The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

[InRareForm]

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/new-hockey-stick-graph-scarier

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

When will the alarmists give up?

If CO2 is the cause of 20th century warming, then why did we have such warm temperatures before Mann's chart started?

http://www.motherjones.com/files/marcott-B-MJ.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol what do sinusoid mean?

This isn't Mann's chart, dumbass. You look stupid when you google but you sound downright retarded when you don't.

[Wild Cobra]

This isn't Mann's chart, dumbass.

No Shit Sherlock.

How long did it take you to figure that out? Must have been some time since you fail at understanding my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I get what your point is. My point is you have no idea what a sinusoid or any other periodic signal is.

Now go google.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Your assumptions are cute for a 3 year old, but pathetic for a grown man like yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well if you understood what a sinusoid or other periodic signal then you wouldn't make stupid comments such as your initial post. Assumption or not that is self-evident.

You need another schtick other than this 'assumptions' thing when you get called on your stupidity. Maybe go with 'context' next time. That was really convincing in your saying that not liking most black people is not racist argument.

[Wild Cobra]

My God you are stupid. You say I don't understand, but it is your wishful thinking that you are smarter than me.

Mann's Hockey Stick, and the new study both show temperature lower than the 5,000 to 10,000 BP timeframe, at 1900. Now between 1900 and 1950, we have a know increase of solar energy, and then the graphs go higher than the average. The low point of each is what is known as the "little ice age."

Now let's assume it is cyclical like you say I don't understand. Up/down/and now up again... Was CO2 up/down/up also?

Don't you get it? I am saying CO2 is not the cause.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not going through the solar variability with you again. You didn't understand it then just like you don't understand it now.

:lol what do phase mean

We both know that CO2 has spiked just like the otherwise smooth curve spiked.

I 'get it' and what I get out of 'it' is you using stupidity as a blunt force weapon to wish your conclusion into reality.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going through the solar variability with you again. You didn't understand it then just like you don't understand it now.

:lol what do phase mean

We both know that CO2 has spiked just like the otherwise smooth curve spiked.

I 'get it' and what I get out of 'it' is you using stupidity as a blunt force weapon to wish your conclusion into reality.
No Fuzzy, you don't get it. You are just a lemming soaking up what they tell you to believe.

What I don't understand is how so many scientists can turn a blind eye to the impact of solar induced changes.

[mouse]

LOL...

When will the alarmists give up?

If CO2 is the cause of 20th century warming, then why did we have such warm temperatures before Mann's chart started?

http://www.motherjones.com/files/marcott-B-MJ.jpg

How can you post a chart from speculated data?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol what do phase mean?

The national academies of the western world are wrong but WC has it all figured out. NASA doesn't consider their own findings but WC does.

Like I said, stupidity as a blunt force instrument. Just keep repeating it over and over and over again. You versus the National Academy.

[Wild Cobra]

What does phase mean to you? I don't see how a rotational relationship matters when using that term. Enlighten us. What do you mean?

I'll bet you are just feeling like a genius again, because you are talking out your ass.


"We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years," Marcott said. "Now we know that it is warmer than most of the past 11,300 years. This is of particular interest because the Holocene spans the entire period of human civilization."
Only warmer than "much"...

OK, so it isn't the warmest in the last 2,000 years. Was there ever a past time when CO2 levels were greater than now?

[Wild Cobra]

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Only warmer than "much"...

OK, so it isn't the warmest in the last 2,000 years. Waws there ever a past time when CO2 levels were greater than now?

and thus we go back to your ignorance of periodic signals.

as for the phase, the amplitude oscillations of various wavelengths are not in phase.

your ignorance is boring.

[Wild Cobra]

and thus we go back to your ignorance of periodic signals.

as for the phase, the amplitude oscillations of various wavelengths are not in phase.

your ignorance is boring.
Once again, you are talking about shit that doesn't matter. How do you think it applies when the AGW crowd is claiming greenhouse gasses cause the temperature, yet even you agree there are cyclical factors, and this new study even acknowledges what I have been saying about past temperatures being warmer than today.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is the period of oscillation?

Is the signal waxing or waning?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And that you think the wavelengths being out of phase is irrelevant just demonstrates how much of an asshat you are when grandstanding about the UV wavelengths.

[Wild Cobra]

What is the period of oscillation?

Is the signal waxing or waning?
I don't answer you stupid side-tracked question. Haven't you figured it out yet?

Q) Why don't you start by telling me why I'm wrong instead of your 20 questions?

A) Because you can't!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

site tracked? Its pretty obvious that it's part of a sinusoid. periods of sinusoids is typically taught in trig. I am using critical thinking here and trying to walk you through it.

i guess youre too dumb to follow 10th grade math.

[Wild Cobra]

site tracked? Its pretty obvious that it's part of a sinusoid. periods of sinusoids is typically taught in trig. I am using critical thinking here and trying to walk you through it.

i guess youre too dumb to follow 10th grade math.
Again, deflecting the question.

Why am I wrong?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because you don't understand that the current oscillation does not correlate with the periodic signal. Same basis for the BEST analysis.

[Wild Cobra]

Because you don't understand that the current oscillation does not correlate with the periodic signal. Same basis for the BEST analysis.
LOL...

So what does this have to do with the AGW claim of CO2?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As for the phase, its because you are dumbing down the NASA TSI findings or as Bert would say:


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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

So what does this have to do with the AGW claim of CO2?

I was trying to walk you through it.

What is the period of oscillation?

Was the signal waxing or waning?

[Wild Cobra]

I was trying to walk you through it.

What is the period of oscillation?

Was the signal waxing or waning?
LOL...

Just tell us. Stop stalling.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I already did. You didn't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

I already did. You didn't understand.
If you mean I don't understand what you are trying to get at, you are right for once. What cyclical action are you trying to apply when there isn't enough evidence to show any other than solar variations?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know you want to believe that the difference in UV magnitudes in the solar cycle has somehow not been considered by scientists since it was discovered in 2003. I know you think that your shitty napkin math has it all figured out. Like I said I am not going through it with you again. Everyone knows your full of shit already.

Natural oscillations have obviously been deviated from. Now be more of a logically inconsistent sophist and discuss soot some more.

[Wild Cobra]

Natural oscillations have obviously been deviated from.
Yes, they have. However, none correlate strong enough with CO2. Other factors correlate more with changes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

uh huh. like UV and soot right?

[Wild Cobra]

uh huh. like UV and soot right?
I don't consider UV for significant temperature changes. Note that I brought it up under weather changes. Soot, I claim is the 2nd largest variation in radiative forcing for the period covered by the IPCC. Solar the largest, and CO2 the third.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if UV is irrelevant to the overall change then studies prior to 2003 are relevant?

FFS you cannot even keep up with your own bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

So if UV is irrelevant to the overall change then studies prior to 2003 are relevant?

FFS you cannot even keep up with your own bullshit.
No, the problem is you.

You are always reading your own bias of failure in my words. If you had an ounce of either integrity of intelligence, you would try to understand what I mean, instead of always finding irrelevant reasons to dismiss me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

[DarrinS]

terrifying

[rascal]

I have to admit, I don't understand the chart. What does the years BP stand for in the chart?

[Wild Cobra]

I have to admit, I don't understand the chart. What does the years BP stand for in the chart?
Before present, so it it years ago before the study time frame.