USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
YEAH; but then, FACTS do tend to promote climate change denial and that would be, because they're FACTS.
New study in Nature shows pause is real
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
YEAH; but then, FACTS do tend to promote climate change denial and that would be, because they're FACTS.
You are blocked.You haven't grown up a bit.
Translation: I lost again so I will do what I do best. Piss myself and run away. There is no way that kid can be yours PackD. Unless your boyfriend actually got pregnant by anal sex.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You are such a effing moron that you can't tell the difference between a peer reviewed paper and an article. Here they are again!!
Your spinchter must be red raw from all the arse raping you had today, truly a bugger for punishment.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Anyway I am truly bored with you now, so will not engage you any further as this discourse is truly pointless and futile. You clearly have absolutely no grounding in the science or indeed any knowledge of the ongoing debate or even the principal characters involved.
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
You fucking Dishonest Cunt. The article references four peer reviewed papers published within a year of one of Lindzen's cockeyed theories and none of them support his position. Since you're too dishonest and lazy to review them, here they are:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0003:TIHANO>2.0.CO;2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0249:NEFI>2.3.CO;2
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/CPT/delgenio-kovari_jcl02.pdf
And, lastly, from skepticalscience:
"In short, much research has focused on Lindzen's iris hypothesis, but very little supporting evidence has been uncovered. On the contrary, studies have consistenly shown that Lindzen dramatically overestimated the iris effect in his initial study, and that if the effect exists, it may even amplify warming as opposed to dampening it. There certainly isn't any evidence that the infrared iris will result in enough of a negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming."
Bye bye DC
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I am always one step ahead you ignorant bastard. Skeptical Science is run by John Cook, he of the bullshit 97% consensus study, and have a guess...Dana Nuttertelli.
As I have said already you just don't have any handle on either the science or the personalities, I think you just love having your rectum reamed!!
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Domer Cunt thinks he knows something about climate feedbacks because he read some bullshit he googled on Skeptical Science.
Judith Curry, another hugely talented climate scientist, has already written an article on her blog referring to the paper published in NATURE by Mauritsen and Stevens about the Iris Effect.
From the Nature paper:
One objection to the idea of an iris effect is that it is not clear what the physical mechanism might be. An iris effect could result if the efficiency of precipitation within deep convective cloud towers increased with warming, leading to less detrainment into their anvils. This could occur if aggregation of convective clouds into large clusters is temperature-dependent. Aggregation is due to an instability of radiative-convective equilibrium, whereby relatively dry regions cool radiatively, resulting in local subsidence and further suppression of convection, ultimately leading to an aggregated state with localized convective clusters. The cooling of the dry and clear regions is expected to increase with warmer temperatures and hence promote aggregation1. In addition, in a warmer climate convective clouds may further be invigorated by enhanced latent heat release.
As larger convective clouds dilute less by lateral mixing they precipitate more of their water during ascent, and fewer large clusters can provide the necessary latent heating to sustain atmospheric radiative cooling (Fig. 1). Both cloud-resolving simulations and observations confirm that outgoing longwave radiation does increase as a consequence of a drying environment in more aggregated states. Shortwave absorption also increases, which tends to cancel some of the effect. All in all, however, we conclude that it is plausible that convective aggregation constitutes a negative longwave feedback on climate change — and to our understanding, the underlying processes are not explicitly represented in climate models.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/26/observational-support-for-lindzens-iris-hypothesis/
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Judith Curry, another hugely talented climate scientist, has already written an article on her blog referring to the paper published in NATURE by Mauritsen and Stevens about the Iris Effect.
From the Nature paper:
One objection to the idea of an iris effect is that it is not clear what the physical mechanism might be. An iris effect could result if the efficiency of precipitation within deep convective cloud towers increased with warming, leading to less detrainment into their anvils. This could occur if aggregation of convective clouds into large clusters is temperature-dependent. Aggregation is due to an instability of radiative-convective equilibrium, whereby relatively dry regions cool radiatively, resulting in local subsidence and further suppression of convection, ultimately leading to an aggregated state with localized convective clusters. The cooling of the dry and clear regions is expected to increase with warmer temperatures and hence promote aggregation1. In addition, in a warmer climate convective clouds may further be invigorated by enhanced latent heat release.
As larger convective clouds dilute less by lateral mixing they precipitate more of their water during ascent, and fewer large clusters can provide the necessary latent heating to sustain atmospheric radiative cooling (Fig. 1). Both cloud-resolving simulations and observations confirm that outgoing longwave radiation does increase as a consequence of a drying environment in more aggregated states. Shortwave absorption also increases, which tends to cancel some of the effect. All in all, however, we conclude that it is plausible that convective aggregation constitutes a negative longwave feedback on climate change — and to our understanding, the underlying processes are not explicitly represented in climate models.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/26/observational-support-for-lindzens-iris-hypothesis/
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Why are all of your posts your rubber stamp support of criticisms of peer reviewed scholarship by people not in peer reviewed scholarship?
For example, you are right now approving of a blog you think is critical of a science paper. Do you think we are idiots? Why would you do that.
Oh that's right. You have no choice. Because you have no science. Peer review means experts with authority in the same discipline reviewed the work in advance and discussed the scientists paper, and found it worthy among many for publication.
You or I can write a fucking blog. We may be brilliant, or we may be daft. I'll take the added assurance of peer reviewed scholarship of experts in the field over either of us.
But that's just me. You can prefer the outsiders who are not peer reviewed on a blog.
Still waiting on your accurate predictions there PackD. You seem to be running away faster than usual from that.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Jeez you are truly a dopey cunt, the blog article by Judith Curry, who is a top flight climate scientist, was her analysis of a peer reviewed paper published in NATURE reassessing Richard Lindzen's Iris Effect. How can anybody so stupid manage to take a shit and breathe at the same time?
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
If it was worthy of my attention she would submit it for publication. Apparently she wasn't on the review group. It's in her blog. I could care less. And your derivative drivel ain't helping her case, mate.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Oh shut the fuck up you are beyond insane. I haven't failed to notice that you chose to completely ignore the Nature paper reassessing the Iris Effect. My post wasn't even intended for you but that other dumb cunt Gomer.
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
I don't care. My point stands. You have dick as always.
PackD loves to show his lack of knowledge. He is proud of that....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He is truly a cretin, you are 200% right about him!
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
He is just gone in the top hamper. Bad life choices, he cannot deal with them. Though he made them himself.
Peer reviewed papers, dolt. Says your boy is FOS.
You said you would no longer engage. More proof of your Dishonest Cuntness. lol