re: more specific

Space/Science » in reply to You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to

re: more specific

TB — 11/19/2008 6:36:35 PM (archived)

Could it be that your technical opinions are dictated primarily by your ideological superstitions?

There's a lot of that going around.

AGW stopped being about science and the climate a long time ago.

Follow the money and the political power. Both sides, please, not just one.

The whole thread (61 posts)

Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - S - 11/17/2008 8:11:07 PM
- Btw, a must see - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 3:34:14 AM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - Brian Ganek - 11/18/2008 2:13:44 PM
- Back HERE, actually -- corrected HZ ink - S - 11/17/2008 10:29:17 PM
- The H20 - 95% myth is proof that the cited info is nonsense - pwokenyaw - 11/17/2008 9:56:12 PM
  - The H20 - 95% myth, What About Sublimation - Brian Ganek - 11/18/2008 2:26:15 PM
    - re: The H20 - 95% myth, What About Sublimation - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:27:29 PM
      - YOU didn't but "S" did (n/t) - Nick Hoffman - 11/18/2008 11:32:10 PM
  - You need to read more carefully - S - 11/17/2008 10:08:25 PM
    - by volume, not effect... - nick hoffman - 11/18/2008 10:41:24 AM
    - A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - Dr Clayton Forrester - 11/18/2008 3:36:44 AM
      - re: A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - Post Sputnik - 11/18/2008 7:49:06 PM
        
        Figure of speech, somewhat analogous to the term "reaction cross section" occuring at nuclear scales". - Baffler - 11/18/2008 8:50:01 PM
        
        re: Euphemisms - Post Sputnik - 11/18/2008 10:56:52 PM
        
        the H and K lines of ionized calcium - ER - 11/18/2008 11:44:55 PM
        
        re: the H and K lines of ionized calcium - Post Sputnik - 11/19/2008 2:18:24 AM
        
        Well, if you're appealing to Wiki...I won't be outdone. - ER - 11/19/2008 3:12:07 AM
        
        There's a whole lotta shakin goin on ... - Post Sputnik - 11/19/2008 3:55:40 AM
        
        That's for sure, Dude. (n/t) - ER - 11/19/2008 4:24:36 AM
      - Thanks - S - 11/18/2008 7:10:00 PM
        
        I'm the OTHER Doc Forrester. - CF - 11/18/2008 7:24:12 PM
        
        "This is amazing!" - S - 11/18/2008 7:35:48 PM
      - re: A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 5:43:29 AM
        
        This is amazing! (n/t) - Dr Clayton Forrester - 11/18/2008 1:48:31 PM
        
        Doc! Haven't seen you since Oak Ridge! (n/t) - McFly - 11/18/2008 2:45:18 PM
        
        I was wondering how long it would take. - ER - 11/18/2008 2:58:01 PM
      - A few degrees isn't going to do anything - zed - 11/18/2008 4:44:11 AM
        
        A sustained and systemic temperature rise, even a small one, will have a cumulative effect. - CF - 11/18/2008 1:51:38 PM
        
        You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to (n/t) - zed - 11/19/2008 1:53:03 AM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - ER - 11/19/2008 3:48:18 AM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 4:49:25 AM
        
        You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - ER - 11/19/2008 12:20:29 PM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 8:37:43 PM
        
        re: more specific - TB - 11/19/2008 6:36:35 PM
    - re: You need to read more carefully - pwokenyaw - 11/17/2008 11:04:32 PM
      - re: You need to read more carefully - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 1:09:47 AM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 9:04:51 PM
  - "Anyone that know anything about theory of CO2... - ER - 11/18/2008 5:40:36 AM
    - The actual numbers, like anybody cares. - TB - 11/18/2008 3:59:13 PM
      - re: The actual numbers, like anybody cares. - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 11:51:39 PM
        
        continuing - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 12:36:27 AM
      - New Scientist articles, comments on AGW - S - 11/18/2008 7:49:24 PM
      - Thanks, TB. - ER - 11/18/2008 6:41:39 PM
        
        "runaway" greenhouse effect - TB - 11/19/2008 4:29:27 AM
        
        re: "runaway" greenhouse effect - ER - 11/19/2008 2:59:01 PM
        
        Agendas - TB - 11/20/2008 8:03:43 PM
        
        Never mind, I just re-read it, and my questions were answered. (n/t) - ER - 11/18/2008 6:47:47 PM
      - 50% from clouds - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:24:18 PM
        
        I messed up, I meant 50% from water vapor. (n/t) - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:25:24 PM
    - re: "Anyone that know anything about theory of CO2... - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 7:59:03 AM
- So AGW is a right-wing conspiracy? - ER - 11/17/2008 8:37:21 PM
  - AGW methodology - S - 11/17/2008 9:16:53 PM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - Post Sputnik - 11/17/2008 8:34:56 PM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 8:31:42 PM
  - Safe storage - S - 11/17/2008 8:52:26 PM
    - re: Safe storage - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 9:16:39 PM
      - re: Safe storage - Marcia - 11/18/2008 4:38:45 AM
        
        re: Safe storage - Marcia - 11/18/2008 5:26:21 AM
        
        Safe storage? - S - 11/18/2008 7:47:06 PM
        
        re: Safe storage - lance - 11/18/2008 2:16:08 PM
        
        re: Safe storage. - Thanks! - Marcia - 11/19/2008 9:55:07 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (61 posts)