Global warming slowdown linked to Pacific

[skookerasbil]

 

[SSDD]

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

You dispute an IPCC graph with an article from wiki? Why not just hang a great big "I'm a brain dead doofus" sign around your neck and jump off a tall building?

 

[IanC]

The IPCC projections for the rise in methane are vastly exaggerated compare to measured amounts. This is yet another reason to question the accuracy of IPCC predictions. Their crystal ball is cracked. When or if any of their predictions pan out it will be by chance not calculation.

 

[RollingThunder]

As ususal, you are wrong. Here is the graph from the ipcc giving climate science's breakdown of radiative forcing. Clearly they believe that human influences overwhelm natural influences by a wide margin.

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

HEY MORON --- that chart is so fucked up --- it doesn't matter WHAT the title is.

If "Surface Albedo" and black soot on snow is a RADIATIVE FORCING ---- SO IS a warmer or cooler ocean TinkerBelle..

Or did that JUST OCCUR to your heroes since the IPCC coughed up that hairball?
I'll tell you why lied about solar insolation in that chart and why the Ocean Cycles are not in there..

It's because the IPCC is chartered to only investigate those issues that are relevent to MAN-MADE climate change. That's why the bottom line in that chart reads as it does.

IT IS CRAP !!!

So... I guess it is just stupid ignorance on your part.

Surface albedo is a factor in the balance of radiative forcings (and black carbon soot on snow is just a subset of 'surface albedo', BTW) but ocean currents and heat transfers between different ocean layers has nothing to do with radiative balance. Too bad you're such a scientifically clueless idiot, fecalhead.

 

[SSDD]

Surface albedo is a factor in the balance of radiative forcings (and black carbon soot on snow is just a subset of 'surface albedo', BTW) but ocean currents and heat transfers between different ocean layers has nothing to do with radiative balance. Too bad you're such a scientifically clueless idiot, fecalhead.

All heat transfers have to do with radiative balances.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

HEY MORON --- that chart is so fucked up --- it doesn't matter WHAT the title is.

If "Surface Albedo" and black soot on snow is a RADIATIVE FORCING ---- SO IS a warmer or cooler ocean TinkerBelle..

Or did that JUST OCCUR to your heroes since the IPCC coughed up that hairball?
I'll tell you why lied about solar insolation in that chart and why the Ocean Cycles are not in there..

It's because the IPCC is chartered to only investigate those issues that are relevent to MAN-MADE climate change. That's why the bottom line in that chart reads as it does.

IT IS CRAP !!!

So... I guess it is just stupid ignorance on your part.

Surface albedo is a factor in the balance of radiative forcings (and black carbon soot on snow is just a subset of 'surface albedo', BTW) but ocean currents and heat transfers between different ocean layers has nothing to do with radiative balance. Too bad you're such a scientifically clueless idiot, fecalhead.

Didn't say anything about "... heat transfers between different ocean layers".. Do you not know the implications of SSTemp from PDO, AMO, ENSO TinkerBelle??

Here -- we're only talking about surfaces EXPOSED to the radiative calculations.

How is SSTemp (and it's variability) NOT part of radiative energy calculation for the surface of the earth?

Matter of fact --- Atmos Physics says that radiative transfer is the Difference of the absorption/emission for each surface involved. What good is an IPCC chart that leaves out variability in the Sea Surface Temperatures? It's probably OK to assume that the LAND SURFACE doesn't change spontaneously in temperature (as a global average).. But the effective emission/absorption temp for ocean SURFACES DOES change on an annual/decadal basis.

THAT'S WHAT THIS F-ing OP IS ALL ABOUT you fairy..

That chart is less than useless. It's deceptive and fucking wrong in places..
The only thing that chart was meant for was to show how MAN is the only cause that matters..

Let's just skip to the conclusion here Tink... You're out of fairy dust. You lose..

 

[Abraham3]

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

I would suggest that's because there was no discernible CHANGE in the radiation of the ocean surface between 1750 and 2005.

Do you think we could have this conversation without shouting or name-calling?

 

[flacaltenn]

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

I would suggest that's because there was no discernible CHANGE in the radiation of the ocean surface between 1750 and 2005.

Do you think we could have this conversation without shouting or name-calling?

Yu pissed me off when you told me to "cork it" -- when you KNOW that the IPCC chart in question is widely biased and lacking the details you asserted were "in there". They are not.

SURE --- I'd love to change the tone..

