Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada.com)   Good news: Climate change isn't going to kill us all. Bad news: Ocean acidification caused by climate change is going to kill us all   (canada.com) divider line 330
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6505 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2011 at 4:47 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-14 06:37:45 PM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: No you moron, I rejected proxy data as a means to determine that the temperature of the earth was cooler in the past than it is now. I never said anything beyond that one point. The proxy temperature data is not accurate enough to be used in the AGW research because the margin of error is.... forget it, you are too stupid to understand.
I have to disagree a bit with this. While it is true that attempting to read temperatures to, say, 0.1K resolution from proxy data is pretty much a chumps' game, proxy data IS useful in that it can rather accurately show TRENDS in temperature. Before their corruption, the IPCC recognized this, as evidenced by their 1990 graph of historical temperature, reproduced here:

[www.realclimate.org image 507x247]

Also, if you are using the fraudulent reports from Michael Mann, you will get a bad impression of proxy data. Tree rings are used for some temperature proxy data. Tree rings are ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall. Tree growth is only slightly affected by temperature, and it is NOT possible to hold all the OTHER factors for tree growth stable. But, as I've posted before, if you look at more recent proxy data WITHOUT the tree rings, here is what you see:

[i54.tinypic.com image 600x368]

They are, as one might expect, rather similar. That differs from the warmer alarmist data in that it is based upon... well, it's complicated. Michael Mann originally released the "hockey stick" graph, assuming that people would just accept it, seeing as it was "peer-reviewed." But, since it differed quite a bit from previous versions of historical data, it was looked into. And, when it was looked into, it was discovered to be at best in error, and more likely deliberately fraudulent. The program "enhanced" the data so much that over 90% of random data sets fed into it produced a "hockey stick" graph.

With that out of the bag, Mann got with Keith "one tree" Briffa to produce a study of previous data that would support the graph, irrespective of its fraudulence. Briffa came through, by finding a grove of trees, and using only data from that grove, in fact, for a long period, using the rings of ONE TREE to represent global temperature. But that tree reacted to life in a way that supported AGW, so the rest were discarded. (This makes me laugh when people biatch about me using the Central England thermometer readings -- actual instruments, over a good part of Central England is bad, one proxy tree is fine.)

Incidentally, just putting all the (non-tree-ring) proxy data together looks a lot like this average of 18 data sets:

[ossfoundation.us image 640x502]

And, again, note that this is like the other two, quite precisely, except that it covers twice as much time.

But, what Mann is trying to push is a history that looks like this:

[www.worldclimatereport.com image 536x374]
Which is 'supported' by the data (especially tree-ring data) processed (cherry-picked) later, as this:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 350x258]


You are correct in that it does show trends but it is the part about wanting to compare it to the data after 1850 that is the problem I have with it.
 
2011-09-14 06:45:03 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie:


[www.sectalk.com image 640x512]

That's about what I figured you'd say, Nicksteel.

There's no shame in admitting you don't understand something and asking for help, but when it's bloody obvious you have no background in the subject you're trying to speak on, yet you carry on as if you do anyway, you are 1) making a complete fool of yourself, and 2) encouraging anyone with an open and rational mind to not take you or your argument the least bit seriously, which is pretty counterproductive if you're trying to convince someone to think the way you do, which is apparently your motivation for showing up in these threads. You're accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're trying to do in the first place, in other words.


I do not need your help in understanding anything. Your problem is that you do not understand what I have tried repeatedly to tell you. You take the typical fark action by expanding what I said into something far beyond what I said so that you can use it to attack my earlier statement. If you actually had the intelligence to actual address what I said and not expand it, I might have a bit of respect for you. But your dishonesty ruined any chance of that.
 
2011-09-14 07:15:07 PM  
guyinjeep16:
GeneralJim: guyinjeep16: Did you really just post a chart starting in 1998?

You are so pathetic, have fun guy.

You are a major jackass. You know that, right? Yeah, the end of warming, for now, is recent. It's a 60-year cycle. It cooled from around the 40s to the 70s, warmed until around 2000, and should cool for about 30 years.

Hoo boy, you are WAY too fond of the "OMG you think X. I can't believe you are so stupid" construction. It makes you look dickish. Do you have ANYTHING but feigned shock and insults?


[notrickszone.com image 640x330]

Look- you obviously dont study this topic, you might be able to fool a few uneducated people on fark but thats really it.

I read your posts and there is just nothing there, not a thing.

You are so angry about it that I dont even know what to say.

Here's a clue, twuntwaffle: You. Cannot. Read. Minds. Really. Your claims to do so are only making you look dickish, and the better you hide that, the better your public image will be. While the knowing perfidy of Snowjob DOES anger me, as any attempt to fark up the process of science deliberately does, YOU are simply comic relief.

I asked you you have ANYTHING but feigned shock and insults. Apparently, the answer is "no." Here, wise up. Read THIS. (new window)
 
2011-09-14 07:50:01 PM  
guyinjeep16:
Sunrise is used in many thousands of scientific meteorological applications.

So far you have no business even THINKING about discussing these issues.

Its like Im arguing with Jack Handley of "Deep Thoughts" here.

The point at which the sun rays hit the earth "isnt scientific" REALLY man, REALLY???

Are you just playing stupid now? Cause I dont get how you could be this stupid.

See what I mean? Comic relief. A good laugh eases the tension. To paraphrase the brilliant Joe Theisman, you're no Norman Einstein, are you?

As I pointed out, the Sun does not RISE in the sky, the Earth rotates, exposing different parts of the surface to the Sun. It has long been called "sunrise" in English, since before the time we knew the Earth went around the Sun. The term made sense then, but it doesn't, really, now. "Dawn" is a word without the incorrect geocentric ideas built into it.

In the same way, there is a disease caused by a microorganism called malaria. Malaria means "bad air" in Italian, and it was originally thought that damp, musty air causes malaria. We know better now, but it's still called malaria. I'm sure there are many more.
 
2011-09-14 07:51:04 PM  

GeneralJim: Before their corruption, the IPCC recognized this, as evidenced by their 1990 graph of historical temperature


Yawn.

http://www.fark.com/comments/5910562/66541431#c66541431

http://www.fark.com/comments/5910562/66546058#c66546058

http://www.fark.com/comments/5934283/66751423#c66751423

More when I'm at an actual computer in case anyone (GeneralJim included) is actually interested why this is wrong.
 
