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.
lolIn our environment, yes it does and yes it is.
The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.
Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.
/----/ Save the planet - hold your breath - send Al Bore more money before you pass out.
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
Poor choice of words, but point taken. The claim is not that atmospheric CO2 "generates heat," but that it disproportionately adds to the Greenhouse Effect.
Still, it's difficult to believe when atmospheric CO2 is a very minor component - a tiny fraction of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.
Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.
Why do you like pseudoscience so much?
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.
Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.
Why do you like pseudoscience so much?
The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.
lol........lets see how long this thread lasts before falling into oblivion.
Well Crick provides a pile of IPCC shit again..
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.
Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.
Why do you like pseudoscience so much?
The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.
Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.
Why do you like pseudoscience so much?
The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.
I know it is from the IPPC report, but WHERE in the report, its so freaking big!
Meanwhile as usual you ignore what you can't address, it is a habit you have developed over time, which is why you are a known lover of Pseudoscience bullcrap.
"No link to the chart" Still no link
"no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change." You ignored it.
"Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable". You ignored it.
"Why do you like pseudoscience so much?" You ignored this fact about you.
You offer nothing scientific because you don't know what that is, which is why Pseudoscience is what you end up pushing, which the inevitable default position when you are a science illiterate, that is a fact you can't live down.
Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?
You have a link for that garbage I'm sure.
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
Pascal's wager isn't an argument.Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?
I have 24 spark plugs and 80 valves between my 3 cars so I'm not saying go crazy. We gotta out compete the Chinese anyways. But yeah, not rolling back existing laws until the botanical garden has to prepare to flee st louis again is a start.
Pascal's wager isn't an argument.Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?
I have 24 spark plugs and 80 valves between my 3 cars so I'm not saying go crazy. We gotta out compete the Chinese anyways. But yeah, not rolling back existing laws until the botanical garden has to prepare to flee st louis again is a start.
Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive
No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.
Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.
Why do you like pseudoscience so much?
The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.
Well Crick provides a pile of IPCC shit again.
Tell me Crick.. How did you and your IPCC clones stop Natural variation?
You and your IPCC pile of crap assume that all warming was due to CO2... Yet only 0.003% of the warming is even capable of being attributed to man and his input of CO2.
Once again your inability to think critically shows you a fool...