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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8254363-6c25-4d17-8a87-d881fa2bf43d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689254 |
....The gravitational constant in dynes is, 6.672E-12, gm,cm,sec^2 Times mass of earth, 5.972E grams Divided by radius of earth squared, 4.1E17 Gives the dyne of 980 cm/s, for force of gravity at earths surface. According to Newton's formula of GMm/d^2 .. .... What this means is that a quantity of mass at rest at earth's surface, experiences the force as though being accelerated at 980 cm in 1 sec. 454 grams x 980 cm = 444,822.16 dynes or 1 pound of force This is the force to accelerate 1 kilogram 444.8 cm in 1 sec Kinetic energy after 1 sec is dyne squared, x 2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b60fd96c-9673-4531-8bbc-6cbf68d2d783@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689257 |
....Times mass of earth, 5.972E grams Divided by radius of earth squared, 4.1E17 ... .... Thats 5.972 E27 grams, mass of earth 4.1 E17 for radius of earth squared, in centimeters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9ab6585-f2ca-4510-9108-7f9f8aa745b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689274 |
... Gravitational constant is 6.672 E-8 dynes x mass of earth in grams, 5.972E27 Divided by eaŕth's radius squared in centimeters, 4.1E17 Is the dyne 980.6cm for force of gravity at earth's surface .... 980.6 dynes, x 453.592 grams, 1 pound, is 444,822.16 dynes Or force that can move 1 kilogram 4.1 meters in 1 sec Converting dynes to kinetic energy,,, Suppose one has, 10 grams, moved from stop, 200 cm in 1 sec, Consolidating to cm is 2000 dynes, A dyne is, gram, centimeters, sec ^2 So if this force is applied over 5 secs, the seconds are consolidated into the centimeters, which them means, 1 gram, x 10,000 cm, x 1 sec squared. 10,000 dynes 1st derivative 10,000 2nd derivative 2, for conversion to cm,gram, per second, which is then a QUANTITY, in ergs, which can be added and subtracted, as also the force can be, being a direct product of quantity of mass. Velocity can also be added and subtracted. Or, dynes squared x 2, which is the same as converting force to velocity, x 2, square divided by 2, as Newton's 1/2mv^2, or Velocity squared divided by 2. Which is the 'function' to derive the 'quantity' of kinetic energy which is defined as the 'capacity to do work', or move or affect the motion of specific quantities mass. Understood to be the energy of the velocity and mass, of mass in motion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbd60162-bb0c-461b-9f90-2ac43989dbfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689693 |
... 980.6 dynes, x 453.592 grams, 1 pound, is 444,822.16 dynes Or force that can move 1 kilogram 4.1 meters in 1 sec ... My typo, correction The force that can move 1 kilogram, 4.448 meters in one sec Which is 3.957 E11 ergs Or 3.957 E4 Joules
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 21:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfb36b8e-1076-444f-bb7b-1d94943c9e00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689257 |
My error. Reference on internet is all screwed up. Gravitational constant is 6.672 E-8 dynes x mass of earth in grams Divided by eaŕth's radius squared in centimeters Is the dyne 980.6cm for force of gravity at earth's surface
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c27ca0bb-fdc9-4bc5-8c6f-cc75173f0dda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689283 |
The initial topic of this discussion is co2 levels of the atmosphere. With always the presumption that this level is driven by humans and that everyone on board together can successfully abandon the use of carbon, stop the atmospheric rise, stop the added retention of IR, hold temperature rise at a liveable level, and live happily ever after. The presumption is that increased levels of co2 drive temperature, and that the natural co2 is the most vital component of determination of natural equilibrium 'average' temperature, other than water vapor. Solar insolation at, 178Wm-2 Energy returned to the surface by GHGs, 324Wm-2 The only direct evidence of the relationship of changing co2 levels in the atmosphere and relevance to changing temperature are the ice cores. From Antarctica, cores obtained from 650,000 exist. Analysis of co2 trapped in the ice are correlated with levels of isotopes of nitrogen which are an indicator of temperature. The exact quantifications may not be correct. Fundamental and unrectified problems exist with joining this to sampling of air. But over this record of 650K yrs, the relation of co2 and temperature change, shows in general a 1000yr lapse with the co2 following the temperature gradient. What this means, is that when temperature rises, it is doing so for some other reason. After about a 1000yrs, co2 starts to rise. But when it does, no effect in the temperature gradient is apparent. Then temperature starts to fall and co2 continues to rise for 1000 yrs. Obviously here co2 rise is not driving temperature. Greenies hate their own science. That temperatures are driven by GHGs is non-sense, every part and tenet bogus, and to make it viable to the uneducated, proper theoretical science in pbysics, chemistry, thermodynamics, geo-physics and general physical science is destroyed and suppressed. If I were a student even, paying big money to get filled up with the worthless and bogus 'science', I would complain. Not to mention all the money this bogus theoretical science gets from their cash cow of the FALSE BELIEF in anthropogenic global warming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25728fc7-7319-482f-b6a7-f84240a520a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #687510 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 10:43:35 AM UTC-7, kdt...@gmail.com wrote: > ... > ..Air pressure is 14.7 PSI because above each square inch of the Earth's > surface there is 14.7 pounds of air, held there by gravity.. > .... > > Just adding some basics,, > > The pressure of 14.7 is like you say from the effect of gravity. But pressure and volume are more intrinsic and of direct inverse proportion, > > The interior of a sphere has least surface area. With any other shape, surface area is greater at same volume. > > However pressure and volume remain inverse. > If volume is doubled, pressure is one half. > If pressure is doubled by more moles or temperature, and then allowed to return to initial pressure by increasing volume, volume will double, as pressure returns to intial pressure, and equilibrium. > > A cylinder with a piston, that begins at volume of 22.4 liters at stp would contain 1 mole of air. > > If you increased temperature 1 degC, from intial temperature of 300K, the volume with the moveable piston will increase 1/300. To do this, it must perform work against the ambient air pressure. If the piston exerted into a vacuum mechanically, for increasing the temperature of the 1 mole of gas, 1deg, it will exert the force of the 'Gas Constant' R, which is 8.3146 Joules. This is 6447.7 dynes. Which is the energy to accelerate 1 kilogram, 6.4477cm in 1 sec. which in an unrestricted environment, would then have final or coasting velocity of 2× 6.4477cm, or 12.894cm/sec > > An erg is, gram, cm, sec > A dyne is, gram, cm, sec^2 > > Dyne squared × 2 = kinetic energy. Or Newton's formula, velocity squared divided by two, come out the same. > > A pound is a unit of force, developed by 1 slug of mass in earth's gravity near the surface, by 32.2ft/sec^2. > > 1 pound is 444822.16 dynes. A flaming bush that never burns, magnified by the reciprocal of the endless vastness of space, demonstrating the vast nothingness of Jeremy's so-called thought process. Jeremy has yet to show how any Linux program does anything above the LCD on Linux. Promotion is a wonderful thing and consumer stupidity is even better. - Top Six Ways Jeremy Trolls!! https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfkup/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/= Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 20:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe4vrb$7tb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686844 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **The whole thing. >>>> >>>> The whole thing? >>> >>> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >>> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >>> >>>> >>>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >>> >>> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >>> refuse to read. >> >> You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. > > **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. > >> >> Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. > > **It's the whole document. So, what you're saying is that it doesn't support your numbers otherwise it wouldn't take an entire document to establish that the numbers you presented were correct. Hey, if you don't have the evidence then just say so. As it is I've read your ENTIRE cite and it does NOT support your numbers and you can't show me where it does because they aren't in there. In short Trevor, you're a fucking liar. Now, in the future, I will NOT accept your claim that any evidence is "in there" rather you will have to produce the cite and if the cite is more than 3 pages in length to identify the SPECIFIC portion(s) within your cite that support your claim, and to quote the specific verbiage which DIRECTLY supports the claim you were asked to support. Failure to do that will mean your cite will be judged invalid, evidence you can't properly back up your claims and thus your claims will be rejected as a result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 10:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmmgssFfs1oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686849 |
On 24/05/2018 10:09 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data >>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **The whole thing. >>>>> >>>>> The whole thing? >>>> >>>> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >>>> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >>>> >>>> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >>>> refuse to read. >>> >>> You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. >> >> **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. >> >>> >>> Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. >> >> **It's the whole document. > > So, what you're saying is that it doesn't support your numbers otherwise it > wouldn't take an entire document to establish that the numbers you > presented > were correct. **Bullshit. That's just a manifestation of your ignorance of science. Solar forcing of atmospheric gases is a complicated subject. I made it simple for you. You refused to accept the simple explanation, so I provided the complicated explanation. You refused to read the complicated explanation (or you failed to understand it). Not my problem. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe5a96$v39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686855 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmmgssFfs1oU1@mid.individual.net... > On 24/05/2018 10:09 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 >>>>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **The whole thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole thing? >>>>> >>>>> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >>>>> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >>>>> >>>>> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >>>>> refuse to read. >>>> >>>> You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. >>> >>> **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. >>> >>>> >>>> Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. >>> >>> **It's the whole document. >> >> So, what you're saying is that it doesn't support your numbers otherwise >> it >> wouldn't take an entire document to establish that the numbers you >> presented >> were correct. > > **Bullshit. That's just a manifestation of your ignorance of science. My ignorance or knowledge of science is immaterial to the fact that the source you cited does NOT support the numbers you were asked to support. That's the ONLY bullshit going on. After all, just look at how desperately you're attempting to void backing up those claims. You said it, now you don't want to be accountable for your claims. You post bullshit that has nothing to do with what you were asked to support, you post a massive source and then assert it's up to me to find the data to support YOUR claim. Well, I finally take the time to read through the whole thing as you said was necessary. End result, is the data STILL isn't there. You didn't bother to read your own cite, you didn't bother to see if it supported your claims. You hoped you could bluster your way out by citing something so vague, or later so massive that you didn't think anyone would bother to check and see if it actually supported your claims. Now you're pissed because I did check and it doesn't support the claims you were asked to back up. So....you claim is crap, your research is crap, your assurances are crap, and you are a piece of crap. Go away, you're a waste of time and you have no idea of whether what you're supporting is actually science....or just a big rip off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl87n$r44$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685803 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... > Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the > available atmospheric CO2. You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686056 |
