Reply With Quote
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?
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?
what do sinusoid mean?
This isn't Mann's chart, dumbass. You look stupid when you google but you sound downright re ed when you don't.
No Sherlock.
How long did it take you to figure that out? Must have been some time since you fail at understanding my point.
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.
Fuzzy...
Your assumptions are cute for a 3 year old, but pathetic for a grown man like yourself.
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.
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.
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.
We both know that CO2 has ed just like the otherwise smooth curve ed.
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.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.
We both know that CO2 has ed just like the otherwise smooth curve ed.
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.
What I don't understand is how so many scientists can turn a blind eye to the impact of solar induced changes.
How can you post a chart from speculated data?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?
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.
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.
Only warmer than "much"..."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."
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?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-08-2013 at 03:13 AM.
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
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 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.
What is the period of oscillation?
Is the signal waxing or waning?
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.
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!
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?
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?
As for the phase, its because you are dumbing down the NASA TSI findings or as Bert would say:
I was trying to walk you through it.
What is the period of oscillation?
Was the signal waxing or waning?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
