizona/TX, OK panhandle regions, it pulls air in to it's center from all directions.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
These things can easily be in or near Canada 24 hrs after forming, but not before dumping foot+snow amounts in the Midwest.

They can move pretty fast.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They do no follow the "typical" path, because there isn't one.

You just described one. You are about to describe another.
GasGuzzler wrote:
The low will tend to ride the zone of baroclinicity, typically close to the upper level jet.

...another typical path.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Our golden path for the low is over St Louis as this normally places the heaviest deformation zone snows in Iowa.

Everyone has their favorite path for these things, even Iowans.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jet placement can be tricky because it can be dependent on the strength of the low.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
What amazes me is the high degree of predictability at 72 hours before a major system.

For the size storm that you are talking about here, signs of the thing forming are quite available to the practiced eye that far in advance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
When these watches come out, they are usually followed 24-48 hrs later by a warning and normally not adjusted north or south by more than 30 miles.

Like I said...the shorter the advance of the forecast, the more accurate you can get.
GasGuzzler wrote:
50 miles 3 days out is considered a bad miss.

For a storm system of this size, I would agree.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now when you're talking about a spring storm system of the same magnitude, that is a different animal. You can certainly see the dynamic setup, but there is no way to pinpoint individual storm cell location....maybe that's what you meant in the first place?


No, I mean the storm system itself.

You can easily watch the squall line almost like a wave at sea.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote: Fairly accurate, but you live in the Northwest, Correct?


No doubt Seattle. Outside San Francisco that's the gayest city on the west coast.
17-08-2017 00:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fairly accurate, but you live in the Northwest, Correct?

Yes I do.
GasGuzzler wrote:
so I'll forgive you.

I didn't know it was a crime.
GasGuzzler wrote:
To be clear, I refer to a "storm system" as an area of low pressure causing "storminess", given that it has available moisture to work with.

That is one way to look at it, but not quite right. A weather system is any mass of air that is different in humidity or temperature from another mass of air. These cause fronts. Large masses can be tracked by ground stations as they approach your area. It is possible to more or less predict where a cyclonic low will begin to form. Here in the Pacific Northwest, there is very little to go on. We have very little monitoring out at sea, and our weather tends to come from the southwest. Fortunately, our weather is usually pretty benign, consisting mostly of stratus clouds extending in from the nearby ocean.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They actually can predict these with unbelievable accuracy, before they are formed.

They actually are already formed. They just may not have enough to gather clouds around it yet, or it may be the remnants of an earlier low.
GasGuzzler wrote:
A Midwest blizzard watch/warning will go up before the low has actually even formed, typically in the southwest conus.

Those lows actually DID form, out at sea. Their strength varies as they cross the land.
GasGuzzler wrote:
As a strong winter low takes shape over Arizona/TX, OK panhandle regions, it pulls air in to it's center from all directions.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
These things can easily be in or near Canada 24 hrs after forming, but not before dumping foot+snow amounts in the Midwest.

They can move pretty fast.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They do no follow the "typical" path, because there isn't one.

You just described one. You are about to describe another.
GasGuzzler wrote:
The low will tend to ride the zone of baroclinicity, typically close to the upper level jet.

...another typical path.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Our golden path for the low is over St Louis as this normally places the heaviest deformation zone snows in Iowa.

Everyone has their favorite path for these things, even Iowans.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jet placement can be tricky because it can be dependent on the strength of the low.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
What amazes me is the high degree of predictability at 72 hours before a major system.

For the size storm that you are talking about here, signs of the thing forming are quite available to the practiced eye that far in advance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
When these watches come out, they are usually followed 24-48 hrs later by a warning and normally not adjusted north or south by more than 30 miles.

Like I said...the shorter the advance of the forecast, the more accurate you can get.
GasGuzzler wrote:
50 miles 3 days out is considered a bad miss.

For a storm system of this size, I would agree.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now when you're talking about a spring storm system of the same magnitude, that is a different animal. You can certainly see the dynamic setup, but there is no way to pinpoint individual storm cell location....maybe that's what you meant in the first place?


