record low maximum arctic sea ice

UncleBuck · Mar 27, 2015

abandonconflict said:
In other words heckler, you have failed to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists... Aka, my religion.

let's not g=forget that he cited scafetta, who is a member of the AGU.

what does the AGU have to say about AGW?

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

—AGU Council, Human Impacts on Climate[45]

UncleBuck · Mar 27, 2015

ginwilly said:
I don't even know who you are and you are calling me a klansman.

maybe it's because you espouse a "neck down" evolution theory that was trumpeted by david duke and jared taylor. they both liked that theory so much that they invited the guy who invented it onto their shows to do interviews.

maybe that's why. just saying.

vostok · Mar 27, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Hopefully some of the northern ice cap will survive until next winter.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record/#.VREpbJSwpzQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=8iNet2WkHkU#

^^sorry, couldn't embed the video^^

You obviously hav't taken a stake in green land as yet ...contact your Danish Ambassador for more,

I only take ice in my vodka ..which in life is about 1x time per year

see4 · Mar 27, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Hopefully some of the northern ice cap will survive until next winter.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record/#.VREpbJSwpzQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=8iNet2WkHkU#

^^sorry, couldn't embed the video^^

Future note on embedding youtube videos like the one above, simply remove the s from https and remove the t=16 from the url, and you will be able to embed... also note the the t value can vary from video... so simply remove the "t" through ampersand "&" and you should be good to go.

The ampersand is there to add multiple key values to a uri string. if you have only one key value, you don't need the ampersand.

like: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=8iNet2WkHkU# should read http ://m. youtube.com/ watch? v=8iNet2WkHkU -- obviously without the spaces..

heckler73 · Mar 27, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Go through your study again heckler.

Try going through it once. :lol:

The temperature signature is made of oscillations plus an anthropogenic component.

heckler73 said:
The equation derived in there is quite beautiful in its simplicity, actually. And it can explain 60%+ of the "warming" seen in the 20th century. I'd say that contradicts the "overwhelming majority of climate scientists", wouldn't you? I particularly like the Fourier aspect of it.

Perhaps if you read the paper I linked to (Loehle & Scafetta), you could have seen the details and comparisons to your religious dogma courtesy of the IPCC (which claimed 90-100% anthropogenic effect at the time as derived from their charts, see pg 84 of Loehle). Perhaps you also noted my reference to an equation? I take it you never made it to that part, which tells me more than I need to know about how much you read. That's pretty sad considering all the badgering. You offer a low ROI and that's probably why the other reindeer mock your nose, Pinocchio.
If you trust the "overwhelming majority" (whatever that is) as proxy for your beliefs, then it has been contradicted. That is what you asked for, now it is your turn.

When are you going to provide a paper which isn't the IPCC report or an abstract, and passes your quality test for "peer reviewed" evidence? If you could find one (just one) that explains the causal mechanism of CO2 and supposed "back radiation" effect of 333 W m^-2 in an experimental setting, that would be a bonus. It's that convection thing which gets in the way of the cartoon in my head. That and stat mech of photons. The whole downward or "back radiation" story as laid out by Trenberth et al. is unsatisfying, and they don't appear to make much effort to validate it, never mind answer my concerns.
How about you start there? Or perhaps a study on the variation in lapse rate over the decades as a result of "anthropogenic effects"?

At least then your output would be for a practical purpose in this thread, Bono.

[QUOTE="UncleBuck, post: 11448185, member: 251367"]
first of all, his work is unreproducable. it cannot be reproduced because apparently he is hiding and refusing to divulge the code by which he produced this "60% is just the sun!" work.[/quote]

Says who? You?
The equation and parameters are clearly shown in the paper with Loehle. I just reproduced it (specifically case 2 + linear trend) on a TI-84 Plus calculator! That's practically the equivalent of using an abacus in the digital age. :lol:

Here's the info you need to be a champ:

Now go find yourself a plotting program (I doubt you have a graphing calculator), and try it out for yourself. If you can't figure out the instructions I just posted, let me know and I'll consider showing you my work. There is a further "linear trend" function that needs to be added, but it's also right there on the graphs if you know how to read. Perhaps the "scientists" you are parroting criticisms from are not capable enough to figure out the math? If I wrote something so clearly, and had people asking me for the "data", I'd probably be hesitant , too, because it shows the people inquiring have not read the damn paper, either.

abandonconflict · Mar 27, 2015

UncleBuck said:
let's not g=forget that he cited scafetta, who is a member of the AGU.

what does the AGU have to say about AGW?

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

—AGU Council, Human Impacts on Climate[45]

What people like you and I don't seem to understand is that for centuries, personal private dialogue in the form of letters were science, not peer-reviewed research study.

I wonder if it is a well known fact that I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

UncleBuck · Mar 27, 2015

heckler73 said:
If you could find one (just one) that explains the causal mechanism of CO2 and supposed "back radiation" effect of 333 W m^-2 in an experimental setting, that would be a bonus.

are you still pushing this whole "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" thing?

heckler73 said:
Says who? You?

says scafetta himself.

In 2009, Scafetta faced criticism for failing to disclose the computer code required to reproduce his research.[10] Scafetta responded by saying that the code in question had been submitted to a scientific journal and that if "the journal takes its time to publish it, it is not our fault."[10]

heckler73 said:
The equation and parameters are clearly shown in the paper with Loehle.

maybe i should not have dropped out before completing C++ and other coding, but i do not believe a computer code and a mathematical equation are quite the same thing.

heckler73 said:
Now go find yourself a plotting program (I doubt you have a graphing calculator), and try it out for yourself.

you are correct, i completed all the math courses required for a math degree with my handy solar calculator.

heckler73 said:
Perhaps the "scientists" you are parroting criticisms from are not capable enough to figure out the math?

lol.

UncleBuck · Mar 27, 2015

abandonconflict said:
What people like you and I don't seem to understand is that for centuries, personal private dialogue in the form of letters were science, not peer-reviewed research study.

I wonder if it is a well known fact that I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

relax, dude.

it's the sun. at least 60% of it.

the sun just decided to start pumping out CO2 in massive amounts, putting us up to 400PPM in a century after 800,000 years of staying between 200-300 PPM.

that, and termite farts.

Padawanbater2 · Mar 27, 2015

UncleBuck said:
relax, dude.

it's the sun. at least 60% of it.

the sun just decided to start pumping out CO2 in massive amounts, putting us up to 400PPM in a century after 800,000 years of staying between 200-300 PPM.

that, and termite farts.

I just had a dialogue with someone from another forum whose argument basically amounted to "the Sun could emit a type of energy we haven't measured yet which could be the cause of the current warming trend".. I asked "how do you know?", he said "how don't you know!?"...

...

The fundamental problem with anthropogenic climate change acceptance is that the deniers don't understand the science of it. No amount of evidence can convince someone who won't understand any of it either way, so, fuck em

Instead of trying to change their minds, lets purge em. Exile them to the Arctic, so then when the pole melts all of them will drown! It'll be awesome! Hopefully some of them become polar bear food or orca sex toys or something..

sheskunk · Mar 27, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
I just had a dialogue with someone from another forum whose argument basically amounted to "the Sun could emit a type of energy we haven't measured yet which could be the cause of the current warming trend".. I asked "how do you know?", he said "how don't you know!?"...

...

The fundamental problem with anthropogenic climate change acceptance is that the deniers don't understand the science of it. No amount of evidence can convince someone who won't understand any of it either way, so, fuck em

Instead of trying to change their minds, lets purge em. Exile them to the Arctic, so then when the pole melts all of them will drown! It'll be awesome! Hopefully some of them become polar bear food or orca sex toys or something..

lol

Pinworm · Mar 27, 2015

Hazydat620 said:
What a sad existence and excuse for a penis, or a human for that matter.

I'm just logging in to lol at this, and UB's fart books.

>>>LOL<<<

Have a good night.

heckler73 · Mar 27, 2015

UncleBuck said:
are you still pushing this whole "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" thing?

Are you still pushing CO2 as crime against humanity?

says scafetta himself.

In 2009, Scafetta faced criticism for failing to disclose the computer code required to reproduce his research.[10] Scafetta responded by saying that the code in question had been submitted to a scientific journal and that if "the journal takes its time to publish it, it is not our fault."

You forgot something:
"I really do not understand why you are not able to write your own program to reproduce the calculations," responds Scafetta.
Do you understand the context of what is being discussed? It has nothing to do with the "peer-reviewed" literature I presented which satisfied the requirements of ACs dubious quest. Loehle/Scafetta's model as of 2011 is clearly evident, demonstrably reproducible and it contradicts your holy (and debunked) "conthenthuth". That's what matters here.

Try to stay on point, Spicoli.

(note: not Spicoli but funny pic...because bagels. Go stomp your shit down the drain if you don't think so)

i do not believe a computer code and a mathematical equation are quite the same thing.

Maybe you should inform NASA about that, Dr. Buck-minster Fullashit. :lol:

UncleBuck · Mar 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
Are you still pushing CO2 as crime against humanity?

that would require having pushed it at some point in the first place.

my position remains the same as ever: humans have taken hundreds of thousands or millions of years of sequestered CO2 out of the ground, pumped it into the atmosphere, skyrocketed CO2 levels to 400 PPM in a mere century, and warming has resulted since CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

i don't think the sun can account for 60% of the warming we have seen in the last century, especially since we have seen (formerly) record hot years during solar minimums.

you're really grasping to mischaracterize my position, when all i have ever done to you is seriously question your position on CO2 as perhaps not a GHG (something even a skeptic like lindzen would call 'silly').

UncleBuck · Mar 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
You forgot something:
"I really do not understand why you are not able to write your own program to reproduce the calculations," responds Scafetta.
Do you understand the context of what is being discussed? It has nothing to do with the "peer-reviewed" literature I presented which satisfied the requirements of ACs dubious quest.

your peer reviewed paper, which i thank you for, did not exactly satisfy AC's request for "contradiction", it was more of a mitigation since even your paper acknowledged a fair amount of anthropogenic contribution.

and why is scafetta telling everyone else to stomp the drain and rite their own programs? why can he not just reproduce his?

doesn't seem very scholarly.

heckler73 · Mar 28, 2015

UncleBuck said:
your peer reviewed paper, which i thank you for, did not exactly satisfy AC's request for "contradiction", it was more of a mitigation since even your paper acknowledged a fair amount of anthropogenic contribution.

Are you a psychic, Uncle Chloe?
When did he qualify anything regarding his request to that extent? He still hasn't produced an example to demonstrate what is considered acceptable.
Prove there isn't a God comes to mind as an analogy, and I'm still waiting for him to define the electric spaghetti monster in the sky.

and why is scafetta telling everyone else to stomp the drain and rite their own programs? why can he not just reproduce his?

Because Obola?

doesn't seem very scholarly.

No...it sounds like magic.

abandonconflict · Mar 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
Loehle/Scafetta's model as of 2011 is clearly evident, demonstrably reproducible and it contradicts your holy (and debunked) "conthenthuth". That's what matters here.

You must be referring to some consensus other than the one regarding anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists.

abandonconflict · Mar 28, 2015

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

OddBall1st · Mar 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
Are you a psychic, Uncle Chloe?
When did he qualify anything regarding his request to that extent? He still hasn't produced an example to demonstrate what is considered acceptable.
Prove there isn't a God comes to mind as an analogy, and I'm still waiting for him to define the electric spaghetti monster in the sky.

Because Obola?

No...it sounds like magic.

I told my kid all through high school,... If I have to keep giving you the answers, you wont learn anything. Scafetta is doing the same to the lazy scientists. Buck bit too.

OddBall1st · Mar 28, 2015

If you`re on the battlefield asking for a map to get to it,... you`re fucked...!I

record low maximum arctic sea ice

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

vostok

Well-Known Member

see4

Well-Known Member

heckler73

Well-Known Member

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member

sheskunk

Well-Known Member

Pinworm

Well-Known Member

heckler73

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

heckler73

Well-Known Member

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member