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.
If you're talking about me, Robert, the problem isn't my focus, it's your lack of understanding re this topic. I clearly showed that what you view as a trivial bit of warming isn't trivial at all, it's unprecedented in human history and beyond. But you skipped that and decided to attack my "focus". If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence says you're wrong, you need to stay away from conversations with anyone who might actually tell you the truth.Nobody will stop such a frightened man when he focuses only on disaster.
You confirmed my remark is about you. A couple of degrees over 150 year time span alarms you. May you keep from scaring others from now forward.If you're talking about me, Robert, the problem isn't my focus, it's your lack of understanding re this topic. I clearly showed that what you view as a trivial bit of warming isn't trivial at all, it's unprecedented in human history and beyond. But you skipped that and decided to attack my "focus". If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence says you're wrong, you need to stay away from conversations with anyone who might actually tell you the truth.
Because a couple of degrees over 150 years is unprecedented over the last million years. May you put your thinking cap on.You confirmed my remark is about you. A couple of degrees over 150 year time span alarms you. May you keep from scaring others from now forward.
You have enough fear to fill up a basket of nitwits.Because a couple of degrees over 150 years is unprecedented over the last million years. May you put your thinking cap on.
When your wife warns you that someone is pulling out in front of your car, do you chastise her for her fearfulness?You have enough fear to fill up a basket of nitwits.
Ha ha ha ha ha…We were constructing a rectangle underground building in effect. It was 93 feet deep in San Francisco as I recall. We were using drilling mud by the thousands of gallons all day long. We ran two shifts and had men mixing mud even the rest of the night. We had a huge tank on site to put the mixed mud into. I recall the tank was probably 40 feet or more in diameter and about 30 feet tall or so. This was long ago. I did not measure the tank. We knew the gallons at the time. The mud was needed to keep water out of the dig we were digging. And so long as the mud had the proper Ph value it worked. I also measured the density of the mud. That was an important factor. Drilling oil wells uses the same technology so we copied theirs.
Now the dig was a rectangle trench and was about 24 feet wide and 48 feet long. The trench dug was 4 feet wide going around the rectangle above.
It is not. Reiny's attempts to show off his calculs and meteorology skill fails. Observing a climate change does not require watching for 100 years or more and dt may be used with either one if you happen to be looking for instantaneous rates.
That is accept the conclusions of better than 95% of the world's climate scientists and reject the conclusion of someone who opposes them? On a thousand other topics, Robert, you are guilty of the EXACT same choices.
The Earth has warmed. The poles have experienced the greatest warming. The oceans have warmed. The pH of the oceans has decreased as a result of increase CO2 in the atmosphere.Point to a place and tell us how climate has changed ...
About what?Bring us a climate scientist and we'll see if he agrees with you ... or me ...
My picture is on my avatar. If you're having trouble seeing it, perhaps you need some stronger readers. Or cataract surgery.go little girl, go fetch ...
Lots and lots and lots of scientists ARE smarter than him and the vast majority of them disagree with his views. I trust them a GREAT deal more than I trust Landse or you.Chris Landsea says there's no enough data to make these catastrophic prediction ... are you smarter them him? ...
It's made extremely well at www.ipcc.ch. You should visit.you're the one who believes in hypercanes and hockey sticks ... it's your case to make ...
They do. When I do math here, I do show it. Why don't you talk to some of the folks on YOUR side of the argument about pulling things out of their asses and failing to back things up with good sources? Eh?... and show your math ... Einstein did ...
Great than breakout the instantaneous GHG effect from the climate sensitivity. Let's see that calculation.They do.
Clarify what the fuck you're talking about. There are two 'versions' of climate sensitivity: ECS and TCR. Neither is instantaneous and the calculations are present in every one of the assessment reports, in depth. I have posted large segments of the AR6 text on that specific topic because for the first time, in AR6, climate sensitivity is calculated from basic principles rather than as en emergent parameter from climate model runs.Great than breakout the instantaneous GHG effect from the climate sensitivity. Let's see that calculation.
What is the heat that is generated immediately from GHG molecules vibrating versus the heat feedback generated - over time - from GHG molecules vibrating?Clarify what the fuck you're talking about.
GHG molecules do not "generate" heat and greenhouse heating is not a feedback mechanism.What is the heat that is generated immediately from GHG molecules vibrating versus the heat feedback generated - over time - from GHG molecules vibrating?
Their vibrating molecules produce heat. That's the GHG effect. Maybe look it up.GHG molecules do not "generate" heat and greenhouse heating is not a feedback mechanism.
I don't mind teaching the ignorant, but trying to teach the willfully ignorant is a waste of everyone's time.Their vibrating molecules produce heat. That's the GHG effect. Maybe look it up.
Says the guy who apparently can't distinguish between the immediate physical effect of GHG's and supposed feedback from GHG's.I don't mind teaching the ignorant, but trying to teach the willfully ignorant is a waste of everyone's time.
All you really need is the science of the geologic record to know that we are in an interglacial period that is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more CO2 and 26 ft shallower seas.Lindzen holds the title of being the most consistently wrong climate scientist on the planet.
Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist 'skeptics'. After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist 'skeptics' to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades...skepticalscience.com
Note that everything there is well-reasoned, and backed up with hard data and links to primary sources. It covers all of Lindzen's bogus claims from the video, patiently explaining how Lindzen pooched it every time.
So, by the denier "BUT I HAVE A LINK YOU MUST REFUTE!" weasel-standards, unless deniers refute every single sentence in that link, I win.
Yes, I know certain deniers will now invoke conspiracy theories to avoid looking at the data. That's just one reason why they're correctly classified as deniers.
Robert? He'll work hardest of all to run from the facts and data. He never understood any science in the first place, and now he's rejecting the whole concept of science, in favor of parroting kook dogma from his political masters.
How can it be unprecedented when the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2 than today. You can't explain that without claiming natural variability and you can't say natural variability and dismiss natural variability today.If you're talking about me, Robert, the problem isn't my focus, it's your lack of understanding re this topic. I clearly showed that what you view as a trivial bit of warming isn't trivial at all, it's unprecedented in human history and beyond. But you skipped that and decided to attack my "focus". If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence says you're wrong, you need to stay away from conversations with anyone who might actually tell you the truth.
Lindzen holds the title of being the most consistently wrong climate scientist on the planet.
Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist 'skeptics'. After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist 'skeptics' to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades...skepticalscience.com
Note that everything there is well-reasoned, and backed up with hard data and links to primary sources. It covers all of Lindzen's bogus claims from the video, patiently explaining how Lindzen pooched it every time.
So, by the denier "BUT I HAVE A LINK YOU MUST REFUTE!" weasel-standards, unless deniers refute every single sentence in that link, I win.
Yes, I know certain deniers will now invoke conspiracy theories to avoid looking at the data. That's just one reason why they're correctly classified as deniers.
Robert? He'll work hardest of all to run from the facts and data. He never understood any science in the first place, and now he's rejecting the whole concept of science, in favor of parroting kook dogma from his political masters.
