Solar Global Warming

[Wild Cobra]

If you don't understand the below graphs, why do you pretend like you understand anything about Global Warming?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/800px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_61_0810.png

[kwhitegocubs]

Actually, your initial statement is unbelievably arrogant. Some people are better at absorbing information textually, some visually, etc... Some people also tend to comprehend information better when presented in layman's format.

In other words, one need not be a scientist with a Ph.D in order to comprehend fully the nature of information, but that they may be more limited in the methodology that can be used to lead them to said full comprehension.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, your initial statement is unbelievably arrogant. Some people are better at absorbing information textually, some visually, etc... Some people also tend to comprehend information better when presented in layman's format.

In other words, one need not be a scientist with a Ph.D in order to comprehend fully the nature of information, but that they may be more limited in the methodology that can be used to lead them to said full comprehension.

The point is that the information is very relavant, yet people tend to ignore what they don't understand. There can be no valid discussions about global warming without factoring in the sun's influence.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is another one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

This is a historical recreation using the proxy isotopes and other materials collected for the Vostok Ice Cores. To the far left, is the time of the graph. I believe it's 2004 data. Regardless, it is within the last few years. The exact date doesn't matter. The blue is temperature and the green is CO2. Red is dust. My first thought was that the dust was long volcanic activity, but then I remembered that colder climate brings very little precipitation, thus, more dry land. I don't think that one matters for the discussion of Global Warming, and that is only an educated guess.

This graph is found in the wki entry Ice Core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). Under the paragraph "Ice core data," the following paragraph is found:


Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited. Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength (see proxy).

I would like to point out that it says CO2 lags temperature by 200 to 1000 years. The reason for this is that CO2 is stored in the oceans. the colder the water, the more the oceans can absorb. This doesn't happen immediately. Since the oceans layers take time to mix, it is a multiple century process to come into equilibrium.

With that in mind, notice that the temperature rises rather rapidly at the left. The period is actually a few thousand years since the graph covers over 400,000 years. Anyway, where it stops the steep rise at around 11,000 to 13,000 years ago, so does the green (CO2.) Notice the CO2 stops at about 260 ppm at this point. Then, over the time from then till now, there is a regular fluctuation in temperature, ranging from about -2C to +2C. Even as mankind populated the earth in numbers, burned wood, etc. The temperature stays within a +/-2 Celceus range. If CO2 drove temperature, wouldn’t the increase to about 280 ppm drive the average above +2 on the graph?

Again, in nature, Temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature. We have been industrialized since about 1750. The start of our increased CO2 will not be fully absorbed until 1950 to 2750. With the way equilibrium equations work, CO2 is not a problem. The greater the difference in balance, the faster the intake. We simply don't have enough fossil fuel so do that. As part of the equation, I know acification is the latest red herring. However, the way the carbon cycle works, the carbonic acid is in equilibrium with other changes. Also, with the slow nature of change in nature, the increased acification cannot be attributed to CO2 increases in the past century. More likely, other factors that are in the understood chemical equations, and maybe things not understood.

Now Beryllium 10 is mentioned. That is another proxy yet that supports how much solar radiation has increased on the earth. I may get to that later.

Now I'll go back to my first two graphs in post#1. The first one is Carbon 14 vs. time. Since there is an approximate 60 year lag between the creation of Carbon 14 before is can be seen in paleoclimotology record, the data is not available for the last few decades. However, notice that from the time of about 1700 to near present, the Carbon 14 has raised quite a bit. By about 40 permilles. Now you need to understand how these changes occur. Carbon 14 in made in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation changing nitrogen into carbon. It does this by the formula 1n + 14N → 14C + 1H. This process increases with increased solar radiation and decreases with lower solar radiation. We see the normal 11 year sunspot cycles, but there are also long term changes of the sun. Observed proxy data of carbon 14 production tells us that the sun has increased quite a bit from about 1700 to present. Isn't the claim of the alarmists that CO2 is the reason for global warming? Their models are based on studies of CO2, temperature, and time. There models have no room for the observed changes of solar radiation. I say, and so do many reputable scientists, the sun is the cause of nearly all the observed temperature increases. There is no doubt when you look at the long term solar changes and apply simple math to the subject.

