Oh my bad.my post is about the new york times not looking things up online
Where do you get all these "facts" you post?
Oh my bad.my post is about the new york times not looking things up online
Have to get a couple of things clarified here from you fuji.Where did I say controlling? Reread my post a few times with the aid of a dictionary until you understand it.
We have been warming the planet, not controlling it.
By Jove,...I think you've got it.Easy to discuss.
In post 56 you are making a ridiculous hypothetical question.
In reality, moisture content in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature. As temperature increases, more water evaporates. An increase in CO2 causes the temperature to increase. This is an empirically demonstrated fact. Increased CO2 caused increased temperature which causes increased water vapor which creates a positive feedback loop.
You are a genius. The planet is doomed.By Jove,...I think you've got it.
The planet warms naturally,...as it has,...numerous times in the past,...water vapour is increased,...which creates a "feed back loop".
"Feed back loop",... an increase in the planets temp = more water vapour = which increases in the planets temp = more water vapour,...etc., etc.
Nowhere did I say we are controlling it. Nowhere. That's your made up statement to create a straw man to argue with.Have to get a couple of things clarified here from you fuji.
1st,...Could you explain the fuji time scale for us,...
,..."LOOOONG",...is the amount of years relative to the number of O's in LOOOONG in your system,...in other words,...does one O = 10 years,...so your statement of LOOOONG before 1750 means 1710,...or is each O = 100 years,...so man started controlling the planets temp. in 1350,...???
Inquiring minds want to know.
2nd,...You have stated that man has been warming the planet LOOOONG before 1750,...and is still currently doing so.
Now your self proclaimed unemployable experts want man to stop warming the planet,...but you state we can't control the temp. of the planet,...so its simply all BULL SHIT fuji,...as you have stated,...we can't stop the planets temp. from rising,...because we,...."are not controlling it"
a New york times reporter linked to child pornOh my bad.
Where do you get all these "facts" you post?
How does that excuse you for posting lies?a New york times reporter linked to child porn
https://twitter.com/WLTaskForce/status/889545780641636352
https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/0...was-only-quot-posing-as-online-predator-quot/
Great. Over estimated.http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/
CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15858603
Incorrect. Scientists have known for 200 years or so that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Scientists may discuss how before 1850, CO2 levels were low enough that it did not have a significant negative impact on the global environment.Most climate change "scientists" would disagree with you. They fully acknowledge that until about 1850 co2 was not even a greenhouse gas and that it lagged behind temperature. But apparently that all changed when humans upset the "equilibrium" of 280-300ppm.
So I guess when a republican is linked to child porn or other criminal charges it means that the entire party is fake. Good to know.a New york times reporter linked to child porn
https://twitter.com/WLTaskForce/status/889545780641636352
https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/0...was-only-quot-posing-as-online-predator-quot/
you are starting to get irritatingSo I guess when a republican is linked to child porn or other criminal charges it means that the entire party is fake. Good to know.
you fail!
Actually you failed when you comically failed to account for wind and you failed when you absurdly thought a low capacity to store heat was incompatible with emitting blackbody radiation. You also failed comically when you claimed CO2 couldn't absorb light in the infrared spectrum because it's transparent in the visible spectrum.you fail!
Actually you failed when you comically failed to account for wind and you failed when you absurdly thought a low capacity to store heat was incompatible with emitting blackbody radiation. You also failed comically when you claimed CO2 couldn't absorb light in the infrared spectrum because it's transparent in the visible spectrum.
This thread has been a disaster for you.
Actually we are the ones explaining basic science and common sense to you. You have no answer to:no you and your clone basketcase are the only ones that use insults and name calling and then declaring you win.
It confirms a slowdown overall AND the models are for CLIMATE CHANGE, whereas this article discussed the weather, a period of only 15 years.Whaddya know? Yet another peer-reviewed paper has been published in Nature confirming that there has been a "hiatus" in the Earth's temperature -- completely different from what the computer models predicted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789