H2O vs. CO2 Yet another observation the AGW Cult will ignore

[Dagosa]

How did Co2 thaw North America while freezing Greenland at the same time?

Maybe because Greenland is farther north. Are you that naive not to know that location has something to do with climate ? Nah. No one with be that naive.

 

[Dagosa]

To believe the Co2 fraud requires an IQ under 10

Anyone who still measures intellect using IQ is not that bright.

 

[EMH]

Maybe because Greenland is farther north. Are you that naive not to know that location has something to do with climate ? Nah. No one with be that naive.

LOL!!!

So, the plates do not move = LOL!!, and North America thawed, so why was North America frozen when Greenland was not?

LOL!!!


Your claim is that Co2 froze one and thawed the other - nice....

 

[EMH]

Anyone who still measures intellect using IQ is not that bright.

Why, because the IQ test correctly assessed you as a 3?

 

[jc456]

Dear Flat Earthers

Dude, can you read your graph? or are you dyslexic? Look at my circled points of your table you posted, see anything unusual to your belief system?

Let me share, starting left temperature up CO2 down, moving over right CO2 high, temperature low, then the final one on the right side again, temperature high CO2 low. You remain stooges for a cult of AGW. I would never believe you!!!! Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[jc456]

Do whatever you think you need to. But, I repeat, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is only evidence.

When you can’t prove your theory, just blurt out loud you don’t need proofs.

Hahaha hahaha the amount of stupid in your post is amazing

 

[Crick]

When you can’t prove your theory, just blurt out loud you don’t need proofs.

Hahaha hahaha the amount of stupid in your post is amazing

You'd score more points in these debates if you weren't so often demonstrably incorrect.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Common Misconceptions About Science I: âScientific Proofâ

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

www.psychologytoday.com

As an astrophysicist, I live and breathe science. Much of what I read and hear is couched in the language of science which to outsiders can seem little more than jargon and gibberish. But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

These words may have caused a worried expression to creep across your face, especially as the media continually tells us that science proves things, serious things with potential consequences, such as turmeric can apparently replace 14 drugs, and more frivolous things like science has proved that mozzarella is the optimal cheese for pizza.

Surely science has proved these, and many other things. Not so!

Where’s the proof in science? There is none

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Those people looking for proof to come from any research in science will be sadly disappointed…

theconversation.com

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems.[2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

You'd score more points in these debates if you weren't so often demonstrably incorrect.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Common Misconceptions About Science I: âScientific Proofâ

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

www.psychologytoday.com

As an astrophysicist, I live and breathe science. Much of what I read and hear is couched in the language of science which to outsiders can seem little more than jargon and gibberish. But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

These words may have caused a worried expression to creep across your face, especially as the media continually tells us that science proves things, serious things with potential consequences, such as turmeric can apparently replace 14 drugs, and more frivolous things like science has proved that mozzarella is the optimal cheese for pizza.

Surely science has proved these, and many other things. Not so!

Where’s the proof in science? There is none

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Those people looking for proof to come from any research in science will be sadly disappointed…

theconversation.com

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems.[2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So where’s this empirical evidence in IPCC that no scientist added?

 

[Crick]

So where’s this empirical evidence in IPCC that no scientist added?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Climate scientists have produced mountains of empirical evidence. Temperature, humidity, windspeed, storm parameters, sea levels, atmospheric and marine chemistry, on and on and on. So, WtF are you talking about?

 

[jc456]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Climate scientists have produced mountains of empirical evidence. Temperature, humidity, windspeed, storm parameters, sea levels, atmospheric and marine chemistry, on and on and on. So, WtF are you talking about?

Empirical evidence! Is that hard for you?

What is it?

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence! Is that hard for you?

What is it?

Here you go.

How's that?

 

[jc456]

Here you go.

View attachment 776420

How's that?

82 is a nice temperature. Are you saying that there’s a problem at 82?

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

H20 has very short life time in the atmosphere before it rains back into the oceans, rivers and ground. Co2 lasts decades or even centuries and has much higher ability to act as a greenhouse gas evenly over the surface of the planet in our atmopshere.

Water vapor also isn't even within the atmosphere with the tropics having 1-2% of the total % of the atmosphere near the surface but deserts and the polar regions can have .1-.5% or less.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

H20 has very short life time in the atmosphere before it rains back into the oceans, rivers and ground. Co2 lasts decades or even centuries and has much higher ability to act as a greenhouse gas evenly over the surface of the planet in our atmopshere.

Water vapor also isn't even within the atmosphere with the tropics having 1-2% of the total % of the atmosphere near the surface but deserts and the polar regions can have .1-.5% or less.

Within the tropics with high percentage of h20/water vapor the temperatures are in fact more stable and blocks the radiation of energy into space. Again the points I pointed out above hold true.

 

[Dagosa]

Why, because the IQ test correctly assessed you as a 3?

Hilariously illiterate statement. Even considering a number 3 gives you the mentality of a mature cucumber.

 

[Dagosa]

LOL!!!

So, the plates do not move = LOL!!, and North America thawed, so why was North America frozen when Greenland was not?

LOL!!!


Your claim is that Co2 froze one and thawed the other - nice....

Gee, CO2 doesn’t freeze or thaw out anything by itself. Try to rethink your wording.

 

[jc456]

Within the tropics with high percentage of h20/water vapor the temperatures are in fact more stable and blocks the radiation of energy into space. Again the points I pointed out above hold true.

I thought H2O was short lived? Aren’t the tropics always wet?

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

I thought H2O was short lived? Aren’t the tropics always wet?

Yes h2o is very short lived but there's more moisture in the tropics so it maintains a higher % of the atmosphere in the tropics.

 

[jc456]

Yes h2o is very short lived but there's more moisture in the tropics so it maintains a higher % of the atmosphere in the tropics.

Why doesn’t it go away?

 

[EMH]

Gee, CO2 doesn’t freeze or thaw out anything by itself. Try to rethink your wording.

Translation - IQ under 3