|
Post by Ratty on May 14, 2015 6:58:16 GMT
Yes, I noticed Sig.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 14, 2015 12:39:52 GMT
Perhaps Tamino should go back say 8000 years and see which way the trend is?
The entire approach of climatology with pattern matching, mixing sampling rates and cherry picking dates to start linear projections from chaotic data is fraudulent. Many of these 'climate science' approaches are not even undergraduate level science.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 27, 2015 16:20:07 GMT
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion." If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). What are you talking about?? So far it sounds like gibberish to me.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 27, 2015 16:43:04 GMT
I think this poster 'may' have been drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 28, 2015 3:34:00 GMT
I think this poster 'may' have been drunk. Or just another internet nutter.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 28, 2015 5:36:14 GMT
I think this poster 'may' have been drunk. Or just another internet nutter. Not limited to the Internet sadly!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 28, 2015 11:13:16 GMT
Or just another internet nutter. Not limited to the Internet sadly! Where else is there?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 17, 2016 13:35:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 17, 2016 13:47:04 GMT
According to the writers of the article, the proposed mechanism to produces this IR is the recombination of atomic nitrogen created by direct solar heating during the day. Alternatively we can suppose these emissions are coming from directly heated molecular nitrogen which is at least 1500C even when not heated by the Sun. The emission is right in the middle of the near infra-red, which is associated with IR from hot objects. According to Tyndall back in 1860, at ordinary temperatures, N2 is 330 times less powerful at absorption than CO2
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 17, 2016 14:02:17 GMT
Back to the ole H2O is the driver.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 10, 2019 13:01:13 GMT
Years later and STILL no one has posted any Global Warming science.
The religion is all but dead.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 10, 2019 13:11:20 GMT
Years later and STILL no one has posted any Global Warming science. The religion is all but dead. Keep thinking that, Ibdamann, and praying. PS: I always thought that I was the man.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 10, 2019 13:53:59 GMT
Years later and STILL no one has posted any Global Warming science. The religion is all but dead. Keep thinking that, Ibdamann, and praying. PS: I always thought that I was the man. It's not a matter of thinking it. It's a matter of observing that after almost five years, no Global Warming worshipper has been able to unearth the Global Warming science s/he insists exists. p.s. I don't pray. I am an atheist, a real one, not a Global Warming or Climate Change theist who dishonestly CLAIMS to be an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 10, 2019 22:12:20 GMT
codewhacker, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts. I get the impression that you perceive me as some sort of enemy but I assure you I am not. Please allow me to correct a few of your errors. Shame you don't pray. I think you don't know how? As to being an atheist I am not surprised as I believe many don't know how to think about God. I get this a lot from my Christian friends. I was raised in the Catholic Church and attended Catholic schools from nursery school through post-grad ... and it squeezed every last ounce of religion out of me. 1) Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God Incorrect. An atheist is one who lacks any theism. An asynchronous protocol is one that lacks any synchronization. An amoral subject is one that lacks any morality component. An apolitical event is one that lacks any politics. An amorphous substance lacks any form. Etc... 2) God: God is conceived of as the supreme being 3) Being: existence 4) Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality 5) Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them I'll take your word for it. so bottom line you don't believe in reality? Is that what you mean? I neither believe *in* it nor have faith *in* it, ... I merely accept it. I would be interested how you think thoughts work? Synapses and other electro-chemical neural impulses. How does intent maintain between different states, chemical, electrical and space? How does it manifest? Mostly as an illusory perception. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Mar 10, 2019 23:25:22 GMT
It's not a matter of thinking it. It's a matter of observing that after almost five years, no Global Warming worshipper has been able to unearth the Global Warming science s/he insists exists. p.s. I don't pray. I am an atheist, a real one, not a Global Warming or Climate Change theist who dishonestly CLAIMS to be an atheist. Shame you don't pray. I think you don't know how? As to being an atheist I am not surprised as I believe many don't know how to think about God. 1) Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God 2) God: God is conceived of as the supreme being 3) Being: existence 4) Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality 5) Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them so bottom line you don't believe in reality? Is that what you mean? I would be interested how you think thoughts work? How does intent maintain between different states, chemical, electrical and space? How does it manifest? Mycoplasma genitalium has life, therefore, using your logic in reverse, believes in God, Righto.....
|
|