On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >> available atmospheric CO2. > > You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? > **Sure: www.ipcc.ch Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want to see. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 21:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdlas8$7if$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686075 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >>> available atmospheric CO2. >> >> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >> > > **Sure: > > www.ipcc.ch > > Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want to > see. The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: https://catalog.loc.gov/ Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want to see. There. I have now proven that Trevor is totally and utterly wrong and produced proof according to his own standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686088 |
On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >>>> available atmospheric CO2. >>> >>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>> >> >> **Sure: >> >> www.ipcc.ch >> >> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >> want to see. > > The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: > > https://catalog.loc.gov/ **The IPCC reports are there. > > Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want > to see. **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW theory. > > There. I have now proven that Trevor is totally and utterly wrong and > produced proof according to his own standards. **You just proved that the IPCC reports are in the Library of Congress: https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=ipcc&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=25&sk=en_US -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 22:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdleld$ol1$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686089 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >>>>> available atmospheric CO2. >>>> >>>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>>> >>> >>> **Sure: >>> >>> www.ipcc.ch >>> >>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want >>> to see. >> >> The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: >> >> https://catalog.loc.gov/ > > **The IPCC reports are there. > >> >> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want >> to see. > > **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW theory. Again: I note your inability to read the science that disproves the AGW theory. >> There. I have now proven that Trevor is totally and utterly wrong and >> produced proof according to his own standards. > > **You just proved that the IPCC reports are in the Library of Congress: > > https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=ipcc&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=25&sk=en_US I also proved they have been refuted according to your standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 14:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm71skF1qk2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686107 |
On 18/05/2018 12:31 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of >>>>>> the available atmospheric CO2. >>>>> >>>>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Sure: >>>> >>>> www.ipcc.ch >>>> >>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>> want to see. >>> >>> The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: >>> >>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >> >> **The IPCC reports are there. >> >>> >>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>> want to see. >> >> **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW >> theory. > > Again: I note your inability to read the science that disproves the AGW > theory. **You are finally correct about something. I cannot read any science that disproves AGW theory. None exists. You cannot provide any peer-reviewed science to prove your claims. > >>> There. I have now proven that Trevor is totally and utterly wrong and >>> produced proof according to his own standards. >> >> **You just proved that the IPCC reports are in the Library of Congress: >> >> https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=ipcc&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=25&sk=en_US >> > > I also proved they have been refuted according to your standards. **No, you didn't. There is no peer-reviewed science to refute AGW theory. You can't present it, because it doesn't exist. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 00:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdlmkc$too$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686119 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm71skF1qk2U1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 12:31 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >>>>>>> available atmospheric CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Sure: >>>>> >>>>> www.ipcc.ch >>>>> >>>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>>> want to see. >>>> >>>> The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: >>>> >>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>> >>> **The IPCC reports are there. >>> >>>> >>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you want >>>> to see. >>> >>> **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW >>> theory. >> >> Again: I note your inability to read the science that disproves the AGW >> theory. > > **You are finally correct about something. I cannot read any science that > disproves AGW theory. None exists. You cannot provide any peer-reviewed > science to prove your claims. I certainly can, and I cited you a source for it. But I'm feeling generous, and since I know the facts wont matter to you in the