Is this the part where you tell us you're posting from Asia somewhere??
Dude, give it up. Nobody believes a word you say anymore.
You're just entertainment for most of Terb at this point
Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Dude, give it up. Nobody believes a word you say anymore.
You're just entertainment for most of Terb at this point
You had no problem sharing the following:
- You (temporarily?) moved to the US
- You are Asian (I think thats right, cant quite remember now)
- You work in middle-management for a large company
- You have 4 to 6 employees working for you
And now suddenly you've gone radio silent?? Do you see how that doesnt make sense?
Here you go fuji, all your favorite celebrity retards in one room together:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880930/Leo-Bieber-s-jet-setting-added-Irma.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880930/Leo-Bieber-s-jet-setting-added-Irma.html
what kind of a mangager spends most of his days on a forum. even posting between 12 am and 5 am when most of us are sleeping
I don't spend most of my day here, I come here once every few hours when I'm bored. You could go log all the times of my posts to verify that there are only a few periods throughout the day when I post and that mostly I'm not here.
I just went through and responded to a number of posts now I have a full schedule for a few hours, you'll likely see me post my next reply in 3 or 4 hours.
You're full of shit, you've been on Terb for years all day. This is your life...you have no other life.
Fucking bullshit!!
I see you posting between 2am and 5am almost every night.
And don't give me this time-zone horseshit
Actually, I was the one who pointed out to Fuji -- more than a year ago -- that the paper he was citing never looked at water vapour feedback: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546228&viewfull=1#post5546228
That said, let's be clear on this point: Fuji is now confirming that I was right all along and that his paper didn't look at the results from water vapour feedback.
Fuji's statement confirms what the rest of us have repeatedly been saying -- his paper from Nature did nothing to establish the merits of the AGW hypothesis, which is overwhelmingly based on the predicted impact of water vapour feedback.
In fact, the authors explicitly stated that the 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade trend that was reported in the findings is the amount that is "solely" attributed to CO2 and does not include the impact of water vapour feedback:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
It also didn't look at whether aliens are infecting TERB member brains, whether ice ages are good for winter sports, whether vaccines cause autism, whether butterfly wing flaps cause hurricanes or even why someone would need to study two thesis in the same study.
OMG!
Of course they didn't. Do you still not understand what a feedback mechanism is? Do you not yet understand that water vapour global levels only change when the global temperature itself changes? So water vapour levels don't drive climate change, but CO2, which is a forcing, does?
Sheesh.
By the way, the 'flip' to the positive cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation means that global temperatures are now rising fast again, after rising slightly slower for a few years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/pacific-flip-climate-change-1.4295062
With the global temp now at 0.99ºC (a full 0.16ºC higher then you bet it would go), you can expect more and more global records.
fuji will never admit that the water vapour positive feed back loop that NOAA presents,... even exists.
Plus, this "study" does NOT separate the different sources of CO2 in the climate,... which makes it useless,... even considering the studies conclusion that the supposed increase in the atmosphere CO2 is responsible for only 10% of the supposed unnatural increase the planet's temperature.
While completely ignoring all of the natural factors that can, and do increase the globes temperature.
fuji will still not admit that the water vapour positive feed back loop that NOAA presents does NOT include CO2 as one of it variables.
If the temperature of the planet increases for a natural event, the result is more water vapour in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the temperature of the globe.
That's why its called a feed back loop.
That's why the study looked at only how much temperature change was caused by CO2, a forcing on the climate.
Because you can't even begin to calculate how big the feedback effect of water vapour increases from temp increases from CO2 increases until you can confirm objectively what the models say happens with CO2.
That's why the study looked only at CO2, because that's the first step and all that the study should cover.
Arguing that the study should also looked at and measured an entirely different effect (feedback vs forcing) from an entirely different gas within the study just confirms you really don't understand the scientific method.
You really don't get it, do you?
