Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:spot wrote:
I have no intentions of going over the evidence yet again. I think that at least 100 times is enough whether you do or not. GasGuzzler just totally destroyed your prior claim that when CO2 was stable so was the MGT. With your latest you are not in the litesong club and no longer worthy of even reading.
spot wrote:Wake wrote:spot wrote:
And from you we get that _I_ am making bold claims while you have given us "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" while you have consistently denied any proof that your claims are false.
Making a fool of yourself doesn't exactly improve your position.
Wake wrote:litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.
Don' worra...... Altho you're late, you're in the ingroup..... & wherever you can pilot the ingroup.
Edited on 28-02-2017 20:21
Wake wrote:spot wrote:Wake wrote:spot wrote:
I never bought that statistic up. Surface detail made the claim and whether you agree or not he provided evidence and an argument to support it. Something you have failed to do in support of your argument that the Medieval warm period is warmer then now.
You seem frustrated that I am not blindly taking your word for it. What are you trying to achieve here?
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:spot wrote:
He did nothing of the sort. Look at the scales. The graph shows the period of about 10,000 years starting just after the start of the current interglacial up until just before the start of industrialisation. During this period, both CO2 and MGT temperature remained almost stable, with CO2 varying by no more than 20 ppm and temperature by no more than a degree. When CO2 is almost stable, then we notice other effects.
In summary, if you're looking at the effect of CO2 on temperature, it makes no sense to focus on a period when CO2 remains almost unchanged!
Edit: You have never actually given any evidence to support your claims. Simply writing posts IN BOLD TYPE is not evidence!
Edited on 28-02-2017 20:38
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You have never actually given any evidence to support your claims. Simply writing posts IN BOLD TYPE is not evidence!
But its BOLD TYPE, does mean it BELIEVES ITS LIES STRONGLY.... or it tries to make us believe it believes its lies.
Edited on 28-02-2017 22:58
|BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man||0||03-03-2023 15:29|
|Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too||3||16-02-2023 19:01|
|Man's energy use actually does explain climate change||18||09-02-2023 03:27|
|There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2||533||30-01-2023 07:22|
|Merry Christmas, rejoice for a child is born to guide the stringing of Chinese made sweatshop lights||0||25-12-2022 14:35|