Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684526 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 278 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 07:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 09:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 09:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:10 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 07:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 19:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-12 18:57 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:47 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:49 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 22:56 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-11 10:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 10:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 08:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:45 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 19:09 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:12 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:34 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 18:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 21:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 12:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-09 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:26 -0600
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 11:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 13:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:32 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:28 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:39 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:26 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:46 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 00:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:47 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 14:47 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-15 21:13 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:50 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 02:52 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 00:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 11:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:37 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:35 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:01 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 08:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:18 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:58 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-10 07:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 09:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:56 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 15:04 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 10:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-15 22:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:38 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:11 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:31 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:46 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 00:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:01 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 08:39 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-23 10:43 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 07:54 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:38 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 19:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:05 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-24 08:59 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 07:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:26 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 12:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 10:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 12:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:32 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:56 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 21:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 23:34 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 07:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 13:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 10:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 14:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 05:54 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 17:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 19:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 12:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 21:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 06:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:55 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:42 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:40 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:48 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-20 21:58 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:28 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:14 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 08:52 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:04 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 19:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:36 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 10:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 14:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:16 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 17:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:18 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-17 11:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:36 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:39 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-17 18:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:41 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 01:37 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 03:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:09 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 23:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 09:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:01 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:08 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:42 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-18 07:06 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:49 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 13:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 19:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:39 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 18:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:36 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:21 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:03 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:04 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:40 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 11:00 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-24 05:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-09 09:33 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 11:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm43qnFcnnrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685819 |
On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 3:18 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million for >>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, atmospheric >>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And now? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>> less >>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water) are >>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>> master, >>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>> >>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to derail the >>>>> subject. >>>>> >>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of your knowledge >>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere the rest of is >>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>> >>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing rapidly. >>>> The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a grave error in >>>> assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake >>>> again. I now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>> >>>> Points: >>>> >>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer for you: >>> >>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk and his >>> argument is in tatters. >>> >>> >> >> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained inability >> to understand basic science. Much like yourself, in fact. It is clear >> that you and he require some basic education, before we progress to more >> complex discussions. >> > > so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? > **Here, this will assist with your education: http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdjttd$1lcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685877 |
On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/16/2018 3:18 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>> water) are >>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>> master, >>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>> >>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to derail the >>>>>> subject. >>>>>> >>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of your >>>>>> knowledge >>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere the rest >>>>>> of is >>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>> >>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing rapidly. >>>>> The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a grave error in >>>>> assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake >>>>> again. I now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>> >>>>> Points: >>>>> >>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer for you: >>>> >>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk and his >>>> argument is in tatters. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained inability >>> to understand basic science. Much like yourself, in fact. It is clear >>> that you and he require some basic education, before we progress to more >>> complex discussions. >>> >> >> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >> > > **Here, this will assist with your education: > > http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm > read this paragraph, it explains the "greenhouse effect" and why it occures, this also occurs with Water vapor, but in different bands, and much broader; we will discuss it further, so know the material Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule as two spheres connected by a spring. When the molecule vibrates, the atoms move towards and away from each other at a certain frequency. The energy of the system is related to how much the spring is stretched or compressed. The vibrational frequency is proportional to the square root of the ratio of the spring force constant to the masses on the spring. The lighter the masses on the spring, or the tighter (stronger) the spring, the higher the vibrational frequency will be. Similarly, vibrational frequencies for stretching bonds in molecules are related to the strength of the chemical bonds and the masses of the atoms. Molecules differ from sets of spheres-and-springs in that the vibrational frequencies are quantized. That is, only certain energies for the system are allowed, and only photons with certain energies will excite molecular vibrations. The symmetry of the molecule will also determine whether a photon can be absorbed. The number of vibrational modes (different types of vibrations) in a molecule is 3N-5 for linear molecules and 3N-6 for nonlinear molecules, where N is the number of atoms. So the diatomic molecule we just discussed has 3 x 2 - 5 = 1 vibration: the stretching of the bond between the atoms. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 3 x 3 - 5 = 4 vibrations. These vibrational modes, shown in Figure 4, are responsible for the "greenhouse" effect in which heat radiated from the earth is absorbed (trapped) by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The arrows indicate the directions of motion. Vibrations labeled A and B represent the stretching of the chemical bonds, one in a symmetric (A) fashion, in which both C=O bonds lengthen and contract together (in-phase), and the other in an asymmetric (B) fashion, in which one bond shortens while the other lengthens. The asymmetric stretch (B) is infrared active because there is a change in the molecular dipole moment during this vibration. To be "active" means that absorption of a photon to excite the vibration is allowed by the rules of quantum mechanics. [Aside: the infrared "selection rule" states that for a particular vibrational mode to be observed (active) in the infrared spectrum, the mode must involve a change in the dipole moment of the molecule.] Infrared radiation at 2349 (4.26 um) excites this particular vibration. The symmetric stretch is not infrared active, and so this vibration is not observed in the infrared spectrum of CO2. The two equal-energy bending vibrations in CO2 (C and D in Figure 4) are identical except that one bending mode is in the plane of the paper, and one is out of the plane. Infrared radiation at 667 (15.00 um) excites these vibrations. Aside: another way of illustrating the out-of-plane mode is to place circled + or - signs on the atoms, signifying motion above of below the plane of the paper, respectively. Thought question: Why do you think it takes more energy (shorter wavelengths, higher frequencies) to excite the stretching vibration than the bending vibration?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 11:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdk70t$6o7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685927 |
On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm > Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation > > What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule as [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all that stuff you just plagiarized? -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 17:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VLmLC.109194$nq5.45584@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #685935 |
On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: > On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >> >> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule as > [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] > > Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all > that stuff you just plagiarized? > Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things they ALWAYS do? "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's science. You are just one more crook like Hillary. Chortle (rule #5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdl3l6$o01$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685986 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>> >>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>> as >> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >> >> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >> that stuff you just plagiarized? >> > Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things > they ALWAYS do? > > "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you > would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are > blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is > saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and > because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. > > In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be > cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's > science. > > You are just one more crook like Hillary. > Chortle (rule #5) Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about climate change. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6i6oFtdg6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686032 |
On 18/05/2018 9:36 AM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>> >>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>> as >>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>> >>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>> >> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >> they ALWAYS do? >> >> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and >> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >> >> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >> science. >> >> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >> Chortle (rule #5) > > Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the > actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about climate > change. > **The p[roblem for benj, is that he not only fails to understand any science at all, but he is clearly suffering a severe brain injury. I reckon we should go easy on him, until (or if) he recovers. Get well soon, benj. You're still a yappy little lap-dog though. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl93q$v8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686035 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6i6oFtdg6U1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 9:36 AM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>> >>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>> as >>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>> >>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>> >>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>> they ALWAYS do? >>> >>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and >>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>> >>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>> science. >>> >>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>> Chortle (rule #5) >> >> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the >> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >> climate >> change. >> > > **The p[roblem for benj, is that he not only fails to understand any > science at all, but he is clearly suffering a severe brain injury. I > reckon we should go easy on him, until (or if) he recovers. Please post your credentials so that we can insure you have the knowledge and expertise in order to make such pronouncements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92asfdtbtetdcc6uolcfa6769reg2elq4g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686069 |
On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:55:16 -0400, "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > >"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >news:fm6i6oFtdg6U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 9:36 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>> >>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>>> as >>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>> >>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>> >>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>>> they ALWAYS do? >>>> >>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and >>>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>>> >>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>> science. >>>> >>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>> >>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the >>> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >>> climate >>> change. >>> >> >> **The p[roblem for benj, is that he not only fails to understand any >> science at all, but he is clearly suffering a severe brain injury. I >> reckon we should go easy on him, until (or if) he recovers. > >Please post your credentials so that we can insure you have the knowledge >and expertise in order to make such pronouncements. I thought Trevor sold used stereos and abused pain killers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6obqF2i8U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686069 |
On 18/05/2018 10:55 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6i6oFtdg6U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 9:36 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>> >>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>>> as >>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>> >>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>> >>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>>> they ALWAYS do? >>>> >>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>> and >>>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>>> >>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>> science. >>>> >>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>> >>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>> the >>> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >>> climate >>> change. >>> >> >> **The p[roblem for benj, is that he not only fails to understand any >> science at all, but he is clearly suffering a severe brain injury. I >> reckon we should go easy on him, until (or if) he recovers. > > Please post your credentials so that we can insure you have the > knowledge and expertise in order to make such pronouncements. > > > **Sure. Just read benj's posts. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 16:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9hpfp.fbp.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #686032 |
On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>> >>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>> as >>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>> >>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>> >> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >> they ALWAYS do? >> >> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and >> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >> >> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >> science. >> >> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >> Chortle (rule #5) > > Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the > actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about climate > change. > it was more like a transference than it was a projection
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl5ej$1ot6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #686036 |
On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>> >>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>> as >>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>> >>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>> >>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>> they ALWAYS do? >>> >>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect and >>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>> >>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>> science. >>> >>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>> Chortle (rule #5) >> >> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand the >> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >> climate >> change. >> > it was more like a transference than it was a projection Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d%oLC.176833$Hv4.139083@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #686040 |
On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>> >>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>>> as >>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>> >>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>> >>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>>> they ALWAYS do? >>>> >>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>> and >>>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>>> >>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>> science. >>>> >>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>> >>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>> the >>> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >>> climate >>> change. >>> >> it was more like a transference than it was a projection > > Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. > It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a political organization like the IPCC! It's totally equivalent to saying" "You are stupid and ignorant of science, but you might understand the science if you'd take time to read the Democrat party platform!" You all get the joke here? Laugh is on the warmsters! Chortle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdlao3$o01$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686042 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:20:19 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: >> On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! >>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic >>>>>>> molecule as >>>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>>> >>>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* >>>>>> all that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>>> >>>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very >>>>> things they ALWAYS do? >>>>> >>>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects >>>>> are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>>> and because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with >>>>> concentration. >>>>> >>>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't >>>>> be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>>> >>>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>>> the actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC >>>> about climate change. >>>> >>> it was more like a transference than it was a projection >> >> Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. > > It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a > political organization like the IPCC! The IPCC is a scientific organization, kooky. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9i1qn.90u.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #686080 |
On 2018-05-17 6:37 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:20:19 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: >>> On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic >>>>>>>> molecule as >>>>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* >>>>>>> all that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very >>>>>> things they ALWAYS do? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects >>>>>> are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>>>> and because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with >>>>>> concentration. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't >>>>>> be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>>>> science. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>>>> >>>>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>>>> the actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC >>>>> about climate change. >>>>> >>>> it was more like a transference than it was a projection >>> >>> Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. >> >> It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a >> political organization like the IPCC! > > The IPCC is a scientific organization, kooky. > no one asked or mentioned that so its a who cares
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <P_qLC.164312$g%2.137277@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #686080 |
