Remember me
▼ Content

100,000 year cycles



Page 1 of 3123>
100,000 year cycles09-03-2020 19:32
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles of co2 and temp. Looking closely at them it seems like sometimes increases in co2 leads to an increase in temp and sometimes an increase in temp leads to an increase in co2. Some say that graph proves that co2 and temp aren't causal. It does indicate a causal relationship however. What i mean is that co2 does cause an increase in temp and temp does cause an increase in co2. Both effects exist And they cause a snowball effect or a feed back effect on each other. Sometime one starts the cascading and sometimes the other starts the cascading.
09-03-2020 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:...deleted 20p...25g...20s...20a1...20a2...20b...20d...20e2...22 (feedback effect)...


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Proxies are not used in science.


The Parrot Killer
09-03-2020 23:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
keepit wrote:
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles of co2 and temp. Looking closely at them it seems like sometimes increases in co2 leads to an increase in temp and sometimes an increase in temp leads to an increase in co2. Some say that graph proves that co2 and temp aren't causal. It does indicate a causal relationship however. What i mean is that co2 does cause an increase in temp and temp does cause an increase in co2. Both effects exist And they cause a snowball effect or a feed back effect on each other. Sometime one starts the cascading and sometimes the other starts the cascading.


The CO2 thing, is of course nonsense. I'm most interested in the time machine. I know we haven't had a written language for more than a few thousand years. No way of know when we started grunting at each other... Anyway, can anybody use this time machine? Can travel past and future? Can you bring/take stuff with you? It's really surprising I have read about a working time machine, I try to keep up on technology...
09-03-2020 23:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
keepit wrote:
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles of co2 and temp. Looking closely at them it seems like sometimes increases in co2 leads to an increase in temp and sometimes an increase in temp leads to an increase in co2. Some say that graph proves that co2 and temp aren't causal. It does indicate a causal relationship however. What i mean is that co2 does cause an increase in temp and temp does cause an increase in co2. Both effects exist And they cause a snowball effect or a feed back effect on each other. Sometime one starts the cascading and sometimes the other starts the cascading.


Why do you lend any credence to these "graphs"? Do you lend credence to every graphical fabrication just because you find it on the internet? You know that nobody has ever known the global temperature to any usable accuracy. You know that you don't grasp the differences between causal relationships and correlations.

Why do you allow yourself to be strung along?



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-03-2020 23:40
James___
★★★★★
(2836)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles of co2 and temp. Looking closely at them it seems like sometimes increases in co2 leads to an increase in temp and sometimes an increase in temp leads to an increase in co2. Some say that graph proves that co2 and temp aren't causal. It does indicate a causal relationship however. What i mean is that co2 does cause an increase in temp and temp does cause an increase in co2. Both effects exist And they cause a snowball effect or a feed back effect on each other. Sometime one starts the cascading and sometimes the other starts the cascading.


Why do you lend any credence to these "graphs"? Do you lend credence to every graphical fabrication just because you find it on the internet? You know that nobody has ever known the global temperature to any usable accuracy. You know that you don't grasp the differences between causal relationships and correlations.

Why do you allow yourself to be strung along?



.



Son, you're momma knew the local temperature and it was "HOT".
10-03-2020 00:12
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
I got this graph from Prof. Richard Wolfson, Middlebury College. A very credible professor.
10-03-2020 02:11
James___
★★★★★
(2836)
keepit wrote:
I got this graph from Prof. Richard Wolfson, Middlebury College. A very credible professor.


People ignore the number of years involved. It's like IBDMs mother. He was an only son. Things change the climate. With CO2, anything in a previous time can't distinguish before or after IBDM. After all, once she was a mother, guys might not want the responsibility of raising a son.
And when he's 50, no one would see the difference in his mother before or after she had a son. They wouldn't understand. And CO2 is the same way. Looking at it from a different time still won't let us understand THAT time. And it is THAT time that we need to understand.

If you guys don't get it. Ever meet a woman with a kid? You lose interest, right?
With CO2, wanna be the daddy? With the graphs from previous epochs, a 100,000 year period is not measured in inches. Yet when graphs are shown, hundreds of thousands of years are in inches.
And yes, I doubt most of you guys would hook up with a woman who had kids. The graphs play on the same emotions. In a sense, it might be like you are being asked for child support. As for me though, I like kids so might have a different perspective.

