Reply With Quote
Wait are you sure we can trace it? After all its HARD and COMPLICATED.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/procee...sAuthorized=no
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2009JCLI2874.1
, I guess you CAN figure out the contributions after all.
Wait are you sure we can trace it? After all its HARD and COMPLICATED.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/procee...sAuthorized=no
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2009JCLI2874.1
Except that's impossible then for H2O to follow 1:1 with CO2 in temperature increases.
If the 75:32 is correct, and a 1C rise from CO2 requires close to doubling CO2, and a total 2C increase would increase humidity by 13%...
Don't you follow how your statement is far from accurate?
Feedback in H2O simply cannot be 1:1 to CO2, and the ratio of 75:32 cannot both be correct.
Don't take my word for it. Do the logarithmic forcing math. See for yourself.
Well those others were all from Space. Why bother with getting to Space to measure things (its very hard and complicated to get to space) when you can also measure the radiation coming down and determine what gas emitted it?
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual200...per_100737.htm
You still don't understand.
In the AGW denial game, it's really about politics of money and power, not about science, which is why these stupid threads are non-starters.
eg, here's the retrograde assholes exposing their game
Rooting For Failure: Republicans Bash Green Jobs, Clean Energy
Republicans have bullied the clean energy industry for months, pointing to flimsy evidence for why the government should slash funding for the industry, even as Big Oil subsidies continue.
On the heels of passing legislation that slashes clean energy funding 13 times, House Republicans are fulfilling the oil and coal industry’s wish list with next week’s Domestic Energy Production Act.
Although clean energy creates hundreds of thousands of better paying jobs, Republicans looking to gain ground in an election year have disparaged these jobs as less valuable. Mitt Romney’s former economic adviser said as much: “I am buying that they’re rooting against the economy somewhat because they think that the short-term pain of, you know, the next four months is much better than having additional four years of pain under Obama.”
Republicans have made green jobs a political target, at the behest of their oil and coal allies:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the 1603 tax credit reimbursement program is a “Solyndra-style stimulus program.” This program has created thousands of jobs, 5,000 projects, and helped the industry grow during tough times. “Listen, the American people continue to ask the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ They deserve answers, and they deserve the truth.”
House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa called green jobs “propaganda” in a recent staff report. Issa also recently released a video making fun of the BLS’s broad definition for green jobs, calling them “groovy.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “This is the no-more-Solyndras amendment,” speaking on his amendment that would ban a loan guarantee program for renewables, even though the program itself has expired.
Jordan labelled green investments wasted dollars: “The president said that we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And he promised that our country would create millions of green jobs which would help us compete in the global economy. Over three years into this gamble, available evidence demonstrates these efforts have wasted vast sums of taxpayer money and have failed to achieve the stated goals.”
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) at a Feb. 19 news conference: ”There’s a fundamental difference in approach. And this is the challenge that faces us. The reason our economy is stagnant is because we haven’t let the free market work. The government keeps getting in the way. Now is the time to pick the Keystone economy over the Solyndra economy, to pick the American people over big government and to pick prosperity over stagnation.”
Mitt Romney: [Obama] said he was going to create some 5 million green energy jobs. Have you seen those around here anywhere? No, as a matter of fact he’s gone after energy.
Romney says the Chevy Volt, is an “idea whose time has not come,” saying, “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.”
While Republicans call for a “free energy market” devoid of subsidies to clean energy, they continue to support hundred-year-old subsidies for oil and coal. Though the House GOP prefer to point to failures, clean energy is seeing historic levels of investment — reaching $257 billion worldwide — helped by public-private investments in the industry.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-clean-energy/
@ logarithmic forcing math
That still doesn't make your claim valid.
All it implies to me when you provide link after link instead of explaining in your own words, is that you don't understand. Now when you do put it in your own words, it's obvious why you use links. You don't understand the implications of what you think you know!
Really now. Instead of making fun of me when I point out obvious mistakes in what you say, why can't you reassess what you said, correct it or explain it, and way "wooopps" if you were wrong.
Are you standing by your contention that a 1 C increase by CO2 also creates another 1 C increase by increased water vapor?
Prove it.
Explain it. In your words, not by links.
And this proves your contention of 1 C and another 1 C in post 735, how?
I understand if you don't realize which of your stupid posts I'm addressing since you make so many stupid posts.
I say bull to this. Please support this contention.
Hey Manny...
Are you working on your batchelors or your masters?
I seldom bother any more unless you quote a passage for me to find. I think is rather de able tactic to throw out so much information, especially when often, it doesn't apply.
Give me a quote in the link you want me to see, and I will read it.
Any wise person does not believe you allegations unless you are willing to back it up.
Talk is cheap. Prove it.
Is it too much to ask for a partial quote?
Manny, I saw this article and thought of you...might interest you...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-grad...070045929.html
Reading is hard. I don't want to strain you so you don't have to bother.
I did a quick scan, didn't see it support your 1:1 contention. Did I miss it?
Quote please.
I'm not disagreeing with the effect water vapor has. I;'m disagreeing with your claim of 1:1.
Why are you being so childish? Why can't you show me the quote that supports your 1:1 claim?
Because this is more fun and because watching you hang yourself is WAY more fun.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
