FCT, could we see your response

[Abraham3]

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

and

1) You have suggested that these data actually fit global warming with some sort of lag. Can you quantify that claim?

2) Dana Nuccitelli and others at Skeptical Science show that even a generousTSI is inadequate to have caused the observed warming and is signficantly less than warming calculated for the observed anthropogenic increase in GHGs

3) Several studies on indirect effects: UV radiation and solar-mediated galactic cosmic rays affecting cloud cover: failed to show significant or even discernible effects.

So... I know you think you've told us this a dozen times, but I have to tell you that you're not easy to follow. Could you just one last time, give us a clear, thorough but concise explanation as to why you believe GHGs haven't warmed the planet but that the sun's TSI have. (or have more).

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares.



Doesn't matter.

 

[Abraham3]

How about you stay the fuck off threads where you have nothing to offer and aren't wanted even if you did. Hmm.. come to think of it, that's ALL of them.

Definitely time to put you back on the ignore list.

Buh-Bye!

 

[skookerasbil]

How about you stay the fuck off threads where you have nothing to offer and aren't wanted even if you did. Hmm.. come to think of it, that's ALL of them.

Definitely time to put you back on the ignore list.

Buh-Bye!

Hey.............what can I say s0n??












That's what I do on here.

 

[skookerasbil]

Study: Recent global warming activity caused by the Sun

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Abraham3]

I'd get back to you on that Skooks, if only I could see what it was you wrote. All I get is "This message is hidden because skookerasbil is on your ignore list". Go figger.