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.
... The CO2 within the first few tens of meters of atmosphere are sufficient to absorb all of that energy. Right? ...
I would support that idea!!Fort fun is so stupid he doesn't even know HE expels over 1000 pounds of CO2 every year.
If he wants to stop CO2 he should stop breathing.
Two for one in the long list of passive aggressive denier death threats. I'll add it to the book. Aren't you two something.I would support that idea!!
Two for one in the long list of passive aggressive denier death threats. I'll add it to the book. Aren't you two something.
So you don't knowA high speed. In reverse.
Don't be stupid. It is a blatant death wish, obvious to all. And certainly not the first. How many times do you think deniers here have suggested that AGW proponents stop breathing? Do you guys EVER have anything original to say?Not a death threat. You assholes are all about killing the other guy. I merely pointed out that you morons are not just hypocrites, but racist hypocrites.
He merely agreed.
It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that is a threat.
Hello stupid.
Don't be stupid. It is a blatant death wish, obvious to all. And certainly not the first. How many times do you think deniers here have suggested that AGW proponents stop breathing? Do you guys EVER have anything original to say?
You also can believe whatever you want, even if it's diametrically opposed to what EVERYONE else believes and is blatantly obvious you are making a pathetic attempt to defend yourself for inexcusable behavior.
BtW, global warming is speeding up.
 Lithograph of K Street in the city of Sacramento, California, during the Great Flood of 1862 | |
| Date | December 1861 – January 1862 |
|---|---|
| Location | Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Mexico |
Do you believe that all the IR coming off the Earth's surface is NOT absorbed by the first few tens of meter of the atmosphere?No ... and this is no casual error on your part ... this show a lack of understanding on your part of the physics at hand ... QM is real, we use it here ... from your reference, 2013 IPCC report, first working group, Figure 12-5 and associated text ... avail yourself ... then ask yourself why Reinydays and the IPCC say the same thing ... ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI)
Bump all you like. What relevance do you believe it has to the thread topic?
If you need evidence that global warming is accelerating, have a look through AR6.
Lithograph of K Street in the city of Sacramento, California, during the Great Flood of 1862 | |
| Date | December 1861 – January 1862 |
|---|---|
| Location | Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Mexico |
You didn't fail statistics, you never took it. Or logic. Or anything approaching critical thinking. Your point was so stupid no one could tell what the fuck you were trying to say. You think a powerful storm in 1862 refutes the idea that global warming is accelerating? Wow... been drinking? Smoking? Something wasted your grey cell count.You claim the storms of today are more powerful than ever before. That is a false statement as proved by this storm. You also claim they are increasing in number, likewise a number that is not born out by actual fact. Thus the relevance is it PROVES you are a liar.
Yes. The IPCC is frankly OK; it is how their statements over the years have been misinterpreted DELIBERATELY by nutter left wing zealots and their media enablers. "Might", "could" and "models suggest" are NOT definitive.Can you explain why you find those poorly supported hypotheses, published in Newsweek and Time more than any peer reviewed science journal, more believable or reliable or acceptable than the conclusions of the IPCC??
If you were familiar with my postings here and that of others who accept the conclusions of mainstream science, you would see that we do not use "nutter left wing zealots" as references, but the IPCC and the sort of peer reviewed research on which it bases its work. If you have a problem with "might" and "could" and "models suggest", I 'm afraid you need to go back to Physical Science 101 for a little remediation. That IS how science works. That IS how science states its conclusions. The work of the IPCC, Assessment Reports 5 and 6 are not political works. I will not say there was no political influence on them, but that influence has lessened as time has gone by and I am quite certain that AR6 has suffered the least political dilution of any of the reports so far.Yes. The IPCC is frankly OK; it is how their statements over the years have been misinterpreted DELIBERATELY by nutter left wing zealots and their media enablers. "Might", "could" and "models suggest" are NOT definitive.
and no: NOTHING is clear at all. BTW: I haven't read those idiot rags you mentioned. The whole process of Weather Science has become far too politicised...especially since Global Cooling/New Ice Age was the Enviro-Mantra in the 70s.
Greg
"Such things were NOT accepted by the majority of climate scientists"...who WERE the climate Scientists at the time?If you were familiar with my postings here and that of others who accept the conclusions of mainstream science, you would see that we do not use "nutter left wing zealots" as references, but the IPCC and the sort of peer reviewed research on which it bases its work. If you have a problem with "might" and "could" and "models suggest", I 'm afraid you need to go back to Physical Science 101 for a little remediation. That IS how science works. That IS how science states its conclusions. The work of the IPCC, Assessment Reports 5 and 6 are not political works. I will not say there was no political influence on them, but that influence has lessened as time has gone by and I am quite certain that AR6 has suffered the least political dilution of any of the reports so far.
Finally, "Global Cooling / New Ice Age" has been grossly overstated by people attempting to put off measures to mitigate global warmng. Those people do that because such measures threaten their very livelihoods. A single cover story in Newsweek and Time do not a "mantra" make. Such things were NOT accepted by the majority of climate scientists. There was never a consensus that a new ice age was imminent. But, since the ice ages have been caused by Milankovich cycles, which are still underway of course, you can ALWAYS say an ice age is coming and you will be right. The world WAS slowly getting cooler before AGW came to dominate. It was an easy call. It just missed the bus. The world is getting warmer and humans are responsible. Those are now indisputable facts.
science.sciencemag.org
You didn't fail statistics, you never took it. Or logic. Or anything approaching critical thinking. Your point was so stupid no one could tell what the fuck you were trying to say. You think a powerful storm in 1862 refutes the idea that global warming is accelerating? Wow... been drinking? Smoking? Something wasted your grey cell count.
Can you give me a date when man made started pleaseYou also can believe whatever you want, even if it's diametrically opposed to what EVERYONE else believes and is blatantly obvious you are making a pathetic attempt to defend yourself for inexcusable behavior.
BtW, global warming is speeding up.
