Get your imaginary 'pause' off me, you damn delusional deniers

[Abraham3]

.....:"stupid people like you say when you're too moronic.... ""

Oh you mean things like ----- "the fact that solar irradiance has been DECLINING while temperatures have been RISING?"""

THAT KIND OF MORONIC ?? Now i get it...

Sorry, fecalhead, but you are actually too moronic to have the capacity to comprehend just how moronic you really are.

You see a DECLINE in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) there TinkerBelle??

Only retards like you you, fecalhead, imagine that minute changes in solar irradiance from many decades or centuries ago are still affecting the Earth's temperatures today. In the real world, this is the relevant graph.

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

See --- now you really REALLY SCREWED up by posting crap from skepticalscience.. That "limp dick" hanging at the end of their phoney TSI curve DID NOT COME from the PMOD data.. It's a CRAYON PROJECT of the slackers at the fart factory that composes the bulk of your brain.. Even their link to the PMOD data is convieniently broken and would NEVER EVER work with .DAT suffix..

You really have to quit trying to pass off their desperate propaganda here.

welcome to pmodwrc

THAT'S what the PMOD data looks like since 1979.. No Limp Dick.. 2nd time you USMB brainless parrots have passed it off. Makes me think you couldn't find ANOTHER "limp dick" picture of TSI on the web.. Why do you suppose that is??

Take your plots and end the data in 2009, do an 11-year average then blow it up vertically and shrink it horizontally to match the time and TSI scale size on SS'splot. I think you'll find the match a lot closer than you think it is. 2009 puts you at the bottom of that valley that shows in every graph you put up.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry, fecalhead, but you are actually too moronic to have the capacity to comprehend just how moronic you really are.


Only retards like you you, fecalhead, imagine that minute changes in solar irradiance from many decades or centuries ago are still affecting the Earth's temperatures today. In the real world, this is the relevant graph.

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

See --- now you really REALLY SCREWED up by posting crap from skepticalscience.. That "limp dick" hanging at the end of their phoney TSI curve DID NOT COME from the PMOD data.. It's a CRAYON PROJECT of the slackers at the fart factory that composes the bulk of your brain.. Even their link to the PMOD data is convieniently broken and would NEVER EVER work with .DAT suffix..

You really have to quit trying to pass off their desperate propaganda here.

welcome to pmodwrc

THAT'S what the PMOD data looks like since 1979.. No Limp Dick.. 2nd time you USMB brainless parrots have passed it off. Makes me think you couldn't find ANOTHER "limp dick" picture of TSI on the web.. Why do you suppose that is??

Take that last plot and end the data in 2009, then blow it up to match the scale size in Skeptical Science's plot. I think you'll find the match a lot closer than you think it is. 2009 puts you at the bottom of that valley that shows in every graph you put up.

It's NOT.. We've been thru this.. Either YOU or TinkerBelle tried this before..

Their problem is that the historical data series they used DOESN'T EVEN MATCH the beginning of the satellite record -- so they just decided to pencil it all in... They CHOSE 2009 to end it and leave it there because thats the bottom of a 11 yr solar cycle.. If you look at the PMOD data, it's barely moved down at all since 1980 THRU 2012..

Nuticielli and Cook are bottom feeding scum.. Sooner or later they'll have to get real jobs..

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry, fecalhead

I think that pretty much sums up the strength of your science on this matter.

 

[Abraham3]

FCT, let's see your dataset and source code ;-)

 

[RollingThunder]

.....:"stupid people like you say when you're too moronic.... ""

Oh you mean things like ----- "the fact that solar irradiance has been DECLINING while temperatures have been RISING?"""

THAT KIND OF MORONIC ?? Now i get it...

Sorry, fecalhead, but you are actually too moronic to have the capacity to comprehend just how moronic you really are.

You see a DECLINE in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) there TinkerBelle??

Only retards like you you, fecalhead, imagine that minute changes in solar irradiance from many decades or centuries ago are still affecting the Earth's temperatures today. In the real world, this is the relevant graph.

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

See --- now you really REALLY SCREWED up by posting crap from skepticalscience.. That "limp dick" hanging at the end of their phoney TSI curve DID NOT COME from the PMOD data.. It's a CRAYON PROJECT of the slackers at the fart factory that composes the bulk of your brain.. Even their link to the PMOD data is convieniently broken and would NEVER EVER work with .DAT suffix..
You really have to quit trying to pass off their desperate propaganda here.

welcome to pmodwrc
/www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_62_1302.png

THAT'S what the PMOD data looks like since 1979.. No Limp Dick.. 2nd time you USMB brainless parrots have passed it off. Makes me think you couldn't find ANOTHER "limp dick" picture of TSI on the web.. Why do you suppose that is??
The CRAYONED IN portion of PMOD data from the SkS forgery isn't even at the SAME LEVELS as the original data. SkS LOVES to embellish data for effect.. PLEASE keep quoting them so that everyone can SEE how dishonest those m-f's are...
FACT ---- The SORCE/TIM TSI reconstruction is MAINSTREAM science.. You depend on zealots with magic crayons.
FACT --- TSI REMAINS at a 300+ year RELATIVE HIGH.. The stove is hot...

Your usual psychotic drivel, fecalhead, entirely dependent on your own fantasies and self-created pseudo-science, and entirely divorced from reality.

Solar radiation study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles
PhysOrg
by Merran Reed & Sunanda Creagh
Aug 26, 2013
(excerpts)
The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth's atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that "neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)". The new finding may help explain variations in warming during the 20th century. The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985. The authors of the study said that "the overall increase of global temperature over the last century has been largely attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases. Less well understood are the reasons for the variability of this increase on a decadal time scale… However, global temperatures do not appear to be significantly affected by changing Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)."

Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the new paper was not really about whether the sun drives climate change. "We already know from direct observations of the power coming from the sun that it has contributed nothing to global warming since 1979, though it probably made a small contribution to warming early in the 20th century," said Professor Sherwood, who was not involved in the study. "What this paper is really about is trying to explain the wobbles along the way in warming during the 20th century, and in particular the hiatus from about 1940 to 1970 in global warming, which was followed by strong warming thereafter. There has been a long debate as to whether such wobbles have been due to natural variations in ocean heat uptake, or to variations in aerosols (or clouds)," he said. "This paper shows that aerosols and clouds did play some role but have never altered the global-mean land temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, while its overall warming has been over 1 degree."

 

[skookerasbil]

How did the Warming get down to the Deep Ocean in the first place? Was this warming from 15 years ago that migrated? Does this mean that the current lower surface temps that will take their turn in migrating down to 700m will cause the death of AGW or will the warmer 700M water rise to the surface?

Even if I told you that the increased transfer of heat to the deeper ocean waters was caused by, among other things, changes in wind patterns associated with an ocean cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, what would that mean to a scientifically ignorant retard like you, CrazyFruitcake? How would that affect your brainwashed denial of the reality of AGW?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry, fecalhead, but you are actually too moronic to have the capacity to comprehend just how moronic you really are.






Only retards like you you, fecalhead, imagine that minute changes in solar irradiance from many decades or centuries ago are still affecting the Earth's temperatures today. In the real world, this is the relevant graph.

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

See --- now you really REALLY SCREWED up by posting crap from skepticalscience.. That "limp dick" hanging at the end of their phoney TSI curve DID NOT COME from the PMOD data.. It's a CRAYON PROJECT of the slackers at the fart factory that composes the bulk of your brain.. Even their link to the PMOD data is convieniently broken and would NEVER EVER work with .DAT suffix..
You really have to quit trying to pass off their desperate propaganda here.

welcome to pmodwrc
/www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_62_1302.png

THAT'S what the PMOD data looks like since 1979.. No Limp Dick.. 2nd time you USMB brainless parrots have passed it off. Makes me think you couldn't find ANOTHER "limp dick" picture of TSI on the web.. Why do you suppose that is??
The CRAYONED IN portion of PMOD data from the SkS forgery isn't even at the SAME LEVELS as the original data. SkS LOVES to embellish data for effect.. PLEASE keep quoting them so that everyone can SEE how dishonest those m-f's are...
FACT ---- The SORCE/TIM TSI reconstruction is MAINSTREAM science.. You depend on zealots with magic crayons.
FACT --- TSI REMAINS at a 300+ year RELATIVE HIGH.. The stove is hot...

Your usual psychotic drivel, fecalhead, entirely dependent on your own fantasies and self-created pseudo-science, and entirely divorced from reality.

Solar radiation study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles
PhysOrg
by Merran Reed & Sunanda Creagh
Aug 26, 2013
(excerpts)
The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth's atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that "neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)". The new finding may help explain variations in warming during the 20th century. The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985. The authors of the study said that "the overall increase of global temperature over the last century has been largely attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases. Less well understood are the reasons for the variability of this increase on a decadal time scale… However, global temperatures do not appear to be significantly affected by changing Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)."

Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the new paper was not really about whether the sun drives climate change. "We already know from direct observations of the power coming from the sun that it has contributed nothing to global warming since 1979, though it probably made a small contribution to warming early in the 20th century," said Professor Sherwood, who was not involved in the study. "What this paper is really about is trying to explain the wobbles along the way in warming during the 20th century, and in particular the hiatus from about 1940 to 1970 in global warming, which was followed by strong warming thereafter. There has been a long debate as to whether such wobbles have been due to natural variations in ocean heat uptake, or to variations in aerosols (or clouds)," he said. "This paper shows that aerosols and clouds did play some role but have never altered the global-mean land temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, while its overall warming has been over 1 degree."

Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse..

Dont' care if the sun hasn't gotten "warmer" since 1979.. The Earth does not thermal equalize in a day, in a year, or even a decade.. Not for the trivial amount of heat that we're trying to account for here..

You can keep believing that whatever causes the Earth to warm must curve fit with the temperature and show no delays.. But I also guarantee from systems theory -- that's very unlikely to be a requirement for a linear increase in Earth surface temperature..

Not the way your HVAC heating works either. Your furnace doesn't get hotter when you turn up the thermostat.. It just cycles longer. Bet you cant' wrap your Princess-like mind around even that fact..

So I'll spare you the discussion of systems containing integrals being able to produce linear looking outputs from constant input offsets...

 

[gnarlylove]

"Reality" to you is anything your limited little mind wants to believe. BTW, shouldn't you have posted this in the Flame Zone where it belongs, you disingenuous little prick?

Here is a working model for how all conservative folks refute ALL OPPOSING viewpoints:

Take the issue at hand, let's say the rise in sea levels or the rise in beliefs of big foot.

A conservative looks at rising sea levels and bigfoot as equal: either it's real or it isn't. And until conservative pundits tell them how to think, no one has any authority, including science, history, their own Christian religion or even reality itself. It all comes down to pundits.

So the lonely conservative says "Hmm, rising sea levels, is this a stupid liberal view or a smart conservative view?" Then they hear an older white male (like Donald Trump) say "I've got a guy in Hawaii working on this issue. He tells me that there is no such thing as rising sea levels and duly note I'm paying him to tell me so but that doesn't discredit his findings! It only does when it's a liberal! Now you see."

Now you're only 2 steps away, keep reading to find out the formula:

Upon realizing it's a liberal stance [insert any view, literally, as long as a liberal said it] the conservative says "I know the facts as revealed to me by Donald Trump (whoever, it truly doesn't matter) now how do I tell-off those no good liberal commie?" Notice how the wily conservative assumes all liberal points of view are never worth considering. Now that's a fair and balanced view in my opinion--NOT!

The conservative posts with a delicate balance of "stuffing their ears and eyes with cotton" (in order to drown out non Stu Varney comments) with a liberal helping of "FUCK OFF YOU STUPID SHIT. YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. SEE IT'S CAPS! I HAVE TO BE RIGHT! I JUST HAVE TO BE OR MY WHOLE WORLD WILL COME CRASHING DOWN because my beliefs are not really beliefs, they are modes of hate towards my fellow man. My enemy is my fellow man who works alongside me to keep this country running.

And the final formula is

Issue + Pundit = Belief
or what I like to call redoubled faith: a belief that can never be disturbed by literally anything, even Jesus (ye shall be judged by how you treat the poor and the lest of those among you, Matthew 25:31-46)

Belief - science - facts (but repeat with unending frevor that you hold the facts instead of letting the facts decide for themselves) + attack of character + lots of fuck offs + you are stupid + so what? = you've got yourself a Grade A conservative post!

The trouble with conservatives is without there constant irrelevant attacks of character there is only a skeleton of belief that says "You are wrong and I am right" akin to a child who cannot accept or defend his disagreement over what's "mine."

