Notices
Results 1 to 73 of 73

Thread: About global warming!

  1. #1 About global warming! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    As I could read in other interesting topic someone has a little confusion about the great issue named Global warming and of course someone thinks that it could be not true or just a great conspiracy...

    Well I really think that in any case the most important result is to orient the direction of our economy in a way that is better for our world.

    I agree with those who actually think that the global warming is not true... and of course if you study a bit deeply the argument you can understand that what has always controlled our clima, ans specifically our temperature is the sun... why?

    Well as you know starting from the universe we are crossed by cosmic rays which are great and very energetic electromagnetic waves that come from great stars and that are responsable for electromagnetic interferences. Sometimes we can hear by news that it can happen and that they produce problems with our mobile phones, our satellite broadcasts and so on...

    There is an other interesting consequence that come from cosmic rays... actually they have the power to help the production of clouds in the atmosphere... which means that the more are powerful and enduring cosmic rays the more clouds are produced... the more we have clouds in the atmosphere the less solar rays reach the ground and the less gradually become the temperature!

    Great... it's the case of glaciations...

    There is also the sun... this great star very close to our planet... the sun has also great influence in our control system of climate... in wich way? well... if the solar activity is high we receive a great amount of solar energy... of course but more interesting is that this solar rays are more energetic than the cosmic rays... only because the distance of the sun is less... and during a period of great activity, cosmic rays can be deflect, so that no cosmic ray reaches our planet...

    But... what happen next? easy to understand... No clouds... no cloud coverage and no cloud shadows... and the temperature starts growing gradually according with the cycles of the seasons...

    These considerations are confirmed, I would say come, from scientific study about connection between cosmic and solar activity and temperature compared with other laboratory's analisys about the connection between CO2 and temperature...

    Actually there is no evidences about this last correlation...

    Then.... we can say that the must powerful source control of our climate is the sun with its activity...

    But the most important thing is to save our world from death not just produced by global warming but produced by pollution that come from an unsustainable human activity!!! This is our goal... not just to quibble about the truth of global warming!!

    bye


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    I agree with those who actually think that the global warming is not true...
    Then you are aligning yourself with people who hold an inaccurate view of reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    and of course if you study a bit deeply the argument you can understand that what has always controlled our clima, ans specifically our temperature is the sun...
    Nobody negates the role of the sun, however, the question is how the impact of the sun on our temperature gets magnified.

    The sun simply cannot account for either the amount of warming, nor the speed with which it is warming... regardless of which mechanism you invoke.


    I've elucidated this already here, and you should read it:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900



    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    There is an other interesting consequence that come from cosmic rays...
    Yeah, except the temperature changes over the last 150 years actually LEAD the changes in solar activity. They do not LAG changes in solar activity as your argument requires.

    Would you like to see what's behind door #2?


    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    the more we have clouds in the atmosphere the less solar rays reach the ground and the less gradually become the temperature!
    The only way this helps your argument is if you are saying that we have significantly fewer clouds in todays atmosphere than we did in the past. I can tell you right now this is false.

    How about door #3?


    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    There is also the sun... this great star very close to our planet... the sun has also great influence in our control system of climate... in wich way? <snip>
    Actually, distance to the sun is not as relevant as the tilt of the earth. You have just repeated a very common misperception. If your argument were true, then we'd always have winter when we were farther from the sun and always have summer when closer... but that's not how it works.

    The difference in our distance to the sun at aphelion and at perihelion are so small that different distances at different times of year cannot account for the differences you suggest. Additionally, use of global annual averages when calculating temperature change helps to control for any variance resulting in distance from the sun.

    http://ecology.com/features/tiltingearth/


    You're really running out of doors to look behind. Would you like to phone a friend?



    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    These considerations are confirmed, I would say come, from scientific study about connection between cosmic and solar activity and temperature compared with other laboratory's analisys about the connection between CO2 and temperature...
    This is flatly wrong, and you are only misrepresenting what the science actually says.

    See the link I shared above for more on why this is the case. Repeating a lie does not suddenly make it true, and what you have put forth here is a total lie.


    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    Actually there is no evidences about this last correlation...
    Did you say there is no evidence about the correlation of CO2 and temperature? Oh my... And you want us to recognize your information here as coming from an informed source?

    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

    http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/



    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    Then.... we can say that the must powerful source control of our climate is the sun with its activity...
    You can say anything you want. It won't make it true.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html


    If you don't care about truth and integrity, then you should understand why so many people "quibble" with you. I wouldn't consider it "quibbling" when people rightly inform you that pretty much everything you just posted is false. There is this thing called "reality" which some of us like to live in. You should try joining us sometime.

    This is a truth that is incredibly important for all of us on this planet, and I'm sorry... I'm not going to sit back complacently when the stupidity of others can have a very real impact on me and my family.

    I stand up for truth and accuracy. If you've got some, then please share it. However, thus far you have failed epically at providing any whatsoever. The only "truth" in your post above is how successful the campaigns to confuse people about climate change and suggest to them that it's not real have been.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    So... are you saying that this documentary is false??

    http://video.google.fr/videoplay?doc...2535546754758#
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    So... are you saying that this documentary is false??

    http://video.google.fr/videoplay?doc...2535546754758#
    Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. The Great Global Warming Swindle has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.


    This link does a pretty good job of showing why:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/featur...armingswindle/


    ...and also here:

    http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html


    I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c.../fulltext.html
    There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

    Here is an additional bit of data against the swindle swindle:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008..._psychic_1.php
    What's more, Bolt didn't base this on the decision itself, but on Steve McIntyre's spin.
    Like me, Michael Tobis felt that McIntyre was blatantly spinning the decision...

    And here's yet more evidence exposing their lies:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk



    The only reason to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle is to learn how NOT to argue against human induced climate change, or perhaps to educate yourself about how the people who do argue against human induced climate change lack integrity and how they are completely willing to lie to try making their case.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    Wow... I'm sorry.. I really hoped it was the truth....

    Thanks for the patience that you manifested towards my ignorance!!!
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow

    The sun simply cannot account for either the amount of warming, nor the speed with which it is warming... regardless of which mechanism you invoke.


    I've elucidated this already here, and you should read it:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900
    inow, your discussion seems once again to cherry pick the data. You take sunspot index as the sole indicator of sun irradiance. I suspect you chose it because it produces the correlation you desire not because it represents irradiance best. When irradiance is plotted against a consistent temperature proxy throughout the data cycle your argument falls apart. These ones for example.
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    When irradiance is plotted against a consistent temperature proxy throughout the data cycle your argument falls apart.
    No, Cypress. Please try again. The amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have the effect on climate which we are presently observing. My argument remains intact, and the only thing in question here is your academic integrity and ability to accurately represent reality.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    When irradiance is plotted against a consistent temperature proxy throughout the data cycle your argument falls apart.
    No, Cypress. Please try again. My argument remains intact, and the only thing in question here is your academic integrity and ability to accurately represent reality.
    Inow, how can you, who that has zero integrity on the subject say such a thing?

    You still cannot explain my simple questions in the other threads.
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    Wow... I'm sorry.. I really hoped it was the truth....

    Thanks for the patience that you manifested towards my ignorance!!!
    Gius,

    You have nothing for which to apologize. We all make mistakes sometimes. The measure of a man is his willingness to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. If you are willing to review what you thought to be true, and adjust your thinking when you're shown to be incorrect, then there is zero need to apologize to anyone.

    Finally, let me give you a suggestion. When it comes to issues of climate change and evolution, you can safely disregard pretty much everything Cypress and Wild Cobra have to say.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    ok!
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Finally, let me give you a suggestion. When it comes to issues of climate change and evolution, you can safely disregard pretty much everything Cypress and Wild Cobra have to say.
    He says that only because we can explain our position, in our own words, and he cannot without using links of propaganda.

    He wants to censor the opposing viewpoint.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Wow...

    Guis... Reading more closely to Inow's remarks, I see I'm going to have to expose his propaganda. I don't have time now, leaving for a Thanksgiving get-together soon. However, he is so wrong on certain points.

    Get back later. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the thread What if Global Warming was a Natural Event and see how Cypress and I run circles around Inow. We explain the science in our own words, he obviously is unable to.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    ok... good... it's always necessary to consider all kinds of perspective...
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    see how Cypress and I run circles around Inow. We explain the science in our own words, he obviously is unable to.
    What I am unable to do is maintain my patience in the face of your trollish approach and complete disregard for reality... Your refusal to update your thinking when it is demonstrated false. That is a fault of mine, not the science which demonstrates conclusively that humans are the primary driver in present day climate trends.

    Now... if by "running circles around" you instead mean "forcing everyone to chase their tails," then yes... I completely agree. That is all you have done.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    When irradiance is plotted against a consistent temperature proxy throughout the data cycle your argument falls apart.
    No, Cypress. Please try again. The amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have the effect on climate which we are presently observing. My argument remains intact, and the only thing in question here is your academic integrity and ability to accurately represent reality.
    inow, the direct impact attributable to CO2 forcing is less than 1/3 that of solar irradiance. If you persist with your argument against solar irradiance then you demolish the claim for CO2 forcing. Your argument only works in a propaganda pamphlet. And even then for only a little while. Public concern for human caused global warming has declined by over 20% in the last two years alone. The reason for this decline is because your case is weak and getting weaker.

    Neither direct effect is sufficient to account for observed temperature oscillations. However the empirical fit between solar activity and temperature, tracks very well with solar activity leading temperature. Historical variations in CO2 lags temperature by a substantial number of years so we can conclude historically solar activity drives temperature which then drives CO2 concentration. The recent rise in CO2 concentration is smooth while temperature continues to oscillate in pattern with solar activity still leading. Have another look at the links provided earlier.

    The biggest problem your argument has is the curious temperature patterns since 2002. Right on cue with the long term empirical correlation to sun activity, the temperatures seem to have peaked and seem poised to decline. by your logic since natural causation is insufficient to explain the rise, then it stands to reason that it is insufficient to explain a plateau or decline. Therefore it must also be CO2 that is leading driving the plateau.... oh wait that can't be.
     

  17. #16  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    However the empirical fit between solar activity and temperature, tracks very well with solar activity leading temperature.
    No, actually... It does not. This was addressed in the very first response to this thread, and supported by the links contained within.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The biggest problem your argument has is the curious temperature patterns since 2002. Right on cue with the long term empirical correlation to sun activity, the temperatures seem to have peaked and seem poised to decline.
    Again, you are wrong, and you should look to the ocean to find out why.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    However the empirical fit between solar activity and temperature, tracks very well with solar activity leading temperature.
    No, actually... It does not. This was addressed in the very first response to this thread, and supported by the links contained within.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The biggest problem your argument has is the curious temperature patterns since 2002. Right on cue with the long term empirical correlation to sun activity, the temperatures seem to have peaked and seem poised to decline.
    Again, you are wrong, and you should look to the ocean to find out why.
    Will you stop just saying we are wrong and post the reasons in your own words please. Show us we should believe you are credible.
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Will you stop just saying we are wrong and post the reasons in your own words please. Show us we should believe you are credible.
    I'll do better than my own words. I'll share peer-reviewed sources in the most highly respected journals which support my assertion that you are both wrong as pertains to your attempts to attribute the current warming trend to the sun.


    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../463/2086/2447



    Here, as well:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1387.abstract
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1367.abstract
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/p...06/MPA2001.pdf
    http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Fil...g_GRL_2006.pdf
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941
    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...c9593387adb5e7
    http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309



    There's always this, too:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900



    I just can't take you seriously since you're so perfectly willing to dismiss ALL of those peer-reviewed sources since they don't align with your preconceptions and preferred storyline. It'd be one thing if you were making a valid case and I was still just disagreeing. However, your case is invalid, as has been robustly demonstrated time and again, and this is why I am confident in my suggestion that you can be safely ignored on this topic.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    WowÖ so many misconceptionsÖ

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    I agree with those who actually think that the global warming is not true...
    Then you are aligning yourself with people who hold an inaccurate view of reality.
    I would say you do, especially since you cannot explain my questions without saying ďseeÖ I have all these links!Ē Like I said, scientific truth isnít about consensus or how can find the most Easter eggs.

    How many times have I asked you to explain the science in your own words?

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    and of course if you study a bit deeply the argument you can understand that what has always controlled our clima, ans specifically our temperature is the sun...
    Nobody negates the role of the sun, however, the question is how the impact of the sun on our temperature gets magnified.

    The sun simply cannot account for either the amount of warming, nor the speed with which it is warming... regardless of which mechanism you invoke.
    Nobody is attributing all the change to the sun. To imply such an idea, to disregard us, is borders on lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    There is an other interesting consequence that come from cosmic rays...
    Yeah, except the temperature changes over the last 150 years actually LEAD the changes in solar activity. They do not LAG changes in solar activity as your argument requires.

    Would you like to see what's behind door #2?
    Cosmic rays arenít understood well at all. They appear to be a trigger for precipitation, but I havenít studied that area, and donít rely on them in my arguments.

    Well you show me how temperature leads solar activity please.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    the more we have clouds in the atmosphere the less solar rays reach the ground and the less gradually become the temperature!
    The only way this helps your argument is if you are saying that we have significantly fewer clouds in todays atmosphere than we did in the past. I can tell you right now this is false.
    At least we agree that cloud cover is relatively similar. I assume there could be major changes at some timeframes, but that would only be an assumption of little merit.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    There is also the sun... this great star very close to our planet... the sun has also great influence in our control system of climate... in wich way? <snip>
    Actually, distance to the sun is not as relevant as the tilt of the earth. You have just repeated a very common misperception. If your argument were true, then we'd always have winter when we were farther from the sun and always have summer when closer... but that's not how it works.

