Search results

False. Ice ages start when the Milankovitch cycles reduce the insolation in the polar regions. Ice sheets grow, not because there is increasing precipitation, but because the precipitation that falls doesn't melt. Most of Antarctica is a dessert. Very little of the precipitation that does fall...

What I actually said: I didn't think I would actually have to explain to anyone the seasonal cycle in precipitation patterns...I thought that it was a given that most people would understand. But I forgot that you sometimes wander into these threads, and that you are retarded, and can't keep...

Car pool when I can, energy efficient appliances, we have an Echo, and the only efficiency left to gain where we live is to insulate the basement walls. Our vegetables come from the farm market in Chalottetown. I'd personally like more options as a consumer, but they aren't there. So, in the...

Once again, going back to the beginning, my response was to Walt's article, where they claimed snow was not compatible. It clearly is. Then you changed it to attributing it to man made climate change, which I never said. You are as bankrupt with honesty as you are with intellect.

I'm not confused. Your question was based on a stupid claim. You seem to think there must be one equation to tell all. You shouldn't lecture anyone about being confused or retarded. Every time you type a response pertaining to science, you give more credibility to the Dunning-Kruger effect...

You asked a stupid question, though to be fair plenty of people make similar claims. It's stupid to attribute one weather event to anthropogenic climate change. It's not making excuses to explain why it's a stupid claim. It's just an explanation. As to attributing climate change as a whole to...

No...I gave you those answers, You were asking for one to use. Climatologists use many. Only deniers like yourself are pleased with one result, devoid of context.

You're in denial, and making stuff up. It's not a hoot. A brain is a terrible thing to waste, though in your case the crime appears less grievous. Have fun, not hard to do when you're living in denial.

You're in denial...the results are what they are. They are consistent findings, and you have no cards to play except to make baseless assertions. You're pathetic.

Like I said, you're ignorant. A scientific theory doesn't produce an equation. Scientific laws do. The theory of man-made climate change is streong, because all of those parameters I mentioned fit together coherently. When someone studies the temperature profile of the atmosphere, the result...

That's an outright lie. I said there were multiple baselines for all sorts of parameters, and that they all lead to the same conclusion. That's what makes it theory, you ignorant troll. And when I said there was no magic equation, like you thought there must be, that was to say, there is no...

About climate science? Not much apparently, but I'll stipulate to your vast experience in failed ventures.

Ummm, no. There must not be. There's no single mathematical formula or equation, that applies to all cases of illness, but we can identify cause and effect. I can inject a pathogen into a fish at work, and place that fish into a tank with other fish, and reliably tell you, within a day or so...

Show that they aren't.

Ignorant. Measurements are not assumptions. That's why they're called measurements and not assumptions. Dumbass.

Those are all parameters for which baselines exist...there is no single baseline. Like I said, you're obstinate in your obsession with silver bullets.

You don't need a general circulation model to have any of those baselines/datasets I mentioned.

It's not a single base line...there's many. That's what makes the findings of climate scientists robust, it doesn't depend on one baseline... There's the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, the spectroscopic measurements of the carbon...

No it doesn't. It provides support that all of the climate mechanisms that scientists have found are pushing the climate now, are not new. The only part which is new is that a species is digging up stored carbon and adding it to the carbon cycle.

In order to claim anthropogenic climate change caused this, well I don't think that's a reasonable claim at all. It's reasonable to assess the probability. In which case this event, is more likely, for any type of warming. Anthropogenic warming just happens to be what our climate is...