Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
With altogether far too much fanfare for my taste, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project has not released its preliminary results.
Or at least I can’t find them. I just wanted the month-by-month data that their hotrod new computer program spits out at the end of its run. The results they’re all hot and bothered about.
But despite releasing a massive database, 39,000 stations, along with the code in Matlab (which does me no good at all), I can’t find anywhere their freakin’ results. You know, the actual results of their work? The monthly average global temperature, the stuff that they mangled to produce things like their PR graph shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Purports to show that the BEST temperature record, and all the others as well, are all going “in one direction”, nowhere but up. I’m sure you remember the Climategate mantra, “hide the decline”? Keep that in mind as we proceed.
So … that will show those shifty skeptics, even BEST says it’s warming nonstop, evidence is right there before your eyes.
What’s not to like? How can you argue with that? The science is in.
Since I couldn’t get their results, I did the next best thing, and digitized their results. Even then, I was frunstrated. As far as I could tell, they never showed their actual results. The closest I found is in Figure 1 of their paper here:
Figure 2. Figure 1 of BEST’s “Decadal Variations” paper. Everybody’s going up, up, up, although you can’t really see what anyone is doing.
I blew that Figure up, and digitized it. Sixty years, 720 data points, boooring. Plus I hate it that they’ve smoothed the data, that makes it useless for statistical work. But it could have given us an idea of what’s going on in each of the records … if they hadn’t printed them atop one another in confusing colors. Enough of the spaghetti graphs already, you mad scientist persons, they show nothing! Figure 3 shows the BEST dataset along with the other datasets, this time displaced from each other so that we can actually see what’s happening:
Figure 3. The BEST land-only temperature record, compared to other surface and satellite land-only temperature records. 12 month moving average data, sadly. Note the decline.
[UPDATE: An alert reader noticed what I did not, that this is a subset of the BEST dataset that does not contain the stations used by the other groups (NOAA, etc). He points out that the full dataset is again different, in that it in fact rises more than the partial dataset. I have updated the figure and struck out some text to include that.
However, this doesn’t fix the questions. The post 1998 record from all of the BEST data is much more poorly correlated with the current records (~0.65) than prior to 1998 (~0.90). So this does not verify or validate the current groups datasets.
Hmmm … that gives a very different picture than Figure 1. Even with the bizarre 12-month moving average, the BEST record is clearly the outlier since 1998. You would think that in the modern era, the BEST would agree more closely with the other records. And indeed, from about 1975 to 1998 they were moving in something like lockstep.
But both before and after that time period, the BEST results are a clear outlier. And since 1998, BEST has been in a slow decline … funny how that didn’t show up in Figure 1. Yes, I know, a ten-year moving average shouldn’t show anything within five years from the end of the dataset. And I’m sure folks will argue that it’s just coincidence that they chose that exact smoothing length, and that it was the chance selection of colors that jumbled up the spaghetti graph so it’s unreadable … but y’know, after a while “coincidence” wears thin. I’m going with a more nuanced explanation, that it was a “deliberately unconscious choice to hide the decline”, although certainly you are welcome to stick to the story that it’s all just an unfortunate chain of events …
CONCLUSIONS:
Conclusion 1. It is extremely sneaky to send a truncated, smoothed result like Figure 1 out to the media to announce your results. That’s advocacy disguised as science. They did it to make it look like the temperature was headed for the sky and that BEST agreed. Instead, BEST actually disagrees with the other datasets by claiming that over the last decade, land temperatures are dropping, not staying stable or rising as per the other datasets. Using a graph that didn’t show that is … curious. As Gollum would say … “Oooooh, tricksy”. Including you, Judith. Figure 1 was nothing but “hide the decline” PR spin. Bad scientists, no cookies.
Conclusion 1. The correlation between the old data points used by the current groups, and the new data used only by BEST, is quite poor after 1998. This is visible in the plots of both the partial and full BEST datasets. The reasons for this are not clear, but it provides no support for the current datasets.
Conclusion 2. First point. The raw terror point, the thought that has the AGW alarmists changing their shorts, is the dreaded 2°C rise that is forecast from CO2. That is supposed to be the mythical “tipping point”. Second point. If we look at the 10-year smoothed data in Figure 1, BEST says that in the last two centuries, the temperature has risen about two degrees.
