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.

(The Register)   Scientists discover Mexican wave pattern in random climate wobbles. AY, CARAMBA   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 151
    More: Interesting, Mexican, scientists, Arctic Sea, psychological testing, genetic variability, sea ice, Bob Geldof, University of Montreal  
•       •       •

2517 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2013 at 5:37 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-13 03:10:56 PM
The oscillation may explain the contemporary "pause" in global warming, with no statistically significant increase in the past 17 years.

Siesta
 
2013-10-13 05:00:32 PM
Mexican wave pattern? I know what that sounds like thanks to GTA5!

It sounds like...

UN DOS TRES QUATRO! BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP.... BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP...
 
2013-10-13 06:00:58 PM
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/EARTH_1890.pdf


The paper extensively discusses my astronomical based model since the Medieval Warm Period and demonstrates its far better performance than the CMIP5 models.

Keep in mind, this journal article is published by the same company that published The Lancet.

summary?
global warming is much less and there actually looks to be a LARGE DIP coming in the next 2-4 decades. Exactly the opposite of what the UN is predicting ....


WHOOPS, they know their model isnt working at all and are scrambling to fix it.


Just when I have given up.

/hint: if you have two models and one does a terrible job at forecasting and the other model does a better job at forecasting, WHICH model should you use??
 
2013-10-13 06:19:27 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-13 06:32:42 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-13 06:34:27 PM
So we have a Mexican Standoff in the climate?
 
2013-10-13 07:02:26 PM
www.heatingoil.com
 
2013-10-13 07:34:29 PM
Hey, it's just doing the job we Norteamericanos won't.
 
2013-10-13 07:54:37 PM
Scientists finding reasons for not-warming.
Amazing.
 
2013-10-13 08:06:41 PM

namatad: they know their model isnt working at all and are scrambling to fix it.


At best, the existing climate models appear to my unqualified eyes as broken.  The current global temps may be in the error bars they've set for themselves, but the temps have been in the low range of those models for some time now.  Any explanation of current GCMs simply averaging their way through the previous "pauses" is weak - Simply by the fact that no pause was predicted and the current "pause" doesn't have an end predicted.

This is from the AR5 Chapter 11
i.imgur.com

Nothing is stated that the earth's temperature couldn't come out of this "Wave" of influences coming together to create the current "pause" and come closer to existing models (therefore somehow help to validate them)

For those interested in how the models are currently viewed with respect to observations, Judith Curry has a thread on that going on at the moment.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observa ti ons-comparison-part-iii/
Sure, the spinning will go on, and both sides will continue to snipe at each other but when the dust settles, I believe the sensitivity to carbon dioxide will be set at a lower number than in current global climate models.

Meanwhile

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-13 08:31:44 PM

MarkEC: So we have a Mexican Standoff in the climate?


energyskeptic.com
 
2013-10-13 08:32:16 PM

SVenus: Any explanation of current GCMs simply averaging their way through the previous "pauses" is weak - Simply by the fact that no pause was predicted and the current "pause" doesn't have an end predicted.


Unitialized models by definition cannot predict "pauses".  Look at the initialized models (red hatching in panel b); they still trend a bit warm, but are in much better agreement with observations.  (Although those experiments were initialized in 2006, partway through the "pause".)   See also the black forecasts.  They do have an "end" predicted, as they relax back toward the uninitialized projections (blue envelope).

Sure, the spinning will go on, and both sides will continue to snipe at each other but when the dust settles, I believe the sensitivity to carbon dioxide will be set at a lower number than in current global climate models.

It may be.  FWIW, a lot of the observational estimates put climate sensitivity near 2 C as the modal (most likely) estimate; the means, however, are higher (and those are better metrics for decision making, as they incorporate some of the high-risk tail).
 
2013-10-13 08:41:57 PM

namatad:

/hint: if you have two models and one does a terrible job at forecasting and the other model does a better job at forecasting, WHICH model should you use??
The one that gives the results the people paying for the research want.
 
2013-10-13 08:46:40 PM
What the flying farkity fark is a Boffin?

Is that a super-special lesbian climate scientist?
 
2013-10-13 09:06:53 PM
I have no stake in the climate change fight.  I do have a question though.

FTA: "Solar-planetary influences were until recently taboo for researchers, but are beginning to look like an increasingly promising explanation."

Why?  If the earth receives 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile (Source) annually, why wouldn't a change in the suns output affect climate on Earth?
 
2013-10-13 09:14:46 PM

Ambitwistor: Unitialized models by definition cannot predict "pauses".


