tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post2579184467333796305..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-71152605007289643272022-08-13T21:34:59.278-07:002022-08-13T21:34:59.278-07:00
4 ways to put the 100-degree Arctic heat record i...<br />4 ways to put the 100-degree Arctic heat record in context<br />A remote Siberian town recently reported a temperature of 100.4° Fahrenheit<br /><br />By Carolyn Gramling<br />JULY 1, 2020 AT 8:00 AM<br /><br />On June 20, a remote Siberian town called Verkhoyansk logged a temperature of 38° Celsius (100.4° Fahrenheit), likely setting a new high-temperature record for the Arctic Circle (SN: 6/23/20).<br /><br />But that new record didn’t occur in a vacuum: It’s part of a long-term trend of historically hot temperatures in Siberia linked to climate change, and a larger, even more worrisome trend of amplified warming over the last few decades throughout the Arctic region. Here are four things to know about this new Arctic record.<br /><br />Siberia has been sweltering under months of unprecedented warmth.<br />Globally, May 2020 was the hottest May on record, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Much of that record-breaking heat is the result of warming in Siberia, where May temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C higher than average, says climate scientist Martin Stendel of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen.<br /><br />This extreme event in Siberia would not have happened without human-caused climate change, ...<br /><br />============================================================================<br /><br />https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arctic-warming-faster-earth-climate-change<br /><br />The Arctic is warming even faster than scientists realized<br />The region is warming nearly four times as fast as the rest of Earth<br /><br />Heating up<br />Over the last four decades, the global average temperature increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but in the Arctic, the mean increase per decade was about 0.75 degrees Celsius. <br /><br />Comparing the two trends, Arctic temperatures increased on average four times as fast as the global average, with some areas increasing as much as seven times as fast. The gray dotted line indicates the border of the Arctic Circle.<br /><br /><br /><br />https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2022/natural-disaster-figures-first-half-2022.html<br /><br />======================================================================<br /><br />2022/07/28<br />Reinsurance<br />In the first half of 2022, natural disasters caused overall losses of US$ 65bn, with slightly more than half of these insured<br />Extreme multi-day rainfall and severe flooding in Australia constituted the main loss burden for the insurance industry of at least US$ 3.7bn<br />US once again country with highest weather-related losses<br />Number of fatalities from natural disasters increased to 4,300 compared with first half of 2021<br />Extreme heat, drought and wildfires are increasing in many regions of the world, scientific community believes climate change is having a significant effect on the frequency of such eventscitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-89604483808411192302022-08-13T21:22:31.823-07:002022-08-13T21:22:31.823-07:00Truth does matter!Truth does matter!citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-43729378161186108702022-08-13T20:39:18.859-07:002022-08-13T20:39:18.859-07:00OinkQuack wrote: "Because the field is meant...OinkQuack wrote: "Because the field is meant to be the epitome of serious, dispassionate rationality,..."<br /><br />Stop playing innocent Oink. Deliberately maliciously lying about scientific evidence is unforgivable. <br />If Robert Holmes malicious disinformation and crazy making cost the man his job - it's nothing less than what he deserves!<br />Truth matter!!!<br /><br />Do you know the first thing about our global climate heat and moisture distribution engine? <br />Do you even care about that?<br /><br />Why shouldn't the frauds be made to pay for all the damage they've done. <br /><br />https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2022-on-track-for-a-summer-of-extreme-heat/<br /><br />https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/<br /><br />https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/<br /><br /><br />==============================================================<br /><br />Incidentally, a parting thought,<br /><br />"We The People have a moral ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire. <br /> <br /><br />We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, dishonest and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us."<br /><br />Cc <br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-30259811123255497962022-08-09T12:29:33.289-07:002022-08-09T12:29:33.289-07:00Online scientific arguments are so funny. Because ...Online scientific arguments are so funny. Because the field is meant to be the epitome of serious, dispassionate rationality, everyone has to resist insulting each other like common social media trolls. Instead, they refer to each other's comments as, "non sequiturs", "false premises", "bewildering", "perplexing" and "bizarre" and yet, under the hood, they're still calling each other bitches and fucktards. <br /><br />So, is this Robert Holmes bloke still a threat, or did you successfully cancel him? I hope you got him fired. I mean, that's the only logical thing to do with someone with whom you disagree. OinkQuackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00276324092166392460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-15218288431845641162021-10-17T12:15:57.089-07:002021-10-17T12:15:57.089-07:00oops, I allowed that to turn into a rhetorical que...oops, I allowed that to turn into a rhetorical question - although I'd really love to know how people like you can so easily ignore solid science, even as the consequences of our general disregard gets worse and worse.<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-32433792338285998952021-10-17T12:12:27.430-07:002021-10-17T12:12:27.430-07:00How the heck to do you figure that?
Please do exp...How the heck to do you figure that?<br /><br />Please do explain?<br />_________________________________________<br /><br />https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1<br />The paper offers no conclusion - only discussion among the same old gang of fringe science contrarians.<br />The paper never mentions CO2.<br />No one denies that it's possible cosmic rays have a slight influence on cloud formation. <br /><br />Even if they proved cosmic rays' trivial impact on cloud process, none of that negates the physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases or the reality of how radically we have changed the chemical composition of our all important atmosphere.<br /><br />My question to you: How can you remain so entrenched in such rhetorical bullshit is beyond me.<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-55193601338271512412021-10-16T04:36:20.824-07:002021-10-16T04:36:20.824-07:00Dr. Holmes was right and wring at the same time. A...Dr. Holmes was right and wring at the same time. Auto-compression alone (as he showed in the Venusian paradigm) isn't the only factor. <br /><br />A new paper by Dr. Henrik Svensmark titled “Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing” gives a glimpse as to where does the missing amplification effect comes from. It isn’t CO2!<br /><br />There goes ALL the money that governments exploit from the populous. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-66854608693608382142021-10-10T07:14:19.685-07:002021-10-10T07:14:19.685-07:00Dr.Geier, congratulations, you made the big time.
...Dr.Geier, congratulations, you made the big time.<br />Since your claims deserve attention I've written a short post with authoritative sources that help explain, <br />the details you chose to be ignorant of.<br /><br />Diary, responding to Dr. J.W. Geier (21-10-09) It's not the sun, or bad models.<br />https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2021/10/diary-responding-to-dr-jw-geier-21-10.html<br /><br />Cc<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-29498252073444968822021-10-09T09:10:09.075-07:002021-10-09T09:10:09.075-07:00With all due respect Dr. Geier, that is nonsense. ...With all due respect Dr. Geier, that is nonsense. We know plenty well what is going on within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Science has been intensely studying our atmosphere since the 1940s - nature is not some trickster and we don't need another Earth to experiment with, in order to understand its behavior.<br /><br />Why do you set impossible expectations?<br /><br />We do the best with the information we have. While you rather pretend we are missing a lot. <br /><br />Your thinking can only come from not doing your homework! Not learning from the substantive evidence that is available about what scientists have learned and taught us!<br /><br />As for your holistic. That means starting with the realization that AnthropogenicAnthropogenic Global Warming happens high up in our atmosphere and is driven by society increasing our planet's atmospheric insulation, <br /><br />Thus retaining more heat within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Of course, the sun is roasting the equator 24/7/365 and drives the entire engine, but there has been no significant fluctuations in that, so stop holding on to a LIE!<br /><br />What there has been is a runaway skyrocketing of additional atmospheric greenhouse gases. Simple as that. Physics, math.<br /><br />Then, once we are within that global climate engine, do things get really complicated, as we are faced with incomprehensible complexities heat being moved throughout the entire system. All of it operating by simple, under-riding, understandable, fundamentals, There's much about the details to be learned - but that doesn't give you a right to ignore all that we have learned and understand and can teach to anyone acting in good faith and with a spirit of honest curiosity.. <br /><br />What's unfortunately is intelligent people like you deluding themselves behind layers of dishonest rhetorical bullshit - when the fundamental physical facts are pretty damned straightforward.<br /><br />I bet I know what's at the root of your blinders, 1) hate the taxes, 2) the notion of doing with less - is a nonstarter, no matter how harsh the price our children will have to pay.<br /><br />Best wishes, <br />grow up.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-63011258319173081492021-09-28T22:53:19.075-07:002021-09-28T22:53:19.075-07:00The main science issue is that the Earth cannot ac...The main science issue is that the Earth cannot act as it’s own experimental control.<br />Computer models of the Earth’s climate reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the modellers and amplify errors over time.<br />It is unfortunate that the other terrestrial planets in this solar system are quite different from Earth.<br />The climate is a holistic function of the stellar flux, atmosphere and distribution of land and ocean on a planet.John W Geier MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347028385188079960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-88464596390244114432020-01-04T22:54:35.414-08:002020-01-04T22:54:35.414-08:00Anonymous12/12, no coding mean no coding. I will ...Anonymous12/12, no coding mean no coding. I will not be your gratuitous billboard.<br /><br />if you want send me what you have, citizenschallenge a gmail . comcitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-25132398833548900532019-12-16T07:36:14.636-08:002019-12-16T07:36:14.636-08:00WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com/2019/12/consider...<a href="https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2019/12/considering-gop-juvenile-delinquency.html" rel="nofollow">WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com/2019/12/considering-gop-juvenile-delinquency.html</a>Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-50084459283515998822019-12-16T07:33:17.415-08:002019-12-16T07:33:17.415-08:00Anonymous at 12/12/2019, as you know I rejected yo...Anonymous at 12/12/2019, as you know I rejected your comment because it doesn't adhere to my NO SPAM policy, no hidden coding allowed!<br /><br />That does not mean I'm not interested in responding to your fanciful comment.<br /><br />December 15, 2019<br />Examining an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent, Anonymous, Dec.12, 2019<br />WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com/2019/12/considering-gop-juvenile-delinquency.html<br /><br />Anonymous12/12, If you care to continue this discuss that you've initiated, please visit over there. <br /><br />You are welcome to comment, but please follow the rules of a constructive debate where learning is the objective and truth matters. <br /><br />CheersPeter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-62268752596384188082019-12-16T07:29:36.726-08:002019-12-16T07:29:36.726-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-5429083587339721372019-12-13T07:58:39.654-08:002019-12-13T07:58:39.654-08:00Please refer back to the above post I have added s...Please refer back to the above post I have added some expert responses:<br /><br />Drs. Shaviv and Veizer have now responded to the statement of the 14 scientists on their GSA Today paper. <br />Their responses are reproduced below, with our comments added.<br /><br />The original statement, signed by 14 scientists from Switzerland and Germany, can be found at <br />http://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/nachrichten/archiv-2002-2003/speculation-on-the-influence-of-galactic-cosmic-rays-on-climate-is-scientifically-untenable/Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-45447935394780887652019-12-13T06:38:35.967-08:002019-12-13T06:38:35.967-08:00Excuse the typos, it was actually past 1 AM my tim...Excuse the typos, it was actually past 1 AM my time. <br />I'm working on a more substantial review of your comments, this morning, keep an eye on new posts.Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-58242739987079232452019-12-12T21:05:24.517-08:002019-12-12T21:05:24.517-08:00Anonymous at 3:01 writes: “Peter, …your partner i...Anonymous at 3:01 writes: “Peter, …your partner in crime … clear political motive. … Let us try to be civil then and stick to the science. … baseless sarcasm.”<br />“…”<br /><br />What is wrong with lying about what the science says? Plenty, buddy! <br /><br />Anonymous at 3:01 “… too much feeling as if we are all going to die because of CO2 yet that insanity can only exist inside a cult.” <br /><br />Cc: Guess you’ve zero appreciation for trends or science or history to be able to make such a naive claim. And you call me ignorant.<br /><br />Anonymous at 3:01 “Not sure what has gone on here, calling a man a fraud is pretty harsh with no basis other than a disagreement.”<br /><br />Cc: Fuck off! I have plenty of BASIS for my claims and I present the evidence which you willfully ignore. Get an honest education.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous at 3:01 “His work on the missing cosmic cycles is supported by other papers.” B.S. papers perhaps I don’t you make no attempt to share that with me, name calling what you had, and you say you represent science, your words make you a liar.<br /><br /><br />“I resent your attack based on bed wetting resistance”<br /><br />“Attack what you don’t understand? I don’t attack all religious people because my belief is they can on” <br /><br />Cc: Whatever, you are trying science by rhetoric and slander - until you grow up enough to actually cite where I’m - then produce some real citation that support your case. But you never rise above pissed of juvenile delinquent. I have studied this seriously since high schools that I started in 1969, I have taken on every contrarian claim tossed at me and studied it. But you believe you can pretend that ain’t so. You are the fraud here.<br /><br /> I don’t know every detail and I have more to learn - but I damned well know what I’m talking about and can defend it rationally in a constructive argument based on honestly representing each others evidence and facts.<br /><br />Oh and your little hidden “&quot,” is a tricky dick move and I won’t play.Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-74599840516266449872019-11-25T12:09:23.703-08:002019-11-25T12:09:23.703-08:00Unknown on 11/23/19 = your comment has been re...Unknown on 11/23/19 = your comment has been rejected it was way too incoherent. <br /><br />Next time try to explain yourself in plain English.Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-17519201079711041672019-11-25T12:05:32.165-08:002019-11-25T12:05:32.165-08:00E) ?? writes: “I look forwards to your team of e...E) ?? writes: “I look forwards to your team of experts explaining here, or by a scientific paper how is findings are wrong.”<br /><br />You can start here: The Band Saturation Effect - New Modtran Model 1<br /><a href="http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1090132/uiconf_id/20652192/entry_id/1_etyzlvw7/embed/auto?" rel="nofollow">http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1090132/uiconf_id/20652192/entry_id/1_etyzlvw7/embed/auto?</a><br /><br />F) “You are aware of separate studies that show when solar forcing is correctly applied the CO2 alarm is over?? No?”<br /><br />No, I’m not. I notice you don’t offer any citations. You got nothing!<br />Oh and I do know what serious scientists have to say about the sun’s behavior and current global warming. Those put a lie to your dishonest bullshit. Learn for yourself:<br /><br /><a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/" rel="nofollow"> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change" rel="nofollow"> https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change</a><br /><br />G) ?? writes: “That's because you are an alarmist fool.”<br /><br />Name calling, ridicule, ignorant lies, an alternate reality that is totally divorced from Earth’s physical reality - that’s all you have. It’s truly pathetic that you have so little interest in questioning your own self-certain assumptions.<br /><br />H) Why doesn't Holmes have a requirement to read the scientific literature and present his ideas to real scientists, what’s the point of asking laypeople for expert judgements??? <br /><br />Instead, he ( or is that you H? ) play expert and expect me to play pretend expert and judge complex science on a sliver of the available data. <br /><br />That’s not science, that’s propaganda.Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-31967727771850045902019-11-25T12:04:44.054-08:002019-11-25T12:04:44.054-08:00November 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM,
"While I thin...November 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM,<br /> "While I think your main focus is to discredit his work, suggest some coal connection" <br /><br />Don't fabricate motives for me! <br />If you took the time to actually read what I've written you'd see I'm just trying to figure out what Holmes’ game is - He’s the one who came at me with those frankly crazy emails and their even crazier claims. I have a right to be curious, particularly since I know who dishonest the man is. <br /><br />B) ?? writes: “The same ""game"" was in 1939 ..." <br /><br />That’s an idiot’s diversion, has nothing to do with climate science or what scientists have learned. <br /><br /><br />C) ?? writes: “that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases." - <br /><br />Actually, increasing Greenhouse Gas impacts the physics at the top of the atmosphere - NOT AT THE BOTTOM - If you were serious why not learn what Holmes is missing? But that would take a serious effort on your part: <a href="http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html" rel="nofollow"> http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html</a><br /><br />D) You have the gaul to think that serious Air Force scientists weren’t aware of these complexities? How is it that you can justify dismissing all of the studies made from the late 40s to early 70s that firmly detailed our atmosphere’s geophysical and thermo? <br /><br /><a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-agw-certain-as-certain-gets.html" rel="nofollow"> https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-agw-certain-as-certain-gets.html</a><br /><br /><a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-alley-explains-co2-evolution.html" rel="nofollow"> https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-alley-explains-co2-evolution.html</a><br /> <br />E) We do not live on Venus, using Venus to argue about what has been happening upon this Earth for the past couple centuries is another disingenuous attempt to distract from actually learning about the science itself along with the observation.<br /><br /><br />E) ?? writes: “I look forwards to your team of experts explaining here, or by a scientific paper how is findings are wrong.”<br /><br />You can start here: The Band Saturation Effect - New Modtran Model 1<br /><a href="http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1090132/uiconf_id/20652192/entry_id/1_etyzlvw7/embed/auto?" rel="nofollow">http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1090132/uiconf_id/20652192/entry_id/1_etyzlvw7/embed/auto?</a>Peter Mieslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402362928953253739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-38512295672202256222019-11-23T15:40:49.915-08:002019-11-23T15:40:49.915-08:00citizenchallenge,
Checking back to see you on no 3...citizenchallenge,<br />Checking back to see you on no 3 spot using ddg search but up there before Dr Holmes's work.<br />Interesting.<br /> <br />While I think your main focus is to discredit his work, suggest some coal connection I have not seen how his application of the MOLAR mass version of the ideal gas law to be false.<br /><br />If you read the entire paper you would notice he points out the limitations of that law.<br /><br />He also uses fixed values with the only variation being the obvious differences in planets not their atmospheric composition. If it is so easily wrong, then why so little comments on his site using science to debunk it?<br /><br />While you set up blogs to block scientific progress in understanding the earths interaction with complex systems and show a clear bias with feeling an emotional attack at genius I remind you, you are just a blogger and none of the replies here have any real weight to them.<br /><br />"Should anyone with some genuine knowledge on the topic care to point out the game Dr. Robert Holmes Frolly is playing at - please do!"<br /><br />The same ""game"" was in 1939 where a 99% consensus all wet the bed and got upset. It's called science.<br />E=MC2 is probably too simple an explanation and so must be wrong was the "consensus" back then.<br /><br />Read the whole paper! before commenting. He also points out the differing sciencentific results at the time of studying Co2.<br />"2.5. Discussion on Maxwell vs Arrhenius and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ <br />Work in this area of gas physics was detailed in the 19th century. However, there is a strong difference between the work and the views of the researchers Maxwell and Arrhenius. Maxwell’s work [15] shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are primarily determined by convection and the atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity relationship. Arrhenius’s later work [18] completely ignored this and determined that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases. There have been papers critical of Arrhenius’s radiative effects ideas since 1909 [19]. Which idea is correct is critical to the present, since if Arrhenius is correct, then there should be some concern about CO2 emissions, if the climate sensitivity is high enough. But if Loschmidt’s version of Maxwell’s work is correct, then doubling CO2 will have no measurable effect on tropospheric atmospheric temperatures, and the climate sensitivity will be too low to be measurable."<br /><br />Actually it is measurable and he does that. Getting 0.01Degree for a doubling of co2.<br />So what part of the equation changed that value? CO2 did so the claim the law and 3 sides are flexible is also wrong (as he proves)<br /><br />Perhaps you can explain then why Venus doesn't just continue to get hotter then since it's atmosphere is 96.5% Co2.<br />There is no "greenhouse effect" and there is no glass. Either a planet's atmosphere expands to retain the equilibrium and there is little warming or it doesn't and there is. This is explained in the paper.<br /><br />You miss the point entirely and the replies here range from a quick look to 'I am not surprised'. To not even using the actual formula used and how the conclusion was arrived at.<br />You are a pathetic blogger with a cult interest not a scientific one and a waste of space with regard to any scientific area of study that benefits mankind with better science.<br /><br />I look forwards to your team of experts explaining here, or by a scientific paper how is findings are wrong.<br />You are aware of separate studies that show when solar forcing is correctly applied the CO2 alarm is over?? No? <br />That's because you are an alarmist fool.<br /><br />Warm regards<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-2976339186464602672019-11-03T22:03:28.884-08:002019-11-03T22:03:28.884-08:00Unknown, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:21 PM
You're joking...<br />Unknown, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:21 PM<br /><br />You're joking about Venus, right? Nothing on Venus debunks what's happening here on Earth.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/How_Venus_and_Mars_can_teach_us_about_Earth" rel="nofollow">How Venus and Mars can teach us about Earth</a><br /><br /><a href="https://history.aip.org/climate/Venus.htm" rel="nofollow">https://history.aip.org/climate/Venus.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.<br /><a href="http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html" rel="nofollow">http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html</a><br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-88536917107349461352019-11-03T21:52:09.629-08:002019-11-03T21:52:09.629-08:00Yeah I like to think I'm interested in the sci...Yeah I like to think I'm interested in the science.<br /><br /><a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/09/religious-thinking-v-scientific-thinking.html" rel="nofollow">Religious Thinking v. Scientific Thinking</a><br /><br />I just wish I knew what you're talking about.<br />Can you explain any of that?<br /><br />As for your quote - What's your point. <br />If someone ignores great swaths of well understood science - Why shouldn't that serve to flunk him?citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-55691092505455671352019-11-02T15:21:07.303-07:002019-11-02T15:21:07.303-07:00I think the point is the application of this on th...I think the point is the application of this on the planet Venus with a 97%Co2 content. Debunked science or you just want to discredit someone?<br /><br />Frankly I no longer care who pays for science or new attempts to "embarrass a university with coal connections" <br />Science has to be true to what it is, not human emotion of being wrong...<br /><br />By your definition NASA, NOAA, the EPA and the UK met office have a connection to my tax payments.<br /><br />Quote: "For myself, all I needed to notice was that Robert Holmes doesn't acknowledge, ignores, the impact of greenhouse gases on Earth and how they regulate our atmospheric insulation. Or that we have been injecting geologically significant"<br /><br />Guys just because something bucks a common belief doesn't mean we can't all learn from new studies. It reminds me of public thinking around Galileo...Still the Catholic church apologised 3 centuries later I suppose.<br /><br />Are either of you interested in Science or is APGW really a new religion?<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14644252614733234618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-49038576803852837412019-10-23T22:41:38.992-07:002019-10-23T22:41:38.992-07:00Erich, thanks.
Sorry for the delay in getting th...Erich, thanks.<br /> <br />Sorry for the delay in getting this through moderation, I was off with other things.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.com