LOL @ Antropogenic Global Warmong

[Wild Cobra]

link embedded in image:

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/02/20/match-play-golf_lanc1_s640x432.jpg?1336685d6aec9ddd02dff450ff d8e54a00612c55 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/match-play-championship-halted-snow-arizona)

LOL


The best 64 golfers in the world got together for the first time this season and a snow fight broke out.

Nature still shows us that it rules the weather change. Not man.

[George Gervin's Afro]

can someone translate?

[Th'Pusher]

Fuck. I thought we were done with the old AGW is a myth based on individual weather events.

[boutons_deux]

"Nature still shows us that it rules the weather change. Not man."

... parrots the Koch-sucker shill

[MannyIsGod]

Fuck. I thought we were done with the old AGW is a myth based on individual weather events.

Never.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The misspelling in the thread title just underscores the stupidity of this fail trolling.

[DarrinS]

I'm still a luke-warmer on this issue. Yes, the temp has increased about 1 degree since my great grandfather was born. And, yes, humans have probably contributed some fraction to that 1 degree.

Just not enough of an issue to get excited about.

[boutons_deux]

Another climate scientist like WC piles on the ignorance:

Pat Robertson: Only ‘nutty’ Ph.D.s believe climate change causes more blizzards
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/pat-robertson-only-nutty-ph-d-s-believe-climate-change-causes-more-blizzards/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Halberto]

As a geologist and someone who's salary is based on oil, I have to say global warming is a reasonable, yet unavoidable threat.

Also WC, stop being an ass. Global warming contributes to erratic weather behavior, so if anything this thread justifies the argument for global warming. But you wouldn't know that because Fox News doesn't share that sort of information...

[Wild Cobra]

Another climate scientist like WC piles on the ignorance:

Pat Robertson: Only ‘nutty’ Ph.D.s believe climate change causes more blizzards
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/pat-robertson-only-nutty-ph-d-s-believe-climate-change-causes-more-blizzards/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29
I never said blizzards are not a part of climate change.

You alarmists, who blame CO2, need to start studying the what the UV spectrum of the sun does, and how it changes the circulation between the troposphere and stratosphere.

The newest solar monitoring satellite up there takes very good quality measurement of the UV spectra, like no other satellite before did. It is changing how scientists think about climate.

[Wild Cobra]

As a geologist and someone who's salary is based on oil, I have to say global warming is a reasonable, yet unavoidable threat.

Also WC, stop being an ass. Global warming contributes to erratic weather behavior, so if anything this thread justifies the argument for global warming. But you wouldn't know that because Fox News doesn't share that sort of information...
Yes, but what about when you separate natural climate change and anthropogenic (man made) warming?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, but what about when you separate natural climate change and anthropogenic (man made) warming?

Show us your math on the subject. Looking forward to it. Wait wait, no I'm not.

[Wild Cobra]

Show us your math on the subject. Looking forward to it. Wait wait, no I'm not.
Now there is a change.

You are not disagreeing with me about UV changes and the mixing.

My point of the thread is that CO2 is not causing all this "climate change."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Dumbass still thinks that NASA doesn't consider the changes that they discovered.

[Halberto]

Yes, but what about when you separate natural climate change and anthropogenic (man made) warming?

A fast climate change would occur over thousands of years, it's pretty coincidental that a rapid increase in greenhouse gases developed right after the industrial revolution.

[sjacquemotte]

Fuck. I thought we were done with the old AGW is a myth based on individual weather events.

Did Obama get the memo?

[Wild Cobra]

A fast climate change would occur over thousands of years, it's pretty coincidental that a rapid increase in greenhouse gases developed right after the industrial revolution.
There was also a permanent long term average change of solar energy that slowly increased between about 1900 and about 1950.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/Fig2.gif (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/)

CO2 gas is an output of industrialization. CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed by the AGW alarmist crowd.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And another wiki graph brought to you by the local idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

And another wiki graph brought to you by the local idiot.
That is not a wiki graph you fucking moron. It is from NASA. I verified it before the first time I used it years ago. I would have embedded the link, but I get an error message.

broken link: Solar forcing used in NASA GISS (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/solar.irradiance/)

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I found another NASA/GISS link with it, just to prove the fucking moron wrong.

link embedded in pic:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/SIchange.gif (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/)

Fuzzy thinks he's a genius because he can talk out his ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:


I'm a genius because I can talk out my ass.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL

[Nbadan]

Wake up, freak out and then get a grip


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T_3WJPYY9g&feature=player_embedded

[Wild Cobra]

Wake up, freak out and then get a grip


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T_3WJPYY9g&feature=player_embedded
What a stupid video. Completely biased and unreal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The link was

http://upload. wikimedia .org/ wikipedia /commons/1/17/Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif

And of course you vetted it first just like you knoew it was the currant and all of the typical bullshit you try and pass off. No one buys it.

And it's sad that you took 3 posts to come up with that dig.

[Nbadan]

A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn



Researchers led by experts from Oxford University warn that a 1.5C temperature rise would melt Siberia’s permafrost, which would in turn release hundreds of gigatonnes of stored carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Covering nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere, this ticking carbon bomb would speed up global warming and cause widespread climate change. However, The Guardian reports, it would likely take a few decades for the permafrost to melt and therefore greenhouse gas emissions would initially trickle into the atmosphere.

Read more: A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

[Wild Cobra]

The link was

http://upload. wikimedia .org/ wikipedia /commons/1/17/Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif

And of course you vetted it first just like you knoew it was the currant and all of the typical bullshit you try and pass off. No one buys it.

And it's sad that you took 3 posts to come up with that dig.
Yes, it is in wiki. So? It is a NASA/GISS graph, used by wiki.

Not a wiki graph!

LOL...

You can't even put together your searched link properly

LOL...

The asstalking genius strikes again...

LOL...

[Wild Cobra]

A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn




Read more: A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
Yet there are other factors besides CO2.

When such alarmists start talking about the actual impact of black carbon and solar changes also, I will start taking them serious.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Wild Cobra has some serious problems.

I really hope he gets some help. The level of this craziness is insane.

Gas prices are already sky high and China nor India have yet to fully develop their oil and energy consumption.
This country has to adapt to survive, period. All this crazy ranting about straw man pseudoscience is exactly that, crazy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The image is from wiki's source folder. That is from the first image you posted for us all to 'enjoy.'

gmfb. This is like saying "I don't like most black people" some how is not racist. You can front all you want but no one ever ever buys your bullshit. I don't know why you bother trying anymore. If I were you I would actually try and repair my image as being an idiot and yet you insist on digging the hole deeper.

I invite anyone to take the bolds and space out of his url and see where it takes you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will also note for said post:

Last edited by Wild Cobra; 2 Hours Ago at 10:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link

The original link is what I just posted above.

Now you are being like Poptart.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Fuzzy trying to cover for his stupidity, by something that doesn't matter.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We have only been discussing this topic for 3 years now and you are still using wikipedia as your go to. That is completely relevant to your credibility which we all know that you have none.

You know this too as evidenced by your editing of the post so it would seem as if you went to NASA to find that data. We both know that you did not yet you tried to front like you did. IOW, it's so irrelevant that you tried to deceive us about it.

You can try and characterize me as stupid but after three years you still go to wikipedia to try and argue this topic with, amongst others, a guy that studies climate as a profession.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Rationalizing your stupidity...

[Wild Cobra]

We have only been discussing this topic for 3 years.
Liar.

My posts on the subject are as old as 2007, maybe older.

Why can't you get anything right?

[DarrinS]

Currently reading Nate Siver's book, The Signal and the Noise. It has a chapter on climate change that is pretty good. Apparently, this chapter has drawn the ire of some climate scientists, particularly Michael Mann.

Hissy fit here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

The village is calling!

[boutons_deux]

Lots of pretty pictures, all wrong :lol


https://www.google.com/search?q=increase+of+co2+in+the+atmosphere&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eQUpUbrpB6bY2gXR14HoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=957

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Liar.

My posts on the subject are as old as 2007, maybe older.

Why can't you get anything right?

Do you understand the pronoun 'we?' When I use the word 'we' that includes me as well as you even if you allow for the broader interpretation of others in the forum. When I say 'we' that by definition includes me. 'We' have only been discussing it for three years. You are not we, dumbass.

Moreso, you having been doing this for longer and still going to wikipedia as your go to does not help your credibility. It means every time you are going back to step 1 while someone like Manny is probably 140 formal hours ahead of you.

I am not the only one that brings up you being Dr. Google as a commentary to your acumen and we both know you realize this as well thus your: Last edited by Wild Cobra; 2 Hours Ago at 10:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link.

You know that google searches get you made fun of so you tried to deceive us.

Everyone sees it and once again you have someone piping in calling you the village idiot. Most I get is wine calling me an asshole. I am an asshole to you but at least I am not a moron who thinks google gives him credibility over a trained professional. Stick to changing out motors and run caps, fool.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you understand the pronoun 'we?' When I use the word 'we' that includes me as well as you even if you allow for the broader interpretation of others in the forum. When I say 'we' that by definition includes me. 'We' have only been discussing it for three years. You are not we, dumbass.

Yes, I was using the broader definition. If you want this one as a win, you can have it. I guess you need a star every now and then like the good kids in preschool.


Moreso, you having been doing this for longer and still going to wikipedia as your go to does not help your credibility.

It reall amazes me that you still think you have to prove to everyone how much of a moron you are.

Newsflash... Everyone already know that you are a retard.

Now I want to to take some time and think about something. Not too hard, because I don't want to you burst a capillary in your head, or have an aneurism. Please ponder this. Without looking up a reference via Wiki or Google, just how am I suppose to convey something to you I already know?

Am I suppose to draw a picture, take a photo in my handwriting an email it to you?

I did close to that several times. I gather information and graph it myself. One time, you accused me then of also finding it on the internet. It was a graph I made you idiot!

My God... You are to blind to see how much of a moron you are.

Seriously, if I have something to show you, just how do you expect me to do that without first looking up the reference on the internet?


It means every time you are going back to step 1 while someone like Manny is probably 140 formal hours ahead of you.

Manny is an indoctrinated fool. He cannot think for himself. He only repeats and links other people's work, and I don't recall ever seeing an explanation in his words.


I am not the only one that brings up you being Dr. Google as a commentary to your acumen
True. One libtard starts that bandwagon, and others join the band. That doesn't make it valid at all.

and we both know you realize this as well thus your: Last edited by Wild Cobra; 2 Hours Ago at 10:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link.

And that is important... why? Must I walk you though this as if you are a three year old?

I found another NASA link when I failed to fond it before with the same pic, so I edited the earlier post. So fucking what?


You know that google searches get you made fun of so you tried to deceive us.

Ask yourself, was I trying to be deceptive because I actually added a comment to the reason edited? I use google frequently to find references. I just don't use it like you accuse me of. It's obvious that you do with your misunderstanding of so many things, but I already have a sound foundation of nearly all the things I speak of.


Everyone sees it and once again you have someone piping in calling you the village idiot.
And you think I care? George is one of your fellow libtards. Sometimes I will banter with him, sometimes I will ignore him.

Most I get is wine calling me an asshole.

Did you man whine?

Something similar to John 8:7 comes to mind.

The misspelling in the thread title just underscores the stupidity of this fail trolling.


I am an asshole to you but at least I am not a moron who thinks google gives him credibility over a trained professional.

You are just the moron that assumes what you just said.

Again Fuzzy, we already know you are a moron. You don't have to keep proving it with your constant, baseless accusations.


Stick to changing out motors and run caps, fool.

LOL...

You don't have a clue, to the extent of my job. Another one of your idiotic assumptions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Line by line? Really.

That reply is so full of fail from the lack of basic understanding of words like 'we' and 'even' to your inability to discern who wine is. Your constant refrain is now revisionist history. Again no one buys it just like no one reads line by line.

[Wild Cobra]

And you never answer questions.

Really, just how do you expect me to show you something in the internet without first finding it myself?

You should quit before you get farther behind.

You are a total fool.

I'm done with you until you have something real to the topic.

[Wild Cobra]

So Halberto, you were saying?



A fast climate change would occur over thousands of years, it's pretty coincidental that a rapid increase in greenhouse gases developed right after the industrial revolution.
There was also a permanent long term average change of solar energy that slowly increased between about 1900 and about 1950.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/Fig2.gif (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/)

CO2 gas is an output of industrialization. CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed by the AGW alarmist crowd.

What if the sun is the reason for most the changes we see?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you never answer questions.

Really, just how do you expect me to show you something in the internet without first finding it myself?

You should quit before you get farther behind.

You are a total fool.

I'm done with you until you have something real to the topic.

I would go directly to the source because after three years I don't need to go to wikipedia. I go to the WU, NASA, BEST and PSU websites becuase they have been used in these discussions many many times. With you we are just starting shit over and again. You didn't just 'google' you went to wikipedia ie you are starting over.

That's why Manny just laughs at you becuase youre like a guy that constantly has to repeat kindergarten. It's why guys like DMC, drachen, admiralsnack, RG, EN, lyrnn, scott and others have commented on it. Yet no one ever comes to your defense. Not Darrin, not even Poptart who distanced himself for your special brand of ignorance.

What do you do? You start a thread by which you enforce your reputation as a moron. In this very thread you have been called one a dozen times. Why do you keep doing this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What do instantaneous mean?

[Halberto]

I don't waste my time debating with hard-headed people over the internet.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't waste my time debating with hard-headed people over the internet.
Then why did you bother replying at all? You at least in your first post, stated facts along with your opinion.


Global warming contributes to erratic weather behavior, so if anything this thread justifies the argument for global warming.
Please notice I separate global warming into natural and man-made. Both contribute, but the $64 million dollar question, is how much is in each catagory and sub catagory?

All the Fuzzy troll does is attack me in threads, and never adds to the discussion of the OP. He is always trying to make a thread about me.

I think he's in love.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bullshit I used to try and talk about the models and the various PDE's they used. I used to try and talk about multivariable calculations --which btw feeds into you 'what do instantaneous mean-- but just like MiG I no longer try and debate on the merits.

Most of it you are too stupid to understand which was obvious from you trying to figure out what linear means and being unable to. Further, you do as you are doing now: trying to start completely over and ignore all the arguments before.

While you want to try and act like they have not been rebutted you same old shit including but not limited to:

1) it's the soot.
2) warming drives CO2
3) NASA does not consider their own UV spectrum discoveries
4) IPCC is evil.
5) Observed climate change is natural variation

It gets very old having you ignore the topic for a month then bring it back up by extending the old ignorace that you do not even have the decency to remember your won shit. You have to look it up on wikipedia.

That's why I rag on you nonstop: becuase you do it over and over again. So yeah I am just going to point out you are a moron that has trouble keeping up with your own bullshit just like now you are going to bring up some shit about me and assumptions. That is why I posted your wiki link and that is why no one ever takes you seriously. You have no clue wtf you are talking about even after all these years.

[Wild Cobra]

There is Fuzzy, lying again. His rebuttals do not fit what i have said. He takes extreme viewpojnt. Whan I say nearly linear, he says "it's not linear."

No Shit Sherlock.

He twists everything I say, and argues against things I don't say.

He's a fucking moron, and anyone that believe post #48, is ignorant on the topic or has an agenda.

He rags on me just to rag, without really comprehending what he is saying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

Like I said you cannot keep up with your own bullshit.

You said it was nearly linear. I said it's not linear so you can only treat it as being linear in certain ranges if you can consider it linear at all. I then asked you what formula or formula type it was ie log, exponential or whatever and you did not know.

It's hilarious watching you try not to use the word assumption in using the same stupid argument. Are you capable of an original thought?

[Wild Cobra]

You argue over trivial things that do not matter, because you are incapable of arguing the points that do matter.

You are just a troll.

[ElNono]

You argue over trivial things that do not matter








link embedded in image:

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/02/20/match-play-golf_lanc1_s640x432.jpg?1336685d6aec9ddd02dff450ff d8e54a00612c55 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/match-play-championship-halted-snow-arizona)

LOL

[Wild Cobra]

Is it a small matter that AZ has that much snow at that location? It would be less rare if the elevation were higher.

[boutons_deux]

Is it a small matter that AZ has that much snow at that location? It would be less rare if the elevation were higher.

WC still thinks weather events = long-term climate change.

30 years ago, I read a prediction that climate warming would cause more and more extreme weather events. A prediction a lot more accurate than right-wingers bullshitting for 5 years about HYPER INFLATION!

[Wild Cobra]

Again, nobody disagrees that the climate is overall warming. Severe storm changes are not caused by small amounts of warming, but the larger changes between the atmospheric layers. These larger changes have solar changes in the UV band driving them more than CO2.

You should do some searches on how the changes in the UV levels affect the upper atmosphere, and atmospheric mixing.

