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 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl87n$r44$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685811 |
"Sergio" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message news:pdi4fo$ppc$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water) >>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>> >>>>> Actually he's right. >>>> >>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution of >>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both >>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2 >>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>> >>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for >>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all >>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion >>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them >>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>> >>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>> >>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>> >>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>> >>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the greenhouse >>>>> effect...." >>>>> >>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>> >>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2, >>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>> >>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is naturally >>> occurring. >> >> **99%? You sure about that? >> >> Supply your supporting data. >> >>> >>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% input >>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >> >> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >> >> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% > > cite ? or are you just making this stuff up ? > >> >> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the >> available atmospheric CO2. > > Cite ? > I will note that over 24 hours later, Trevor has yet to produce any sources or cites for these claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685811 |
On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million
>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later,
>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And
>>>>>>>> now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2
>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this
>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or
>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water)
>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your
>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually he's right.
>>>>
>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution of
>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both
>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a
>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2
>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "1. Water Vapor
>>>>>
>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for
>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all
>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion
>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback
>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which
>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next
>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them
>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented
>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11
>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse
>>>>> gases in the atmosphere"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list
>>>>>
>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases
>>>>>
>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the greenhouse
>>>>> effect...."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html
>>>>
>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2,
>>>> methane and the other GHGs.
>>>
>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is naturally
>>> occurring.
>>
>> **99%? You sure about that?
>>
>> Supply your supporting data.
**Supply your data.
>>
>>>
>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% input
>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet.
>>
>> **Here are my calculations to support my case:
>>
>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72%
>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26%
>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9%
>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7%
>
> cite ?
** www.ipcc.ch
Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims.
or are you just making this stuff up ?
**Unlike you, no. And, unlike you, I supply cites when requested, while
you supply nothing.
>
>>
>> Over the past 150 years, humans have added approximately 43% of the
>> available atmospheric CO2.
>
> Cite ?
** www.ipcc.ch
>
>>
>> Therefore, compared to natural CO2 sources, humans have contributed
>> significantly more than your 1% claim.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Seems quite a stretch given that such global warming cycles have been
>>> well establish AND we are known to be in such a period of global
>>> warming and have been for some 12,000 years.
>>
>> **Not quite. Up until the 19th century, this planet had a relatively
>> benign climate, with only minor medium term variations in temperature:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>
>>
> your link shows Global Cooling is here
**And yet, the planet is WARMING. How weird is that? Despite the fact
that the planet is warming and every climatologist on the planet agrees
it is warming, you and only you, claim it is cooling. Why is that? What
special knowledge do you have to suggest that all the climatologists are
wrong?
>
>
> this one says we are due for an ice age;
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
**Well, no, it doesn't.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 21:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdldce$ivd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686076 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... > On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water) >>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>> >>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution of >>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both >>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2 >>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>> >>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for >>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all >>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion >>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them >>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>> >>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>> >>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>> >>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the greenhouse >>>>>> effect...." >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>> >>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2, >>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>> >>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is naturally >>>> occurring. >>> >>> **99%? You sure about that? >>> >>> Supply your supporting data. > > **Supply your data. > >>> >>>> >>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% input >>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>> >>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>> >>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >> >> cite ? > > ** www.ipcc.ch > > Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard you just set can be found at: https://catalog.loc.gov/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686097 |
On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water) >>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>> >>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution of >>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both >>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2 >>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for >>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all >>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion >>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them >>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the greenhouse >>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>> >>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2, >>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is naturally >>>>> occurring. >>>> >>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>> >>>> Supply your supporting data. >> >> **Supply your data. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% input >>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>> >>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>> >>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>> >>> cite ? >> >> ** www.ipcc.ch >> >> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. > > Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to > disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard you > just set can be found at: > > https://catalog.loc.gov/ > **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 synthesis report on radiative forcing: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf -- 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 | <pe01ra$s48$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686376 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that >>>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more or >>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also water) >>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both >>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2 >>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them >>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the greenhouse >>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2, >>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>> naturally >>>>>> occurring. >>>>> >>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>> >>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>> >>> **Supply your data. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% >>>>>> input >>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>> >>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>> >>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>> >>>> cite ? >>> >>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>> >>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >> >> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard you >> just set can be found at: >> >> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >> > > **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 synthesis > report on radiative forcing: > > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686588 |
On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per million >>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, both >>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of CO2 >>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds >>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of CO2, >>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>> >>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>> >>>> **Supply your data. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% >>>>>>> input >>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>> >>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>> >>>>> cite ? >>>> >>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>> >>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>> >>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >>> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard >>> you just set can be found at: >>> >>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>> >> >> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >> >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> > > The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain the correct context. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 02:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe0fbg$rfp$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686607 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... > On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all that >>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously more >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to your >>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The contribution >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, >>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of >>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next >>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask >>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of >>>>>>>>> CO2, >>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>> >>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% >>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>> >>>>>> cite ? >>>>> >>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>> >>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>> >>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >>>> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard you >>>> just set can be found at: >>>> >>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>> >>> >>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 synthesis >>> report on radiative forcing: >>> >>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> >> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. > > **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to pages > 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain the > correct context. Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 11:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe1bp9$162n$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #686617 |
On 5/22/2018 2:46 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 >>> >>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >> >> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain >> the correct context. > > Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. Then hie thee to thy optometrist, stat! -- "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 | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 10:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686617 |
On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, >>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect >>>>>>>>>> of CO2 >>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds >>>>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the >>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can >>>>>>>>>>> ask them >>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of >>>>>>>>>> CO2, >>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of >>>>>>>>> 1% input >>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>> >>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>> >>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >>>>> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard >>>>> you just set can be found at: >>>>> >>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>> >>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>> >>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >> >> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain >> the correct context. > > Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 20:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe2k5u$c5f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686706 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... > On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, >>>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect of >>>>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the >>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask >>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of >>>>>>>>>>> CO2, >>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of 1% >>>>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>> >>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >>>>>> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard >>>>>> you just set can be found at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>> >>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >>> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain >>> the correct context. >> >> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. > > > **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in which your numbers are validated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686717 |
On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect >>>>>>>>>>>> of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can >>>>>>>>>>>>> ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects >>>>>>>>>>>> of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of >>>>>>>>>>> 1% input >>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>> >>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >>>> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to >>>> gain the correct context. >>> >>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >> >> >> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. > > Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in which > your numbers are validated. > > **The whole thing. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 00:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe2qr1$bdg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686725 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, >>>>>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect >>>>>>>>>>>>> of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of >>>>>>>>>>>> 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary to >>>>>>>> disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the standard >>>>>>>> you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>> >>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >>>>> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to gain >>>>> the correct context. >>>> >>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>> >>> >>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >> >> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in which >> your numbers are validated. >> >> > > **The whole thing. The whole thing? I accept your admission you made up the whole thing, and that you have no proof that AGM is having any significant impact on climate. There. Problem solved. Climate change is still a natural process. Try again if you can ever come up with some proof to back up your bullshit claims. Until then, I will note you make lots of claims, assertions, and statements while your ability to back them up is all but nonexistent even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the whole issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 16:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686733 |
On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>> >>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>> >>>> >>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>> >>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>> which your numbers are validated. >>> >>> >> >> **The whole thing. > > The whole thing? **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. > > I accept your admission you made up the whole thing **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you refuse to read. , and that you have > no proof that AGM is having any significant impact on climate. **Proof? "Proof" does not exist in AGW theory. All we have is (at present) around 95% certainty. > > There. > > Problem solved. > > Climate change is still a natural process. **No one disputes that. However, human emissions of CO2 is changing that process. > > Try again if you can ever come up with some proof to back up your > bullshit claims. **I've provided you with the appropriate and requested cites. If you can't be bothered reading them, then that's your problem. > > Until then, I will note you make lots of claims, assertions, and > statements while your ability to back them up is all but nonexistent > even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the whole issue. **I provided the requested cite. Read it. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 08:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lfnagd1s46fllmto9le3n36lkabfktl13q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686751 |
On Wed, 23 May 2018 16:01:48 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>> >>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **The whole thing. >> >> The whole thing? > >**That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. > >> >> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing > >**Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >refuse to read. > > >, and that you have >> no proof that AGM is having any significant impact on climate. > >**Proof? "Proof" does not exist in AGW theory. All we have is (at >present) around 95% certainty. > >> >> There. >> >> Problem solved. >> >> Climate change is still a natural process. > >**No one disputes that. However, human emissions of CO2 is changing that >process. > >> >> Try again if you can ever come up with some proof to back up your >> bullshit claims. > > >**I've provided you with the appropriate and requested cites. If you >can't be bothered reading them, then that's your problem. > >> >> Until then, I will note you make lots of claims, assertions, and >> statements while your ability to back them up is all but nonexistent >> even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the whole issue. > >**I provided the requested cite. Read it. There is no shortage of puffed-up, posturing weasels in the alarmist camp. There is a usenet group for the topic of this thread: alt.global-warming But wannabe doom-bloggers with too much time on their hands tend to spew alarmist FUD about AGW to whatever group they happen to infest at the moment. Boorish whiners are actively engaged in the opposite of this: http://matthewcleek.com/quotes-from-the-noticer-andy-andrews/ “You must become a person that others want to be around! This is far and away the greatest success secret in existence.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 10:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <K6fNC.103547$np1.6880@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #686783 |
On 5/23/2018 8:39 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2018 16:01:48 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **The whole thing. >>> >>> The whole thing? >> >> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >> >>> >>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >> >> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >> refuse to read. >> >> >> , and that you have >>> no proof that AGM is having any significant impact on climate. >> >> **Proof? "Proof" does not exist in AGW theory. All we have is (at >> present) around 95% certainty. >> >>> >>> There. >>> >>> Problem solved. >>> >>> Climate change is still a natural process. >> >> **No one disputes that. However, human emissions of CO2 is changing that >> process. >> >>> >>> Try again if you can ever come up with some proof to back up your >>> bullshit claims. >> >> >> **I've provided you with the appropriate and requested cites. If you >> can't be bothered reading them, then that's your problem. >> >>> >>> Until then, I will note you make lots of claims, assertions, and >>> statements while your ability to back them up is all but nonexistent >>> even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the whole issue. >> >> **I provided the requested cite. Read it. > > There is no shortage of puffed-up, posturing weasels in the alarmist > camp. > > There is a usenet group for the topic of this thread: > alt.global-warming > > But wannabe doom-bloggers with too much time on their hands tend to > spew alarmist FUD about AGW to whatever group they happen to infest at > the moment. > > Boorish whiners are actively engaged in the opposite of this: > > http://matthewcleek.com/quotes-from-the-noticer-andy-andrews/ > “You must become a person that others want to be around! This is far > and away the greatest success secret in existence.” > If you want to be the person I want to be around, that is easy. Simply send regular donations to my account at MakeMeRich@Payapal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 07:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmm693FdntsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686783 |
On 23/05/2018 10:39 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2018 16:01:48 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **The whole thing. >>> >>> The whole thing? >> >> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >> >>> >>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >> >> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >> refuse to read. >> >> >> , and that you have >>> no proof that AGM is having any significant impact on climate. >> >> **Proof? "Proof" does not exist in AGW theory. All we have is (at >> present) around 95% certainty. >> >>> >>> There. >>> >>> Problem solved. >>> >>> Climate change is still a natural process. >> >> **No one disputes that. However, human emissions of CO2 is changing that >> process. >> >>> >>> Try again if you can ever come up with some proof to back up your >>> bullshit claims. >> >> >> **I've provided you with the appropriate and requested cites. If you >> can't be bothered reading them, then that's your problem. >> >>> >>> Until then, I will note you make lots of claims, assertions, and >>> statements while your ability to back them up is all but nonexistent >>> even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the whole issue. >> >> **I provided the requested cite. Read it. > > There is no shortage of puffed-up, posturing weasels in the alarmist > camp. **What is this "alarmist camp" you refer to? Who are the members of this "alarmist camp"? What are the aims of this "alarmist camp"? Are these all "alarmist camp" members? NASA US Academy of Science American Association of State Climatologists American Geophysical Union CSIRO Royal Society of the United Kingdom (the same society that Darwin, Newton and Hawking belonged to) The guys who work for, or contribute to the above groups are very smart guys. Are you trying to tell me that you have some kind of magical knowledge about climate science that they are unaware of? If so, then you should publish. Could be a Nobel Prize awaiting you. Please elaborate on your hypothesis below: -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 03:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe4sb6$k95$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686751 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention to >>>>>>> pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages to >>>>>>> gain the correct context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>> >>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> **The whole thing. >> >> The whole thing? > > **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to > understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. > >> >> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing > > **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you > refuse to read. You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. So, you made it up, you're attempting to hide behind a long irrelevant document which does NOT support the claims you were asked to support. So Trevor your claims fail due purely to your inability to produce any supporting evidence. Meanwhile MILLIONS OF YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE shows that the climate does change, it doesn't need any involvement from man to do so, and yes, even atmospheric levels of CO2 change without any involvement by man. Yet, suddenly you would say everything is now man's fault. Millions of years of climate change and suddenly it's no longer natural for the climate to change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 09:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686842 |