ULTIMATE CONCLUSION: CONSERVATIVES ARE CHILDREN IN ADULTS BODIES--SEE I DID IT IN CAPS SO I AM RIGHT JUST LIKE YOU. Many liberals are also children but godforbid we admit there are people in America who do not agree with either party!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[RollingThunder]

See --- now you really REALLY SCREWED up by posting crap from skepticalscience.. That "limp dick" hanging at the end of their phoney TSI curve DID NOT COME from the PMOD data.. It's a CRAYON PROJECT of the slackers at the fart factory that composes the bulk of your brain.. Even their link to the PMOD data is convieniently broken and would NEVER EVER work with .DAT suffix..
You really have to quit trying to pass off their desperate propaganda here.

welcome to pmodwrc
/www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_62_1302.png

THAT'S what the PMOD data looks like since 1979.. No Limp Dick.. 2nd time you USMB brainless parrots have passed it off. Makes me think you couldn't find ANOTHER "limp dick" picture of TSI on the web.. Why do you suppose that is??
The CRAYONED IN portion of PMOD data from the SkS forgery isn't even at the SAME LEVELS as the original data. SkS LOVES to embellish data for effect.. PLEASE keep quoting them so that everyone can SEE how dishonest those m-f's are...
FACT ---- The SORCE/TIM TSI reconstruction is MAINSTREAM science.. You depend on zealots with magic crayons.
FACT --- TSI REMAINS at a 300+ year RELATIVE HIGH.. The stove is hot...

Your usual psychotic drivel, fecalhead, entirely dependent on your own fantasies and self-created pseudo-science, and entirely divorced from reality.

Solar radiation study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles
PhysOrg
by Merran Reed & Sunanda Creagh
Aug 26, 2013
(excerpts)
The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth's atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that "neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)". The new finding may help explain variations in warming during the 20th century. The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985. The authors of the study said that "the overall increase of global temperature over the last century has been largely attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases. Less well understood are the reasons for the variability of this increase on a decadal time scale… However, global temperatures do not appear to be significantly affected by changing Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)."

Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the new paper was not really about whether the sun drives climate change. "We already know from direct observations of the power coming from the sun that it has contributed nothing to global warming since 1979, though it probably made a small contribution to warming early in the 20th century," said Professor Sherwood, who was not involved in the study. "What this paper is really about is trying to explain the wobbles along the way in warming during the 20th century, and in particular the hiatus from about 1940 to 1970 in global warming, which was followed by strong warming thereafter. There has been a long debate as to whether such wobbles have been due to natural variations in ocean heat uptake, or to variations in aerosols (or clouds)," he said. "This paper shows that aerosols and clouds did play some role but have never altered the global-mean land temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, while its overall warming has been over 1 degree."

Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse..

Yeah, I've noticed that actual science always leaves you bewildered, fecalhead. You read this: "The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985"....and you conclude this: "Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse"??? LOLOLOL. Too bad you're such an pathetically ignorant retard but thank you for being such an amazingly hilarious little retard.

Dont' care if the sun hasn't gotten "warmer" since 1979..

Of course you don't. You hold on like grim death to your beloved pseudo-science myth about the sun causing the warming trend (even though solar irradiance has been falling) so you're not going to wake up to reality no matter how much scientific evidence you're shown. Not that you could understand the science anyway. You do realize, I hope, that I have no expectation of changing your mind. You're either a hopelessly brainwashed retard or you're a paid troll but, either way, you're a lost cause. I only engage with you for the benefit of others who might follow these threads, in order to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and FFI propaganda you try to push.

The Earth does not thermal equalize in a day, in a year, or even a decade.. Not for the trivial amount of heat that we're trying to account for here.. You can keep believing that whatever causes the Earth to warm must curve fit with the temperature and show no delays.. But I also guarantee from systems theory -- that's very unlikely to be a requirement for a linear increase in Earth surface temperature.. Not the way your HVAC heating works either. Your furnace doesn't get hotter when you turn up the thermostat.. It just cycles longer. Bet you cant' wrap your Princess-like mind around even that fact.. So I'll spare you the discussion of systems containing integrals being able to produce linear looking outputs from constant input offsets...

You're good at spinning the bullshit but your claims are nonsense and they just make it even more obvious that you don't know jack about physics or planetary energy balances.

 

[westwall]

Your usual psychotic drivel, fecalhead, entirely dependent on your own fantasies and self-created pseudo-science, and entirely divorced from reality.

Solar radiation study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles
PhysOrg
by Merran Reed & Sunanda Creagh
Aug 26, 2013
(excerpts)
The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth's atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that "neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)". The new finding may help explain variations in warming during the 20th century. The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985. The authors of the study said that "the overall increase of global temperature over the last century has been largely attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases. Less well understood are the reasons for the variability of this increase on a decadal time scale… However, global temperatures do not appear to be significantly affected by changing Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface)."

Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the new paper was not really about whether the sun drives climate change. "We already know from direct observations of the power coming from the sun that it has contributed nothing to global warming since 1979, though it probably made a small contribution to warming early in the 20th century," said Professor Sherwood, who was not involved in the study. "What this paper is really about is trying to explain the wobbles along the way in warming during the 20th century, and in particular the hiatus from about 1940 to 1970 in global warming, which was followed by strong warming thereafter. There has been a long debate as to whether such wobbles have been due to natural variations in ocean heat uptake, or to variations in aerosols (or clouds)," he said. "This paper shows that aerosols and clouds did play some role but have never altered the global-mean land temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, while its overall warming has been over 1 degree."

Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse..

Yeah, I've noticed that actual science always leaves you bewildered, fecalhead. You read this: "The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985"....and you conclude this: "Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse"??? LOLOLOL. Too bad you're such an pathetically ignorant retard but thank you for being such an amazingly hilarious little retard.

Dont' care if the sun hasn't gotten "warmer" since 1979..

Of course you don't. You hold on like grim death to your beloved pseudo-science myth about the sun causing the warming trend (even though solar irradiance has been falling) so you're not going to wake up to reality no matter how much scientific evidence you're shown. Not that you could understand the science anyway. You do realize, I hope, that I have no expectation of changing your mind. You're either a hopelessly brainwashed retard or you're a paid troll but, either way, you're a lost cause. I only engage with you for the benefit of others who might follow these threads, in order to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and FFI propaganda you try to push.

The Earth does not thermal equalize in a day, in a year, or even a decade.. Not for the trivial amount of heat that we're trying to account for here.. You can keep believing that whatever causes the Earth to warm must curve fit with the temperature and show no delays.. But I also guarantee from systems theory -- that's very unlikely to be a requirement for a linear increase in Earth surface temperature.. Not the way your HVAC heating works either. Your furnace doesn't get hotter when you turn up the thermostat.. It just cycles longer. Bet you cant' wrap your Princess-like mind around even that fact.. So I'll spare you the discussion of systems containing integrals being able to produce linear looking outputs from constant input offsets...

You're good at spinning the bullshit but your claims are nonsense and they just make it even more obvious that you don't know jack about physics or planetary energy balances.

No, it's you that hurls 3rd grade insults and spews horse manure. Try and do better.

 

[RollingThunder]

Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse..

Yeah, I've noticed that actual science always leaves you bewildered, fecalhead. You read this: "The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985"....and you conclude this: "Far as I can tell -- that paper is a "Clouds and aerosols ate the Sun's warming" excuse"??? LOLOLOL. Too bad you're such an pathetically ignorant retard but thank you for being such an amazingly hilarious little retard.

Dont' care if the sun hasn't gotten "warmer" since 1979..

Of course you don't. You hold on like grim death to your beloved pseudo-science myth about the sun causing the warming trend (even though solar irradiance has been falling) so you're not going to wake up to reality no matter how much scientific evidence you're shown. Not that you could understand the science anyway. You do realize, I hope, that I have no expectation of changing your mind. You're either a hopelessly brainwashed retard or you're a paid troll but, either way, you're a lost cause. I only engage with you for the benefit of others who might follow these threads, in order to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and FFI propaganda you try to push.

The Earth does not thermal equalize in a day, in a year, or even a decade.. Not for the trivial amount of heat that we're trying to account for here.. You can keep believing that whatever causes the Earth to warm must curve fit with the temperature and show no delays.. But I also guarantee from systems theory -- that's very unlikely to be a requirement for a linear increase in Earth surface temperature.. Not the way your HVAC heating works either. Your furnace doesn't get hotter when you turn up the thermostat.. It just cycles longer. Bet you cant' wrap your Princess-like mind around even that fact.. So I'll spare you the discussion of systems containing integrals being able to produce linear looking outputs from constant input offsets...

You're good at spinning the bullshit but your claims are nonsense and they just make it even more obvious that you don't know jack about physics or planetary energy balances.

No, it's you that hurls 3rd grade insults and spews horse manure. Try and do better.

And there's another pointless, confused, senile brainfart from the ol' walleyedretard.

 

[PredFan]

Maybe if they'd stop blowing out so much hot air, we wouldn't have a global warming crisis in the first place.

Lol, problem solved!

 

[PredFan]

Data says it stopped increasing the past 50 years. If the cycles follow the solar flex then the temperature should be going down.

