Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Megalodon]

It could be solar in nature, which could be good and bad but it also appears to coincide with the increase in CO₂.

Actually no, it can't be solar.



But it's nice to bring some science back into the thread

 

[Poptech]

I don't call you a liar because of your "sarcasm"... That's why I call you a thief. You've lied enough times before to earn the epithet...

I have never lied or stole anything, though your desperate attempts to slander me continue.

Duh, and you did not stay around to discuss this, nope you went around starting a lot of new threads and did not come back to the Norway thread.

That was because it was locked and then cut to pieces. After which it lost all semblance of what was going on. I cannot have my responses butchered and expect to continue.

At the JREF, there will be protracted discussion. You do not learnt critical skills through volume of new threads.

No there will be extensive ad hominem attacks and attempts at ridicule and then slander. Anything in a pathetic attempt to discredit the poster who challenges the religious beliefs of some here.

You brought it up, you were the one who was off topic.

Really? Prove I was the first one to mention the Arctic in this thread.

And yes there are times there has been less sea ice. But again just throwing out factoid does not an argument make.

Do you even read these threads or just my comments? Why do you not state this to anyone else? Interesting the blatant bias.

 

[Poptech]

So, someone asks you to show the chain of evidence that the chart you posted in related to what you say it is. And this is your response?

Show that the chart you posted comes from where you haven't said it comes from?

Demonstrate that you took the chart from Rahmstorff?

is that clear enough?

Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.

 

[Megalodon]

Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.

No, it's you who doesn't know what intellectual property is, using graphs without attribution over and over again. You're a thief.

 

[Poptech]

Actually no, it can't be solar.

But it's nice to bring some science back into the thread

Actually it can.

 

[Megalodon]

Actually it can.

Did you make that graph (he asked knowingly)?

Where's the attribution?

Why do keep stealing things?

 

[BenBurch]

In any case the data in his stolen, unattributed graph is a load of bollocks.

 

[Poptech]

Why do keep stealing things?

Why do you? I have stolen nothing. (Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

 

[Megalodon]

Why do you? I have stolen nothing. (Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

The graphs I post are my own or attributed. Yours are neither. You are a thief of other people's work.

 

[Megalodon]

(Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

Please show where I told you to delete or hide the graphs, you liar.

I told you to attribute the work to the authors, and stop stealing their work.

 

[Poptech]

unattributed graph is a load of bollocks.

Nope it is Peer Reviewed...

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie H. Soon

Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
- Willie H. Soon

 

[BenBurch]

"Physical Geography" is a place to peer review a climatology result?



You might as well submit it to a paleontology journal.

 

[Poptech]

Thats it? That is all you have? Pathetic. I hate having these Peer-Reviewed papers and watching you desperately trying to invent new excuses.

 

[BenBurch]

I was going to ask you that same question. You think two papers published in off-topic journals proves... What, exactly? What do you think you just proved? Can you state it?

In your own words for once?

 

[Poptech]

You can pretend that you can subjectively decide which journals are acceptable whenever you want but thanks to reality you have no such power.

I just provided peer reviewed evidence for the arctic temperature changes being linked to solar activity.

 

[BenBurch]

Not pretend, know.

Now, back to the topic. Did you read those papers?

What do you think they say?

 

[D'rok]

You can pretend that you can subjectively decide which journals are acceptable whenever you want but thanks to reality you have no such power.

I just provided peer reviewed evidence for the arctic temperature changes being linked to solar activity.

Evidence from a researcher funded by the American Petroleum Institute is rather suspect.

Thank you for smoking.

 

[Poptech]

No pretend. Yes I read them. I already stated:

"The provided peer reviewed evidence for the arctic temperature changes being linked to solar activity."

 

[Poptech]

Evidence from a researcher funded by the American Petroleum Institute is rather suspect.

Not really. The study (neither of these) you are talking about was also funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

[D'rok]

Not really. The study (neither of these) you are talking about was also funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Soon has been fatally compromised:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723

Thank you for smoking.