No, I mean the storm system itself.

You can easily watch the squall line almost like a wave at sea.


Mostly true....
Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.


When you said typical path, I thought you meant land path. It is difficult to find 2 strong lows that will take the same path in one winter, some due to snow moving to baroclinic zone around, some due just to the normal change of season. Spring is a different animal, these lows can run the same track week after week. Kinda why Oklahoma gets so many tornadoes.

Not a crime to live in Seattle, just can't figure out why so many people choose the drizzly mess. I'd be so depressed. I couldn't handle it.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2017 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:

Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.


I don't know but I've been told that the weather on the west coast is almost entirely due to the water temperatures off of the sea of Japan.

I do know that weather is caused by temperature differences between the equator and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. They have modeled that and the weather does in general what has been modeled.

That isn't to say you can predict weather in that manner but that the weather patterns that form are the same as those that were modeled.
17-08-2017 00:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fairly accurate, but you live in the Northwest, Correct?

Yes I do.
GasGuzzler wrote:
so I'll forgive you.

I didn't know it was a crime.
GasGuzzler wrote:
To be clear, I refer to a "storm system" as an area of low pressure causing "storminess", given that it has available moisture to work with.

That is one way to look at it, but not quite right. A weather system is any mass of air that is different in humidity or temperature from another mass of air. These cause fronts. Large masses can be tracked by ground stations as they approach your area. It is possible to more or less predict where a cyclonic low will begin to form. Here in the Pacific Northwest, there is very little to go on. We have very little monitoring out at sea, and our weather tends to come from the southwest. Fortunately, our weather is usually pretty benign, consisting mostly of stratus clouds extending in from the nearby ocean.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They actually can predict these with unbelievable accuracy, before they are formed.

They actually are already formed. They just may not have enough to gather clouds around it yet, or it may be the remnants of an earlier low.
GasGuzzler wrote:
A Midwest blizzard watch/warning will go up before the low has actually even formed, typically in the southwest conus.

Those lows actually DID form, out at sea. Their strength varies as they cross the land.
GasGuzzler wrote:
As a strong winter low takes shape over Arizona/TX, OK panhandle regions, it pulls air in to it's center from all directions.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
These things can easily be in or near Canada 24 hrs after forming, but not before dumping foot+snow amounts in the Midwest.

They can move pretty fast.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They do no follow the "typical" path, because there isn't one.

You just described one. You are about to describe another.
GasGuzzler wrote:
The low will tend to ride the zone of baroclinicity, typically close to the upper level jet.

...another typical path.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Our golden path for the low is over St Louis as this normally places the heaviest deformation zone snows in Iowa.

Everyone has their favorite path for these things, even Iowans.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jet placement can be tricky because it can be dependent on the strength of the low.

True.
GasGuzzler wrote:
What amazes me is the high degree of predictability at 72 hours before a major system.

For the size storm that you are talking about here, signs of the thing forming are quite available to the practiced eye that far in advance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
When these watches come out, they are usually followed 24-48 hrs later by a warning and normally not adjusted north or south by more than 30 miles.

Like I said...the shorter the advance of the forecast, the more accurate you can get.
GasGuzzler wrote:
50 miles 3 days out is considered a bad miss.

For a storm system of this size, I would agree.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now when you're talking about a spring storm system of the same magnitude, that is a different animal. You can certainly see the dynamic setup, but there is no way to pinpoint individual storm cell location....maybe that's what you meant in the first place?


No, I mean the storm system itself.

You can easily watch the squall line almost like a wave at sea.


Mostly true....
Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.

I'll bet they had a party for the guy that day in the forecast center!
That's what you call a nice shot!
GasGuzzler wrote:
When you said typical path, I thought you meant land path. It is difficult to find 2 strong lows that will take the same path in one winter, some due to snow moving to baroclinic zone around, some due just to the normal change of season. Spring is a different animal, these lows can run the same track week after week. Kinda why Oklahoma gets so many tornadoes.

Generally it is the land path. Over such a large flat area as the midwest though, there can be quite a bit of variance. Stuff for you, however, will either come from the storms we here in the NW will send you, but also from the Gulf. Your area is the wonderful mixmaster where it all comes together.

Your Spring pattern is typically from the conflict of colder air coming from us via Canada (just to cool it off a bit more!) and the warm wet stuff coming up from the Gulf. That will often collide right over tornado alley in Oklahoma.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Not a crime to live in Seattle, just can't figure out why so many people choose the drizzly mess. I'd be so depressed. I couldn't handle it.


It IS a problem. We have the highest depression rates in the country. I am not a native here. I am a transplant that moved here in '62. I am STILL not used to the winters here. Originally, I'm a desert rat, but I did spend two years in Hawaii.

When the Sun DOES come out though, it truly is a beautiful place. There is a reason many in Seattle call it the Emerald City. (We even have a 'yellow brick road'. A traffic line paint truck drove down I-5 toward Seattle with his yellow paint valve busted, leaving a large yellow streak for miles on the highway. Being traffic paint, it's still there!)

And of course, Mt Rainier is like a Mt Fuji in beauty, though a lot tougher to climb.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 00:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Wake wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.


I don't know but I've been told that the weather on the west coast is almost entirely due to the water temperatures off of the sea of Japan.

Jet strength and location also has a lot to do with it. It's always waffling around.
I do know that weather is caused by temperature differences between the equator and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. They have modeled that and the weather does in general what has been modeled.

Yes, and this is where the warmies F up every time they try to blame "storms from hell" on global warming. These strong lows feed on the heating differential. So does the upper jet. Strong jet and strong low and you'd better know what's going on around you in the Midwest. But the Warmies claim the the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world. There goes your sharp heating differential....not a recipe for "increasing numbers of violent storms".


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2017 01:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:

Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.


I don't know but I've been told that the weather on the west coast is almost entirely due to the water temperatures off of the sea of Japan.

Actually, the waters of Polynesia is where a lot of our systems originate. Differing sea temperature will direct those systems to different places on the west coast. Our mountain ranges here do the rest. This is true for the entire west coast.

The Olympic range here in the PNW, for example, cause the prevailing winds to split to get around them. One goes north across the cold waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The other comes through a gap in the mountains south of the Olympic range which is dry land, but warmer.

They rejoin somewhere over Seattle to Everett. Like a miniature Oklahoma during spring, that's where the squall lines and storms tend to form. It moves north or south depending on prevailing wind direction and the moisture picked up from the Strait. We call it The Convergence Zone.

Elsewhere, it's the light drizzle. In the Zone, it's rain.

Winter cloud cover is so long lasting it is possible to forget what the Sun looks like. Winter day length can be quite short here as well, with sunset as early as 3:30pm.

Most of the time we just don't bother looking outside during the winter.


Wake wrote:
I do know that weather is caused by temperature differences between the equator and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. They have modeled that and the weather does in general what has been modeled.
[quote]Wake wrote:
That isn't to say you can predict weather in that manner but that the weather patterns that form are the same as those that were modeled.



The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 01:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

Strong lows actually do form in the southwest on the heating differential between Mexico and the southwest US, often after a recent strong low has carved out a trough in the western US. Yes, they can also be nothing more than a ripple 1/2 way around the globe and then strengthen on that same differential. Those are the ones that amaze me. In 2012 we had a local forecaster go out on a limb a predict a 15-20 inch snow 10 days in advance. We got 18". He might have got lucky.


I don't know but I've been told that the weather on the west coast is almost entirely due to the water temperatures off of the sea of Japan.

Jet strength and location also has a lot to do with it. It's always waffling around.
I do know that weather is caused by temperature differences between the equator and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. They have modeled that and the weather does in general what has been modeled.

Yes, and this is where the warmies F up every time they try to blame "storms from hell" on global warming. These strong lows feed on the heating differential. So does the upper jet. Strong jet and strong low and you'd better know what's going on around you in the Midwest. But the Warmies claim the the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world. There goes your sharp heating differential....not a recipe for "increasing numbers of violent storms".