Actually no. Scientists, those who study the sun, say that there has been quite a bit of unusual activity from the sun in very recent years.

The amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun has gone down slightly, as measured by satellite instrumentation. That's the reality. Any "unusual activity" on the sun has to do with magnetic fields and pole shifts, not any increases in energy output. You make silly claims but you don't back them up with any evidence. That may work to fool your fellow gullible denier cult retards but normal people demand some evidence and not just your hot air.

Yeah your argument got destroyed just after I posted that.

Your problem is that you post propaganda that you gleem off if some left wing AGW propaganda site without really understanding what it says. Your lacking knowledge is not hidden by your attempts to change the argument or spin things to your advantage, at least to people like me who actually know something.

 

[PredFan]

No ProdFcked, "it's the sun" is a denier cult slogan that stupid people like you say when you're too moronic to understand the science behind the greenhouse effect or the fact that solar irradiance has been declining while temperatures have been rising.

I understand the science behind the greenhouse effect too well. I know it enough to know that it's not affecting our climate.

I also know a lot about the sun's affect on our climate and weather. Perhaps you should broaden your knowledge.

Saying that you understand something doesn't mean squat, ProdFcked, unless you actually demonstrate some understanding of the subject. So far, you've demonstrated that, regarding the greenhouse effect and climate science, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just by saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't affect the climate, you demonstrates your complete ignorance about what the 'greenhouse effect' actually refers to, nitwit.

I don't care about you or your ignorant opinions. I could easily show you to be the fool you are but I'm lazy, and I know you would never ever turn on your religion. You are the kind of person who deserves no more than ridicule. Please continue, I feel like ridiculing morons today.

 

[PredFan]

On the greenhouse effect:

Another tactic used by AGW scammers is to control the language. This greenhouse analogy is defective on many levels. They use that because they figure that the scientific illiterate can at least understand that greenhouses keep plants warm-ish no matter what the outside temperature is.

There are many many problems with that analogy that are quite evident if you actually know how greenhouses work. I won't go into them but here's one of my favorites:

Try going out in your back yard, and planting a bunch of tropical plants (assuming you don't live in the tropics). Now, don't actually build a greenhouse around them, simply purchase or rent a tank of CO2, set it in the middle of your garden and open the valve. See how long your plants live.

Now, the AGW faithful will try to claim that this is a poor analogy and they would be correct in a way, but it's not poorer that the analogy THEY are using by calling this the Greenhouse Effect. Nature has a way to balance out things that get out of balance, by not building a greenhouse around your plants, you do not prevent nature from eliminating that CO2 imbalance. Just like in our atmosphere.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Reality" to you is anything your limited little mind wants to believe. BTW, shouldn't you have posted this in the Flame Zone where it belongs, you disingenuous little prick?

Here is a working model for how all conservative folks refute ALL OPPOSING viewpoints:

Take the issue at hand, let's say the rise in sea levels or the rise in beliefs of big foot.

A conservative looks at rising sea levels and bigfoot as equal: either it's real or it isn't. And until conservative pundits tell them how to think, no one has any authority, including science, history, their own Christian religion or even reality itself. It all comes down to pundits.

So the lonely conservative says "Hmm, rising sea levels, is this a stupid liberal view or a smart conservative view?" Then they hear an older white male (like Donald Trump) say "I've got a guy in Hawaii working on this issue. He tells me that there is no such thing as rising sea levels and duly note I'm paying him to tell me so but that doesn't discredit his findings! It only does when it's a liberal! Now you see."

Now you're only 2 steps away, keep reading to find out the formula:

Upon realizing it's a liberal stance [insert any view, literally, as long as a liberal said it] the conservative says "I know the facts as revealed to me by Donald Trump (whoever, it truly doesn't matter) now how do I tell-off those no good liberal commie?" Notice how the wily conservative assumes all liberal points of view are never worth considering. Now that's a fair and balanced view in my opinion--NOT!

The conservative posts with a delicate balance of "stuffing their ears and eyes with cotton" (in order to drown out non Stu Varney comments) with a liberal helping of "FUCK OFF YOU STUPID SHIT. YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. SEE IT'S CAPS! I HAVE TO BE RIGHT! I JUST HAVE TO BE OR MY WHOLE WORLD WILL COME CRASHING DOWN because my beliefs are not really beliefs, they are modes of hate towards my fellow man. My enemy is my fellow man who works alongside me to keep this country running.

And the final formula is

Issue + Pundit = Belief
or what I like to call redoubled faith: a belief that can never be disturbed by literally anything, even Jesus (ye shall be judged by how you treat the poor and the lest of those among you, Matthew 25:31-46)

Belief - science - facts (but repeat with unending frevor that you hold the facts instead of letting the facts decide for themselves) + attack of character + lots of fuck offs + you are stupid + so what? = you've got yourself a Grade A conservative post!

The trouble with conservatives is without there constant irrelevant attacks of character there is only a skeleton of belief that says "You are wrong and I am right" akin to a child who cannot accept or defend his disagreement over what's "mine."

ULTIMATE CONCLUSION: CONSERVATIVES ARE CHILDREN IN ADULTS BODIES--SEE I DID IT IN CAPS SO I AM RIGHT JUST LIKE YOU. Many liberals are also children but godforbid we admit there are people in America who do not agree with either party!!!!!!!!!!!)

Philosophy is gay



The only thing that matters is who is winning!!!



Nobody gives a rats ass about the "consensus science". Its not mattering in the real world.




The Obama Energy Information Agency ( EIA ) makes it a slam dunk!!!







http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-climate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world-is-really-warming-up



Nobody is caring ( except the k00ks )


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns




Global warming might be a nice little debating topic for the internet.......essentially, in 2014, nothing more than an internet hobby.



Children in adult bodies FTMFW s0n!!!

 

[SwimExpert]

Try going out in your back yard, and planting a bunch of tropical plants (assuming you don't live in the tropics). Now, don't actually build a greenhouse around them, simply purchase or rent a tank of CO2, set it in the middle of your garden and open the valve. See how long your plants live.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't know rollingthunder, but I'll bet he's a proponent of evolution as well (so am I btw).

His argument is identical to the argument that many creationists make. Like this:
Creationism is true because the bible says so.
Global Warming is true because global warming scientists say it is.

LOLOLOL.....you're unconsciously hilarious, ProdFcked.

Equating citing the Bible with citing modern scientific research just shows what an insane anti-science retard you actually are.

You will become a true believer! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[flacaltenn]

"Reality" to you is anything your limited little mind wants to believe. BTW, shouldn't you have posted this in the Flame Zone where it belongs, you disingenuous little prick?

Here is a working model for how all conservative folks refute ALL OPPOSING viewpoints:

Take the issue at hand, let's say the rise in sea levels or the rise in beliefs of big foot.

A conservative looks at rising sea levels and bigfoot as equal: either it's real or it isn't. And until conservative pundits tell them how to think, no one has any authority, including science, history, their own Christian religion or even reality itself. It all comes down to pundits.

So the lonely conservative says "Hmm, rising sea levels, is this a stupid liberal view or a smart conservative view?" Then they hear an older white male (like Donald Trump) say "I've got a guy in Hawaii working on this issue. He tells me that there is no such thing as rising sea levels and duly note I'm paying him to tell me so but that doesn't discredit his findings! It only does when it's a liberal! Now you see."

Now you're only 2 steps away, keep reading to find out the formula:

Upon realizing it's a liberal stance [insert any view, literally, as long as a liberal said it] the conservative says "I know the facts as revealed to me by Donald Trump (whoever, it truly doesn't matter) now how do I tell-off those no good liberal commie?" Notice how the wily conservative assumes all liberal points of view are never worth considering. Now that's a fair and balanced view in my opinion--NOT!

The conservative posts with a delicate balance of "stuffing their ears and eyes with cotton" (in order to drown out non Stu Varney comments) with a liberal helping of "FUCK OFF YOU STUPID SHIT. YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. SEE IT'S CAPS! I HAVE TO BE RIGHT! I JUST HAVE TO BE OR MY WHOLE WORLD WILL COME CRASHING DOWN because my beliefs are not really beliefs, they are modes of hate towards my fellow man. My enemy is my fellow man who works alongside me to keep this country running.

And the final formula is

Issue + Pundit = Belief
or what I like to call redoubled faith: a belief that can never be disturbed by literally anything, even Jesus (ye shall be judged by how you treat the poor and the lest of those among you, Matthew 25:31-46)

Belief - science - facts (but repeat with unending frevor that you hold the facts instead of letting the facts decide for themselves) + attack of character + lots of fuck offs + you are stupid + so what? = you've got yourself a Grade A conservative post!

