The side that agrees that global warming is occurring and is most likely caused by human activity has a mountain of supporting evidence on its side. Pointing to the little holes in the theory and screaming "AH HA! You see? This small anomaly disproves your entire mountain of evidence!" is a stupid way to argue against a well founded, documented, and explored scientific hypothesis.
It's what pseudo-scientists do.
Bravo.
I don't feel any sincerity coming through. So, pity is a put down. You can't feel empathy?
This is what psedo-people might say. I was talking about General Lee B. Rude.
And AH HA. Speak of the devil and it appears. And the devil always bring the personal scorn to the table. That's why we refer to is as the devil.
I think we both know he never had any ammo to begin with.do you want to get back to actually debating climate science rather than etiquette, or do you have no ammo left without the heartland institute?
The devil is a fictional character, but if he's were you get your information regarding weather and climate it would explain a lot with regards to the quality of your posts.This is what psedo-people might say. I was talking about General Lee B. Rude.
And AH HA. Speak of the devil and it appears. And the devil always bring the personal scorn to the table. That's why we refer to it is as the devil.
I think we both know he never had any ammo to begin with.
He started telling me that the weather and the climate were the same thing, then started asking me about 'space weather'....
The devil is a fictional character, but if he's were you get your information regarding weather and climate it would explain a lot with regards to the quality of your posts.
So, you think ACC isn't real, but you think space weather is causing global warming?
Please continue, this ought to be entertaining.
View attachment 3043010
I never said any of these lies, General.
you very little say anything of content doerI never said any of these lies, General.
Explain how solar weather affects climate change, please and thank you.
One of the main reasons for this is that the bulk of the solar radiation, which lies mainly in the visible and near infrared parts of the EM spectrum, shows very little change over historical time scales. Most of the variation occurs in the lower and upper parts of the solar spectrum; the radio and X-ray bands. At these wavelengths, the solar radiation can vary by many orders of magnitude. These variations are very noticeable in the ionosphere, but since none of the X-ray radiation in particular, penetrates below about 60 km there is no reason to believe any changes would be noticed in the mesosphere "climate" takes place.
Galactic cosmic rays have much higher energies than do solar cosmic rays (protons), and these make it through several atmospheric interactions all the way to the ground, mostly in the form of mu-mesons. This galactic cosmic ray flux is subject to solar influence in the form of heliospheric magnetic fields that can deflect and thus decrease the intensity of the flux. It has been speculated that this variation could cause precipitation variations with cosmic ray interactions providing condensation nuclei ("seeds" for initiating precipitation) in the upper troposphere. Again the evidence is not strong.
do you want to get back to actually debating climate science rather than etiquette, or do you have no ammo left without the heartland institute?
so many allusionsSo space weather does exist.
Weather phenomenon in total, over time is Climate.
Sub-sets are from super-sets.
Woops no math. No wonder it goes over head and you have to go back to insults.
I can discuss science.
I call it like I see it.the General does not fall far from the bowl.
his.... spiel? drivel? verbal diarrhea?