Let me note that over that two-century time period there have been:
a) No known increase in extreme weather events.
b) No known increase in catastrophes (other than from increased populations and property in vulnerable areas).
c) No major costs, deaths or damage from sea level rise. And don’t bother me with Katrina. A Category 3 hurricane took down ancient poorly maintained levees on a city below sea level. Absent that, no problem.
d) No climate-related spread of various infectious diseases.
e) No known increase in droughts or floods.
f) No loss of Tuvalu or other coral atolls.
g) Actually, none of the horrendous outcomes or biblical plagues of frogs and the like which are supposed to accompany the Thermageddon™ of a two degree temperature rise occurred over the last two centuries. To the contrary, the increased warming seems to have been a net gain for most humans, animals, and plants. Nobody likes freezing their asterisk off, after all, and the warming has mostly been in extra-tropical winter nights. That’s the theory, at least, although the BEST data should be able to tell us more.
Conclusion 3. BEST has done the world a huge service by collating and collecting all the data in one place, and deserves credit for that.
But they have done the world a huge disservice by becoming media whores, by putting out a shabby imitation of science in Figure 1, and by making a host of claims before peer review is complete.
This last one astounds me, that they’ve done it before peer review is finished. Doug Keenan and William Briggs have both raised separate and cogent arguments that the BEST analysis contains flaws. That would make me nervous, they’re kinda heavyweights, although any man can be wrong … but no, the BEST folks are making a host of claims as though their paper has already passed peer review. It’s the same publicity circus that Muller put on for Congress. And what three-ring media circus would be complete without their own brand new personalized “hide the decline” poster?
Since they have held out for extreme transparency, or at least given lip-service to the idea, I would be very interested to find out the names of the reviewers.
Because certainly, one possible explanation of their brazen trumpeting of their results before the peer review process is finished is that the fix is in. Why else the confidence that the reviewers will not find fault with their work? It is extreme hubris at a minimum, which is reputed historically to have unpleasant sequelae involving wax and feathers …
w.
PS—The world is warming. It has been for centuries. Rather than saying anything about anthropogenic global warming, all the BEST dataset does is confirms that. How that’s gotten twisted into some supposed “victory” for the AGW crowd escapes me.
“I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.”
really must I quote what Watts himself said in his own articles again?
Robert Bertrino,
Nice dodge. Falsification fail. OTOH, the quote you posted is accurate and factual.
“That one has been thoroughly debunked: effect cannot precede cause. On all time scales, CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa.”
Nice dodge on your side smokey, care to explain how the above quote and what Watts said can both be “accurate and factual”. And btw, the experiment i linked to was not meant to be the be all and end all of CO2 experiments, it was just an easy experiment that anybody (you) could do. If you actually read it for example, you’ll notice that having a lid on the container actually ruins the experiment.
Robert Bertrino,
Anthony’s quote was accurate and factual. The fact that you can’t understand that is not Anthony’s fault or mine. And if you want to do your own experiment like Anthony did, no one is stopping you. But I suspect all you’re doing is emitting your unsupported personal opinion.
“I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
” effect cannot precede cause. On all time scales, CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa.”
View these side by side. How can CO2 have a positive heating effect but at the same time be a function of temperature? It’s totally contradictory.
REPLY: You have no idea what you are talking about and frankly I’m too tired to explain it to you. But look it up yourself and report back – A
Robert Bertino – “How can CO2 have a positive heating effect but at the same time be a function of temperature? It’s totally contradictory.”
That looks like an attempt to use logic. But let’s see if that logic stands up:
1. ‘Things’ other than CO2 drive temperature. We are agreed on this, because the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
2. Temperature drives CO2. I am sure we are agreed on this too (a warming ocean releases CO2 and vice versa).
3. CO2 has a modest effect on temperature, but is outweighed by ‘things’. This must be the bit that is disputed.
If 3 is correct then, overall, it is the case that “CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa”.
