Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Bob G on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- conrad ziefle on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Allan Shelton on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Gordon Vigurs on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Fred Harwood on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- arn on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Luigi on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
Too bad they built coal-fired power plants and they killed themselves all off. Stupid thing to do.
Wasn’t this the same era modern climate scientists say it was proven that 2xCO2 will warm the planet by 4 deg C?
Negative. Arrhenius’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.
“’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.”
I need to see a link for that. When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?
Arrhenius became a member of the RS in 1910.
“When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?”
Just like global warming eh?
Maybe it is wrong to use “consensus” here, the experiments of R W Wood had been discussed and considered for publication by the Royal Society in 1909 in their transactions.
Wood’s experiments were described in detail in 1914 in the Philosophical Magazine, so the evidence of refutation of the “greenhouse” effect was (and remains, as far as I am concerned) experimental.
Arrhenius’s connection with the “greenhouse” idea was obscure, he was best (and correctly) recognized for his contribution to the theory of chemical reaction rates and the temperature dependence ,
as was Tyndall for his contribution sto colloid science, and Flourier to the astounding methodology of solution to heat conduction problems.
All of these, their ideas about the “greenhouse” effect, became recognized much later, upon the (recurring) chi-chi revival of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”
Maybe Obama can send them some stimulus money to help them build more canals!