Ice, again

[flacaltenn]

Get a grip man.. That graph may be intimidating to you. But it's a 0.5degC GLOBALLY in your lifetime.
Where I live -- the daily highs and lows are hardly EVER within 4 degF of "average"...

It's a CONSTRUCT -- Global Average Surface temperature has no real meaning outside of GW press releases. Same with Globally averaged GDPs or Globally averaged BodyMassIndexes.

 

[Abraham3]

Get a grip man.. That graph may be intimidating to you.

That you so consistently feel obliged to indulge in these little passive agressive ad hominems tells us that the intimidation here is you of the data I put down.

But it's a 0.5degC GLOBALLY in your lifetime.
Where I live -- the daily highs and lows are hardly EVER within 4 degF of "average"...

It's a CONSTRUCT -- Global Average Surface temperature has no real meaning outside of GW press releases. Same with Globally averaged GDPs or Globally averaged BodyMassIndexes.

Of course it has real meaning. EVERY measured temperature is an average. It is this argument of yours that has no real meaning - except to clearly tell us it's all you've got.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you acknowledge that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of planet earth?

Do you acknowledge that H2O has a residence time of less than 10 days in the atmosphere?

I suppose you believe that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of a thousand years??

A very nice peice of lying by misdirection. Well done, SSDD, Geobbels would be proud of you.

Dodgy Diagrams #1 - Misrepresenting IPCC Residence Time Estimates

So What is Dodgy About The Diagram?
The IPCC actually gives a residence time of about 4 years in the 2007 AR4 WG1 report (see page 948), which is completely in accordance with the other papers referenced in the diagram. The confusion arises because there are two definitions of "lifetime" that describe different aspects of the carbon cycle. These definitions are clearly stated on page 8 of the first (1990) WG1 IPCC report (on page 8):

The turnover [residence] time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean. This short timescale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change. This adjustment time, corresponding to the lifetime in table 1.1 is of the order 50-200 years, determined mainly by the low exchange of of carbon between surface waters and deep the ocean, The adjustment time is important for the discussion on global warming potential, c.f. Section 2.2.7". [emphasis mine]

So clearly what has happened is that the author of the diagram has done exactly what the IPCC have warned against, which is to confuse residence (turnover) and adjustment time. As the IPCC WG1 report makes a point of clarifying this issue, the confusion would have been avoided if time was taken to actually read what was written in the IPCC report

 

[SSDD]

Hocus pocus rocks...everything out of your mouth is a lie, fabrication, or misdirection.

Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis. Without that, the hypothesis is falsified and at that point, those who still believe are denying science and operating on faith.

 

[Abraham3]

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass. That's what happens when you're stupid.

 

[Kosh]

Again, there's an enormous number of folks with PhD's in atmospheric science that would disagree with you. Why don't you argue with them? Because that would expose your ignorance or because it would expose your lie?

Some of us (more than 75%) actually disagree with AGW.

But then again you are always misinformed and try and promote falsehoods.

 

[Abraham3]

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass. That's what happens when you're stupid.

 

[Kosh]

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass. That's what happens when you're stupid.

Says the liar!

 

[Kosh]

What lie do you believe I have told?

Just about everything you post on this subject including the ones that claim AGW is science.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Pretty much every Atmospheric science text book of the past 50 years would have to be rewritten "IF" the green house is a lie.

It would cost many billions of dollars!


Next everyone would have to learn a new theory!

 

[Kosh]

Pretty much every Atmospheric text book of the past 50 years would have to be rewritten "IF" the green house is a lie.

It would cost many billions of dollars!


Next everyone would have to learn a new theory!

AGW is a LIE and not science and thus must be removed from the text books and class rooms as it is a religion. That is if you truly believe in the separation of church and state.

 

[SSDD]

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass. That's what happens when you're stupid.

You have a very active, but limited imagination.

 

[Abraham3]

That hardly addresses the facts of the matter. Why don't you hit the EDIT button on your LYING graphic up there and delete it? That's what an HONEST person would do.

 

[Kosh]

That hardly addresses the facts of the matter. Why don't you hit the EDIT button on your LYING graphic up there and delete it? That's what an HONEST person would do.

Since you claim to be an honest person, why haven't deleted your AGW church propaganda graphs that are known to be lies?

 

[Abraham3]

And then they'd apologize.

 

[Kosh]

And then they'd apologize.

So when are you going to do it?

 

[Abraham3]

What lie do you believe I have told?

Just about everything you post on this subject including the ones that claim AGW is science.

You know, you are the last person here I still keep on my ignore list. I have to actively choose to read anything you post. Earlier this morning I found a post of yours in which you - for the first time that I can recall - posted some temperature data and attempted to make a technical point. I gave you a significant response and said not one harsh word about you there.

Then I come here and find all of this. I'm a little touchy about being called a liar. Particularly when those making the accusations do not even make an attempt to back up the charge.

I am done with you. You are THE most worthless poster here. You make the idiot Skooks look like a college professor. If the world was right, you'd be fined for littering every time you post something here. So, I am simply going to stop hitting that "View post" button. As far as I will be concerned, from this point forward, you do not exist.

So, for anyone else reading this: if, in the future, you're having trouble figuring out who or what some post of mine is referring to, skip past any Kosh posts as if they weren't there. Because for me, they weren't.

 

[Kosh]

What lie do you believe I have told?

Just about everything you post on this subject including the ones that claim AGW is science.

You know, you are the last person here I still keep on my ignore list. I have to actively choose to read anything you post. Earlier this morning I found a post of yours in which you - for the first time that I can recall - posted some temperature data and attempted to make a technical point. I gave you a significant response and said not one harsh word about you there.

Then I come here and find all of this. I'm a little touchy about being called a liar. Particularly when those making the accusations do not even make an attempt to back up the charge.

I am done with you. You are THE most worthless poster here. You make the idiot Skooks look like a college professor. If the world was right, you'd be fined for littering every time you post something here. So, I am simply going to stop hitting that "View post" button. As far as I will be concerned, from this point forward, you do not exist.

So, for anyone else reading this: if, in the future, you're having trouble figuring out who or what some post of mine is referring to, skip past any Kosh posts as if they weren't there. Because for me, they weren't.

Really? Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ing-climate-change-classroom.html#post8739450

I have posted some scientific data many times before, yet you chose to ignore it for your AGW religion.

Yet you have been asked over many occasions to post datasets with source code that proves your religion and yet have not produced one.

Once you AGW hacks can post at least ONE link that has datasets with source code to prove CO2 drives climate, then we can have a discussion it. Until this is the old childish attempt at the silent treatment.

 

[Abraham3]

What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud? It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon. So tell us what it is.

The warming of the Arctic.

 

[westwall]

What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud? It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon. So tell us what it is.

The warming of the Arctic.

350 years of solar observations say NOPE!





"350 years of data link low solar activity to cold winters.

"Richard A. Lovett
large sunspot group
A quieter sun means colder winters for Europe.
NASA/TRACE

Periods of low sunspot activity are associated with changes in the winds that tear though the upper atmosphere, bringing unusually cold winters to northern Europe, a new study finds.

The study, published today in Environmental Research Letters1, analysed 350 years of temperature data recorded in central England since 1659, comparing it to astronomical observations of sunspots. The research team, led by Mike Lockwood, a solar-terrestrial physicist at the University of Reading, UK, found that after allowing for global climate change, European winters tended to be 0.5 °C colder than average during low-solar-activity years."

Ebbing sunspot activity makes Europe freeze : Nature News