Reply With Quote
I already did. You didn't understand.
LOL...
Just tell us. Stop stalling.
I already did. You didn't understand.
If you mean I don't understand what you are trying to get at, you are right for once. What cyclical action are you trying to apply when there isn't enough evidence to show any other than solar variations?
I know you want to believe that the difference in UV magnitudes in the solar cycle has somehow not been considered by scientists since it was discovered in 2003. I know you think that your ty napkin math has it all figured out. Like I said I am not going through it with you again. Everyone knows your full of already.
Natural oscillations have obviously been deviated from. Now be more of a logically inconsistent sophist and discuss soot some more.
Yes, they have. However, none correlate strong enough with CO2. Other factors correlate more with changes.
uh huh. like UV and soot right?
I don't consider UV for significant temperature changes. Note that I brought it up under weather changes. Soot, I claim is the 2nd largest variation in radiative forcing for the period covered by the IPCC. Solar the largest, and CO2 the third.
So if UV is irrelevant to the overall change then studies prior to 2003 are relevant?
FFS you cannot even keep up with your own bull .
No, the problem is you.
You are always reading your own bias of failure in my words. If you had an ounce of either integrity of intelligence, you would try to understand what I mean, instead of always finding irrelevant reasons to dismiss me.
terrifying
I have to admit, I don't understand the chart. What does the years BP stand for in the chart?
Before present, so it it years ago before the study time frame.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