The trouble with conservatives is without there constant irrelevant attacks of character there is only a skeleton of belief that says "You are wrong and I am right" akin to a child who cannot accept or defend his disagreement over what's "mine."

ULTIMATE CONCLUSION: CONSERVATIVES ARE CHILDREN IN ADULTS BODIES--SEE I DID IT IN CAPS SO I AM RIGHT JUST LIKE YOU. Many liberals are also children but godforbid we admit there are people in America who do not agree with either party!!!!!!!!!!!)

Only someone who doesn't belong NEAR a science oriented forum would expell that many useless thoughts and words in order to AVOID stating a single cogent TOPICAL fact.. But hey,, that's only slightly worse than the MAJORITY of warmers in this forum that rely on a pseudo-science website with multiple FELONY data manipulation convictions for THEIR opinions.
They could not post without it..

Maybe you really aren't into this topic.. Go choose another.. Or try to sell your psychoanalysis skills in the Politics forum eh???

I'll give you a cogent fact --- go look up "psychological projection" .. It's an actual disease.. Seek treatment..

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Reality" to you is anything your limited little mind wants to believe. BTW, shouldn't you have posted this in the Flame Zone where it belongs, you disingenuous little prick?

Here is a working model for how all conservative folks refute ALL OPPOSING viewpoints:

Take the issue at hand, let's say the rise in sea levels or the rise in beliefs of big foot.

A conservative looks at rising sea levels and bigfoot as equal: either it's real or it isn't. And until conservative pundits tell them how to think, no one has any authority, including science, history, their own Christian religion or even reality itself. It all comes down to pundits.

So the lonely conservative says "Hmm, rising sea levels, is this a stupid liberal view or a smart conservative view?" Then they hear an older white male (like Donald Trump) say "I've got a guy in Hawaii working on this issue. He tells me that there is no such thing as rising sea levels and duly note I'm paying him to tell me so but that doesn't discredit his findings! It only does when it's a liberal! Now you see."

Now you're only 2 steps away, keep reading to find out the formula:

Upon realizing it's a liberal stance [insert any view, literally, as long as a liberal said it] the conservative says "I know the facts as revealed to me by Donald Trump (whoever, it truly doesn't matter) now how do I tell-off those no good liberal commie?" Notice how the wily conservative assumes all liberal points of view are never worth considering. Now that's a fair and balanced view in my opinion--NOT!

The conservative posts with a delicate balance of "stuffing their ears and eyes with cotton" (in order to drown out non Stu Varney comments) with a liberal helping of "FUCK OFF YOU STUPID SHIT. YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. SEE IT'S CAPS! I HAVE TO BE RIGHT! I JUST HAVE TO BE OR MY WHOLE WORLD WILL COME CRASHING DOWN because my beliefs are not really beliefs, they are modes of hate towards my fellow man. My enemy is my fellow man who works alongside me to keep this country running.

And the final formula is

Issue + Pundit = Belief
or what I like to call redoubled faith: a belief that can never be disturbed by literally anything, even Jesus (ye shall be judged by how you treat the poor and the lest of those among you, Matthew 25:31-46)

Belief - science - facts (but repeat with unending frevor that you hold the facts instead of letting the facts decide for themselves) + attack of character + lots of fuck offs + you are stupid + so what? = you've got yourself a Grade A conservative post!

The trouble with conservatives is without there constant irrelevant attacks of character there is only a skeleton of belief that says "You are wrong and I am right" akin to a child who cannot accept or defend his disagreement over what's "mine."

ULTIMATE CONCLUSION: CONSERVATIVES ARE CHILDREN IN ADULTS BODIES--SEE I DID IT IN CAPS SO I AM RIGHT JUST LIKE YOU. Many liberals are also children but godforbid we admit there are people in America who do not agree with either party!!!!!!!!!!!)

Philosophy is gay



The only thing that matters is who is winning!!!



Nobody gives a rats ass about the "consensus science". Its not mattering in the real world.




The Obama Energy Information Agency ( EIA ) makes it a slam dunk!!!







What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express



Nobody is caring ( except the k00ks )


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns




Global warming might be a nice little debating topic for the internet.......essentially, in 2014, nothing more than an internet hobby.



Children in adult bodies FTMFW s0n!!!

If we can do that with decreasing emissions like we're doing at this very moment. You have to ask who is really winning? You do know that we warmers through Obama are forcing coal to put capture tech on all plants and America is now using the least amount of power in decades. You can't use the electricy burning light bulbs anymore.

Think good and hard.