He assumed, in spite of disclaimers, that they meant extinction. What he did was show each doubling of CO2 would increase warming by 1/e of the previous doubling. The fourth doubling will increase the third warming by 0.018. That is miniscule and validates the W&H conclusion.
2
8
324
Replying to @JamesAbbott2013
@JamesAbbott2013
You are not answering my questions. If you don't know the answers be honest; admit that. You can go on line and find answers if you will. If you won't do that be honest; admit that. You can ask technical questions if you wish. I won't respond to insults.
3
116
I am sure you know more about molecular photon emissions than I. I interpret your posts as meaning that maximum emission by water is at 6 to 8 km above surface. That is near top of troposphere. Am I correct?
2
19
464
Here are the US Government data on acreage burned per year since 1900. You did a great job of chartsmanship when you extracted the portion of the data that support your opinion. That is just a crude form of lying. images.app.goo.gl/JU9bWaBDXR…
We have been too tolerant for too long of deviant behaviour by elected officials who ignore climate change science, writes @GeraldKutney #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBrawl #AmericanPolitics #cdnpoli
nationalobserver.com/2024/03…
5
9
800
COP28: 5 UN big takeaways on a historic climate agreement thehill.com/policy/energy-en…. The persons who wrote this tripe are naive simpletons. They believe the machinations during COP28 will change something. That is as ignorant as believing that increasing CO2 causes global warming.
1
4
294
@ClimateOfGavin You cannot hide these data with a lame personal health data claim. It would be no trouble to make all of the data anonymous. Assign an arbitrary ID to each record; include innocuous info. Eg male teacher, Chicago. Then others scientists could assess the issue.
34

