- 10 Oct 2023 19:12
#15290325
And I did.
It most certainly is when, as in this case, my explanation identifies what actually is happening.
I have provided ample evidence; you merely deny that it is evidence because that is your only form of "argument."
No, there is no possibility that I am incorrect.
Yes; he did not account for any of the irrelevancies you have disingenuously tried, are still trying, and will in the future continue trying to divert attention from the relevant physics of radiative energy transfer in the lower troposphere.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
I asked you to provide evidence.
And I did.
Your explanation about what you believe is happening is not evidence.
It most certainly is when, as in this case, my explanation identifies what actually is happening.
Since you are not providing evidence,
I have provided ample evidence; you merely deny that it is evidence because that is your only form of "argument."
there is every possibility that you are simply incorrect.
No, there is no possibility that I am incorrect.
Now, do you agree that Angstrom did not account for convection?
Yes or no.
Yes; he did not account for any of the irrelevancies you have disingenuously tried, are still trying, and will in the future continue trying to divert attention from the relevant physics of radiative energy transfer in the lower troposphere.