LOL @ Antropogenic Global Warmong

[Wild Cobra]

I downloaded the entire WG1 of the AR5. I've been reading it. These educated idiots play with statistics to get what they want. Anything solar, they acknowledge a limited understanding, yet still manage to find the answers they want to blame CO2. Look at this range, from chapter 2.3.1:

Estimates of absorbed solar radiation at Earth’s surface include considerable uncertainty. Global mean estimates derived from satellite retrievals, reanalyses and climate models range from below 160 W m–2 to above 170 W m–2. Comparisons of climate models with surface observations as well as updated spectroscopic parameters and continuum absorption for water vapor favour values towards the lower bound.

I think they mean that they favor the lower bound number. Can't have solar that high now, can we.

The latent heat flux estimate, required to exceed 80 Wm–2 to close the surface energy balance

They assume latent heat based on holes to make their numbers work...

It will take me a long time to go through this, but I thought that would be good for a laugh.

[Wild Cobra]

Such a wide range of radiative forcing, yet these people want us to believe they can pinpoint a small value of CO2 forcing changes...

Anyone wanna buy a bridge from me?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As you read the AR5 I recall a quote once again:

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.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, The Fuzzy Troll makes a point to attack a fellow poster instead of providing anything meaningful in a thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once again, The Fuzzy Troll makes a point to attack a fellow poster instead of providing anything meaningful in a thread.

fellow poster?

Why don't you go back to the club and talk about me some more. I am going to make fun of you as your pea brain fails to decipher AR5.

[DMC]

Nature and the "weather" are one and the same so your statement is a tautology.

[Wild Cobra]

Nature and the "weather" are one and the same so your statement is a tautology.

I was attempting to convey the idea of natural changes vs. mad made induced. I guess I failed, huh?