Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

[RollingThunder]

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..

You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?

Again you demonstrate that you have no real idea what you're talking about. You just throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. But you're a clueless retard so all of your speculations are just unscientific nonsense.

Climate forcing from greenhouse gases = about 3 W/m2

"The increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2." - Total solar irradiance during the Holocene -
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, 5 PP., 2009 - doi:10.1029/2009GL040142

 

[flacaltenn]

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..

You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?

Again you demonstrate that you have no real idea what you're talking about. You just throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. But you're a clueless retard so all of your speculations are just unscientific nonsense.

Climate forcing from greenhouse gases = about 3 W/m2

"The increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2." - Total solar irradiance during the Holocene -
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, 5 PP., 2009 - doi:10.1029/2009GL040142

Now -- you're on topic.. 0.9 W/m2 +/-0.4 is a LOW estimate of that Reconstruction.. I'd say more like 1.1 or 1.2...

And climate forcing from CO2 ALONE is no where near 3W/m2... Those figures include the 2ndary feedbacks of Natural CO2 increases and water vapor due to temp rise.. The SAME EXACT feedbacks that SHOULD BE APPLIED to an increase in TSI warming.. But the MODELS attribute all those feedbacks to man and CO2 and NO feedback to TSI.. From CO2 alone -- the forcing is more like 2.4 W/m2.. So like I said --- UP TO HALF of the forcing function that we're looking for....

FF = ln(C/Co) * 5.35 ----> 2.4 when you use 400/250 ppm CO2

Good job Princess.... A weak sign of following along..

BTW --- I checked out your link.. The 0.9W/m2 is NOT an estimate of the ACTUAL TSI reconstructions. It's a VALIDATION of their Holocene model to check the sanity of the MODEL !!!! Note that THEY USE the same chart I posted above to TEST their model....

Please NOte how much NEWER much of this work on Solar is than the old Hockey Stick graph.. These folks (like the paper you posted are working furiously on new Satellite data that has JUST RECENTLY been available.. It's a NEW look at the total forcing functions on climate based on "SPACE AGE" tools... Not 20,000 mangled thermometers..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..

You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?

Again you demonstrate that you have no real idea what you're talking about. You just throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. But you're a clueless retard so all of your speculations are just unscientific nonsense.

Climate forcing from greenhouse gases = about 3 W/m2

"The increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2." - Total solar irradiance during the Holocene -
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, 5 PP., 2009 - doi:10.1029/2009GL040142

Now -- you're on topic.. 0.9 W/m2 +/-0.4 is a LOW estimate of that Reconstruction.. I'd say more like 1.1 or 1.2...

And climate forcing from CO2 ALONE is no where near 3W/m2... Those figures include the 2ndary feedbacks of Natural CO2 increases and water vapor due to temp rise.. The SAME EXACT feedbacks that SHOULD BE APPLIED to an increase in TSI warming.. But the MODELS attribute all those feedbacks to man and CO2 and NO feedback to TSI.. From CO2 alone -- the forcing is more like 2.4 W/m2.. So like I said --- UP TO HALF of the forcing function that we're looking for....

FF = ln(C/Co) * 5.35 ----> 2.4 when you use 400/250 ppm CO2

Good job Princess.... A weak sign of following along..

BTW --- I checked out your link.. The 0.9W/m2 is NOT an estimate of the ACTUAL TSI reconstructions. It's a VALIDATION of their Holocene model to check the sanity of the MODEL !!!! Note that THEY USE the same chart I posted above to TEST their model....

Warmers eliminate the effects of TSI on climate using the peer reviewed "Just because we say so!" method first used by Scareatta and West in 2006

 

[daveman]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

You keep saying these things are due to global warming.

Are you ever going to prove it?

Oh, and just so's you know, because I don't think you do: Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[daveman]

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..

You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?

He has no choice. If he were honest, the whole charade would fall down around him.

And he's too heavily emotionally invested in the charade to take a chance on falsifying it.

 

[daveman]

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all over us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....

Hypocrits?? First - Class....

Hell, Chris posts numbers of record daily high temps and claims it's proof of global warming.

 

[daveman]

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....

Hypocrits?? First - Class....

Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?

To clarify:

The rings from ONE tree.

 

[flacaltenn]

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....

Hypocrits?? First - Class....

Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?

To clarify:

The rings from ONE tree.

The rings from ONE tree. =00= In ONE forest. Good ole VAD061.

 

[westwall]

I didn't say it could be saved.

I said the debate on how it could be saved will continue, as the debate on whether or not human acitivity plays a part in climate change seems to be coming to a close.

The very statement that the debate will continue, pre-supposes a goal. Or don't you undserstand English?

I do understand English, and I understand that your statement is nonsense.

What is the goal of the debate on abortion?

Debate on the possibly solutions to climate change could well continue for another 20 years without ever reaching any kind of agreement or consensus.

Ummmmm, I hate to state the obvious...but clearly you need the help, but, ummm, the length of time taken is pretty meaningless and STILL doesn't negate the fact that there is a GOAL in mind.

But, you have to be intellectually honest to admit that, and we know warmers are anything but honest.

 

[Saigon]

The very statement that the debate will continue, pre-supposes a goal. Or don't you undserstand English?

I do understand English, and I understand that your statement is nonsense.

What is the goal of the debate on abortion?

Debate on the possibly solutions to climate change could well continue for another 20 years without ever reaching any kind of agreement or consensus.

Ummmmm, I hate to state the obvious...but clearly you need the help, but, ummm, the length of time taken is pretty meaningless and STILL doesn't negate the fact that there is a GOAL in mind.

But, you have to be intellectually honest to admit that, and we know warmers are anything but honest.

That is absolute nonsense.

The concept of debate in no way indicates any specific goal - otherwise there wouldn't be debate, there would be consensus.

btw, I am not a "warmer". I have no idea what that would even mean, and why you feel you have the insight to label people who disagree with you hardly speaks well of the honesty you claim to have a monopoly on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't seem to be a DEBATE here Saigon.. As once again you just skip right thru any discussion of the science on the topic and look to assert your considered opinion on semantics..

Did ya miss all that a couple pages back?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5934668-post204.html

Or doesn't any of that crappy factual stuff matter to you? And you're just waiting to be TOLD what to think by institutions with impressive looking credentials?

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

I am sure I did miss it - a busy day at work yesterday and today. I don't see every comment you make, but give me a post # and I'll make a point to go back and read it and respond to it.

OK, I looked back through the thread but couldn't find any statement of yours directed to me...

 

[Saigon]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

This is a very good comment.

I mentioned earlier that much of the debate on this topic seems to be turning a corner, and I think this really makes that clear. We are starting to see evidence of climate change every time we buy groceries. Even holiday destinations are changing as increased heat, storms and drought make once-popular destinations less attractive.

Climate change will effect every one of us to some extent - even if the climate where we live has not yet shown any sign of dramatic change.

I don't think climate change will be utterly catastrophic or mean the end of human kind or anything like that (and I regret that there has been some wildly hysterical statements about that in some media)- but I do think it will be something that we experience on a day-to-day basis, even if not in the ways some people might have thought.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac -

I am sure I did miss it - a busy day at work yesterday and today. I don't see every comment you make, but give me a post # and I'll make a point to go back and read it and respond to it.

OK, I looked back through the thread but couldn't find any statement of yours directed to me...

Well there's your problem.. You can't drive a browser. I gave you a link to a particular post. Use the post number to navigate back into the thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

Post #204 --- Page 14...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...eniers-are-almost-extinct-14.html#post5934668

 

[daveman]

Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?

To clarify:

The rings from ONE tree.

The rings from ONE tree. =00= In ONE forest. Good ole VAD061.

Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?

To clarify:

The rings from ONE tree.

The rings from ONE tree. =00= In ONE forest. Good ole VAD061.

That's how science is done, no? As long as you have Consensus because it's peer reviewed it's OK. That's how Einstein sold everyone on relativity, right?

 

[Saigon]

Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.

I'm not sure who "demands" that - I am hearing much more about this driving economic development than crippling it. Potentially it is a massive export earner.

Do you think you maybe relying just a little too much on partisan "news" sources?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

This is a very good comment.

I mentioned earlier that much of the debate on this topic seems to be turning a corner, and I think this really makes that clear. We are starting to see evidence of climate change every time we buy groceries. Even holiday destinations are changing as increased heat, storms and drought make once-popular destinations less attractive.

Climate change will effect every one of us to some extent - even if the climate where we live has not yet shown any sign of dramatic change.

I don't think climate change will be utterly catastrophic or mean the end of human kind or anything like that (and I regret that there has been some wildly hysterical statements about that in some media)- but I do think it will be something that we experience on a day-to-day basis, even if not in the ways some people might have thought.

Global Warming causes monetary inflation too? Wow! Global warming makes ethanol too?

Science does not involve "Debates" that "turn a corner"

 

[Old Rocks]

To clarify:

The rings from ONE tree.

The rings from ONE tree. =00= In ONE forest. Good ole VAD061.

Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.

Here we go again. Lies from liars. The climate record by the many so called Mann graphs are from data from coral reefs, ice cores from continental and glacial ice, ocean and lake sediments, stalactites and stalagmites in caves, as well as many other sources.

A very simple explanation of some of them for the simple minded here;

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies