On Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:12:00 UTC, Togless wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

El Nino on the Wane and natural forcing saying things are going down.

But natural forcings aren't in charge any more. We are.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/



Therein dear Toggers lies the rub.

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:26:49 UTC, Paul Garvey wrote:
Larry now trying to say that 'natural forcings' (undefined, of course; he has no idea what these might be, but it's a good denier crock phrase that sounds as if it means something) are causing GW, not, of course, anthropogenic CO2. He's been reading Watts again.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Maybe he should take note of what Spencer has been saying, but Spencer has been saying something he doesn't want to hear, so he doesn't listen to Spencer, either.

I don't believe the Milankovitch cycles are not with out doubters either , in other woods we should not be so cocky as to thing we know everything or at least the prime drivers of climate change. I believe it was the fifties when William Hapgood prosed catastrophic Pole Shift as a means for crust displacement and of course so many Poles have now shifted to the England that some may say he was spot on. However I jest. No the point is that Hapgood's theory got displaced instead and almost immediately by Tectonic Plate Theory. Yet one of Hapgood's greatest champions was also one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein.



"Support for this theory was given in a forward by Albert Einstein to one of Hagood’s books in 1953:

In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body... (Hapgood, 1958, p. 1) "



So the moral of this story is oh cocky bleeder . That we've only just started using electricity, only had a hundred years of powered flight and even in the fifties the science of understanding the movement of the earths crust was still in dispute. So called idiots like you who think grasping and looking good at a topic for vanities sake is to look at the current best scientific odds and then go with it claiming you agree with that particular science because you are a supreme intellectual and grasp the subject matter beyond all doubt. So I have no doubt that you would have backed the Hapgood/Einstein ticket for explanation of evidence of crust movement.

Me. I don't claim to be a scientist or intellectual but I do know that humans understanding of the planet has accelerated like that old Mann Hockey stick, the last 300 years , which inconveniently coincides with the harnessing of fossil fuel, but in that acceleration of knowledge scientific theories like the primary cause of duodenal and stomach ulceration can be turned totally on its head within decades.

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:44:56 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:26:49 UTC, Paul Garvey wrote:
Larry now trying to say that 'natural forcings' (undefined, of course; he has no idea what these might be, but it's a good denier crock phrase that sounds as if it means something) are causing GW, not, of course, anthropogenic CO2. He's been reading Watts again.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Maybe he should take note of what Spencer has been saying, but Spencer has been saying something he doesn't want to hear, so he doesn't listen to Spencer, either.

Me. I don't claim to be a scientist or intellectual.....

No you are an idiot for your continued belief that humans are not highly likely to be causing the current warming.

SNIP

However I jest. No the point is that Hapgood's theory got displaced instead and almost immediately by Tectonic Plate Theory. Yet one of Hapgood's greatest champions was also one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein.


"Support for this theory was given in a forward by Albert Einstein to one of Hagood's books in 1953:


Interestingly, though nothing to do with the weather, I am currently reading Brian Cox book on quantum physics (I like "life the universe & everything" books - I'm even coming to understand bits) Einstein was a disbeliever in quantum physics. Essentially he hated the idea that quantum physics only predicted probabilities.

Only goes to show that even the best of brains can be later proved to be wrong. Only Paul Garvey can always be totally certain.

None of this is refuting AGW by the way - anyone who reads my posts will know my view on the matter, basically take more care with what we are doing, or it'll come back and bite. This is especially true if the circulation flips to another setup. Something like that referred to in the Graham's NAD posts, which I didn't reply to, but found interesting. A slightly different view. I also hate the concentration of the argument on CO2, whilst the rainforests have been destroyed to such an extent that the Amazon basin is no longer a significant CO2 sink. (Google it & you'll see what I mean)

There have been various periods in the Earths history when the antarctic has been frozen, the arctic ice free. It would be interesting to know the circulation patterns from then

Graham
Penzance

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 01:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Graham Easterling wrote:


. . . the rainforests have been destroyed to
such an extent that the Amazon basin is no longer a significant CO2
sink. (Google it & you'll see what I mean)

Apparently, the Amazon is now a net producer of CO2 due to the
decomposition of of vegetation resulting from illegal logging.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Hahaha. Sure Graham. I'm always certain aren't I? 'Highly likely implies certainty to you, does it? However I'm certain here that you've said something very stupid. Just laughable and it just shows how much you actually read my posts, instead of thinking you know what they might contain.

Don't be silly and please don't expect to have a little dig by a snide reference to me in a post and expect to get away with it. 😀

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:25:45 AM UTC, Paul Garvey wrote:
Hahaha. Sure Graham. I'm always certain aren't I? 'Highly likely implies certainty to you, does it? However I'm certain here that you've said something very stupid. Just laughable and it just shows how much you actually read my posts, instead of thinking you know what they might contain.

Don't be silly and please don't expect to have a little dig by a snide reference to me in a post and expect to get away with it. 😀

If you are not certain, perhaps you should resist denigrating people who don't share your uncertain views?

I'm pleased to see you never make digs at people in your posts.

Graham
Penzance

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 9:45:50 AM UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 01:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Graham Easterling wrote:


. . . the rainforests have been destroyed to
such an extent that the Amazon basin is no longer a significant CO2
sink. (Google it & you'll see what I mean)

Apparently, the Amazon is now a net producer of CO2 due to the
decomposition of of vegetation resulting from illegal logging.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Yes, I'd read that in a couple of recent years the Amazon basin had become a net exporter of CO2. Not too mention that significant effect deforestation has had on the climate of the basin.

Graham
Penzance

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:48:38 AM UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:25:45 AM UTC, Paul Garvey wrote:
Hahaha. Sure Graham. I'm always certain aren't I? 'Highly likely implies certainty to you, does it? However I'm certain here that you've said something very stupid. Just laughable and it just shows how much you actually read my posts, instead of thinking you know what they might contain.

Don't be silly and please don't expect to have a little dig by a snide reference to me in a post and expect to get away with it. 😀

If you are not certain, perhaps you should resist denigrating people who don't share your uncertain views?

I'm pleased to see you never make digs at people in your posts.

Graham
Penzance

Says someone who just did. I'd be pleased to see you never make digs at people in your posts, Graham. OK?

99.99% of published scientists say GW is highly likely (or 'does') cause GW.. The time has come to take the gloves off on this one and I always gave the 3-5% likelihood more credence. If people can't give any credible - and I mean credible - reason why CO2 is not likely to be causing the current warming, I'd always be prepared to listen. Idiots don't. They just parrot from other idiots on Watts. Their agendas inhibit sense.

In article ,
says...


If you are not certain, perhaps you should resist denigrating people


I am certain that's his raison d'etra.

--
Alan LeHun