"Little ice age" to begin in 2014 ?

So, explain the well understood physics. It has been far ignored as the driving cause; which it is. What is heretical is to give a trace gas that has negligible effect center stage. The well understood physics of the green house effect? http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/ Here you go, UCSD have a easy to understand one for you. It hasn't, it has been studied properly and analysed by people willing to use the scientific method (which that piece by Abdussamatov avoids) and I even put up two links from those studies by someone who is a genuine leader in that field, Mike Loc... [More]

Just to labour the point about concentration effects, would you willingly consume 0.04% of your body mass in plutonium or fluoride. I thought not. Its potency that matters not quantity. If memory serves me correctly, CO2 has unique absorbtion bands at 2,6 and 10 microns's (wavelength) which means that any variation in CO2 levels will have an effect outside of the other greenhouse gases. Br Cornelius

Just to labour the point about concentration effects, would you willingly consume 0.04% of your body mass in plutonium or fluoride. I thought not. Its potency that matters not quantity. If memory serves me correctly, CO2 has unique absorbtion bands at 2,6 and 10 microns's (wavelength) which means that any variation in CO2 levels will have an effect outside of the other greenhouse gases. Br Cornelius Yep 1g of Polonium for example is about enough to give a lethal does to about 10 million people.

The well understood physics of the green house effect? http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/ Here you go, UCSD have a easy to understand one for you. It hasn't, it has been studied properly and analysed by people willing to use the scientific method (which that piece by Abdussamatov avoids) and I even put up two links from those studies by someone who is a genuine leader in that field, Mike Lockwood. There is absolutely no evidence, and you most certainly have not presented any evidence to show that it is the driving force. Heretical to who? Problem is, is that there is a ... [More]

Even I understood that. Thanks Astute One!

What a childish link? Matt, are you clueless, or was that an attempt at an insult? You don't understand the numbers at all. Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link We have gone over this before to no avail, but here we go again with a reference that you can verify if you like. That is, if you believe the Journal of Geophysical Research is a reputable journal. I do. Actually, all you previously posted was a unpublished and academically fraudulent "paper" But yes the Journal of Geophysical Research is reputable, here are some papers from the... [More]

Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link Actually, all you previously posted was a unpublished and academically fraudulent "paper" But yes the Journal of Geophysical Research is reputable, here are some papers from their associated journals from the AGU. http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/rg/RG025i004p00760.xml http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/2000GL012015.xml http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/... [More]

His and mine publication records are irrelevant, much more data and many more of his peers completely disagree with him. Happer, it should be pointed out is also chair for the George C. Marshall Institute, which is a think tank funded by Exxon-Mobile and the American Petroleum Institute and it also denies that smoking is harmful (so yes, I can discredit his comments). But clearly there is no conflict of interests there is there . Here is what R-AZ senator McCain said about the Marshall Institute: First, McCain is a loser. Second, how come now, all of a sudden when I call you out, you say publi... [More]

I read the first one. It clearly says, "The earliest GCM simulations of CO2‐induced climate change were performed without the annual insolation cycle. These “annual mean” simulations gave for a CO2 doubling a global mean surface air temperature warming of 1.3° to 3.9°C, an increase in the global mean precipitation rate of 2.7 to 7.8%, and an indication of a soil moisture drying in the middle latitudes." This indicates the previous models were crap. They can't be calibrated because the temperature didn't rise as predicted. So, the previous models are useless. I suspect the new ones will... [More]

First, McCain is a loser. Second, how come now, all of a sudden when I call you out, you say publications are irrelevant. He has 200 publications in prestigious journals. I am not saying his publications are irrelevant, I am saying his volume of publications is irrelevant. His links to the Marshall Institute however are not irrelevant 90% rolleyes right back at you. Your UK court ruled it so. Take up the arugment with them. The court is the ones who said AGW is akin to a religious belief. Yes, there is a majority consensus with in science that anthropogenic effects are driving climate change a... [More]