On 5/17/2018 9:37 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:20:19 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: >>> On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic >>>>>>>> molecule as >>>>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* >>>>>>> all that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very >>>>>> things they ALWAYS do? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects >>>>>> are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>>>> and because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with >>>>>> concentration. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't >>>>>> be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>>>> science. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>>>> >>>>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>>>> the actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC >>>>> about climate change. >>>>> >>>> it was more like a transference than it was a projection >>> >>> Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. >> >> It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a >> political organization like the IPCC! > > The IPCC is a scientific organization, kooky. Totally false. Fraudster. "IPCC is an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions." Obviously a political organization of countries backed by UN. It is probably THE premier propaganda arm of the global warming fraud scheme. Oh I forgot, if an anonymous voice (you) on the internet says something then it is automatically true and factual. Got it. Are you EVER going to tell us who you really are? Crookster. (How much are you paid per lying post?) Snicker (rule #5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdlfq9$o01$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686100 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:36:25 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/17/2018 9:37 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:20:19 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: >>>> On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>> melt! >>>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic >>>>>>>>> molecule as >>>>>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* >>>>>>>> all that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very >>>>>>> things they ALWAYS do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy >>>>>>> you would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 >>>>>>> effects are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 >>>>>>> absorption is saturated, and that only one wing of one band can >>>>>>> have an GHG effect and because it's a wing the relationship is not >>>>>>> linear with concentration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You >>>>>>> wouldn't be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and >>>>>>> pretending it's science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>>>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do >>>>>> understand the actual science all disagree with you and agree with >>>>>> the IPCC about climate change. >>>>>> >>>>> it was more like a transference than it was a projection >>>> >>>> Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. >>> >>> It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a >>> political organization like the IPCC! >> >> The IPCC is a scientific organization, kooky. > > Totally false. Fraudster. > > "IPCC is an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to > all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 > countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review > process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC > work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. > The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during > the plenary Sessions." > > Obviously a political organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change ---------- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body ... The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature ... Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports ... The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, [10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists ---------- SPNAK! -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3567e3b933137764993a60@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #686108 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <pdlfq9$o01$14@dont-email.me>, nad318b404 @gmail.invalid says... > > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:36:25 -0400, benj wrote: > > > On 5/17/2018 9:37 PM, Nadegda wrote: > >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >> melt! > >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:20:19 -0400, benj wrote: > >> > >>> On 5/17/2018 8:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: > >>>> On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: > >>>>> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: > >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >>>>>> melt! > >>>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm > >>>>>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic > >>>>>>>>> molecule as > >>>>>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* > >>>>>>>> all that stuff you just plagiarized? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very > >>>>>>> things they ALWAYS do? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy > >>>>>>> you would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 > >>>>>>> effects are blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 > >>>>>>> absorption is saturated, and that only one wing of one band can > >>>>>>> have an GHG effect and because it's a wing the relationship is not > >>>>>>> linear with concentration. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You > >>>>>>> wouldn't be cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and > >>>>>>> pretending it's science. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. > >>>>>>> Chortle (rule #5) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do > >>>>>> understand the actual science all disagree with you and agree with > >>>>>> the IPCC about climate change. > >>>>>> > >>>>> it was more like a transference than it was a projection > >>>> > >>>> Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. > >>> > >>> It's funny the way warmballers pretend that science comes out of a > >>> political organization like the IPCC! > >> > >> The IPCC is a scientific organization, kooky. > > > > Totally false. Fraudster. > > > > "IPCC is an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to > > all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 > > countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review > > process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC > > work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. > > The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during > > the plenary Sessions." > > > > Obviously a political organization > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change > > ---------- > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and > intergovernmental body > ... > The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the > work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its > assessment on the published literature > ... > Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary > basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports > ... > The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, > [10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate > scientists > ---------- > > SPNAK! They can make a panel on anything. I've personally punched over 4,000 myself. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 23:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdlh4d$85s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #686109 |
On 5/17/2018 11:09 PM, Checkmate wrote: > They can make a panel on anything. I've personally punched over 4,000 > myself. Made billions just puttin' out panel report and memos with faked hockey stick panel data too! I seen the secret emails, you know. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9jm5q.4uc.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #686110 |
On 2018-05-17 8:25 PM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 5/17/2018 11:09 PM, Checkmate wrote: >> They can make a panel on anything. I've personally punched over 4,000 >> myself. > > Made billions just puttin' out panel report and memos with faked hockey > stick panel data too! > > I seen the secret emails, you know. > i know where hoffa is
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9htrl.vu.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #686040 |
On 2018-05-17 5:06 PM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 5/17/2018 7:41 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-05-17 4:36 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:47:27 -0400, benj wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/17/2018 11:27 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/2018 8:51 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:45 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> so, if you are ready, what are the CO2 vibration modes ? >>>>>>> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm >>>>>> Figure 3 Molecular responses to radiation >>>>>> >>>>>> What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule >>>>>> as >>>>> [rest of obviously copy-and-pasted material deleted] >>>>> >>>>> Well done: you can google and wikipedia. But can you *understand* all >>>>> that stuff you just plagiarized? >>>>> >>>> Ever notice how libs always say everyone else is doing the very things >>>> they ALWAYS do? >>>> >>>> "Kanzi" if you had the tiniest understanding of CO2 spectroscopy you >>>> would understand what we mean when we say that most of CO2 effects are >>>> blocked by water vapor bands, that atmospheric CO2 absorption is >>>> saturated, and that only one wing of one band can have an GHG effect >>>> and >>>> because it's a wing the relationship is not linear with concentration. >>>> >>>> In other words if you knew 1/10 the science of Sergio, You wouldn't be >>>> cutting and pasting journalist fantasy screed and pretending it's >>>> science. >>>> >>>> You are just one more crook like Hillary. >>>> Chortle (rule #5) >>> >>> Nicely projected, kooktard, but the people who actually do understand >>> the >>> actual science all disagree with you and agree with the IPCC about >>> climate >>> change. >>> >> it was more like a transference than it was a projection > > Transference is not a common word in AUK dialect. > is that where i am
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web