Search results

No kidding ehh?

I should know better than to argue with an idiot. It brings the conversation down to their level, and they always beat me with experience...

Anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. I was responding directly to your statement that the source of increasing greenhouse gases is uncertain. It is not. What are you, on crack? I've given you answers. Changes in orbital parameters for one. How does that in anyway invalidate greenhouse warming...

Try to keep up please. I said there is no debate as to where the extra carbon dioxide has come from. You said that wasn't accepted when Gore or Suzuki said it. I went through the major sources listed by extrafires graph. The oceans and biosphere breath in and out each year, steadilly. Only we're...

If the flux into the atmosphere is greater than the flux leaving. There's a number of circumstances that could follow this pattern. It's still in the cycle, in the system, even when it leaves the atmosphere. It's not a loss, it's just mobilized elsewhere. And the vast majority of those deposits...

Nothing artificial about that. Organic material is laid down all the time. It's not a net loss from the system. It could be a net loss from the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels today is taking the system to the time when there was more carbon in the atmosphere, ahead of schedule. There is no...

How is that an artificial reduction in net concentrations? Care to elaborate on that?

I think if you add it all up, solar is one wedge out of many that are needed. There is no such thing as a benign power generation technique.

1 cup plain unsweetened yogurt 1 cup starwberries 1/2 cup blueberries 2 bananas 1 cup of fruit punch Makes a damn good smoothie. Sometimes I throw in some raspberries or blackberries as well, if I have them.

Scott, you have the scientific understanding of a turnip. That's about as charitable as I can be with your demonstrated understanding of the physics. Your criticism can be roundly debunked because it's not based on any evidence. No matter what evidence is given, you find some rhetorical device...

No, there is no other cause for absorbed heat in a tube where the only cchanged variable is carbon dioxide. It is causation. You can't seem to understand this simple, and observable fact. Thjat is causation. There is no lightining in a controlled lab experiment, no changing irradience, no...

I'm starting to wonder.

Jesus wasn't walking with Dinosaurs. Bring your creationist crap elsewhere Scott.

duplicate

You said causation has not been proved. That means no causation. Can you agree with that? Or are you going to twist in the wind some more, move goal posts, etc. Apparently our brains work well, and you have problems coping with that. From where I'm sitting, you're the one maintaining an argument...

Right, the graph goes up and down in quick succession, from one day to the next. That is weather.... Billions of years ago don't matter to our climate now. That is ignorant. The time of the dinosaurs does not describe our climate at all. Taking long term averages now does. What is so hard to...

There is nothing overwhelming in that post. It is a straightforward as it gets without explaining to you the vibrational, rotational and vibro-rotational aspects of the carbon dioxide molecule. If you say there is no causation, then how do you explain this away? Calling my simplistic...

What's ridiculous is that you think this rubbish is an accurate portrayal of how global warming attribution works. This isn't even a good portrayal of how the models work... It is not correlation only. I've told you that before. It is well documented that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas...

You think one season is enough to be counted as climate? Not even one whole years worth of weather, but one season? That's hilarious! Here's some FYI on the difference: Weather and Climate Basics

So, because it's natural means it can't be a pollutant? This is straight from the standard playbook of science deniers. It's called the Argumentum ad Naturam, or appeal to nature. It's a fallacy because it assumes that all things natural must therefore be good. It's a fallacy because it fails to...