CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,713
- 69,864
- 2,330
LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.
Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?
I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase
Depends what you mean. No one create that an entire climate in a lab, thoough models are done on computers. Simply putting CO2 in a spectrophotometer WILL show that the absorbance numbers go up if you raise the concentration by 200 PPM. BTW, the historical number I've seen and cited in posts is ~300 ppm. How is an increase of 200 ppm greater than 67%??? Could it be that you're both math AND science challenged?
There you go! That's the Warmers Dilemma!
You cannot show in a lab how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does any of the things you claim so you vaporize Warmer "Science" by claiming "No one create that an entire climate in a lab"
Right. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the big bang, but its too darn difficult to measure out 800,000PPM N2, 198,000PPM O2 and then various trace elements including CO2
Do you see why there's no real science to your side?
I said a 200PPM INCREASE
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
Do you know what an increase is?
Last edited: