Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is this common? Do you go around asking each thread when it's over? Why do you seem so eager to shut this down?
You havent answered why you think science is something only "your side" engages in while us adolescent novices and AGW folks don't. But you have the silliness to announce or call for the end of this thread like a captain of USMB. Like I said, is this common? Why would you not reply to valid criticism and instead shut it down? Weird.
I concur. I find it particularly troubling coming from a moderator.
Why? It was a thoughtful post. You and yours are merely engaging in your circle jerk and refusing to address when your claims are summarily demolished. You're not trying to engage in debate, you're just yelling.
I concur. I find it particularly troubling coming from a moderator.
Why? It was a thoughtful post. You and yours are merely engaging in your circle jerk and refusing to address when your claims are summarily demolished. You're not trying to engage in debate, you're just yelling.
PLEASE I BEG YOU, quote the part where I was yelling.
Maybe you can help me out, why do you think AGW folks don't engage in science? Or do you consider this question yelling also?
YOU are an "AGW folk".. Can you point me to your "engagement in science" on this thread?
YOU are an "AGW folk".. Can you point me to your "engagement in science" on this thread?
I haven't followed this thread but if you really want an answer, I'm sure you can ask Abraham. Or you can pay me to review the first 6 pages lol
But the point isn't this thread. The point is that none of us are currently involved in research. So to ask for such from me is the wrong question. The right question is to ask what are AGW folks using to support their beliefs? Or conversely, what are skeptics using to support their claims (hint: conservative blogs)?
IPCC like AR5, Science (weekly magazine), Nature (monthly magazine), MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and the list goes on and on.
This is what I would refer you to for AGW doing science. If you care I can get some specific articles from those mags and others but I won't insult your intelligence because you can do that too plus you already know what climate scientists think. That is, while there remains a good bit of unknown, what we do know is that if we continue business as usual, this will cause great harm to the biosphere.
Now they may be wrong. But the bulk of peer review science that exists supports climate change is largely resulting from human activity. And the more science that comes in the more they claim human activity is at the root.
My challenges to you have not been absurd. But when you state so obviously that I or any AGW folk has no science backing up his claims, you have detached yourself from reality and are making a language game out of this issue, not a scientific one. If you want to continue talking science, you need to drop your claim that science supports your fundamental belief that man has little or nothing to do with climate change.
You have seen the data showing the continuous and accelerating increase of ocean heat content and global heat content during the last 17 years or so. FlaCalTenn has published such data himself. Where, then, do you get the idea there has been a hiatus?
The science does back our support.
The science does back our support.
You keep saying that, but since you can never back it up, it appears to be bullshit on your part. But hey, I'll give you a chance to show you're not just a parrot.
Explain why more energy comes into the earth now than goes out, and why the outgoing infrared radiation is observed squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band.
AGW science explains that with flying colors, along with many other things, for decades running now. How does your science explain it?
(I put "science" in quotes there because you've never actually done science before. Raging at the other side is not science.)
Wrong. We have seen the result of an ALGORITHM, which claims to plot that which is beyond the ability of the instruments involved to measure. Funny how that works. If the oceans were truly warming the whole planet would be warming as well. That's why it is so much colder in Siberia, or in the internal Antarctic continent, the oceans are a heat sink, keeping it cooler when it's warm and warmer when it's cold.
Simple physics that every high schooler knows, and which every climatologist seems not to.
What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2
What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2
So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.
Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
The science does back our support.
You keep saying that, but since you can never back it up, it appears to be bullshit on your part. But hey, I'll give you a chance to show you're not just a parrot.
Explain why more energy comes into the earth now than goes out, and why the outgoing infrared radiation is observed squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band.
AGW science explains that with flying colors, along with many other things, for decades running now. How does your science explain it?
(I put "science" in quotes there because you've never actually done science before. Raging at the other side is not science.)
What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2
So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.
Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2
So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.
Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
Wrong. We have seen the result of an ALGORITHM, which claims to plot that which is beyond the ability of the instruments involved to measure. Funny how that works. If the oceans were truly warming the whole planet would be warming as well. That's why it is so much colder in Siberia, or in the internal Antarctic continent, the oceans are a heat sink, keeping it cooler when it's warm and warmer when it's cold.
Simple physics that every high schooler knows, and which every climatologist seems not to.
And so Westwall proudly and spectacularly fails to understand the vast difference in the heat capacity of air and water, and the fact the the whole world _is_ warming.
He's one of the brighter denialists, of course, being he understands science at around a seventh-grade level.
You have seen the data showing the continuous and accelerating increase of ocean heat content and global heat content during the last 17 years or so. FlaCalTenn has published such data himself. Where, then, do you get the idea there has been a hiatus?
Wrong. We have seen the result of an ALGORITHM, which claims to plot that which is beyond the ability of the instruments involved to measure. Funny how that works. If the oceans were truly warming the whole planet would be warming as well. That's why it is so much colder in Siberia, or in the internal Antarctic continent, the oceans are a heat sink, keeping it cooler when it's warm and warmer when it's cold.
Simple physics that every high schooler knows, and which every climatologist seems not to.
