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.
Your questions have been answered over and over and over again. Once upon a time I thought perhaps you simply didn't understand that. Now I'm thoroughly convinced that you know full well they've been answered but have chosen to claim that they have not. In most parts, that's known as LYING.Thanks, the last one was the clincher. I asked "...show one single experiment that demonstrates the (imaginary) temperature increase by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM."
And once again, you didn't answer.
Does it bother you that for this world's mainstream Flat Earthers you can't say what the expected increase is? Maybe it's 3F and we're getting away lucky?
That's the first thing any sane, honest scientist would test: how much of a temperature increase is attributable to an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?
Your questions have been answered over and over and over again. Once upon a time I thought perhaps you simply didn't understand that. Now I'm thoroughly convinced that you know full well they've been answered but have chosen to claim that they have not. In most parts, that's known as LYING.
Do you require pictures?You never once showed the requested experiment, not one time.
Which charts? What variance? Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Regionally? Nationally? By Hemisphere?There's no number associated with the CO2 variance in your chart. Is it .01F, .1F, 1F, 10F? You never say!
No, we don't. I know why, you do not.We both know why.
You were talking about CO2. Why are you now talking about temperature. And why would PhDs make rounding errors? I bet someone as stupid as you doesn't even make rounding errors.The answer is a rounding error, like .02F
It required no daring whatsoever. The facts speak for themselves.You dare to call me a liar?
Do you require pictures?
Which charts? What variance? Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Regionally? Nationally? By Hemisphere?
No, we don't. I know why, you do not.
You were talking about CO2. Why are you now talking about temperature. And why would PhDs make rounding errors? I bet someone as stupid as you doesn't even make rounding errors.
It required no daring whatsoever. The facts speak for themselves.
The chart gives the impression that the 120PPM additional CO2 raises temperature 1C, is that what you're too afraid to say?
But this NEVER happens in a lab, so the modeling must be wrongIt's what I've been saying to you with this graph and others for a great long while. You've just been too ignorant, I guess, to actually look at it.
You don't think CO2 has been shown, in labs, to absorb IR radiation precisely as shown in its absorption spectrum?But this NEVER happens in a lab, so the modeling must be wrong
You don't think CO2 has been shown, in labs, to absorb IR radiation precisely as shown in its absorption spectrum?
Are you familiar with the Principle of Uniformity? I think you should read up on that and then think how that affects what can and cannot be done with lab results. And you need to get over your distaste for models. It has been a primary tactic of the denier misinformation campaign to try to automatically reject out of hand any data that has been touched in any way by computer models. Models have limitations and no one is more aware of those limitations than the modelers themselves. But models also have value; number one being their ability to provide data unattainable by any other means. Think of a model as a virtual laboratory. The rejection of all model data, out-of-hand, by you and deniers like Westwall and SSDD is simply applied Luddism.Unless you can show in a lab setting controlling for a 120PPM increase causes 1C increase in temperature, the models can only be wrong. It's Bernie Madoff accounting, the models show returns a multiple of reality
The same reason it always does. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.Why? On what evidence do you conclude that every interglacial will peak out at the same temperature? You yourself have noted that tectonic movement alters the planet's ocean and atmospheric circulation, albedo and who knows what else. What research supports your suppositions?
No, you are assuming a natural cooling trend would continue. Are you arguing that CO2 averted a glacial period?Why? On what evidence do you conclude that every interglacial will peak out at the same temperature? You yourself have noted that tectonic movement alters the planet's ocean and atmospheric circulation, albedo and who knows what else. What research supports your suppositions?
The cooling trend began at the HCO, six thousand years ago. There was a change in ENSO dynamics about 3,000 BC which produced a robust and long lasting series of El Ninos beginning about 1450BC. These caused drying in Crete and the Aegean basin possibly leading to the slow collapse of their society. Think about that: a healthy and vibrant society totaled by climate change.
I have no idea as to what you're saying "no". But I am assuming that the Holocene interglacial has peaked. So does almost everyone else familiar with these data. It is YOU that are the outlier in that regard. That is why we would like you to explain why you think every interglacial has to hit the same temperature. But you keep dodging the question.
The common prediction from folks who actually know state that the next glacial period would not have occurred for ten thousand years or so. I assume that one way or another AGW will end. Whether or not that will have pushed the Earth past a tipping point to a new, warmer stable state is unknown but possible. Obviously, the Milankovitch cycles continue, but they never accomplished what they did over the last 3 million years all by themselves. The feedback from CO2 was required. So, as long as CO2 levels are kept fully synthetic by human emissions, who knows what Milankovitch can do.Are you arguing that CO2 averted a glacial period?
If it had peaked a glacial period would have occurred.I have no idea as to what you're saying "no". But I am assuming that the Holocene interglacial has peaked. So does almost everyone else familiar with these data. It is YOU that are the outlier in that regard. That is why we would like you to explain why you think every interglacial has to hit the same temperature. But you keep dodging the question.
The common prediction from folks who actually know state that the next glacial period would not have occurred for ten thousand years or so. I assume that one way or another AGW will end. Whether or not that will have pushed the Earth past a tipping point to a new, warmer stable state is unknown but possible. Obviously, the Milankovitch cycles continue, but they never accomplished what they did over the last 3 million years all by themselves. The feedback from CO2 was required. So, as long as CO2 levels are kept fully synthetic by human emissions, who knows what Milankovitch can do.
Now then, again, why do you believe all interglacials must peak at the same temperature? Let's see your reference source for that.
Hey Derp, demofks are the left!!! DerpThis wasn't "the far left", it was produced by the staff of a broad range of democratic senators and representatives. If you don't accept these results, why don't you tell us why? How about an examination of the facts? A great deal of this is based on the testimony of executives and employees of the listed fossil fuel companies. Were they all lying to make themselves look bad?
Where’s agw taking place?I don't have a phobia about weather and the majority of people both in the US and worldwide believe that AGW is taking place, that it is a threat to our future well-being and that its cause is the burning of fossil fuels. This is not the first study to show that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince fools like you to reject AGW. That the lot of you should think it more likely that every scientists on the planet is lying to us to get research grants than that the fossil fuel industry might try some PR in response to a completely existential threat is the perfect demonstration of the ignorance of the folks who've bought their bullshit.
Do you deny that the fossil fuel industry must have some interest in this topic? Then why is it that we NEVER here deniers reporting on the statements, positions, choices or actions of the fossil fuel industry? If what YOU believe is true, is actually true, why aren't fossil fuel industries fighting for their lives to put that out to the public?
He works hard trying to get you to let go of your cultExactly! It is very much like a cult. And you're balls deep in it.
Earth. How did you not know that? Or, alternatively, why do you ask?Where’s agw taking place?
so you don't have any idea and yet use it over and over again. nonsense and more nonsense. No factual data set to share with the occupants of the earth huh? I take no man's word on anything. especially yours.Earth. How did you not know that? Or, alternatively, why do you ask?
my ten years almost on here, and still today you have never presented one piece of data. interesting how you argue from a chart of nothing. post 158 is enough to show your errors.I cannot imagine that a single individual who has ever visited this discussion gives an RCH of a whittly-damn what you believe.
