Quote:

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2

Raspopov et al 2013
Turner et al 2014
Misios and Schmidt 2014
Gray et al. 2014 
Florides et al. 2013
Patterson et al. 2013 
Steinhilber and Beer 2013 
Miyake et al. 2013 
Gil-Alana et al. 2013
Laken and Calogovic 2013 
de Jager and Nieuwenhuijzen 2013
Wirth et al. 2013
Phipps et al. 2013
Burn and Palmer 2013
Magny et al. 2013
Roth and Joos 2013
Lockwood 2013
Scafetta 2013
Love, 2013
Roy 2013
Scafetta 2013
van Geel and Ziegler 2013
Anet et al. 2013
El Bilali et al. 2013
Schultz 2013 
Galloway et al. 2013
NAS 2012 
Wen et al. 2013
Gómez-Navarro and Zorita 2013 
Lu, 2012.
Asmerom et al. 2013
Stolze et al. 2013 
Van Oldenborgh et al. 2013
Matthes et al. 2013
Meehl et al. 2013
YuXin et al. 2013
Usoskin et al. 2013
Thomas et. El. 2013
Jackson and Foster 2013
Kobashi et al. 2013
Stolze et al. 2013
Hervé et al. in press 
Frezotti et al. 2013
Nagaya et al. 2012
Gu et al. 2012
Di Rita 2013
Patterson et al. in press
Heredia and Elias 2013
Charbonneau 2013
Tung and Zhou 2013
Kern et al. 2013
Chen et al. 2013 
Wang & Su 2013 
Clete and Lefevre 2012
Dietrich et al. 2013 
Bleicher, 2013
Scaife et al. 2013
Bochnicek et al. 2012
Czymzik et al. 2013

so thats it then, we can burn all the fossil fuels in the earths crust as quickly as possible

Lucky we have Ajax here ladies and gentlemen, the resident denier and smelly bat

I will spend some time over the weekend looking at some of these so called authors and their conclusions.

I am sure Ajax has checked them out already - like he did with the other crack pot list and Dr Sircus and his baking soda cancer cure

get back to you soon with some feedback Batcrap

http://theesposure.com/DAMMnation/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/smoking_monkey.gif

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:

so thats it then, we can burn all the fossil fuels in the earths crust as quickly as possible Lucky we have Ajax here ladies and gentlemen, the resident denier and smelly bat I will spend some time over the weekend looking at some of these so called authors and their conclusions. I am sure Ajax has checked them out already - like he did with the other crack pot list and Dr Sircus and his baking soda cancer cure get back to you soon with some feedback Batcrap

Look all you like stinky, just because your side resorts to anything bar science to shove CO2 end of the world stuff down people throats doesn't mean everyone plays like that.

But your side playing like that thinks everyone plays like that.

Not so our side are just facts............choke on a few et als why don't you....!!!!

Can you even understand them you red arse smelly ape.

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

[quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier.

You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors.

Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though.

I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to.

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

But your side playing like that thinks everyone plays like that. Not so our side are just facts............choke on a few et als why don't you....!!!! Can you even understand them you red arse smelly ape.

Shonky pseudoscience, misinterpretation of scientific papers and cherry picking.  Slip in a few Lower Tropospheric temperatures to
demonstrate a hiatus and hope that nobody notices,

Anything but facts. It's a cottage manufacturing industry, manufacturing lies and shonky data. It doesn't cost much to manufacture lies because nobody has to do any real research. Just lie about existing research. 

John_Taverner wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 7:54pm: [quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors. Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though. I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to.

So what you're saying is once man starting spewing CO2 into the atmosphere that became the driver of temperature here Earth........??????

You know that we have 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment from natural and manmade sources and from that total 0.04% man contribution is about 4% of the total atmospheric CO2 budget.

You also know that if the sun for some reason or another sneezes the natural budget of CO2 here on Earth has the potential to double in size, dwarfing anything man can emit.

So what do we have today, today we have man pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere like never before.

Since 1998 more than probably half of all CO2 that man has emitted has gone up into the atmosphere, I can remember exactly how many gigatonnes but about half man's total emissions since 1998.

What's happening to the temperature......??????

Its not increasing like the IPCC said it would, its actually tapered off, remained steady, yet man is pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7.

Why have temperatures stagnated while CO2 is mechanical injected into the atmosphere 8-).

Many papers have predicted that we have enetered into a new maunder minimum and that temperatures will fall for the next 30 years or so, even though man is pumping more CO2 than ever into the atmosphere.

This proves one thing that CO2 doesn't control temperature here on Earth dummy, the sun does.

It always has.

John_Taverner wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 5:26am:

Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 9:09pm: But your side playing like that thinks everyone plays like that. Not so our side are just facts............choke on a few et als why don't you....!!!! Can you even understand them you red arse smelly ape. Shonky pseudoscience, misinterpretation of scientific papers and cherry picking.  Slip in a few Lower Tropospheric temperatures to demonstrate a hiatus and hope that nobody notices, Anything but facts. It's a cottage manufacturing industry, manufacturing lies and shonky data. It doesn't cost much to manufacture lies because nobody has to do any real research. Just lie about existing research.

You're really starting to sound like an algorian from the al gore church of climatology, pathetic that you could knock so many papers from around the world in just a heart beat without knowing their context.

You sir are an imbecile parading around like a man of the know.......LMFAO......... ;D ;) :) 8-)

John_Taverner wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 7:54pm: [quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors. Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though. I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to.

So how relevant is the sun to the current/recent climate activity, 75%? 90%? 95%??

John_Taverner wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Can you quote any time there were not coal and peat fires that were not caused by man?

Steinhilber and Beer

One of the magnificent 71 that Ajax the clown copied and pasted from a fossil web site can apparently predict solar activity for NEXT 500 years. Yes ladies and gentlemen these two geniuses use computer modeling techniques to generate solutions to their theoretical equations over a time scale of 5 centuries. Ajax accepts these predictions as accurate, sublime, supreme, scientific and valid ladies and gentlemen.

Poor Sooky Sooky Batman

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50210/abstract
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7mrtx7xWA1rrpmdg.gif

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

John_Taverner wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 5:19am: Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 7:54pm: [quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors. Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though. I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to. So how relevant is the sun to the current/recent climate activity, 75%? 90%? 95%??

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1432893299;virboard=;quote=7;title=PostReply

That is your question answered Gizmo.

Can can you answer a question and not run away?

On another thread you claimed that global glacial ice mass  was "going up".

This is contrary to all published results - for example:

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013.
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

You really should apologise for telling lies Gizmo before you post again on here.   You were caught red-handed.

If you don't agree - please prove me wrong right now and post some evidence to support your statement that global glacial ice mass is "going up".


We are waiting Gizmo

Have you actually read any of them?  Just curious before I check some of them out.

Also do you have the titles so they are easier to find?

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 10:16am: John_Taverner wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 5:19am: Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 7:54pm: [quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors. Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though. I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to. So how relevant is the sun to the current/recent climate activity, 75%? 90%? 95%?? The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1432893299;virboard=;quote=7;title=PostReply That is your question answered Gizmo. Can can you answer a question and not run away? On another thread you claimed that global glacial ice mass  was "going up". This is contrary to all published results - for example: The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013. http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html You really should apologise for telling lies Gizmo before you post again on here.   You were caught red-handed. If you don't agree - please prove me wrong right now and post some evidence to support your statement that global glacial ice mass is "going up". We are waiting Gizmo

Well I hope you are holding your breath too.
Because I already did provide evidence that global glacial ice mass is going up.

And by the way rabbit, the question was how much of the warming during the previous warm periods, such as Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and the Medieval Warm Period, was caused by the sun, and what percentage is the sun responsible for in the recent warming??

Well Batman?

What do you think about Steinhilber and Beer's solar predictions for the next 500 years?

Are you as concerned for the accuracy of their predictions as you are for 50 year Climate modeling?

You appear to be very quiet Ajax

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Well Batman? What do you think about Steinhilber and Beer's solar predictions for the next 500 years? Are you as concerned for the accuracy of their predictions as you are for 50 year Climate modeling? You appear to be very quiet Ajax

Dear Chimp,
go find a tree & start swinging around -

I'm sure you're good at it.

forgiven

namaste

Jethro, whilst you were gone the Great Ajax has copied and pasted yet another list of names. A list which doesnt have the name Sircus included.

Did you notice that Jethro.

Do you think that Batman needs to apologise after he stops sooky, sooky, cry babying???

https://drawception.com/pub/panels/2012/8-5/3p6h7A5j12-10.png

Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear.
https://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k

Chimp & Marla don't believe in the Ice Age which has already started.

Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


namaste

Having read several now, it would appear that none of them so far seem to be supporting your claim that co2 does not effect climate change.

Have you read any of the articles you provided?

Jethro did you check any of the 71 names on batman's latest copy and paste list?

Like you did with the Great Dr Sircus, the acupuncturist who can cure cancer with magnesium tablets and kitchen grade Baking Soda.

Did you know that Dr Sircus is also a part time climate analysts? ;D

Marla wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 2:42am:

Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear.

My dear Miss Muffet if you had two bob between your ears, you would realise that even though CO2 is a green house gas and yes CO2 does help to heat the Earth up.

CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor that it and all the other trace gases combined only account for one percent of the green house effect here on Earth.

Water vapour and clouds account for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth.

Now runaway and open some text book to do some studies.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Well Batman? What do you think about Steinhilber and Beer's solar predictions for the next 500 years? Are you as concerned for the accuracy of their predictions as you are for 50 year Climate modeling? You appear to be very quiet Ajax

Up to your old tricks again maggot mouth.

Show me what your talking about or shut TFU.

He's given you the researchers, and the answer is in the title of their paper.

Again, have you actually read any of these?

Stratos wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 10:03am:

He's given you the researchers, and the answer is in the title of their paper. Again, have you actually read any of these?

Stratos my Greek friend if you had taken the time to go onto the link that I have provided for all to see.

You will see that there is a synopsis of everyone of those 71 papers.

So learn how to read English dude.

Here it is for you once more.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

You will see that there is a synopsis of everyone of those 71 papers.

Yes, including the one that predicts solar activity for the next 500 years.

probs shouldn't be on the list as it doesn't even mention co2, so is irrelevant to supporting your claim by the way.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50210/full

Stratos wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 6:58am:

Having read several now, it would appear that none of them so far seem to be supporting your claim that co2 does not effect climate change. Have you read any of the articles you provided?

Hey stratos you sound like a troll....!!!!!!

You're not chimp are you......??????

I say that stratos and chimp are the same person.....?????

Now did you pay to read these papers......???????

That's the only way you could have read them....???

You sir are a troll and I say you're chimp in cognito...!!!

Maggot mouth......!!!!!!!

I actually linked you a free version of the article.

Thanks for giving away the blatant fact that you didn't even check however, good job.

Stratos wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 10:19am:

Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 10:06am: You will see that there is a synopsis of everyone of those 71 papers. Yes, including the one that predicts solar activity for the next 500 years. probs shouldn't be on the list as it doesn't even mention co2, so is irrelevant to supporting your claim by the way. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50210/full

hey maggot mouth how's it going.

Do you dress in drag as well......?????

You're despicable.....!!!

http://i58.tinypic.com/28up5pe.jpg

Hey stratos / chimp so typical of students from the al gore church of climatology, they pick a snippet out of a document and twist it to their liking.

Now you have read in that document that this paper is going to predict solar activity for the next 500 years.

And you critise this.

You don't tell us that its based on the exact same thing as predicting long term climate change...you despicable character.

Or do you tell us that they have tested this method for past years and gauged their results against observations and other papers written by other scientist.

You're so low you're lower than a used car sales man.

Stratos or chimpy ...more like w@nker

Below is a graph from this paper which shows how their method has worked for past years against observed data and other papers written by other scientists.

http://i62.tinypic.com/28l3scj.jpg

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 10:46am:

Now you have read in that document that this paper is going to predict solar activity for the next 500 years.

Indeed.  It also doesn't mention carbon dioxide at all, which means it is irrelevant to the claim being made, that co2 doesn't effect climate change.

One of many on that list that doesn't mention carbon in relation to climate change at all.

Jethro, have you examined some of the names on Ajax's new list of misinterpreted researchers who dont even know their names are used in this scandalous and deceitful way? 37% of them are deranged crack pot freak maggots, but lets be fair to the rest of them Jethro - BE FAIR mate.

At least you checked on Dr Sircus, didnt you Jethro? You verified that Dr Sircus and his clowns can cure cancer with Kitchen grade Baking soda and magnesium tablets didnt you Jethro?

Have you noticed how cry baby sooky sooky Batman,  posts multiple threads with his copy and paste lunacy?

Stratos wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:14am:

Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 10:46am: Now you have read in that document that this paper is going to predict solar activity for the next 500 years. Indeed.  It also doesn't mention carbon dioxide at all, which means it is irrelevant to the claim being made, that co2 doesn't effect climate change. One of many on that list that doesn't mention carbon in relation to climate change at all.

