flack
Diamond Member
I don't deal with feelings. I'm not a democrat.CO2 is not causing the world to warm. It isn't possible.
I think everyone will agree that your feelings settle the matter. No more need for that stupid science.
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.
I don't deal with feelings. I'm not a democrat.CO2 is not causing the world to warm. It isn't possible.
I think everyone will agree that your feelings settle the matter. No more need for that stupid science.
That's a trick from the statistical arts, severely reduce our sample pool and we can drive our probabilities out the roof ...
These statements appear to be mutually exclusive ... you can't have things both ways ...
I'm not going to quibble about short-wave albedo at night ...
but you're darn right about forests absorbing more solar energy than tundra ... go kick a tree, it's not just it sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, it also sequesters all the energy to reduce all that carbon, and a fair part of this energy is never released again ...
Yup ... taking all that energy away from temperature rise ...
it's this negative feedback mechanism that saves a billion lives in the tropics ... just increasing temperature causes temperature to not rise as fast ... the numbers speak from themselves ...
That's a trick from the statistical arts, severely reduce our sample pool and we can drive our probabilities out the roof ...
Are you under the impression that plants grow up out of the ocean surface, and that we can measure such growth? Discarding the impossible is common sense, so it's odd that you call it a conspiracy.
These statements appear to be mutually exclusive ... you can't have things both ways ...
That's the point. Your side, and your side only, tries to have it both ways. I pointed that out with the first line. Pointing out your inconsistency does not make us inconsistent.
In contrast, my side is completely consistent. We say the data is good.
I'm not going to quibble about short-wave albedo at night ...
I'm not sure why you would, as I'm talking about albedo in the daytime.
but you're darn right about forests absorbing more solar energy than tundra ... go kick a tree, it's not just it sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, it also sequesters all the energy to reduce all that carbon, and a fair part of this energy is never released again ...
That "sequestered" energy is totally insignificant. In the long run, the CO2 released by the fire will warm the earth at least a thousand times more than the actual fire.
Yup ... taking all that energy away from temperature rise ...
Which is hotter, a humid summer night, or a dry summer night?
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The energy it holds in greatly outweighs the heat needed to vaporize it.
it's this negative feedback mechanism that saves a billion lives in the tropics ... just increasing temperature causes temperature to not rise as fast ... the numbers speak from themselves ...
The numbers say that water vapor is a positive feedback.
That's a trick from the statistical arts, severely reduce our sample pool and we can drive our probabilities out the roof ...
Are you under the impression that plants grow up out of the ocean surface, and that we can measure such growth? Discarding the impossible is common sense, so it's odd that you call it a conspiracy.
Typical libtard.@moderators
Please move thread to conspiracy theory section or rubber room, where it belongs....
Typical denier moron....Typical libtard.@moderators
Please move thread to conspiracy theory section or rubber room, where it belongs....
@moderators
Please move thread to conspiracy theory section or rubber room, where it belongs....
Having problems with empirical evidence and facts again? Telling that your way to solve it is to make it go away and denigrate them... Typical left wing bigot... no ability to deal with facts..@moderators
Please move thread to conspiracy theory section or rubber room, where it belongs....