Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

[Katzndogz]

We will continue to have global warming hysteria until we work through the cycle, then we will have global cooling hysteria, just like we did in the 70s. The next cold winter will be climate change hysteria.

People believe that they can do something to change the natural cyclical nature of the planet. They can't. They need to be dealt with using more than pity for their utter stupidity, they need to have their machinations limited by those with better sense.

 

[RollingThunder]

We will continue to have global warming hysteria until we work through the cycle, then we will have global cooling hysteria, just like we did in the 70s. The next cold winter will be climate change hysteria.

People believe that they can do something to change the natural cyclical nature of the planet. They can't. They need to be dealt with using more than pity for their utter stupidity, they need to have their machinations limited by those with better sense.

Sorry, Katzhitbrainz, but you're still a delusional idiot. There will be no "global cooling", you poor confused retard. The next few years will very probably repeatedly break the old records for "warmest year" (baring a major volcanic eruption) and the temperature trend will inevitably continue to rise, faster some years and a bit slower some other years, but still always clearly upward over each decade. The physics of the situation make this pretty much inevitable. Your ignorance of physics and science (and, of course, your extreme retardation) makes this fact obscure to you.

Nobody is trying to "change the natural cyclical nature of the planet", you silly nitwit. The fact that you think that just show how very little you understand about this subject. What people are trying to do is to reduce the changes to the Earth's climate patterns that human CO2 emissions have and are and will be creating (for centuries to come). We are creating these CO2 emissions and we can stop doing that. It is as simple as that. Of course that idea is anathema to your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry since their continued profits depend on mankind's continued use of fossil fuels. Thus their propaganda campaign of disinformation and denial of reality, a campaign that has completely bamboozled you, assuming, that is, that you are not just a paid agent of disinformation, collecting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers for trolling and spamming the internet forums and news sites with your lies and bullshit, as often seems very likely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

what was in the top 10?

 

[flacaltenn]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

I need YOU and all your pant-wetting alarmist brothers to read and understand this.. It's not front-page science and the Warming Church doesn't want to discuss the implications..

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor II (ACRIM2)
A photo of the UARS/ACRIM2 Total Solar Irradiance monitoring instrument.The ACRIM2 instrument on the UARS satellite measured the total solar irradiance (TSI), the total solar radiant energy reaching Earth, continuing the climate change database begun in 1980 by the ACRIM1 experiment on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM).[12] The ACRIM1 experiment's results provided the first discoveries of intrinsic variations in the TSI and their relationships to solar magnetic activity phenomena.[13] ACRIM experiments have confirmed TSI variation occurs on virtually every timescale from their 2 minute observation cadence to the decades-long length of the TSI record to date.[14] A precise knowledge of the TSI and its variation over time is essential to understanding climate change. Recent findings indicate that instrinsic TSI variation has had a much larger role (up to 50 %) in global warming during the industrial era than previously predicted by global circulation models (GCM’s).[15] The profound sociological and economic implications of understanding the relative climate change contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcings makes it essential that the TSI database, a critical component of climate change research, be carefully sustained into the foreseeable future. The UARS/ACRIM2 experiment was an important part of providing the long term TSI database.

This is just PART of the science that is buried by the Warmers.. This is NOT studying sun spots. It was measuring the total variation of Solar Output in REAL TIME for about 10 years before the satellite de-orbited..

Ask questions if you want --- but there you have it in bolded big font above.... And it's not the only proof that AGW fanatics are purposely glossing over NATURAL contributions to the warming...

Think maybe SOME OF THAT AGW LOOT ought to spent to REPLACE this satellite? Or do we have a de facto CENSORSHIP of alternate scientific investigation?

I specifically need SAIGON to read and acknowledge this - since the poster claims they have seen NO evidence to contradict the CO2 theory of GW...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2

 

[Katzndogz]

Co2 emissions would be responsible for global cooling, not global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Co2 emissions would be responsible for global cooling, not global warming.

Technically it's Globalcoolerwarmering and its ugly twin Globalwarmercoolering

 

[flacaltenn]

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2

Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry...

The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 300 yr+ time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for.

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium...

TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 cycle.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

Go probe yourself.....

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2

Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry...

The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 200 yr time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for.

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium...

TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 cycle.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

Go probe yourself.....

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...

LOL

I found that chart too and that's why I asked OR to answer his "top ten" statement first.

I doubt we'll be seeing much of OR in this thread after that

Scarfetta and West and various other Warmers have models that conclusively prove the Sun has no effect on climate, it's peer reviewed and all so you know it's been subjected to real bedrock scientific testing...like "Can I get an 'Amen!'?"

 

[Skull Pilot]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

Please be accurate and qualify your answer ; the top ten since records have been kept.

The earth has been hotter than it is today and it will be colder than it is today at some point.

