4) Bryson, for one, published about a dozen articles per year. His output alone would overwhelm the sparse scattering of papers presented by PCF.
Barry, thank you for mentioning penicillin. Its discovery was one of serendipity. But evolution theory predicted what would happen: many bacteria have now developed resistance to penicillin.
Now you have a unique chance to experience all of it...
Albedo is *larger* but you are grossly over-stating the case. The combined forcing increase from CO2 and CH4 (~18ka – 11.5ka interval) was ~2W/m^2 which is most definitely climatologically significant .
traced the cover back to April 2012 at this site:
StevoR, I don’t usually respond to you because you’ve never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question.
The planet is getting cooler. At least the polar bears are happy now.
That you have to ask is a stunning indication that your view of the subject (AGW) is poorly informed, naive, and ridiculously lopsided (as if we didn’t already know).
That would be funny, Mr. Gullible, but I don’t think so!
L&C is an obvious underestimate, AGF. Even non-scientists like you and I can see that – assuming that we are objective and actually understand the topic, of course.
I like the way one photoshop job trumps two real Time covers here:
The actual Earth climate is heavily influenced over the short term by the predominant ENSO state (itself a reflection of the IPO phase), by volcanism and by variability in solar output. All are transient and do not affect the multi-*model* mean. So divergence on the scale of 1 – 2 decades is to be expected. Sometimes the MMM will correspond quite well to observations. Sometimes it will exceed them. Sometimes it will be lower than observed temperatures. Over the short term, the comparison is .
and the top grossing film in the nation involves eternal winter….
StevoR, I don’t usually respond to you because you’ve never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question. What the hell is “the scientific consensus on Global Overheating”?
So, what is the consensus regarding climate change?
3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?