2011-09-14 07:55:29 PM  
chuckufarlie:
All of them?? He provided a copy pasta to prove that he did not do copy pasta. How much more proof do you need?

By Jove! He's created fractal stupidity!
 
2011-09-14 08:10:30 PM  
chuckufarlie:
I do not need your help in understanding anything. Your problem is that you do not understand what I have tried repeatedly to tell you. You take the typical fark action by expanding what I said into something far beyond what I said so that you can use it to attack my earlier statement. If you actually had the intelligence to actual address what I said and not expand it, I might have a bit of respect for you. But your dishonesty ruined any chance of that.

Let me phrase this in the most elementary way possible.

(1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature.
(2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age.
(3) Both (1) and (2) are rooted in the same basic chemical principles.
(4) It is logically inconsistent to arbitrarily assert that (1) works and (2) doesn't or vice verse.
(5) I am asking you to explain this inconsistency.

That is neither an arbitrary extension of nor an attack on your original statement. It is a legitimate question based on your postulate. Can you or can you not explain it?
 
2011-09-14 08:48:22 PM  
Jon Snow:
Back in reality, the AMO doesn't even account for the majority of the observed warming in the North Atlantic (rather anthropogenic warming does), let alone the global trend[1]:

See? This is why you are a jackass. There is NO ONE FACTOR CONTROLLING TEMPERATURE, NUMBNUTS. Hello? Do the words "mathematically chaotic system" mean anything to you? There are a whole slew of factors, almost certainly including a few about which we know nothing, that have an effect on the temperature.

The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation. And then CERN gagged their scientists from speaking about the possible falsification of AGW that this strongly suggests.

i52.tinypic.com

GeneralJim: well, that and very low solar activity

Back in reality, all solar trends are either flat or in the opposite direction necessary to be driving global temperature changes[2][3][4][5].

Whoopsie. It seems you've copied your pasta from the wrong place. Crap, is "misplagiarized" even a word? Well, dammit, is is NOW. And, incidentally, continual repetition of this piece of crap does NOTHING to make it more true. That only works in politics. Oh, wait, this IS politics.

Solar activity is incredibly low now, and has been for a while. After a run of intense solar activity, with sunspot-free days of between 272 and 309, covering
the period of August 1964 to May of 1996, the next cycle, cycle 23, had solar activity drop to having 820 sunspot-free days. The current cycle, cycle 24, looks LOTS weaker, and some astrophysicists believe that there may not BE a cycle 25. The last time that happened was the Maunder Minimum. There is most likely a causal link between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.

So, in other words, you probably read the graph wrong, bonehead. If you're going to play at Fark Scientist, at least get the right copypasta. Pffft. Amateurs.
 
2011-09-14 08:55:08 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie:
I do not need your help in understanding anything. Your problem is that you do not understand what I have tried repeatedly to tell you. You take the typical fark action by expanding what I said into something far beyond what I said so that you can use it to attack my earlier statement. If you actually had the intelligence to actual address what I said and not expand it, I might have a bit of respect for you. But your dishonesty ruined any chance of that.

Let me phrase this in the most elementary way possible.

(1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature.
(2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age.
(3) Both (1) and (2) are rooted in the same basic chemical principles.
(4) It is logically inconsistent to arbitrarily assert that (1) works and (2) doesn't or vice verse.
(5) I am asking you to explain this inconsistency.

That is neither an arbitrary extension of nor an attack on your original statement. It is a legitimate question based on your postulate. Can you or can you not explain it?


Wow, you are the most obtuse person on the internet. Let me address your "points".

(1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature. I NEVER SAID THAT.
(2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age. I NEVER SAID THAT.
(3) Both (1) and (2) are rooted in the same basic chemical principles. POINTLESS
(4) It is logically inconsistent to arbitrarily assert that (1) works and (2) doesn't or vice verse. POINTLESS
(5) I am asking you to explain this inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. You have been stupid from the beginning.
 
2011-09-14 08:55:55 PM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: All of them?? He provided a copy pasta to prove that he did not do copy pasta. How much more proof do you need?
By Jove! He's created fractal stupidity!


I guess he is not worthless after all.
 
2011-09-14 09:00:50 PM  
guyinjeep16:
When you are on a location on the earth and the sun rises over the horizon and strikes the ground, its called sunrise.

I see two errors even without a Google search. First, the sun does not rise over the horizon, and, second, it doesn't strike the ground. Personally, I LIKE the fact that that mean bastard is about 94 million miles away. I hear it's pretty hot. You don't want that striking the ground, no siree.

But, please, may we have another round of sputtering idiocy? It is HIGHLY entertaining.


2pep.com
 
2011-09-14 09:06:24 PM  
The Envoy:
ITT: Everybody's favourite denier clowns failing utterly to understand one of the most obvious colloquialisms in history.

images.icanhascheezburger.com
 
2011-09-14 09:09:53 PM  
chuckufarlie:
Now, unless you two have some sort of personal relationship, I see no reason to continue this discussion about a person who is obviously not interested in defending himself. Gee, I wonder why?????


www.techno-crunch.com
There's an alt for that...
 
2011-09-14 09:12:46 PM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Now, unless you two have some sort of personal relationship, I see no reason to continue this discussion about a person who is obviously not interested in defending himself. Gee, I wonder why?????

[www.techno-crunch.com image 375x400]
There's an alt for that...


you are on your game this evening.
 
2011-09-14 09:18:01 PM  
Jon Snow:
I have no idea whether you're intentionally lying, or just incredibly stupid. And frankly, I don't care.

Would you like to retract your demonstrably false accusations? Or can we just add this to the pile of evidence demonstrating that you lack anything remotely approaching intellectual honesty?

I would think even YOUR egotistical ass would get tired after seeing the same post, over and over and over. You're what, twelve? Get back to 4chan.

i598.photobucket.com
 
2011-09-14 09:36:02 PM  
The Envoy:
Are you capable of answering anything without throwing in an ad hominem? Well, at least you're not still copy pasta'ing those global warming consensus lies.

Oh, yeah, thanks for the reminder, assface.

/ ... and you're conflating ad hominem argumentation with insults, douchenozzle.


Errors in Scientific Data, Programs, and Methodology

Computer source code shows data manipulation. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer-Review is Completely Corrupt

Climate Science Needs Light -- Climatology Peer Review Process Irreparably Broken. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Used Greenpeace Campaigner To Write 'Impartial' Report On Renewable Energy, and review his own work. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer Review Process Failure: "Impossible" Conclusions in alarmist paper pass peer-review; AAAS withdraws paper. Article HERE. (new window)

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Article HERE. (new window)

And, here is a list of some of the gross errors in scientific method and practice which have become part of the IPCC credo. List HERE. (new window)

Scientific Errors Made by the IPCC

IPCC science includes the idea that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere more than 100 years, contradicting ALL of the available peer-reviewed research. Chart HERE. (new window)
Discussion HERE. (new window)

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming (new window) (This paper not published in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (new window) (This research may be a flier.)

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing (new window)

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (new window)

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models:
A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations
(new window)

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (new window)
Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine

Attempts to Deny the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

History of climate gets 'erased' online. Article HERE. (new window)

First, the metric arse-load of data showing the MWP is HERE. (new window)

M.I.T. Technology Review: Hockey Stick is Bogus. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones admits MWP was real. Article HERE. (new window)

U.N., IPCC, CRUnies, and Dr. Pachauri Specific Corruption

IPCC Official: "Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth." Article HERE. (new window)

The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income. Article HERE. (new window)

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief. Article HERE. (new window)

Michael Mann Accused of More False Reporting. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Literature is not peer-reviewed or error-checked. Report HERE. (new window)

Data Manipulation Fraud

Accounting auditing brought to bear on climate data. It is discovered that NASA's GISS data and the Hadley CRU's data have been manufactured. That is, faked. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA's James Hansen's Lies, Miscues, Incorrect Forecasts, and Fraud

James Hansen Apologizes for Using Next Year's Climate Data in October Report. Article HERE. (new window)

James Hansen Caught Altering Data to Eliminate Cooling. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption at NASA's GISS - Article HERE. (new window)

Some of his lies, follies, and idiocies are documented HERE. (new window)

Examination and analysis of James Hansen's bullshiat forcing claims is HERE. (new window)

Climate Models that Don't

IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data. Article HERE. (new window)

Climate Models Ignore Effect of Albedo, which is larger than GHE. Article HERE. (new window)

"The Cloud Mystery" Videos

1/5 HERE. (new window)
2/5 HERE. (new window)
3/5 HERE. (new window)
4/5 HERE. (new window)
5/5 HERE. (new window)

The Consensus itself is a Fraud

Solar activity affects cosmic rays, cloud formation is suppressed, and the planet warms. A good article, including a link to the original paper, is found HERE. (new window)

Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities - Professors Speaking Up. Article HERE. (new window)

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

No Proof Man Causes Global Warming. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)

Personal, Financial, Professional Attacks on Skeptics and the public.

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide. Article HERE. (new window)

Scientists propose using "climate crisis" as excuse to set up scientific dictatorship. Review of their book HERE. (new window)

PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist. Article HERE. (new window)

 
2011-09-14 09:36:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: (1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature. I NEVER SAID THAT.
(2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age. I NEVER SAID THAT.



But you did, (1) in this thread and the one I linked earlier, and (2) in the thread I linked earlier, as anyone who cares to read them can see. This circular argument you're trying to make is plain silly. So again, can you defend your postulate, or not? This does beg the question though, do you acquiesce that radiometric dating (i.e. comparison of parent and daughter isotope ratios and half life) can be used to determine age, or not?

Surely you are not just trying to duck the question or stand by something just because someone told it to you and it sounded good like all those "warmers", especially considering you have such strong feelings on the subject.

chuckufarlie: It always amuses me when one of your warmers ducks a question. Your type does it all the time. Did you even read what I wrote? I doubt if you did. It would have been a waste of your time because you do not understand the position you support at a level high enough to actually discuss it. Somebody told you something that "sounded right" so you jumped on board. That is how 99% of the warmers have acted. The average warmer enters a battle of wits totally unarmed.

I'm certain it's just my low intelligence that makes it appear that way.
 
2011-09-14 09:41:48 PM  
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com :For those not acquainted, GeneralJim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists who want to destroy civilization as we know it. The following is a sampling of his material:


GeneralJim: TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.


GeneralJim: If not for the fact that literally TRILLIONS of dollars, and the control of almost all human activity, are at stake, the idea that carbon dioxide controls temperature would have disappeared.


GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.


GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator


GeneralJim: Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.


GeneralJim: The U.N. and U.S. leftist bungholes pushing this want to control essentially every human action. They have used just about every imaginable trick and underhanded ploy to get this that they can. Thank GOD the science is bouncing back, bringing questions to the Chicken Little scenario being used by the IPCC.


GeneralJim: This hard-left [Obama] administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition.

GeneralJim: They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.


GeneralJim: many in the green movement DO want humanity eliminated


GeneralJim: Observing history, I am led to the conclusion that somewhere along this path, those who set up the "green revolution" will find their heads on pikes as a warning to others, and the damage will be stemmed long before it reaches the state I describe above. Nonetheless, those initiating the legislation will be seen as more horrendous mass murderers than even Stalin, with his paltry 25 million kills.


GeneralJim: ...the point is to justify "taxing" energy use in some way, and sending money to the third world from the U.S. It is the U.N. behind it, and the Democrats are friendlier to the massive corruption of the U.N. than are Republicans.


GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.


GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash

 
2011-09-14 09:54:44 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: [i.imgur.com image 410x223]
[i.imgur.com image 54x11] :For those not acquainted, GeneralJim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists who want to destroy civilization as we know it. The following is a sampling of his material:
h


Another personal attack when you cannot attack his position. Type stupid warmer.
 
2011-09-14 09:59:51 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: (1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature. I NEVER SAID THAT.
(2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age. I NEVER SAID THAT.


But you did, (1) in this thread and the one I linked earlier, and (2) in the thread I linked earlier, as anyone who cares to read them can see. This circular argument you're trying to make is plain silly. So again, can you defend your postulate, or not? This does beg the question though, do you acquiesce that radiometric dating (i.e. comparison of parent and daughter isotope ratios and half life) can be used to determine age, or not?

Surely you are not just trying to duck the question or stand by something just because someone told it to you and it sounded good like all those "warmers", especially considering you have such strong feelings on the subject. chuckufarlie: It always amuses me when one of your warmers ducks a question. Your type does it all the time. Did you even read what I wrote? I doubt if you did. It would have been a waste of your time because you do not understand the position you support at a level high enough to actually discuss it. Somebody told you something that "sounded right" so you jumped on board. That is how 99% of the warmers have acted. The average warmer enters a battle of wits totally unarmed. I'm certain it's just my low intelligence that makes it appear that way.


www.allamericanblogger.com

I NEVER SAID THAT!!
 
2011-09-14 10:02:34 PM  

GeneralJim: The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.


Back in reality, the IPCC explicitly discusses the potential cosmic ray-cloud-climate interaction:

When solar activity is high, the more complex magnetic configuration of the heliosphere reduces the flux of galactic cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Various scenarios have been proposed whereby solar-induced galactic cosmic ray fluctuations might influence climate (as surveyed by Gray et al., 2005). Carslaw et al. (2002) suggested that since the plasma produced by cosmic ray ionization in the troposphere is part of an electric circuit that extends from the Earth's surface to the ionosphere, cosmic rays may affect thunderstorm electrification. By altering the population of CCN and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), cosmic rays may also induce processes analogous to the indirect effect of tropospheric aerosols. The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. In the case of low gas-phase sulphuric acid concentrations, ion-induced nucleation may dominate over binary sulphuric acid-water nucleation. In addition, increased ion nucleation and increased scavenging rates of aerosols in turbulent regions around clouds seem likely. Because of the difficulty in tracking the influence of one particular modification brought about by ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes, quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached.

Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance (Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.


GeneralJim: The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.


Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (the orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.
 
2011-09-14 10:03:52 PM  
dillengest:
GeneralJim:
However, the vastly increased flow of money (x 20) into climate research is dependent upon this hypothesis being supported...

You don't realise how deep the rabbit hole goes! Think about it, if there were no climate change skeptics the AGW hypothesis would be entirely accepted and no further research would be needed. Those AGW scientists created climate change skepticism in order to increase the flow of research money to climate research!

5/10. Not bad, but it needs more derp.

I have often wondered about the "bribery math" being used... If I suggest that literally trillions of dollars to distribute around the world might just motivate a U.N. delegate or bureaucrat, I'm a lunatic conspiracy theorist. If I suggest that the more than a billion dollars that lobbyists for the ecology movement are putting into the research mills might influence a scientist, why that's just plumb crazy! If I think the tens of billions of dollars spent on research by governments might make scientists want to keep the flow coming, I'm grossly insulting scientists. But, somehow, the couple tens of MILLIONS of dollars that the energy industry, in total, throws into the pot magically corrupts EVERYONE. Somehow, I think that scientists are better at math than that.
 
2011-09-14 10:08:15 PM  

Jon Snow: GeneralJim: The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.

Back in reality, the IPCC explicitly discusses the potential cosmic ray-cloud-climate interaction:

When solar activity is high, the more complex magnetic configuration of the heliosphere reduces the flux of galactic cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Various scenarios have been proposed whereby solar-induced galactic cosmic ray fluctuations might influence climate (as surveyed by Gray et al., 2005). Carslaw et al. (2002) suggested that since the plasma produced by cosmic ray ionization in the troposphere is part of an electric circuit that extends from the Earth's surface to the ionosphere, cosmic rays may affect thunderstorm electrification. By altering the population of CCN and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), cosmic rays may also induce processes analogous to the indirect effect of tropospheric aerosols. The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. In the case of low gas-phase sulphuric acid concentrations, ion-induced nucleation may dominate over binary sulphuric acid-water nucleation. In addition, increased ion nucleation and increased scavenging rates of aerosols in turbulent regions around clouds seem likely. Because of the difficulty in tracking the influence of one particular modification brought about by ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes, quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached.

Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance (Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.

GeneralJim: The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually inf ...


do you like tomato sauce or butter on your copy pasta?
 
2011-09-14 10:18:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: Another personal attack when you cannot attack his position. Type stupid warmer.


It's hardly a personal attack when it's a position he clearly admits to holding. "Another" implies that you've seen something else you've perceived as insulting, care to link it? So far all the name calling and derogatory remarks I've seen have come from you and your buddy Jim.

chuckufarlie: I NEVER SAID THAT!!


Whatever you say, Nicksteel. It's right there in black and white for everyone and anyone to read.
 
2011-09-14 10:30:44 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: Another personal attack when you cannot attack his position. Type stupid warmer.

It's hardly a personal attack when it's a position he clearly admits to holding. "Another" implies that you've seen something else you've perceived as insulting, care to link it? So far all the name calling and derogatory remarks I've seen have come from you and your buddy Jim.

chuckufarlie: I NEVER SAID THAT!!

Whatever you say, Nicksteel. It's right there in black and white for everyone and anyone to read.


NO, it is not right there. You just seem to believe that it is. And I am getting real tired of your bull headed stupidity. It is time for you to admit that you are an idiot because I am going to ignore any more of your willful stupidity on this topic.
 
2011-09-14 10:32:46 PM  

GeneralJim: See? This is why you are a jackass.


For pointing out that your claim (

GeneralJim: Yes, I did. [The detrended Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation] is what is underlying the change from a warming climate to a cooling one, well, that and very low solar activity, this time.

) is hideously stupid?

GeneralJim: Whoopsie. It seems you've copied your pasta from the wrong place.


What are you blabbering about?

GeneralJim: Solar activity is incredibly low now, and has been for a while. After a run of intense solar activity, with sunspot-free days of between 272 and 309, covering
the period of August 1964 to May of 1996, the next cycle, cycle 23, had solar activity drop to having 820 sunspot-free days. The current cycle, cycle 24, looks LOTS weaker, and some astrophysicists believe that there may not BE a cycle 25. The last time that happened was the Maunder Minimum. There is most likely a causal link between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.

So, in other words, you probably read the graph wrong, bonehead.


