Reply With Quote
link embedded in image:
LOL
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.
link embedded in image:
LOL
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 bull ting for 5 years about HYPER INFLATION!
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.
Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...S-D-11-00262.1
From the abstract:
Again, I present this: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.
Notice how the change below 400 nanometers is greater than the lower frequencies.
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.
I think WC is onto something...
Here's another one. Link embedded in pic.
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.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.
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.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-25-2013 at 11:33 PM.
Here's another, link embedded in first image:
Note it shows 100% absorption at wavelengths below 300 nanometers as well.
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.
What makes the climate change chapter pretty good?
Why did you post this link?
Probably because it isn't one of the AWG herd animals/lemmings writing it.
Because I enjoyed it. Do you want me to write you a review?
Because I thought it was relevant to the thread, Chumpy.
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.
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.
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.
Its absolutely relevant. Did you read it? What did you take from it?
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/spursna...pporting-role/
That is interesting. Thanks
True, to the best of my knowledge.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
