Search results

Ron - thanks for all your time and effort in working to remove trolling from this thread! I trust all members will recognize your efforts, respect them, respect the CC Forum and its membership and attempt to quell ongoing, as you say, "repulsive and blatant trolling".

great... finally you state what you were actually speaking to. You could also acknowledge that all your references to significant feedback influences were, accordingly misplaced and simply acted to add confusion as to what you were actually speaking to. The definition of TCR I provided to you is...

you have a strong aversion to actually detailing what sensitivity you're speaking to... TCR or ECS or ??? I provided the 'textbook' definition of TCR... although I'm still not clear from what you've stated that this is really what you're speaking to. Care to answer the simple request (now...

"our case"... "your case'??? I've yet to see you present "your case"... still waiting for that one! Again, all you have to offer is blather commentary where you can't rise above saying nothing more than what you always say: "globull", "scam", "fraud".

you made a rather incoherent claim that, as you stated, "proved false change your way of measuring to obtain the data you require to keep the religion alive". I challenged you to state what, "claim proven false" you were speaking to. you refuse to respond with a specific example. Which is, of...

what "claim proven false" are you speaking to... specifically speaking to?

about all you have to say is "globull"... is "scam"... is "fraud". Easy for you to say... much for difficult for you to actually present substantiation to that end. Which is why you have never attempted to do so. Which is why you continue to simply say nothing more than... "globull"... "scam"...

I look forward to you presenting evidence of an "uptick" in ocean sea floor venting... one that coincides with the timing ocean scientists have attached to the relatively recent increase in ocean acidification.

'centering' was a reference to your liberal mixing of definitions, which presumes to arrive at a TCR based on AOGCM model simulations... and I'm still not clear whether you presume to speak to ECS or TCR. I suggested you explicitly state that and include the appropriate min/max/likely range the...

of note: since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. So why are scientists concerned about such a seemingly small change in pH? Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in...

yes, formal publishing... as scientists pursue, even those with a denier predilection. Note: this doesn't include the typical denier blogger who is anything but... a scientist. Unfortunately for deniers, Blog Science doesn't count in the real world of recognized and advancing scientific...

in regards to my prior response to the denier BS that presumed to accuse NOAA of data manipulation... and fraud... I spoke of an expectation of a formal response from NOAA: this would be the NOAA response: Quality of pH Measurements in the NODC Data Archives In order to measure changes that...

again Walter? Again, you're trying to flog the Antarctic sea-ice extent? Why just 3 days ago you did this exact same thing and I replied with a rather lengthy post that closed with this question: "c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic...

member Locutus, I'm somewhat confused here... I do believe that it was you just a short while back, in your moderator role, that suggested a means to deal with CC board trolls was to simply put them on the CC Board's from of blocking... i.e., put them on one's IGNORE LIST? Please correct me if...

an update to yet another gem of denier BS associated with ocean acidification: earlier related posts are added at the bottom (of this post): in this piece of denier crapola, the much hyped claim was that NOAA scientists had purposely omitted some 80 years of data... and in so doing...

and again, you're speaking to some "bastardized' form of sensitivity that doesn't align with any formal definitions of same. If you're going to speak to transient you can't simply take a snapshot on the current observational data without first determining that center point off the doubling CO2...

and paleo. You're speaking to transient... not equilibrium. Which is fine if you qualify it (and associate it with the the appropriate, in kind, IPCC estimate range). However, transient also presumes upon average temperatures taken off a centering point in relation to a doubling of CO2... and...

member Walter put forward your same reference... yesterday. I note neither of you could actually rise above a straight C&P and offer any of your own interpretation/comment the same reply I provided to Walter:

what end of story? The IPCC 'most likely' estimate range certainly isn't one based on your reference to the current instrumental record... to, as you say "current observations" (and the less than doubling of CO2 that you yourself provided)... it certainly isn't based on anything short-term that...

as I said, these are the loons from Principa, the outright loons that published the book, Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory!