Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Climate on the planet has changed for the past billion years.
The graph in th OP represents about 10 years.
Extrapolation is ridiculous.
I dont think you are quite getting the concept of the diagram. it is a massively simplified description of the current equilibrium of the climate. it is so generic that it probably describes all of the current interglacial period, although I have no real faith in the accuracy of any of the numbers.
as others have brought up before, it does not incorporate the effects of full sunlight, dusk, night and dawn. nor does it describe the different latitudes and the large change in radiation according to temperature (it varies according to the fourth power{T measured in Kelvins}). averaging the sunlight input, ground temperature, convection rates, evaporation and humidity rates, as well as ignoring ocean currents and Hadley cell type air currents, make for a description that doesnt match anywhere on earth but it at least gives us something to start with.
one thing I find interesting is that the tropics remain ice free and at roughly the same temperature even in iceage periods. personally I think the bulk of our research should be done on understanding the tropics because that area is what powers all the climatic processes.
What item on that chart doesn't exist on Earth, dumbass? The items have been known to exist for over a hundred years.
Which item doesn't exist? Backradiation doesn't exist. It is a complete fabrication and has never been measured except by cooling the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient temperature. You can not heat a warm object (surface of the earth) with a cool object (atmosphere)
right-wingers completely lack a brain.
It is hard to notice that it is you who remains unable to discuss the topic. You cut and paste your cartoon as if it were from a holy book and don't seem to be able to actually discuss any of what it claims to represent. It would appear that it is you who lacks a thinking brain.
I don't believe I have ever spoken to the fossil fuel industry. In case you haven't noticed, the fossil fuel industry is on the AGW bandwagon because there is a ton of money to be made because of all the subsidies, grants, and tax incentives available to those on the wagon.
And "considered" is an important word there as the mechanisms that climate science claim to be the drivers for AGW are only considered to be fact by some and only considered to be fact by them as they have never been proven. The greenhouse effect has never been measured, nor has it ever been mathematically modeled. It is a fantasy.
That 324 watts per square meter of backradiation is the basis for AGW. Without it, there is no AGW. Again, it is you who seems to be lacking in the brains department. You have obviously posted a cartoon that you don't even begin to understand.
You are either a bald faced liar when you claim to have a background in chemistry, or are the stupidist scientist who ever lived. That the earth has an energy cycle is fact. To claim that we have a handle on it and understand the movement of energy through that cycle is pure fiction. That cartoon doesn't represent the actual energy cycle of the earth any more than the Blondie cartoon in the Sunday comics.
Here is some established science for you. You can not further warm a warm object with a cool object. See the second law of thermodynamics if you can manage to look it up and read all of the words.
Primarily by the release of stored heat in the ground and oceans. Water vapor does its part as well, but not by backradiation. Look at a coastal region vs a desert. Both have the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the coastal region does not warm as much during the day as the desert, and the coastal region cools off much slower at night than the desert.
The energy leaving the atmosphere is radiation. The energy leaving the earth and travelling up through the greater part of the atmosphere is via conduction and convection. Radiation plays only a bit part in the movement of heat through the atmosphere until you reach very high altitude.
It is a model and backradiation has never been observed from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the surface of the earth)
I told you these diagrams were in textbooks before you were even born.
Perhaps since you were born. That cartoon was originally fabricated in 1981. The one you posted has since been updated in an attempt to get the temperatures it predicts to more closely resemble reality. The present version will soon need updating as well as reailty isn't cooperating with it any more than it did with the first version.
You've just never seen college textbooks. You were asked what things on that chart don't exist and you can't point to anything that hasn't been proven to exist.
I am afraid that it is obvious that you have never been to college, for any science based studies anyway. It is clear because of all of the very basic mistakes you make and the fact that you are unable to actually discuss the topic in any sensible way. Look at the difference between your own conversation and someone like IanC or flacalten. They are obviously educated because they aren't restricted to cutting and pasting material and then simply stating that it must be true. They can discuss the material they post in their own words while people like you, and rocks, and rolling thunder never actually discuss the topic because you lack the education required to do so.
If you believe backraditation exists, show me the proof that it has been measured by an instrument that has not been cooled down to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the air and tell me which law of physics tells you that a cool object can further warm a warmer object.
