I also have the impression the last sample is dated 95 years before the 1950 'present'. Funny how ssdd hasn't come back with the data, as invited."Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.
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 also have the impression the last sample is dated 95 years before the 1950 'present'. Funny how ssdd hasn't come back with the data, as invited."Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.
the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.
CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.
well the site is legit, the info in it is bullshit, you bet!!! you like definitions I see, you should look up "observation' because it is clear you have no fking clue what that means.So, the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a "bullshit site". You'd be laughable if you weren't so fucking pathetic.
If you want to see the evidence for man made global warming, see "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch
the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.
CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.
I reject it because you can't prove it. And what's funny, you still don't know what the word 'observation' means. And you don't know science either, because without observation science wasn't done. so you can post almost 100% until your panties untwist, but until you post one of those almost 100%'ers observed data, all you got are words on a message board. And there are plenty of them. Now, back to the discussion. quote the data from the Ipcc site that shows observed AGW over natural variability? go ahead, you won't, but sure, show us your science skills and back up your hypothesis.the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.
CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.
Here's a little tidbit of information about the English language JC. There is no authority defining what it and is not proper English. No one specified the definition of any word or phrase. Dictionaries simply provide the common usage(s) of words. The definition I posted is simply one of the uses of the word "pollutant".
The evidence for greenhouse warming is overwhelming and accepted by very, very close to 100% of all scientists. Reject it if you like, but to say it is because you believe it has not been "proven" makes you look a fool in several different ways and, as I have concluded on several occasions in the past, makes discussing anything here with you a complete waste of time.
What 'the present' means is the base of your assertion. The ice cap series does not take 'Today' as 'the present', your misrepresentation notwithstanding.Any actual argument to the statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years beyond weaseling about what the present means?
"Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.
Science? When I hear that word I picture lab work. Can you show us the effect increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm has on temperature?
I've shown you the references before, the HITRAN database with literally thousands of references on the spectral properties of CO2.
That guy said everything I have always said.
Deniers of a feather flock together.That guy said everything I have always said.
We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.
NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.
That guy said everything I have always said.
We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.
NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.
A CO2 molecule having absorbed a photon vibrates. It has no other options. That increased vibration is synonymous with increased temperature. When it emits a photon or loses that energy via collision, it ceases to vibrate - it cools. Your contention is idiotic bullshit.
That guy said everything I have always said.
We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.
NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.
Interesting. You know like 99% of climatologists disagree with him. Which is why he has to use a website to promote his new idea's rather than a peer reviewed article (his last article he tried to get a peer review had analyzed 14 models, but then plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provided a much different conclusion.)
But yes, all the man made global warming scientists disagree, as well as all the other ones who oppose man made, but have other idea's on what causes it.
His response to his science not proving his theory was "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing".
what does it do as it vibrates and how long does it vibrate? does it get warmer than it is as it vibrates? Does it collide or emit most often?A CO2 molecule having absorbed a photon vibrates. It has no other options. That increased vibration is synonymous with increased temperature. When it emits a photon or loses that energy via collision, it ceases to vibrate - it cools. Your contention is idiotic bullshit.