“So all the results from the experts are wrong”Your faith in the “experts” is touching. We have not had a long enough calibration period for measuring the concentration of a solute in air that is thought to have a half life of 55 years in the air, and the air trapped in bubbles an average mixture of several years (~ 80-85 Neftel (1992)). Essentially then the concentration o C02 in the ice is an 85 year running average and we know what long running averages does to time series.
@drkstrong” You seem incapable of specifiying the question. The IPCC talks a lot about climate sensitivity. Each factor has its own sensitivity”this is what we have been arguing about for 3 days dumbass..and now that you finally understand you were wrong after 3 fricken days you are trying to lie your way out of it…now don’t talk to me..I won’t be responding to a dumbass liar
@drkstrong no I did change my sentence to say 1C’s worth of forcing..so proper units or not that was a VERY clear intent..it was also 3 days ago…dumbass
Ask the WGMS. But it would be a strange coincidence that they make this finding and it is consistent with all the other glacial research that is going on around the world. Drop the conspiracy line it is not credible.
So all the results from the experts are wrong and you are the sole possessor of the wisdom about the historic record on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Not likely.
This all started when I pointed out that you were wrong about the units for climate sensitivity. Instead of saying “oops” you go on this epic trek through insult land. Then when I find that you are merely quoting wikipedia verbatum you turn nastyI even offered to reset and discuss the science but, no, the insults continue to fly!It gets better, you then use the units and definition that I gave you as if your ownFewer insults and more civility would do you case a power of good
For someone who does not want me to talk to them it seems to be you that is doing a lot of the talking.Your insults say that you know you were wrong and you certainly did not admit to me that you were wrong about the units which was my sole original point. You want to drag this out longer I am game. So until you cease to me in my comments page I’ll be in yours.PS a formula is not necessarily a definition but a definition can be expressed as a formula.You’re welcome!
Nightthe effect of global warmingno or little raising sea levelno weather outside the span that make up an average nothing that has not happened before in recorded historyso NOTHING you list is real, its all in the future in computer modelsYou Night have reached the tipping point and are sliding down now
drkthe “90 glaciers” how were they picked? Was there any bias in the picking? So the 90 are what percentage of the total number of glaciers in the world?
“So all the results from the experts are wrong”Your faith in the “experts” is touching. We have not had a long enough calibration period for measuring the concentration of a solute in air that is thought to have a half life of 55 years in the air, and the air trapped in bubbles an average mixture of several years (~ 80-85 Neftel (1992)). Essentially then the concentration o C02 in the ice is an 85 year running average and we know what long running averages does to time series.
@drkstrong” You seem incapable of specifiying the question. The IPCC talks a lot about climate sensitivity. Each factor has its own sensitivity”this is what we have been arguing about for 3 days dumbass..and now that you finally understand you were wrong after 3 fricken days you are trying to lie your way out of it…now don’t talk to me..I won’t be responding to a dumbass liar
@drkstrong no I did change my sentence to say 1C’s worth of forcing..so proper units or not that was a VERY clear intent..it was also 3 days ago…dumbass
Ask the WGMS. But it would be a strange coincidence that they make this finding and it is consistent with all the other glacial research that is going on around the world. Drop the conspiracy line it is not credible.
So all the results from the experts are wrong and you are the sole possessor of the wisdom about the historic record on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Not likely.
This all started when I pointed out that you were wrong about the units for climate sensitivity. Instead of saying “oops” you go on this epic trek through insult land. Then when I find that you are merely quoting wikipedia verbatum you turn nastyI even offered to reset and discuss the science but, no, the insults continue to fly!It gets better, you then use the units and definition that I gave you as if your ownFewer insults and more civility would do you case a power of good
@drkstrong dumbass and a liar..ok…you have a new name
For someone who does not want me to talk to them it seems to be you that is doing a lot of the talking.Your insults say that you know you were wrong and you certainly did not admit to me that you were wrong about the units which was my sole original point. You want to drag this out longer I am game. So until you cease to me in my comments page I’ll be in yours.PS a formula is not necessarily a definition but a definition can be expressed as a formula.You’re welcome!
Nightthe effect of global warmingno or little raising sea levelno weather outside the span that make up an average nothing that has not happened before in recorded historyso NOTHING you list is real, its all in the future in computer modelsYou Night have reached the tipping point and are sliding down now
drkthe “90 glaciers” how were they picked? Was there any bias in the picking? So the 90 are what percentage of the total number of glaciers in the world?