Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[westwall]

Oh noes carbon dioxide! Oh noes methane! Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.

Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.

Your scientists sure as hell don't. Funny how it is we sceptics who have been claiming all along that this is natural variability and only now after three decades of abject failure you clowns begin to attempt to claim you were all about cycles all along.

What utterly worthless individuals you all are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...wider and wider swings????

really???

Where are they?

 

[saveliberty]

Faithers won't be happy until NYC is under three feet of water (ice whatever).

Everybody flush at once.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh noes carbon dioxide! Oh noes methane! Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.

Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.

Your scientists sure as hell don't.

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

 

[westwall]

Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.

Your scientists sure as hell don't.

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your scientists sure as hell don't.

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Poor at what?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your scientists sure as hell don't.

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming



Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature



Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

 

[westwall]

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Poor at what?

Hundred thousandaires? I suggest you look at the $900,000 Mann recieved for ONE grant. Or how about that $200,000 PER YEAR (for over 15 years) that Phil Jones recieved from the US DOE alone? Or how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig.

Dude, if you want any kind of credibility you had better get your damned facts straight.

Every time you write something you make yourself out to be a bigger fool.

 

[westwall]

Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming



Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature



Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

Climatology is STILL the only "science" that prefers computer simulation to the traditional observations of the real world. And as we have found, now that the numbers are finally coming in and they don't match the models...it's the numbers that are being changed to conform to the models.

IN OTHER WORDS DEAR BOY. THEY ARE ALTERING THE FACTUAL DATA THAT IS BEING OBTAINED FROM REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS TO CONFORM TO THEIR FICTIONAL CREATIONS IN THE MODELS.

And you claim that is science.

What a complete and utter failure as a scientist. People like you disgust me. You pervert science for a few bucks.

"Assuming that the model is realistic, these results suggest that the observed trend is not a natural feature of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans. Instead, it may have been induced by a sustained change in the thermal forcing, such as that resulting from changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosol loading."

"If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

"Conversely, the fact that observed climate change projects onto natural patterns cannot be used as evidence of no anthropogenic effect on climate. These results may help explain possible differences between trends in surface temperature and satellite-based temperature in the free atmosphere4,5,6."

 

[freedombecki]

Oh no. I'll grant you they

knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature

Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

Climatology is STILL the only "science" that prefers computer simulation to the traditional observations of the real world. And as we have found, now that the numbers are finally coming in and they don't match the models...it's the numbers that are being changed to conform to the models.

IN OTHER WORDS DEAR BOY. THEY ARE ALTERING THE FACTUAL DATA THAT IS BEING OBTAINED FROM REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS TO CONFORM TO THEIR FICTIONAL CREATIONS IN THE MODELS.

And you claim that is science.

What a complete and utter failure as a scientist. People like you disgust me. You pervert science for a few bucks.

"Assuming that the model is realistic, these results suggest that the observed trend is not a natural feature of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans. Instead, it may have been induced by a sustained change in the thermal forcing, such as that resulting from changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosol loading."

"If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

"Conversely, the fact that observed climate change projects onto natural patterns cannot be used as evidence of no anthropogenic effect on climate. These results may help explain possible differences between trends in surface temperature and satellite-based temperature in the free atmosphere4,5,6."

Yes, altering the data to agree with their "fact" is why they should be banished from the circle of scientists who deal honestly with figures, whatever is true.

However, in the world today, journalists change details or omit them to make a rabid case. Now scientists are, and there should be some way to prevent them from ever calling themselves a scientist again, once they start loading bullshit into their reports and labeling it "the truth".

 

[code1211]

When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.

What is your point?

 

[code1211]

I know that only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

That's as surprising as the fact that 0% of Jews are Catholics.

Why would someone who distrusts science and whose number one pursuit in life is making money want to become a scientist? Its not the road to riches.

And this is germane to what?

 

[code1211]

Obviously you do not.

Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees. What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

 

[saveliberty]

But we can see the rabbit's ears in the hat Old Rocks.

 

[code1211]

Oh noes carbon dioxide! Oh noes methane! Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.

Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.

You seem pretty sure why those who think are wrong are wrong.

Care to prove why those who you think are right are right?

After all, that is the central point to the argument. Those who doubt doubt that one particular thing is the key. The true believers, like you, assert that there is one particular cause of climate change and that all of the others are inconsequential.

Prove your case.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Poor at what?

Hundred thousandaires? I suggest you look at the $900,000 Mann recieved for ONE grant.

That has got to be the dumbest statement you've ever made. Grant money isn't paid into scientists' personal checking accounts you ******* dolt, its paid to cover their research expenses.

How abouOr how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig

I suppose all climate scientists are as filthy rich as the most famous ones - we can only assume this - no data needed.


Jeez - Carl Sagan made a ton of money - I'm an astrophysicist - so by your logic I must be loaded with cash. I also got a grant of 2.5 MILLION service units on LONI computing clusters - man I've been livin it up with those SU's!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh no. I'll grant you they knew of them. They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this. I suggest you stick with astrophysics.

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming



Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature



Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

You said the scientists were ignoring natural causes.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore them, they write papers about them.

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees. What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

LOL Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.

What is your point?

That science works in the opposite way than you suggested, and that the models we have now are far more sophisticated than the toy model of Arrhenius.

Can you read?

 

[Old Rocks]

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming



Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature



Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

You said the scientists were ignoring natural causes.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore them, they write papers about them.

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?

Because they create their own reality. They live in alternative universes where the laws of physics do not apply.

Some even claim to be scientists, then procede to denigrate all the working scientists. Real low life assholes.