Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're missing just a few things there, kid.Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.
Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.
So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.
So we're done.
Global warming is the result of human activity.
You're missing just a few things there, kid.Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.
Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.
So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.
So we're done.
Global warming is the result of human activity.
Normally when one says and they want to know what your point is.Why do you pretend you don't see things?
I asked you if you understood the words in bold.
What is your point?
The bolded words do nothing to back up your claim. I also suggest you try to comprehend the earlier discussion about falsifiability.
Not necessarily. Sometimes one is trying to hide their failure by pretending not to see. Which is your present situation.
I've seen deniers who denied the science, but you take it to a whole new level. You don't even see words.
This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on:
From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends.
Do you understand what that sentence means?
Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?
For both, please comment.
That is an opinion article published in Forbes.
The link goes to a download that I'd rather not download-have you read the link? Can you tell me what it says?
I went to the NASA website to see if they were talking about any holes being blown in the theory, but they don't seem to know about it.
Climate Change: Evidence
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means same type) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course I can't. That's because there IS NO science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.You're missing just a few things there, kid.Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.
So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.
So we're done.
Global warming is the result of human activity.
Yes, sure. And yet you can't articulate them.
....
The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gores liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how shallow ecologies are called into question by deeper ecologies.
Philosophers aren't scientists.Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gores liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how shallow ecologies are called into question by deeper ecologies.
Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology
That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?
I clicked the link, a download started. So I Googled Dr. Spencer, read his cutesy blog, and saw that he claimed that no one had really looked into the possibility that the increase in CO2 was natural. Which is not true. I just posted a link to an article about it.
Of course I can't. That's because there IS NO science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.You're missing just a few things there, kid.
Yes, sure. And yet you can't articulate them.
....
You are fascinating.
That is an opinion article published in Forbes.
The link goes to a download that I'd rather not download-have you read the link? Can you tell me what it says?
I went to the NASA website to see if they were talking about any holes being blown in the theory, but they don't seem to know about it.
Climate Change: Evidence
AAAAAAAT!
WRONG!!!!
The second link was to the source forbes and yahoo news cited in their article... Its to a ddum dum dum! SCIENCE JOURNAL!
Uh-oh...BUSTED!!!!!!
Whats up with you mr. expert? Don't recognize a science journal when you see one?
Way to go phony... Ya know its so easy to bust you internet fakes.. Really all one has to do is let you continue to talk until you start making absolute statements and then nail you with them.. you morons talk to much and you start believing your own BS.
Thank you for taking up space with your BS for the day... DEL tell em what hes WON!!!!!!
Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gore’s liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how “shallow ecologies” are called into question by deeper ecologies.
Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology
That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?
Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gores liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how shallow ecologies are called into question by deeper ecologies.
Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology
That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
Of course I can't. That's because there IS NO science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.Yes, sure. And yet you can't articulate them.
....
You are fascinating.
I pointed out that you can never seem to articulate any of your objections, you just mangle some bit of scientific jargon and dodge the point...and you respond by...dodging the point.
Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology
That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
Then, could you share your thoughts on this?
Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
It's another golden opportunity for you.
