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.
I would assume the standard he is comparing it to to make his claim of 70% reduction due to CO2. I don't know what the reduction will be and neither do you but there are models out there that use all kinds of wonky assumptions to get the results they want. So I am assuming that's what he is comparing it to.Who claimed there should be an "immediate, observable increase in surface heat loss associated with increased absorption of incoming IR radiation from the atmosphere"?
Was it me? Then how does it help any of Billy's silly claims?
How does it refute anything I've posted?
Dude, influence him in constructive ways. Because what you do is fucked up.Tell him to stop posting such stupid fucking errors.
Then I'll stop correcting his stupid fucking errors.
Then he can stop crying.
You still do not know what a phase change is.... Don't bother looking Toad.. just continue jerking off. Its what your good at.
Percentage of earth's surface that is covered by water that has no effect from LWIR. All modeling uses positive energy into the climatic system. One of the many reasons they fail.I would assume the standard he is comparing it to to make his claim of 70% reduction due to CO2. I don't know what the reduction will be and neither do you but there are models out there that use all kinds of wonky assumptions to get the results they want. So I am assuming that's what he is comparing it to.
Dude, influence him in constructive ways. Because what you do is fucked up.
Right but I'm not certain their models treat the ocean like the land.Percentage of earth's surface that is covered by water that has no effect from LWIR.
I would do the exact opposite of what you have been doing. In case you haven't noticed the deck is kinda stacked against us. We should all be helping each other. Not fighting each other.He's been making stupid claims here for years.
I've been pointing them out for years.
Hasn't helped him.
How would you constructively influence him when it comes to his claim that"evaporation is a chemical reaction"
The modeling relies on the mid tropospheric hot spot, which does not exist. The ocean heat was supposed to drive this anomaly. What this proves, their models are incorrect and thus any output will be incorrect.Right but I'm not certain their models treat the ocean like the land.
I would assume the standard he is comparing it to to make his claim of 70% reduction due to CO2. I don't know what the reduction will be and neither do you but there are models out there that use all kinds of wonky assumptions to get the results they want. So I am assuming that's what he is comparing it to.
I am capable of being diplomatic when the need arises. And sometimes I do it just to be nice.Do it quickly, before ding notices your idiocy.
Thank you for clarifying that. But it's a leap of faith to say how much they are off.The modeling relies on the mid tropospheric hot spot, which does not exist. The ocean heat was supposed to drive this anomaly. What this proves, their models are incorrect and thus any output will be incorrect.
I did... From my own scientific experience and from another paper. You do not like the source so you cry.. JUst go away Todd. You have nothing to offer.I would assume the standard he is comparing it to to make his claim of 70% reduction due to CO2.
Then he should post evidence, from a real source, that back radiation doesn't effect the ocean.
I would do the exact opposite of what you have been doing. In case you haven't noticed the deck is kinda stacked against us. We should all be helping each other. Not fighting each other.
I did... From my own scientific experience and from another paper. You do not like the source so you cry.. JUst go away Todd. You have nothing to offer.
Dude, influence him in constructive ways. Because what you do is fucked up.
I'm so glad my comments flew right over your headThe deck is stacked against us.
Idiots on our side aren't helping our arguments.
We should all be helping each other. Not fighting each other.
I agree, he should stop posting his idiotic claims. That would help.
I would start off by saying, "as near as I can tell state change is not a chemical reaction. Why are you saying it is?"How would you constructively influence him when it comes to his claim that"evaporation is a chemical reaction"
Specifically.
Do it now. Maybe I'll learn from your example.
I don't think the last text box on the bottom right means a chemical reaction is occurring. I believe it is more about water's unusual behavior to expand right before it changes state to solid. But I am not certain.Is the bonding of the hydrogen ions a chemical process or an exothermal process?
The release of the bond is a chemical process. This process continues at the point of evaporation. That is my point. This is a contentious point.. There are many points of view on this.I don't think the last text box on the bottom right means a chemical reaction is occurring. I believe it is more about water's unusual behavior to expand right before it changes state to solid. But I am not certain.