Then, should the "pause" continue, most models created to date will be shown to be inaccurate.

It's very difficult to keep the "Catastrophic" in the CAGW when the error bars are being exceeded.  With the exception of the Smith 2012 forecast model that predicts a very quick rise in global temps.  Good luck with that one.
 
2013-10-13 09:24:20 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: What the flying farkity fark is a Boffin?

Is that a super-special lesbian climate scientist?


I believe it's the equivalent of "geek" for people who say "defence" and "colour".
 
2013-10-13 09:35:43 PM
Whoa, someone on fark didn't spell it as "Aye carumba" for once.

Grats if you're not a native speaker, Subs.
 
2013-10-13 09:49:57 PM
A Canadian low and a Mexican high
mail.colonial.net
 
2013-10-13 09:51:52 PM
 
2013-10-13 09:55:39 PM

AngryDragon: I have no stake in the climate change fight.  I do have a question though.

FTA: "Solar-planetary influences were until recently taboo for researchers, but are beginning to look like an increasingly promising explanation."

Why?  If the earth receives 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile (Source) annually, why wouldn't a change in the suns output affect climate on Earth?


My point exactly. I already have you favorited for other issues like explaing Detroit and explaing keto, AngryDragon. Truth is, the sun is source of ALL our weather and climate. It hurts when you can't blame SUVs for melting ice caps on Mars.
 
2013-10-13 09:58:14 PM

ThePastafarian: Whoa, someone on fark didn't spell it as "Aye carumba" for once.

Grats if you're not a native speaker, Subs.


Yep. Now get back to panic over climate wobbles.
 
2013-10-13 10:00:00 PM

AngryDragon: I have no stake in the climate change fight.  I do have a question though.

FTA: "Solar-planetary influences were until recently taboo for researchers, but are beginning to look like an increasingly promising explanation."

Why?  If the earth receives 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile (Source) annually, why wouldn't a change in the suns output affect climate on Earth?


That statement is a complete fabrication. The solar radiance is a very important part of the energy balance which has been and is studied very closely.

Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?
 
2013-10-13 10:00:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder:

What the flying farkity fark is a Boffin?

Is that a super-special lesbian climate scientist?
British slang -- think "egghead."
 
2013-10-13 10:10:57 PM

AngryDragon:

I have no stake in the climate change fight.  I do have a question though.

FTA: "Solar-planetary influences were until recently taboo for researchers, but are beginning to look like an increasingly promising explanation."

Why?  If the earth receives 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile (Source) annually, why wouldn't a change in the suns output affect climate on Earth?
Of COURSE it does, and is MUCH better correlated to temperature than carbon dioxide is.  But this does not fit the agenda of governmental units, which WANT people to believe humanity is driving the weather -- so they can tax and control with the excuse of "saving the planet," to which few will object.  And, since these governmental units provide WELL over 90% of the funding, they tend to get what they want.

lasp.colorado.edu
 
2013-10-13 10:17:31 PM

Farking Canuck:

Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?
No, just to shut up about connections of their work to climatology.   Just like the scientists at CERN were told to avoid discussing the implications of their CLOUD experiments on climatology.   You don't want to upset the check-writers... or checque-writers, since they're European, in this case.

CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

 
2013-10-13 10:20:06 PM

Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?


I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.
 
2013-10-13 10:31:30 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.


What climate scientists not considering the impact of natural forces may look like:

www.newscientist.com

Maybe your information is just out of date, this graphic was only published by the IPCC 8 years ago after all. In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?
 
2013-10-13 10:33:53 PM

Zafler: In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?


You just posed an image proving they greatly downplay the original source of all heat on our planet. So you tell me.
 
2013-10-13 10:40:27 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Zafler: In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?

You just posed an image proving they greatly downplay the original source of all heat on our planet. So you tell me.


Here, since you not only can't read a graph but are ignorant of what radiative forcing is.

So, "doesn't have a clue" seems to be a fair assessment of your knowledge of this subject, correct?
 
2013-10-13 10:42:05 PM

Zafler:

J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.

What climate scientists not considering the impact of natural forces may look like:

[www.newscientist.com image 767x685]

Maybe your information is just out of date, this graphic was only published by the IPCC 8 years ago after all. In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?
Gee, where's the Svensmark Effect on your graph there?  I don't see it.
 
2013-10-13 10:53:03 PM
The author of the study, Judith Curry, has a history of being less than honest. Among other things, she repeats the "hide the decline" mantra of the deniers. What she doesn't mention is that a) the decline was in Northern Hemisphere tree-ring growth, not global temperature; b) the temperature and tree-growth curves, which had previously correlated fairly well for several centuries, have been diverging since about 1960, strongly suggesting that over the past few decades something has been happening to skew this relationship; and c) far from "hiding" this data, the IPCC and other climate researchers have been discussing this openly, just as they have openly discussed the recent pause in atmospheric warming.

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-10-13 10:53:21 PM

GeneralJim: HotIgneous Intruder: What the flying farkity fark is a Boffin?

Is that a super-special lesbian climate scientist?British slang -- think "egghead."


I think it's closer to guru, pundit, authority, ombudsman, etc. It's basically a subject matter expert. It has none of the generally negative connotation of egghead, geek, etc.
 
2013-10-13 10:54:50 PM
SVenus:

Ambitwistor: Unitialized models by definition cannot predict "pauses".

Then, should the "pause" continue, most models created to date will be shown to be inaccurate.


Did you even read what I wrote?  The existence of "pauses" doesn't say anything about the accuracy of an uninitialized model, which don't predict decadal-scale variability.

It's very difficult to keep the "Catastrophic" in the CAGW when the error bars are being exceeded.

It sounds like you didn't read the rest of what I wrote, either.  Or look at the figure in your own post.
 
2013-10-13 11:15:08 PM

Zafler: If you're ignorant of something, simply do a bit of reading and research, and you won't say things as ludicrous as claiming the people that do have a basic understanding insist that climate change is due solely to human activities.


I've been discussing/arguing this from both sides for about 20 years. Started off believing the AGW thing, and even going door to door for Greenpeace preaching it. Yes, i was/am a bit of a hippy. In the last 10 i've seen enough to change my perspective, and wasn't too proud to change my mind and admit i might have been wrong. I'm pleased to see more people coming to the same realization in recent years so i can slack off a bit.

For the longest time i argued on this very site that the sun could be causing the warming, and dealt with many people who refused to believe it. Which is what i was referencing. Now the warming itself has been cast into doubt, and i think some people are now ready to accept the sun is causing warming as long as there is warming going on and they can continue to believe they were right all along, because they're too proud to admit they might have been wrong.

But there is no warming, and that's becoming increasingly hard for them to avoid. Will their egos make them cling to the sinking ship? Tune in next thread for the thrilling continuation.
 
2013-10-13 11:17:31 PM

common sense is an oxymoron:

c) far from "hiding" this data, the IPCC and other climate researchers have been discussing this openly, just as they have openly discussed the recent pause in atmospheric warming.

Oh, really?

September 23, 2013: Pachauri Denies Global Warming Pause as IPCC Spirals into Disarray

Earlier in the year, the IPCC sent out feelers about being honest, and admitting that the models sucked, and that temperatures had, indeed, stopped rising for as much as 17 years, and that they had no explanation for that.   That caused people to suggest that it might be wasted money to keep funding the IPCC, if climate was unpredictable by them.   So, the report was edited to ramp up the derp, make the danger SO MUCH MORE SEVERE than we thought before, and making action EVEN MORE IMPERATIVE, and that we had MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.   In essence, they abandoned science, and doubled down on all their crap.   Here's Pachauri some months ago, by way of contrast:

February 22, 2013: IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges 'No warming for 17 years'

 
2013-10-13 11:23:49 PM

J. Frank Parnell: For the longest time i argued on this very site that the sun could be causing the warming, and dealt with many people who refused to believe it.


Got a citation? I've been on this site for 11 years, and very rarely have I ever seen that claim made and not addressed.

J. Frank Parnell: But there is no warming, and that's becoming increasingly hard for them to avoid.


Oh good, that old canard.

www.skepticalscience.com

You do realize that we're warmer now than at any point in the last 5k years, and warming at a rate not seen in the geologic record?

upload.wikimedia.org

You're trying to claim you have some understanding of the subject, yet your throwing out busted talking points that are, in some cases, 10 years old. Your ability to rationally analyze evidence seems to be compromised.
/And on that note, I'm going to sleep.
 
2013-10-13 11:42:39 PM

namatad: http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/EARTH_1890.pdf


The paper extensively discusses my astronomical based model since the Medieval Warm Period and demonstrates its far better performance than the CMIP5 models.

Keep in mind, this journal article is published by the same company that published The Lancet.



Why is this important, other than as an appeal to authority?


summary?
global warming is much less and there actually looks to be a LARGE DIP coming in the next 2-4 decades. Exactly the opposite of what the UN is predicting ....



According to your hypothesis, the "large dip" has been ongoing for over a decade. Instead, temperatures have roughly flatlined. Doesn't this suggest that some other mechanism is keeping temperatures from declining?


WHOOPS, they know their model isnt working at all as well as expected and are scrambling to fix it, which is a normal part of the scientific process.


FTFY.


Just when I have given up.

/hint: if you have two models and one does a terrible job at forecasting and the other model does a better job at forecasting, WHICH model should you use??



Even your own data (page 338, graph A) shows a clear warming trend superimposed on natural variability.

And by the way, why are the effects of Jupiter and Saturn on the sun of special significance, other than that their harmonic periods happen to match up to your analysis of the data? You mention both gravitational and electromagnetic effects but not their magnitudes. If the gravitational effects you are referring to are tidal forces, they follow an inverse-cube law with distance, so that the effects of Venus are almost as large as those of Jupiter, and both Mercury and Earth have far greater effects than Saturn does. As for electromagnetic effects, what are they?

Finally, in your Appendix (p.354), you state that the harmonic frequencies in your model are not the same as the actual planetary harmonics, and that this discrepancy was deliberate and based on your analysis of the temperature data as well as the "possibility" that other forces may be involved as well. It seems to me that you have fudged the harmonic frequencies to match the supposed effects instead of their cause and justified this with an unsupported assumption.

IANAstatistician, but these look more like leaps of faith than objective science.
 
2013-10-13 11:46:24 PM

Zafler: J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.

What climate scientists not considering the impact of natural forces may look like:

[www.newscientist.com image 767x685]

Maybe your information is just out of date, this graphic was only published by the IPCC 8 years ago after all. In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?


Meanwhile, 8 years later...

www.woodfortrees.org

Hey, how IS that radiative forcing working out for you?
 
2013-10-13 11:46:31 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: c) far from "hiding" this data, the IPCC and other climate researchers have been discussing this openly, just as they have openly discussed the recent pause in atmospheric warming.
Oh, really?
September 23, 2013: Pachauri Denies Global Warming Pause as IPCC Spirals into DisarrayEarlier in the year, the IPCC sent out feelers about being honest, and admitting that the models sucked, and that temperatures had, indeed, stopped rising for as much as 17 years, and that they had no explanation for that.   That caused people to suggest that it might be wasted money to keep funding the IPCC, if climate was unpredictable by them.   So, the report was edited to ramp up the derp, make the danger SO MUCH MORE SEVERE than we thought before, and making action EVEN MORE IMPERATIVE, and that we had MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.   In essence, they abandoned science, and doubled down on all their crap.   Here's Pachauri some months ago, by way of contrast:February 22, 2013: IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges 'No warming for 17 years'



Thank you for not understanding my post. The "decline" that was supposedly "hidden" was not temperature at all, but tree growth. Also, the temperature flatline is atmospheric and does not take into account the observed subsurface warming of the oceans.
 
2013-10-13 11:55:13 PM

GeneralJim: AngryDragon: I have no stake in the climate change fight.  I do have a question though.

FTA: "Solar-planetary influences were until recently taboo for researchers, but are beginning to look like an increasingly promising explanation."

Why?  If the earth receives 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile (Source) annually, why wouldn't a change in the suns output affect climate on Earth?

Of COURSE it does, and is MUCH better correlated to temperature than carbon dioxide is.  But this does not fit the agenda of governmental units, which WANT people to believe humanity is driving the weather -- so they can tax and control with the excuse of "saving the planet," to which few will object.  And, since these governmental units provide WELL over 90% of the funding, they tend to get what they want.

[lasp.colorado.edu image 375x225]



You mean it DID, until CO2 became a greater forcing factor. Just look at your own graph:

lasp.colorado.edu

Notice how global temperature has decoupled from solar irradiance over the last few decades? Once again, your own evidence contradicts what you're trying to say.

And who has more funds available for pushing their agenda, the government or ExxonMobil?
 
2013-10-13 11:59:52 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?No, just to shut up about connections of their work to climatology.   Just like the scientists at CERN were told to avoid discussing the implications of their CLOUD experiments on climatology.   You don't want to upset the check-writers... or checque-writers, since they're European, in this case.
CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment



[ohjeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg]

RTFA. The "gag order" did not apply to the data but rather to the interpretation of the data with regard to climatology. Since CERN physicists are not climatologists, why is this unreasonable? And where is the evidence that the particles formed by cosmic rays somehow become condensation nuclei, which are 100,000 times larger by volume?
 
2013-10-14 12:02:29 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.



The truth is that it is not being ignored at all, even by climatologists. It's just that the observed changes in solar output no longer correlate with global temperature.
 
2013-10-14 12:02:54 AM

Zafler:

You do realize that we're warmer now than at any point in the last 5k years, and warming at a rate not seen in the geologic record?
That is not true.   Of course, you don't understand graphing, so I'm not going to say you're LYING, but you are spreading an untruth.  To give you the benefit of the doubt, here's what you don't understand:  Temperatures rise and fall several degrees on a regular, short-term basis.  Look at the damn graph you posted yourself.  Don't look at the damped black line, but, for instance, the green line -- it shows temperatures 8,000 years ago were warmer than now.  The longer-term graphs smooth the data.   Look at the graph below, at about month 168.  Less than six months later, the temperature is 1.2 degrees warmer.  Note that 1.2 degrees is greater than the total variance of the Holocene graph's black line in the last 8,000 years. It is CERTAIN that the temperature was not stable over centuries -- but the long-scale graph smooths it out.

If you knew ANYTHING about science, you would know that you can't compare graphs prepared using varying methodologies and scales.  But, you DON'T know anything, as you repeatedly show, and copying crap from blogs run by the perpetrators of this hoax may make you THINK you look like you know something of the science, but they don't.  Using such quotes just makes your ignorance stand out the more starkly when it shows -- like in this situation.  You're comparing apples and applesauce.



wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-14 12:05:56 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Zafler: In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?

You just posed an image proving they greatly downplay the original source of all heat on our planet. So you tell me.



No, the image shows that the observed changes in solar output are insignificant compared to the anthropogenic effects (solar output varies by ~0.1% over the sunspot cycle while atmospheric CO2 has increased by ~40% since the Industrial Revolution).
 
2013-10-14 12:07:09 AM

GeneralJim: Zafler: J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.

What climate scientists not considering the impact of natural forces may look like:

[www.newscientist.com image 767x685]

Maybe your information is just out of date, this graphic was only published by the IPCC 8 years ago after all. In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?Gee, where's the Svensmark Effect on your graph there?  I don't see it.



Perhaps because it doesn't exist.
 
2013-10-14 12:10:30 AM

Zafler: Got a citation? I've been on this site for 11 years, and very rarely have I ever seen that claim made and not addressed.


We probably crossed paths, then. Although I tend to see a strong reliance on pretty graphs instead of raw unbaised data or well constructed arguments as an attempt to manipulate the dumber people, so i may have just ignored you.

This is where the debate rests now, regardless of how much you may not like it. Ignoring it and continuing on as if nothing happened won't do you any good. These things need to be addressed before the debate can continue.
 
2013-10-14 12:11:36 AM

DesertDemonWY: Zafler: J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: Suggesting that it is ignored or "taboo" does not even make sense. There are entire fields of science dedicated to the study of the sun. Are they implying that these scientists have been told to stay home and stop working?

I think they mean in relation to the planet warming. The AGW crowd won't have any of it. With them it's either man doing it or nothing.

What climate scientists not considering the impact of natural forces may look like:

[www.newscientist.com image 767x685]

Maybe your information is just out of date, this graphic was only published by the IPCC 8 years ago after all. In other words: you don't have a clue, do you?

Meanwhile, 8 years later...

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, how IS that radiative forcing working out for you?



Once again...

img.fark.net

/bears bears bears bears
 
2013-10-14 12:13:14 AM

common sense is an oxymoron:

And by the way, why are the effects of Jupiter and Saturn on the sun of special significance, other than that their harmonic periods happen to match up to your analysis of the data?
Providing education for the clueless -- just another service we offer.   Sunspot cycles and planetary tides on the Sun.


 
2013-10-14 12:19:34 AM

common sense is an oxymoron:

As for electromagnetic effects, what are they?
That question is too broad for the scope of a Fark post.  Regarding climate, what you are missing -- because your handlers don't WANT you to know, is the Svensmark Effect.  To sum up, via the Svensmark Effect, the Sun's magnetic output warms Earth indirectly.  CERN verified that in the CLOUD experiment, the ramifications of which the CERN scientists have been ordered not to discuss.  For those who understand the basics of science, the Svensmark Effect is yet one more falsification of the CAGW hypothesis, accounting for most of the warming that has been attributed to carbon dioxide.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report