Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.


How do 100-year averages change day-to-day ... that's stupid ... at best, any day is only 1/36,524th of any century ... simple math ... for 1ºC per century temperature increase ... they're claiming "to see" this 1/36,524th of degree change every day ...

Magic ...
 
Interesting that in March of 1913, Furnace Creek was setting all time daily lows ... I don't know how analogous that is to the subject at hand ... however, weather does jump around like that ...

Around twenty years ago, it took a couple weeks to set up an emergency drought conference ... well ... the rains returned and flooded most of the roads leading to the meeting place ... five feet of rain but without any snow cover ... we got lucky that year ... obviously the conference was a bust and no action was taken to relieve the dry conditions ... you know, under the flood waters ...

All normal ... all part of current climate ... no change required ...
These precipitation extremes were measured at Furnace Creek in Death Valley National Park and go back to 1912. Since then the biggest one-day rainstorm recorded there dropped 1.47 inches (37.3 millimetres) of water on April 15, 1988.
 
Isn't climate change a good thing for Death Valley? ... I refuse to admit I've been any closer than Bakersfield ... so I claim no knowledge in the matter ... Lord above knows Bakersfield is bad enough ...
 
Isn't climate change a good thing for Death Valley? ... I refuse to admit I've been any closer than Bakersfield ... so I claim no knowledge in the matter ... Lord above knows Bakersfield is bad enough ...
I tend to doubt that. I have been to Bakersfield many times. And also been a good bit of Death Valley. Normally the lefts tell us Death Valley does not count. So they think they name counting sites. But that is weather. I am speaking of a trend at Death Valley that is more than 110 years old. The Trend is not up.
 
When was the last post in this thread that actually dealt with the topic?

Would anyone on the "Ignorance-is-Bliss" side of this argument care to refute the following?

1697669807481.png

 
When was the last post in this thread that actually dealt with the topic?

Would anyone on the "Ignorance-is-Bliss" side of this argument care to refute the following?

View attachment 844928

$76 trillion!
 
You posted proof that we need to waste...err...spend...err...invest $76 trillion in green energy.
Or our children will curse our names.
Your name. Not mine.

The topic of this thread is the greenhouse effect and radiative physics, not $76T. I posted the absorption spectrum of CO2 to try to get back on topic. Seems you folks don't care.
 
Your name. Not mine.

The topic of this thread is the greenhouse effect and radiative physics, not $76T. I posted the absorption spectrum of CO2 to try to get back on topic. Seems you folks don't care.

I care very much that CO2 makes you want to waste $76 trillion.
 
How do 100-year averages change day-to-day ... that's stupid ... at best, any day is only 1/36,524th of any century ... simple math ... for 1ºC per century temperature increase ... they're claiming "to see" this 1/36,524th of degree change every day ...

Magic ...
What a bizarre question.
 
I presented the absorption spectrum of CO2. This has no bearing on that whatsoever.

Just a small part of the absorption spectrum ... the bandwidth useful for the temperature measurements discussed in the paper you linked to ... they're using radiative flux which is independent of distance ... because who wants to hold the end of a tape measure on a 1000ºC object? ...
 
I care very much that CO2 makes you want to waste $76 trillion.
I don't want to waste one penny. If it would cost us 76 trillion to fix it, following your advice will cost us 150 trillion. Or a great deal more. And a great deal more human suffering.
 

Forum List

Back
Top