Lets go to the second graph in post#1. This is a compilation of different direct measurements by satellites. Calibrations do not remain perfect, and it's impossible to know which satellite drifted in calibration by how much. That's why there are three different compilations. The article I took this from is here (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant). Anyway, please not they all show the running average to be above the long term average ever since we have been taking direct satellite readings of the suns output. At least until about 2004. Two of the three composites show we went under the long term average of solar output. I wonder why the alarmists never mention the fact that most the data they use ends at 2004. I don’t remember seeing data since 2004 being used by the believers. I see newer articles, but not newer data.

I will likely continue with more graphs and explanations. Maybe one day, I’ll get through to a few people with the truth about global warming.

[Yonivore]

Pish posh, what's the sun got to do with heat?

[SnakeBoy]

The reason for this is that CO2 is stored in the oceans.

:lol And now you have officially failed.

[Wild Cobra]

Pish posh, what's the sun got to do with heat?
LOL...

That seems to be what the alarmists believe. Maybe I should explain a bit simpler.

For you alarmists.

the sun is not a constant source of heat. The radiation from the sun changes by about 0.1% during the normal 11 year cycle. That doesn’t seem like much, but since the sun is the source of almost all the earths heat, a 0.1% change is a minimum of a 0.23 C change in temperature. Long term solar changes are not precisely determined, but at least large enough to account for a 0.45 C change since 1700, and likely more than 0.5 C increase.

Think of it this way. If you turn the thermostat up in your living room, it gets warmer (unless you didn't pay your utility bill.) If you decrease the thermostat, it gets colder.

The sun is the source of our heat. More radiation means warmer climate. Less radiation mean cooler climate.

No disputing the facts of physics.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol And now you have officially failed.

The ocean contains about 50 times more CO2 than what is in the atmoshere. Please know what you are talking about before making such erroneous statements.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

Carbon dioxide is in soft drinks. Notice how the carbon dioxode stays linger in them when they stay cold, but if you open a warm one up, it may fizz like crazy? More gas dissolves in cold water than warm water.

How about this:

Stop Global Warming... Stpo Drinking Soft Drinks...

If you believe CO2 is the problem, then please do your part.

[ChumpDumper]

Did we need another global warming thread?

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't it funny how RandomPropagandaGuy refuses to touch this aspect of the Global Warming debate?

[Wild Cobra]

Did we need another global warming thread?

This thread focuses on the primary cause of global warming. Yes, another is needed. Each aspect should be separated because the subject is a very complex one. there should also be a separate on on greenhouse gasses. There are at least these two themes that should he considered alone, for what is known about them.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Random...

What do you have to say on the subject?

[Wild Cobra]

I have attempted to determine the cause of differences in accepted data vs. conclusions. I have yet to figure out where the mistakes are of leading scientists. Here is one topic I decided to look at. The GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/Fig2.gif) has for example, the following graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/Fig2.gif

Now this same graph is used in wiki. I haven’t yet reconciled the numbers they call Forcing in Watts per square meter. I believe this is a mistake, I’m not sure what it represents, but the levels of forcing are closer to net changes over the accepted 7.5 years lag rather than instantaneous forcing. Consider most numbers are arrived from modeling rather than a real understanding, this can easily be the case.

Here is a more complete representation not in wiki. It shows the levels in actual radiated watts rather than forcing watts:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/SIchange.gif

I also took the tabular data they have available, and plugged it into Excel. Here is a graph I generated:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/GISSSolarData.jpg

Now please notice that I added a 7.5 year rolling average and an 11 year rolling average. The 7.5 year average represents the effective power changes because of climate lag rather than instantaneous. The 11 year average effectively removes the 11 year solar cycle, reducing it to a long term change. I probable should have changed the watts for this purpose from 1366 to 235 to represent the global view. You see, since only half the earth is exposed to the sun at any given time, some is refracted back to space, and most of the exposed surface is not perpendicular to the radiation, the Earth only sees about 17.2% of the solar radiation. Now the value change of the 7.5 average over 11 years during the last few decades is maybe 0.3 watts. I’ll use 1366 watts for my percentage figure of 0.022%. Apply that to the 235 watts in the below model. And we see a .05 watt change. However, because it becomes part of the greenhouse heat feedback of 452 watts, it increases to the 0.099 watt figure.

You see, it makes sense that the chart marked instantaneous forcing is labeled wrong.

I went to all this to point out something crucial. The long term data over the last century is what many like to point out. Now these solar calculations at the GISS only go back to 1850, and I can only show an 11 year smoothing starting with 1860. However, since that time, the power levels increased from 1364.7 to 1366.1 over the last 100 years on the chart. That alone is a .1% increase directly. That 0.1% now indicates a forcing change also of 0.1% of the 452 greenhouse feedback, or an easy 0.45 watts. Now since the 452 feedback indicates a 32 degree greenhouse effect, it is also a 0.32 C increase in temperature.

Those 0.1% increase in solar radiation is universally accepted. What is disputed, is that many scientists using proxy data over the centuries and say it exceeds 0.2% since the 1600’s. I am among those who concur with the 0.2% increase. This amounts to a 0.64 C increase since then, accounting for most of the temperature change we see since the start of the industrial revolution. Here is one reason why:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

Notice how the solar activity shows the same reduced activity from 1860 to 1890 then increases and follows the same trend. Notice how there is almost no activity and the isotope levels are at the lowest graph points at 1700. Anyone involved with Helioseismography will tell you this is true.

Simple accepted greenhouse effect model:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/2/26/Greenhouse_Effect.png

[RandomGuy]

I don't think that one matters for the discussion of Global Warming, and that is only an educated guess.



"educated guess?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the anti-alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

“educated guess” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they guess differently?

OK. I understand.

:p:

[RandomGuy]

Hey Random...

What do you have to say on the subject?

I liken this whole debate to three guys in a cave with a sleeping bear.

One of the guys starts poking the bear with a stick. After a minute or so, he starts poking the bear a bit harder than previously.

The other two then start arguing over how hard the guy is now poking the bear.

One says "he is poking he bear 30% harder" and the other says "he is poking the bear 90% harder".

The real issue is DON'T FUCKING POKE SLEEPING BEARS WITH STICKS.

Sure, the bear could wake up naturally and rip the guys' faces off over time, but why take the risk of poking the bear in the first place and increasing the chance?

[RandomGuy]

Don't think I'm not going to create a "number of guys poking bears with sticks" vs. "number of guys missing faces" graph and post it here... :lol

[RandomGuy]

I would like to point out that it says CO2 lags temperature by 200 to 1000 years. The reason for this is that CO2 is stored in the oceans. the colder the water, the more the oceans can absorb.

So, if, by man-made actions, we release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that greenhouse gas warms the ocean slightly, it could lead to the ocean giving up CO2 and warming the atmosphere further, leading to still more releases of CO2?

Sounds like a self-feeding cycle of accelerating warming to me.

[101A]

I liken this whole debate to three guys in a cave with a sleeping bear.

One of the guys starts poking the bear with a stick. After a minute or so, he starts poking the bear a bit harder than previously.

The other two then start arguing over how hard the guy is now poking the bear.

One says "he is poking he bear 30% harder" and the other says "he is poking the bear 90% harder".

The real issue is DON'T FUCKING POKE SLEEPING BEARS WITH STICKS.

Sure, the bear could wake up naturally and rip the guys' faces off over time, but why take the risk of poking the bear in the first place and increasing the chance?

Bad analogy.

Better analogy.

There's 20 people in a dark cave.

There's a dude with a stick doing something.

ONE very excited guy starts screaming and flailing about that the guy with the stick is poking a bear. He says that the other guys must pay him to keep the guy with the stick from waking the bear up.

A couple of the other guys start screaming along with the first one; 5 of the guys start paying the original, and 9 couldn't care less, and go about living in the cave.

The single remaining guy ACTUALLY looks at what the guy with the stick is doing, and realizes that there is no BEAR AT ALL!!!

He gets beaten to death.

[RandomGuy]

Bad analogy.

Better analogy.

There's 20 people in a dark cave.

There's a dude with a stick doing something.

ONE very excited guy starts screaming and flailing about that the guy with the stick is poking a bear. He says that the other guys must pay him to keep the guy with the stick from waking the bear up.

A couple of the other guys start screaming along with the first one; 5 of the guys start paying the original, and 9 couldn't care less, and go about living in the cave.

The single remaining guy ACTUALLY looks at what the guy with the stick is doing, and realizes that there is no BEAR AT ALL!!!

He gets beaten to death.

I know this was an attempt at humor, but the bear represents the potential for rapid, catastrophic climate change.

This potential exists whether man does anything or not.

For your analogy to be valid, you would have to be able to make the case that rapid, catastrophic climate change doesn't exist.

[DarkReign]

This Thread is Going Places.

I forsee an epic display of bad analogies (ive made more than a few) and their spawn in the near future.

Wait, wait....my turn...

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think that one matters for the discussion of Global Warming, and that is only an educated guess.
Here I was specifically talking about the dust. There are dramatic level changes. They are at near zero for the time periods we are debating over. Do you want a real discussion, or are you goint to remain RandomPropagandaGuy?



"educated guess?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the anti-alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

“educated guess” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they guess differently?OK. I understand. :p:
That's right, change my words. Make you feel smart? At least I am demanding reasonable evidence and you take a scientists 'suggestion' as fact.

Rather than finding someone’s work, do like I do. Find someone’s work, and show you understand it and can argue with it. Better yet, show you can argue over the points I bring up that you always seen to ignore.

Again, years ago, it was scientific consensus that the world was flat. The few who said otherwise were ridiculed and even dealt with harshly by religious fundamentalists as heretics. I don't mind being a modern heretic. History will prove your scientists of consensus fools. The Nobel prize will become a serious joke. The likes of you, will hopefully live to see your mistakes of wanting so much money devoted to protecting sailor from sailing off the edge of the earth.

[Wild Cobra]

IFor your analogy to be valid, you would have to be able to make the case that rapid, catastrophic climate change doesn't exist.
How can anyone do that when we all agree that nature does catastrophic things. My point is that CO2 is not a bad thing. I have yet to see any verifiable evidence it is. In fact, the plants love it. Part of increased crop yields are due to CO2 increases.

Why to the alarmists want to starve the plant life on Earth?

Equal Rights for Plants Now!

[Wild Cobra]

So, if, by man-made actions, we release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that greenhouse gas warms the ocean slightly, it could lead to the ocean giving up CO2 and warming the atmosphere further, leading to still more releases of CO2?

Sounds like a self-feeding cycle of accelerating warming to me.

My God man. How many times must I explain such a concept? There is a 32 C to 33 C greenhouse effect as agreed on by science. A large part of the debate is how much is caused by CO2. Simply looking at the blackbody radiation of the earth vs. the spectra that CO2 captures tells us only a small amount of warming is cause by CO2 that isn’t already trapped by water vapor. Can you remember those graphs, or must I supply those too?

Here is a simple model I made that shows the relationship of CO2 and warming as maximum levels I can find justified. It allows for just over a 0.3 C rise in temperature by CO2 from the levels of 280 ppm to 380 ppm, but I forget for sure. I may have used the 278 to 387 level changes. The Excel file is on one of two different computers. Now that I have a large USB drive, I need to consolidate all my work. Anyway, the graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/CO2vstemperature2line.jpg

Please notice I projected what a times two change in CO2 does from preindustrialization. It only adds another ¼ C approximate. Remember, I made this as a worse case graph. 6 C for the starting 280 ppm. With a 32 C starting point for say 1750, that amounts to 18.75% of the warming due to CO2. Much more than I believe the CO2 effect is, but like I said, I go for worse case here. Now you can debate if I placed the values in the right spots relative to the curve shape if you like, but other evidence shows my graph to be at least close to accurate. Look at this next one:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation-wit.jpg

Please notice the warming increase of about 8 C correlates with a change of CO2 from about 180 ppm to 264 ppm. The temperature then fluctuates by about +/- 2 C starting about 10,000 years ago. The CO2 however increased ranged from about 255 ppm to the 284 ppm with no change on the temperature. They have no correlation. The +/- 2 C is referred to as Bond Events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event).

I have asked you this before:

If CO2 has such an effect on temperature, what hasn’t the increased CO2 from 10,000 years ago to 9,000 years ago driven the temperatures accordingly? Surely by the above graph, they should be at least 4 C warmer if the graph stayed consistent as CO2 driving temperature. Explain please.

I agree with the CO2 lagging temperature:

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712):


Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
Other material I have read in the past uses a number of 28 ppm increase atmospheric in CO2 for a 1 C change in ocean temperature. That is just the slope value for current temperatures and it isn’t linear. If we applied that to the oceans long term value changes we calculate a 224 ppm change for 8 C change. That would mean we achieve equilibrium at 404 ppm if it was linear.

[101A]

I know this was an attempt at humor, but the bear represents the potential for rapid, catastrophic climate change.

This potential exists whether man does anything or not.

For your analogy to be valid, you would have to be able to make the case that rapid, catastrophic climate change doesn't exist.


Bears exist; the people in the cave KNOW it, and know that an awake, provoked bear in the cave means sudden, catastrophic death.

It makes the threat "real", and credible (in fact, there are ancient, fossilized bones of dinosaurs who got destroyed by a prehistoric bear).

However, at the time, there is actually NO bear in the cave.

[101A]

This Thread is Going Places.

I forsee an epic display of bad analogies (ive made more than a few) and their spawn in the near future.

Wait, wait....my turn...

C'mon, let's have it.

Bears, a cave, people and a fucking stick! Build an analogy!

[DarrinS]

Here is a simple model I made that shows the relationship of CO2 and warming as maximum levels I can find justified. It allows for just over a 0.3 C rise in temperature by CO2 from the levels of 280 ppm to 380 ppm, but I forget for sure. I may have used the 278 to 387 level changes. The Excel file is on one of two different computers. Now that I have a large USB drive, I need to consolidate all my work. Anyway, the graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2vstemperature2line.jpg



That is a very interesting graph. What is it based on? If there is truly a logrithmic relationship between C02 concentration and it's affect on temperature, then there is a point, beyond which, increased C02 concentration doesn't really increase temperature.


By the way, anyone hear that Hansen reused Russian temperature data from September to make this October appear to be one of the warmest? This group of enviro-scaremongers is losing credibility.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss-releases-october-2008-data/

[DarrinS]

I liken this whole debate to three guys in a cave with a sleeping bear.

One of the guys starts poking the bear with a stick. After a minute or so, he starts poking the bear a bit harder than previously.

The other two then start arguing over how hard the guy is now poking the bear.

One says "he is poking he bear 30% harder" and the other says "he is poking the bear 90% harder".

The real issue is DON'T FUCKING POKE SLEEPING BEARS WITH STICKS.

Sure, the bear could wake up naturally and rip the guys' faces off over time, but why take the risk of poking the bear in the first place and increasing the chance?



Do you think the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is realistic? In other words, do you believe in so-called "tipping points"?

[Wild Cobra]

C'mon, let's have it.

Bears, a cave, people and a fucking stick! Build an analogy!

I would prefer to keep this thread on course. Humor is a good thing, but can we at least add to the Solar debate in the process?

Does anyone disagree of my assessment from post #13 that there was about a 4-1/2 times greater change in delta temperature during the early 1900's than the normal 11 year solar cycle yields?

[Tully365]

Wild Cobra-- Hey, I've seen a few of these threads where you and Random Guy debate global warming, and I'm just wondering where you stand on increased use of wind and solar energy, renewable resources, etc... I understand (but to be honest don't actually agree with) your skepticism regarding warming, but I'm not clear on your views concerning a focus on alternative energies... serious question-- not an attack, not sarcasm, ok?

[DarkReign]

I liken this thread to 3 people in a cave with a mildly sedated bear who may or may not be experiencing DT's from his most recent bout of binge-alcoholism based in no small part on the fact he just caught his soon-to-be-ex-wife fucking Smokey the Bear "because he's a TV star!"

One guy is busy drawing on the walls, ceilings and yes, even the bear with various stats, line graphs and pie charts in an attempt to clearly show to everyone present that what the bear is experiencing is not "the DT's" but a natural cycle caused by the moon phases of Saturn and its gamma radiation quotient on thick-skinned mammals like our alcoholic friend over there...

One other guy is standing firm on his previous assertion that this bear is a sick, sick mammal who craves only mean drink and loose women. He is a self-destructive individual with aspirations of whiskey-inspired world destruction if left to his own devices and his proximity to dry counties only makes him more angry and alarmed!

The third guy, who is a Mob loan shark, picks up a stick and says "Fuck it, lets ask the bear".

[I Love Me Some Me]

A rabbi, a priest, and a bear walk into a cave...

[RandomGuy]

This Thread is Going Places.

I forsee an epic display of bad analogies (ive made more than a few) and their spawn in the near future.

Wait, wait....my turn...

This thread is like a pretty rose that smells... bad.

[RandomGuy]

A rabbi, a priest, and a bear walk into a cave...

The bear's stomach starts to grumble, and he starts eying the other two hungrily.

The rabbi says to the priest:

[DarkReign]

What do you get when you cross a brown chicken with a brown cow?






















(say it out loud quickly)


brown-chicken-brown-cow

[Tully365]

I liken this thread to 3 people in a cave with a mildly sedated bear who may or may not be experiencing DT's from his most recent bout of binge-alcoholism based in no small part on the fact he just caught his soon-to-be-ex-wife fucking Smokey the Bear "because he's a TV star!"

One guy is busy drawing on the walls, ceilings and yes, even the bear with various stats, line graphs and pie charts in an attempt to clearly show to everyone present that what the bear is experiencing is not "the DT's" but a natural cycle caused by the moon phases of Saturn and its gamma radiation quotient on thick-skinned mammals like our alcoholic friend over there...

One other guy is standing firm on his previous assertion that this bear is a sick, sick mammal who craves only mean drink and loose women. He is a self-destructive individual with aspirations of whiskey-inspired world destruction if left to his own devices and his proximity to dry counties only makes him more angry and alarmed!

The third guy, who is a Mob loan shark, picks up a stick and says "Fuck it, lets ask the bear".

Godammit, DarkReign, how did you get access to my college diaries??

[RandomGuy]

Do you think the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is realistic? In other words, do you believe in so-called "tipping points"?

From what I am given to understand there are tipping points that start self feeding cycles, so in that, I am reasonably confident they exist.

BUT

The Day after Tomorrow was a movie, and took some dramatic license with the idea, to say the least. So: No, I don't think the movie was realistic in the slightest.

Any real tipping points would start cycles, but those cycles would act a heckuva lot slower than the movie portrayed.

[RandomGuy]

That's right, change my words. Make you feel smart?

Not in particular.

I was pointing out your hypocrisy in slamming someone for making a "guess" and then turning around and doing the exact same damn thing.

I did do it in a very clever way though. :p:

[Tully365]

It's pretty hard to argue against tipping points as a general concept...

[RandomGuy]

Again, years ago, it was scientific consensus that the world was flat. The few who said otherwise were ridiculed and even dealt with harshly by religious fundamentalists as heretics. I don't mind being a modern heretic. History will prove your scientists of consensus fools. The Nobel prize will become a serious joke. The likes of you, will hopefully live to see your mistakes of wanting so much money devoted to protecting sailor from sailing off the edge of the earth.

Those scientists would say you are wrong, and you say they are wrong.

We have to figure out a course of action with conflicting theories.

If you are right, and we spend money, we will have simply spent money uselessly.

If you are wrong, and we do nothing, we are royally fucked.

We can't choose whether or not man-made global warming exists.

We can chose how we react to this.

Worst case scenario for taking action is slower economic growth.

Worst case scenario for not taking action is a civilization-threatening upheaval.

We can afford for you to be right, but we can't afford for you to be wrong.

[RandomGuy]

What do you get when you cross a brown chicken with a brown cow?






















(say it out loud quickly)


brown-chicken-brown-cow

Sofa King we tard Ed

[I Love Me Some Me]

The bear's stomach starts to grumble, and he starts eying the other two hungrily.

The rabbi says to the priest:

Is it hot in here, or is it just global warming?

The priest says, "If I were you, I wouldn't poke that bear with a stick...especially in a dark cave."

[RandomGuy]

Is it hot in here, or is it just global warming?

The priest says, "If I were you, I wouldn't poke that bear with a stick...especially in a dark cave."

:nope

C'mon man, that was weak.

[I Love Me Some Me]

:nope

C'mon man, that was weak.

Very.

[101A]

I would prefer to keep this thread on course. Humor is a good thing, but can we at least add to the Solar debate in the process?

Does anyone disagree of my assessment from post #13 that there was about a 4-1/2 times greater change in delta temperature during the early 1900's than the normal 11 year solar cycle yields?

Global warming we've done. A LOT.

Bears in a cave, we haven't.

[DarkReign]

Global warming we've done. A LOT.

Bears in a cave, we haven't.

"Wont someone think of the bears!"

http://mr.troligt.com/leet/dawson-crying.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

That is a very interesting graph. What is it based on? If there is truly a logrithmic relationship between C02 concentration and it's affect on temperature, then there is a point, beyond which, increased C02 concentration doesn't really increase temperature.

Yes, the relationship is logarithmic. Something the believers of the liars just don't seem to understand.

It is based on the data I have gathered, and comparing it against other people's assessments. I like to use other people's work against them. Here is a chart Al Gore uses:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

Here is one I flipped upside-down from RealClimate dot org:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/TransLongPathsflipped.jpg

This chart takes is a calculation (by the alarmists) that shows CO2 levels to trap about 33.5% (66.5% transmission) of the IR radiation it is capable of capturing at the current level being tested. It shows It shows about 36.3% at two times the CO2 and about 40.4% at 4X. I used this to show a doubling of CO2 cannot increase temperatures by 3 C. If Using the doubling equals 3 C increase theory, I would have to believe that 100% of the 32 C greenhouse effect is by carbon dioxide, and being done by CO2 trapping 33.5% of the heat it is capable of. The 36.3% would represent a 34.67 C greenhouse effect. Short of the 3 C, but hard to get accuracy reading a digitized chart. Even Al Gore shows a doubling of CO2 to be only 1 C. The original graph is found here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/#more-456):

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TransLongPaths.jpg



By the way, anyone hear that Hansen reused Russian temperature data from September to make this October appear to be one of the warmest? This group of enviro-scaremongers is losing credibility.


Here is the first article that prompted me to be a "Denier:"

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

Yep, then the truth is not on there side, they lie. Here is an interesting article I just found:

Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/#more-2769)

Parts of the article:



So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’? The major driver is the sun. Warming depends on the sun. