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.
Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.
BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.
And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.
Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?
So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
Second, as CO2 levels go up, the CO2 going into the ocean goes up. Basic science of the carbon sinks. And since it's basic science, we can count on SSDD to fail completely at it, and then cite his hilarious failure as proof the science is wrong.
So, why'd you come back, SSDD? Did you, in some sick way, miss all the humiliation that you'd so richly earn every day?
In any case, while you're here, you may as well enjoy the servicing Frank supplies, being that's his only talent.
So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
Second, as CO2 levels go up, the CO2 going into the ocean goes up. Basic science of the carbon sinks. And since it's basic science, we can count on SSDD to fail completely at it, and then cite his hilarious failure as proof the science is wrong.
So, why'd you come back, SSDD? Did you, in some sick way, miss all the humiliation that you'd so richly earn every day?
In any case, while you're here, you may as well enjoy the servicing Frank supplies, being that's his only talent.
And Crick shows his total ignorance on the subject.. I am not surprised.Yes, you can spam your own thread.
God are you stupid.
And without knowing exactly how each gas responds in our OPEN atmosphere all these posts are irrelevant ,as they do not explain why any GHG holds or reflects heat nor do they explain why water vapor will null all of CO2's potential warming through the convection cycle. A bunch of nice pictures but no context. One big heap of garbage devoid of context.
God are you STUPID!
So there you are again fool. See following us. Fool!So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
Second, as CO2 levels go up, the CO2 going into the ocean goes up. Basic science of the carbon sinks. And since it's basic science, we can count on SSDD to fail completely at it, and then cite his hilarious failure as proof the science is wrong.
So, why'd you come back, SSDD? Did you, in some sick way, miss all the humiliation that you'd so richly earn every day?
In any case, while you're here, you may as well enjoy the servicing Frank supplies, being that's his only talent.
Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.
BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.
And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.
Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?
There are only two possible answers: a number between 0 and infinity or you're just a quack Cultist
Crick that includes you.Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.
BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.
And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.
Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?
There are only two possible answers: a number between 0 and infinity or you're just a quack Cultist
God are you STUPID! And apparently irredeemably so.
Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.
BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.
And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.
Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?
There are only two possible answers: a number between 0 and infinity or you're just a quack Cultist
God are you STUPID! And apparently irredeemably so.
288ppm is considered saturation in earths atmosphere by real scientists. They understand our convection cycle will render all further potential warming mute. One study being conducted today at Boulder Co is the taking of CO2 samples before and trailing rain storms. Preliminary tests show humidity above 40% drops CO2 concentrations rapidly (10-20% locally) and rain can decrease airborne fraction by 50%. A very small rise in atmospheric water vapor renders CO2 mute, a stark contrast to the CAGW meme and their beliefs that it would cause runnaway green house effects in an open atmosphere. It shows that not only will it not cause a greenhouse effect it has directly the opposite effect by removing CO2 from our atmosphere and reducing its potential effect to near zero.Thinking about it tonight, the warmers simply throw out the logarithmic characteristics of CO2. They believe that 120ppm added CO2 Is twice as dangerous than the existing 280 ppm already approaching saturation. Now I ask who are the deniers?
He is not the one who doesn't understand what it is he is posting.. You are..It would be helpful if you even had some rough idea of how much basic science you do not possess.
As to calling me a liar for posting facts you do not understand, shove your head up your ass and jump.
Another scientific point by maMOOT.Billy, we understand you're an open fraud. That's why you never back up your bullshit. Being your kook cult just makes it all up, there's literally nothing backing it up.
It's also why you're always totally wrong about every single thing. Just how many years is it now that you've been predicting a catastrophic cooling?
And Frank, if you think your question can be answered by a number, you're too stupid to be bothering the grownups. Nobody with a 3-digit-IQ thinks your question makes any sense. All the normal people just laugh at it. It's like asking "What color is 5"?
If flat-earthers went crying on a message board about how mean the round-earthers were, they wouldn't look any less stupid. Same with deniers. Crying about how mean the rational people are for laughing at stupid denier claims doesn't make deniers look any less stupid. It does, however, make them look wimpier.
So no number, no experiment, no proofs just a big old trust us. Uh, NO!Billy, we understand you're an open fraud. That's why you never back up your bullshit. Being your kook cult just makes it all up, there's literally nothing backing it up.
It's also why you're always totally wrong about every single thing. Just how many years is it now that you've been predicting a catastrophic cooling?
And Frank, if you think your question can be answered by a number, you're too stupid to be bothering the grownups. Nobody with a 3-digit-IQ thinks your question makes any sense. All the normal people just laugh at it. It's like asking "What color is 5"?
If flat-earthers went crying on a message board about how mean the round-earthers were, they wouldn't look any less stupid. Same with deniers. Crying about how mean the rational people are for laughing at stupid denier claims doesn't make deniers look any less stupid. It does, however, make them look wimpier.
Dude/ dudette, we all know you know absolutely nothing. A discussion by you is useless and we've learned that.So jc, elektra, Frank, what color do you think "5" is?
Again, your question is senseless.
And you're all to freakin' stupid to understand that.
And that's hilarious.
Now cry some for us. Here we are now, entertain us.
