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.
there you go with the good old boys club mention again. How many times must I state that peer doesn't mean anything in climate science? How many?Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.
Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.
Think about an event one or two thousand years ago. A legitimate 1C spike or drop in a 50 or 100 year span would presumably be seen in the proxies but because the dating is uncertain, one proxy will show the spike at a different time than the others. This will smear out the spike over a longer period than the actual event. If you actually look at the proxies being used in these reconstructions you will see that they are all over the place both in temperature and time.
Flac has the right idea of looking at single proxies for the actual variance, averaged proxies for the best estimate of the timing.
No, it's called climate and the primary cause of the changes we've seen over the last 150 years have been human GHG emissions and deforestation.
No, it's called climate and the primary cause of the changes we've seen over the last 150 years have been human GHG emissions and deforestation.
OMG, we're all gonna burn!!!!!!!! It's called weather and weather changes, it's been doing for centuries
Lol, I guess you wouldn't understand that following this stuff is part of science and is important over the long term.
And no, a monthly or yearly avg of something is weather, but Climate. We're dealing with long term anomalies.
Mhm....what was the temperature for the month of March in....oh let's say 5 B.C.?
The problem with the climate change BS is records are not far enough back to really tell what happens....that and the "scientists" keep getting caught fudging data.
Because we didn't have thermometers back more then the mid 18th century. We only have proxies to give us a clue about temperature of the past. Based on those, we were cooler globally in the 5th century Bc compared to today. This was even before the roman warm period that was also cooler then today.
What other way would you have us study climate?
So you've chosen to continue to lie. I guess that's what one gets from a liar.
Was Roman warming due to human GHG emissions?
Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.
Frank's sig said:Crick: Frank, I'm still waiting for you to show us where I said I wanted to off any deniers. You've made a very serious charge here dude. Either back it up or withdraw it.
Frank's sig said:Me: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers." -- Crick. That help, Crick?
Frank's sig said:"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.." -- Crick completely dismantles AR5's (which he apparently never read) premise that "excess heat" absorbed by the oceans is the primary culprit in climate change
Frank's sig said:Crick: Frank, I'm still waiting for you to show us where I said I wanted to off any deniers. You've made a very serious charge here dude. Either back it up or withdraw it.Frank's sig said:Me: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers." -- Crick. That help, Crick?
No, that doesn't help. Postulating a hypothetical is not an expression of desire. My statement that you've quoted, does not say I want to off any deniers. As a whole, the only thing conveyed here is your illiteracy.
Frank's sig said:"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.." -- Crick completely dismantles AR5's (which he apparently never read) premise that "excess heat" absorbed by the oceans is the primary culprit in climate change
You are the one who it seems has never read the IPCC's assessment reports. My statement regarding the lack of any "official scientific definition" for the term "excess heat" stands and says absolutely nothing about AR5.