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.
Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...
Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.
Are you a secret warmer?
1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.
Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.
Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.
Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.
Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..
The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.
too fking funny. dude, we challenged you and you keep failing and flailing around in here. can't copy and paste any of it to prove your point is on you. There is no way for us to pull the piece that shows observed AGW since it doesn't exist there. you keep saying it does, well post it.Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.
Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.
Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..
The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.
Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...
Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.
Are you a secret warmer?
Go look at ANY periodic table
Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?
Be specific.
the molecular build of every element.
When you sober up, can you translate that into English?
Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...
Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.
Are you a secret warmer?
Go look at ANY periodic table
Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?
Be specific.
the molecular build of every element.
When you sober up, can you translate that into English?
Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.
It seems that old crick cant get a paper to get outside of Natural Variation ranges or rates of change....LOL..Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.
Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.
Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..
The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.
How about the part that suggests that there has been only 0.1 C of warming in the past 50 years? Is that settled too? And did they post notices of papers that have been retracted, or altered since they "settled" their conclusions? Could you post the location of those notices and where one might see the alterations of their conclusions based on said retractions?
Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...
Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.
Are you a secret warmer?
Go look at ANY periodic table
Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?
Be specific.
the molecular build of every element.
When you sober up, can you translate that into English?
Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.
Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.
Focus. You said photons were magnetic. Are you now saying photons are molecules?
No luck finding the mass of a photon yet?
Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.
Are you a secret warmer?
Go look at ANY periodic table
Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?
Be specific.
the molecular build of every element.
When you sober up, can you translate that into English?
Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.
Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.
Focus. You said photons were magnetic. Are you now saying photons are molecules?
No luck finding the mass of a photon yet?
NO need to further respond to you. You simply do not
have the ability to comprehend the properties of molecular bonds.
Let me know when you come to the realization that all matter is formed of energy...
LOLBilly Boy, molecules with mirror symmetry do NOT have a dipole moment: such as N2, O2, CO2 and CCl4. Such molecules do NOT have magnetic properties. And most atoms and most molecules have a balance between electrons and protons and thus have NO electric charge. None of that would be learned from the periodic table. What was it you thought we would see about PHOTONS in the periodic table?
You fail to understand the mechanical functions and actions of our atmosphere.As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.
You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.
SO lets explore your fantasy warming...
Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made. The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C
SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;
1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.
2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.
3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.
Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made.
SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;
1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.
2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.
3. What the result of a 120 ppm rise since 1890 has done
how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming
and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.
Still no empirical evidence to prove AGW has any merit...
Every item you post is from FAILED MODELING... You are liar and a fool.Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made.
Obviously natural variation did not stop. And you choosing narrow time intervals to compare is obviously cherry picking. But...
...this tells us that CO2, CH4 (methane) and halocarbons (CFCs) are the largest radiative forcing factors. And isotopic analysis has shown that virtually every molecule above the pre-industrial 280 ppm CO2 and the 500 ppb methane and every molecule of CFCs are of human origin. Thus, humans are responsible for the observed warming.
SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;
1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.
No one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped. The temperature data plotted against several ranges of time which I displayed in the prior post clearly show that contemporary warming exceeds natural variation and that you are blatantly guilty of cherry picking.
2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.
See above
3. What the result of a 120 ppm rise since 1890 has done
It is clearly displayed on the bottom of the graphic above: it has produced 2.29 W/m^2 of warming.
how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming
It has not been ruled out. It has been taken into account by all models. I hope you didn't think you were being clever.
and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.
Because that has also been taken into account. Note "Changes in solar irradiance" in the graphic above. And since power is an integration of the spectral curve, all spectral changes are included.
Still no empirical evidence to prove AGW has any merit...
And still you lie. To claim that the thousands of research papers that have been published on this topic, which are virtually ALL based on empirical data taken from the environment and which virtually ALL support AGW, contain no empirical evidence to support AGW indicates you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest*.
Evidence behind AGW may be reviewed in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be downloaded from www.ipcc.ch.
* and since you have never retracted your claim to be working on a PhD in atmospheric physicists while making a continuous series of 7th grade level mistakes (and worse), I would have to vote for BOTH DISHONEST AND STUPID
And still you lie. To claim that the thousands of research papers that have been published on this topic, which are virtually ALL based on empirical data taken from the environment and which virtually ALL support AGW, contain no empirical evidence to support AGW indicates you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest*.
