yes, I admit you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes, I admit you're an avowed denier.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
yes, I admit you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes, I admit you're an avowed denier.
There!.. Right there is irrefutable proof of global warming!
Fewer hurricanes is a direct cause of pipelines being proposed!... Can you imagine the lack of hurricane related carnage if another pipeline is built?
Fer crissakes, think of the children!
try to educate yourself on what the prevailing positions are on frequency versus intensity of tropical storms relative to increased warming... pay attention to regional basin context.
New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
the sun. can you friggin' believe it man? the sun.
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
the sun. can you friggin' believe it man? the sun.
how did that skeptic paper make it through? No skeptic papers are ever pubished..... uhhhh, except when they are. Hey Locutus, tell me you're not one of these guys who lives and dies based on the findings a single paper. Perhaps you should hold the parade and wait for a lil' ole Peer Response, hey? :lol: Do you think all these "claimed skeptics" here will rally to the denier cause and claim this as the definitive "AGW killer"... or just the latest one? Peer Response Locutus, peer response!
oh my! Haven't you noticed the authors are Chinese who belong to an institution of the Chinese state,... given your plethora of spew against the Chinese in recent weeks, how do you suddenly reconcile your hypocrisy? :lol:
of course, there's a brazillion papers on sunspot activity/solar radiation and climate... apparently, these 2 guys are positioned to overturn decades of past science with their single paper! As limiting as the abstract is (I've not seen the full paper), typically when scientists position to challenge something, they draw attention to prevailing papers/scientists and show how their findings "trump" the current understandings... specifically drawing direct reference to past papers and scientific findings. From the little I've read so far, these 2 guys appear to be, effectively... ignoring past publication references and findings... as in not directly challenging them. Of course, it's the direct challenges that typically solicit response (if a scientist is so inclined). As I emphasized, Peer Response will determine and position the merits of the paper... not the denier blog member 'Locutus' linked to.
And of course you will not touch the hollow promises that were made by so called respectable scientists and media types in the past years? If you are going to disagree with any position, best you check to see what has been advanced as science yourself.
what hollow promises made by respectable scientists? Media types??? If you're railing on how the media covers climate change... covers science... that's a whole different discussion, because that one plays both ways and I suggest there's been quite the imbalance by media attempting to provide "false balance".
what position am I disagreeing with? Surely you're not talking about a single paper's findings... are you? Do the finding's of any single paper reflect upon "a position" anyone should hold/take..... or disagree with? I've not made any assessment on the paper other than to call into question how it is being postured within a denier blog... and how that, in turn, was foisted upon this forum by member, 'Locutus'.
yes, it is!
11,000 years is an interesting time scale. Most studies look at the recent trend (last hundred to few hundred years) or a geological one (last 100,000 to a few million years).The CO2 doesn't seem to be doing much of anything over the last 11,000 years, except for the recent blip. The CO2-temperature correlation is evident in the longer time series adn shorter time series, but not in this intermediate one. Interesting.
The biggest problem with the SSN model is that the solar irradiance trend has been decreasing since a local maximum in 1960 or so, but temperature has been increasing.
The biggest problem with the SSN model is that the solar irradiance trend has been decreasing since a local maximum in 1960 or so, but temperature has been increasing.
Sam Thiessen @SamThiessen Climate is changing all of the time. It's just not man-made. #BullsAndBears @tracybyrnes @garybsmith @brendabuttner
Climate is changing all of the time. It's just not man-made. #BullsAndBears @tracybyrnes @garybsmith @brendabuttner
The scale ius off in this graph. 57 to 58 deg F (a difference of one degree) is shown as much less magnitude in graphical scale as the drop from 57 to 56.3 deg F. That doesn't make any sense.
Sure doesn't! It would be helpful if the data were available. Someone email Steve McIntyre.
Toronto Sun or Ottawa Sun. ?:roll:
Both so right wing they fly in circles.
But, by Jeez, they got the facts.8O
Maybe the problem is the 20% reduction in the magnetosphere. In keeping geek speak out of it I'll use an anology. If rain is steady and 20% of your raincoat is hacked off the top, would you expect to stay as dry as a in full rain jacket?
I wonder why member 'Locutus' would quote a tweet from a guy with a profile that says he is 'ex Army and has a MBA'... cause it's that guy who added his own interpretative text to that graphic... the one sourced, per the graphic annotation, from "Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann'. Googlies will return quite the dubious accounting of these two simple folk! :roll: