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.
John Tyndall : Feature Articles
The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.
The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.
John Tyndall : Feature Articles
The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.
The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.
Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?
It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.
Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.
I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.
The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.
What's the testable hypothesis?
By God, ol' John is quite the guy, just keeps going and going and going. LOL. Sure, a degree in atmospheric physics. LOLJohn Tyndall : Feature Articles
The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.
Correlation can not prove causation, especially when the alarmists take snippets of time (where there is correlation) and throw the rest of the record that does not..
Has Tyndall learned how to read Tijander proxies yet? From your link, he is still using them upside down and thus they do not correlate..
By God, ol' John is quite the guy, just keeps going and going and going. LOL. Sure, a degree in atmospheric physics. LOLJohn Tyndall : Feature Articles
The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.
Correlation can not prove causation, especially when the alarmists take snippets of time (where there is correlation) and throw the rest of the record that does not..
Has Tyndall learned how to read Tijander proxies yet? From your link, he is still using them upside down and thus they do not correlate..
The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.
Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?
It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.
Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.
I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.
The 1 dimensional no feedback calculations for the expected warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 were done with a dry atmosphere and ignored the increased convection caused by the CO2 increase. Redoing the 1 dimensional calculations with using a conservative estimate of water vapor in the atmosphere and reducing the lapse rate due to increased convection reduces the surface warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2, no feedbacks by roughly a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C.
As the CO2 forcing in logarithmic half of the warming 0.075/2 or 0.037C can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore 95% of the 0.8C warming observed in the last 150 years is due to the solar cycle increase.
As there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate to solar cycle changes, the logical suspect for the cause of the warming in the last 150 years should have been solar cycle changes.
Satellite observations along with the balloon radiosonde measurements which verify them, show all of the HCN rise to be spurious. You have no warming for over 36 years...
What are you going to do now?
Satellite observations along with the balloon radiosonde measurements which verify them, show all of the HCN rise to be spurious. You have no warming for over 36 years...
What are you going to do now?
Point out that you're just lying again, like you do every time you post. Faking data and lying are pretty much what defines you. If all the science didn't say you're a kook, you wouldn't have to fake everything. But it does, so you do.
Now, you can shriek that you're not a fraud, but the whole planet disagrees with you, leaving you as just a bitter raging kook having meltdowns on a message board.
Enjoy your life of loserdom, kook. We'll be around to keep laughing at you.
What about the eighteen year pause in the IPCC AR5 report. Explain?John Tyndall : Feature Articles
The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.
Then, how hot is 120PPM?The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.
Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?
It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.
Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.
I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.
Then, how hot is 120PPM?The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.
Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?
It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.
Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.
I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.