Look these revelations are about KNOWN ocean CYCLIC events. There is no GOOD excuse for not adding an error bracket for "Decadal Changes in SSTemp" in that IPCC chart..

That IS a radiative variable.

By now -- you might imagine --- if that IPCC acknowledged that 20 or 30% of the reqd. forcings are from Ocean SSTemp cycles and another 20 or 30% of the reqd. forcings are from solar insolation --- that the message wouldn't justify another IPCC conference --- would it?

In fact -- that's pretty much what I believe. The effects of CO2 have been exaggerated on purpose and the effects of other natural forcings have been hidden and minimized on purpose.

And all the fantasy about "multiplicative POSITIVE feedbacks" being triggered by a couple degree change is not in any way agreed or observed.. In fact -- to get the current warming rate over 30 years -- you'd pretty much HAVE to invoke negative feedbacks over the "CO2 alone" forcing function.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's hard to tell if you're being deliberately deceptive or you're just too stupid and ignorant about science to recognize your mistake. The chart you posted is only tracking "radiative forcings", not the other natural factors that can influence the climate, like the ENSO or PDO cycles. Too bad you're too ignorant and clueless to comprehend the difference, SSoooDDuuuumb.

Radiative forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.

HEY MORON --- that chart is so fucked up --- it doesn't matter WHAT the title is.

If "Surface Albedo" and black soot on snow is a RADIATIVE FORCING ---- SO IS a warmer or cooler ocean TinkerBelle..

Or did that JUST OCCUR to your heroes since the IPCC coughed up that hairball?
I'll tell you why lied about solar insolation in that chart and why the Ocean Cycles are not in there..

It's because the IPCC is chartered to only investigate those issues that are relevent to MAN-MADE climate change. That's why the bottom line in that chart reads as it does.

So... I guess it is just stupid ignorance on your part.

Surface albedo is a factor in the balance of radiative forcings (and black carbon soot on snow is just a subset of 'surface albedo', BTW) but ocean currents and heat transfers between different ocean layers has nothing to do with radiative balance. Too bad you're such a scientifically clueless idiot, fecalhead.

Didn't say anything about "... heat transfers between different ocean layers".. Do you not know the implications of SSTemp from PDO, AMO, ENSO TinkerBelle??

Oh really??? This is your post #46 and you just talked about ocean storage of the excess heat energy in your post #33. Well, as it happens, fecalhead, "OCEAN storage = "heat transfers between different ocean layers".

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

The fact is....you're just too ignorant about climate science to comprehend what the scientists mean by 'radiative forcing'. Your confusion conflicts with your moronic belief that you understand everything better than the actual experts so you conclude that all of the scientists are either completely wrong or else they know better but are publishing falsehoods to deliberately deceive everybody. You're both a conspiracy theory nutjob and a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!

The ocean ate my AGW!!

LOL

We know its real! But the ocean ate it!

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL!

The ocean ate my AGW!!

LOL

We know its real! But the ocean ate it!

It's OK, CrazyFruitcake, we all expect clueless childish drivel like this from you. Watching you make an even bigger fool out of yourself than nature managed to do is part of the fun of this forum.

 

[flacaltenn]

So... I guess it is just stupid ignorance on your part.

Surface albedo is a factor in the balance of radiative forcings (and black carbon soot on snow is just a subset of 'surface albedo', BTW) but ocean currents and heat transfers between different ocean layers has nothing to do with radiative balance. Too bad you're such a scientifically clueless idiot, fecalhead.

Didn't say anything about "... heat transfers between different ocean layers".. Do you not know the implications of SSTemp from PDO, AMO, ENSO TinkerBelle??

Oh really??? This is your post #46 and you just talked about ocean storage of the excess heat energy in your post #33. Well, as it happens, fecalhead, "OCEAN storage = "heat transfers between different ocean layers".

HEY ABRAHAM -- you nano-witted eco-dupe... WHERE IS IT?? You see a whole pile of NATURAL cyclical forcings in there??? You see any OCEAN forcings in there? Any OCEAN storage?

The fact is....you're just too ignorant about climate science to comprehend what the scientists mean by 'radiative forcing'. Your confusion conflicts with your moronic belief that you understand everything better than the actual experts so you conclude that all of the scientists are either completely wrong or else they know better but are publishing falsehoods to deliberately deceive everybody. You're both a conspiracy theory nutjob and a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

You ever wonder TinkerBelle?? How you got that name??
Mainly -- it's because you whine and act like a 13 yr princess. ---- BUT

It's also because there is an interesting psych observation called "the TinkerBelle effect" which is PERFECTLY suited for CAGW fanatics.. Remember the part in Peter Pan where the "AUDIENCE" is responsible for reviving the poor dead fairy?? How they ALL had to believe to bring her back to life..

For YOU ---- that time is now..

Tinkerbell effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tinkerbell effect is a term describing things that are thought to exist only
because people believe in them. The effect is named for Tinker Bell, the fairy in
the play Peter Pan who is revived from near death by the belief of the audience.

Global Warming: The more people believe that Global Warming is affecting climate
and sea level rise, the more people will take actions to slow it.

We're about to get a BETTER discussion of Climate Change.. One based on WHOLE science and not just FairyTale science --- but some of the youngins "never want to grow up -- grow up -- NEVER GROW UP"...

Now boys and girls -- we need ALL of you to believe in fairies... Or Congress will continue to mandate her light remain off.. Let's hear it for Tinkerbelle...

 

[RollingThunder]

The fact is....you're just too ignorant about climate science to comprehend what the scientists mean by 'radiative forcing'. Your confusion conflicts with your moronic belief that you understand everything better than the actual experts so you conclude that all of the scientists are either completely wrong or else they know better but are publishing falsehoods to deliberately deceive everybody. You're both a conspiracy theory nutjob and a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

You ever wonder TinkerBelle?? How you got that name??
Mainly -- it's because you whine and act like a 13 yr princess. ---- BUT

It's also because there is an interesting psych observation called "the TinkerBelle effect" which is PERFECTLY suited for CAGW fanatics.. Remember the part in Peter Pan where the "AUDIENCE" is responsible for reviving the poor dead fairy?? How they ALL had to believe to bring her back to life..

For YOU ---- that time is now..

Tinkerbell effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tinkerbell effect is a term describing things that are thought to exist only
because people believe in them. The effect is named for Tinker Bell, the fairy in
the play Peter Pan who is revived from near death by the belief of the audience.

Global Warming: The more people believe that Global Warming is affecting climate and sea level rise, the more people will take actions to slow it.

We're about to get a BETTER discussion of Climate Change.. One based on WHOLE science and not just FairyTale science --- but some of the youngins "never want to grow up -- grow up -- NEVER GROW UP"...

Now boys and girls -- we need ALL of you to believe in fairies... Or Congress will continue to mandate her light remain off.. Let's hear it for Tinkerbelle...

LOLOLOLOL......oh fecalhead, you are such a funny little retard....

Your BS gets caught and your lies are pointed out so what do you do??? You try to change the subject with even more delusional bullshit....and you can't even do that without lying.

You posted a supposed quote from Wikipedia but you left out important parts and tried to imply that the line about global warming was an example of the Tinkerbell effect. Actually it is used in the Wikipedia entry as an example of the "Reverse Tinkerbell Effect". You are a liar, fecalhead. Even with trivial stuff like this, you can't help lying.

Tinkerbell effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tinkerbell effect is a term describing things that are thought to exist only because people believe in them. The effect is named for Tinker Bell, the fairy in the play Peter Pan who is revived from near death by the belief of the audience.

Claimed cases include:
private property
the value of a nation's money in a fiat system
the demand for gold outside its use in industrial applications
civil society
the "rule of law"[1]

Reverse Tinkerbell effect

The efficient-market hypothesis can be regarded as a case of reverse Tinkerbell effect, in that the market would stop being efficient if everyone acted like it already was efficient.[2]

An example of the Reverse Tinkerbell Effect is that of a vote in a democracy. The more people that believe their vote counts towards the outcome of an election, the less their votes count, as there is a greater population of voters, and thus each individual voter has a lower percentage of total votes.

Examples

* Tinkerbell effect:

(Fiat) money: Paper money is actually worth something only because people think it's worth something.

Popularity: The more popular others think that someone else is, the more popular he or she actually becomes.

* Reverse Tinkerbell effect:

Car safety: The more people think that automobiles are safe, the less cautiously they will drive, creating the reverse effect.

Global Warming: The more people believe that Global Warming is affecting climate and sea level rise, the more people will take actions to slow it.

Value of votes: The more people believe that their vote is valuable, the higher the number of people that vote. This reduces the overall impact of any single vote.