[DarrinS]

Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1

[Wild Cobra]

From the abstract:


As a result, attribution of trends to anthropogenic forcing remains controversial. For severe snowstorms and ice storms, the number of severe regional snowstorms that occurred since 1960 was more than twice that of the preceding 60 years. There are no significant multi-decadal trends in the areal percentage of the contiguous U.S. impacted by extreme seasonal snowfall amounts since 1900. There is no distinguishable trend in the frequency of ice storms for the U.S. as a whole since 1950.

Again, I present this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/SIchange.gif

Notice how the change below 400 nanometers is greater than the lower frequencies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's see some of the napkin math and see if you can take the next step.

Somehow random weather event got morphed into the spectral analysis that you were called on before.

[scott]

I think WC is onto something...

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another one. Link embedded in pic.

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/09/05/sunspectrum_resources/spectrumgif.gif (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum/)


Above: This image, courtesy of Dr. Judith Lean at the US Naval Research Laboratory, shows the spectrum of solar radiation from 10 to 100,000 nm (dark blue), its variability betwen Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum (green) and the relative transparency of Earth's atmosphere at sea level (light blue). At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun's extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth's atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. For Earth-dwelling beach-goers there is no significant difference between Solar Max and solar minimum.

Please note two things. The graph shows the sharpest changes in solar variability below 300 nanometers (green trace.) The text also says "the Earth's atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths." Now part of it is scattered away completely, but a large portion is direct heating or cooling, depending on if the trend is rising or falling. Note that the molecules that absorb these wavelengths are nitrogen, oxygen, and ozone. The first two make up over 98% of the upper atmosphere. Solar variability cannot be dismissed.

add---

Note a third thing. The blue trace is how much of the solar energy makes it to sea level. The graph shows that nothing below 200 nanometers makes it. Everything below 200 nanometers is scattered and adsorbed.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another, link embedded in first image:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/images/absorption.gif (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/lectures/ozone/)

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/images/tr_abs_rad.gif

Note it shows 100% absorption at wavelengths below 300 nanometers as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who cares I am still waiting for the evidence that NASA does not consider their own discoveries in their models or how the integral accounts for the warming.

Your lack of discussion on phase is glaring.

[MannyIsGod]

Currently reading Nate Siver's book, The Signal and the Noise. It has a chapter on climate change that is pretty good. Apparently, this chapter has drawn the ire of some climate scientists, particularly Michael Mann.

Hissy fit here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html

What makes the climate change chapter pretty good?

[MannyIsGod]

Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1

Why did you post this link?

[Wild Cobra]

Why did you post this link?
Probably because it isn't one of the AWG herd animals/lemmings writing it.

[DarrinS]

What makes the climate change chapter pretty good?

Because I enjoyed it. Do you want me to write you a review?

[DarrinS]

Why did you post this link?

Because I thought it was relevant to the thread, Chumpy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Darrin cannot articulate why the article is relevant. Wish I could say that was uncommon. Just leave that innuendo out there. Cheap tactics that smack of deception.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would also point out the date of Columbia charts WC has in post 61 is dated February 13, 2002.

TIM, SIM and SORCE went online in 2003.

And dumbass asserts that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC models do not acknowledge UV phase offsets. Another google fail.

Bridges built on wishes do not cross the gap.

[MannyIsGod]

Because I enjoyed it. Do you want me to write you a review?

Yes but why did you enjoy it? I don't care if you write a review or not. I"m just curious as to what you makes you think something is "good" outside of conformation bias. You've done nothing to dispute that so far. Maybe you don't care which is fine too.

[MannyIsGod]

Because I thought it was relevant to the thread, Chumpy.

Its absolutely relevant. Did you read it? What did you take from it?

[DarrinS]

So Darrin cannot articulate why the article is relevant. Wish I could say that was uncommon. Just leave that innuendo out there. Cheap tactics that smack of deception.

ad hominem, blah blah blah

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ad hominem, blah blah blah

How is pointing out that you have not articulated an argument ad hominem? Anyone can put out non-qualified links.

I think this article is very interesting.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2013/02/26/leonard-continues-to-develop-in-supporting-role/

[DarrinS]

How is pointing out that you have not articulated an argument ad hominem? Anyone can put out non-qualified links.

I think this article is very interesting.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2013/02/26/leonard-continues-to-develop-in-supporting-role/

That is interesting. Thanks

[Wild Cobra]

I would also point out the date of Columbia charts WC has in post 61 is dated February 13, 2002.
True, to the best of my knowledge.

TIM, SIM and SORCE went online in 2003.

True, to the best of my knowledge.

So Fuzzy.

Remember what I said about TIM, or do you like talking out your ass? make you feel intelligent?

Your post here has no relevance, and you don't know why.

[Wild Cobra]

The AR5 will have some sad surprises for the alarmists and indoctrinated.

One example:


As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4.1, a recent satellite measurement (Harder et al., 2009) found much greater than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase. Changes in solar uv drive stratospheric O3 chemistry and can change RF. Haigh et al. (2010) show that if these observations are correct, they imply the opposite relationship between solar RF and solar activity over that period than has hitherto been assumed. These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate (as discussed in 10.3.1.1.3), that are not necessarily reflected by the RF metric (see 8.2.16).

What have I been saying about UV....

[MannyIsGod]

There are zero surprises coming with the new IPCC report. It will say pretty much what AR4 said with more evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one has argued anything about the UV findings. They have been known for ten years. The only thing has been disputed has been your grandstanding as to the conclusions drawn from it. AP4 was released in 2007 well after the NASA finding were published. As MiG pointed out: zero surprises.

As has been told before, 2005 called and wants it's argument back.

The point I was making about the dates above is that you were saying that any studies done previous to these UV findings were invalid because they did not consider said UV findings. I already know why that argument is stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

The point I was making about the dates above is that you were saying that any studies done previous to these UV findings were invalid because they did not consider said UV findings. I already know why that argument is stupid.
Once again, you prove you you are not smart enough to understand. I was saying previous instruments had more drift and error levels that the changes in signals we need to see, to use the data in a meaningful way. I also believe it is at the 200 nm point that they were not making measurements before too. TIM sees 200 nm and smaller.

All the material I read in TIM indicates that deep UV levels are from six times to factors more in delta than previously thought.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Previous instruments prevented us from using the data in a meaningful way and you show stuff extrapolated from data from before the meaningful way was found.....

You cannot even keep up with your own bullshit. Again no one is arguing with the findings that the satellites found. It raised important questions in 2004. Who really gives a shit what you believe now.

It's like your dumbass think you found a bone and you are repeating the same bone over and over again.

It's also noted that you used the bullshit 'it was cold today' argument to segue into this same argument that has been rebutted in the last few threads. That is waht I am talking about how you will get owned drop the thread for a month and then dredge the same shit up a month later with a new thread. Here it is. YAY for us!

[Wild Cobra]

That extrapolated data is every bit as good and any extrapolated CO2 warming claims.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At least you now finally get it.

Dumbass.

[Wild Cobra]

At least you now finally get it.

Dumbass.
LOL...

You mean at least you finally get it. I have known this all along, about the accuracy of the two types of knowledge.

How many times must I remind you that I am not a denier, but an honest skeptic. I see CO2 as being the scapegoat for warming. Most previous posts I have made discounting the degree to which alarmists claim is because we keep finding out things like the sun and soot having a greater effect than previously thought.

Well, if you keep increasing the percentage of something, and only have so much of a total, then that means the percentage of something else must decrease...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mean at least you finally get it. I have known this all along, about the accuracy of the two types of knowledge.

Does anyone believe this?

I will say that I do not believe this.

[Wild Cobra]

You have a right to your opinion.

Think about my claims all along, when pertaining to AR4 claimed levels.

Solar is greater.

Soot is greater.

CO2 is less.

So far, the IPCC and scientific community have proven me correct on the first two. They are, in my opinion, being stubborn on CO2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The solar spectrum variation was discovered in 2003. WTF 'your claims all along.' That was ten years ago

I would like to think that you are trolling but you really do just seem this stupid.


These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate

This is your own quote and you obviously do not understand it. This is why I was saying before about your lack of discussion of phase in regards to the UV variability is glaring. For me this is particularly entertaining because of how you were trying to making a point about 'why 3 phase power.'

The soot ranking up is because of an increasing of coal industrialization --'more soot' for dumbasses such as yourself-- not on the base rate of contribution. You have no clue.

You just talk out of your ass trying to get to a conclusion. 'The data before this date is meaningless so here is some data from a year before.' Now I am just going to wait for the whines about 'Fuzzy Troll.'

[Wild Cobra]

Stop nitpicking Fuzzball. Spectrum variations were discovered long before tha, and by all along, i meant as long as I was debating this topic.

As for the "they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF"... I see you completely failed at knowing the various places the different aspects apply.

The UV primarily affects the atmosphere only above the troposphere. The rest of the solar variations have little change. In the neighborhood of 0.12% Since the IPCC only addresses "direct solar forcing" and ignores the increased upward radiation, which turns into an increased downward radiation by H2O, C02, Ch4, etc... Don't you see... They are playing all of you who don't see thou their selective wording.

Direct solar forcing delta is small. The indirect solar forcing delta is about 3 times as great, if I remember correctly.

As for the soot, past estimates have been revised upward by around a factor of 3 if I recall correctly. Yes, it is more today than the 2004 era the IPCC AR4 reviewed.

You are the expert at talking out your ass. Not me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol nitpicking

The AR4 was in 2007. Still no discussion of phase or the integral. Their models are all about the re-emission of energy. That's what the greenhouse effect is, dumbfuck. We know you want to think they do not consider these things

You done yet or are you going to continue to say the same fucking things?

[Wild Cobra]

Some of you may find this of interest.

link: Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5 (http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2012/02/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence.html)

Parts of it:



"Expert review" of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:

My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call "the omitted variable problem" (or when it is intentional, "omitted variable fraud"). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.




For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity that began in the early 1920's? ("Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints," Usoskin et al. 2007.)

The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity "explains," in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.

Such a high degree of correlation over such long time periods implies causality, which can only go one way. Global temperature cannot be driving solar activity, so there must be some mechanism by which solar activity is driving or modulating global temperature change. The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primary driver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle).

[Wild Cobra]

:lol nitpicking

The AR4 was in 2007. Still no discussion of phase or the integral. Their models are all about the re-emission of energy. That's what the greenhouse effect is, dumbfuck. We know you want to think they do not consider these things

You done yet or are you going to continue to say the same fucking things?
I see you continue to regurgitate what you are spoon fed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Oh so now it's the magnetic field?

I especially liked the samples where ever source and excerpt said 'solar activity.' For example:


The long term trends in solar data


trong coherence between solar variability


a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300).

Boys and girls shall we look to see what solar minima, maxima and variability means?

Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun.

I mean never mind the relationship between electricity, magnetism and EM radiation but this shit is just correlation as causation with a whole bunch of stupid.

Speaking of which, so dumbass, in your own words describe the mechanism by which variations in the sun's magnetic field alters the temperature of the earth. Give us some tale of magnetic induction please.

[Wild Cobra]

More to the point, this guy is telling what the IPCC is outright ignoring.

They have an agenda. They are lying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So no mechanism for magnetic induction? Just a bunch of shit that talks of solar activity. That's nice.

They ignore solar 'burps' too. I hear it may rain tomorrow and the next few weeks. Have your ark ready?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, if you read the PDF I linked, at least the wording is acceptable. They make no hard claims. Just possibilities.

Was the sun dimmer, or is that an assumption? I won't claim to know either, but there are too many variables anyway, that far back, that would be impossible to know. We really don't know the orbit of the earth then. Maybe we were closer. Maybe somehow the atmosphere was denser, and some solar incident and/or loss of magnetic field allowed the solar winds to carry some of it away. We can only speculate.


No.

We normally have a net loss of hydrogen because the suns energy in the upper atmosphere actually breaks down water and fair share of the hydrogen escapes the atmospheric bounds. However, when equilibrium is a reality, things change when in a hydrogen cloud that is more dense than the earths outer atmosphere surrounds us after a massive CME.

Still think this is above my head?

I think it's above yours.


You're joking, right?

The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.

Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.


I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.

The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.

Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.

[DMC]

I didn't read the entire thread, but it's likely that WC is associated outside temp with the "warming" part of global warming.

Fast, in Earth terms, means different things than it does in terms of your very minute life span.

Global warming is occurring. How or why is up for speculation, but it is happening. Unless you're a fucktard who just likes to nay say facts because you think that one article you misunderstood settles it, just accept it and move on.

[DMC]

:lol Oh so now it's the magnetic field?

I especially liked the samples where ever source and excerpt said 'solar activity.' For example:







Boys and girls shall we look to see what solar minima, maxima and variability means?

Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun.

I mean never mind the relationship between electricity, magnetism and EM radiation but this shit is just correlation as causation with a whole bunch of stupid.

Speaking of which, so dumbass, in your own words describe the mechanism by which variations in the sun's magnetic field alters the temperature of the earth. Give us some tale of magnetic induction please.

Jesus fucking Christ, Iron Man went through that great magnetic field when he traveled time for the future of mankind. Didn't you know that? Are you fucking stupid?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't read the entire thread, but it's likely that WC is associated outside temp with the "warming" part of global warming.

No, I'm not. Not sure which of Fuzzy's idiotic posts you are referring to.


Global warming is occurring. How or why is up for speculation, but it is happening. Unless you're a fucktard who just likes to nay say facts because you think that one article you misunderstood settles it, just accept it and move on.

Agreed. I do know for certain the alarmists do not give the solar aspect of warming as much as it should be. I can make rough guesses at the level of solar induced warming, but nothing solid. I do know with absolute certainty, that the level the alarmist community claims is way too small. This means they are miscalculating something else, like greenhouse gasses.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I'm not. Not sure which of Fuzzy's idiotic posts you are referring to.

It's hilarious. You claim that I am a troll and then go from thread to thread on forum to forum insulting my intelligence. You insult my intelligence by your mere existence.

If you really think that I am a troll I do not think there is a better way to demonstrate how asshurt you are than by doing that. Well other than your call out thread from earlier. That menas I should probably add you to the fan club.

It just goes to show how stupid you are. Note: when I insult your intelligence I give specific cause for said belief. In this case it is your inability to control yourself.

Now, dumbass, where is the explanation for solar magnetic flux inducing warming on Earth? Did it cause a solar 'burp' like with Noah and the explosions warm us?

:lol exospheric combustion

Oh and protip: DMC was not alluding to a post of mine. He was discussing the typical stupidity from your OP. Even your fellow conservatives thing you are a moron, moron.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, I don't think you realize just how fucking stupid you are. You very often tell people what I am saying or implying, and it is almost always wrong. That is stupidity on your part. Not mine. I'm sure many people see past you.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't read the entire thread, but it's likely that WC is associated outside temp with the "warming" part of global warming.

If Fuzzy is right for once and you mean because of the pic in the OP, not. I mean the forces of climate. Not just because of the snow in AZ. In the OP I said this:

Nature still shows us that it rules the weather change. Not man.
UV changes affect the balance of the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere, which makes climate changes. It probably has a minor affect of temperature as the layers mix, but I doubt it's anything significant.

I get tired of the fact, that every time we have some notable climate, the AGW crowd always says "it's because of CO2." Well guys, there larger forces at play. Her name is Mother Nature.

[Wild Cobra]

I downloaded the entire WG1 of the AR5. I've been reading it. These educated idiots play with statistics to get what they want. Anything solar, they acknowledge a limited understanding, yet still manage to find the answers they want to blame CO2. Look at this range, from chapter 2.3.1:


Estimates of absorbed solar radiation at Earth’s surface include considerable uncertainty. Global mean estimates derived from satellite retrievals, reanalyses and climate models range from below 160 W m–2 to above 170 W m–2. Comparisons of climate models with surface observations as well as updated spectroscopic parameters and continuum absorption for water vapor favour values towards the lower bound.

I think they mean that they favor the lower bound number. Can't have solar that high now, can we.


The latent heat flux estimate, required to exceed 80 Wm–2 to close the surface energy balance

They assume latent heat based on holes to make their numbers work...

It will take me a long time to go through this, but I thought that would be good for a laugh.

[Wild Cobra]

Such a wide range of radiative forcing, yet these people want us to believe they can pinpoint a small value of CO2 forcing changes...

Anyone wanna buy a bridge from me?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/AR5fig2_12_zpsf2a554d4.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As you read the AR5 I recall a quote once again:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, The Fuzzy Troll makes a point to attack a fellow poster instead of providing anything meaningful in a thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once again, :cryThe Fuzzy Troll makes a point to attack a fellow poster:cry instead of providing anything meaningful in a thread.

:lol fellow poster?

Why don't you go back to the club and talk about me some more. I am going to make fun of you as your pea brain fails to decipher AR5.

[DMC]

Nature and the "weather" are one and the same so your statement is a tautology.

[Wild Cobra]

Nature and the "weather" are one and the same so your statement is a tautology.
I was attempting to convey the idea of natural changes vs. mad made induced. I guess I failed, huh?