On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data >>>>>>>>>>> necessary to disprove any claim of yours can be found >>>>>>>>>>> according to the standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 >>>>>>>> pages to gain the correct context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **The whole thing. >>> >>> The whole thing? >> >> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >> >>> >>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >> >> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >> refuse to read. > > You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. > > Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. **It's the whole document. > > So, you made it up, you're attempting to hide behind a long irrelevant > document which does NOT support the claims you were asked to support. **Wrong. Read the cite. > > So Trevor your claims fail due purely to your inability to produce any > supporting evidence. **Wrong. Read the cite. > > Meanwhile MILLIONS OF YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE shows that the climate > does change, it doesn't need any involvement from man to do so, and yes, > even atmospheric levels of CO2 change without any involvement by man. **No argument from me. However, the present warming trend IS caused by anthropogenic CO2 release. > > Yet, suddenly you would say everything is now man's fault. **Nonsense. Humans are responsible for the present warming trend though. Millions of > years of climate change and suddenly it's no longer natural for the > climate to change. **Nope. Thanks to reduced Solar activity, the climate should be cooling. It's not. It's warming. The reason is due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 19:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe4vg1$619$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686844 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of 99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a fraction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data necessary >>>>>>>>>>>> to disprove any claim of yours can be found according to the >>>>>>>>>>>> standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC AR5 >>>>>>>>>>> synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular attention >>>>>>>>> to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the entire 82 pages >>>>>>>>> to gain the correct context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text in >>>>>> which your numbers are validated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **The whole thing. >>>> >>>> The whole thing? >>> >>> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting to >>> understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >>> >>>> >>>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >>> >>> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that you >>> refuse to read. >> >> You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. > > **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. > >> >> Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. > > **It's the whole document. So, what you're saying is that it doesn't support your numbers otherwise it wouldn't take an entire document to establish that the numbers you presented were correct. Hey, if you don't have the evidence then just say so. As it is I've read your cite and it does NOT support your numbers and you can't show me where it does because they aren't in there. In short Trevor, you're a fucking liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 10:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmmdvgFf98dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686847 |
On 24/05/2018 9:41 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmmccoFf0rfU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 5:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmkeelF17emU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 2:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmk566Ftr6kU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 23/05/2018 10:26 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fmjqmlFrqjgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:46 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fmhlgvFbrgiU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme72lFjgilU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:52 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6o9fF2i8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2018 6:31 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 3:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:03 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steam accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the combustion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can ask them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects of CO2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the vast overwhelming majority in excess of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99% is naturally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **99%? You sure about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supply your supporting data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Supply your data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you would have us believe that with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction of 1% input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are somehow altering the climate of an entire planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here are my calculations to support my case: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2O - Solar forcing factor - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 - Solar forcing factor - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methane - Solar forcing factor - 4% ~ 9% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 - Solar forcing factor - 3% ~ 7% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cite ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** www.ipcc.ch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you supply YOUR data to back your insane claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Data to support any and all of my claims and all data >>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to disprove any claim of yours can be found >>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the standard you just set can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://catalog.loc.gov/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **As requested, here is the relevant section from the IPCC >>>>>>>>>>>> AR5 synthesis report on radiative forcing: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The data for your claims is not found within the paper cited. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Clearly, you failed to read the cite. Pay particular >>>>>>>>>> attention to pages 661 through 669, but you should read the >>>>>>>>>> entire 82 pages to gain the correct context. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Still don't see anything that supports the numbers you claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Then I suggest you actually read the cite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you should read it first and then quote the specific text >>>>>>> in which your numbers are validated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **The whole thing. >>>>> >>>>> The whole thing? >>>> >>>> **That's what I've been saying all along. Are you finally starting >>>> to understand? Read the entire chapter I cited. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I accept your admission you made up the whole thing >>>> >>>> **Well, no, I made nothing up. I provided the requested cite that >>>> you refuse to read. >>> >>> You provided a cite, but it doesn't support the numbers you claimed. >> >> **If you had bothered to read the cite, you would know that it odes. >> >>> >>> Nor can you show me where in that document it does so. >> >> **It's the whole document. > > So, what you're saying is that it doesn't support your numbers otherwise > it wouldn't take an entire document to establish that the numbers you > presented were correct. **Nope. I already simplified them for you. You asked for proof. I supplied it. You failed to read that proof. > > Hey, if you don't have the evidence then just say so. As it is I've read > your cite and it does NOT support your numbers and you can't show me > where it does because they aren't in there. **Liar. You have not read the cite. EVERYTHING is right there. > > In short Trevor, you're a fucking liar. **So you say, yet you have clearly failed to read the cite that you claimed to have read. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web