Search results

Unusually low...meaning, unlike the climatology...meaning...not evidence that the globe is cooling.

Nice find Avro! In my bookmarks now.

Debunking nonsense can actually reinforce the fallacy. So, why give those who sow disinformation more venues to sow more false information. They repeat the same false claims over and over again. Confronting the falsehood necessarily means that you have to repeat it. It doesn't matter if they're...

The greenhouse effect is not unclear; it is a simple, demonstrable fact of nature. If you wrap a blanket around yourself, it is not the blanket that warms you with it's own energy by convection. The blanket is preventing the emission of heat away from your body. That is a thermal imbalance. So...

Congressional hearings I should think.

Shocking! Shocking I say! Monckton must retract his statements immediately. This is who Republicans bring to a hearing on the science...sad and pathetic.

Yes, a routinely hurled canard. Might be true...if CO2 were a limiting nutrient. It obviously is not. How many fertilizers do you see with a source of carbon in them? Phosphorous is far more limiting. Without phosphorous a plant can't turn photons into chemical energy, so the carbon dioxide the...

For modelling experiments you hold factors constant. There will be wiggles in the output, but the output from the model is essentially what you compare against other forcing ensembles. Because the ratio of H+ and OH- ions won't change when water evaporates from the ocean. And as the water...

I believe he asked you for trends from thirty years. You won't find a single trend under fifteen years in length that passes significance tests. That's because noise is greater than signal in our present climate for such short intervals. Thirty year trends are significant though, and they look...

The Jurassic had average global temperatures of 25°C, while we're closer to 14°C. That is, they're not relatable. We have cycles of ice ages that the Jurassic did not. The planet doesn't even look the same, the continents are arranged differently. That is to say that the two periods of time are...

Technically since we're a natural part of this planet, whatever we do could be called natural as well. The physics, chemistry, and biology principles are still the same. But for ease let's run with the dichotomy between us and what nature had before us. Nature has always caused floods too...

Yes. Because we have more than just a correlation. I have given you links before that find less radiation escaping to space, find less energy escaping particularly in wavelengths dominated by greenhouse gases, and we have predictable phenomenon occuring which are directly related to an...

Honestly, I have no idea what a lot of your views are on this. I don't know if you lean towards the unrealistic view of what science is like Captain Morgan. I don't know if you think the IPCC arrives at pre-made conclusions like he does. I don't know what you think on a whole host of issues...

I call CM a denier because he's not a true skeptic. When he is given evidence, he doesn't modify his questioning. He still repeats the same talking points. A skeptic does not do such a thing. Probability is how scientific findings work. If I measure my fish, and the average growth rate is...

Yes, that's my point...you're saying that the correlation of Mars warming and Earth warming is probably the same thing. You have no basis to say probably, and in fact scientists have studied Mars and they have an explanation for the warmth they've measured there. The cause is not the same as the...

Of course you wouldn't recall, because you never read it. They claim there is high confidence, and that's true, that human emissions have grown, and that the net effect of human activities on the climate is one of warming. Deny that all you want, but it's true.

I see. So a correlation is enough for you. I'll make note of that. And you of course will disregard the satellite observations of a darker planet, with higher albedo. The solar energy has been on a declining trend since the 1970's: Yet I bet you'll ignore that and continue on with your...

I always ask you that question because you move goal posts so frequently. According to you the IPCC deals with certainty rather than uncertainty or probability. That is clearly false. Why would I remember something you did with Avro? No, I just want to see where the foundation of your...

Are you still talking about the IPCC, or have you moved goal posts again? Ahh, something you can't possibly show. Your bread and butter, unsupportable assertions.

Full stop, you're full of $hit. Show me where they speak in certainties and not probabilities.