Now, 3 must be correct, because:-
if 3 is wrong and CO2 outweighs ‘things’ on at least some time scale, then the world can never return from a warm period to a cool one over that time scale. Thus ice ages become impossible, for example, if the time scale is a long one. The LIA becomes impossible if the time scale is around the century level. The post WWII cooling becomes impossible if the time scale is decadal. The cooling of the last few years becomes impossible if the time scale is really short. So we have now pretty much established the “all time scales” part too. It doesn’t look like your “totally contradictory” statement is logically sound.
nice cut and run smokey 😉
btw Mike, as soon as I heard the words “time scale” and “decadal”, I knew there was some CLIMATEGATE stuff going on.
Here’s something from wikipedia:
“General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.[108] Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with “rates similar to those of the surface temperature”, leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.”
And I don’t think you fully understand what is happening with number 2.
Warming of ocean waters takes place at the surface in the sunlight, so a little bit of the CO2 is released at first from the water. However, the water isn’t as cool as it once was, so when it reaches high latitudes, it takes up less CO2 than normal and it does not sink as deeply. Because of this disruption in the ocean currents, the deep cold water doesn’t participate as much in vertical circulation and tends to stagnate. Life on the sea floor (and organic matter falling from above) produces more CO2 through cellular respiration, but since oxygen is no longer being delivered as adequately, we have anaerobic respiration where nitrate is used by bacteria as a source of oxygen instead. During this process, nitrous oxide and molecular nitrogen are made. What happens in the end: because the oceans have warmed and currents have slowed down, we have effectively created a vast ocean reservoir rich in CO2 but poor in nutrients. When this water returns to the surface, it will now bring CO2 back into the atmosphere, unable to recapture it through photosynthesis, due to a lack of nutrients.
^This process contributes to the “pulsed” nature of CO2 rise during de-glacialation, as we have seen in the ice cores. Additionally, we can easily see how this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures.
I’ve taken classes in both Marine Science and Environmental Science. At one point I wanted to be an Environmental Engineer, that was before I realized what most of them do… They figure out ways for corporations to get around regulations and write favorable environmental impact statements.
Now I’m studying to be an aerospace engineer, because the way I see it, the world is pretty much screwed (might as well figure out a way to get off it). By the time we’re done bickering and getting fat on oil it will already be too late. The world is already changing.
On a side note:
You realize that this whole fiasco completely parallels what happened with the Tobacco industry right? All sorts of “skeptics” emerged during those times.
Robert Bertino – What on Earth has CLIMATEGATE got to do with it?
You give a very convincing-sounding explanation of the ocean-CO2 process. But if “this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures” then how come the temperatures stopped rising? And not just once, but repeatedly. The answer is (has to be) : the effect of CO2 is too weak to count for much, other factors outweigh it.
You misunderstand scepticism. Sceptics want evidence. Nullius in verba and all that. Sometimes the evidence is there -> Pass. Sometimes the evidence is lacking -> Fail. CAGW so far is a Fail because there’s no evidence. Tobacco is totally irrelevant, absurdly irrelevant, we’re talking about CO2 and climate.
Mike Jonas says:
“…the effect of CO2 is too weak to count for much, other factors outweigh it.”
Empirical evidence shows that statement to be absolutely true. Robert Bertino is a young puppy who has been spoon-fed the alarmist poppycock about “carbon”, and he actually believes it.
Robert is far from being up to speed on the subject. Reading up on the WUWT archives and forgetting about finding his authority in one-sided alarmist Wikipedia articles would be an excelent start. But it’s more likely that Robert’s CAGW-induced haze will prevent him from accepting the verifiable fact that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Robert has been on the receiving end of misinformation for too long, and now he is a hopeless True Believer.
When I said climategate stuff going on, I meant exactly that. You were trying to strawman global warming, but even that “fact” you talked about has since been disproven and reconciled. You very conveniently ignored that first half of my post.
“You gave a very convincing-sounding explanation…”
Good, but you don’t believe any of it do you? I’m part of the massive global warming conspiracy on an even bigger scale than chemical contrails and 9/11!
And btw, If you read my post fully, you would notice that I talked about carbon’s “pulsed nature”.
And about skepticism, let me forward you this interesting link (which you’ll undoubtedly disregard, probably because its from the union of concerned scientists, and they’re obviously in on the conspiracy): http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
This have everything to do with the tobacco industry. Just liked what happened before, corporations are spending millions trying to confuse the public and create doubt when there isn’t any. Have you ever once tried to see who funds skeptics, “clean coal” initiatives, and etc?
And your last post smokey is on the level of a 12 year old, revealing you for the troll you actually are. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the sources YOU get information form are one-sided?
And cut this “True Believer” and church of global warming crap. My mind functions completely differently from yours. So don’t even try to make comparisons.
Why can’t we just get together and work on solutions for cleaning up the environment? Is caring for the earth (our home) really all that bad? Maybe if we stopped bickering for a moment we could do some real good.
People like you smokey make me lose faith in humanity.
Robert Bertino,
I never said that you gave a convincing explanation of anything. Most of your talking points are baseless hand waving, like “…you would notice that I talked about carbon’s ‘pulsed nature’.” [“Carbon”?? As in CO2, a trace gas? FYI: carbon is an element.] And changing the subject to the foolish “tobacco” ad-hom doesn’t fly here. It’s just a desperate red herring argument, intended to change the subject through random distraction. [Do a search of your hero Al Gore + tobacco].
I do agree with you when you write, “My mind functions completely differently from yours.” And from most everyone else here, it appears. Cognitive dissonance is a common affliction among the true believer crowd. Orwell called it “doublethink”. Skeptics are generally immune from CD because all we’re saying in effect is: prove it. Show us, using the scientific method, that “carbon” is harming the planet.
Or you can respond by calling me a 12-year old troll again. Doesn’t bother me a bit, because it shows that you have no testable evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is harming the planet, and it shows you can’t admit that you have no such evidence. But don’t feel bad; no one else has produced any evidence of global harm, either. Thus, CO2 is harmless. I don’t think I have to add ‘QED’. There just is no global damage due to CO2. None.
My testable, falsifiable hypothesis:
At current and projected levels, the global rise in CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
Feel free to try and falsify that hypothesis, using verifiable real world, testable, empirical evidence; no computer models accepted; this isn’t Skeptical Pseudo-Science, or RealClimatePropaganda.
Robert Bertino – Wow! We’re a loong way off topic now.
No I didn’t respond to the first part of your “CLIMATEGATE” comment. It says “General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. … Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with “rates similar to those of the surface temperature”, leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.”
I’ll reply now:- That’s obvious self-serving BS. Suddenly, and very conveniently, “more rapidly” turns into “similar to”.
Climategate? Strawman global warming? BS. I’ve been referring to real things like empirical evidence that CO2 is less powerful than it’s claimed to be.
“I’m part of the massive global warming conspiracy on an even bigger scale than chemical contrails and 9/11!“. BS. I don’t think you are part of any conspiracy. I don’t think that any conspiracy has been established – malpractice yes, conspiracy unproven. Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
Re your link to Exxon-Mobil funding: We’ve got a lot of corruption in the system, for example the large number of WWFers in the IPCC. That’s why we have to work on evidence and evidence only not on conspiracy theories, politics, etc.
“Why can’t we just get together and work on solutions for cleaning up the environment? Is caring for the earth (our home) really all that bad? Maybe if we stopped bickering for a moment we could do some real good.“. i’m with you 100% on that.
I’ll reply more in depth a little later, I’m heading of to the chem lab right now. One thing though smokey. You have obviously never seen a typo in your life. If you read my post, you would see that the whole time I was talking about CARBON DIOXIDE (which I stated like twenty times). Just because one time in the whole post i omitted dioxide by accident, doesn’t mean I don’t know what an element or a molecule is.
You claim that I’m using “random distraction.” I can’t see a better example than what you just did. In case you didn’t know, its called the “strawman argument”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
BRB sometime later lol
RB says:
“Just because one time in the whole post i omitted dioxide by accident, doesn’t mean I don’t know what an element or a molecule is.”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
That last comment… Is there a smiley for jaw-dropped?
You should delete it, quite frankly its embarrassing.
You must have went straight to wikipedia and read the first line.
Molecule:
“the smallest physical unit of an element or compound, consisting of one or more like atoms in an element and two or more different atoms in a compound.”
A carbon dioxide molecule is part of a carbon dioxide compound.
YOU must have NEVER gone to chem lab! 🙂
(Reply: The comment you are responding to is: “Actually, CO2 is a compound.” That is factual. -mod)
in addition;
“The carbon dioxide molecule (O=C=O) contains two double bonds and has a linear shape”
“Carbon dioxide is a molecule with the molecular formula CO2.”
RB,
OK junior, let’s get back on topic: try to defend Muller & daughter’s self-serving gaming of the system for their own personal financial benefit. Try hard to make their PR circus look professional – after all, you too crave being part of that dog and pony show, no? Admit it: feeding at the taxpayer trough is easier than making an honest living.
And I note that you’re still avoiding my CO2 hypothesis like Dracula avoids the dawn.☺☺☺
I’m not letting you slither out of that last comment so easily smokey 🙂 That was one of the most ignorant comments I’ve ever heard, especially from someone who is wanting to challenge human-caused global warming, which is 100% connected to chemistry.
Knowing the definition of a molecule is an extremely basic thing. If you don’t know that, how can claim to know anything else with certainty? How can you know whether something is “accurate and factual” when you struggle with the basic tenets of chemistry? How can you say “forgetting about finding his authority in one-sided alarmist Wikipedia articles would be an excelent start” when you obviously bolted straight to Wikipedia to find the definition of CO2 (which says the word “compound” in the first line, which you totally didn’t understand the context of). How can you say ANYTHING definitive about global warming when you don’t know this?? How can you stand up to 98% of climate scientists that have years of experience and me (who has taken many, many chemistry and environmental science classes) when you probably have never taken (or probably never passed) a real science class in your life?
You keep on claiming I’m using “random distraction” and “baseless hand waving”, don’t you see that this is exactly what you are doing? The real discussion ended a long time ago. Now you’ve been desperately trying to strawman me, out of all things, on a singular typo. Don’t tell me to get back on topic, because you change it whenever it suits you. It’s the basic tactic of a troll. Change the topic, if you lose, change to something else. Never admit defeat, always deflect.
Personally, if reasonable climate skeptics exist (which I have a hard time believing, but that’s beside from the point) then I feel extremely embarrassed for them, as they’re relying on representatives like you, who obviously have no idea what they are doing.
What’s worse is, there are millions of you. People who have no experience in science, can’t even understand basic chemistry, all plaguing the internet with “theories” they copy and pasted from some right-wing site…
And don’t tell me that just because you “forgot” what a molecule is doesn’t mean anything. Its the basic building block of chemistry. It’s like not knowing your ABCs. And what’s worse, is that you tried to speak with authority:
“Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺”
You people keep saying that my facts have been spoon-fed to me and that I just get all my information from liberal conspiracy sites like wikipedia. WELL WHAT THE HECK IS THIS SMOKEY?!?
Good luck passing life 🙂
You disgust me.
Robert,
It is amusing how easy it is to push your buttons. I suspect you’re a twenty-something who thinks he’s got the world and human nature all figured out. After hair-splitting over ‘element’ and ‘compound’, your truly lunatic opinion is that there may not really be any reasonable climate skeptics, and you further assume that scientific skeptics “have no experience in science, can’t even understand basic chemistry, all plaguing the internet with ‘theories’ they copy and pasted from some right-wing site.” And you accuse me of posting like a 12-year old? Pure projection there.
Cognitive dissonance clouds your world view. May I deconstruct your assumptions? Thank you:
First, per my handy online dictionary, a compound and a molecule are the same thing [caveat: when different elements are involved]:
compound 1
|ˈkämˌpound | 1. a substance formed from two or more elements chemically united in fixed proportions : a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. CO2 is both a molecule and a compound. Carbon is an element.
Next, I am in complete agreement with this [pdf version with slides]. The only quibble I might have is that I would give ≈+0.2°, -0.5° error bars to the suggested 1.2°C warming from 2xCO2. Either way, CO2 is no problem. I think most reasonable scientific skeptics and lukewarmers would agree with Matt Ridley’s speech. And there is no doubt that scientific skeptics far outnumber the climate alarmist crowd – not that ‘consensus’ means anything in science. Just pointing out a verifiable fact. Documentation on request.
Next, I suspect that you misunderstand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a conjecture. AGW is a conjecture, because it is not testable per the scientific method. It may be true [I happen to think there is some minor warming from increased CO2]. But AGW is still a conjecture. As for catastrophic AGW – CAGW – don’t be silly.
Next, your impotent claim that comments about this article topic have ended fails. Muller is a conniving, self-serving, nepotistic reprobate devoid of any professional ethics. But since he is on your side of the fence, you would much rather steer the discussion away from him and his taxpayer scams. Ain’t gonna happen. Muller is as disreputable as Hansen, Mann, and the rest of their ilk. They’re peddling AGW alarmism for money, status, political power, and endless jaunts to holiday venues in an age of easy video teleconferencing. Instead of your vague insinuations about “tobacco”, or nitpicking about “carbon”, let’s discuss the enormous payola going into the pockets of climate alarmists, and compare that with the relative pittance skeptical scientists receive. Documentation on request.
Finally, you say: “…smokey is on the level of a 12 year old, revealing you for the troll you actually are. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the sources YOU get information form are one-sided?” FYI, this is the internet’s “Best Science” site, largely because there is no censorship. We get sources from all points of view. If I submitted your post above to tamino, or Skeptical Pseudo-Science, or RealClimatePropaganda, changing only words like “right wing” to “left wing”, and linking to charts like this, my post would be censored out of existence [or in the case of SPS, ghost edited to make it say something completely different]. Since you obviously came here from blogs that spoon-feed their readers with one-sided globaloney propaganda, all you are doing is regurgitating their talking points. As Anthony told you: “You have no idea what you are talking about and frankly I’m too tired to explain it to you. But look it up yourself and report back.”
My sincere recommendation: Read WUWT for a few months. Study the archives. Cognitive dissonance is tough to overcome, but it’s always possible that the scales will fall from your eyes, and you’ll realize that you’re being fed nonsense from Algore and his tribe; CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Deal with that simple fact, and the whole “carbon” demonization industry will start to look mighty corrupt.
You’re trying really hard to deflect the fact that you don’t understand basic chemistry, as is evident by the fact that you spoke with authority when you said:
“Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺”
If you don’t know what a molecule is, how can you truly speak with authority about global warming?
I refuse to change the topic until you directly answer this question. You’ve backed yourself into a corner, and no amount of distractions will suffice.
^and you’re quote:
“compound 1
|ˈkämˌpound | 1. a substance formed from two or more elements chemically united in fixed proportions : a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. CO2 is both a molecule and a compound. Carbon is an element.”
This reveals you have a serious misunderstanding about the nature of molecules and compounds. You said before that CO2 wasn’t a molecule. That’s that. No amount of slithering will change what you said.
^and I know you’re trying to strawman me 🙂 Just answer the question smokey.
RB,
Your silly question is no different than, “Are you still beating your wife?” I posted a definition of a molecule for you. Argue with the dictionary if you disagree. Ask me a legitimate question, referring to something I wrote by cutting and pasting my exact words, and you will get a definitive answer.
And you wrote two more posts now, responding to what I wrote by using ad hominem insults, while avoiding all the points raised. So I see I’m still pushing your buttons. But of course, they’re your buttons, and it’s fun and amusing to push them. I wonder how many more times I can get you to say ‘slithering’?☺
I note that you have repeatedly avoided my challenge to you to try and falsify my hypothesis:
At current and projected levels, the global rise in CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
Ball’s in your court, junior. Make sure your response is testable and replicable per the scientific method, which requires total transparency. Let’s see that putative global ‘harm’ from CO2. Give it your best shot.
I know you like to push buttons, that’s what trolls do (by definition).
LOL I’m not letting you out of that. I refusing to be baited. You don’t even understand the definition you posted.
I’ll repeat what you said again:
“Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺”
When I was talking about CO2 as a molecule. You said CO2 wasn’t a molecule, and chastised me for not knowing my chemistry. There is no getting around that.
^A compound is at least two different elements. A molecule is just two or more atoms. All compounds are molecules but not all molecules are compounds, for example: H2, Cl2, O2, etc. It’s not wrong to call CO2 a compound, but its definitely wrong to say it isn’t a molecule.
^and yes, I will ignore your other points until you no longer deflect this