Search results

Solar insolation was high due to orbital precession, and there were large changes in albedo in the Northern Hemisphere. The greenhouse gas concentration ranged between 250-300 ppm. You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody here suggested the Eemian involved human activities as a cause.

This is sort of the point with me starting out with Arrhenius. Read the list of predictions he made over 100 years ago. All of the predictions from his early work have come true. Please then provide some proof that these observations are in fact artificial. Correct, which is why I say some...

Why haven't your chickens flown the coop yet? Your electric universe anti-gravity mumbo jumbo should have them floating about space by now. Oh and my favourite bit of your conspiracy nonsense, how the greenhouse effect defies thermodynamics. I bet every person on this forum understands that...

Well you're wrong. Very wrong. When we perform experiments, we analyze the data, objectively. If I apply an experimental treatment to one plot of land, and compare it against a control, do you think the outcome will be the same each time I repeat the test? If you think the answer is an absolute...

You know what's bull $hit Colpy? When a scientist tells you that we use things like objective tests, and then you try to wave that off with something a politician claimed. That's bull $hit, and it certainly isn't in accord with what you quoted me as saying. Is there a particular reason that you...

Don't play dumb. Tell us what you don't like about it. No, if something misses the mark it wasn't accurate. In science we have objective tests for that, so you'll have to do better than some inarticulate blanket statement that simply lumps all models together. Heck that means your model is crap...

Climate scientist isn't fabricated. What ever made you think that the term climate scientist is something to be suspicious of? Climate models aren't junk, some are worse than others but they are not as a whole junk. They're a tool, a tool that many people don't understand, or even attempt to...

Hmm, moderators in a science forum moderating posts as per the posting guidelines to ensure there is scientific content instead of trolls. How innovative. :lol: Allen then expressed surprise that removing an entire faction of commenters “resulted in a change in the culture within the comments...

Tropical Arctic during the Late Cretaceous. Of course the continents drift...but when someone refers to a Tropical Arctic, that is generally understood as tropical conditions in the Northern polar zone on Earth...and yes it was volcanically active.

Yes, when volcanic activity was much higher than today, and the greenhouse effect at that time was many orders of magnitude stronger. The fossils of that time are found right on top of flood basalts. For some context dg, during that time there was an event called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal...

Well, I think we can all agree that the climate of the Cretaceous isn't really comparable to ours. Our infrastructure is built for the climate we have. Our agriculture is tailored to the climate we have. It doesn't do us any good to say things have changed, will change, and always will, only to...

Ask JLM, he seems to get it. Climate is average weather, therefore climate change -CC- is changing weather. Global warming -GW- is temperature only. The weather, besides just simple temperature measurements, is changing. The IPCC has never been the IPGW. Now you know, the rest of the story. :lol:

It's actually a bit old news now, with the Washington Post article appearing online Sep. 24, 2013, but thought I would share it here. I know I've heard people on this forum say things before about taste differences and fillet quality. Well, in this article, a Chef from one of Wolfgang Puck's...

Hardly. If you could appreciate it, you wouldn't be making claims for total unequivocal proof. As for the alternatives, I`ve quizzed both DB and Petros before on the specifics. There`s a big difference between the alternatives, and what the scientific literature is suggesting. I can find...

In fact, it's so bad that some scientists think we need to change the words we use, because the public gets it so horribly wrong. I disagree, with the name change that is. "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words: Scientific American Also, the title of this piece is horrible! :D

Sigh, and this is where you show true ignorance. A scientific theory means very strong evidence, as in we don't need to run multiple studies and tests to reliably predict what will happen if you push an apple off the edge of your dining room table. Neither do we need to run multiple studies to...

I've linked to probably hundreds of papers on this site, and many have been direct replies to you CM. In the end those who have already made up their minds won't care, and won't believe it anyways. It's human nature that I can link to the psychological studies for too...If they're feeling...

Oh really? Human caused climate change is a cycle? Don't think so. I suppose you're going to say human caused flooding is a natural cycle too? And how about human caused species extinctions? All part of natures cycle? That is ridiculous. Big words...I didn't think so, but lets see if you can...

No, not just in the deep. And even if it were, you are of course still mistaken. Deep ocean water mixes with surface water and thus the atmosphere all the time- never heard of thermohaline circulation or polynyas? More heat in the ocean means more heat exchanged at the ocean-atmosphere...

You mean Antarctic, not Arctic. And as for the Antarctic, there is a well known phenomenon called the Antarctic polar vortex that disrupts the poleward flow of heat from the tropics. The vortex is also the cause of much of the southern hemisphere ozone depletion. Feel free to Google any of this...