Non Regia Solis

reply to post by Analkulimos


I think you have me confused with someone else.
My name isn't Katie.

reply to post by Kali74


I'm sorry I ment kalie I wasn't paying attention to my spelling

reply to post by Kali74

HardGore.

You can be funny!

You're still mad that I said it is absurd to say ENSO isn't transient?

You're giving yourself to much credit. Don't get all worked up again. I just immediately realised it's another thing you know too little about to have a meaningful discussion. Look, if there's a subject that really interests me or that i find fascinating then i'll try to learn everything there is to know about it, before i would even think about discussing it with others.

I was #ty at math too when i was in school and i'm not too eager to learn about things i find dull or uninteresting. But that would be a lame excuse if someone would point out to me that i'm simply wrong about a particular fact.

You are arguably the one member here on ATS who is more passionate about climate change than any other and yet i constantly see you parroting claims you read on some AGW blog without ever checking the validity of said claim. Nothing to do with being in disagreement about a concept or theory. Simple fact checking. The basics.

The way climate science is commonly communicated makes prone to misconceptions.

There is on perfect example right here in the thread.
_______________________________________________________________________

The TOA imbalance argument i had with Phage.

My claim:

Net TOA and surface energy flux is also still highly uncertain.

Phage replied, citing the article

That's not what I get from that article.

Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm–2, than earlier model-based estimates

The moment i read his reply i knew he had no idea what he was talking about. I even felt a little embarrassed for him making such ridiculous 'mistake'. I tried two times to give him a little hint, hoping he would notice himself what he got completely wrong there.

Do you know what an extra 10-17 W/m2 imbalance would do to the planet? We would be incinerated. Hansen would be delighted.

So you have ATS' resident solar expert making the most ridiclous claims, twice in a row, without even noticing it. If this is what global warming hysteria does to even the most intellingent people what's the chance of hoping that the less interested ever get the most basics facts straight. This is no minor detail. Is there extra heat in the system or not. Phage now thinks, yes it's 17 W/m2 extra.

ENSO is another thing. I'm pretty convinced you've never read a single study about ENSO, maybe some stuff on SkepitcalScience. I could be wrong here, but i doubt it. Otherwise you would never say the things you say. You can't even hope to have a clear picture about the climate system without having at least a basic understanding of the individual aspects.

Man-made global warming could still be real even if El Ninos/La Ninas are something completely different than you think they are. But wouldn't you agree that in light of the above it is understandable that i often think, what's the point?

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Hey dude

reply to post by talklikeapirat

You're giving yourself to much credit.

Am I?

Don't get all worked up again.

If I wasn't having fun, I wouldn't be here.

I just immediately realised it's another thing you know too little about to have a meaningful discussion.

We tried that meaningful discussion thing before, a few times... it resulted in you calling me a liar, another time, stupid, this thread we've gone through the whole spiel haven't we? Stupid, delusional, liar and a new one... lazy. I see right through you and you know I do, it's bugging you enough to derail your own thread several times and ignore the one person who sees science the way you do, that's who you should be trying to have a meaningful discussion with.

But that would be a lame excuse if someone would point out to me that i'm simply wrong about a particular fact.

It's not a lame excuse this is a diagnosed fact. I'm not lazy, I don't just turn away when something is too hard, if something truly requires me to do the math on... I try my best to figure it out, often doing it the long way... most times I find as many sources as I can and look for anything that states the math in something is wrong. So no, I'm not lazy... rather the opposite and if you care to go ahead and go through my posts, when I'm being lazy I say so.

You are arguably the one member here on ATS who is more passionate about climate change than any other and yet i constantly see you parroting claims you read on some AGW blog without ever checking the validity of said claim.

No you don't. To be honest the only AGW blogs I really read are Skeptical Science and Tamino who are kind enough to cite what they talk about so I don't even have to digging around to verify anything. Clicky, clicky makes me happy.

I don't know why you're talking to me about your argument with Phage but it's pretty damn clear you have severe issues with interpreting situations and translating what all that "sciency stuff" means in reality... I dunno I can't quite put my finger on it but something is really off with you.

reply to post by Kali74


Sorry I said Katie my spelling check was off

reply to post by Analkulimos


Okay... hi.

reply to post by Kali74


Did you now the government has been shutdown for about a week ?

reply to post by Kali74

Stupid, delusional, liar and a new one... lazy.

That's becoming quite the list. Are you sure you didn't forget anything?

To be honest the only AGW blogs I really read are Skeptical Science and Tamino

Of course. I know. But you can always tell yourself it all sounded so convincing.

I dunno I can't quite put my finger on it but something is really off with you.

I thought you can see right through me. Don't waste your time, it's not worth it.

ENSO is much more interesting.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Shut up dude

reply to post by Analkulimos


Katie started it.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


You have a problem with sites that cite? Linking to papers, articles and studies for immediate comparison to what is being said in the post is bad how? And why do you want to talk about ENSO so much when it has nothing to do with your OP? You do remember your OP right?

reply to post by Kali74

You do remember your OP right?

Vaguely.

And why do you want to talk about ENSO so much

I don't. It was recommendation for you to not waste your time with me. There are much more interesting things.

For Instance.
SkepilepticalScience

(paper in the article linked in OP)

reply to post by talklikeapirat


The paper essentially states that a grand minimum would likely not offset global warming by more than 0.1C, what would you like to discuss?

reply to post by Kali74

what would you like to discuss

What makes you believe i want to discuss anything with you.

We've already established that i think you are a stupid, delusional, lazy, humorless liar. Or you said that's what think. I believe i also called you scientifically illiterate. I can't remember right now.

For most people AGW is already a non-issue. People are fed up with the scare stories. Think of it like 'the War on Terror' only in this case the perceived threat is entirely fictitious. It will probably take a couple more years until it becomes impossible to keep up the myth any longer but time is running out and Nature doesn't play ball. You will of course continue to believe all the deniers are brainwashed by Big Oil propaganda, but it doesn't really matter anymore. The cooling has already started and it won't be long before it becomes an undeniable fact.

As a parting gift.

Here's a link to the Climate Explorer

All climate data sets are freely available. Make yourself familiar with a spreadsheet software like exel and you can plot any type of temperature graph or time series for the entire globe. If you take your time you will find the cooling.









Have a nice life. Stay cool

reply to post by talklikeapirat

What makes you believe i want to discuss anything with you.

We've already established that i think you are a stupid, delusional, lazy, humorless liar. Or you said that's what think. I believe i also called you scientifically illiterate. I can't remember right now.

You're out of your flippin mind.