Reply With Quote
So, you don't know what your post meant?
So I didn't distort your views about a conspiracy of scientists. Got it.
So, you don't know what your post meant?
shot in the dark works for WC. he thinks he killed everybody with it.
what's your hypothesis, WC?
what accounts for the dramatic warming trend?
solar forcing? soot? be specific if you can.
do you rule out anthropogenic contributions?
if so, why do you do so?
If I take the time to outline it for the umpteenth millionth time, will you remember, or forget like before?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-24-2016 at 02:35 AM.
Not at all. We are responsible for some significant changes.
Why do you so conveniently forget what I have said before?
We don't forget. He clearly doesn't because he remembers soot and the sun too. Your behavior demonstrates your shame.
You put me on ignore and then when that didn't stop me you finally stopped. Now you act like Scientologists when you ask them about Xanu.
make your case. arguments aren't won by hand-waving and name calling.
I'm no going to bother. I have explained several aspects several times. Why should I believe you will absorb it this time, when you haven't before. Then you lie about my position, hence... the name calling.
I have lost count how many times you blatantly misrepresented what said, or pretended I never have.
Why should this be any different?
I have made my case several times in the past. You simply don't care, and I don't have the time to waste right now.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-24-2016 at 12:56 PM.
LOL...
You're a super troll and a master-baiter... Really one to talk... I'm not ashamed on my better reasoning skills.
I sometimes don't have the patients to deal with your combination of ignorance, arrogance, and flamebaiting... Hence the IGNORE function used.
Yup just like when you ask about Xanu. We both know I will gladly argue on merit. It's just many of your positions are so mind numbingly stupid.
Why don't you discuss this gem: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8...adiance/page-2
50 year latency? More of your ocean current wishful thinking. As if the ENSO cycle is not well understood.
Well, Gavin Schmidt has finally lost it. He's become Chicken Little, and thinks the Sky is Falling!
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, told National Observer. "So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”
link: The sky is literally falling because of climate change, says top NASA scientist
- did he claim this was apocalyptic or catastrophic? if not, why do you think he has lost it?
- do you disagree that CO2 cools the stratosphere? if so, please show the research/evidence that backs that claim.
- do you disagree that a cooling atmosphere will have a shrinking effect? if so, please cite the research/evidence that backs that claim
Are you agreeing there is no cause for alarm?
If the total heat content of the earth is increasing, then the troposphere below it will expand more than the stratosphere shrinks.
They sky shouldn't be falling! Not unless the reality is global cooling.
Regarding the specific symptom of a shrinking stratosphere? I'm not knowledgeable enough on the issue but the article you posted didn't seem to imply it. Just seems like you built yourself a nice strawman, I don't think the article claimed the stratosphere shrink is a cause for alarm, specifically.
You could very well be right. Can you back this up with evidence? Or am I just taking your word for it? The troposphere is roughly 5-10 miles high and the stratosphere reaches about 30. So can you demonstrate evidence that these will completely offset as you claim?If the total heat content of the earth is increasing, then the troposphere below it will expand more than the stratosphere shrinks.
Last edited by spurraider21; 11-01-2016 at 12:58 PM.
Sarkozy proposes carbon tax on US goods if Donald scraps Paris climate pact.
http://en.rfi.fr/france/2016114-sark...-climate-pact?
What warms the oceans and fuels the ocean circulation?
and... this graph still shows the predicted 0.1 degree per decade warmth even when you factor out the el nino peaks. we all know 1998 was an incredibly strong el nino, so lets disregard that peak, for example. 1999-2001 still hovered around the 0 mark. and then you look at 2014-2015 before the el nino peak there and its somewhere around 0.15. the shorter window you look at, the more those big peaks and valleys are going to skew numbers. its no surprise that people on your side of the fence always start the short term analysis exactly from 1998, a really strong el nino period. why didn't you start from 1995? or 1993? you started from an abnormally high 1998 because it paints a convenient picture. and then if you take a larger sample size... 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, the trend is more pronounced and much less susceptible to el nino/la nina periods
and...my post had nothing to do with the long term warming trend. I posted the graph in reply to Winehole's question as to what could account for the dramatic warming trend of the last two years (I assume that is what he meant since that was the topic of his link). Last year I posted in some thread that this year would likely be warmer than last, I didn't know that because I am psychic.
No, if you want to disregard that peak then you should disregard this peak. Both follow a very strong El Nino.
Seriously, freaking out over a peak warm year is no different than my side (supposedly) saying lol global warming when it's a cooler year.
yes. disregard the 2015-2016 el nino peak. look at 2012, 2013, 2014, and early 2015... well before the el nino peak. it's still indicative of a warming trend when going back to the 1999-2000 time period, and is still very consistent with the prediction of 0.1 degrees per decade
so you agree with me but you still want to argue about something
i agree that the 2015-2016 el nino peak skews the numbers, so that peak should be disregarded. i disagree that disregarding that peak means we suddenly lose the warming trend.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