And neither will be the end of the world.

 

[Katzndogz]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

Please be accurate and qualify your answer ; the top ten since records have been kept.

The earth has been hotter than it is today and it will be colder than it is today at some point.

And neither will be the end of the world.

Technically, it will be hotter than it is today, then it will be colder than it is today, then it will be hotter, followed by colder, over and over again and none of it will be the end of the world.

 

[RollingThunder]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

I need YOU and all your pant-wetting alarmist brothers to read and understand this.. It's not front-page science and the Warming Church doesn't want to discuss the implications..

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent findings indicate that instrinsic TSI variation has had a much larger role (up to 50 %) in global warming during the industrial era than previously predicted by global circulation models (GCM’s)[/B][/SIZE].[15]

15 - ^ Scafetta, N., West, B. J., Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., V. 33, 2006

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature
PhysOrg
April 7, 2010
(excerpts)

A new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth’s global temperature. In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. The Norwegian researchers also noted that the previous analysis had errors beyond the lack of detrending. As the researchers explain, the results provide more evidence to support the supposedly controversial theory of human-induced global warming. "The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence.

Copyright 2010 PhysOrg.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



Solar Variation - Effects on Global Warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)
Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." - Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463: 2447. Bibcode 2007RSPSA.463.2447L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

"Solar forcing has declined since 1987" - Lockwood, Mike; Fröhlich, Claus (8 June 2008). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale". Proc. R. Soc. A 464 (2094): 1367–85. Bibcode 2008RSPSA.464.1367L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." - Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres 114. Bibcode 2009JGRD..11414101B. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.


You are such a gullible cherry-picking retard, fecalhead.

 

[flacaltenn]

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..

You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?

 

[flacaltenn]

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2

Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry...

The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 300 yr+ time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for.

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium...

TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 year cycle.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

Go probe yourself.....

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...

Grasp what this chart means -- don't guess. And DON'T give me crap about solar flares or what's happened in the past 10 years...

You see those squiggly lines? those are your sunspot cycles.. The LONG TERM UNDERLYING TREND is for the sun to contribute CONSIDERABLE WARMING to the surface of the Earth... Not the squigglies Princess --- The underlying trend line...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2

Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry...

The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 300 yr+ time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for.

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium...

TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 cycle.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

Go probe yourself.....

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...

Grasp what this chart means -- don't guess. And DON'T give me crap about solar flares or what's happened in the past 10 years...

You see those squiggly lines? those are your sunspot cycles.. The LONG TERM UNDERLYING TREND is for the sun to contribute CONSIDERABLE WARMING to the surface of the Earth... Not the squigglies Princess --- The underlying trend line...

Looks like a for real hockey stick chart

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

I need YOU and all your pant-wetting alarmist brothers to read and understand this.. It's not front-page science and the Warming Church doesn't want to discuss the implications..

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent findings indicate that instrinsic TSI variation has had a much larger role (up to 50 %) in global warming during the industrial era than previously predicted by global circulation models (GCM’s)[/B][/SIZE].[15]

15 - ^ Scafetta, N., West, B. J., Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., V. 33, 2006

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature
PhysOrg
April 7, 2010
(excerpts)

A new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth’s global temperature. In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. The Norwegian researchers also noted that the previous analysis had errors beyond the lack of detrending. As the researchers explain, the results provide more evidence to support the supposedly controversial theory of human-induced global warming. "The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence.

Copyright 2010 PhysOrg.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



Solar Variation - Effects on Global Warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)
Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." - Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463: 2447. Bibcode 2007RSPSA.463.2447L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

"Solar forcing has declined since 1987" - Lockwood, Mike; Fröhlich, Claus (8 June 2008). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale". Proc. R. Soc. A 464 (2094): 1367–85. Bibcode 2008RSPSA.464.1367L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." - Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres 114. Bibcode 2009JGRD..11414101B. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.


You are such a gullible cherry-picking retard, fecalhead.

See? what did I say? The Warmers have models that complete ignore that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky

 

[flacaltenn]

Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry...

The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 300 yr+ time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for.

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium...

TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 cycle.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

Go probe yourself.....

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...

Grasp what this chart means -- don't guess. And DON'T give me crap about solar flares or what's happened in the past 10 years...

You see those squiggly lines? those are your sunspot cycles.. The LONG TERM UNDERLYING TREND is for the sun to contribute CONSIDERABLE WARMING to the surface of the Earth... Not the squigglies Princess --- The underlying trend line...

Looks like a for real hockey stick chart

Kinda does --- doesn't it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BTW the Scarfetta and West paper was the first AGW "Scientific paper" I read and when I was done reading it I was convinced that the Warmers were outright lying

 

[flacaltenn]

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all over us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's 2nd quote....

Hypocrits?? First - Class....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....

Hypocrits?? First - Class....

Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?