Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

lol @ 'it doesn't matter', but it is a headline!

Can you not see, you were baited just a few years ago to concede that short time periods don't count, now you have a short time period to defend as relevant.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Jerome

lol @ 'it doesn't matter', but it is a headline!

Can you not see, you were baited just a few years ago to concede that short time periods don't count, now you have a short time period to defend as relevant.

Excuse me? Are you currently vomiting what is left of your brains through your nose?

I don't even know what the above sentence means. Have you lost your marbles totally?

Did you read the link I just gave you? It puts to lie your claim that the world cooled in the first decade of the this century.

[davidm]

Hang on a sec! Is this the real Jerome, or the Jerome imitator trolling Jerome?

Because whether it is Jerome or Jerome imitator, said poster is making Jerome look awfully stupid.

[davidm]

We all see how Jerome is too embarrassed and dishonest to show his face again in this thread after his persistent lie about the world allegedly cooling in the last decade has been exposed as a lie.

Now, more bad news.

[SR71]

Thanks david, taking this to the toy airplane site for a little nose twisting.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

We all see how Jerome is too embarrassed and dishonest to show his face again in this thread after his persistent lie about the world allegedly cooling in the last decade has been exposed as a lie.

Now, more bad news.

CO2 is not "produced" by the sea.

Hit me up with some more sciency stuff!

[Jerome]

[erimir]

That graph is pretty meaningless, even if we assume the data behind it are accurate.

The temperatures and the CO2 aren't on the same scale at all, so the perceived lack of correlation between the two in the graph is almost entirely a function of how you scale the graph.

If the CO2 was scaled starting at 0 and went up to 700, you would see an almost flat line going through the middle of the temperature graphs, instead suggesting that CO2 did not change very much and temperatures also didn't show a drastic trend over the 10 years (aside from a spike in 1996... which is where it starts too, because it can deceptively suggest a cooling pattern, when if you went back a few years earlier you would see that 1996 was a short-term spike in temperatures not a previous stable condition that we're now cooling from).

And at any rate, there are a large number of factors besides CO2 that cause the variations in temperature, and it requires the use of powerful statistical modeling to sort out, not simplistic comparisons of two graphs.

[davidm]

You've been schooled on your bogus graph several times in the past, haven't you, you odious little liar?

Now, then, about the NASA link I gave you? I suppose that doesn't count because it's from Big Gummint.

Asshat.

I'd bet if it weren't for the help of Big Gummint all along the way, Jerome would be in the gutter or dead. Just like so many right wingers. No coincidence that the biggest welfare states in America, the ones that receive more from the gummint that they pay in, are in the Old Confederacy, which ought to be forcibly evicted from the Union.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

That graph is pretty meaningless, even if we assume the data behind it are accurate.

Only for the hystericals, because the predictions don't fit the data.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

Just like so many right wingers. No coincidence that the biggest welfare states in America, the ones that receive more from the gummint that they pay in, are in the Old Confederacy, which ought to be forcibly evicted from the Union.

I see, this is a political issue for you.



Right, fuck the science stuff, we need the collective!!!

[Clutch Munny]

See, the temperature is down into the chilly pale blue on that graph, not up in the warm yellow zone. Just like HIV, you know -- it's important to get the colours right when you're doing real science stuff.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I'm too stupid to understand what you said about manipulating the graphs.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Originally Posted by erimir

[Jerome]

Do you have a graph which shows 'the greatest warming ever recorded in the last decade'?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I'm a gigantic fucking hypocrite.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I see, this is a political issue for you.



Right, fuck the science stuff, we need the collective!!!

I do believe you are actually a troll who doesn't believe a word you write, because no one could write something so stupid as above and function in daily life.

Obviously, my comment regarding ridding the country I live in of right wingers like you was a parenthetical, unrelated to the science of global warming.

Are you, or are you not, prepared to contest the link to the data of NASA on global warming, shit head?

Oh, and see this:


From the EPA

The global average temperature increased by more than 1.4°F over the last century. [2] In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. [3] Rising global temperatures have also been accompanied by other changes in weather and climate. Many places have experienced changes in rainfall resulting in more intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. [4] All of these changes are evidence that our world is getting warmer.

Now, what say you, shit head?

[Jeroll]

Originally Posted by davidm

Obviously, my comment regarding ridding the country I live in of right wingers like you was a parenthetical, unrelated to the science of global warming.

LOL
It's not "obvious" at all.
What *is* obvious is that you made a statement, fucked it up, and are now trying to walk it back.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now, what say you, shit head?

I say you take yourself far too seriously and put way too much faith in your own lame arguments.

Yah, good luck with that; none of the rest of us do.

[davidm]

Thanks, Jeroll.

We won't be Jerolled again!

[SR71]

I took that article about the Arctic sea sink/source transition to the a denialist snake pit. The one guy who has a good science background was all Oh you can't draw a pole diagram of it so it's not a feedback loop. I was all What you don't need to describe a gain loop for it to work. It just got worse from there. P. funny, really. I went medieval on his ass.

[SR71]

RC Groups - View Single Post - Do you think Global Warming is caused by Mankinds burning of fossil fuels?

I like these pictures better. They say the same thing as yours, but they bring out the fact that H2O is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect by far, which yours does as well, but it's been obfuscated. See picture at bottom that shows that CO2 does not absorb in some spot untouched by H2O.

You do agree that we should be only considering the Earth's blackbody radiation portion of the spectrum, right?

Read the post and then the quote. Why does this guy want me to agree with the blackbody thing? It doesn't seem to apply to me, since it's just a first approximation and doesn't account for the atmosphere. Any sciencey types want to weigh in here and set me straight?

Here's what I replied.

RC Groups - View Single Post - Do you think Global Warming is caused by Mankinds burning of fossil fuels?

[1] No obfuscation. At some wavelengths CO2 absorption is total where H20 is partial. Also, as already stated, H20 is not well mixed, whereas CO2 is.

[2] I will consider agreeing to your question if you agree to one of mine first. Would you agree that without those tiny amounts of other GHG's, the planet would be much colder?

The DENIALIST FRAUD must be EXPOSED!!

END OF THE PAPER

[fragment]

My 2c:

Well if we're talking about radiation that's being emitted by the earth surface , absorbed in the atmosphere and reradiated back downwards then yeah, it is the Earth's blackbody portion of the spectrum we're dealing with.

I can't pretend to anything approaching expertise, but from what I have read it seems the whole radiation absorption thing gets quite complex. For example, take a look at how the absorption changes between the surface and at 11km up. H2O gets less important. And, since we're talking about the total energy retained by the earth system, the 11km figures are much more important.

But there's more. There are fine-scale gaps and peaks in the absorption spectra that are too small to show on those graphs, but probably large enough to have an influence. Things also change with pressure.

And yeah, H2O accounts for the bulk of the greenhouse effect. But so what? Other GHGs still have an effect. Plus the quantity if water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by temperature, so it has to be treated as part of the internal dynamics of the system.

As always, usual disclaimers about being lay interested person and double checking with scientifically reliable sources, etc.

[SR71]

Thanks, that response helps. It seems like the portion of the one graph also comes into play, where downgoing radiation is at a shorter wavelength then upgoing radiation. I'm not even sure why that is the case, but that fact seems somewhat important.

Also, am I mistaken that even if water vapor content were quite high, some of the IR will still penetrate whether up or down going? If so, would this still apply even where the two absorption spectra overlap?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by SR71

Thanks, that response helps. It seems like the portion of the one graph also comes into play, where downgoing radiation is at a shorter wavelength then upgoing radiation. I'm not even sure why that is the case, but that fact seems somewhat important.

The atmosphere is largely transparent to the sun's incoming radiation (70-75% gets through according to that graph), which is how the radiation gets through and heats up the surface (and allows us to see stuff). I guess that portion of solar radiation that is reflected by the surface rather than absorbed would face some absorption by the atmosphere on the way back up. I have not heard of this before, so I have no idea whether it's a significant effect or not. Interesting question.

Also, am I mistaken that even if water vapor content were quite high, some of the IR will still penetrate whether up or down going? If so, would this still apply even where the two absorption spectra overlap?

I can't answer this off the top of my head, and I don't have time to look for an answer, sorry.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by fragment

I can't answer this off the top of my head, and I don't have time to look for an answer, sorry.

That's alright. Fragmentary answers is all that we expect from you. After all, your name is "fragment", is it not?