|Would Errornius (I mean Arrhenius) admit his calculation error if he were alive today?16-03-2019 14:57|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|Errornius (I mean Arrhenius) said his calculations show any doubling CO2 (without a starting point and an ending point as parameters) increases temperature by 5 C. That means, if CO2 increase by 50% (without a starting point and an ending point as parameters), then temperature increases 2.5 C. CO2 increased 50% since 1800s 275 ppm and there is no 2.5 C increase. In fact, today temperature is the same as 1800s and much colder than Medieval warm period which is proven to have been 1 C warmer than today and Greenland was farmable.
Edited on 16-03-2019 14:58
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Why is everyone so fixated on CO2? Any graph that shows the annual global temperature and CO2 levels since 1880 shows there is no correlation. From 1880 - 1910 CO2 levels rose by 10 ppm. From 1910 - 1945, the same 10 ppm a rise in temperature. From 1946 - 1976 there was no rise in temperature while CO2 levels rose by 20 ppm.
This kind of tells me that people can't think for themselves. If they did or even the media then they would ask why 3 consecutive 30 year periods of a somewhat consistent rise in CO2 levels show no corresponding relationship to the global annual temperature.
No one will say the information being made known disagrees with itself. I find this hilarious myself.
James___ wrote: Why is everyone so fixated on CO2? Any graph that shows the annual global temperature and CO2 levels since 1880 shows there is no correlation.
Because it is a RELIGION whose mythology includes the CO2 "Satan" that has magickal superpowers to perform miracles that violate the 1st LoT as well as to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.
Because it is a RELIGION whose dogma claims that faith in the religion bestows great wisdom and scientific genius upon believers that is not bestown upon DENIERS, and this includes the belief that the average global temperature is somehow known ... by them ... and how it is therefore "changing" ... with complete certainty, never with ANY margin of error.
I once proposed that the global quantity of concrete pouring showed a much better correlation to the presented "global temperature graphs" but that went over like a ton of concrete blocks. Pun intended.
I similarly proposed a much better correlation between presented temperature graphs and microprocessor production, but it was insufficient to break the dogmatic ideological hold Global Warming has on its Congregation.
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
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
|Into the Night★★★★★
IBdaMann wrote:James___ wrote: Why is everyone so fixated on CO2? Any graph that shows the annual global temperature and CO2 levels since 1880 shows there is no correlation.
All that heat from a CPU has a practical side.
The Parrot Killer
|Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy||10||17-09-2019 08:43|
|Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack||0||19-04-2019 16:33|
|What an Indian monsoon 130,000 years ago tells us about climate change today||0||27-03-2019 22:27|
|Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.||2||18-03-2019 19:43|
|In China we believe Anstrom, not Arrhenius.||10||16-03-2019 16:51|