Climate on the planet has changed for the past billion years.
The graph in th OP represents about 10 years.
Extrapolation is ridiculous.
I dont think you are quite getting the concept of the diagram. it is a massively simplified description of the current equilibrium of the climate. it is so generic that it probably describes all of the current interglacial period, although I have no real faith in the accuracy of any of the numbers.
as others have brought up before, it does not incorporate the effects of full sunlight, dusk, night and dawn. nor does it describe the different latitudes and the large change in radiation according to temperature (it varies according to the fourth power{T measured in Kelvins}). averaging the sunlight input, ground temperature, convection rates, evaporation and humidity rates, as well as ignoring ocean currents and Hadley cell type air currents, make for a description that doesnt match anywhere on earth but it at least gives us something to start with.
one thing I find interesting is that the tropics remain ice free and at roughly the same temperature even in iceage periods. personally I think the bulk of our research should be done on understanding the tropics because that area is what powers all the climatic processes.
Have you read any of the work lately, bolsterd by actual experimentation that prove that an earth with an atmosphere that contains no radiative gasses would be warmer than an earth with an atmosphere that contains with radiative gasses?
Every state has a university and I know when classes start student sell off their old textbooks. You can find a textbook for Physical Geography. Every state has a library too and most libraries have examples of textbooks.
My story is I graduated high school in '70
no, I cannot say that i have read much on the slayers and N&Z's equations lately.
here is a more polished version of a paper I discussed here over a year ago. you might find it interesting. http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf
no, I cannot say that i have read much on the slayers and N&Z's equations lately.
here is a more polished version of a paper I discussed here over a year ago. you might find it interesting. http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf
Link didn't go anywhere. Blank page.
I am not talking about just the slayers (who I don't follow to closely) and N&Z. There are a number of people out there doing work and actual repeatable experiments that support the growing background chorus saying that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Not an effect that in any way resembles that being described by the various factions of warmers and lukewarmers.
It is interesting that you wouldn't be interested in work that is being supported by repeatable experiments while holding on to a hypothesis that is not only not testable, but not falsifiable.
Miskolczi’s paper was focused on radiation physics, a highly technical approach. When he was discouraged by NASA, his employer, from publishing it, he quit and did so anyway. His argument was not well received by mainstream climatologists, and has not so far changed very many minds. But there were hints in the ensuing debate of some simpler possibilities not considered by either side. Miskolczi argued that the maximum entropy principle imposes a strict balance in the atmosphere between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, and maintaining this balance limits water vapor uptake. This particular application of the MEP is known as the ‘virial theorem’.
What piqued my curiosity was that in the midst of the debate, a senior NASA climatologist remarked that he had never seen the virial theorem applied to Earth’s atmosphere. Here was an application of the maximum entropy principle crying out for further investigation!
The result, after months of effort and more months of logistical delays, is my own paper on the subject. I have come to realize that Miskolczi was right in at least one of his claims. Maximum entropy considerations do limit the atmosphere’s ability to absorb more water vapor. The challenge is to show it in a simple way. By comparison with Miskolczi’s approach, my argument is almost absurdly straightforward.
All global circulation models (GCM) rely on a kind of physics short-cut, something called the hydrostatic approximation. After trying to re-create the basic model rules on a spreadsheet, I realized that this short-cut is inappropriate for use in global warming studies. It makes them fatally flawed, exaggerating the amount of warming caused by greenhouse gases by a factor of 3 to 5.
Here is the chief symptom that something has gone wrong. The modelers all report that if CO2 is added to the model atmosphere, then after several decades, temperatures go up everywhere — at the poles and the equator, both at sea level and high up in the atmosphere.
The hydrostatic approximation imposes a strict proportionality between temperature and air density. If temperatures go up, air density must go down. So if temperatures go up everywhere, air density goes down everywhere. But then where exactly did the air go in the model? And where should it go? I believe the virial theorem, the maximum entropy principle, and some common sense, together provide the answer.
What item on that chart doesn't exist on Earth, dumbass? The items have been known to exist for over a hundred years.
