What Do We Think About Climate Change

WONDER B asserts that the IPCC's tabulations and predictions are, to quote him, "remarkably accurate ".

But then he is after all a *****, so moronic statements flow freely from his keyboard, and probably from his mouth too, if we were speaking in person.

You might not want to look at these, WONDER B, but the less moronic among those reading this thread might find them interesting:

"The Case of the Missing Carbon"


Northeastern Researcher Finds Missing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

NASA satellite to sleuth out 'missing' CO2

Correlation Falsification: The Missing Global Warming - CO2 Link


There are literally HUNDREDS of articles like these. The salient point to take away is that the IPCC's tabulations contains a huge whopping error as I've repaetedlt detailed, which they admit exists, and they are working to 'resolve'. WONDER B does not acknowledge the error, but then he is but a *****.

Jimbo

 

The very mission statement of the IPCC shows it bias when it was formed. The basis for the bias is the speculation from the same fringe of science that predicted world starvation by 1980, a new ice by the year 2000, unrelenting famine worldwide etc, 10 of millions of deaths due to the unecessary and criminal ban on DDT, the "hole in the ozone" and innumerable other false or fabricated claims using doctored and back filled data to prop up a social agenda. Mann, Briffa, and Jones have all used cherry picked data from tree ring samples. Mann excluded all data from trees that did not match his premise, Briffa and Jones set the doomsday clock for the environment with data from a single tree. All three hid, and excluded data from the public in violation of FOI laws in both the US and Great Britain. Mann was told by the IPCC not to use tree ring data for his study but did it anyhow and then substituted data from another source when the tree ring data curve he needed flattened out. Hansen "corrected" his data by simply adding in temp right at the start, kinda like starting a race 10 yards up the track. The ground based temp stations were so flawed in their placement they had to abandon using the results. Do we need to talk about the glaciers and the polar bears? How bout the Artic Ice Cap in 2007 that shrunk from wind currents instead of warming. Then there was the Antartic Ice Shelf that broke off from underground volcanic activity instead of warming. Then of course there is the embarassing report on hurricanes, instead of more storms there will be 5-11% less, but of 6-34% increase in intensity, backed up by a hunch and computer models, now thats science for you. Boston, it's incredible how obtuse you can be sometimes. When I said "selling" I was referring to the marketing hype approach to AGW, not actual sales you dolt.

The IPCC chooses its analysis methods and its authors from those submitted. They have consistently refused to even consider opposing viewpoints and have tried through the UN bureacracy to marginalize any scientists that try to point out the fraud in their assessment reports. The IPCC is a political body with a political agenda using junk science as a backdrop. The financial fraud within the membership of the IPCC chain of command is rampant and blantant.

Finally the world view of so many of the AGW proponents span the spectrum from survivalist-anarchist types like Boston, to socialists, anti-humans, elitists, one world government types, those who want to cut the human population through famine and disease, impose legal limits on procreation, ban animal livestock for food, zero economic growth, totalitarianism, essentially all the wack job political agendas that can not make it past the ballot box.

 

Jim
again there are so many holes in this I will need to go through point by point

 

LMAO
we do tend to have fun with each other now don't we Jim
once again you are wrong on all points

try and take it easy Jim the personal attacks do nothing to further your work for the disinformation campaign although they are kinda humorous
what do they pay you for this anyway

cheers
and best of luck
B

 

"You don't learn
what you don't want to know"
Exactly!

Once again for you, Boston the "Don't Wanting to Learn Climatist"

"The solar radiation flux reaching the Earth gradually decreases since 1990s both within the 11-year and 200-year cycles, caused by a decrease of the solar radius and solar radiative area. According to our estimates, the solar radiation flux will reach its minimum in 2042 ± 11 year and, in contravention of the presently common opinion, this will lead to the global fall of temperature and cooling of the climate similar to the one observed during the Maunder minimum. By the middle of the century, the deficiency of solar energy received by the Earth, following the analogy of the Maunder minimum, can reach approximately 0.2% or up to 3 W per one square meter of surface of the external atmospheric layers in relation to the maximum average level of 1980s. Here, despite the fact that the amplitude of TSI variation is approximately 0.07% during the "short" 11-year cycle, its influence on climate is softened by the thermal inertia of the ocean. But if an increase or decrease of the TSI variations amplitude will last for two subsequent cycles given a similar course of its 2-century component, the climate will eventually change correspondingly, but with a delay of 17 ± 5 years caused by the thermal inertia of the ocean.
...................
The tendency of decrease in the global Earth temperature started in 2006–2008 will temporarily pause in 2010–2012. The increase in TSI within a short 11-year cycle 24 is expected to temporarily compensate the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 2-century variation. Only the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 11-year cycle 24 accompanied by continued decrease of its 2-century component in 2013–2015 will lead to stable subsequent cooling of our planet, which is expected to reach its minimum in the phase of a deep cooling by 2055–2060 ± 11 (Abdussamatov H.I. Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. 2007. 103. No. 4. p. 292–298). The cooling can be similar to the one observed in the whole Europe, North America and Greenland in 1645–1715 in the period of Maunder minimum of solar luminosity and sunspot activity when the temperature will fall by 1–1.5 Celsius degrees down to the mark of the so-called Maunder minimum. The regular period of climatic minimum (the stage of global cooling) will last for approximately 45–65 years and the new warming will eventually come afterwards within the regular 2-century solar cycle. The deep cooling is expected to be regularly replaced by warming only by the beginning of 22nd century.
.............................
The TSI has entered a descent phase of the 2-century cycle in early 1990s, but the thermal inertia of the ocean causes the global warming observed during the last years. Our planet had been receiving and collecting an anomalously high thermal energy from the Sun during almost whole XX century. Since the early 1990s it has been giving off the accumulated energy. Suddenly the climatologists found that in 2003 the upper layers of the ocean started to cool down. The heat, accumulated by oceans is unfortunately tailing off. This is an indisputable evidence of the fact that climate changes on the Earth are directly influenced by 2-century variations of solar energy supply and it directly confirms that the Earth has already reached in 1998–2005 the stage of maximal global warming mainly caused by an anomalously high and prolonged increase of the solar energy flux during almost whole XX century.
...................
Nowadays, a few years before the beginning of the upcoming global cooling, we are going through an unstable phase when the temperature will oscillate around the reached maximum without any substantial increase. In 2008 the global temperature on our planet not only did not rise but even fell down due to the decreasing (and record low over 30 years of observations from space) solar luminosity. The stabilization of the global Earth temperature in 1998–2005 and its downward tendency in 2006–2008 is an irrefutable evidence of the fact that our Sun is no longer able to warm the Earth the same way as in the past and that an anthropogenic global warming is a big myth. 1998–2005, being the warmest years for 150 years of weather observations, will stay on the peak of 2-century warming.
......................

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

 

ouch
again with the personal attacks
must be something I said

ok
so I read it beginning to end
three questions

if the sun is cooling in a 200 year cycle then why the observed increase in temp over the last 50 years and why do these guys claim we will start warming again in only another few years

where is the adjustment for permeability in the estimate of co2 lag

where is the published data

this looks more like a justification for a proposal to produce research equipment for the space station G. An interesting proposal no doubt but still not a working theory. Really it constitutes at best another one of your famous anomalous data points and at worst just a grant proposal of some kind

the solar iradiance option has been discussed to death and there simply is no trend with observed temperatures. Once again I will present the data that has been scrutinized by fellow scientists and published



here is there graph showing decreased solar activity in a time period were temp is known to have increases and
that time frame is well outside there proposed 17 year max lag time

here's a side by side from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/en/print/sunspots_and_temperature__1950-2009_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/en/print/solen_blev_sa_stille&usg=__vR1riczXXXIjEh5LKNjvt6fYDzE=&h=362&w=640&sz=40&hl=en&start=9&sig2=4aMC4nip_VdFgMYqPyg_Xg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=smc9Jkffla1cMM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Baverage%2Btemp%2Bvs%2Bsun%2Bspots%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=IRKoS6rFLYmAtgP8i6j7DA

so although you would like people to believe that this is something new once again it is a simple rehash of an argument that was studied by our finest who concluded that there was no trend concerning solar iradiance and the current level of climate change and alterations within the atmospheric chemistry

once again I will present numerous data points to show that this issue in not only old hat but long been laid to rest

from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlyNOAA%2520and%2520HadCRUT3%2520GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm&usg=__hfu27i9lvQVHstFW-I3xzA9oqsE=&h=500&w=880&sz=27&hl=en&start=11&sig2=tyoOcBc2jpvgDF5upivLfg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=V1fGWkdE-5Es2M:&tbnh=83&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Baverage%2Btemp%2Bvs%2Bsun%2Bspots%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=IRKoS6rFLYmAtgP8i6j7DA

and for the coup de gras

a simple graph shows the deviation from sun activity



now Im not saying that there is not lots more to learn or that another solar observatory is not in order however
simply because one researcher wants to revisit the idea of cosmic climatology does not mean that all other research is somehow void

interesting article G
thanks
B

 

incredible.

 

Boston
If you insist in calling me "denier" (by extension) as you do in almost all of your posts, I will keep on calling you "Climatist" and other nice things.

About the Sun and Climate relationship, please read carefully Boris Komitov's papers I and II on the matter (you'll find them here: http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm). I posted this info quite a bit of time ago, but you still seem not to have read it or understand it.

I will post his accepted for publication paper III soon.

Cheers.

 

always interesting G Ill have to keep an eye out for the article when you post it. In the mean time Ill have to make it a point to read and understand both sides of the equation as usual. Also as usual the link you provided does not work on this end so I did a little digging of my own.

found this to be interesting
and while Im sure some will attempt to label the following as a character assassination what it really represents is a justifiable look into ones qualifications regarding the topic at hand

old Boris is highly involved in the following organization

also this is rather interesting concerning the subject of the Komitov papers

although I do appreciate your efforts to at least begin presenting peer reviewed work I might raise the bar again to establish consensus within the work. What I mean by that (before anyone gets there hackles up) is to say that supporting references are not simple providing data from which individual assumptions are reached within a work but that corresponding conclusions regarding the same data streams is being presented within the references. Essentially each logic stream cannot simply be the construct of one researcher but found to be accurate by numerous researchers and those researchers and there research is presented in reference. Then it becomes possible for an author to place these logic points together and form a papers hypothesis.

as an example in my own most recent project; part of which involves presenting Godel's theory of causality as being capable of having effect within a smaller area than previously quantified, I am presenting numerous authors in reference who have managed to reduce the size of the system necessary within which the effects of causality may be established and showing that the trend in research leads to the conclusion that although there is very likely a lower limit to the area within which the phenomenon can occur, it has yet to be determined.
The other major issues within the paper follow a similar style of finding supporting evidence within the established work and then combining possibilities.
This approach is standard in most research papers yet not surprisingly absent from the majority of the anomalous data typically presented by the denialist cause. while I look forward to reading up on this author you have found I am not enthusiastic about his work so far. He appears to be stuck on an issue long ago laid to rest and without the support of his general colleagues. His work seems to contain several significant flaws and there seems to be a huge amount of research in direct opposition to his hypothesis.

cheers and I'll see what I can do to look a bit deeper into his first two papers in the mean time

B

 

I love it!

Cheers.

 

But I was not saying this; you are just such a freaking ***** that you cannot form coherent thoughts or arguments in favor of your own position; you really DON'T 'get it'!


It was YOU that introduced the specter of the plant biomass preferring 'natural' CO2 over 'fossil' CO2! I simply pointed out (quite accurately and logically) that such a bias would tend to skew the mass-balance toward fossil CO2! Then you bring up COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah about some 800,000 year equillibrium

What a *****.

You don't know your own ******* from a hole in the ground, or your own dick from a random cucumber

Complete freaking idiot.

Jimbo

 

Calm down Jim, read the latest update of JoNova, someone who knows what she is talking about.


http://joannenova.com.au/

 

ah the opinion piece approach to science

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482