bradschrag

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

bradschrag last won the day on February 12

bradschrag had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

2 Followers

About bradschrag

  • Rank
    $$$

Recent Profile Visitors

407 profile views
  1. In what way? We have observations of increasing co2 through various methods. It's best to establish what that driver of increased concentrations is.
  2. Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
  3. Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html
  4. Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.
  5. There are plenty of scientists not funded by the government. So try again with your conspiracy, but see if you can make it slightly believable next time. Do you recall telling me that I must see myself as some sort of God, yet here you are determining who the good and bad people are. Interesting, to say the least. Get it?
  6. I find it very interesting. By that I mean hypocritical, but you demanded me to stop calling you that.
  7. A religion is a set of beliefs. Science is a set of observations. You have a religious beliefs that nature is currently changing the climate. You have no observations or mechanisms to validate your beliefs.
  8. Interesting that you equate discussing a phenomena that is validated by many independent branches of science to something completely kooky. Keep on reading, I guess.
  9. There's your conspiracies again. By the way, I think you've swapped the term scientist with corporation in your vocabulary. Enjoy your paranoia of scientists.