Not to mention the problems brought on by being bathed 24 hours a day in 60Hz EMR, poisoned with deadly fluoride in our water, mouths full of mercury, and brains sintered together by merury containing vaccines. It is a wonder any of us are alive!
Happy Birthday No Global Waming - 18 years old.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Now that is hilarious! Just exactly how do you think that 1% of the population ended up with all the money.
This chart shows how much a depraved ideologue jerm and piehole are.
de·praved
dəˈprāvd/
adjective
de·praved
dəˈprāvd/
adjective
- morally corrupt; wicked.
"a depraved indifference to human life"
synonyms:corrupt, perverted, deviant, degenerate, debased, immoral, unprincipled;
[/quote]First here is just a fraction of the science i have presented. you have to wonder how someone like fraudcurrents could lie about something so simple.
and then
Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
There has been no pause in global warming. It is a fiction made up by the denier liars.
The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern OscillationIndex. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.
The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern OscillationIndex. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.
a better than normal try fraudcurrents but your data is old...
There has been no pause in global warming. It is a fiction made up by the denier liars.
The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern OscillationIndex. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.
An approach complementary to General Circulation Models (GCM’s), using the anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic forcings [Lovejoy, 2014], was recently developed for quantifying human impacts. Using pre-industrial multiproxy series and scaling arguments, the probabilities of natural fluctuations at time lags up to 125 years were determined. The hypothesis that the industrial epoch warming was a giant natural fluctuation was rejected with 99.9% confidence.
In this paper, this method is extended to the determination of event return times. Over the period 1880-2013, the largest 32-year event is expected to be 0.47K, effectively explaining the postwar cooling (amplitude 0.42-0.47K). Similarly, the “pause” since 1998 (0.28-0.37K) has a return period of 20-50 years (not so unusual). It is nearly cancelled by the pre-pause warming event (1992-1998, return period 30-40 years); the pause is no more than natural variability [bold mine].
S. Lovejoy
In this paper, this method is extended to the determination of event return times. Over the period 1880-2013, the largest 32-year event is expected to be 0.47K, effectively explaining the postwar cooling (amplitude 0.42-0.47K). Similarly, the “pause” since 1998 (0.28-0.37K) has a return period of 20-50 years (not so unusual). It is nearly cancelled by the pre-pause warming event (1992-1998, return period 30-40 years); the pause is no more than natural variability [bold mine].
S. Lovejoy
1. congrats on actually posting substance that is not a troll.
2. No one need deny that the 18 year pause is natural variability. the pause is significant because it shows the models fail. the models are significant because it is the only science you had saying man made co2 causes warming.
3. I will post Von Storch again for you. Now remember this is a nutter scientist.
the pause is now 18 years and 1 month.
and that the models are considered by most scientists to fail at the 95% confidence level and we are 3 years out past the 98 percent C.I.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
2. No one need deny that the 18 year pause is natural variability. the pause is significant because it shows the models fail. the models are significant because it is the only science you had saying man made co2 causes warming.
3. I will post Von Storch again for you. Now remember this is a nutter scientist.
the pause is now 18 years and 1 month.
and that the models are considered by most scientists to fail at the 95% confidence level and we are 3 years out past the 98 percent C.I.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
I was trying to nice since you posted a rare non troll.
you want direct...you are a fool for posting something no one was challenging.
I have never seen anyone claim the pause was not natural.
Have you ever seen anyone say the pause was man made?
you want direct...you are a fool for posting something no one was challenging.
I have never seen anyone claim the pause was not natural.
Have you ever seen anyone say the pause was man made?