    The difference in our distance to the sun at aphelion and at perihelion are so small that different distances at different times of year cannot account for the differences you suggest. Additionally, use of global annual averages when calculating temperature change helps to control for any variance resulting in distance from the sun.

    http://ecology.com/features/tiltingearth/


    You're really running out of doors to look behind. Would you like to phone a friend?
    Actually, there is about a 3.4% difference between aphelion and perihelion. I think itís January 3rd this next year when the earth is the closest to the sun. At this time, the earth will receive the greatest solar energy it does during its orbit around the sun. It will be about 6.9% more than the earth gets six months later. Since annual events on a global scale donít do much, the biggest impact the precession has is which hemisphere will have mild winters and summers and which will have more severe ones.

    Eccentricity play a larger role than most people realize. The greater the eccentricity, the lower the total energy from the sun on an annual basis. The lower the eccentricity, the greater annual solar radiation. The effect of precession is affected by eccentricity. At a zero eccentricity, the only effect precession would have is that the ratio of land area and ocean vary between hemispheres. If these were equal in both hemispheres, precession would have mo effect at zero eccentricity.

    If you understand the mathematics of eclipses, then that will help your understanding. It helps more to understand orbital eccentricity. Thing is, loser to the sun, the earth travels faster. The earth gains speed as it moves from aphelion to perihelion, and slows down from perihelion to aphelion. The greater the eccentricity, the greater the change. This causes the earth to spend more time at a greater distance from average, and less time at a distance closer. Therefore, the higher the eccentricity, the less annual radiation we receive. In 26,000 years, we will have a closest annual average to the sun that we havenít seen in almost 400,000 years, because of orbital dynamics.

    Show me a global warming alarmist that will acknowledge these facts that are readily available.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    These considerations are confirmed, I would say come, from scientific study about connection between cosmic and solar activity and temperature compared with other laboratory's analisys about the connection between CO2 and temperature...
    This is flatly wrong, and you are only misrepresenting what the science actually says.

    See the link I shared above for more on why this is the case. Repeating a lie does not suddenly make it true, and what you have put forth here is a total lie.
    I have seen data that suggests either theory for cosmic rays, and again, I donít see anything definitive. This one is up in the air for me, but anything it may do is relatively minor to Solar Irradiance, Black Carbon on Snow and Ice, and CO2.

    Thing with CO2 is that it is a logarithmic equation. We have seen little warming in the last 300 years that can not attributed to other changes. Even if we want to believe that a 0.8 C increase occurred from a change of 280 ppm to 387 ppm, then another 107 ppm doesn't give us another 0.8 increase. It would take a level of 535 ppm to see another 0.8 C increase. When you remove the solar influence alone, assuming CO2 accounts for 0.8 C without, then you end up with less than a 0.2 C increase for CO2.

    I'll use the last 300 years from Hansen et. al. 2004 for simple energy calculations. 1700 has a solar radiance of 1363.46 watts. 2000 of 1366.67 watt. This is an increase of 0.24%. If we assume a 14 C global average starting temperature (287.15 k) then we end up with 287.82 K, or 14.67 C. An increase of 0.67 C.

    Solar is the easiest to calculate. Other factors may make short term changes to it, but it will prevail in the long term. Some of its effects are immediate, most lag because of ocean absorption. Otherwise I must ask, how did you misplace that missing energy? How did it magically disappear.

    Really now. How do you expect any of us to believe this to be an exception to the Conservation of Energy?

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    Actually there is no evidences about this last correlation...
    Did you say there is no evidence about the correlation of CO2 and temperature? Oh my... And you want us to recognize your information here as coming from an informed source?

    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

    http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
    I agree there is no correlation, or should I say what correlation there is, is not consistent enough. There are too many times that temperature and CO2 do not correspond to say they do. Observation is the best we have for CO2, whereas, we can make sound calculations from solar energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    Then.... we can say that the must powerful source control of our climate is the sun with its activity...
    You can say anything you want. It won't make it true.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html
    Donít let Inow fool you with this article. Since 1985 is too short of a timeframe to deal with and is also a period we were cleaning up the skies after 70ís era EPA regulations started, allowing more sun to do itís thing.

    There has been no notable solar increase since it peaked just before 1960. However, we were polluting the skies in mass volume lone before that, suppressing the effect of the solar radiation increase between the 1880ís to the 1950ís. As the skies cleared up, the suppressed heat from the sun was shining through again.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    If you don't care about truth and integrity, then you should understand why so many people "quibble" with you. I wouldn't consider it "quibbling" when people rightly inform you that pretty much everything you just posted is false. There is this thing called "reality" which some of us like to live in. You should try joining us sometime.
    But most of what he posts is correct, and he might be on cosmic radiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    This is a truth that is incredibly important for all of us on this planet, and I'm sorry... I'm not going to sit back complacently when the stupidity of others can have a very real impact on me and my family.
    And Iím not going to sit back and let people shove down false reasons to harm our economy and raise my taxes.

    Itís not my fault you live in false fears. Not my fault you donít understand the sciences well enough to see this as a false threat.

    If you do understand the sciences well enough, than please illustrate that to me in your words. Not by links.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I stand up for truth and accuracy. If you've got some, then please share it. However, thus far you have failed epically at providing any whatsoever. The only "truth" in your post above is how successful the campaigns to confuse people about climate change and suggest to them that it's not real have been.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
    WowÖ Consensus, and more consensus BSÖ

    Now just before the 9 minute mark, she talks about Guy Stewart Callendar, claiming a 4 and 7 degree increase for doubling and tripling. What Callendar couldnít know then, and Naomi Oreskes fails to volunteer, is that solar radiation increased during this timeframe also. Now temperature also had an unusual spike in 1920 for an unknown reason. What ever he based his conclusions on, they were definitely wrong. A doubling of CO2 if CO2 is 26% of the greenhouse effect is about 1 C. However, I believe it an be no more than 15%, which would make a doubling of CO2 to be about 0.4 C at the most.



    Just before 28 minutes, she tries to convince people the debate is closed. Another lie. Consider this:

    Global Warming Petition Project

    Overall, all I see only a lecture of warming history, without actually giving usable data or facts. Just more propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    So... are you saying that this documentary is false??

    http://video.google.fr/videoplay?doc...2535546754758#
    Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. The Great Global Warming Swindle has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.


    This link does a pretty good job of showing why:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/featur...armingswindle/


    ...and also here:

    http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
    I laughed at the inaccurate conclusions of the first of these two links, but the second seems well done. I will try to find the time reading it in full. Still, Iíll bet I have already shown all the falsehoods the second portrays, if not in the forum, another one I visit. I already noticed a few just skimming over the lengthy thing.

    The first one uses a series of things already proven to be false, to claim the video false? Give me a break.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c.../fulltext.html
    There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
    I get a marketing site! Please give me a working link.

    My godÖ Another short term BS line. I covered the 1985 thing already.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And here's yet more evidence exposing their lies:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
    So you cry when the opposition uses some of the same misleading tactics. The general message is still true when you remove the errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The only reason to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle is to learn how NOT to argue against human induced climate change, or perhaps to educate yourself about how the people who do argue against human induced climate change lack integrity and how they are completely willing to lie to try making their case.
    Maybe your side should use facts instead of misleading conclusions, because I can factually tear the alarmists theories up.

    Want a good peer reviewed paper:

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Uh huh... Mmm'kay.
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c.../fulltext.html
    There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
    I get a marketing site! Please give me a working link.

    My godÖ Another short term BS line.
    Thanks for letting me know the link was broken. Here is a fixed one:
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../463/2086/2447
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    [quote="inow"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Will you stop just saying we are wrong and post the reasons in your own words please. Show us we should believe you are credible.
    I'll do better than my own words. I'll share peer-reviewed sources in the most highly respected journals which support my assertion that you are both wrong as pertains to your attempts to attribute the current warming trend to the sun.[/URL]
    Go ahead. Prove to me you cannot talk about Global Warming in your own words.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I just can't take you seriously since you're so perfectly willing to dismiss ALL of those peer-reviewed sources since they don't align with your preconceptions and preferred storyline.
    I don't dismiss them when they give me data I can look up and fact check myself. When all I end up with is words saying something, with no evidence, yes. I dismiss it. I like to be able to fact check.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It'd be one thing if you were making a valid case and I was still just disagreeing.
    It is you who do not make a valid case.

    I challenge you to show how my work is wrong. I give you reasons and numbers. If you don't know how to work with data facts, then you are unqualified to debate with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    However, your case is invalid, as has been robustly demonstrated time and again, and this is why I am confident in my suggestion that you can be safely ignored on this topic.
    Please, tell me in your words how I am wrong, or go away.
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Uh huh. Mmm'kay.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Uh huh. Mmm'kay.
    I see that when ever you are incapable of answering a question.

    OK, I understand now.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Will you stop just saying we are wrong and post the reasons in your own words please. Show us we should believe you are credible.
    I'll do better than my own words. I'll share peer-reviewed sources in the most highly respected journals which support my assertion that you are both wrong as pertains to your attempts to attribute the current warming trend to the sun.


    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../463/2086/2447



    Here, as well:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1387.abstract
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1367.abstract
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/p...06/MPA2001.pdf
    http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Fil...g_GRL_2006.pdf
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941
    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...c9593387adb5e7
    http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309



    There's always this, too:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900



    I just can't take you seriously since you're so perfectly willing to dismiss ALL of those peer-reviewed sources since they don't align with your preconceptions and preferred storyline. It'd be one thing if you were making a valid case and I was still just disagreeing. However, your case is invalid, as has been robustly demonstrated time and again, and this is why I am confident in my suggestion that you can be safely ignored on this topic.
    You should read these articles and reports more closely. Historical correlations of solar activity vs. temperature indicate ~10 years of lag between solar activity and response by temperature proxies. Every one of your sources discusses the slight downward trend in solar irradiance beginning just after a 30 year steady rise and peak in 1987. They make no attempt to correlate it to historical long term patterns or to time shift the data to account for lag that is physically well understood. Instead they compare it to current temperature data which continues to trend upward for eleven more years then falls off (a predictable 11 year lag).

    In short they seem to be cooking the books by cherry picking data and ignoring information that is relevant. Does this make the research wrong? No, it is correct for what it says but it is incomplete. Does it come to the wrong conclusion? Absolutely. As my link shows, it is common for peer reviewed research to reach wrong conclusions. One of the most common reasons is the kind of error these researchers have made. Does this indicate an agenda? Certainly, because if I can see what they are doing, it would be silly to think that they are oblivious to it. Your deafening silence on this point in the other posting only helps to build this case.

    Now, I would love for you to show me any errors I have made in this analysis.
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You should read these articles and reports more closely. Historical correlations of solar activity vs. temperature indicate ~10 years of lag between solar activity and response by temperature proxies.
    "Historically" humans weren't pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so what happened "historically" matters little when describing the present phenomenon. Next?
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You should read these articles and reports more closely. Historical correlations of solar activity vs. temperature indicate ~10 years of lag between solar activity and response by temperature proxies.
    "Historically" humans weren't pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so what happened "historically" matters little when describing the present phenomenon. Next?
    Yet my analysis does not depend on atmospheric CO2 levels. It is neutral on that point and therefore independent of it. The empirical correlation T=f(sun activity) has no CO2 component.

    Let's grant that CO2 does influence global temperature as we both know it does. because it is thought to be independent of solar activity, it is additive but it cannot influence the behavior of the relationship between global temperature and sun activity.

    Our debate is about the degree to which CO2 and by contrast sun activity influences global temperature generally and specifically how much has each influenced the warming trend that apparently ended around 2002. You seem to be arguing that CO2 is to blame for all of it. I think sun activity accounts for most of it. Rather than continuing to dance on this debate, how about you show me how much CO2 can and has influenced global temperature this past few decades and also how much natural factors have influenced it. Unless of course you want another crack at showing us the error in my analysis above.
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    There is no debate here, cypress. What we have is me sharing empirically evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke... and you... doing a bunch of hand-waving and making assertions which are directly contradicted by reality.

    That's not a debate.
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    There is no debate here, cypress. What we have is me sharing empirically evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend
    Just so we are clear, inow. Describe for me the period of time this warming trend covers and the period of time this "empirical evidence" covers. Failure to answer will be an indication of how certain you are about your statements. [/quote]

    cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke... and you... doing a bunch of hand-waving and making assertions which are directly contradicted by reality.
    Hold that thought.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You should read these articles and reports more closely. Historical correlations of solar activity vs. temperature indicate ~10 years of lag between solar activity and response by temperature proxies.
    "Historically" humans weren't pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so what happened "historically" matters little when describing the present phenomenon. Next?
    Funny how our 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC is less than 4% of what nature pumps in the atmosphere...

     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    There is no debate here, cypress. What we have is me sharing empirically evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke... and you... doing a bunch of hand-waving and making assertions which are directly contradicted by reality.

    That's not a debate.
    So you believe in the vote.

    I didn't know that scientific fact was based of the number of people who believed something. Since when did that become part of the scientific process?
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    DID YOU READ WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE!!???

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/climateg...r-dummies.html
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Seriously, guis... If you're willing to believe that crap, then I've got a bridge I want to sell ya. Believe what you want... Climate change is happening, and humans are the primary cause. If you fail to accept that basic fact, that is your choice, but your refusal to understand why it's true does nothing to change the fact that it is.


    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    There is no debate here, cypress. What we have is me sharing empirically evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend
    Just so we are clear, inow. Describe for me the period of time this warming trend covers and the period of time this "empirical evidence" covers. Failure to answer will be an indication of how certain you are about your statements.
    I guessed you would not answer. from your posts I can assume you refer to the entire industrial period beginning in the 1800's.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke... and you... doing a bunch of hand-waving and making assertions which are directly contradicted by reality.
    Hold that thought.
    Inow, you have persistently referred to other posters as liars and deniers. You hold yourself up as one who does careful review and correctly discerns the facts. You claim that you research the issues and know who is correct and who is wrong. You claim that Wild Cobra and I are wrong while you and your sources are 100% correct.

    Here is the problem inow. Here is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke..
    But we have In this source which is one of the ones you refer to it says something quite different.

    Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sunís output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.
    What we have here is inow, who claims to always be correct, caught in a huge error. Now if he can make a mistake this basic, what does that say about his/her ability to discern the more difficult nuances of these research reports particularly in light of the reality that most peer-reviewed research reaches incorrect conclusions and in the face of the e-mail revelations that the GW advocates have been cooking the books.

    Furthermore these papers only deal with one aspect of sun activity (luminosity) and not the complex interaction on the Earth's climate. Wild cobra and I have agreed that irradiance alone does not account for temperature variations but that the empirical correlation indicates a cause effect relationship. This is consistent with the research. The research is correct for what it says, the problem is that it does not go far enough as the quote above shows. This research does not investigate the impact changes in wavelength amplitude impacts heat absorption, it does not consider numerous other effects. The research cannot investigate these other influences and even admits that. Instead of dismissing influence of the sun on global tempurature, the studies should investigate why the empirical correlations match up so well for so long a period and should discuss the degree to which this long term alignment is holding for this current cycle.

    As far as inow and his remaining credibility, well I leave that to the reader.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Here is the problem inow. Here is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke..
    But we have In this source which is one of the ones you refer to it says something quite different.

    Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sunís output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.
    What we have here is inow, who claims to always be correct, caught in a huge error.
    Nonsense. I shared 15 different sources all supporting the same claim... The sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. No huge errors, despite your assertion to the contrary. The sun... no matter which mechanism you invoke... cannot explain the recent warming trend.

    You know what does? Human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. You can ignore it all you want, or play stupid games like the internet troll you are, but none of that will change the fact that human activity and our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are the primary reason the global annual average temperature has been trending upward for the past several decades... NOT the sun as you and WC continue to assert in the face of contradictory evidence.

    Also... way to strawman, jackass. "iNow, who claims to always be correct..." You are such a tool. I've never even come close to claiming any such thing.
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.
    I have to agree.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Nonsense. I shared 15 different sources all supporting the same claim... The sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. No huge errors, despite your assertion to the contrary.
    Please explain in your own words the data and explaination to support this.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The sun... no matter which mechanism you invoke... cannot explain the recent warming trend.
    Do you know what the conservation of energy is?

    How can the solar power we receive from 1700 to 2000 increase by 0.24%, and not increase the temperature bu 0.24%?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You know what does? Human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. You can ignore it all you want, or play stupid games like the internet troll you are, but none of that will change the fact that human activity and our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are the primary reason the global annual average temperature has been trending upward for the past several decades... NOT the sun as you and WC continue to assert in the face of contradictory evidence.
    We acknowledge CO2 as a gas that warms the atmosphere. To try to convince others we don't is a flat out lie! We are saying it doesn't have the degree of effect that your prized propaganda says.

    Can't you even get the simple facts right?
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Here is the problem inow. Here is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    evidence from a multitude of sources ALL showing that the current warming trend cannot possibly be the result of changes in solar activity regardless of which mechanism you invoke..
    But we have In this source which is one of the ones you refer to it says something quite different.

    Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sunís output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.
    What we have here is inow, who claims to always be correct, caught in a huge error.
    Nonsense. I shared 15 different sources all supporting the same claim... The sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. No huge errors, despite your assertion to the contrary. The sun... no matter which mechanism you invoke... cannot explain the recent warming trend.

    You know what does? Human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.
    Liar, eh? Yes, you are a troll. That reference... You know... the one which you claim "directly contradicts" my assertion... It does no such thing. Here's what it says (I've added bold to make it more obvious since you seem to struggle so regularly with basic reading comprehension):

    Variations in the Sunís total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

    <...>

    Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial and even million-year timescales.
    I love how you call me a liar, though, when you can't even represent a citation properly... when you selectively quote from the abstract and truncate the context in a ridiculous attempt to play "gotcha."

    Additionally, the other FOURTEEN references I cited ALL say the same thing, as well... and EACH directly support the points I've made in this thread.

    You take care, now.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Nonsense. I shared 15 different sources all supporting the same claim... The sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. No huge errors, despite your assertion to the contrary. The sun... no matter which mechanism you invoke... cannot explain the recent warming trend.
    Why can't you get it through your head that scientific fact is not a popularity contest?

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Liar, eh? Yes, you are a troll. That reference... You know... the one which you claim "directly contradicts" my assertion... It does no such thing. Here's what it says (I've added bold to make it more obvious since you seem to struggle so regularly with basic reading comprehension):

    Variations in the Sunís total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

    <...>

    Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial and even million-year timescales.
    Lemming alert...

    How can you blindly follow what others say?

    Besides... "the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence..."

    Unlikely means they are unwilling to state it as an absolute.

    Do you know how to parse text? Look at what the words really mean?

    In another forum related to a bicycle/vehicle accident, I showed how idiotic people are for the way they interpret words. I took a statistical fact of an article I linked, that about 11% of bicycle accidents involved a automobile and 53% of the time, the automobile driver was at fault. I left out the 53% reference however. I had people screaming up a storm that only 6% of bicycle accidents were the fault of an automobile driver. I was laughing as people were telling me I lied, but couldn't explain it. Then I showed how easily they fall into traps journalists set, that when the deception is something they already are acclimated to, they accept it without question. I simply did the reverse, yet all they could do was say I lied without even understanding how I intentionally set up a misconception with facts.

    Perception is a great deal of any article, and that is why writers plant ideas at the beginning before introducing facts. Journalists do it all the time. Politicians do it all the time. So do global warming alarmists.

    Parse your linked stories well. Ask yourself, what do they not say. What else is possible that they don't eliminate. Why don't they show the data for an intelligent reader to test?

    Bike/Car Intersection Collision Liability Portland OR

    Only 11% of bicycle accidents involve a collision with a car; but of these, 45% take place in intersections. (Contrary to popular fears, the majority of bicycle accidents -- 59% -- involve only the cyclist, who loses control of the bike and crashes.)
    I sourced the above article, but not the one with the 53% which people readily accept.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.
    Liar, eh? Yes, you are a troll. That reference... You know... the one which you claim "directly contradicts" my assertion... It does no such thing. Here's what it says (I've added bold to make it more obvious since you seem to struggle so regularly with basic reading comprehension):

    snip...
    The full text is linked above for all to see. I even spoke to the primary conclusion in my post. The contradiction was in the sentence I provided above. Where inow says ... cannot ...regardless of which mechanism but the paper says ... forcing ... by other mechanisms .... cannot be ruled out.

    inow, I feel sorry for you. I hope you don't embarrass yourself further.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Why can't you get it through your head that scientific fact is not a popularity contest?
    it is an evidence contest, however - as in "overwhelming preponderance of".
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Besides... "the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence..."

    Unlikely means they are unwilling to state it as an absolute.
    You are unlikely to win the lottery. But I won't state it as an absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by usual suspects
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.

    I have to agree.
    You guys are hanging an awful lot of strong language on "cannot be ruled out" as an influence of indeterminate consequence - not even an explanation for a significant fraction of the warming, not even that is what they "cannot rule out".

    If you were betting your own money - - - -
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Why can't you get it through your head that scientific fact is not a popularity contest?
    it is an evidence contest, however - as in "overwhelming preponderance of".
    That explains it. You don't believe in scientific methodology.

    This isn't a court of law.

    Any idea who said this:
    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
    This applies to belief of scientific hypothesis like Global Warming as well. How many times have parts of the claims for Global Warming be proven other than what said?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Besides... "the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence..."

    Unlikely means they are unwilling to state it as an absolute.
    You are unlikely to win the lottery. But I won't state it as an absolute.
    Don't you get it. The IPCC is not willing to state it as an absolute, in fact they cannot. To claim unlikely is to dismiss the data they don't like as well. In another link, I showed a graph that has 8 times the radiative forcing for Black Carbon than the IPCC claims, by another alarmist, James Hansen.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by usual suspects
    inow, the quote I provided, the one that directly contradicts your assertion, was one of the 15 sources you provided. I don't know how to say this any plainer. Since you won't listen to reason I must conclude you are a pathological liar.

    I have to agree.
    You guys are hanging an awful lot of strong language on "cannot be ruled out" as an influence of indeterminate consequence - not even an explanation for a significant fraction of the warming, not even that is what they "cannot rule out".

    If you were betting your own money - - - -
    I would bet for my viewpoint because I understand the sciences. I don't need others to tell me what to think, like you do, with the "overwhelming preponderance of propaganda."
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Why can't you get it through your head that scientific fact is not a popularity contest?
    it is an evidence contest, however - as in "overwhelming preponderance of".
    That explains it. You don't believe in scientific methodology.

    This isn't a court of law.

    Any idea who said this:
    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
    But even then the evidence for positive feedback of CO2 based warming is nowhere to be found. Also Direct evidence for the direct effect of evenly distributed low concentrations is also nowhere to be found. The trouble is that there are too many other variables that can negate the theoretical impact. Thus all the research relies on models specifically written by those who believe CO2 has both direct and indirect effects. These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations. Should we be surprised when when the models demonstrate what the programers programed into them?

    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?
     

  47. #46  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But even then the evidence for positive feedback of CO2 based warming is nowhere to be found.
    This is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations.
    This is also false.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?
    Yes.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html
    http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/personal/J...gs/paper_4.pdf
    http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Pub..._harries_v.pdf
    http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/...-radiation.pdf
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Why can't you get it through your head that scientific fact is not a popularity contest?
    it is an evidence contest, however - as in "overwhelming preponderance of".
    That explains it. You don't believe in scientific methodology.

    This isn't a court of law.

    Any idea who said this:
    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
    But even then the evidence for positive feedback of CO2 based warming is nowhere to be found. Also Direct evidence for the direct effect of evenly distributed low concentrations is also nowhere to be found. The trouble is that there are too many other variables that can negate the theoretical impact. Thus all the research relies on models specifically written by those who believe CO2 has both direct and indirect effects. These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations. Should we be surprised when when the models demonstrate what the programers programed into them?

    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?
    You are exactly correct. A model shows what it is designed to show.
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But even then the evidence for positive feedback of CO2 based warming is nowhere to be found.
    This is false.
    Then explain it to us, in your words.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations.
    This is also false.
    Again, explain it to us in your words.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?
    Yes.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html
    Cannot read the entire text without a subscription. Still, what I read has no quantitative data, and implies results not given. I particulatly like this: "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

    Which leads and which follows? They don't say!

    Correlation does not imply causation
    What am I suppose to see? That looked totally useless to me:
    Conclusions

    Calibration has been performed so that three datasets of spectrally resolved OLR recorded in 1970, 1997 and 2003 can be directly compared. Under clear sky, ocean background conditions for the months of April, May and June, observation of the difference in the spectrally resolved OLR are obtained which show features in the absorption bands of the major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Simulation created using the NCEP reanalysis and ECMWF analyses show that these datasets do not capture the same variations seen in the OLR observations. Simulations created using profiles merged from a number of datasets show that we can explain the differences seen in the CO2 and ozone bands by the known changes in the those gases over the last 34 years. Large changes are seen in the methane band potentially attributable to long term changes in the methane concentration but importantly not consistent with the admittedly sparse independent concentration measurements available.
    Again, what proves your point of CO2 and temperature? What am I suppose to see:
    CONCLUSIONS
    The TES data compare very well with the IRIS data, suggesting successful normalization of the different instrument characteristics. The TES and IRIS difference spectrum covers the time range of 1970 Ė 2006, a period of 36 years. Simulated spectra represent the state of the HadGEM1 coupled model for 1970 and 2006. Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra. The methane signal is deeper for the observed difference spectrum than the modelled difference spectrum, but this is likely due to incorrect methane concentrations or temperature profiles from 1970. In the future, we plan to extend the analysis to more spatial and temporal regions, other models, and to cloudy cases.
    However, after
    subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
    rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
    radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm≤) remains statistically
    significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
    enhanced greenhouse effect.
    Why subtract 2/3rds? Why not 1/2, 7/8th, or all? How was this number determined?

    Oh... could it be that's what matched their modeling?
    10% CO2 increase was actually measured from 1980 to
    2002 (337 to 372 ppm) in central Europe at the station
    Schauinsland, Germany. During this time period temperature
    increased by +1.32 (0.5) C and absolute humidity by
    +0.51 (0.2) g m≥ or 10% over the central Alps
    Hmmm....

    Did they subtract the effect from a 0.09% solar irradiation increase?

    I didn't see that listed. Not that it matters. 0.09% is only about a 0.24C change, but when we speak of the very cold alps, that's when added humidity becomes a strong positive feedback. We can already say there is no evidence this is from CO2. There are also other natural effects like ESNO, wind shifts, etc.

    Just how did they make sure these were all filtered out?

    Garbage in = garbage out.

    OK, we have one data point that suggests the possibility, but it's a measurement that has not ruled out other factors. I stopped reading it at this point. It only takes one bad data type to destroy the conclusion.

    If there is something worth while, please point me to the place. I didn't see anything or relevance. I'm getting sick and tired that you cannot say in your words what science is at play. I guess maybe because your links don't show any.

    This one, I immediately dismiss because they are using data based on the IPCC.

    Once again, I see you are incapable of making your position with your own words. Why do you waste our time? Do you enjoy being a troll?
     

  50. #49  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Once again, I see you are incapable of making your position with your own words. Why do you waste our time? Do you enjoy being a troll?
    You're a classy fellow, Wild Cobra. That's what I like about you.


    Now, your argument is that the sun is the primary driver of the warming trend, yet (at least since the 1970s) the solar output has not risen (except for its usual 11 year cycles). Since the output is the same, and the climate is warming, what about the sun do you propose we are missing which is supposedly causing said warming?

    It's output is the same, yet we are warming, and despite that you state that the sun is responsible for the warming trend. Why?
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Thus all the research relies on models specifically written by those who believe CO2 has both direct and indirect effects. These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations. Should we be surprised when when the models demonstrate what the programers programed into them?

    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?

    You are exactly correct. A model shows what it is designed to show.
    As far as direct evidence for greenhouse gas based warming: the fact that the observed warming is most significant on winter nights at high latitudes.

    As far as dismissing all models whose results are inconvenient: this from a couple of guys who used Excel to fit the same arbitrary polynomial curve to a couple of almost certainly correlated data sets, got something similar, and posted this as evidence of cause and effect.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Once again, I see you are incapable of making your position with your own words. Why do you waste our time? Do you enjoy being a troll?
    You're a classy fellow, Wild Cobra. That's what I like about you.


    Now, your argument is that the sun is the primary driver of the warming trend, yet (at least since the 1970s) the solar output has not risen (except for its usual 11 year cycles). Since the output is the same, and the climate is warming, what about the sun do you propose we are missing which is supposedly causing said warming?

    It's output is the same, yet we are warming, and despite that you state that the sun is responsible for the warming trend. Why?
    Asked and aswered twice now,

    Would you stop being an asshole. You asked that in the other thread.

    Hey Repete, have a brother named Pete by chance?
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Thus all the research relies on models specifically written by those who believe CO2 has both direct and indirect effects. These same models do not consider direct or indirect effects of sun variations. Should we be surprised when when the models demonstrate what the programers programed into them?

    Can anyone show direct evidence for CO2 based warming beyond a minor amount?

    You are exactly correct. A model shows what it is designed to show.
    As far as direct evidence for greenhouse gas based warming: the fact that the observed warming is most significant on winter nights at high latitudes.

    As far as dismissing all models whose results are inconvenient: this from a couple of guys who used Excel to fit the same arbitrary polynomial curve to a couple of almost certainly correlated data sets, got something similar, and posted this as evidence of cause and effect.
    Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

    Have anything other than untested observation? Can you at least put a plausible theory to it?

    Riddle me this...

    If there is no solar radiation to drive the greenhouse effect in the northern winter, then what causes the warming?
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    If there is no solar radiation to drive the greenhouse effect in the northern winter, then what causes the warming?
    The greenhouse effect is a trapping of infrared coming up from below, preventing the ground and lower atmosphere from radiating its heat into space, and keeping it warmer - that's kind of the whole point, actually.

    How many years did you say you'd been studying this stuff?
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    If there is no solar radiation to drive the greenhouse effect in the northern winter, then what causes the warming?
    The greenhouse effect is a trapping of infrared coming up from below, preventing the ground and lower atmosphere from radiating its heat into space, and keeping it warmer - that's kind of the whole point, actually.

    How many years did you say you'd been studying this stuff?
    Temporary brain cramp. What you say is plausible, if there was enough potential in CO2. There simply isn't. There is also as I already said in the other thread. With the Black Carbon on ice, the emissivity is greatly increased, which increases the heat loss of the ice, and makes the air warmer.
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    With the Black Carbon on ice, the emissivity is greatly increased, which increases the heat loss of the ice, and makes the air warmer.
    But as already observed, what we need to explain is the differential warming of winter nights in inland higher latitudes - say 40 degrees and up. The average temps have been increasing not because of greater absorption of solar radiation and emissivity of the ground, which would heat up the daytime lower atmosphere, but because something is reducing the former rate of radiative cooling at night and during the winter. As you note, soot on the surface increases the rate of such cooling - it absorbs the light at the surface, preventing the penetration and sequestration allowed by snow and ice, and readily emits infrared into the sky where it can be lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    What you say is plausible, if there was enough potential in CO2. There simply isn't.
    It's being observed, apparently. Speculation needs to adjust to observation.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    With the Black Carbon on ice, the emissivity is greatly increased, which increases the heat loss of the ice, and makes the air warmer.
    But as already observed, what we need to explain is the differential warming of winter nights in inland higher latitudes - say 40 degrees and up. The average temps have been increasing not because of greater absorption of solar radiation and emissivity of the ground, which would heat up the daytime lower atmosphere, but because something is reducing the former rate of radiative cooling at night and during the winter. As you note, soot on the surface increases the rate of such cooling - it absorbs the light at the surface, preventing the penetration and sequestration allowed by snow and ice, and readily emits infrared into the sky where it can be lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    What you say is plausible, if there was enough potential in CO2. There simply isn't.
    It's being observed, apparently. Speculation needs to adjust to observation.
    Again, data please, and have they ruled out other factors like ENSO?
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Again, data please, and have they ruled out other factors like ENSO?
    I doubt anyone has bothered to rule out ENSO as a factor in the failure of winter nights west of Lake Superior to cool off as rapidly or as much as in the past, these past thirty years. I leave it to you to investigate that fascinating possibility.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Again, data please, and have they ruled out other factors like ENSO?
    I doubt anyone has bothered to rule out ENSO as a factor in the failure of winter nights west of Lake Superior to cool off as rapidly or as much as in the past, these past thirty years. I leave it to you to investigate that fascinating possibility.
    Don't you get tired of continuing to throw more useless details out that you don't back up, when at the same time, you refuse to show why my points are wrong?
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    you refuse to show why my points are wrong?
    I can't figure out what your points are.

    They seem to consist of incomprehensions,

    in which you keep talking about soot and ENSO and other apparent irrelevancies in the middle of discussions of things like differential day/night temperature trends,

    and denials,

    in which claims of fact that contradict your sketchy theoretical "analyses" are dismissed without hearing.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    you refuse to show why my points are wrong?
    I can't figure out what your points are.

    They seem to consist of incomprehensions,

    in which you keep talking about soot and ENSO and other apparent irrelevancies in the middle of discussions of things like differential day/night temperature trends,

    and denials,

    in which claims of fact that contradict your sketchy theoretical "analyses" are dismissed without hearing.
    iceaura, WC is suggesting alternative explanations for the appearent effect you raise. Soot covering ice could contribute to a warming effect though not likely by emissivity. Ice is nearly a black body radiator while soot may or may not be. The primary point to take away is that these other issues have not been fully studied. Furthermore it is very reasonable at this point to question the data that indicates polar atmosphere warming given the source of the now largely missing raw data.
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    iceaura, WC is suggesting alternative explanations for the appearent effect you raise.
    Not yet, he isn't. He's talking about ENSO, and soot on ice.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Furthermore it is very reasonable at this point to question the data that indicates polar atmosphere warming given the source of the now largely missing raw data.
    The day night temperature records for northern NA over the past century or so are not missing. They're in the back issues of the newspapers, if nobody else has a copy.
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    iceaura, WC is suggesting alternative explanations for the appearent effect you raise.
    Not yet, he isn't. He's talking about ENSO, and soot on ice.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Furthermore it is very reasonable at this point to question the data that indicates polar atmosphere warming given the source of the now largely missing raw data.
    The day night temperature records for northern NA over the past century or so are not missing. They're in the back issues of the newspapers, if nobody else has a copy.
    Are the newspapers the source of the data you are using to reach the conclusion you have reached?
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Are the newspapers the source of the data you are using to reach the conclusion you have reached?
    Nope. But they would work.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Are the newspapers the source of the data you are using to reach the conclusion you have reached?
    Nope. But they would work.
    LOL...

    Local temperatures, with more asphalt over the years, less natural vegetation, city lighting, etc...

    Not a very good indicator. Heat islands are very small features compared to the size of the earth. The difference in emissivity between vegetational (~0.7 to 0.75) and that of concrete (0.94) and asphalt (0.93) are significant. They hold daytime heat and keep the night air warmer. Plants also convert part of the solar energy chemically, reducing their heat also.
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Not a very good indicator. Heat islands are very small features compared to the size of the earth. The difference in emissivity between vegetational (~0.7 to 0.75) and that of concrete (0.94) and asphalt (0.93) are significant. They hold daytime heat and keep the night air warmer. Plants also convert part of the solar energy chemically, reducing their heat also.
    Alright, so any problem excluding the days without wind?

    Or if you're really concerned about the radiation from parking lots, take only temps when there was rain or snow.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra

    Local temperatures, with more asphalt over the years, less natural vegetation, city lighting, etc...
    Irrelevant in the first place, and easily excluded in the second - such as by using (even local newspaper) weather records from these kinds of sites: http://www.wunderground.com/US/MN/Embarrass.html , http://www.mlmweather.com/

    What does that have to do with the diminishing of nighttime cooling?

    In rural areas?

    As reported by weather stations in the middle of the Great Plains and the Canadian Steppe?
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra

    Local temperatures, with more asphalt over the years, less natural vegetation, city lighting, etc...
    Irrelevant in the first place, and easily excluded in the second - such as by using (even local newspaper) weather records from these kinds of sites: http://www.wunderground.com/US/MN/Embarrass.html , http://www.mlmweather.com/

    What does that have to do with the diminishing of nighttime cooling?

    In rural areas?

    As reported by weather stations in the middle of the Great Plains and the Canadian Steppe?
    You don't understand how asphalt and concrete hold heat and IR? Maybe you should learn a few scientific facts before attempting to debate about them.

    Are you saying those weather stations haven't had any improvements around them?
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Not a very good indicator. Heat islands are very small features compared to the size of the earth. The difference in emissivity between vegetational (~0.7 to 0.75) and that of concrete (0.94) and asphalt (0.93) are significant. They hold daytime heat and keep the night air warmer. Plants also convert part of the solar energy chemically, reducing their heat also.
    Alright, so any problem excluding the days without wind?

    Or if you're really concerned about the radiation from parking lots, take only temps when there was rain or snow.
    The whole point is that you cannot state something as fact without accounting for everything. That's one reason I continue to insist you just look at long term trends.

    Inow and Iceaura cannot keep on the same item, and keep moving the goalpost as I dispel their myths. Are you going to do the same thing? Can we get back to the more relevant facts? Can you show me what I have been saying is wrong before moving on to another subtopic?
     

  70. #69  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    You have been shown to be wrong. You just choose to ignore it. Repeating your request to be shown wrong, while simultaneously disregarding the multitude of previous responses which have already done exactly that, does not help your case.
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You have been shown to be wrong. You just choose to ignore it. Repeating your request to be shown wrong, while simultaneously disregarding the multitude of previous responses which have already done exactly that, does not help your case.
    You have not shown me to be wrong at all. Articles propagating lies do not count. Show me how I am wrong with data and methodology. Not other peoples lies.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You don't understand how asphalt and concrete hold heat and IR? Maybe you should learn a few scientific facts before attempting to debate about them.
    Yes, I do. They are like rock that way - and they radiate according to Newton's Law of Cooling, which is why the desert cools off so much at night, compared with grass etc. Dry air, less greenhouse effect, faster and deeper cooling.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Are you saying those weather stations haven't had any improvements around them?
    There are cameras and maps at them, look for yourself on the sites.

    Now, about the argument and the issue at hand - anything relevant from you? We are trying to account for the large-scale diminishment of nighttime and winter cooling over the past century on the NA continent- the narrowing of the temp differential between day and night. We know that the primary mechanism of night and winter cooling is radiative heat loss into the sky. Let's all think hard, OK?
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Inow and Iceaura cannot keep on the same item, and keep moving the goalpost as I dispel their myths. Are you going to do the same thing?
    I offered filters for possibly skewed data you complained of. Then you indicated this wasn't really your point and left it at that for a non sequitur. The goalpost hasn't moved but you have.

    I could be wrong about wind or rain...?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1
    Hello sir,
    I really agrees with You because Not only Australians but all world worrying from global warming .big glassier are downing , temperature also increasing but In few months We are looking in good activeness for prevent earth to global warming .many ways are opening and Thinking more. This is a right time to think about it. General people also should do and think Something. There may be some more ways. Is world ready for it !.
    Stop_the_Spam

    deepakgan335@gmail.com
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •