oops climate changers are wrong again

[Vox]

I'll repeat it for you:




Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

 

[Vox]

just to repeat - any computer model of prediction has to be based on an X amount of variables.

If you miss even ONE variable which is pertinent - your model is going to be WRONG.

as obviously happened with the variable of solar activity, which was not included since it was not known to the computer models scientist to have any influence.

These problems happen VERY often.

And would it be just everyday science without any financial merit involvement - nobody would even payed attention.

But SOME in the scientific world decided to make money on a scare.

They initially succeeded. But eventually failed - because they LIED. Some - as the University f East Anglia - knowingly. Some - probably honestly believed what they were predicting.

But the lies and scares harmed any of the possibility of serious interpretation of the environmental predictions by general public for decades.

 

[RDD_1210]

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

AND EVEN MORE


At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes


Hysterical alarmists caught yet again

By the way, this same James Hansen was predicting a new ice age in the 1970s and is not a climate scientist. His specialty is computer models, which all of his prophecies related to climate changes have been proven wrong.


YouTube

John R. Christy debunks James Hansen.
Christy was the lead author of the 2001 IPCC report.

It's funny how you point to "NASA data" yet your links don't actually link to anything on NASA's site. Yet when you do go to NASA's site and look at actual NASA data, you can see that they very much believe man is impacting global warming. Weird, right?

my link to the NASA data was in my previous post


plus there is a direct link to the study on remote sensing using NASA satellite systems in the link I've provided in the post you are quoting

Look who needs to lie. Linking to a Forbes articles is not the same as linking to NASA. The fact that this needs to be explained is embarrassing for you.

 

[RDD_1210]

before jumping into defending the sore loser you might want to know that he is not debating on a board, he is secretly negging the opponent

which by itself -is a confession of a defeat

p.s. typos are your last resort? and yes, English is my FOURTH language

What are your first three languages?

none of your business

ie. You're lying again.

You're on a roll.

 

[Vox]

It's funny how you point to "NASA data" yet your links don't actually link to anything on NASA's site. Yet when you do go to NASA's site and look at actual NASA data, you can see that they very much believe man is impacting global warming. Weird, right?

my link to the NASA data was in my previous post


plus there is a direct link to the study on remote sensing using NASA satellite systems in the link I've provided in the post you are quoting

Look who needs to lie. Linking to a Forbes articles is not the same as linking to NASA. The fact that this needs to be explained is embarrassing for you.

except Forbes article has a direct link to the NASA article

I posted the repeat for you, lazy butt.

 

[Vox]

What are your first three languages?

none of your business

ie. You're lying again.

You're on a roll.

***yawn***

couldn't care less what a leftard worshiper thinks

 

[RDD_1210]

I'll repeat it for you:




Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Ok.....and? Which part of that article makes any sort of assertion that this can be the cause of global warming?

Oh wait, they do address that.....
"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example. "

Whoops!

So since you now can agree that the information on NASA's website is credible, we can agree that since NASA dedicated not just a page, but an entire section of their site to Global Climate Change(Climate Change: Index) and mans role in the process, then that must be pretty credible information.

Thanks for highlighting that you're a partisan hack who doesn't even know how to argue your own limited viewpoint.

 

[Vox]

I'll repeat it for you:




Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Ok.....and? Which part of that article makes any sort of assertion that this can be the cause of global warming?

Oh wait, they do address that.....
"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example. "

Whoops!

So since you now can agree that the information on NASA's website is credible, we can agree that since NASA dedicated not just a page, but an entire section of their site to Global Climate Change(Climate Change: Index) and mans role in the process, then that must be pretty credible information.

Thanks for highlighting that you're a partisan hack who doesn't even know how to argue your own limited viewpoint.

you obviously did not read the article.

so there is nothing to discuss.

you can talk about your lies of "97% consensus" with old fart.

 

[RDD_1210]

none of your business

ie. You're lying again.

You're on a roll.

***yawn***

couldn't care less what a leftard worshiper thinks

Of course not. You're continually shown to be full of shit every time you regurgitate the opinion of your corporate overlords.

 

[Vox]

ie. You're lying again.

You're on a roll.

***yawn***

couldn't care less what a leftard worshiper thinks

Of course not. You're continually shown to be full of shit every time you regurgitate the opinion of your corporate overlords.

*** more yawn***

anything new on libtard agenda?
NO?
you are dismissed.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'll repeat it for you:




Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Ok.....and? Which part of that article makes any sort of assertion that this can be the cause of global warming?

Oh wait, they do address that.....
"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example. "

Whoops!

So since you now can agree that the information on NASA's website is credible, we can agree that since NASA dedicated not just a page, but an entire section of their site to Global Climate Change(Climate Change: Index) and mans role in the process, then that must be pretty credible information.

