The IPCC AR5 Report is a good place to start. The Physical Science Basis report is comprised of 9,000+ lines of evidence reviewed by 1,000+ experts culminating in a 1,500+ page summary. The Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Report is comprised of 12,000+ lines of evidence reviewed 1,700+ experts culminating in a 1,800+ page summary. The Mitigation Report is comprised of 10,000+ lines of evidence reviewed by 800+ experts culminating in a 1,400+ page summary. In total there are 30,000+ lines of evidence that have been reviewed by 3,500+ scientists to make a nearly 5,000 page summary. I know of no other single issue in science that has been studied this extensively and has this much evidence supporting it. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
And you can't seem to summarize a single point, or why you posted it, or how it has any relevance at all, or how it makes a counter point to accepted theories. That's a fact.
You continue being wrong. Read the article. There is a link with it that puts you at the Curry site. You can learn a lot from her site. Give that a shot and stop making things up about me. You can't summarize the paper nor explain why a scientist presented it. It seems you fear the article.
No of course not. If you want to offer it to others, they may appreciate it. I believe I mentioned this due to the way few here understand horsepower or torque and how weight of the vehicle has more to do with mileage than horsepower does. Evidence is the nature of the changes to the automobile here in the USA since around 1995.
Sir, the report is a composition of a number of experts in many many fields, not merely climate. A problem Professor Lindzen has with the report is that experts on climate should have presented their paper, not the hodgepodge of others. Supposedly your numbers make it valid. Given it is based on models, how do you arrive at the conclusion the models are accurate?
That is the hallmark of a denier. To lash out at me pretending i am the person not understanding. I created this thread. If you wish to handle things different, start your own thread.
Correct. AGW and the evidence for it spans multiple disciplines of science. AGW is not based on models; at least not global circulation models if that's what you mean.
That is name calling. When you object to my science, show your own unique science. Why do you believe HP has the component of weight attached?
And why should I read the article? How about, you give me a synopsis of a few of the main points? Seems you fear your own link...
What science is that? Could you summarize some of it for us, along with a brief explanation of why it is relevant?
How about, you try this (for the first time): You tell us what percentage is covered by clouds. Then you give an explanation for why that matters to any point you are attempting to make.
Well, you could easily prove that wrong by summarizing some of the videos and articles you are copy pasting. And...go!
Who told you that? Where did you read that? Funny, I think scientists believe the models are, themselves, based on the science. But you are about to tell us all why they are all wrong and your assertion is, instead, correct. And....go!
Curry is a quack and is producing no science. She has been widely discredited by the climate science community. Of course, according to her, this is a vast conspiracy of liars. Haha....okay, Judy.
Many things. She has claimed there is no consensus. That is demonstrably false. She accused people of covering up a decline in warming...that was false and misleading, as she was referring to tree rings. And it was doubly a lie, as that science is openly discussed by IPCC and in scientific journals. Every year, nearly, she comes out and claims global warming has stopped. And yet we keep recording warmer years, and the data shows that warming is accelerating. That is probably her most embarrassing lie. She really is a joke in the scientific community.
And yet this is her field. She is an expert and has testified to Congress. And when you get to it, soon I hope, link us to those claims you just made. That is the nature of a true denier. To claim others said this but never supply actual quotes from her.
This is not about me. I called it the improved Curry Corner. I post off her site what science reports. I even show graphs, charts and more. For that you think you will get away by attacking my credibility? Why do Democrats resort to personal attacks every time?
So your comment about horse power was copy and pasted from Curry's web site? LOL at you bring Democrats into the thread!
And yet again nothing from you. No wonder you are not able to summarize any points in your own words. Anyway, try it for once as this is a debating forum, not a copy and paste forum. I know, why don't you give your answer in your own words to what relevance your question about cloud cover percentage is to this thread.
