Empirical observation shows that it is the property which we may call indifferently retention, endurance, or reiteration.
And
empirical observations show that the current standstill is not the only one.
Not exact matches
On the other hand, the alternate scenario — a non-zero «pre-eruption» aerosol burden — is both logically self - consistent, and in accord with
empirical observations, as I
showed by citing the Robock paper.
It is an
empirical observation that SOL and MUL
show regularities that are not at all apparent in DEC..
All we have to do is define a reality - based TCR and that number can be gleaned from
empirical observations, placing it closer to 2C than 1.3 C. Forget the simulation aspect and simply look at what the observational data is
showing.
Show me the
empirical data, based on real - time physical
observations or reproducible experimentation (NOT climate model runs), which support the premise that GH warming requires decades or even centuries to reach «equilibrium».
Sorry to bust your bubble, but
empirical, testable measurements and
observations show conclusively that the rise in CO2 has not caused a measurable acceleration in temperatures.
There are no real - world physical measurements,
empirical observations, or controlled scientific experiments that
show that varying CO2 in volumes of 0.000001 over a body of water causes heat changes in that body of water.
As rational skeptics, in the scientific sense (see Wiki) the second category insists that the first category
show empirical data, based on actual physical
observations, to support the premise.