Edited on 10-03-2020 02:31
10-03-2020 18:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:...deleted 20p...25g...20s...20a1...20a2...20b...20d...20e2...22 (feedback effect)...


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Proxies are not used in science.

You're up to "s" in Mantra 20 now?? Jeeze... A lot of science denial going on...
10-03-2020 18:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
keepit wrote:
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles of co2 and temp.

Correct. They do exist. They are absolute bogus, of course, but they do exist nonetheless.

keepit wrote:
Looking closely at them it seems like sometimes increases in co2 leads to an increase in temp and sometimes an increase in temp leads to an increase in co2.

Why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?

keepit wrote:
Some say that graph proves that co2 and temp aren't causal. It does indicate a causal relationship however. What i mean is that co2 does cause an increase in temp and temp does cause an increase in co2. Both effects exist And they cause a snowball effect or a feed back effect on each other. Sometime one starts the cascading and sometimes the other starts the cascading.

Again, why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?


You are not required to believe something to be true just because it is presented on a pretty looking chart/graph.

BTW, are you still batting 0.000?
Edited on 10-03-2020 18:37
10-03-2020 18:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
keepit wrote:
I got this graph from Prof. Richard Wolfson, Middlebury College. A very credible professor.

... yet Prof. Thomas Pine (an even more credible professor from Yale) tells me that Prof. Wolfson's graph is complete hogwash.
10-03-2020 18:42
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
So, you believe the Yale professor? Could you tell me where the Yale professor said that?
Matter of fact, i've seen the 100,000 year cycles graph elsewhere so i'm not sure of the original author. If Wolfson bought into it, that was enough for me.

I just looked up Thomas Pine in the yale faculty and they had no such person.
Edited on 10-03-2020 18:49
10-03-2020 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
So, you believe the Yale professor? Could you tell me where the Yale professor said that?
Matter of fact, i've seen the 100,000 year cycles graph elsewhere so i'm not sure of the original author. If Wolfson bought into it, that was enough for me.

I just looked up Thomas Pine in the yale faculty and they had no such person.


Doesn't matter who bought into it. Random numbers are random numbers. I see you worship graphs of random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
10-03-2020 20:31
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
The 100,000 year cycles graph was done at the Russian Vostok Antarctica site using ice core samples.
10-03-2020 21:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
keepit wrote:I got this graph from Prof. Richard Wolfson, Middlebury College. A very credible professor.

Prof. Richard Wolfson has no credibility. Did you see the graphs he was trying to pawn off?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2020 21:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
keepit wrote:
So, you believe the Yale professor?

Of course. He's much more credible than Wolfson.

keepit wrote:
Could you tell me where the Yale professor said that?

Inside of what once was his classroom.

keepit wrote:
Matter of fact, i've seen the 100,000 year cycles graph elsewhere so i'm not sure of the original author. If Wolfson bought into it, that was enough for me.

Why do you believe Wolfson over Pine?

keepit wrote:
I just looked up Thomas Pine in the yale faculty and they had no such person.

Did I ever say that he was currently working at Yale?


But, all kidding aside, since I hate watching a fish out of water struggle as much as you currently are, I will admit that I made this dude up out of thin air. I'm not surprised that you took my complete fabrication about this professor as seriously as you did, all because I used the magic words "professor" and "Yale". You really should question the claims that people make. Healthy skepticism is a good thing!
Edited on 10-03-2020 21:12
11-03-2020 00:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
The 100,000 year cycles graph was done at the Russian Vostok Antarctica site using ice core samples.


Ice cores don't measure temperature or CO2. Proxies aren't used in science.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 00:44
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Professor Wolfson is good enough for me. A whole lot better than the data mine or the manual or IBDM or ITN. Who do you think you're kidding. Really, who?
11-03-2020 01:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
Professor Wolfson is good enough for me.

Because you like quoting random numbers for 'data'. Mantras 25g...4b...20p.
keepit wrote:
A whole lot better than the data mine

The data mine isn't data either. It's a thread with a set of rules for posting data and their sources.
keepit wrote:
or the manual or IBDM or ITN.

Mantra 5.
keepit wrote:
Who do you think you're kidding. Really, who?

None of us are presenting any data, nor making any arguments that depend on knowing how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago. It is YOU that is making this argument, using random numbers as 'data'. Mantra 38b.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-03-2020 01:08
11-03-2020 01:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
keepit wrote:
There are graphs of 100,000 year cycles...
I don't see your graph loading keepit.

Is it any different than this?:

As for correlation you could add other things to the graph I'm sure that would also correlate: Albedo of the planet with more/less ice, Quantity of plant life, humidity, number of insects, ...
Generally speaking correlation does not mean causation.

Into the Night wrote:
Ice cores don't measure temperature or CO2. Proxies aren't used in science.
AND...
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
It should always be pointed out that ITN has a unique and entirely personal definition of what "Science" is that is not found anywhere else (well nowhere on Google, and that's a big place).
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:
Google: 7 results, pretty much just you

Hey gfm7175, do you believe that CO2 levels can be known in any year, anywhere? How about temperature? I'm sure you'd admit it's a pointless thing to pretend to debate nonexistent data right?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
11-03-2020 02:51
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Tmid,
Correlation and causation.
Clearly the correlation is shown there. Re: causation. It really isn't open to question that heating water with co2 in it result in an increase in co2 released by the water.
And, increasing co2 results in the blockage of as much as 50% of infrared EM from passing through the co2.
There you have correlation and causation.
11-03-2020 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Correlation and causation.
Clearly the correlation is shown there. Re: causation. It really isn't open to question that heating water with co2 in it result in an increase in co2 released by the water.
And, increasing co2 results in the blockage of as much as 50% of infrared EM from passing through the co2.
There you have correlation and causation.


That was a big swing and a miss. CO2 somehow "blocks" IR?


[still 0.000]


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 03:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
IBDM,
Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?
11-03-2020 04:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
keepit wrote: IBDM, Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?

Yes, keepit, I will point that out to you and to anyone.

Here's something you can do to test this: Get some room-temperature CO2 that you can spray between yourself and a functioning space heater and see if you note a heavy "blockage" of the IR.

[Spoiler Alert]: you won't.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 04:08
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Who do you think you're kidding?
11-03-2020 04:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
keepit wrote: Who do you think you're kidding?

The correct question is: "Do you know who you are kidding?"

[answer: yourself]


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 04:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...20j...25g...20j...20j...20j...25c...20e1...7...25c...25c...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 05:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:...deleted 20d...20p...
It really isn't open to question that heating water with co2 in it result in an increase in co2 released by the water.

Nope. There is only approx 400ppm CO2 dissolved in water at best. Nowhere near the saturation level CO2 in water.
keepit wrote:
And, increasing co2 results in the blockage of as much as 50% of infrared EM from passing through the co2.

Not possible. It is not possible to trap light. Further, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow band of infrared light. Most infrared light just goes on into space. What is absorbed by CO2 is radiated by CO2.

You can't trap light.
keepit wrote:
There you have correlation and causation.

No, there you have a denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 05:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?


It can't.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 08:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?

You're absolutely correct in that CO2 absorbs IR. This means the radiance is destroyed and becomes thermal energy. That's a block.

The radiance is then re-emitted by the CO2 in all directions.

So in the long run the exact same amount of IR will be coming through the CO2 as would be the case if no CO2 where in the way to begin with.

So a portion of the radiance that we started with was destroyed. It was blocked. The radiance coming out of the CO2 cloud now is from the CO2.

And no that's not the same as transmission of thermal energy or electrical energy. The radiance is destroyed, a different form of energy results, thermal energy, that is then lost as radiance is emitted. Denying this would be like saying solar panels don't block Sun light, because I have a lamp on in my house.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
11-03-2020 08:36
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Tmid,
One thing you didn't mention in your last post is that of the incoming IR, half is absorbed by the co2 and half gets through to the earth. Of that half, (now 25% of the original), it is reemitted but it is then absorbed by the co2 and the remaining escapes back out to space. In summary 50% of incoming IR gets thru to earth and of the outgoing, 50% of it gets back out to space.
11-03-2020 10:06
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
One thing you didn't mention in your last post is that of the incoming IR, half is absorbed by the co2 and half gets through to the earth. Of that half, (now 25% of the original), it is reemitted but it is then absorbed by the co2 and the remaining escapes back out to space. In summary 50% of incoming IR gets thru to earth and of the outgoing, 50% of it gets back out to space.


But, you forget CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, not much, and it's a huge planet. There are a lot of of gases and vapors, in much larger concentrations. There is conduction, and convection. The Norwegian Jet Stream, carrying cold arctic air down from the north.

The earth's atmosphere is considerably more dynamic, and complex, than a jar full of CO2 in a lab.
11-03-2020 16:42
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Harvey,
As i see it, and i'm not an expert, the .04% is enough to hold back 1/2 of the IR getting to it, in either direction. That's just the way it is.
Also, regardless of the complexities of the atmosphere, the co2 percentage distributes itself evenly and does what it does.
11-03-2020 16:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
tmiddles wrote:
Hey gfm7175, do you believe that CO2 levels can be known in any year, anywhere?

CO2 levels of what, exactly?

tmiddles wrote:
How about temperature?

Temperature of what, exactly?

tmiddles wrote:
I'm sure you'd admit it's a pointless thing to pretend to debate nonexistent data right?

I'm not responding to vague BS which you're going to twist/turn/conflate/take out of context/etc... I've seen the games that you've attempted to play with IBDaMann, and I'm not interested.
11-03-2020 16:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Correlation and causation.
Clearly the correlation is shown there. Re: causation. It really isn't open to question that heating water with co2 in it result in an increase in co2 released by the water.
And, increasing co2 results in the blockage of as much as 50% of infrared EM from passing through the co2.
There you have correlation and causation.


That was a big swing and a miss. CO2 somehow "blocks" IR?


[still 0.000]


.


keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?

Are your reading comprehension skills below a 1st grade level?
11-03-2020 16:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
gfm/ITN,
You're the one that misinterprets so many things.

Just trying to get you to put your credibility where your mouth is, so to speak.
Edited on 11-03-2020 16:55
11-03-2020 19:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:
.... of what, exactly?....


If you are pointing out a mistake it's clarified by an example of something done properly. Wouldn't you agree?

So you tell me what's an example you'd contrast with.

How can I randomly guess at what you might consider a good reliable example.
11-03-2020 19:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
.... of what, exactly?....


If you are pointing out a mistake it's clarified by an example of something done properly. Wouldn't you agree?

So you tell me what's an example you'd contrast with.

How can I randomly guess at what you might consider a good reliable example.

One thing you might want to do is to actually read his response. I know you tend to avoid any reading and jump right to the responding, but if you would have read what gfm7175 had written, you would have seen that he asked you a question ... specifically for clarification of something you had written.

What you should have done is to have clarified of what exactly ... instead of asking him a question without context. Fortunately, this is a message board so you get do-overs.

I just thought I'd help. Have a great day.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 19:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
What you should have done is to have clarified of what exactly ... instead of asking him a question without context. .


I have clarified my question and it is what does he consider a good example to clarify his calling in this case ice core data RandU ect.

gfm7175 wrote:
Why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
This is written as though gfm expects I know what he means by "accurate measurements". I don't. Let's have an example to clear that up.

What is unclear or problematic about that?

You have always refused the same question but I've never gotten an explanation as to why.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 11-03-2020 19:33
11-03-2020 20:27
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
keepit wrote:
gfm/ITN,
You're the one that misinterprets so many things.

What things, specifically?

keepit wrote:
Just trying to get you to put your credibility where your mouth is, so to speak.

Regarding what, specifically?

You, like tmiddles, sure do like to type up a whole bunch of words yet manage to convey absolutely nothing with those words...
11-03-2020 20:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
tmiddles wrote:
So you tell me what's an example you'd contrast with.

You haven't answered my questions yet. See below.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Hey gfm7175, do you believe that CO2 levels can be known in any year, anywhere?

CO2 levels of what, exactly?


tmiddles wrote:
How about temperature?

Temperature of what, exactly?
Edited on 11-03-2020 20:43
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate 100,000 year cycles:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
80 year moving average data8813-05-2020 01:32
East EU temperatures skyrocketed since last year203-02-2020 19:14
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact