So the CDC, the American Lung Association, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the National Toxicology Program are not health experts? Maybe you should try telling them that since they have all labeled fiberglass as a carcinogenic.
The only thing youve proven with that idiotic post is your complete lack of knowledge with regards to what a libertarian is. Good job.
That demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on sea levels, either way. Which we already knew.
You must not know what a "mean average" is if you can't comprehend why NOAA drew that diagonal line.
We've been talking about them for decades in Alaska. Siberia is not the only place where methane hydrates are melting, sometimes explosively. This is what tends to happen during an interglacial period, which we have been in for the last 11,700 years.
Where exactly does this 65-year-old study back up your assertion that the logarithmic decline of CO2 warm forcing is due to the warming that would happen? Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time reading the whole thing when there is most likely nothing in it that backs you up.
Of course, it is about aerosols. But not everything in it is.
Yes... both of those quotes are about aerosols.
But this one is not. And it is OBVIOUS that it is NOT. All you had to do was read the sentence right before the one you cut and pasted:
Did you miss the sentence right before the one you copied? I don't think so. You ignored it so that you could dishonestly claim that 6 W m-2 was due to a decline in aerosols when it really is due to a decrease in the reflectance of the planet's surface.
There is nothing wrong with the graph. The problem is how you use this graph to lie about what the data says. It is all the data with just one trend line that hides all the changes that are happening over time. You constantly use it to falsely claim that there has been no change in the rate of rise. But if you just used the variations of the 50-year trends tab you can see that the rate of rise has been on the increase. Here it is.
I don't think you realize what long is claiming. He is saying the logarithmic decline of CO2's forcing as concentration increases is calculated using the fact that a warming world is more efficient at radiating heat out into space. But I have never seen anything that says this. I think long made it up.
You're just repeating what you said before. I could think of less polite descriptions such as calling them a useless waste of space. But let's stick to denier as it is accurate rather than descriptive.
Any changes in the sea level rise rate, are clearly not tracking the rise in CO2 levels.
You can say the names as much as you want, but they don’t say it’s carcinogenic,So the CDC, the American Lung Association, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the National Toxicology Program are not health experts? Maybe you should try telling them that since they have all labeled fiberglass as a carcinogenic.
I'm betting this is when you really wish you actually had an education.
www.cdc.gov
Not made up. Basic science.
That is some of the nuttiest descriptions of people who disagree with man-made climate change I have ever read.Q-Anon? Flat Earthers? And rejection of the woke politically correct man-made climate change cult far predates Trump running for president. Your apparent opinion that anyone who does not buy into man-made climate is a drooling nutjob is batshit crazy quackery.
I didn't say comprehend. Just looking at the style of the line it looks like a different addition.You must not know what a "mean average" is if you can't comprehend why NOAA drew that diagonal line.
We've been talking about them for decades in Alaska. Siberia is not the only place where methane hydrates are melting, sometimes explosively. This is what tends to happen during an interglacial period, which we have been in for the last 11,700 years.
No. Many are just dumber than a second coat of paint.
Legitimate science, yes, junk science no. You lack the ability to distinguish between the two. You are just following the left wing cult like an obediant puppy.
No…. I understand science quite well.
So nothing more than keep repeating yourself. If you want to support this crap that is your problem.
Next time try searching for "methane hydrate", you will be more successful.
www.cambridge.org
It's simply two aspects of science that are related, and are very solidly believed to be true.
It's actually the resins used that are carcinogenic, not the glass itself. The fiberglass however does have its own health concerns.So the CDC, the American Lung Association, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the National Toxicology Program are not health experts? Maybe you should try telling them that since they have all labeled fiberglass as a carcinogenic.
I'm betting this is when you really wish you actually had an education.
This is where RE (radiative efficiency) comes into play. If you understand how they calculate it, you will see this value decreases as the greenhouse gas increases.
So true.
Fiberglass is coated with formaldehyde and that is what makes it carcinogenic. The glass fibers cause other pulmonary issues when inhaled, but are not carcinogenic.
What I am saying is worth repeating. There are two sides to any scientific argument. Not all scientists agree on the issue of so-called man-made climate change. To take one side and just declare the other side as flat earth nuts is not just batshit crazy, it is intellectual cowardice. It shows that you have no intellectual argument. You are just following the crowd and cherry picking web sites that support your point of view. Same goes with the Covid issue. There is at least some doubt that the pandemic started with the sale of caged animals in the Wuhan wet markets. To label the view one does not agree with as nutty or flat earth is batshit crazy as well.