least.... "As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere. The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it." https://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html Oh, but you're going to say that just one paper that contradicts AGW.... "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed." https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html Well shit, looks like all the crap your copy cat has been posting was just that. Crap. Seems that energy absorption isn't as high as claimed, and the CO2 and NO actual reflect solar heat back into space. So, not only did you state you refuse to read such papers, but you claimed that papers like this simply don't exist. That's TWO MAJOR ERRORS by you in quick order. Basic science tells us to look at ALL the data. To consider ALL the views. To always contemplate the notion that any theory can be wrong in part or in whole. You deny all those basic concepts of science. Maybe you're the one that lacks the skills in basic science. You certainly lack every other skill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm766hF2nf8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686128 |
On 18/05/2018 2:50 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm71skF1qk2U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 12:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of >>>>>>>> the available atmospheric CO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Sure: >>>>>> >>>>>> www.ipcc.ch >>>>>> >>>>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>>>> want to see. >>>>> >>>>> The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: >>>>> >>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>> >>>> **The IPCC reports are there. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>>> want to see. >>>> >>>> **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW >>>> theory. >>> >>> Again: I note your inability to read the science that disproves the >>> AGW theory. >> >> **You are finally correct about something. I cannot read any science >> that disproves AGW theory. None exists. You cannot provide any >> peer-reviewed science to prove your claims. > > I certainly can, and I cited you a source for it. **In your words: Bullshit. There is not one shred of peer-reviewed evidence that sheds any doubt on the present AGW theory. You failed to provide it, because none exists. > > But I'm feeling generous, and since I know the facts wont matter to you > in the least.... > > "As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin > Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from > the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm > that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast > majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal > mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than > deposited into earth's lower atmosphere. > > The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts > claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are > a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using > Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), > both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in > the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy > rather than absorb it." **LOL! You STILL don't understand what 'peer-reviewed science' is. Principia Scientific International is a seriously whacked out bunch of nutters, who have not had their science peer-reviewed. > > https://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html > > > Oh, but you're going to say that just one paper that contradicts AGW.... **Nope. A paper that has not been peer-reviewed is suspect. At the very least. Natural News is worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News#Criticism_and_controversies None of which surprises me. That is the best, most reliable science you can source, says a great deal about your inability to filter out complete insanity, masquerading as science. > > "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's > atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than > alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the > peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far > less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer > models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases > in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have > claimed." > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html **Remind me: How long has Forbes magazine been a science journal of note? Be precise in your answer. Moreover, why do you persist in refusing to read the premier documents (peer-reviewed ones, at that) that pertain to AGW theory? That would, of course be: www.ipcc.ch Take as much space as you need to respond. > > > Well shit, looks like all the crap your copy cat has been posting was > just that. Crap. Seems that energy absorption isn't as high as claimed, > and the CO2 and NO actual reflect solar heat back into space. **Again: www.ipcc.ch Read it and get back to me. > > So, not only did you state you refuse to read such papers, but you > claimed that papers like this simply don't exist. **They're not peer-reviewed. They're just written by anti-vaxers and other assorted nutters. You're an anti-vaxer now too? > > That's TWO MAJOR ERRORS by you in quick order. Basic science tells us to > look at ALL the data. To consider ALL the views. To always contemplate > the notion that any theory can be wrong in part or in whole. **That's just it: You DON'T consider all the views. I have read all the competing theories. AGW theory is the best explanation for the present warming trend. > > You deny all those basic concepts of science. **Well, no, I don't. You are the one who has failed to read the premier scientific documents that pertain to AGW theory. Why is that? > > Maybe you're the one that lacks the skills in basic science. You > certainly lack every other skill. **LOL! -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <n9-dnTZ7QZci-mPHnZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #686131 |
