New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[mistermack]

Isn't it rather revealing that the feedback mechanisms that are under dispute are of cloud cover, supposedly stoked up by the CO2.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cloud cover weather?
The very thing that the modellers have the most trouble with? Amazing coincidence that !!
So climate and weather are such very different things, apparently, according to the "experts" on this thread. Weather is totally irrelevant, right?
Why are the simple things so hard to grasp? I'm doing my best to help you.

[Schneibster]

Isn't it rather revealing that the feedback mechanisms that are under dispute are of cloud cover, supposedly stoked up by the CO2.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cloud cover weather?

Nope.

Noticed you didn't have much to say in reply to my last message. Looks like you're trying to change the subject.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Isn't it rather revealing that the feedback mechanisms that are under dispute are of cloud cover, supposedly stoked up by the CO2.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cloud cover weather?

Nope.

Noticed you didn't have much to say in reply to my last message. Looks like you're trying to change the subject.

He does that.

[mistermack]

Isn't it rather revealing that the feedback mechanisms that are under dispute are of cloud cover, supposedly stoked up by the CO2.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cloud cover weather?

Nope.

[Schneibster]

Isn't it rather revealing that the feedback mechanisms that are under dispute are of cloud cover, supposedly stoked up by the CO2.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cloud cover weather?

Nope.

Noticed you didn't have much to say in reply to my last message. Looks like you're trying to change the subject.

He does that.

He is by a very, very long walk up the mountain with high hard boots and a lunch not the only one.

[mistermack]

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high".
The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise.

[Schneibster]

Here's the Real Climate article in which the lying hysterical alarmist scumbags...

admit the IPCC made a mistake.

Guess they're completely blinded by ideology, huh? It's a real shame.

Nice move using the Torygraph.

You're changing the subject again.

[mistermack]

Nice move using the Torygraph.

You're changing the subject again.

No, you asked for that quote.
And I take it that that's your promised rebuttal.
Formidable!!

[Schneibster]

OK, talk to me about feedback.

ETA: If you're not changing the subject.

EATA: Or, if you prefer, we can talk about how the "scientist" you were quoting lied. Again, if you're not changing the subject.

[Schneibster]

Or we could talk about Michael Mann being found completely clear of the slightest hint of wrongdoing that a bunch of the people on your side lied about him doing.

If you're not changing the subject.

[Schneibster]

Or about the fact that we're in the middle of an ice age and you didn't even know it.

If you're not changing the subject.

[Hermit]

Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, whenever the facts are uncomfortable.

Speaking of uncomfortable facts, you seem pretty adept at suddenly turning deaf. Schneibster has provided the link before, but you have yet to utter a word about the data manipulation fraud perpetrated by Roy Spencer.

Schneibster is fanatical about it, and he's quoting a fanatical blog, realclimate.
RealClimate is just rabid, it's totally biased, Michael Mann is at the top of the list of contributors. Not worth even reading.

Like I said: you're pretty adept at suddenly turning deaf. I have read your links as well as some of of the others. It helps to check both sides if you are aiming at making an informed decision. Also, I am at this stage somewhat sceptical about the anthropocentric part of the climate change issue.

[mistermack]

As you like RealClimate so much, talk your way out of this :
Even Realclimate has to admit 800 year CO2 lag. Rabid fans are in shock!!!

[Schneibster]

Also, I am at this stage somewhat sceptical about the anthropocentric part of the climate change issue.

That's worth addressing.

The evidence that it's anthropogenic is economic; it turns out that because the coal and oil that are the source of most of the CO2 have been in the ground for hundreds of millions of years, they stopped being able to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. As a result, the carbon that's been in the ground for hundreds of millions of years has a different isotope ratio than the CO2 in the atmosphere. We know what the ratio in the atmosphere used to be, because we've been measuring it for most of the century as a baseline for using carbon dating to do archeological dating, among other reasons. And as a result, we can see it's changing, and changing just as we would expect if the carbon from all that coal and oil had been added to the atmosphere. So there's the physical fingerprints of burning oil and coal.

In addition, we know from economic figures- stuff you can get from an almanac- how much coal and oil we burn and have burned back into the eighteenth century; such economic data was just as useful back then as it is today- how much oil and coal have been burned. And it's a pretty simple matter to do the accounting and see how much that carbon should have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. We also have a second check, which is the isotope fingerprint I mentioned above.

So the data that say it's us are pretty ironclad; we know how much we've burned, and we have the isotope fingerprint to confirm it.

There's more to it, but that's the main line of evidence.

[Schneibster]

We already did "CO2 lags." It was a couple days ago. Maybe you forgot.

And you're changing the subject.

Again.