https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SAPerhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you:
So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the science.
<[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SAPerhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you:
So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent�Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than it has for millenia.
Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling
of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >science.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you:So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than it >has for millenia.
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent�
Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling
of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
Perhaps you should get help.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyObiously you either cannot read or you are unable to comprehend basic science (after all, you don't have a science degree) or you are lying. Which is it? Abuse removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >>science.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you:So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than it >>has for millenia.
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent�
Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling
of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
Perhaps you should get help.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Odiously you continue to misrepresent what you read; or alternatively
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyObiously you either cannot read or you are unable to comprehend basic science >(after all, you don't have a science degree) or you are lying. Which is it? >Abuse removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Not if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >>>science.
Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you:So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than it >>>has for millenia.
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent� >>>>Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling >>>>of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
Perhaps you should get help.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:01:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody with a science degree could possibly be so stupid. You are a liar.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Odiously you continue to misrepresent what you read; or alternatively
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyObiously you either cannot read or you are unable to comprehend basic science >>(after all, you don't have a science degree) or you are lying. Which is it? >>Abuse removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than >>>>it
Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you: >>>>Not if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >>>>science.So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought?https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent� >>>>>Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling >>>>>of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
has for millenia.
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
fail to comprehend and blame others for your own deficiencies. Yes I
do have a science degree (with honours); but that is not necessary to
know that you are wrong yet again.
Perhaps you should get help.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Read the article, Tony:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:01:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody with a science degree could possibly be so stupid. You are a liar.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Odiously you continue to misrepresent what you read; or alternatively
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Obiously you either cannot read or you are unable to comprehend basic science
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than >>>>>it
So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought? >>>>>>Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you: >>>>>Not if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >>>>>science.https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent� >>>>>>Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling >>>>>>of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
has for millenia.
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
(after all, you don't have a science degree) or you are lying. Which is it? >>>Abuse removed.
fail to comprehend and blame others for your own deficiencies. Yes I
do have a science degree (with honours); but that is not necessary to
know that you are wrong yet again.
The article is exactly as I have explained - nobody with a science degree could
think otherwise. You are a liar.
But you have done what you always do, disruipt an honest and worthwhile thread.
Piss off, you ignorant litt;le boy.
Nobody with a science degree could possibly be so obsessed with political >dogma, long proven to be false. You are a liar.
Perhaps you should get help.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Read the article, Tony:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:01:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNobody with a science degree could possibly be so stupid. You are a liar. >>The article is exactly as I have explained - nobody with a science degree >>could
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Odiously you continue to misrepresent what you read; or alternatively >>>fail to comprehend and blame others for your own deficiencies. Yes I
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Obiously you either cannot read or you are unable to comprehend basic >>>>science
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:On the contrary, the article identifies correlation.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:48:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Exactly, the earth is not increasing in temperature any more or less than >>>>>>it
So the world is not getting hotter, who would have thought? >>>>>>>Perhaps those that actually read the article may disagree with you: >>>>>>Not if they are sentient. Which is probably why you don't understand the >>>>>>science.https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk3705?fbclid=IwY2xjawFidGlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVMEWtYAqChYsItsMpwFKXsooedIxwSB-zH4dfWa79QP0pGtTEcRduRTvg_aem_BA-ZUMxUxqJFcaIsvdQ2SA
"The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant �apparent� >>>>>>>Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling >>>>>>>of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ~8�C, with
no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold."
has for millenia.
And there is no correlation between CO2 ;evels and temperature.
(after all, you don't have a science degree) or you are lying. Which is it? >>>>Abuse removed.
do have a science degree (with honours); but that is not necessary to >>>know that you are wrong yet again.
think otherwise. You are a liar.
But you have done what you always do, disruipt an honest and worthwhile >>thread.
Piss off, you ignorant litt;le boy.
Nobody with a science degree could possibly be so obsessed with political >>dogma, long proven to be false. You are a liar.
"There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2,
indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.
The consistency of this relationship is surprising because on this
timescale, we expect solar luminosity to influence climate. We
hypothesize that changes in planetary albedo and other greenhouse
gases (e.g., methane) helped compensate for the increasing solar
luminosity through time. The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably >constant �apparent� Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature
response to a doubling of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of
~8�C, with no detectable dependence on whether the
climate is warm or cold.
CONCLUSION: PhanDA provides a statistically robust estimate of GMST
through the Phanerozoic. We find that Earth�s temperature has varied
more dynamically than previously thought and that greenhouse climates
were very warm.
CO2 is the dominant driver of Phanerozoic climate, emphasizing the
importance of this greenhouse gas in shaping Earth history"
Perhaps you should get help.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 155:54:41 |
| Calls: | 12,092 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,723 |