> >> "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's >> atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than >> alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the >> peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far >> less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer >> models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases >> in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have >> claimed." >> >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html > > > **Remind me: How long has Forbes magazine been a science journal of note? This goes back to Roy Spencers paper in Remote Sensing that is an open access 'geography journal Remote Access. Spencer came out later and said even if his debunked paper was correct it wouldn't disprove AGM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 03:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdm16o$lmn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686131 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm766hF2nf8U1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 2:50 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm71skF1qk2U1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 12:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm6phrFa42U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:27 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm6o2oFrpU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:50 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm3hjqF90eoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of >>>>>>>>> the available atmospheric CO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You keep making this assertion. Care to back it up? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Sure: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>>>>> want to see. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proof to counter all those claims can be found here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>> >>>>> **The IPCC reports are there. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Read it all. You'll learn a lot and you will find ALL the data you >>>>>> want to see. >>>>> >>>>> **Again: I note your inability to read the science surrounding AGW >>>>> theory. >>>> >>>> Again: I note your inability to read the science that disproves the AGW >>>> theory. >>> >>> **You are finally correct about something. I cannot read any science >>> that disproves AGW theory. None exists. You cannot provide any >>> peer-reviewed science to prove your claims. >> >> I certainly can, and I cited you a source for it. > > **In your words: Bullshit. But we're not going by my standards, but YOURS. Posting a link to the front page of a source that may or may not have the evidence claimed is what you consider a suitable cite. So by your own standards you must accept claims as being supported because I posted a link.....OR.....you're going to have to go back and cite the ACTUAL documents that support what you claim. > There is not one shred of peer-reviewed evidence that sheds any doubt on > the present AGW theory. You failed to provide it, because none exists. So even when presented such evidence......it's total and utter denial. Then you wonder why people don't believe you. It's because you see ONLY what you want to see, rather than looking at everything and letting the actual science determine what is or isn't going on. > >> >> But I'm feeling generous, and since I know the facts wont matter to you >> in the least.... >> >> "As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak >> and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the >> earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that >> took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority >> of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection >> (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's >> lower atmosphere. >> >> The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts >> claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are >> a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using >> Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), >> both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in >> the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy >> rather than absorb it." > > **LOL! > > You STILL don't understand what 'peer-reviewed science' is. Principia > Scientific International is a seriously whacked out bunch of nutters, who > have not had their science peer-reviewed. "Principia Scientific International is a community of scientists deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking without a preconceived outcome. Principia Scientific International is a community of scientists deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking without a preconceived outcome" Sounds like a peer review to me....of course if you're not interested in the actual facts then of course you're going to invent excuses to ignore the findings presented. > >> >> https://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html >> Oh, but you're going to say that just one paper that contradicts AGW.... > > **Nope. A paper that has not been peer-reviewed is suspect. At the very > least. Natural News is worse: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News#Criticism_and_controversies > > None of which surprises me. That is the best, most reliable science you > can source, says a great deal about your inability to filter out complete > insanity, masquerading as science. So you admit you were wrong above when you said that there isn't a shred of peer=reviewed evidence that disproves AGW theory.... Well this is such peer reviewed evidence and you totally ignored it. > >> >> "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's >> atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than >> alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the >> peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far >> less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models >> have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in >> atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have >> claimed." >> >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html > > **Remind me: How long has Forbes magazine been a science journal of note? > > Be precise in your answer. I see, so you attack the messenger because you don't like the message. I think it's quite clear that when facts and evidence are presented that contradict what you want to believe rather than reexamining what you think you know....you simply come up with excuses to wallow in your preconceived ignorance all the while claiming superior knowledge of all facets of a subject which you deny being an expert in. Short Version. You're a lot of talk, with little real knowledge and an overinflated sense of your own importance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web