My dear chimp stratos why should they mention CO2, they are proving that the temperature here on Earth is dominated by the SUN you know that big yellow thing in the sky.

Sorry CO2 is the centre piece of all you alarmist zealots but that's where it ends.

CO2 is a trace gas, if you combine all the trace gases in our atmosphere they only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:18am:

Jethro, have you examined some of the names on Ajax's new list of misinterpreted researchers who dont even know their names are used in this scandalous and deceitful way? 37% of them are deranged crack pot freak maggots, but lets be fair to the rest of them Jethro - BE FAIR mate. At least you checked on Dr Sircus, didnt you Jethro? You verified that Dr Sircus and his clowns can cure cancer with Kitchen grade Baking soda and magnesium tablets didnt you Jethro? Have you noticed how cry baby sooky sooky Batman,  posts multiple threads with his copy and paste lunacy?

Trying to hide the truth is like kicking bolders with your bare feet.

You can't win stratos my hairy chimp.

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:19am:

My dear chimp stratos why should they mention CO2

Only if they wanted to prove that only the sun is the only cause of warming I guess.

Shame that is exactly what you are claiming I guess.  You need to find better studies if that is the case.

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:19am:

Stratos wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 11:14am: Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 10:46am: Now you have read in that document that this paper is going to predict solar activity for the next 500 years. Indeed.  It also doesn't mention carbon dioxide at all, which means it is irrelevant to the claim being made, that co2 doesn't effect climate change. One of many on that list that doesn't mention carbon in relation to climate change at all. My dear chimp stratos why should they mention CO2, they are proving that the temperature here on Earth is dominated by the SUN you know that big yellow thing in the sky. Sorry CO2 is the centre piece of all you alarmist zealots but that's where it ends. CO2 is a trace gas, if you combine all the trace gases in our atmosphere they only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect.

At least read the references you post Batcrap.

...that is if we had articles....you only posts names and a year. How convenient.

Do these people know you have cut and pasted their work from crack pot web sites and then attributed fossil fuel spin to their names??

I wonder if the GREAT Ajax, believes in Steinhilber and Beer's 500 year solar predictions? They used computers, and pencil and paper and everything ladies and gentlemen.

Hey Stratos my hairy chimp, I have a date with a beautiful woman so I will read all your poo when I get back or maybe tomorrow.....pooaway maggot mouth... 8-)

batcrap running away again - frightened like a smelly little bat

Poor poor batman, he is under a lot of pressure for being exposed as a clown and deception spreader

Poor poor Ajax - cant defend his BS so he makes up yet more stories about mythical dates with ladies

See what happens Batcrap when you are caught red handed lying in your posts, day after day after day after day? Anything you say afterwards is taken with a grain of salt - your credibility is shot to pieces Batcrap.
;D ;D ;D
http://prettierhair.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Batman-Scared-Face-Expression.png

Marla wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 2:42am:

Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear.

No rebuttal of what I posted on your Koch Bros compilation? Surely you have a reasoned response, with references to back them up.

NOAA, the website with the 'hottest year evah' says 1997 to present has warming at 0.68 C per century; .007C per year. Do you really think the instruments that accurate?

What about accelerating sea level rise?

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:58am:

Marla wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 2:42am: Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear. No rebuttal of what I posted on your Koch Bros compilation? Surely you have a reasoned response, with references to back them up. NOAA, the website with the 'hottest year evah' says 1997 to present has warming at 0.68 C per century; .007C per year. Do you really think the instruments that accurate? What about accelerating sea level rise? Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

All measurement is probability. That's why all good science is associated with error value!

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:19am:

Stratos wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 11:14am: Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 10:46am: Now you have read in that document that this paper is going to predict solar activity for the next 500 years. Indeed.  It also doesn't mention carbon dioxide at all, which means it is irrelevant to the claim being made, that co2 doesn't effect climate change. One of many on that list that doesn't mention carbon in relation to climate change at all. My dear chimp stratos why should they mention CO2, they are proving that the temperature here on Earth is dominated by the SUN you know that big yellow thing in the sky. Sorry CO2 is the centre piece of all you alarmist zealots but that's where it ends. CO2 is a trace gas, if you combine all the trace gases in our atmosphere they only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect.

CO2 causes water vapour!

FMD you're a loser  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 9:39am:

Marla wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 2:42am: Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear. My dear Miss Muffet if you had two bob between your ears, you would realise that even though CO2 is a green house gas and yes CO2 does help to heat the Earth up. CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor that it and all the other trace gases combined only account for one percent of the green house effect here on Earth. Water vapour and clouds account for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Now runaway and open some text book to do some studies.

How about I tell you for the trillionth time: water is in a cycle!

  ** I can't keep giving you the reach around buddy: I'm a wanted man bro  :D :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 1:50am:

That's why all good science is associated with error value!

Bad science too.

And yes NOAA, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.09C drowns the trend.

'This may be written in shorthand as "+0.69°C ±0.09°C". Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval".'

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

Unless you think the unceratinty was less in the past.

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:09am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 1:50am: That's why all good science is associated with error value! Bad science too. And yes NOAA, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.09C drowns the trend. 'This may be written in shorthand as "+0.69°C ±0.09°C". Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval".' http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 Unless you think the unceratinty was less in the past.

such colourful language bat guy with a bored crack pipe: do you trick little kiddies with such colourful language or are you just happy to see me  ::) ::)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

I see NOAA, fresh from a "new version of the dataset" in 2014, which somehow, unrelated, gave us "the hottest year evah", is going to update the dataset again, next week. Any bets on a new "hottest year evah"?

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 4:38pm:

I see NOAA, fresh from a "new version of the dataset" in 2014, which somehow, unrelated, gave us "the hottest year evah", is going to update the dataset again, next week. Any bets on a new "hottest year evah"?

-->the topic refers to "document shock" i.e. propaganda, which by definition is simplistic!

You mean like 97% of scientists, CO2 is the 'control knob'?

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:26pm:

You mean like 97% of scientists, CO2 is the 'control knob'?

No, I mean like:"lee is pretending he doesn't know what document shock is!!!!!  :D :D"

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 2:06am:

Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 9:39am: Marla wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 2:42am: Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear. My dear Miss Muffet if you had two bob between your ears, you would realise that even though CO2 is a green house gas and yes CO2 does help to heat the Earth up. CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor that it and all the other trace gases combined only account for one percent of the green house effect here on Earth. Water vapour and clouds account for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Now runaway and open some text book to do some studies. How about I tell you for the trillionth time: water is in a cycle!   ** I can't keep giving you the reach around buddy: I'm a wanted man bro  :D :D :D :D :D

Hi Cerberus I know you struggle to understand things so let me correct your error.

Water is in the cycle should be Water is the cycle..!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 9:33pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 8:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 10:16am: John_Taverner wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 5:19am: Ajax wrote on May 29th, 2015 at 7:54pm: [quote]71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2 Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. You idiot. Of course the sun controlled climate over geological time. That's because there were no emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that the sun is not relevant. Nobody is saying that there are no other factors. Find a single paper that states that anthropogenc CO2 will not cause an increases in global temperature though. I'm not going to delve into Cirque de Soleil's list, but somebody else might want to. So how relevant is the sun to the current/recent climate activity, 75%? 90%? 95%?? The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1432893299;virboard=;quote=7;title=PostReply That is your question answered Gizmo. Can can you answer a question and not run away? On another thread you claimed that global glacial ice mass  was "going up". This is contrary to all published results - for example: The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013. http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html You really should apologise for telling lies Gizmo before you post again on here.   You were caught red-handed. If you don't agree - please prove me wrong right now and post some evidence to support your statement that global glacial ice mass is "going up". We are waiting Gizmo Well I hope you are holding your breath too. Because I already did provide evidence that global glacial ice mass is going up.

No you haven't Gizmo.  Don't compound your lie and make it worse.

You said: global glacial ice mass is "going up".
Post your evidence here.  Now.  Or apologise for telling lies.

We are waiting Gizmo.




gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 9:33pm:

And by the way rabbit, the question was how much of the warming during the previous warm periods, such as Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and the Medieval Warm Period, was caused by the sun, and what percentage is the sun responsible for in the recent warming??

You told a lie Gizmo.  You said that global glacial mass balance is going up

We are still waiting for your evidence - you liar.

Stop running away Gizmo.  I have called you a liar Gizmo.  Prove me wrong.  Show us evidence that  global glacial mass balance is going up.

Let's see it Liar.

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 9:39am:

CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor

So CO2 is a bit like brain cells in your case? 

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:26pm:

You mean like 97% of scientists, CO2 is the 'control knob'?

You're saying complex systems with feedback mechanisms don't exist ?

Ajax wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:06am: Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 9:39am: Marla wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 2:42am: Bat Boy post more Koch Brothers rhetoric. Oh dear. My dear Miss Muffet if you had two bob between your ears, you would realise that even though CO2 is a green house gas and yes CO2 does help to heat the Earth up. CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor that it and all the other trace gases combined only account for one percent of the green house effect here on Earth. Water vapour and clouds account for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Now runaway and open some text book to do some studies. How about I tell you for the trillionth time: water is in a cycle!   ** I can't keep giving you the reach around buddy: I'm a wanted man bro  :D :D :D :D :D Hi Cerberus I know you struggle to understand things so let me correct your error. Water is in the cycle should be Water is the cycle..!!

lol, so complex systems with feedback mechanisms don't exist?

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 10:08am:

Ajax wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 9:39am: CO2 is present in such small quantities (that's why its a trace gas) its so minor So CO2 is a bit like brain cells in your case?

Well if its not the pot calling the kettle black.....????

If your so smart how can you take the word of the IPCC that all global warming is due to mans emissions of CO2, because their computer models say so.

What other evidence have you got other than the IPCC computer models........??????????

Do you have evidence of global mean temperature other than referring to models prepared by climate scientists?

(or meddled with by Bob Tisdale)

try here-

http://www.thegwpf.com/ross-mckitrick-a-first-look-at-karl-et-al-2015/

Graphs from climate4you and nature.com

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 4:25pm:

try here- http://www.thegwpf.com/ross-mckitrick-a-first-look-at-karl-et-al-2015/ Graphs from climate4you and nature.com

More document shock- looks professional apart from the logical analysis of course.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 4:12pm:

Do you have evidence of global mean temperature other than referring to models prepared by climate scientists? (or meddled with by Bob Tisdale)

Of course we do, where do you think our evidence to counter the IPCC climate models comes from....????

Weather ballons, satelites, the ARGO, thermometers etc.

The output of theoretical models is NOT data.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

The output of theoretical models is NOT data.

What is data, einstein?

lee doesn't have a clue: watch him dodge answering this question... who bets he will get a slave to answer it for him  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

go slavery and blueblooded fascists like lee yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

The output of theoretical models is NOT data.

So true........ 8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

What is data, einstein?

Well, I have never claimed to be Einstein.

What I wrote was -

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

The output of theoretical models is NOT data.

The IPCC Climate models are examples of theoretical models.  What they do is they use some physics input into the computer, and some "parameters" (numbers), for those things that the computer can't do. (BTW computer modellers are not computer scientists). So we have a mixture of both science and best guesses. In other words wishful thinking. The output of such a process cannot be called data.

Now if we were to ignore that and say for the sake of argument that climate models output "data"; then we now have a problem.

The IPCC climate models say we have warming of 0.29C/decade. Now that is the mean of the models-  some higher and some lower.

Karl et al (2015), say that the "data" shows warming is 0.116/decade, less than half the warming of the Climate models.


So two lots of "data", with completely differing results. Which "data" set do you prefer?

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 13th, 2015 at 11:13am: What is data, einstein? Well, I have never claimed to be Einstein. What I wrote was - lee wrote on Jun 12th, 2015 at 5:28pm: The output of theoretical models is NOT data. The IPCC Climate models are examples of theoretical models.  What they do is they use some physics input into the computer, and some "parameters" (numbers), for those things that the computer can't do. (BTW computer modellers are not computer scientists). So we have a mixture of both science and best guesses. In other words wishful thinking. The output of such a process cannot be called data. Now if we were to ignore that and say for the sake of argument that climate models output "data"; then we now have a problem. The IPCC climate models say we have warming of 0.29C/decade. Now that is the mean of the models-  some higher and some lower. Karl et al (2015), say that the "data" shows warming is 0.116/decade, less than half the warming of the Climate models. So two lots of "data", with completely differing results. Which "data" set do you prefer?

Lee can't give a deifintion for 'data' : thanx for playing lee  :D :D

Science is all about definitions btw but lee is just a shite breathing child hater that just happens to love smoking crack with his landlord daddy loving mates who all inherited wealth so who cares  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

_{Hey, don't forget to carry the point bugger all percent so your girlfriend/temporary wife doesn't roll her eyes tonight  ;)}

Theoretical computer models like the IPCC uses don't produce data.

Data comes from real world observations, like weather balloons, satellites, the ARGO etc.

Put your three heads together Cerberus and maybe...maybe you will work it out for yourself..

Nahhhh your just s dumb **** that doesn't know any better

The Argo buoys show serious ocean warming of 0.023C/decade, I guess that's why Karl et al didn't include them.