Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Oh I see...So anyone disagreeing with you that post REFERENCES to support their POV is now 'guilty' of copyright infringement? Get real.

I see, so now we all have to go back to grade school in order to lower our reasoning process to that of the GW faithful...figures.

Yeah a TRACE gas that constitutes less than 1/10th of 1% of the TOTAL green house gas constituent of the atmosphere which itself constitutes less than 1% of the TOTAL atmosphere of the Earth. We are talking in THOUSANDTHS of a degree of so-called warming per year if that.

I notice how you GW faithful always move the goalposts too. Now you want to go back to the forming of the Earth's atmosphere which has nothing to do with the contemporary discussion of global warming.

 

No but quoting without linking is plagiarism something that is frowned on even in grade schools

Your disbelief in basic science will not change facts

I suggest you go back to the cut and paste because you are not doing so well with any factual content without it



And talking about goal post shifting - where did you get those crappy false figures?

As I keep telling you - an anonymous blog on the internet is not going to be as accurate as any of the major science institutes or universities

 

I always love it when you denier cultists post long lists of papers you haven't read and couldn't understand but you still imagine that they support your denier cult myths and fantasies because you found them on some halfwitted denier cult blog. LOL.

As far as what you just said here....that is load of totally ignorant rubbish that has nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter.

Greenhouse gas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Role of water vapor

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[12] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 20% in warm, humid regions.[49]

The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2. Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. Eventually other earth processes offset these positive feedbacks, stabilizing the global temperature at a new equilibrium and preventing the loss of earth's water through a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.


Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere at Boulder, Colorado.

 

You are the one conned by the GW community

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

 

Even if they were quoted correctly you would never admit the truth, warming is not significant for the last 10 years

 

Will you also report Wyly from post 186

 

If you put 1 drop of india ink into 1 liter of water, does the water change color?

How can 1 drop in 1 liter -- 50 ppm -- possibly have any effect on the light-absorption characteristics of water?

 

Here's some more basic science and logic for the denialists to totally fail to understand. Let's talk about the "atmospheric window" or "spectral window", which illustrates what infrared frequencies the atmosphere passes or blocks.



From the chart, you can see what frequencies are blocked or passed. However, an intelligent observer will note that the CO2 and H2O frequencies are in different places.

Why is that important? Because it illustrates how dumb the "but ... but ... water is 95%!" argument is. CO2 is entirely different window from H20. The H2O window was already mostly closed, so water vapor fluctuations have a minor effect (and they go both ways). The CO2 window was halfway open before, and it's getting gradually closed. That's a much larger effect, and it only goes one way, so less heat leaks out.

 

I didn't quote anything in that post. I gave my OWN opinion and then gave you REFERENCES for that opinion and I put them in italics. What is your problem anyway? Stop accusing me of criminal activity or I'll turn YOU in.

Really? Tell me then what is not factual about CO2 being just 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere?

Do you have a LINK for that graph 'happy pants?'

Which figures?

I'd say blogs are MORE accurate because the peer review process, with regard to GW, is corrupt.

 

Go for it - plenty have - few have succeeded

OOOOOOH! Finally a real fact!! But that is not what you posted!

If I yell "pants on fire".................

I don't link for pictures because the link is embedded when you post - you would be linking twice and that takes bandwidth. The reference is always clear on pictures when you quote the post - that is why I call out those who link to imageshack or one of the other photoshare groups because you cannot identify the original source of either the image or the data it represents

Oh! My! WEll I would happily quote from a peer reviewed blog after all there are only about a dozen of them - and at that it is an informal peer review process much like Wiki and not the formal process seen before publications. Mind you most of THOSE are not denialist sites but sites like Sceptical Science and Real Climate

And I can tell the non-peer reviewed sites because they are the ones that have the same old debunked crud floating around - and often with dozens of posts underneath telling them what a lot of baloney and waste of bandwidth it is

 

I have posted that many, many, times before you just are ignorant of that fact.

Meaningless drivel.

It is not clear it is, in fact, hidden. You should have posted the actual link. Some may not know to right-click on the image and, even then, you have several 'sources' so it is unclear where it came from. Frankly I wouldn't even bother to care if YOU hadn't falsely accused me.