Which item doesn't exist? Backradiation doesn't exist. It is a complete fabrication and has never been measured except by cooling the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient temperature. You can not heat a warm object (surface of the earth) with a cool object (atmosphere)
It is hard to notice that it is you who remains unable to discuss the topic. You cut and paste your cartoon as if it were from a holy book and don't seem to be able to actually discuss any of what it claims to represent. It would appear that it is you who lacks a thinking brain.
I don't believe I have ever spoken to the fossil fuel industry. In case you haven't noticed, the fossil fuel industry is on the AGW bandwagon because there is a ton of money to be made because of all the subsidies, grants, and tax incentives available to those on the wagon.
And "considered" is an important word there as the mechanisms that climate science claim to be the drivers for AGW are only considered to be fact by some and only considered to be fact by them as they have never been proven. The greenhouse effect has never been measured, nor has it ever been mathematically modeled. It is a fantasy.
That 324 watts per square meter of backradiation is the basis for AGW. Without it, there is no AGW. Again, it is you who seems to be lacking in the brains department. You have obviously posted a cartoon that you don't even begin to understand.
You are either a bald faced liar when you claim to have a background in chemistry, or are the stupidist scientist who ever lived. That the earth has an energy cycle is fact. To claim that we have a handle on it and understand the movement of energy through that cycle is pure fiction. That cartoon doesn't represent the actual energy cycle of the earth any more than the Blondie cartoon in the Sunday comics.
Here is some established science for you. You can not further warm a warm object with a cool object. See the second law of thermodynamics if you can manage to look it up and read all of the words.
Primarily by the release of stored heat in the ground and oceans. Water vapor does its part as well, but not by backradiation. Look at a coastal region vs a desert. Both have the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the coastal region does not warm as much during the day as the desert, and the coastal region cools off much slower at night than the desert.
The energy leaving the atmosphere is radiation. The energy leaving the earth and travelling up through the greater part of the atmosphere is via conduction and convection. Radiation plays only a bit part in the movement of heat through the atmosphere until you reach very high altitude.
It is a model and backradiation has never been observed from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the surface of the earth)
Perhaps since you were born. That cartoon was originally fabricated in 1981. The one you posted has since been updated in an attempt to get the temperatures it predicts to more closely resemble reality. The present version will soon need updating as well as reailty isn't cooperating with it any more than it did with the first version.
You've just never seen college textbooks. You were asked what things on that chart don't exist and you can't point to anything that hasn't been proven to exist.
I am afraid that it is obvious that you have never been to college, for any science based studies anyway. It is clear because of all of the very basic mistakes you make and the fact that you are unable to actually discuss the topic in any sensible way. Look at the difference between your own conversation and someone like IanC or flacalten. They are obviously educated because they aren't restricted to cutting and pasting material and then simply stating that it must be true. They can discuss the material they post in their own words while people like you, and rocks, and rolling thunder never actually discuss the topic because you lack the education required to do so.
If you believe backraditation exists, show me the proof that it has been measured by an instrument that has not been cooled down to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the air and tell me which law of physics tells you that a cool object can further warm a warmer object.
Every state has a university and I know when classes start student sell off their old textbooks. You can find a textbook for Physical Geography. Every state has a library too and most libraries have examples of textbooks.
My story is I graduated high school in '70 and I was one of those students who loved all subjects. The Biology class we took in 10th grade was heavy of taxonomy with old textbooks, so I talked the teacher into allowing us to study advanced Biology, when I discovered they bought new textbooks. Only three boys and three girls signed up for the course. Our classroom was the storage area of the Biology classroom, which was filled with buckets of specimens to be dissected. It was an effort just to survive in that formaldehyde environment. The two guys who took the course with me were my fishing buddies, one stuck with Biology and became an Ichthyologist, while the other influenced by the computer programming course we took during our senior year went that way. I went Chemistry, because I lived in Delaware and wanted the money. We were Sputnik kids, where the federal government wanted to produce scientists, so we were lucky to an extent.
I worked my ass off in a corn cannery to get to college, but I have a problem. My oldest brother joined the Navy and is in Vietnam. I don't believe in student deferments, where the rich or the elite can avoid service when others have to serve. That's just not fair, so I take my chances without a student deferment on the draft lottery. My number comes up 13 and my ass is gone, so I joined the Marine Corps for 2 years. The logic was simple, I always loved the Marine Corps, because they will fight.
After my dad died many years later, we looked into his past. There was the obvious sign he changed his birth certificate to join the Navy and it was typed over, when he was really too young to be there. The only thing I recall my mother saying about his service was there were bodies everywhere. My dad didn't talk about his experiences. It turns out my dad was involved in the battle of Okinawa. He never said a word and I don't it ashamed him when I joined the Marine Corps. Let me tell you something there is a difference about killing your enemy from a distance and meeting them face to face.
Now my dad had done his service, too young to be on a landing craft sending Marines to die. When I entered the Marine Corps, they wanted to send me to the Naval Academy, but I said no. I was engaged to a girl that we eventually had six kids with. I call her a girl, because she was about 4 years younger than I was and she already had my half caret ring and we were engaged. So fuck my opportunity of getting free college, thought the idea of giving the government 9 years instead of 2 years of my life was a factor. When I left the Marine Corps, there was a recession and I had a wife and child to support.
A week later, I had a job at a research center. It only paid you once a month, but I only took the 10 days mandatory leave and 4 days to get married. I left the Marine Corps after 2 years with 46 days pay. They offered this lean, mean fighting machine a meritorious promotion to Sargeant, if I extended for 3 months. My brother was already back from Vietnam and I told them I'm not going to give you 3 seconds. I already had meritorious Corporal and was the Administrative Chief of Motor Transport Maintenance Company in Camp Lejeune. It was my job to run that company, so I trained the people to replace me. I didn't need to be there, didn't want to be there and took my chances with a bad economy, even though I had responsibilities.
The research center would actually pay you to take a college course, but I had the GI bill and didn't take their money. The control lab where I worked required 24/7 coverage, so I switched to a constant night shift and tried to schedule my weekend work on Saturdays and Sundays to be continuous. When you are only paid once a month, working overtime, going to college and sleeping 4 hours a day, you make more money than you spend. Our first home was a trailer I paid cash for and sold it for the same price.
Well, enough I have things to do than to talk to fools.
I dont think you are quite getting the concept of the diagram. it is a massively simplified description of the current equilibrium of the climate. it is so generic that it probably describes all of the current interglacial period, although I have no real faith in the accuracy of any of the numbers.
as others have brought up before, it does not incorporate the effects of full sunlight, dusk, night and dawn. nor does it describe the different latitudes and the large change in radiation according to temperature (it varies according to the fourth power{T measured in Kelvins}). averaging the sunlight input, ground temperature, convection rates, evaporation and humidity rates, as well as ignoring ocean currents and Hadley cell type air currents, make for a description that doesnt match anywhere on earth but it at least gives us something to start with.
one thing I find interesting is that the tropics remain ice free and at roughly the same temperature even in iceage periods. personally I think the bulk of our research should be done on understanding the tropics because that area is what powers all the climatic processes.
Have you read any of the work lately, bolsterd by actual experimentation that prove that an earth with an atmosphere that contains no radiative gasses would be warmer than an earth with an atmosphere that contains with radiative gasses?
no, I cannot say that i have read much on the slayers and N&Z's equations lately.
here is a more polished version of a paper I discussed here over a year ago. you might find it interesting. http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf
Have you read any of the work lately, bolsterd by actual experimentation that prove that an earth with an atmosphere that contains no radiative gasses would be warmer than an earth with an atmosphere that contains with radiative gasses?
no, I cannot say that i have read much on the slayers and N&Z's equations lately.
here is a more polished version of a paper I discussed here over a year ago. you might find it interesting. http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf
All your kind can do is deny, deny. It take fucking heat to melt ice, so show me when ice is melted to become water at the same temperature, what will happen when there is no ice!!
It's a simple question. How much heat does it take to melt ice and if you apply the same amount of heat, afterwards, how hot will the water become?
Do you really think global warming can be monitored by temperature? Think heat! Why can't I melt all the ice and keep the temperature the same? It could be done during heating or cooling. Who watches the oceans and atmosphere? A planet is more than a skin.
no, I cannot say that i have read much on the slayers and N&Z's equations lately.
here is a more polished version of a paper I discussed here over a year ago. you might find it interesting. http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf
Link didn't go anywhere. Blank page.
I am not talking about just the slayers (who I don't follow to closely) and N&Z. There are a number of people out there doing work and actual repeatable experiments that support the growing background chorus saying that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Not an effect that in any way resembles that being described by the various factions of warmers and lukewarmers.
It is interesting that you wouldn't be interested in work that is being supported by repeatable experiments while holding on to a hypothesis that is not only not testable, but not falsifiable.
it is working fine for me. are you using a phone or something that doesnt do pdf's?
I am willing to look at articles that are representative of your viewpoint. I would be interested in seeing how they deal with water in its various components.
edit- google 'pot lid hypothesis'
I just read "Why I wrote Pot Lid" Why I wrote ‘Pot Lid’ | declineeffect.com
Miskolczis paper was focused on radiation physics, a highly technical approach. When he was discouraged by NASA, his employer, from publishing it, he quit and did so anyway. His argument was not well received by mainstream climatologists, and has not so far changed very many minds. But there were hints in the ensuing debate of some simpler possibilities not considered by either side. Miskolczi argued that the maximum entropy principle imposes a strict balance in the atmosphere between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, and maintaining this balance limits water vapor uptake. This particular application of the MEP is known as the virial theorem.
What piqued my curiosity was that in the midst of the debate, a senior NASA climatologist remarked that he had never seen the virial theorem applied to Earths atmosphere. Here was an application of the maximum entropy principle crying out for further investigation!
The result, after months of effort and more months of logistical delays, is my own paper on the subject. I have come to realize that Miskolczi was right in at least one of his claims. Maximum entropy considerations do limit the atmospheres ability to absorb more water vapor. The challenge is to show it in a simple way. By comparison with Miskolczis approach, my argument is almost absurdly straightforward.
All global circulation models (GCM) rely on a kind of physics short-cut, something called the hydrostatic approximation. After trying to re-create the basic model rules on a spreadsheet, I realized that this short-cut is inappropriate for use in global warming studies. It makes them fatally flawed, exaggerating the amount of warming caused by greenhouse gases by a factor of 3 to 5.
Here is the chief symptom that something has gone wrong. The modelers all report that if CO2 is added to the model atmosphere, then after several decades, temperatures go up everywhere at the poles and the equator, both at sea level and high up in the atmosphere.
The hydrostatic approximation imposes a strict proportionality between temperature and air density. If temperatures go up, air density must go down. So if temperatures go up everywhere, air density goes down everywhere. But then where exactly did the air go in the model? And where should it go? I believe the virial theorem, the maximum entropy principle, and some common sense, together provide the answer.
Link didn't go anywhere. Blank page.
I am not talking about just the slayers (who I don't follow to closely) and N&Z. There are a number of people out there doing work and actual repeatable experiments that support the growing background chorus saying that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Not an effect that in any way resembles that being described by the various factions of warmers and lukewarmers.
It is interesting that you wouldn't be interested in work that is being supported by repeatable experiments while holding on to a hypothesis that is not only not testable, but not falsifiable.
it is working fine for me. are you using a phone or something that doesnt do pdf's?
I am willing to look at articles that are representative of your viewpoint. I would be interested in seeing how they deal with water in its various components.
edit- google 'pot lid hypothesis'
I just read "Why I wrote Pot Lid" Why I wrote Pot Lid | declineeffect.com
Miskolczis paper was focused on radiation physics, a highly technical approach. When he was discouraged by NASA, his employer, from publishing it, he quit and did so anyway. His argument was not well received by mainstream climatologists, and has not so far changed very many minds. But there were hints in the ensuing debate of some simpler possibilities not considered by either side. Miskolczi argued that the maximum entropy principle imposes a strict balance in the atmosphere between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, and maintaining this balance limits water vapor uptake. This particular application of the MEP is known as the virial theorem.
What piqued my curiosity was that in the midst of the debate, a senior NASA climatologist remarked that he had never seen the virial theorem applied to Earths atmosphere. Here was an application of the maximum entropy principle crying out for further investigation!
The result, after months of effort and more months of logistical delays, is my own paper on the subject. I have come to realize that Miskolczi was right in at least one of his claims. Maximum entropy considerations do limit the atmospheres ability to absorb more water vapor. The challenge is to show it in a simple way. By comparison with Miskolczis approach, my argument is almost absurdly straightforward.
All global circulation models (GCM) rely on a kind of physics short-cut, something called the hydrostatic approximation. After trying to re-create the basic model rules on a spreadsheet, I realized that this short-cut is inappropriate for use in global warming studies. It makes them fatally flawed, exaggerating the amount of warming caused by greenhouse gases by a factor of 3 to 5.
Here is the chief symptom that something has gone wrong. The modelers all report that if CO2 is added to the model atmosphere, then after several decades, temperatures go up everywhere at the poles and the equator, both at sea level and high up in the atmosphere.
The hydrostatic approximation imposes a strict proportionality between temperature and air density. If temperatures go up, air density must go down. So if temperatures go up everywhere, air density goes down everywhere. But then where exactly did the air go in the model? And where should it go? I believe the virial theorem, the maximum entropy principle, and some common sense, together provide the answer.
SSDD- I am curious to know if you ever managed to get a look at this. I cannot remember where I got the link but I think it came from an interesting debate at Judith Curry's site where there was a discussion of how precipitation affects air pressure. it even had Gavin Schmidt weighing in and explaining how the GISSe model handled it.
I am sure it would be of interest to you because you like the pressure/temp side of the debate.
SSDD- I am curious to know if you ever managed to get a look at this. I cannot remember where I got the link but I think it came from an interesting debate at Judith Curry's site where there was a discussion of how precipitation affects air pressure. it even had Gavin Schmidt weighing in and explaining how the GISSe model handled it.
I am sure it would be of interest to you because you like the pressure/temp side of the debate.
do you always blurt out what 'comes to your mind' dubya?
did you read the article? or at least skim it? do you understand the implications to the CO2 climate sensitivity caused by turning one of the feedbacks in the system from positive to negative?
you remind me of a child who interrupts an adult conversation with an inane comment. I take pleasure in responding to that child in a positive way but you are supposedly an adult so I just find your immature thinking to be annoying.
I certainly am talking to a fool.
I have a Super-Genius IQ, well over 160, so what makes you think I'm stupid?
do you always blurt out what 'comes to your mind' dubya?
did you read the article? or at least skim it? do you understand the implications to the CO2 climate sensitivity caused by turning one of the feedbacks in the system from positive to negative?
you remind me of a child who interrupts an adult conversation with an inane comment. I take pleasure in responding to that child in a positive way but you are supposedly an adult so I just find your immature thinking to be annoying.
I certainly am talking to a fool.
I have a Super-Genius IQ, well over 160, so what makes you think I'm stupid? I just do what I want and have a good sense of humor.
I'm fortunate.
maybe you are super smart. it would take a lot of intelligence to hide any intelligence in your posts. or we could just go with Occam's razor and assume that you are as stupid as your comments.
do you always blurt out what 'comes to your mind' dubya?
did you read the article? or at least skim it? do you understand the implications to the CO2 climate sensitivity caused by turning one of the feedbacks in the system from positive to negative?
you remind me of a child who interrupts an adult conversation with an inane comment. I take pleasure in responding to that child in a positive way but you are supposedly an adult so I just find your immature thinking to be annoying.
I certainly am talking to a fool.
I have a Super-Genius IQ, well over 160, so what makes you think I'm stupid? I just do what I want and have a good sense of humor.
I'm fortunate.
Sure you do buddy boy, sure you do. Did your mommy tell you that? Here's a hint buckwheat, real geniuses (and I've known quite a few) never talk about their IQ, that is for the twerps in Mensa (and yes, I refused to join their august ranks...) real geniuses let their work speak for them.
maybe you are super smart. it would take a lot of intelligence to hide any intelligence in your posts. or we could just go with Occam's razor and assume that you are as stupid as your comments.
Do you get the feeling that you are watching a mental breakdown of some sort? I mean he has gone from being a typical warmist wacko to some state that seems even more disconnected from reality.
No, no breakdown, just a twerp who thinks he's smart because mommy told him so, now that he is faced with scientifically minded people he can't understand why we aren't impressed by his "super-genius" cred....is it just me or isn't that a Wile E. Coyote moniker?