This is exactly right. High temperatures do not cause storms. Temperature differences cause storms.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 01:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
ITN wrote;

Generally it is the land path. Over such a large flat area as the midwest though, there can be quite a bit of variance. Stuff for you, however, will either come from the storms we here in the NW will send you, but also from the Gulf. Your area is the wonderful mixmaster where it all comes together.


Yes, these system like to ride just offshore of you far enough to avoid the upper air network and piss off the weathermen.
Then they'll ride down the the coast and enter around southern Cal.
...unless you're talking about a clipper type system, but these typically come across Ablerta first.
These are the ones we hate because they are typical a "reinforcing cold front" that often follows 2 day behind a strong low/cold front. These are the one that bring -20s-40s to the upper Midwest.
Your Spring pattern is typically from the conflict of colder air coming from us via Canada (just to cool it off a bit more!) and the warm wet stuff coming up from the Gulf. That will often collide right over tornado alley in Oklahoma.


Yes, the air flowing towards the center of the low draws the cold Canadian air down, at the same time drawing warm moist air north from the gulf. As the low strengthens it drives the cold wedge down around the southwest side and that's when the fun happens.
17-08-2017 01:12
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
JizzGuzzler belched:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.


The two aren't related, so they can't really even be compared for accuracy. There's a slight difference in weather forecasting and climate forecasting. Weather forecasting is guesswork based on current weather conditions. Climate forecasting is guesswork based on current current greenhouse gas levels. While they are both guesswork, and both capable of being wrong, climate forecasts are a bit more reliable.

[all the AGW Deniers stand and yell that Al Gore missed it by a mile]

Nah, not really. He guessed the temperature would rise, but he didn't know what that would do, so he made up a bunch of scenarios meant to get people concerned about Global Warming. That of course backfired when everyone realized they had been duped by this sleezy politician. But now, as he is currently pointing out, you sometimes need to wear flip flops at high tide in the streets of Miami.

To me, that's not a big deal. The ocean is coming in at such a slow rate that we can move inland. It's just a big annoyance and inconvenience. We get to watch them build sea walls for a few hundred years, before finally realizing that this ain't Holland, and the sea is just going to continue rising for hundreds of more years.

Well that is, if nothing happens between now and then to change it. Who knows, a lot can happen in a hundred years. The only thing we know with certainty, is that it will be quite a lot warmer in 100 years than it is now. If we can use what we have witnessed over the last 200 years as an example of things that happen when it gets just .5C warmer, then reasonably conclude that it will be a very extreme environment then, with some areas suffering from drought while others are washing away in floods. And the fires will be almost nonstop, until the forests are gone.

Nature is heartless, and those forests have to move elsewhere.

So do people.

Nature is heartless. It doesn't care any more about people than it does trees. It doesn't care if people starve to death because it is no longer providing the nutritional requirements of humanity.

Who moved My cheese?

There will be those who are indignant and demand and answer. There will also be those who are ready to just roll with it and go find their cheese elsewhere. And of course, there will be those who are ready, because they sent out search parties ahead of time, to discover new cheese.

I'm thinking there will be a log of indignant people, starving to death, and asking why the government let them down. Why didn't nobody tell us it was going to get so hot our crops would fail? Why didn't nobody tell us that it was going to get so hot that we would die from heat stroke just from being outside? Why didn't nobody tell us nothing?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
17-08-2017 01:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
The two aren't related,

There it is right there. You are talking about climate change. Climate is the average of all weather. How is climate and weather not related?
17-08-2017 01:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;

Generally it is the land path. Over such a large flat area as the midwest though, there can be quite a bit of variance. Stuff for you, however, will either come from the storms we here in the NW will send you, but also from the Gulf. Your area is the wonderful mixmaster where it all comes together.


Yes, these system like to ride just offshore of you far enough to avoid the upper air network and piss off the weathermen.
Then they'll ride down the the coast and enter around southern Cal.
...unless you're talking about a clipper type system, but these typically come across Ablerta first.
These are the ones we hate because they are typical a "reinforcing cold front" that often follows 2 day behind a strong low/cold front. These are the one that bring -20s-40s to the upper Midwest.

Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!


