Reply With Quote
No, it isn't.
nice dodge. Formula, dip . Show your work for the 'equalization.'
I like the century long sample rate so you can degrade it into a line personally. Fits in with your normal stupidity.
No, it isn't.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22...chevron-texacoThe American Petroleum Ins ute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known.
The group's members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, S , Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron, according to internal do ents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the task force's former director.
An InsideClimate News investigative series has shown that Exxon launched its own cutting-edge CO2 sampling program in 1978 in order to understand a phenomenon it suspected could harm its business. About a decade later, Exxon spearheaded campaigns to cast doubt on climate science and stall regulation of greenhouse gases. The previously unpublished papers about the climate task force indicate that API, the industry's most powerful lobbying group, followed a similar arc to Exxon's in confronting the threat of climate change.
That is the source article for boutox's article. Its good and the source this time is a pullitzer prize winning nonprofit as opposed to a left wing partisan news site.
Fuzzy Brains, we can all see that dark red stain running down your pants leg
how can you say 'we' about anything. Youre all on your lonesome, buttcheeks.
Here is one hypothesis used, exported from Excel to Google Docs:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...mMg/edit#gid=0
You can see my work, and it is not a running average.
So I guess were just waiting on the first real cold snap to ridicule global warming again, right?
Why are you even using Hansen's methods? You use him as a strawman of unreliability regularly.
The behavior of CO2 ac ulating in the atmosphere is not the same as the Earth's thermodynamic response to the sun.
With CO2 there is an actual explained mechanism for the feedback loop because of the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the environment's response to temperature increase. You have no mechanism but your usual wishful thinking. You are desperate to hide that energy somewhere. I always preferred the deep ocean current wishful thinking.
Also the range for the majority of the 1600's should have clued you into the validity of your data. How convenient that the TSI can stay the same for 80 years right after a minimum. This was one of my original points. Counting sunspots is not the same as satellite data. Just because it's the best information that we have for that time period doesn't make it okay to use it.
They don't do it with sunspots, but with isotopes. You are so ing stupid. I'm not using Hansen's method.
Why are you even using Hansen's methods? You use him as a strawman of unreliability regularly.
The behavior of CO2 ac ulating in the atmosphere is not the same as the Earth's thermodynamic response to the sun.
With CO2 there is an actual explained mechanism for the feedback loop because of the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the environment's response to temperature increase. You have no mechanism but your usual wishful thinking. You are desperate to hide that energy somewhere. I always preferred the deep ocean current wishful thinking.
Also the range for the majority of the 1600's should have clued you into the validity of your data. How convenient that the TSI can stay the same for 80 years right after a minimum. This was one of my original points. Counting sunspots is not the same as satellite data. Just because it's the best information that we have for that time period doesn't make it okay to use it.
Maybe you should reflect a bit. You should ask more question related to the science. Not ones that you think are cute.
No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions - Charles P. Steinmetz
So its the same equalization that Hansen claims but your not using his method.
I have a quote that I've use several times to explain you:
You have completely dropped the argument about the lack of a mechanism for "the same equalization" like the one HAnsen uses for his CO2 feedback. It instead is your wishful thinking. It's what your foolish mind does routinely. Did you even bother to look up Hansen's formulation because your formula reads like the Mickey Mouse Club or a recipe for the EZ Bake Oven?
You also dropped the argument about the inaccurate and incomplete data collection. The telescope was invented in 1600 dip . That is why the measurements began then those crazy guys wouild look at the sun through the scope and count them which made many go blind.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm
That there is a study where they demonstrated the correlation between TSI and sunspots justifying the use of data to compare that which it correlates. The property is not transitive dumbass. That means its not valid to compare it with your wishful thinking. We've talked extensively about your inability to compare datasets to insure that a comparison is valid. As I said, for anyone but a fool that flat line that goes for most of the 1600s should have been a clue.
I don't know how he calculates equalization. I uses a simple method that follows an exponential one.
When ever I prove you wrong on something, you find something else to troll about instead of addressing what is said.
You are pathetic.
WC flatters himself that his science out-sciences, destroys the science of 97% of real scientists.
The 97% is only scientists that say AGW is real, without quantifying how much. When you take the studies and polls and find which ones claim it is "most" of the warming, the percentage is considerable smaller.
LOL...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2581.html
The Earth’s energy budget for the past four decades can now be closed, and it supports anthropogenic greenhouse forcing as the cause for climate warming. However, closure depends on invoking an unrealistically large increase in aerosol cooling during the so-called global warming hiatus since the late 1990s that was due partly to tropical Pacific Ocean cooling.
Figures. They are baffled, and can only make the model work if they tweek it for excessive aerosol; cooling.
where we have used the fact that 93% of the Earth’s energy change is due to the change in ocean heat content
This is likely true, and they ignore the primary driver of ocean heat.
GMT increase has stalled for the past 15 years, often referred to as the global warming hiatus. A downturn in the natural cycle of GMT, anchored by tropical Pacific cooling, is a leading hypothesis consistent with observed regional climate anomalies
They simply have not been able to properly explain this yet, and maintain CO2 as dominant.
whereas they are only thermodynamically coupled through surface heat flux in CAM4-OML.
This is where they really screw up, repeatedly. They fail to consider how deep shortwave and UV penetrate the ocean.
In the end, what they don't look at is long term ocean heat content equalization with the solar shortwave changes, but they do show in the left graph exceeding 100 years for effect.
Oil Industry’s Suppression of Climate Science Began in 1940s, Do ents Reveal
A trove of newly uncovered do ents shows that fossil fuel companies were explicitly warned of the risks of climate change decades earlier than previously suspected.
And while it’s no secret—anymore—that the companies knew about those dangers long ago, the do ents, published Wednesday by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal even more about the broader industry effort to suppress climate science and foment public doubt about global warming.
Industry executives met in Los Angeles in 1946 to discuss growing public concern about air pollution. That meeting led to the formation of a panel—suitably named the Smoke and Fumes Committee—to conduct research into air pollution issues.
But the research was not meant to be a public service; rather, it was used by the committee to “promote public skepticism of environmental science and environmental regulations the industry considered hasty, costly, and potentially unnecessary,” CIEL writes.
The group continues:
In the decades that followed, the Smoke and Fumes Committee funded massive levels of research into an array of air pollution issues, often conducted by ins utes fostered and governed by the oil companies themselves. By the mid-1950s at the very latest, climate change was one of those issues.
The do ents also show how Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) scientists actively engaged on climate science in the company’s name beginning in the 1950s, even as they actively funded and published research into alternate theories of global warming.
Among the do ents is a report by the Stanford Research Ins ute presented to the American Petroleum Ins ute (API) in 1968 warning of the potential consequences of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
That report states:
Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climate change. If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis. [....]
[T]here seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.
“We begin with three simple, related questions,” said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “What did they know? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?”
“What we found is they knew a great deal,” Muffett said, “and they knew it much earlier and with greater certainty than anyone has recognized or that the industry has admitted.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...+the+Headlines
AGW is SCAM ?
AGW is planetary HOAX?
yourightwinuts are suck SUCKERS, DUPES, LIED TO, and you LOVE IT. G F Y
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-13-2016 at 10:03 PM.
bouts since you do not believe in God, just how do you expect the spiral into complete destruction is going to be avoided?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