Thanks for highlighting that you're a partisan hack who doesn't even know how to argue your own limited viewpoint.

you obviously did not read the article.

so there is nothing to discuss.

you can talk about your lies of "97% consensus" with old fart.

I must be some sort of magician to be able to pull out quotes from an article I somehow didn't read.

It's your article, let's discuss which part of what I quoted is incorrect.

 

[RDD_1210]

***yawn***

couldn't care less what a leftard worshiper thinks

Of course not. You're continually shown to be full of shit every time you regurgitate the opinion of your corporate overlords.

*** more yawn***

anything new on libtard agenda?
NO?
you are dismissed.

Imagine if you actually didn't run away when someone shows you up. Think how much better your shitty existence would have turned out.

 

[Mustang]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

Is this what the anti-science climate change deniers hang their hats on? The inability to make a wholly accurate prediction based on the dates on a calendar? That's similar to concluding that a woman isn't really going to have a baby at all because the doctor's estimation of a woman's due date has passed without so much as one contraction.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

Is this what the anti-science climate change deniers are hanging their hats on? The inability to make an wholly accurate prediction based on the dates on a calendar? That's similar to concluding that a woman isn't really going to have a baby at all because the doctor's estimation of a woman's due date has passed without so much as one contraction.

Uhm, it's not anything like that...

 

[Vox]

Of course not. You're continually shown to be full of shit every time you regurgitate the opinion of your corporate overlords.

*** more yawn***

anything new on libtard agenda?
NO?
you are dismissed.

Imagine if you actually didn't run away when someone shows you up. Think how much better your shitty existence would have turned out.

you don't like to be owned?

then - DON"T LIE

 

[RDD_1210]

*** more yawn***

anything new on libtard agenda?
NO?
you are dismissed.

Imagine if you actually didn't run away when someone shows you up. Think how much better your shitty existence would have turned out.

you don't like to be owned?

then - DON"T LIE

Why do you insist on ignoring the quote from your own article?

 

[RollingThunder]

Is Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says "Yes" -A Galaxy Insight

Just out of curiosity, are you really retarded enough to imagine that anyone with any sense is going to believe a lie filled 'article' posted by some unknown putz on some obscure blog, this "dailygalaxy.com weblog" you cited?

There is no place in the original articles on this research where the scientists involved even begin to suggest that the current abrupt global warming trend is being caused by "natural cycles". That part of the title of the blog piece you quoted is entirely a fabrication of whoever wrote that blogbarf. That person is a liar and either you are too or else you're just another denier cultist who's too stupid to double check your sources. Here's the original source article.

You failed to show me where it lied, genius.

No. You just have your head jammed so far up your ass that you can't see what is right in front of you, TempKrazy. The title is a lie. The MIT researchers were not saying, in any way, shape or form, that global warming is part of a natural cycle.

 

[RollingThunder]

1, there is NO global warming , neither is there a climate change. Climate is not a static formula it changes always and it is NORMAL

2. Humans have nothing to do with it

Just more ignorant clueless nonsense from another confused denier cultist with his head up his ass. Grow a brain and educate yourself, retard.

 

[RollingThunder]

Warmer temperatures cause glaciers to melt. Glaciers aren't melting but growing.

That's total bullshit, you lying retard. The large majority of glaciers around the world are melting, retreating and losing ice mass.

NORTH CASCADE GLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT
Mauri S. Pelto, Director
Nichols College, Dudley, MA

Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview

In recent years I have been asked to write the section on Glacier and Ice Sheets for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Annual State of the Climate report, for example BAMS State of the Climate 2008, 2009 and 2010. This forces me to keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. This article documents some of the observations. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world [1]. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service [2] has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses. If a business had 19 consecutive losing years they would be bankrupt. This can lead to the disappearance of a glacier as seen below with Milk Lake Glacier and Lewis Glacier, North Cascades, Washington. Which melted away between 1988 and 1995, creating Milk Lake. It also raises the need to forecast survival of individual smaller alpine glaciers. The below is a regional overview to review the retreat of individual glaciers examined one at time look at the 150 posts in the glacier change blog.

 

[RollingThunder]

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you have a weak grasp on your own primary language? Unless of course English is your second language.

Is that it? Is English your second language?

before jumping into defending the sore loser you might want to know that he is not debating on a board, he is secretly negging the opponent

which by itself -is a confession of a defeat

p.s. typos are your last resort? and yes, English is my FOURTH language

What are your first three languages?

Obviously, the answer to that question would be: 'baby-talk', 'gibberish', and 'denier cult lingo'. Now he just speaks 'retard'.