We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Your Spring pattern is typically from the conflict of colder air coming from us via Canada (just to cool it off a bit more!) and the warm wet stuff coming up from the Gulf. That will often collide right over tornado alley in Oklahoma.


Yes, the air flowing towards the center of the low draws the cold Canadian air down, at the same time drawing warm moist air north from the gulf. As the low strengthens it drives the cold wedge down around the southwest side and that's when the fun happens.

Yeehah! Ride that sucker!

What I don't get is whenever they have one of these things, and the TV news crews go out to interview residents of the town that was hit, how do they ALWAYS find the fat lady in the mumu that describes how the chicken coop flew right over the house? Is she hired by the networks or something?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-08-2017 01:34
17-08-2017 01:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Here's one I filmed from 800 yards in June this year. That debris you see is from a barn that it had just destroyed. Somehow only 2 of 23 cows were killed. And you know it, the lady on the news that night was on corn fed fatass!!



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

17-08-2017 01:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
JizzGuzzler belched:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.


The two aren't related, so they can't really even be compared for accuracy. There's a slight difference in weather forecasting and climate forecasting. Weather forecasting is guesswork based on current weather conditions. Climate forecasting is guesswork based on current current greenhouse gas levels. While they are both guesswork, and both capable of being wrong, climate forecasts are a bit more reliable.

Climates aren't forecast. There is no 'global' climate.
GreenMan wrote:
[all the AGW Deniers stand and yell that Al Gore missed it by a mile]

Maybe because he did? NONE of his predictions have come true.
GreenMan wrote:
Nah, not really. He guessed the temperature would rise,

WRONG. He INSISTED that the temperature would rise.
GreenMan wrote:
but he didn't know what that would do,

He didn't know the temperature of Earth to begin with.
GreenMan wrote:
so he made up a bunch of scenarios meant to get people concerned about Global Warming.

Which the Faithful like you continue to repeat as part of your religious chanting.
GreenMan wrote:
That of course backfired when everyone realized they had been duped by this sleezy politician.

What?!? Turning on the Son? Don't you realize He is supposed to be worshiped? May the Church of Global Warming overlook your sin.
GreenMan wrote:
But now, as he is currently pointing out, you sometimes need to wear flip flops at high tide in the streets of Miami.

OMG! Flip flops in Miami! Run! Run!
GreenMan wrote:
To me, that's not a big deal. The ocean is coming in at such a slow rate that we can move inland.

Miami is on sinking land, dude.
GreenMan wrote:
It's just a big annoyance and inconvenience.

Sinking land certainly can be.
GreenMan wrote:
We get to watch them build sea walls for a few hundred years, before finally realizing that this ain't Holland, and the sea is just going to continue rising for hundreds of more years.

It worked for Holland. It still does.
GreenMan wrote:
Well that is, if nothing happens between now and then to change it.

Like what, the limestone that Miami sits on will stop dissolving?
GreenMan wrote:
Who knows, a lot can happen in a hundred years.

Maybe Miami will fall into a huge sinkhole and be swallowed by the Atlantic.
GreenMan wrote:
The only thing we know with certainty, is that it will be quite a lot warmer in 100 years than it is now.

You don't know how warm it is now. You don't know anything about the future temperature either. Sorry, but I have to inform you that chicken entrails are not a scientific instrument.
GreenMan wrote:
If we can use what we have witnessed over the last 200 years as an example of things that happen when it gets just .5C warmer, then reasonably conclude that it will be a very extreme environment then, with some areas suffering from drought while others are washing away in floods. And the fires will be almost nonstop, until the forests are gone.

Nature is heartless, and those forests have to move elsewhere.

So do people.

Nature is heartless. It doesn't care any more about people than it does trees. It doesn't care if people starve to death because it is no longer providing the nutritional requirements of humanity.
...deleted remaining doom and gloom predictions...

...the End of the World is Nigh...Repent and be Forgiven. The Sins of Man are revealed by The Holy Gas.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 01:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Here's one I filmed from 800 yards in June this year. That debris you see is from a barn that it had just destroyed. Somehow only 2 of 23 cows were killed. And you know it, the lady on the news that night was on corn fed fatass!!


