sunsettommy

LOL Have you seen how little it absorbs IR? Have you also seen what the current CH4 level is in the atmosphere?

It is obvious that you are going to ignore the actual data presented.Yours and mine. I showed using YOUR links that the cooling trend stopped about 1992 and stagnated after that. LINK Then last night.I showed a recent paper showing evidence that the ENTIRE Stratosphere appears to be warming back up.Fully based on the satellite data. LINK The satellite data we both presented supports my position that the cooling trend stopped about 1992 and stagnated for many years.Then I post a paper showing that it appears a small warming trend is now ongoing.Using only satellite data. When are you going to stop posting evasive crap and deal with the evidence of the satellite data? You are coming across as a condescending jerk.It is obvious that you are not going to carry on an honest discussion.

This science paper points out the effects of the changes in solar radiation changes,with Ozone changes in the atmosphere. It is from Nature: An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

Here anyone can read a science paper.Showing that the ENTIRE Stratosphere is now in a small warming trend. Recent Stratospheric Temperature Observed from Satellite Measurements All based on actual satellite data.

LOLOLOL, I have conclusively shown that there has been no more cooling for about the last 20 years. How come waldo? The "fingerprint" that has been in stall mode for 20 years. No,if you bothered to read the science paper and the media release behind it.It was the UNUSUALLY sustained cold Arctic winter that promoted it. Why do you think significant ozone thinning occurs every year in Antarctica? While it is rare in the Arctic? Meanwhile your own links shows that it was WARMER than usual last winter in the lower Stratosphere.Warmer than the previous 7 years.

Yes, your own links supports my contention of NO more cooling for the last 20 years.It stabilized around 1992. I wrote: No more cooling since 1992. Thank you.

Yes you cited papers.Papers that have obvious flaws in them.It is obvious that you missed some inconvenient facts. Maybe you try reading entire links YOU post,on your own next time.Then think about what you just read. You missed some a few big admissions and absurdities in them.

Waldo, Did you read the paper itself? How far back into the past are their data? From post #302 Implications they have no idea about since the amount of data for this research field is negligible.How would they know it is "unprecedented"? Chlorine has been in the atmosphere for a long time before CGC's were produced. Do you realize that they left out the fact that there also similar low readings back in the late 1950's? Long before there were any significant CFC's being produced? Dr Michelle Santee of Nasa's Jet Propulsion laboratory said, 'It was continuously cold from December to April, and that has never happened before in the Arctic.' When will they stop calling it unprecedented? It is stupid! They did tell us finally after reading the speculative crap they wrote.That it has been colder much longer than usual. LOL It stopped cooling about 20 years ago. LINK

In your words how can you VERIFY the far into the future temperature projections.Based on the AGW hypothesis.The IPCC obviously believes in? By the way please show us IPCC models that have been verified since 2001?

Does that mean you will accept his lie about temperature changes following CO2 changes. When there were a number of science papers published BEFORE he made that absurd presentation.Showing that major temperature changes came first and CO2 changes FOLLOWED. A presentation that was exposed in a court of law to have serious errors in it.

Trenberth was complaining that they can not find the postulated warming in the deep ocean waters.But he and a few of his boys still believe the never seen or measured heat.That by magic,sneaked by the ARGOS boys and is now piling up in the deeeep ocean waters. I have already shown how irrelevant the AGW hypothesis as per the 2007 IPCC report.I also showed that three main 20 year warming trends since the 1850's are nearly the same."Global" warming was never evident since 1979 anyway.It is a NORTHERN Hemisphere warming. I have also pointed out that the temperature projections for the first decade of the 21's century as shown in the 2001 IPCC report.To be in grave error.They say .20C The empirical data says,flat to a slight cooling. I brought all this up a few months ago in the forum.There was not a single credible counterpoint made against it.

Tim, he is babbling. Giving us the run around with vague stuff,is all he done. He is not going to dig in and seriously discuss anything in some detail.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Not once have you tried to discuss anything. I have tried,by posting information and by trying to discuss it. You have not. Have you even read the exchanges I have been having with Michael Harder?

I see that YOU have yet to show that YOU have read her stuff and find errors.That you know of counter arguments and so on. When are you going to do that?

Ok He was being snotty.Thus the reason why I piled on the information.Hoping he finally understand. That remains to be seen. You have not provided a shed of evidence to support your absurd claim. I have read Jo Nova's blog entry over a year ago.I agree with the main thrust of her points. You offered NOTHING in the way of a counterpoint against it.Just a smear is all you have offered: LOL You are a funny guy who has yet to post a factual counterpoint to the sources.

Notice that Avro,Oleg Bach and now Bloodyminded.Never offer concrete counterpoints against the sources we linked. Just the tired baloney about big oil funding.About stating they are not climate scientists and other drivel. The deflections,obfuscations and smears seems to be the common theme they offer.

What the hell! This is what you originally wrote (post 244) to something else altogether.Then you claim this points to Jo Nova: Post 246: I first read the blog post over a year ago. It is telling that you just babble and not provide anything to counter her actual blog entry with anything. Just the usual babbling is all you offer: Then more babble: and more: Not a shred of a counterpoint to make against her blog entry. LOL

You keep deflecting from what I am discussing.I am pointing out the errors made by Avro.He claimed that a certain list of people are not climate scientists. I just wrote this you answered: "Here is where you can see a number of PUBLISHED climate science papers,published by people like Isdo,Singer,Christy,Spencer and others.Avro so foolishly lambasted: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm" I showed his error by selectively showing their backgrounds.Then I post this link to show they did indeed post climate science papers. You are having so much difficulty in seeing on what I am doing here.You are so quick to be adversarial.

Here is where you can see a number of PUBLISHED climate science papers,published by people like Isdo,Singer,Christy,Spencer and others.Avro so foolishly lambasted: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

I have posted more than a dozen links in this thread alone. Is it so hard for YOU to post the reference?

bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! You are just like Avro who seems to prefer babbling.Than to make rational,coherent comments. I have no idea what particular person you seem to be referring to.Since it comes across as a generic person.

??? You write confusingly. CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.It has no possibility of being an environmental pollutant. We have no problem breathing.What you exhale is CO2,that is well above the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Wikipedia I think you need to think things through more clearly.

LOL. Another irrational post from a dude named Avro.

Bloodyminded incredibly writes: To help you catch up in the thread: Post 223 Avro wrote: My reply at post 225: In one easy post.I was able to show that a selected few I chose are indeed climate scientists and have had peer reviewed climate science papers published. But Avro does not when to stop making a fool of himself with his next post to me,228: Therefore I then went to the mat by irrefutably showing that they are indeed climate scientists. In several postings 229,231,232,233.I was able to show that both Fred Singer and Roy Spencer are climate scientists. You are badly mistaken.

You have been able to read my postings.