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 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fme7jbFjk2mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686150 |
On 18/05/2018 5:40 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "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. **OK, as requested: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf > >> 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. **Not so. NO peer-reviewed evidence has been presented. > 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. **Then present your peer-reviewed science. > >> >>> >>> 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. **As a non-scientist, it may SOUND like peer-review to you. IT's not. And it's not how the peer-review process works. Here's a brief explanation: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16 ...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. **Again: Supply your PEER-REVIEWED science. A bunch of guys sitting around, talking about stuff is not peer-review. > >> >>> >>> 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.... **Nope. Supply your peer-reviewed science, if you think I am wrong. > > Well this is such peer reviewed evidence and you totally ignored it. **You have yet to supply any peer-reviewed science that invalidates AGW theory. > > > >> >>> >>> "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. **Forbes Magazine is not a scientific journal of note. It cannot be relied upon for accurate scientific information. I suppose you'll quote something from People, Newsweek or some other dodgy mag. Try using a SCIENCE journal next time, if you want to be taken seriously. > > 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. **Well, while you cite Forbes magazine, some denialist sites and other dodgy sources, I simply cite the most credible, PEER-REVIEWED science available. > > Short Version. You're a lot of talk, with little real knowledge and an > overinflated sense of your own importance. **Yep, when you can't supply some proper science, you just resort to insults. Very clever stuff. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <xLOdnYSRYN3m-WPHnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| 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. > > 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. > > Is this the Roy Spencer 'paper'in Remote Sensing ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm76ulF2rhoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686134 |
On 18/05/2018 3:28 PM, de chucka wrote: > 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. >> >> 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. >> >> > > > Is this the Roy Spencer 'paper'in Remote Sensing ? **Yep. It's this Roy Spencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Intelligent_design "In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[44] In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]" As big a moron as anyone who cites him for serious scientific proof of anything. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <FsidnZSioJS39GPHnZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #686136 |
On 18/05/2018 3:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 18/05/2018 3:28 PM, de chucka wrote: >> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> Is this the Roy Spencer 'paper'in Remote Sensing ? > > **Yep. It's this Roy Spencer: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Intelligent_design > > "In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I > intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy > for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of > evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that > intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no > less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am > not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. > Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in > evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical > tools they were taught in college."[44] > > In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became > convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better > scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model > was actually better able to explain the physical and biological > complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many > discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to > rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]" > > As big a moron as anyone who cites him for serious scientific proof of > anything. > ' Yep the Forbes article was him being interviewed by someone from the Heartland Institute' Spencer's paper was shown up to be a wrong model wrongly interpreted using crap science. Permanently if it was true it proved the El Nino/El Nina was caused by clouds; However it remains a favourite of the ilk of Scout and Benji's even if Spencer admitted he stuffed up'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdsr2q$73p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686138 |
On Fri, 18 May 2018 15:48:24 +1000, de chucka wrote: > On 18/05/2018 3:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 18/05/2018 3:28 PM, de chucka wrote: >>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Is this the Roy Spencer 'paper'in Remote Sensing ? >> >> **Yep. It's this Roy Spencer: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_ (scientist)#Intelligent_design >> >> "In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I >> intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy >> for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of >> evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that >> intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and >> no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I >> am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. >> Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith >> in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical >> tools they were taught in college."[44] >> >> In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became >> convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better >> scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model >> was actually better able to explain the physical and biological >> complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many >> discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to >> rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]" >> >> As big a moron as anyone who cites him for serious scientific proof of >> anything. >> > ' > Yep the Forbes article was him being interviewed by someone from the > Heartland Institute' > > Spencer's paper was shown up to be a wrong model wrongly interpreted > using crap science. Permanently if it was true it proved the El Nino/El > Nina was caused by clouds; > > However it remains a favourite of the ilk of Scout and Benji's even if > Spencer admitted he stuffed up' No response to this? I find that..."interesting". -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 23:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe01rb$s48$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686387 |
"vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message news:pdsr2q$73p$1@dont-email.me... > On Fri, 18 May 2018 15:48:24 +1000, de chucka wrote: > >> On 18/05/2018 3:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 18/05/2018 3:28 PM, de chucka wrote: >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is this the Roy Spencer 'paper'in Remote Sensing ? >>> >>> **Yep. It's this Roy Spencer: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_ > (scientist)#Intelligent_design >>> >>> "In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I >>> intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy >>> for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of >>> evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that >>> intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and >>> no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I >>> am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. >>> Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith >>> in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical >>> tools they were taught in college."[44] >>> >>> In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became >>> convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better >>> scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model >>> was actually better able to explain the physical and biological >>> complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many >>> discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to >>> rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]" >>> >>> As big a moron as anyone who cites him for serious scientific proof of >>> anything. >>> >> ' >> Yep the Forbes article was him being interviewed by someone from the >> Heartland Institute' >> >> Spencer's paper was shown up to be a wrong model wrongly interpreted >> using crap science. Permanently if it was true it proved the El Nino/El >> Nina was caused by clouds; >> >> However it remains a favourite of the ilk of Scout and Benji's even if >> Spencer admitted he stuffed up' > > No response to this? I find that..."interesting". What's to respond to? An vague unsupported allegation? Oh, sorry, that probably constitutes proof to a liberal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 22:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdg8ku$l59$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685656 |
"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. Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 11:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm44j8Fcs7tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685728 |
On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. > > Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. > > **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, depending on time of day and year. 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet warmer than it otherwise would be. Read this: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ "Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C)." So, that 280ppm of CO2 has kept the planet habitable for humans for more than 10,000 years. Too little CO2 and we freeze. Too much and we overheat. It's THAT simple. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 07:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdjrnb$1hih$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685879 |
On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >> >> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >> >> > > **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar > forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, > depending on time of day and year. > > 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet > warmer than it otherwise would be. so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 > > Read this: > > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ > > "Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average > temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F > (15°C)." so it would be an ICE planet, less water vapor in the air, less warming > > So, that 280ppm of CO2 has kept the planet habitable for humans for more > than 10,000 years. Too little CO2 and we freeze. Too much and we > overheat. It's THAT simple. no, water vapor is 3 to 4 times what CO2 can do, the Water Vapor keeps us from freezing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 07:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685919 |
On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>> >>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>> >>> >> >> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, >> depending on time of day and year. >> >> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >> warmer than it otherwise would be. > > so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. This is what I have stated: H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific and not over-simplify this matter. Do not misquote me again. > >> >> Read this: >> >> https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ >> >> "Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average >> temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F >> (15°C)." > > so it would be an ICE planet, less water vapor in the air, less warming **Yep. CO2 acts to keep the planet warm. Too much CO2 and the planet becomes too warm. Now, you're getting it. > >> >> So, that 280ppm of CO2 has kept the planet habitable for humans for more >> than 10,000 years. Too little CO2 and we freeze. Too much and we >> overheat. It's THAT simple. > > no, water vapor is 3 to 4 times what CO2 can do, the Water Vapor keeps > us from freezing. **Except, that without CO2, you don't have water vapour. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 21:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl93q$v8r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685985 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... > On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>> >>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, >>> depending on time of day and year. >>> >>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >> >> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 > > **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. > > This is what I have stated: > > H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% > CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% > > The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance varies > according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific and not > over-simplify this matter. > > Do not misquote me again. So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're suppose to accept you know what you're talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686070 |
On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>> >>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, >>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>> >>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>> >>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >> >> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >> >> This is what I have stated: >> >> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >> >> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific >> and not over-simplify this matter. >> >> Do not misquote me again. > > So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're suppose > to accept you know what you're talking about? > > **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdlelc$ol1$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686077 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, >>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>> >>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>> >>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>> >>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>> >>> This is what I have stated: >>> >>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>> >>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance varies >>> according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific and not >>> over-simplify this matter. >>> >>> Do not misquote me again. >> >> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're suppose to >> accept you know what you're talking about? >> >> > > **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686102 |
On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ 26%, >>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>> >>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>> >>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>>> >>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>> >>>> This is what I have stated: >>>> >>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>> >>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >>>> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific >>>> and not over-simplify this matter. >>>> >>>> Do not misquote me again. >>> >>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're >>> suppose to accept you know what you're talking about? >>> >>> >> >> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. > > So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. > > **Read this and get back to me: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe01rb$s48$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686380 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of Solar >>>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ >>>>>>> 26%, >>>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>>> >>>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>>>> >>>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>>> >>>>> This is what I have stated: >>>>> >>>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>>> >>>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >>>>> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific >>>>> and not over-simplify this matter. >>>>> >>>>> Do not misquote me again. >>>> >>>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're suppose >>>> to accept you know what you're talking about? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. >> >> So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. >> >> > > **Read this and get back to me: > > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think supports your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmhlidFbrgiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686589 |
On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of >>>>>>>> Solar >>>>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ >>>>>>>> 26%, >>>>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>>>>> >>>>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is what I have stated: >>>>>> >>>>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >>>>>> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be >>>>>> specific and not over-simplify this matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do not misquote me again. >>>>> >>>>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're >>>>> suppose to accept you know what you're talking about? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. >>> >>> So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. >>> >>> >> >> **Read this and get back to me: >> >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> > > No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think supports > your claim. > > **The entire section. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 02:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe0fbg$rfp$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686608 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmhlidFbrgiU2@mid.individual.net... > On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of >>>>>>>>> Solar >>>>>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ >>>>>>>>> 26%, >>>>>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this >>>>>>>>> planet >>>>>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is what I have stated: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >>>>>>> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be specific >>>>>>> and not over-simplify this matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do not misquote me again. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're >>>>>> suppose to accept you know what you're talking about? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just >>>>> fine. >>>> >>>> So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **Read this and get back to me: >>> >>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> >> No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think supports >> your claim. >> >> > > **The entire section. Fails to support the numbers you claimed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe1bnv$162n$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #686618 |
On 5/22/2018 2:47 AM, Scout wrote: > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>> >>> No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think >>> supports your claim. >> >> **The entire section. > > Fails to support the numbers you claimed. Wrong. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe2c2p$717$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686632 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:pe1bnv$162n$3@gioia.aioe.org... > On 5/22/2018 2:47 AM, Scout wrote: >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>>> No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think supports >>>> your claim. >>> >>> **The entire section. >> >> Fails to support the numbers you claimed. > > Wrong. Then quote the specific verbiage in which your numbers appear. Can't do it can you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 10:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmjqn7FrqsuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686618 |
On 22/05/2018 4:47 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmhlidFbrgiU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of >>>>>>>>>> Solar >>>>>>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% >>>>>>>>>> ~ 26%, >>>>>>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this >>>>>>>>>> planet >>>>>>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as >>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is what I have stated: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the >>>>>>>> significance varies according to place, time and year. It is >>>>>>>> vital to be specific and not over-simplify this matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do not misquote me again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're >>>>>>> suppose to accept you know what you're talking about? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just >>>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Read this and get back to me: >>>> >>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>> >>> No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think >>> supports your claim. >>> >>> >> >> **The entire section. > > Fails to support the numbers you claimed. **Incorrect. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web