that seems like a circular argument. You dizzy yet?
post that link then.
sure it is.
For you to say that, and keep replying nonsensically, when the discussion is over before it even begins, tells me that you are also a troll and you get your jollies out of this. Good luck with that, I do not share your enjoyment about nonsense.
Krakatoa was one of the most documented eruptions in history. The eruption disrupted Earth's weather patterns for 2 years afterwards. Iceland, for example, is usually ice free in the summer. Iceland went into a little ice age and was not ice-free for those two years. I believe some people starved to death there because of it. But the long-term affect was negligible; unlike mankind's continual pollution of the atmosphere. That is adversely affecting our climate and has accumulating adverse affects on us all.
By continuing to post me you are still trolling. LOL. I think I should put you on ignore, but I like to see how you will continue this conversation you troll. Please don't I've had enough nonsense for today.
Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.
ok, well post the data from those people who proved whatever the fk you stated.
[3] An alternative that has been suggested is to use comparisons between the modeled and observed effects of volcanic eruptions for model validation and estimation of the climate sensitivity [Hansen et al., 1993; Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998]. There are a number of difficulties with this approach, as articulated by Lindzen and Giannitsis [1998, hereinafter referred to as LG98]. First, even for the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (June 1991) where satellite data have provided us with detailed information on the properties and distribution of the volcanic aerosol, there are still substantial discrepancies between different estimates of the forcing [see, e.g., Santer et al., 2001]. Uncertainties in the forcings for earlier eruptions are necessarily larger. Model-based signals therefore have considerable intrinsic uncertainty, even for results from a single model. Second, there is a signal-to-noise ratio problem. Since the relevant response is on a monthly timescale and since the response to an individual eruption decays to a negligible amount after less than a decade, the noise of internally generated variability makes it difficult to define the response signal in the observations (although some of these noise influences, such as the effects of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, may be removed by empirical methods; see section 5). Third, short-timescale forcing events (spanning 5 years or less) are less sensitive to ΔT2x than longer-timescale processes. If the response is relatively insensitive to ΔT2x, then it becomes much more difficult to back out information about ΔT2x from any model/observed data comparison. Fourth, the sensitivity may depend on the nature of the forcing and its spatial distribution [Wigley, 1994; Joshi et al., 2003]; we assume here that any such dependence is within the uncertainties of an empirical sensitivity estimate.
Naw, I'll prove your link doesn't prove what you said. see my post.
Here we go again. You are actually on the internet it whether you know it or not, use it. It's a simple task, even you should be able to do it. Try to have a good day. I plan on it.
If it was so simple, why didn't you just provide it as per how the board works in here?
By all means, pitiful you!
