Hey, ease up on that NOS...
Are you kidding me?
Hey, ease up on that NOS...
Your error isn't in Hansen's formula, its before.
If you think I did that wrong, show me your results in backward engineering the stated results.Are you kidding me?
Your posts are quite comedic.
If you aren't going to explain, then go away.
You want me to show you how you backward engineering is wrong by backward engineering? You're an imbecile, thats basically restating what plenty of scientists have already come up with to establish CO2 forcing. Why do I need to copy and paste their work to prove you wrong?
You have time to pull your head out your ass and look up the facts. I'll be gone for 1/2 or so.
I already explained in my initial post on the matter. You don't account for negative forcing. I gave you an example of your error in a different situation and you didn't understand so you called it a non sequitor.
I cant teach someone who clearly can't walk on their own to run.
Oh, OK.
I guess that means 1/2 hour until laughfest resumes.
No but really - the idea that spectroscopic information is somehow a secret not in the public domain is hillarious.
And negative forcing also increases with the positive, in a near linear relationship. You can disagree if you like, but it's part of the 9% to 26% consideration, since it is a percentage of the greenhouse effect. If anything, the negative forcing increases even more.
How about this. Show me an example of what you mean. I offered the AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt by showing the extreme end at the 26%. Do you seriously expect a feedback to increase that percentage even higher?
At least to show that you have a clue of what you speak of.
besides, how many times have I said, I don't trust them. If you have information I have never seen, then you should show me. Otherwise, I will consider you are lying.
Copy and pasting arguments shows that I know what I'm talking about?
Parts Changer. Its so fitting.
It's not. Quite frankly, you are being to general in a very complex topic. You leave me with guessing what you mean. How about some specificity. Here is a graph I did some time ago plotting the individual spectra:
Linear:
Log:
Is the what you are speaking of?
information is there. How about the methodology used by the alarmists. You know, what data they use, and how they use it. I never meant that "all" data is destroyed after use. I was referring to those "climatgate" incidents where they have peer reviews papers, but cannot back anything up because they destroyed their data. Even other peer reviewed processes, why was it not an open peer review process? Too much deception can go on in the processes, especially when grant money and political pressures are involved. Don't you want to have confidence that the sciences you advocate are honest? Well I sure do.
No, but you could explain what it means. At least give me some reference so I can make up my mind.Copy and pasting arguments shows that I know what I'm talking about?
Parts Changer. Its so fitting.
Parts changer... At least I have a good paying job. Do you?
I don't care if you copy and past, or explain it yourself. However, you claim the information that proves me wrong is out there, so I'm asking to see it. If you are unwilling or incapable of showing me the errors of my ways, then don't expect me to take your word for it.
Now you're questioning the validity of studies you've never even seen?
So good.
You think you haven't made up your mind? You look for ways to validate what you believe even if you don't understand what the you're saying. Anyone here can see this. Well except for Darrin but thats aall on its own.
BTW, I both attend school and have a well paying job. Thanks for your concern, parts changer.
Damn Fuzzy, best nickname ever. I feel I owe you royalties everytime I use it.
Spectroscopic proof of CO2 forcing wasn't specific enough for you?
Who do you think you're fooling, WC?
K, lets start here. Give me sources for your figures please.
It's not quantified. I have never said CO2 does not cause warming, or that increased CO2 does not increase warming. I disagree with the claims of how much warming it causes, and nobody ever, I mean ever, has been able to direct me to such proof. Yes, I have also looked. So if you have proof, please show me.Spectroscopic proof of CO2 forcing wasn't specific enough for you?
Who do you think you're fooling, WC?
OK, may take several minutes too look them up.
I expect you to look up the information you claim exists too.
I honestly don't give a what you expect. The spectroscopic information is a one JSTOR search away for you. Have fun. I'm not interested in proving anything to you any longer as its blatantly clear that you're not going to believe any of it.
However, I do have an entertainment interest in completely shredding the bull you spew.
Things such as this, WC.
Sure - we emit 2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, but what is important is how much of it REMAINS in the atmosphere unlike the vast majority of natural emissions which are removed.
You say we only add 2% yet later on in the same ing post you add this:
So - we only add 2% yet we've seen a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? Hmm, I wonder where all that extra CO2 came from!These ranges correspond to a 0.22 degree increase at 9% and a 0.64 degree increase at 26%, for a change from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
