NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Cooling Event

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

fc click that pspr's link..

You are a bigger muppet than I thought. Your own muppet masters know their climate models are just guesses and have no real forecasting merit.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html

jem, futurecurrents isn't interested in learning the truth or the facts. He conceded in another thread that he just enjoys the argument. In his mind he has already conceded defeat and ignorance. So, now he just relishes in posting his tired old story with his proven wrong charts just to get a response.

Have you noticed how almost every post he makes on any thread is a general attack on Republicans? He's been shown up and now he's bitter.

If he had any integrity, he would just stop with the BS and quit posting charts of the failed AGW models like the ones discredited below.

<img src=http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/mikesamerica2/cid_image001_gif01CA746B.jpg width=280 height=240>

 

[futurecurrents]

pspr. gwb and jem, you have been duped by the FF industry/GOP disinformation machine. You should feel used and stupid. All you really wanted to be was a loyal Republican but they deluded you on the science. It's time to join the other two thirds of the rational people and accept the overwhelming science and common sense. You're like the Japs that still thought the war was on during WW2. Stop fighting. You are only succeeding in looking foolish. The science is essentially settled and now the question is what to do about it if anything.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

pspr. gwb and jem, you have been duped by the FF industry/GOP disinformation machine. You should feel used and stupid. All you really wanted to be was a loyal Republican but they deluded you on the science. It's time to join the other two thirds of the rational people and accept the overwhelming science and common sense. You're like the Japs that still thought the war was on during WW2. Stop fighting. You are only succeeding in looking foolish. The science is essentially settled and now the question is what to do about it if anything.

FC, you're an idiot, a fool, a moron, a halfwit, a lamebrain and a loser.

 

[jem]

hey muppet...

this is from the agw nutter factory itself -- the IPCC... you see the website in the link...

...
this is a comment that goes with the charts you have been producing.... your most recent chart acknowledges this 2007 ipc paper.

it says...

a set of models which might work has yet to be developed.



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and.../ch8s8-6-4.html

"A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed."

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

FC, you're an idiot, a fool, a moron, a halfwit, a lamebrain and a loser.

And yet I present the facts and the science whereas you present bullshit from fringe sources that have no credibility. What does that make you?

I guess I hit a nerve because deep down you know I am right. Come out of the cave and put down the gun.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

hey muppet...

this is from the agw nutter factory itself -- the IPCC... you see the website in the link...

...
this is a comment that goes with the charts you have been producing.... your most recent chart acknowledges this 2007 ipc paper.

it says...

a set of models which might work has yet to be developed.



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and.../ch8s8-6-4.html

"A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed."

Hey crazed one, the IPCC is the largest collection of the greatest talent in the field of climatology and the single most authoritative source about AGW. And they certainly do have a set of models that work. No one of them works perfectly - thus the above caveat - but taken as whole they can give a good range of possible outcomes.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

And yet I present the facts and the science whereas you present bullshit from fringe sources that have no credibility. What does that make you?

I guess I hit a nerve because deep down you know I am right. Come out of the cave and put down the gun.

You ignore the facts and present data that has been discredited.

Say all you want about how you are right. It isn't true. The models have been wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 17 years and the data correlates with solar activity. That's all there is folks. Believe it - it's the proven truth.

 

[pspr]

Hmmm. What has global temperature correlated with the most? Let's see.

This chart shows a remarkable correspondence between solar irradiation (dotted line) and temperature changes (solid line.) Also notice the CO2 levels charted in the lower right hand part of the graph and the lack of correspondence.

<img src=http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/solar_irradiance.gif width=434 height=400>

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

You ignore the facts and present data that has been discredited.

Say all you want about how you are right. It isn't true. The models have been wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 17 years and the data correlates with solar activity. That's all there is folks. Believe it - it's the proven truth.

That you would repeat the 17 year crap is just proof of what an idiot you are and how feeble your argument is. You have nothing. Come out of the cave oh feeble-minded one.

If you want to educate yourself - which is a longshot - look at this video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u_0JZRIHFtk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Hey crazed one, the IPCC is the largest collection of the greatest talent in the field of climatology and the single most authoritative source about AGW. And they certainly do have a set of models that work. No one of them works perfectly - thus the above caveat - but taken as whole they can give a good range of possible outcomes.

show us the models whose middle of the range predicted there would be no statistical warming the last 16 years.


also... as you have been told before... you models have been found to have massive errors..

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...rt-ii-cloudy-sky-component-by-sun-et-al-2012/



Radiation calculaions in global numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models are usually performed in 3-hourly time intervals in order to reduce the computational cost. This treatment can lead to an incorrect Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) at the Earth’s surface, which could be one of the error sources in modelled convection and precipitation. In order to improve the simulation of the diurnal cycle of GHI at the surface a fast scheme has been developed in this study and it can be used to determine the GHI at the Earth’s surface more frequently with affordable costs. The scheme is divided into components for clear-sky and cloudy-sky conditions. The clear-sky component has been described in part I. The cloudy-sky component is introduced in this paper. The scheme has been tested using observations obtained from three Atmospheric Radiation Measurements (ARM) stations established by the U. S. Department of Energy. The results show that a half hourly mean relative error of GHI under all-sky conditions is less than 7%. An important application of the scheme is in global climate models. The radiation sampling error due to infrequent radiation calculations is investigated using the this scheme and ARM observations. It is found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m-2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the effects of clouds. Use of the current scheme can reduce these errors to less than 50 W m-2.

These errors are clearly larger than the few W m-2 that are due to human climate forcings, and even large relative to the natural variations of radiative fluxes. This is yet another example of why the IPCC models are not robust tools to predict changes in global, regional and local climate statistics.

source of image