Nothing like a couple of tons of pot roast flying across the interstate.

I'm convinced this gal works for the networks.

I heard one guy lost his house, but he gained five new boats in a storm like this.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-08-2017 01:56
17-08-2017 02:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


Tell me something, how accurate is a 3 day weather forecast? 7 day? 10 day?

Why should I believe a 10 year forecast is more accurate? Your "climate scientists" are predicting more specifically for 10 years out than the margin of error on a 10 day forecast.

Weather predictions and climate predictions aren't really comparable. Weather forecasters attempt to predict the chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric properties, whereas climate forecasters predict general trends based on the underlying physics.

As an analogy, consider a ball rolling down a rocky slope. Weather forecasting is akin to attempting to predict the precise position of the ball from second to second - virtually impossible for more than a few seconds into the future. Climate prediction, on the other hand, is akin to predicting the rough trajectory of the ball - we can't say exactly, but we know it'll be basically down the slope.

While we can't predict the precise position of the ball 10 seconds in to the future, we know that in a few minutes it'll be resting at the bottom of the slope. Similarly, while we can't predict the temperature in a month's time, we know that the world as a whole will be hotter in 100 years' time.
17-08-2017 02:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Perfect analogy with the ball....and one bad bounce and that sucker is nowhere near where you thought it'd go.

My best golf shot ever....185 yds, light wind, 8 iron. Nice high shot, slight draw into a light breeze. Everyone in my group yelling "get in the hole!" It looked so good...then it hit the flag stick and spun 30 yds off the green. Ever see a grown man cry on a golf course?
17-08-2017 04:41
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
[I don't think we're even close to understanding.... how AGW is contributing to it.

James I could not agree with you more on that statement

I agree. James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.


What I`m concerned about is what climate scientists are not talking about. We need CO2 to restore the ozone layer. They are relying on CO2 levels continuing to rise.
So litesong, while they promote reducing CO2 levels they seem to have a conflicting agenda.
Which goal of theirs should I support ?
17-08-2017 07:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.

Which goal of theirs should I support ?

Need to ask questions AND UNDERSTAND answers from the AGW scientists.
17-08-2017 07:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.

Which goal of theirs should I support ?

Need to ask questions AND UNDERSTAND answers from the AGW scientists.

Did you even read the question Litebeer?
IF you accept the premise that CO2 is needed to restore ozone, then it's a pretty fair question. You are always telling us how dumb we are. Can we get something a little better than, "Go ask a scientist"..


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 17-08-2017 08:00
17-08-2017 08:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
JizzGuzzler belched:
The two aren't related,

There it is right there. You are talking about climate change. Climate is the average of all weather. How is climate and weather not related?


Climate and weather are related. One is the average of the other.

Climate forecasting and weather forecasting are not related.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
17-08-2017 08:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
JizzGuzzler belched:
Here's one I filmed from 800 yards in June this year. That debris you see is from a barn that it had just destroyed. Somehow only 2 of 23 cows were killed. And you know it, the lady on the news that night was on corn fed fatass!!


So now we know that you can put pictures up. Let's see your hot ole lady.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
17-08-2017 14:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote:
JizzGuzzler belched:
The two aren't related,

There it is right there. You are talking about climate change. Climate is the average of all weather. How is climate and weather not related?


Climate and weather are related. One is the average of the other.

Climate forecasting and weather forecasting are not related.


You grow funnier and funnier by the second. You have been wrong every single step of the way and in frustration you would resort to those sorts of names. I would say that puts your mental age at perhaps seven.
17-08-2017 16:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.

Which goal of theirs should I support ?

Need to ask questions AND UNDERSTAND answers from the AGW scientists.

Did you even read the question Litebeer?
IF you accept the premise that CO2 is needed to restore ozone, then it's a pretty fair question. You are always telling us how dumb we are. Can we get something a little better than, "Go ask a scientist"..


Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

gasguzzler, this is where I wonder if climate scientists with the IPCC really want CO2 emissions lowered. Without our ozone layer photosynthesis in plants will slow, plants will become diseased hurting food production, phytoplankton will decrease (start of the marine food chain), cancers will increase, etc.
And that would be as the ozone layer declines. As it recovers many ecosystems will improve. With CO2 it may be that the amount of increase in warming is not sufficient to be a viable threat, just might make things slightly warmer. This would explain why no scientists have verified how much extra heat CO2 causes atmospheric gases to absorb or "trap". elevated CO2 levels might primarily be a "symptom" and not the illness so to speak.
Often times it's what is not being said that matters most.
17-08-2017 17:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know.

Which goal of theirs should I support ?

Need to ask questions AND UNDERSTAND answers from the AGW scientists.

Did you even read the question Litebeer?
IF you accept the premise that CO2 is needed to restore ozone, then it's a pretty fair question. You are always telling us how dumb we are. Can we get something a little better than, "Go ask a scientist"..


Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

gasguzzler, this is where I wonder if climate scientists with the IPCC really want CO2 emissions lowered. Without our ozone layer photosynthesis in plants will slow, plants will become diseased hurting food production, phytoplankton will decrease (start of the marine food chain), cancers will increase, etc.
And that would be as the ozone layer declines. As it recovers many ecosystems will improve. With CO2 it may be that the amount of increase in warming is not sufficient to be a viable threat, just might make things slightly warmer. This would explain why no scientists have verified how much extra heat CO2 causes atmospheric gases to absorb or "trap". elevated CO2 levels might primarily be a "symptom" and not the illness so to speak.
Often times it's what is not being said that matters most.


Haven't we heard enough of you misrepresentations? There are TWO things necessary for Ozone production - UV radiation and oxygen. The chemical process is totally known. And has been almost since Orville and Wilbur Wright.

CO2 has risen 47% in the last 150 years and the ozone layer hasn't changed at all.

And plants haven't sickened and died. Quite to the contrary, the population is almost 8 times as large now and a much larger percentage of the world is fed.

Exactly why is it your demand that the world die before your eyes?
17-08-2017 18:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
gasguzzler, this is where I wonder if climate scientists with the IPCC really want CO2 emissions lowered. Without our ozone layer photosynthesis in plants will slow, plants will become diseased hurting food production, phytoplankton will decrease (start of the marine food chain), cancers will increase, etc.
And that would be as the ozone layer declines. As it recovers many ecosystems will improve. With CO2 it may be that the amount of increase in warming is not sufficient to be a viable threat, just might make things slightly warmer. This would explain why no scientists have verified how much extra heat CO2 causes atmospheric gases to absorb or "trap". elevated CO2 levels might primarily be a "symptom" and not the illness so to speak.
Often times it's what is not being said that matters most.


You mean like how the health dept wants everyone to quit smoking?....but the dirty little secret is that there are billions and billions of tax dollars generated by tobacco, and if they really wanted everyone to quit, they'd just make it illegal. Same with local gov traffic cameras. Our leaders tell us they are for public safety. BS, they're a cash cow. Are you saying the IPCC could be operating in the same way? How would the IPCC benefit from that? I honestly don't know the money trail if that organization. Money trails answer most questions. Cynical? Maybe.
Honestly the science of this ozone subject is a bit (way) over my head. I have learned a lot though reading your posts and the back and forth with others here. Slowly but surely I'm getting the education I squandered as a kid/young man.
17-08-2017 19:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:...education I squandered as a kid/young man.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in its unearned hi skule DEE-plooma.
Meanwhile, "don't rump"(always small letters) remains the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters). david duke has to sit down, while "don't rump" (always small letters) ascends the toilet throne. "don't rump" unites the white by including neo-nazis (always small letters). "don't rump"(always small letters) makes america white again.
Edited on 17-08-2017 20:28
17-08-2017 20:43
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in its unearned hi skule DEE-plooma.


Why do continue with this line? When someone asks for your knowledge, you just tell them to go ask a scientist. Can you input anything besides what you copy and paste? Things you "learn" on CNN don't count.
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate What is the Greenhouse Effect?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law30018-08-2019 12:28
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact