On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

On Mar 17, 9:46*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

On Mar 17, 11:38Â*am, Last Post wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:01Â*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 17, 9:46Â*am, Peter Muehlbauer

wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32Â*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

ø Indeed Dawlish, would you care to explain
Â* Â*the swastika on your forehead?

ø Global temperatures are not "so high" and have
Â* Â*been cooling for 3,000 years. Anticipate
Â* Â*reglaciation to commence sometime after 2030.

ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Â* Â*Nobody can control the wind
Â* Â*Nobody can control the rain or snow
Â* Â*Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Â* Â*Global temps are within natural variations
Â* Â*Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation


 Â* Get used to it!!

Â* Â* — —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 17, 12:02*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:46*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

Do you know the roundtrip time of the thermohaline circulation?
Do you think 3 years are enough?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

Sorry, but this all is a strawman to avoid acceptance for existence of much
more parameters out of your vision.
I don't claim that I konw all of them, but those which were known must all be
taken into account. Without exception.
Your article missed i.e. the open magnetic flux or the sun's orbit
perturbation, only to name 2 of them.
You also have to consider that special spectra of the TSI are notably
contributing to the climate, even if their signal is very weak and covered up
amid the total spectrum. But they exist.

You'd better revise your imagination about Earth's climate and extend your
basic knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll put it to you again: why is the earth so warm? The *only*
evidence for GW, be it manmade, or not, are outcome global
temperatures. That's about the worst strawman argument I could
possibly pose when you think about it. You don't know all of them, as
the causes you don't know are extremely unlikely to exist. "anything
but CO2 doesn't count as a cause, BTW. The ones you'd like to believe
could be causing warming is not the one that sits like the elephant in
your room demanding why you don't accept it. It's not certain, but all
the evidence points to it being highly likely that CO2 is the main
cause of the world warming.

I suppose the thing to say at the end of that is: "get used to it", to
coin a cross-posting idiot's sig. (Even better, support the ones who
are actually trying to do something about it)

On Mar 17, 8:12*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:02*pm, Peter Muehlbauer



wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:46*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

Do you know the roundtrip time of the thermohaline circulation?
Do you think 3 years are enough?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

Sorry, but this all is a strawman to avoid acceptance for existence of much
more parameters out of your vision.
I don't claim that I konw all of them, but those which were known must all be
taken into account. Without exception.
Your article missed i.e. the open magnetic flux or the sun's orbit
perturbation, only to name 2 of them.
You also have to consider that special spectra of the TSI are notably
contributing to the climate, even if their signal is very weak and covered up
amid the total spectrum. But they exist.

You'd better revise your imagination about Earth's climate and extend your
basic knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll put it to you again: why is the earth so warm? [garbage flushed]

What is "so warm", you ****-eating-imbecile?
Is that a "science" term?

On Mar 17, 12:23*pm, dr yacub wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:12*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 17, 12:02*pm, Peter Muehlbauer

wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:46*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article.."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

Do you know the roundtrip time of the thermohaline circulation?
Do you think 3 years are enough?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

Sorry, but this all is a strawman to avoid acceptance for existence of much
more parameters out of your vision.
I don't claim that I konw all of them, but those which were known must all be
taken into account. Without exception.
Your article missed i.e. the open magnetic flux or the sun's orbit
perturbation, only to name 2 of them.
You also have to consider that special spectra of the TSI are notably
contributing to the climate, even if their signal is very weak and covered up
amid the total spectrum. But they exist.

You'd better revise your imagination about Earth's climate and extend your
basic knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll put it to you again: why is the earth so warm? [garbage flushed]

What is "so warm", you ****-eating-imbecile?
Is that a "science" term?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah right and you expect anyone to engage with you after that. Believe
what you wish and express yourself as you wish - the real people will
continue to live in the real world waves at the oddball on the alien
shore..........

On Mar 17, 8:31*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:23*pm, dr yacub wrote:



On Mar 17, 8:12*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 17, 12:02*pm, Peter Muehlbauer

wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:46*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:32*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Meteorologist wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ng_period_of_l...

IMHO additional information is needed on
cloud cover/cosmic ray interaction before
jumping to this study's conclusion.

What says the reader?

David Christainsen

What a bunch of crap.
But ok, it's from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the home of one of the greatest liars Stefan Rahmstorf, involved in the CRU
files.

"UN appointed climatologists predict that global average temperatures will
rise between 3.7 and 4.5 C by the end of the century. But, even if the sun
enters another Grand Minimum the reduction in solar energy will slow heating
by a paltry 0.3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century."

This means an "evidence", based on a subtraction of 0.3 °C from a total
idiotic prediction.
The result is, logically, yet another idiotic prediction.

"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are too efficient at trapping the
sun's energy to make any difference, according to the article."

LOL, big LOL!

A CO2 net forcing of + 1.6 Wm-2 compared to a solar net forcing of - 3-4 Wm-2.
She should change her name to Julie Assblaster.

And what article is she referring to?http://news.discovery.com/space/the-...om-global-warm...

Wow! A blog!

There really is urgent need to strike her name off the payroll!

I don't suppose you have considered that The Potsdam Institute may
have actually looked at the fact that despite nearly 3 years of low
solar output, present global temperatures are around record levels and
then come to a pretty obvious conclusion about increased cosmic rays
and their effects on global temperatures? A pretty obvious conclusion
that appears to have completely escaped every denialist, including
yourself? Why not do the typical thing of ignoring global temperatures
entirely and focussing on the scientists for saying something that you
don't like?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

If you are so sure that this is a "bunch of crap" - explain why,
despite an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO, it is so warm
globally?

It isn't "so warm globally".
Maybe in your personal feeling.

Do you really expect that changes take effect at the same second as they
appear?
Are you really convinced, that the described solar irradiance is the only
point in this calculation?
If so, you totally failed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*3 years* and no effects? How long do you expect to wait? I don't
really call that changes occurring at the same second as the appear,
do you?

Do you know the roundtrip time of the thermohaline circulation?
Do you think 3 years are enough?

I don't feel it is the only point at all - that's why I also wonder
why another tenet of the denialists - the negative PDO - negative for
two years now, has similarly had the same cooling effect; i.e. no
effect?

An extended solar minimum and a negative PDO combined (and a La Nina
up to last spring) and no cooling: what more could be needed for the
world to actually cool?

Horrid things for a denialist to explain aren't they? Especially with
global temperatures so high.....

Sorry, but this all is a strawman to avoid acceptance for existence of much
more parameters out of your vision.
I don't claim that I konw all of them, but those which were known must all be
taken into account. Without exception.
Your article missed i.e. the open magnetic flux or the sun's orbit
perturbation, only to name 2 of them.
You also have to consider that special spectra of the TSI are notably
contributing to the climate, even if their signal is very weak and covered up
amid the total spectrum. But they exist.

You'd better revise your imagination about Earth's climate and extend your
basic knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll put it to you again: why is the earth so warm? [garbage flushed]

What is "so warm", you ****-eating-imbecile?
Is that a "science" term?- Hide quoted text -

Ah right [duh,duh,duh]

The ****-eating-imbecile,Daw****,
does "science" by making **** up.

Run and hide, ****-eater.