How in the hell do you think that you in any way made a cogent point, let alone one that actually rebutted something that I said? Do you think that arm-waving about a SC23 being quiet and the Maunder Minimum actually refutes the decades of observations of direct and indirect solar vs. temperature trends I cited?
 
2011-09-14 10:43:39 PM  
"We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

"It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

In other words - the models are messed up.

suppose the very intelligent people at the European Organization for Nuclear Research did not say anything at all like this, did they??
 
2011-09-14 10:44:39 PM  
chuckufarlie:
You are correct in that it does show trends but it is the part about wanting to compare it to the data after 1850 that is the problem I have with it.

Well, sure. But, one can do the various proxies on MODERN situations, albeit it is a bit more clumsy. I seem to recall a study that did proxy data up to a VERY recent date. The match wasn't bad, except, again, that the tree ring data just BLEW when we got to the last century. That's why that crap should be ignored. On the other hand, most of the other, more esoteric types of proxies seemed to be pretty darned good, and, with the tree ring proxy data removed, they matched the instrument record to a surprising degree.

And, don't forget -- however inaccurate they may be, it's better than not having any data at all. One merely needs to keep the accuracy limits in mind while using the data.

Actually, since the warmer alarmist position relies upon misrepresenting the past, proxy data can be your friend. For example, check out the Holocene temperature reconstruction below. It shows that temperatures in the longer scale have been dropping off since the last ice age ended. It also shows several areas in which temperatures have risen much faster than they are today. (That being one of the warmers' fallback positions.)


www.globalwarmingart.com
 
2011-09-14 10:46:33 PM  

GeneralJim: at least get the right copypasta.


nicksteel: do you like tomato sauce or butter on your copy pasta?


Given the number of times you've both been caught in the act I'd think you'd be more familiar with what copypasta actually means.

Repeating yourself is not copypasta. Quoting something, especially by drawing attention to the fact that you're quoting it and linking to or otherwise referencing the source material, is decidedly not copypasta.

In the context of informal scientific discussions on places like Fark (as opposed to whatever it means on 4chan- I defer to y'all), copypasta is what you guys engage in when you copy and paste unattributed material with no indication to your audience that the words are not your own.
 
2011-09-14 10:48:00 PM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: You are correct in that it does show trends but it is the part about wanting to compare it to the data after 1850 that is the problem I have with it.
Well, sure. But, one can do the various proxies on MODERN situations, albeit it is a bit more clumsy. I seem to recall a study that did proxy data up to a VERY recent date. The match wasn't bad, except, again, that the tree ring data just BLEW when we got to the last century. That's why that crap should be ignored. On the other hand, most of the other, more esoteric types of proxies seemed to be pretty darned good, and, with the tree ring proxy data removed, they matched the instrument record to a surprising degree.

And, don't forget -- however inaccurate they may be, it's better than not having any data at all. One merely needs to keep the accuracy limits in mind while using the data.

Actually, since the warmer alarmist position relies upon misrepresenting the past, proxy data can be your friend. For example, check out the Holocene temperature reconstruction below. It shows that temperatures in the longer scale have been dropping off since the last ice age ended. It also shows several areas in which temperatures have risen much faster than they are today. (That being one of the warmers' fallback positions.)

[www.globalwarmingart.com image 600x405]


Considering the cost and consequences of doing what the IPCC suggests, I would prefer something more accurate.
 
2011-09-14 11:20:14 PM  

nicksteel: "It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

In other words - the models are messed up.


Jeff Pierce, someone who actually performs the kind of aerosol modeling relevant to the discussion put it this way:

The "climate models need to be substantially revised" comment. I don't think this comment has anything to do with their cosmic ray results (and I've found it interesting that the media has used it as a statement about the cosmic rays), and I'll explain why in a moment...

But first regarding the IPCC climate models, I think Gavin explains it well. Right now the IPCC climate models don't take into account any aspect of aerosol number or size (just the total mass). Thus, they do not take nucleation into account. If changes in nucleation with time end up being important for climate change, we will need to incorporate these physics into the IPCC models. The comment really is directed at people like me (and about 10-20 other groups around the world) who use detailed global (or regional) aerosol microphysics models.

However, the comment is really stating that the CLOUD experiments could not reproduce atmospheric nucleation rates from sulfuric acid + ammonia + cosmic rays + water vapor, "The nucleation observed in the chamber occurs at only one‐tenth to one‐thousandth of the rate observed in the lower atmosphere.". Therefore, some other component (e.g. organic vapors) needs to be included in order for the CLOUD experiments match atmospheric nucleation in their chamber. These are going to be the results from the next set of CLOUD experiments (which occurred earlier this summer), and they are foreshadowing these results. They do not actually bring up cosmic rays in that paragraph at all, but they make it clear in the paper that even with cosmic rays cranked up in the chamber that they still cannot reproduce atmospheric nucleation rates.

Since detailed aerosol models (like the one I use) do not include organics (or these other missing species) in the nucleation calculations, THESE missing components are what needs to be revised in our models, not the dependence of cosmic rays.
Recent modeling by my group and those out of Fangqun Yu's group at SUNY Albany does use a nucleation scheme that has a dependence on cosmic rays that is very similar to the CLOUD results. Thus, our models don't need to be revised based on the cosmic ray results, but they do for the additional missing components (e.g. organics).


"Models" in terms of the CMIP3/AR4 models don't explicitly model the microphysical nucleation process, they use parameterizations based on observational evidence which inherently include whatever actual effect (if any) cosmic rays are having on bulk aerosol mass.

The "models" that need to be revised are not the big gcms people mean when they usually refer to climate models, but rather are smaller aerosol models or GCMs in the future that will attempt to explicitly model aerosol microphysical processes that are currently beyond our computational capacity.
 
2011-09-14 11:57:00 PM  
chuckufarlie:
hypnoticus ceratophrys: [i.imgur.com image 410x223]
[i.imgur.com image 54x11] :For those not acquainted, GeneralJim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists who want to destroy civilization as we know it. The following is a sampling of his material:
h

Another personal attack when you cannot attack his position. Type stupid warmer.

I've got this dickblight on ignore. It's nice. Thanks for posting his crap so I can see it... NOT.

But, since I have seen it, the poisonous toad (as he puts it) is also a liar. I am not a conspiracy theorist. In my considered opinion: evolution is how species develop; vaccines are one of the greatest of mankind's inventions -- and have NOTHING to do with causing autism; the Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical pattern that varies over time; men actually walked on the moon; the circumstances of JFK's death are suspicious, but, political assassinations always ARE; fluoridation is a great prophylaxis against dental caries, although it does tend to discolor the enamel; AIDS came into the human population through people boinking monkeys; Marilyn Monroe died of an accidental overdose, but Mary Jo Kopechne died because of Teddy Kennedy's ass-covering, at least; the world trade centers were destroyed by Muslim fanatics; Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, although he is hiding SOMETHING that appears on his long form.

On the other hand, I believe that the Federal Reserve System was founded as the result of a (successful) conspiracy. I also believe that there is a conspiracy to panic people over AGW so that governments, especially the U.N., can use carbon as an excuse to get trillions of dollars from the first world, and redistribute it to the third world. And, I believe in the reality of these two conspiracies for the same reason: In both cases, conspirators have come forward, and told or written of their involvement in the conspiracy. And, to tell the truth, if George Bush, and a dozen of his closest advisers and appointees were to admit that they had arranged for the WTC's destruction, I would believe them, too.
"Basically, it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War, one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

- Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair, IPCC Working Group III
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
 
2011-09-15 12:01:01 AM  

chuckufarlie: (1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature. I NEVER SAID THAT.


chuckufarlie: You see, my position is that the temperature data based on proxy data is unreliable.


chuckufarlie: Be honest, you know as well as I do that the "data" prior to 1850 is useless.


chuckufarlie: ALL of the available data prior to 1850 is worthless.


.......

chuckufarlie: (2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age. I NEVER SAID THAT.


chuckufarlie: fossilized evidence does not take a lot of faith to believe the facts.


From the context of this linked thread it appears that you believe the earth is older than 6,000 years, but to be honest I may have been extrapolating that incorrectly. When you say the fossil record is an accurate demarcation of the earth's past, that says to me that you accept radiometric dating, which as I said above is based in comparing parent and daughter isotopes and using chemistry and mathematical formula to arrive at a date. However, it is ovious from the above, in your own words, that you reject this. Are you saying that radiometric dating does not provide accurate proxy data of the earth's past? If so, I retract the above statement. If that is the case, do you believe the earth is older than 6,000 years? If so, on what premise do you hold that opinion?
 
2011-09-15 12:12:41 AM  

GeneralJim: On the other hand, I believe that the Federal Reserve System was founded as the result of a (successful) conspiracy. I also believe that there is a conspiracy to panic people over AGW so that governments, especially the U.N., can use carbon as an excuse to get trillions of dollars from the first world, and redistribute it to the third world.


Hey, so does David Icke and Alan Jones. What a coincidence.

GeneralJim: And, I believe in the reality of these two conspiracies for the same reason: In both cases, conspirators have come forward, and told or written of their involvement in the conspiracy. And, to tell the truth, if George Bush, and a dozen of his closest advisers and appointees were to admit that they had arranged for the WTC's destruction, I would believe them, too.

"Basically, it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War, one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

- Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair, IPCC Working Group III
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010



This selectively translated and out of context quote has already been discussed here (new window). Not at all surprised to see it again, though.
 
2011-09-15 12:13:23 AM  
Jon Snow:
GeneralJim: The CERN boys recently validated an idea that the IPCC flat out denied: Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.

Back in reality, the IPCC explicitly discusses the potential cosmic ray-cloud-climate interaction:

Do you even read the stuff you link or copypasta? Yeah, it DISCUSSES it. Here's a sample, highlights mine:
In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001).
If this were a woman describing a date, rather than scientists describing data, it would be clear that the guy isn't getting any tonight. This is as hard as scientists will generally diss ANYTHING. Nice going, Sir Cites-a-lot.
 
2011-09-15 12:37:13 AM  

GeneralJim: If this were a woman describing a date, rather than scientists describing data, it would be clear that the guy isn't getting any tonight. This is as hard as scientists will generally diss ANYTHING. Nice going, Sir Cites-a-lot.


I'm sorry that the IPCC doesn't claim there is observational evidence for something there is no observational evidence for, but that's not what you originally claimed:

GeneralJim: the IPCC flat out denied [the idea that] Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation.


Back in reality I showed that this was patently false, by presenting a citation of the IPCC discussing how "Cosmic rays CAN influence cloud formation":

Various scenarios have been proposed whereby solar-induced galactic cosmic ray fluctuations might influence climate (as surveyed by Gray et al., 2005). Carslaw et al. (2002) suggested that since the plasma produced by cosmic ray ionization in the troposphere is part of an electric circuit that extends from the Earth's surface to the ionosphere, cosmic rays may affect thunderstorm electrification. By altering the population of CCN and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), cosmic rays may also induce processes analogous to the indirect effect of tropospheric aerosols. The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. In the case of low gas-phase sulphuric acid concentrations, ion-induced nucleation may dominate over binary sulphuric acid-water nucleation. In addition, increased ion nucleation and increased scavenging rates of aerosols in turbulent regions around clouds seem likely.

GeneralJim is just moving the goalposts.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2011-09-15 12:46:47 AM  
Jon Snow:
That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

In my previous post, I point out that your cited article backs me up. So, if I'm wrong about everything, first, I say you are NOT a craven, pole-smoking, degenerate pedophile, kicked out of both the priesthood and NAMBLA for being too "faggy, in a creepy way." Nope, not at all. Never happened.

Second, if I'm wrong about everything, and you're wrong about ME, well, I guess that would make you meta-wrong. Congratulations. Most people need a lobotomy, or a year in a McDonald's drive-thru window, to achieve that level of fail.

And, you warmer alarmist pizzle-stix truly fail at subterfuge. Personally, I think it is your personality-consuming egos. You, like that Oreskes toolette, insist upon going to unreasonable lengths, thus exposing your chicanery. For example, you say, your tiny, impotent Internet fists of rage waving, that I am "wrong about everything." Well, NOBODY is wrong about EVERYTHING, and you look like a farkstick for making that claim -- and deservedly so. Oreskes, in her pathetic overreaching effort to smother, says that over a several year period NO articles critical of AGW were published.

And, in those over-reaching compensations for inadequacy, you and Oreskes both fall flat on your prats. Oreskes COULD have said "Fewer than 2% of articles were skeptical of AGW," and probably gotten away with it. And, YOU could have said "I think you are wrong on a number of basic points, points necessary for further understanding of the subject," and a plausible statement like that would even make ME think about it for a moment. But, every practicing climatologist had read a couple of articles from the specified time period that were skeptical of AGW, and so they KNEW, from personal experience, that Oreskes was passing out bollocks. And you, you fartmuffin, EVERYONE knows that NOBODY is wrong about EVERYTHING. So they know you are full of it, too.

But, yeah, you go ahead and keep trying to impress with a three sentence post, and a page and a half of references. Personally, I think your little problems could be at least partially cured by finding a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in .JPG.


files.sharenator.com
 
2011-09-15 12:47:58 AM  
General Jim,

Why arent you busy debunking scientific papers instead of being here on FARK?

You are obviously much more intelligent than the top scientists in the world and I think your genius should be shown to the world.

Time to put an end to the madness with your well thought out arguments.

So what are you waiting for?

You have the chance to accomplish something nobody else has been able to, so lets get on it!
 
2011-09-15 01:21:10 AM  
Jon Snow:
How in the hell do you think that you in any way made a cogent point, let alone one that actually rebutted something that I said? Do you think that arm-waving about a SC23 being quiet and the Maunder Minimum actually refutes the decades of observations of direct and indirect solar vs. temperature trends I cited?

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2011-09-15 02:42:18 AM  
Jon Snow:
Quoting something, especially by drawing attention to the fact that you're quoting it and linking to or otherwise referencing the source material, is decidedly not copypasta.

Actually, that IS copypasta, as I define it: Anything that substitutes edit commands for thinking on one's own.
 
2011-09-15 02:46:20 AM  
chuckufarlie:
Considering the cost and consequences of doing what the IPCC suggests, I would prefer something more accurate.

Actually, the data scientists have to work with provides all the information to prove that IPCC plans are bollocks. ANY data can be misused, or, as here, it doesn't matter so much what the data is when it's changing every few years. Good data can't make up for bad science.
 
2011-09-15 03:47:57 AM  
Jon Snow:
Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

Good bullshiat patter. Were you on the psychic circuit? You've got that greasy, useless, well-trimmed skeeze thing down to a SCIENCE. Have you ever figured out how many of the jakes think you actually know something? It'd be interesting to know; they'd make a juicy mailing list for whatever long con you might want to set up.

As long cons go, the AGW was too long, and there are too many marks to control. The IPCC is the sawdust joint, running a Fiddle Game variant. Mann's splash move telegraphed, and brought in heavy steam and some fast company, while Hansen busted in the data, and Jones fingered Mann and Hansen. At this point, ANYONE could get landed; the heavy steam makes it tricky. It may be time to cut and run. If this con is going to go on, it will need a couple of rounds of putting in the send, and I can't quite see what would make a good blowoff. Maybe a fur flying war?

 
2011-09-15 04:04:08 AM  
guyinjeep16:
General Jim,

Why arent you busy debunking scientific papers instead of being here on FARK?

You are obviously much more intelligent than the top scientists in the world and I think your genius should be shown to the world.

Time to put an end to the madness with your well thought out arguments.

So what are you waiting for?

You have the chance to accomplish something nobody else has been able to, so lets get on it!

You flatter me. You also underestimate the number of people who know a long con when they see one. Hell, 60% of Americans know that AGW is a fraud.

When one of the mainstays of the con sings, all one has to do is listen to understand the con. It doesn't take a genius to hear a confession. On the other hand, it takes a pure moron to hear the confession of one of the major participants, and NOT believe them.


image.spreadshirt.net
Moron
 
2011-09-15 09:40:24 AM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Considering the cost and consequences of doing what the IPCC suggests, I would prefer something more accurate.
Actually, the data scientists have to work with provides all the information to prove that IPCC plans are bollocks. ANY data can be misused, or, as here, it doesn't matter so much what the data is when it's changing every few years. Good data can't make up for bad science.


yes, that is true. However, I do enjoy how all of the warmers shut up when I mention these items. Well, except for the morons on the fringe who know nothng about the scam and somehow got sucked into it. They will argue with no knowledge at all. Alt least some of the louder voices know that it is a scam.
 
2011-09-15 09:43:17 AM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: "It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

In other words - the models are messed up.

Jeff Pierce, someone who actually performs the kind of aerosol modeling relevant to the discussion put it this way:

The "climate models need to be substantially revised" comment. I don't think this comment has anything to do with their cosmic ray results (and I've found it interesting that the media has used it as a statement about the cosmic rays), and I'll explain why in a moment...

But first regarding the IPCC climate models, I think Gavin explains it well. Right now the IPCC climate models don't take into account any aspect of aerosol number or size (just the total mass). Thus, they do not take nucleation into account. If changes in nucleation with time end up being important for climate change, we will need to incorporate these physics into the IPCC models. The comment really is directed at people like me (and about 10-20 other groups around the world) who use detailed global (or regional) aerosol microphysics models.

However, the comment is really stating that the CLOUD experiments could not reproduce atmospheric nucleation rates from sulfuric acid + ammonia + cosmic rays + water vapor, "The nucleation observed in the chamber occurs at only one‐tenth to one‐thousandth of the rate observed in the lower atmosphere.". Therefore, some other component (e.g. organic vapors) needs to be included in order for the CLOUD experiments match atmospheric nucleation in their chamber. These are going to be the results from the next set of CLOUD experiments (which occurred earlier this summer), and they are foreshadowing these results. They do not actually bring up cosmic rays in that paragraph at all, but they make it clear in the paper that even with cosmic rays cranked up in the chamber that they still cannot reproduce atmospheric nucleation rates.

Since detailed aerosol models (like the one I use) do not include organics (or these other missing species) in the nucleation calculations, THESE missing components are what needs to be revised in our models, not the dependence of cosmic rays. Recent modeling by my group and those out of Fangqun Yu's group at SUNY Albany does use a nucleation scheme that has a dependence on cosmic rays that is very similar to the CLOUD results. Thus, our models don't need to be revised based on the cosmic ray results, but they do for the additional missing components (e.g. organics).

"Models" in terms of the CMIP3/AR4 models don't explicitly model the microphysical nucleation process, they use parameterizations based on observational evidence which inherently include whatever actual effect (if any) cosmic rays are having on bulk aerosol mass.

The "models" that need to be revised are not the big gcms people mean when they usually refer to climate models, but rather are smaller aerosol models or GCMs in the future that will attempt to explicitly model aerosol microphysical processes that are currently beyond our computational capacity.


the statement that I provided came directly from the people at CERN. Do not attempt to pretend that some journalist said it. That would be dishonest. Oh wait, being dishonest is your stock and trade.
 
2011-09-15 09:55:32 AM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: (1) You assert isotopic ratios cannot be used to determine temperature. I NEVER SAID THAT.

chuckufarlie: You see, my position is that the temperature data based on proxy data is unreliable.

chuckufarlie: Be honest, you know as well as I do that the "data" prior to 1850 is useless.

chuckufarlie: ALL of the available data prior to 1850 is worthless.

.......

chuckufarlie: (2) You assert isotopic ratios can be used to determine age. I NEVER SAID THAT.

chuckufarlie: fossilized evidence does not take a lot of faith to believe the facts.

From the context of this linked thread it appears that you believe the earth is older than 6,000 years, but to be honest I may have been extrapolating that incorrectly. When you say the fossil record is an accurate demarcation of the earth's past, that says to me that you accept radiometric dating, which as I said above is based in comparing parent and daughter isotopes and using chemistry and mathematical formula to arrive at a date. However, it is ovious from the above, in your own words, that you reject this. Are you saying that radiometric dating does not provide accurate proxy data of the earth's past? If so, I retract the above statement. If that is the case, do you believe the earth is older than 6,000 years? If so, on what premise do you hold that opinion?


It seems that once again I have under estimated just how ignorant you truly are. Let me explain even further in the hopes that some part of your brain still functions.

All of those statements that you have copied (but don't understand) refer to the temperature data used by the CRU to show the world that the earth is experiencing something new with the "massive" increase in temperature since 1850. Try to focus on that, I know you have problems, but try.

Now, that data was developed by gathering data from tree ring growth from trees in a FEW places around the globe. It had nothing to do with radioactive isotopes. It was about tree ring growth.

GOT IT??? I have allowed you to continue to show your ass while at the same time trying to make you see that you have no idea what I said.

ONE of your problems is that you took my comments out of context. As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, you do not understand what I was saying.

But not to worry, it seems that many of the under educated who visit fark have a problem with reading comprehension. I blame the school systems for having failed you. You also have that other tendency on fark, reading things into comments when it really isn't there. That, I blame on low IQ. Again, that is not your fault. Your IQ is what it is.

I hope that this finally puts your insipid ramblings to rest. However, if it doesn't I will simply put you on ignore. While I find your incredible stupidity very funny, you are starting to become a waste of time.
 
2011-09-15 10:21:22 AM  
chuckufarlie:
GOT IT??? I have allowed you to continue to show your ass while at the same time trying to make you see that you have no idea what I said.

His white, cottage cheese filled, only-because-they-insisted ass, Chuck.

I hope that this finally puts your insipid ramblings to rest. However, if it doesn't I will simply put you on ignore. While I find your incredible stupidity very funny, you are starting to become a waste of time.

I've got him on ignore already. It's refreshing. I mean, I've been e-messaging a while, and I've only just started using ignore for the first time. It is improving my experience much more than I thought it would. It's a bit like how the air improves when you open the little windows in an outhouse and get some cross-ventilation. Yeah, it's like that a LOT. I was expecting to do this for a week or two, but, right now, I'm not so sure. I wish Fark would fix it though, so I don't have to see the banners from the banned, as it were.
 
2011-09-15 10:49:28 AM  

chuckufarlie: All of those statements that you have copied (but don't understand) refer to the temperature data used by the CRU to show the world that the earth is experiencing something new with the "massive" increase in temperature since 1850. Try to focus on that, I know you have problems, but try.

Now, that data was developed by gathering data from tree ring growth from trees in a FEW places around the globe. It had nothing to do with radioactive isotopes. It was about tree ring growth.


Alright help me out here, as I am obviously dimwitted and am having a very difficult time processing this conversation with someone like yourself, so far above my own meager intellectual level. Do you or do you not agree that proxy data using isotopic ratios alone (not tree rings!) is an adequate determinate of past earth conditions?
 
2011-09-15 11:25:27 AM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: GOT IT??? I have allowed you to continue to show your ass while at the same time trying to make you see that you have no idea what I said.
His white, cottage cheese filled, only-because-they-insisted ass, Chuck.

I hope that this finally puts your insipid ramblings to rest. However, if it doesn't I will simply put you on ignore. While I find your incredible stupidity very funny, you are starting to become a waste of time.
I've got him on ignore already. It's refreshing. I mean, I've been e-messaging a while, and I've only just started using ignore for the first time. It is improving my experience much more than I thought it would. It's a bit like how the air improves when you open the little windows in an outhouse and get some cross-ventilation. Yeah, it's like that a LOT. I was expecting to do this for a week or two, but, right now, I'm not so sure. I wish Fark would fix it though, so I don't have to see the banners from the banned, as it were.


I hate to just ignore them, but I see your point. This clown has one strike remaining.
 
2011-09-15 11:33:18 AM  

GeneralJim: guyinjeep16: General Jim,

Why arent you busy debunking scientific papers instead of being here on FARK?

You are obviously much more intelligent than the top scientists in the world and I think your genius should be shown to the world.

Time to put an end to the madness with your well thought out arguments.

So what are you waiting for?

You have the chance to accomplish something nobody else has been able to, so lets get on it!
You flatter me. You also underestimate the number of people who know a long con when they see one. Hell, 60% of Americans know that AGW is a fraud.

When one of the mainstays of the con sings, all one has to do is listen to understand the con. It doesn't take a genius to hear a confession. On the other hand, it takes a pure moron to hear the confession of one of the major participants, and NOT believe them.

[image.spreadshirt.net image 178x178]
Moron


And 98% of the worlds scientists KNOW its a fraud but they are just to dishonest to admit it.

Im right there with ya.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report