Skeptical Science is not skeptical of GW at all. Real Climate is not about real climate at all. They are where the GW faithful get their talking points.

No, they just don't agree with your POV. That doesn't mean they have 'old debunked crud' it just means you refuse to accept reality.

 

No i was replying to that post which was in error

You do not even have to right click - all you ever have to do is quote the post.
This is not about the process but being able to follow the referencing. But if you have an issue - start a discussion in the feedback forum

Ha Ha! read my post again!

Now ANY time you want to do a full thread on the validity of science sites please let me know because I will be delighted

 

Confronted with massive fraud, the Warmers whitewashed it and restored the miscreants to the their previous positions!?!?!?

Let me guess? You read that in a tabloid right? Probably an article by David Rose.

 

Huh?!?!?

You are posting the same article with fabricated quotes again?!?!?

Curry did not say what that article says she said

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues “are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice.”

The Muller “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960,” Curry wrote Sunday.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/?page=all

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

 

He'll never accept it, you are questioning his Scripture.

 

RPA1 what is your argument here? That because CO2 is a trace gas it has a negligible effect? Because that is well known to be a wrong assumption and has already been explained to you numerous times. Quit denying.

 

Where does she deny saying what was quoted? You are trying to twist with things she said about 50 years and says nothing about the last 10 years. You show the deception the GW people have to use to push their lies

 

No he is not addressing the last 10 year and being deceptive.

 

The problem is that your 'explanation' is tragically wanting.

 

Or perhaps it is your comprehension that is tragically lacking.

It's unfortunate that that concept is very probably literally inconceivable for you.

When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect
Psychology Today
(excerpts)

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence. Dunning and Kruger often refer to a "double curse" when interpreting their findings: People fail to grasp their own incompetence, precisely because they are so incompetent. And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence from incompetence, people get stuck in a vicious cycle.

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."​

Or, in other words, they become AGW denier cultists.


***

 

WTF is your problem!?!?!?
How many times do you have to be shown?!?!?

The bogus article you keep posting says:

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sed-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1mFO9N6dY

What Curry ACTUALLY said
The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues “are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice.”

She also wrote on her blog:
The whole issue of Muller having done something inappropriate in terms of scientific ethics, which is implied by the Rose article, will not stand up to scrutiny.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/


Your bogus story said:
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sed-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1mFORbFmD

Curry ACTUALLY said:
The Muller “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960,” Curry wrote Sunday.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/?page=all

She has also said on her blog:
There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

Not "stopped" . A decrease in the rate of increase. ie IT IS STILL INCREASING. (Hardly surprising - when you measure from 1998, the second hottest year ever (a very strong El Nino) to the the La Nina period at the end of the decade (the hottest La Nina ever recorded))

And note - she has even qualified this opinion with:
Note that the short time scales considered here preclude determination of a statistically significant trend at the 95% confidence level
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/04/pause/

She also said on her blog:
With regard to the Rose article. The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#comment-130147



How many times does this have to be explained to you?
YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED

The article is bogus

 

Bugs is right - however if this were a global warming story the denialists would be all over it like a rash on a baby's bum

Funny how outright lies and deception from the likes of David Rose. Marc Morano and Christopher Monkton get applauded - even though they are patently false, manipulated and so full of cherry picking that they look like a chocolate factory on cherry overload

I mean most of the bozos like Morano are so transparent with the manipulation that even I can spot it, and usually within the first sentence

 

Sounds like an ad hominem attack, bowerbird.

 

No warming for the last 15 years?

There is ample evidence to support that the Earth has been warming RAPIDLY since about 2000. We've been having RECORD warm winters around here; I can just go out in January and it'll be warm and I won't need a coat. In OHIO.

Now some of you will ASSume that I support using force to stop fossil fuel use, just because I hate Big Fossil Fuel (or really, our dependence on it). But, I do not. In fact, I'm not even saying that global warming is mostly caused by humans.

 

Europe may disagree with you.



http://www.usnews.com/photos/extreme-winter-weather-hits-europe