|
TheRealArchAngel (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
**Also need proof that IR rays cause thermal heating of GHG and air**Confused?Well according to environut GHG theory IR rays heat the GHG which warms the air.In the real world IR rays are what a thermally heated body emmits at lowest heated level. As a body gets hotter it will emmit UV rays,x-rays,cosmic rays,etcSo what causes thermal heat on the earth surface which transfers it to the Air?Read a bottle of SunblockNote that it doesn't have ingredients to protect you from GHG or IR
TheRealArchAngel (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
**Most are Grad Students,University faculty,and Government Employees...not that all this is the point**Again, all I am asking for is a CO2 meter stuck on factories,Power plants, and cars to prove and monitor how much CO2 gets past their filtration system as there is no hard data to prove the CO2 in the atmosphere was cause by burning fossil fuels and the estimates pulled out of the Environut Activists ass are always way off.Also need proof that IR rays cause thermal heating of GHG and air
TheRealArchAngel (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
**These are generated by scientists chosen for their expertise**te,hee (snicker)Trying doing a background check on your "Scientist" that did the IPCC report.What few Meterologist there were involved resigned or are now like this guy in this video when they found out they were had.There are no Ecologist, Geologist, Planetologist, Botonist, or any other Real Scientist on that roster.Most are Grad Students,University faculty,and Government Employees...not that all this is the point
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
The IPCC website provides a good description of their procedures. The Working Group Reports are not only excellent data sources, but also useful for listing the scientists involved, and more important, listing the references from which Reports are distilled. This is critical because the main conclusions (e.g. on CO2 forcing) can be derived from the journals with no need to read IPCC reports themselves. It would probably be informative for viewers to visit the site to draw their own conclusions.
gufpott (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
"These are generated by scientists chosen for their expertise."Chosen for something grastog .. I'm not sure what.We still don't have a pretty damned good reason for the follosing response to reviewer comment 6-112:"Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series"Until we see a rock solid justification, the IPCC reports are best treated as unsound and roundly ignored.
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Many individuals unfamiliar with climate science misunderstand IPCC reports. These are generated by scientists chosen for their expertise. The very strong consensus on CO2-driven warming, and the need to mitigate it, based on evidence in references they cite, is striking - particularly since the full (unsummarized) reports permit minority opinions to be expressed. On the other hand, reviewers, often self-selected, don't reflect the science journals, where recognition of the warming is universal.
ziljn (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Anyone? Really?So in other words you're saying the IPCC's claim of consensus among the "world's top 2500 scientists" was a gross exxageration. I guess we can agree on that much.As for Gavin, he doesn't have a degree in climatology or any earth science, as you demand for McIntyre. Why is it ok for him but not for McIntyre?Yeah, it's a rhetorical question. We all know why. It's called hypocrisy.
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Again?!Right, well do enjoy your break then.!
gerjanp (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
"Well agreed."Good! I'm off on holiday again so do enjoy the break.
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Well agreed. |
