TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Here's the video in question.
[iframe1]hUFOuoD3aHw[/iframe1]
[iframe1]hUFOuoD3aHw[/iframe1]
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
[iframe1]ujwfgKvSVPk[/iframe1]
U
Ununionized
Since Carbon Dioxide cools the planet anything alluding otherwise is in direct contradiction to the Chart of Law
assigning CO2 lower Energy Constant 'R' than Air,
NAMING them BOTH
and ASSIGNING EACH *THE* Energy Constant to be used in ALL math calculations.
That chart's name is the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases and contains the subchart for 'R' in PV = nRT
It's found all OVER the internet since it's the LAW by which ALL major gases' temperatures and relationships are calculated.
This is an example just from typing it's name in Google, it's a major part of one of the most important laws in physics,
it's stunning you people don't even know it exists. It's the second part of the TWO PART LAW.
The first part of the law is the Equation.
https://is.gd/66ddRy
It's the law not one of you could name when challenged,
that governs the calculation of gases' temperatures, hence that of the Atmosphere.
For weeks.
-------
All Sunlight Top-of-Atmosphere vs Surface charts
show H20 and CO2 being nearly the SOLE gases responsible for the 29% cooling
that becomes the VERY FIRST STEP in RESOLVING PLANETARY average global Atmospheric temperature.
Ozone does a LITTLE of that cooling, Oxygen does a LITTLE of that cooling,
the GHGs do the VAST MAJORITY of it which is why they're the ones shown to you on the charts by REAL science.
assigning CO2 lower Energy Constant 'R' than Air,
NAMING them BOTH
and ASSIGNING EACH *THE* Energy Constant to be used in ALL math calculations.
That chart's name is the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases and contains the subchart for 'R' in PV = nRT
It's found all OVER the internet since it's the LAW by which ALL major gases' temperatures and relationships are calculated.
This is an example just from typing it's name in Google, it's a major part of one of the most important laws in physics,
it's stunning you people don't even know it exists. It's the second part of the TWO PART LAW.
The first part of the law is the Equation.
https://is.gd/66ddRy
It's the law not one of you could name when challenged,
that governs the calculation of gases' temperatures, hence that of the Atmosphere.
For weeks.
-------
All Sunlight Top-of-Atmosphere vs Surface charts
show H20 and CO2 being nearly the SOLE gases responsible for the 29% cooling
that becomes the VERY FIRST STEP in RESOLVING PLANETARY average global Atmospheric temperature.
Ozone does a LITTLE of that cooling, Oxygen does a LITTLE of that cooling,
the GHGs do the VAST MAJORITY of it which is why they're the ones shown to you on the charts by REAL science.
Last edited:
OldSchoolGrow
Member
https://youtu.be/9Vqlq3wsWrI
Greenpeace Founder Debunks Climate Change! (Dr. Patrick Moore Uncut) | Louder With Crowder
Greenpeace Founder Debunks Climate Change! (Dr. Patrick Moore Uncut) | Louder With Crowder
"we've clearly cheated quite dramatically to get this picture though." @7:44
besides neglecting the several different layers of atmosphere that exist above the troposphere that are at different temperatures and pressures, and oversimplifying the underlying physics.
Earth's atmosphere has a series of layers, each with its own specific traits. Moving upward from ground level, these layers are named the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere. The exosphere gradually fades away into the realm of interplanetary space.
Troposphere
The troposphere is the lowest layer of our atmosphere. Starting at ground level, it extends upward to about 10 km (6.2 miles or about 33,000 feet) above sea level. We humans live in the troposphere, and nearly all weather occurs in this lowest layer. Most clouds appear here, mainly because 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is found in the troposphere. Air pressure drops, and temperatures get colder, as you climb higher in the troposphere.
Stratosphere
The next layer up is called the stratosphere. The stratosphere extends from the top of the troposphere to about 50 km (31 miles) above the ground. The infamous ozone layer is found within the stratosphere. Ozone molecules in this layer absorb high-energy ultraviolet (UV) light from the Sun, converting the UV energy into heat. Unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere actually gets warmer the higher you go! That trend of rising temperatures with altitude means that air in the stratosphere lacks the turbulence and updrafts of the troposphere beneath. Commercial passenger jets fly in the lower stratosphere, partly because this less-turbulent layer provides a smoother ride. The jet stream flows near the border between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
Mesosphere
Above the stratosphere is the mesosphere. It extends upward to a height of about 85 km (53 miles) above our planet. Most meteors burn up in the mesosphere. Unlike the stratosphere, temperatures once again grow colder as you rise up through the mesosphere. The coldest temperatures in Earth's atmosphere, about -90° C (-130° F), are found near the top of this layer. The air in the mesosphere is far too thin to breathe; air pressure at the bottom of the layer is well below 1% of the pressure at sea level, and continues dropping as you go higher.
Thermosphere
The layer of very rare air above the mesosphere is called the thermosphere. High-energy X-rays and UV radiation from the Sun are absorbed in the thermosphere, raising its temperature to hundreds or at times thousands of degrees. However, the air in this layer is so thin that it would feel freezing cold to us! In many ways, the thermosphere is more like outer space than a part of the atmosphere. Many satellites actually orbit Earth within the thermosphere! Variations in the amount of energy coming from the Sun exert a powerful influence on both the height of the top of this layer and the temperature within it. Because of this, the top of the thermosphere can be found anywhere between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above the ground. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. The aurora, the Northern Lights and Southern Lights, occur in the thermosphere.
Exosphere
Although some experts consider the thermosphere to be the uppermost layer of our atmosphere, others consider the exosphere to be the actual "final frontier" of Earth's gaseous envelope. As you might imagine, the "air" in the exosphere is very, very, very thin, making this layer even more space-like than the thermosphere. In fact, air in the exosphere is constantly - though very gradually - "leaking" out of Earth's atmosphere into outer space. There is no clear-cut upper boundary where the exosphere finally fades away into space. Different definitions place the top of the exosphere somewhere between 100,000 km (62,000 miles) and 190,000 km (120,000 miles) above the surface of Earth. The latter value is about halfway to the Moon!
Ionosphere
The ionosphere is not a distinct layer like the others mentioned above. Instead, the ionosphere is a series of regions in parts of the mesosphere and thermosphere where high-energy radiation from the Sun has knocked electrons loose from their parent atoms and molecules. The electrically charged atoms and molecules that are formed in this way are called ions, giving the ionosphere its name and endowing this region with some special properties.
https://scied.ucar.edu/atmosphere-layers
.....
he gives attribution to compressed gases heating up supporting and validating Unionized' contentions of pressure related temperature.@ 8:30
he also misstates the adiabatic lapse rate that he says "as you go up in the atmosphere things cool down"...see Stratosphere above.
there are two layers above the troposphere where temperatures are below the 18* C he states is needed to balance the energy that the SUN provides our planet.
the exosphere is always leaking gases into space, taking heat with it.
The average temperature of empty space between celestial bodies is calculated at 3 kelvins (minus 270.15 degrees Celsius or minus 457.87 degrees Fahrenheit). Absolute zero, the temperature at which absolutely all activity stops, is zero kelvins (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit).
https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html
funny, one dude with two accounts in here..easy to see you bro....and nice copy and paste job too..
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Admins should easily be able to see two accounts from one IP.
...and your hypothesis is what exactly?
from there we can start a dialogue.
and what or who is going to determine "proper"?
U
Ununionized
Stop your crying and name calling misrepresentations. You've been told for the past several months, there's no such thing as a cold bath warming something. You remain stunned at this concept - and can't believe it.
"No!! No, cold baths is heedurs yaw, thay is, thay cain't not be heedurs!''
You sound like you're on some permanently debilitating intoxicant.
Two identical objects side by side, receiving the same light,
can not wind up with the one that has no cold nitrogen bath,
being colder, than the one being chilled by the cold light blocking nitrogen bath.
The one having the 29% removed from it's temperature off the top.
The only reason you're having to be told AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
is because you lack the adulthood to analyze the difference in two rocks,
one chilled with a cold light blocking bath, the other not.
You're the one here with a story about how the rock with the cold nitrogen bath is made hotter by that
than the one that HAS no cold bath. Why don't YOU discuss your OWN understanding of it?
Oh that's right because it's so ridiculously, patently, transparently fraudulent, you don't have the courage to click the mouse and start typing you actually believe it.
"No!! No, cold baths is heedurs yaw, thay is, thay cain't not be heedurs!''
You sound like you're on some permanently debilitating intoxicant.
Two identical objects side by side, receiving the same light,
can not wind up with the one that has no cold nitrogen bath,
being colder, than the one being chilled by the cold light blocking nitrogen bath.
The one having the 29% removed from it's temperature off the top.
The only reason you're having to be told AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
is because you lack the adulthood to analyze the difference in two rocks,
one chilled with a cold light blocking bath, the other not.
You're the one here with a story about how the rock with the cold nitrogen bath is made hotter by that
than the one that HAS no cold bath. Why don't YOU discuss your OWN understanding of it?
Oh that's right because it's so ridiculously, patently, transparently fraudulent, you don't have the courage to click the mouse and start typing you actually believe it.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
The Earth has an active, molten, nickel-iron core that the Moon doesn't.
As an adult human being,
YOU don't KNOW THIS?
The Moon's also covered with a thick layer of lightweight, reflective rock called regolith; for some reason that's the term that comes to mind, it's a lightweight porous stone not entirely unlike perlite.
It's reflective of light and also insulates the layers below from the sun. First through shading then through the loose nature of the mixture allowing a lot of radiant loss as minor conduction feeds energy to the true, rigid surface rock.
There's also a vestigial gas atmosphere which is pulled down against the surface in the pores and spaces between the insulating regolith, and they serve to cool the surface a little. The reduction in conduction from this is significant.
The surface of the planet is on average a much warmer or redder color, as well; and the center of the Earth is filled by a rotating, very energetic MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE the MOON doesn't have.
It's difficult to believe someone claims they're even interested, and don't know this themselves.
It's the middle school basics of differences between Earth and the Moon. You were claiming you were anxiously awaiting analysis: you haven't done the first f***g thing to educate yourself, you were looking for another reason to argue,
or YOU'D have FOUND OUT and BROUGHT a PRESENTATION so YOU COULD HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND BETTER.
There aren't even any seismic tremors there at all.
EVERYONE knows this. Whereas the Earth - does.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...d-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/
The cold atmosphere stopping 29% of total energy from ever warming the planet,
does not make it warmer than the moon which has no such cold, light blocking, temperature lowering bath.
As "new" and "counter-intuitive" as it all is to you,
it's the
GIANT NUCLEAR GENERATOR and MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE,
not the
COLD LIGHT BLOCKING NITROGEN BATH chilling it 29% by virtue of the fact it even exists,
making the planet warmer.
As an adult human being,
YOU don't KNOW THIS?
The Moon's also covered with a thick layer of lightweight, reflective rock called regolith; for some reason that's the term that comes to mind, it's a lightweight porous stone not entirely unlike perlite.
It's reflective of light and also insulates the layers below from the sun. First through shading then through the loose nature of the mixture allowing a lot of radiant loss as minor conduction feeds energy to the true, rigid surface rock.
There's also a vestigial gas atmosphere which is pulled down against the surface in the pores and spaces between the insulating regolith, and they serve to cool the surface a little. The reduction in conduction from this is significant.
The surface of the planet is on average a much warmer or redder color, as well; and the center of the Earth is filled by a rotating, very energetic MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE the MOON doesn't have.
It's difficult to believe someone claims they're even interested, and don't know this themselves.
It's the middle school basics of differences between Earth and the Moon. You were claiming you were anxiously awaiting analysis: you haven't done the first f***g thing to educate yourself, you were looking for another reason to argue,
or YOU'D have FOUND OUT and BROUGHT a PRESENTATION so YOU COULD HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND BETTER.
There aren't even any seismic tremors there at all.
EVERYONE knows this. Whereas the Earth - does.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...d-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/
The cold atmosphere stopping 29% of total energy from ever warming the planet,
does not make it warmer than the moon which has no such cold, light blocking, temperature lowering bath.
As "new" and "counter-intuitive" as it all is to you,
it's the
GIANT NUCLEAR GENERATOR and MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE,
not the
COLD LIGHT BLOCKING NITROGEN BATH chilling it 29% by virtue of the fact it even exists,
making the planet warmer.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
You're GOBSMACKED.
"Really? MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE? I - I've never HEARD of THIS!"
"This is STUNNING information!"
"The guy who made that VIDEO about a magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath uh HeeDur, HE prolly DON'T EVUN KNOW, HIS SELF!!"
"WoW this is I.N.C.R.E.D.I.B.L.E. NEWS, when did people FIND OUT about this?!?!"
=========================
Is that gonna be your final answer?
You never HEARD of the Earth having an internal molten metal core before,
and you didn't know the moon has NONE, and you REALLY ARE STUNNED, that it's not the
cold
light blocking
nitrogen-oxygen bath,
REDUCING temperature 29% as the FIRST STEP
in assessing Earth surface & global atmospheric temperature,
making the planet's average temperature warmer
than the rock, with NO nuclear generator in it's center,
having melted it's metal core?
Why don't you run over to youtube where you're getting your information
about the magical gassiness that made a cold bath a heater,
and tell the maker of your video, you discovered a MOLTEN METAL HOT CENTER to the EARTH.
And that it's not really the cold nitrogen bath, making the center of the planet be molten metal.
He'll be shocked to his shoes too, I'm sure.
Just like you were.
"Really? MOLTEN NICKEL-IRON CORE? I - I've never HEARD of THIS!"
"This is STUNNING information!"
"The guy who made that VIDEO about a magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath uh HeeDur, HE prolly DON'T EVUN KNOW, HIS SELF!!"
"WoW this is I.N.C.R.E.D.I.B.L.E. NEWS, when did people FIND OUT about this?!?!"
=========================
Is that gonna be your final answer?
You never HEARD of the Earth having an internal molten metal core before,
and you didn't know the moon has NONE, and you REALLY ARE STUNNED, that it's not the
cold
light blocking
nitrogen-oxygen bath,
REDUCING temperature 29% as the FIRST STEP
in assessing Earth surface & global atmospheric temperature,
making the planet's average temperature warmer
than the rock, with NO nuclear generator in it's center,
having melted it's metal core?
Why don't you run over to youtube where you're getting your information
about the magical gassiness that made a cold bath a heater,
and tell the maker of your video, you discovered a MOLTEN METAL HOT CENTER to the EARTH.
And that it's not really the cold nitrogen bath, making the center of the planet be molten metal.
He'll be shocked to his shoes too, I'm sure.
Just like you were.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
And of course if you do have evidence
the hot molten metal core of the planet
isn't the source of the heating,
and that it's actually the cold light blocking nitrogen oxygen bath,
taking 29% off the top of planetary temperature calculation
as the VERY FIRST STEP
IN that calculation,
please present it.
So we can go over it together.
And see if the cold nitrogen bath cooling it by 29%
as the first step in temperature calculation,
is really the reason the overall planet is warmer,
than the planetoid moon having NO
internal nuclear generator
that's melted its
metal core.
the hot molten metal core of the planet
isn't the source of the heating,
and that it's actually the cold light blocking nitrogen oxygen bath,
taking 29% off the top of planetary temperature calculation
as the VERY FIRST STEP
IN that calculation,
please present it.
So we can go over it together.
And see if the cold nitrogen bath cooling it by 29%
as the first step in temperature calculation,
is really the reason the overall planet is warmer,
than the planetoid moon having NO
internal nuclear generator
that's melted its
metal core.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
Gee... without sitting around for ten days, claiming I needed a stranger on the internet to sort that out for me,
I'm gonna go ahead and just guess it's the giant molten thermonuclear core.
And not the cold, light blocking nitrogen bath laced with cold, light blocking refrigerants,
cooling final temperature 29%
just by virtue of existing
between the Sun and planet,
leaving the body with the molten metal thermonuclear core,
warmer than the body NOT having it's metal core, melted by a
thermonuclear generator.
As "counter-intuitive" as that sounds I'm gonna go ahead and say I don't need ten days of waiting anxiously for you to analyze that for me.
It's the thermonuclear fission generator having melted the planet's Nickel-iron core.
I'm gonna go ahead and just guess it's the giant molten thermonuclear core.
And not the cold, light blocking nitrogen bath laced with cold, light blocking refrigerants,
cooling final temperature 29%
just by virtue of existing
between the Sun and planet,
leaving the body with the molten metal thermonuclear core,
warmer than the body NOT having it's metal core, melted by a
thermonuclear generator.
As "counter-intuitive" as that sounds I'm gonna go ahead and say I don't need ten days of waiting anxiously for you to analyze that for me.
It's the thermonuclear fission generator having melted the planet's Nickel-iron core.
Last edited:
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Ununionized, you're name wouldn't be Tony would it? The same Tony who told me last year that because we're taking too much oil out of the ground, the core will run out of fuel? If you're not that Tony, then my apologies. It's just that you guys sound so much alike.
If you don't mind. Write your sentence on ONE line so it can be read.
If you don't mind. Write your sentence on ONE line so it can be read.
U
Ununionized
When you have some evidence for your story about the magical gassiness that made a cold bath a heater,
we'll all still be here to go over that.
Since you don't and you've reverted to pure un-contaminated name calling again,
it's not unusual or different. Meaning
it's just MORE of the SAME old boring chickensh** name calling
you've already had to be called down for
a half dozen times.
we'll all still be here to go over that.
Since you don't and you've reverted to pure un-contaminated name calling again,
it's not unusual or different. Meaning
it's just MORE of the SAME old boring chickensh** name calling
you've already had to be called down for
a half dozen times.
Last edited:
?
so, you're hypothesis is the moon and earth should be the same temperature since they are the same distance from the sun?
please elaborate further your understanding of the cause for them not being the same, or your explanation that they should be.
pardon my skepticism, thank you and proceed...
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).
Comparing climate on the earth and the moon is as useless as tits on a bull.
Comparing climate on the earth and the moon is as useless as tits on a bull.
Posted on September 17, 2018 by John Hinderaker in Climate
Climate Alarmism Fails the Test of Observation
The Science and Environmental Policy Project produces a weekly newsletter on climate-related subjects, The Week That Was. I highly recommend subscribing to TWTW as the easiest way to keep abreast of climate news.
This week’s edition begins, not for the first time, with a famous quotation from Richard Feynman, one of the greatest of 20th Century scientists:
This theory isn’t very plausible, since the Earth has often, in the past, been a degree warmer than it is now, and that never led to runaway warming due to increased water vapor. But back to the subject at hand:
Still, truth remains an annoying presence–annoying, that is, if you are a global warming alarmist. Feynman’s adage remains indisputable: a theory that is disproved by observation is worthless.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/climate-alarmism-fails-the-test-of-observation.php
Climate Alarmism Fails the Test of Observation
The Science and Environmental Policy Project produces a weekly newsletter on climate-related subjects, The Week That Was. I highly recommend subscribing to TWTW as the easiest way to keep abreast of climate news.
This week’s edition begins, not for the first time, with a famous quotation from Richard Feynman, one of the greatest of 20th Century scientists:
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is falsified by observation, and therefore is wrong. Ken Haapala, SEPP’s President, explains. There is far more at the link, but I will try to excerpt enough to make the point comprehensible:
Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Guelph, and John Christy, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, have undertaken to identify a core hypothesis common to the climate models used by the IPCC and to test the hypothesis against the longest data set available that describes what is actually occurring.
Haapala reminds us that it was McKitrick who demonstrated that Michael Mann’s hockey stick was a hoax, because any random numbers fed into Mann’s formulas would produce–voila!–a hockey stick.
In weeding through the countless hypotheses to identify one common, major testable hypothesis, McKitrick and Christy used four criteria: measurability, specificity, independence and uniqueness.
***
They found: “Air temperature in the 200-300 hPa layer of the tropical troposphere meets all four test conditions, pretty much uniquely in the climate system as far as we are aware.” The 1979 Charney report and all five IPCC reports indicate that any CO2-caused warming will be amplified by an increase in water vapor, primarily over the tropics.
As you probably know, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 arguably may produce a one degree C warming, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a good thing, especially as the additional CO2 would help to green the planet. In order to get the “catastrophic” into CAGW, you have to assume something else: that this one degree warming would produce significantly more water vapor in the environment. It is this hypothetical (but unobserved) water vapor that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the warming claimed by the alarmists’ models.***
They found: “Air temperature in the 200-300 hPa layer of the tropical troposphere meets all four test conditions, pretty much uniquely in the climate system as far as we are aware.” The 1979 Charney report and all five IPCC reports indicate that any CO2-caused warming will be amplified by an increase in water vapor, primarily over the tropics.
This theory isn’t very plausible, since the Earth has often, in the past, been a degree warmer than it is now, and that never led to runaway warming due to increased water vapor. But back to the subject at hand:
Using three different 60-year sets of weather balloon records, they test the warming demonstrated in the models against observations. They find:
As McKitrick states in his post, this finding shows that “models misrepresent a process fundamental to their usability for studying the climate impacts of greenhouse gases.” That is, the models show warming trends that are significantly greater than the observed warming – about 2.7 times the observed trend for the data sets that include the [Pacific Climate Shift] (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
The warming bias in the models should be unacceptable for any prudent government agency, including the EPA which relies on the GCMs for its finding that CO2 endangers public health and welfare.
In most industries, if you produced calculations that were off by a factor of 2.7, you would quickly be out of a job. But government, and pro-government research, are different. Here the purpose is not to be right, but to produce alarmist reports that, amplified by uncritical news stories written by ideologically aligned journalists, justify ever-greater government control over the economy and many billions of dollars in “green” cronyism. When the whole purpose of an enterprise is corruption, truth is only an inconvenience. The mean restricted trend (without a break term) is 0.325 +/- 0.132ºC/decade in the models and 0.173 +/- 0.056ºC/decade in the observations. With a break term included they are 0.389ºC/decade (models) and 0.142 +/- 0.115ºC/decade (observed). Figure 4 shows the individual trend magnitudes.
The break-term is the adjustment for the PCS. During the 60 years covered, the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa went up 29%.
As McKitrick states in his post, this finding shows that “models misrepresent a process fundamental to their usability for studying the climate impacts of greenhouse gases.” That is, the models show warming trends that are significantly greater than the observed warming – about 2.7 times the observed trend for the data sets that include the [Pacific Climate Shift] (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
The warming bias in the models should be unacceptable for any prudent government agency, including the EPA which relies on the GCMs for its finding that CO2 endangers public health and welfare.
Still, truth remains an annoying presence–annoying, that is, if you are a global warming alarmist. Feynman’s adage remains indisputable: a theory that is disproved by observation is worthless.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/climate-alarmism-fails-the-test-of-observation.php
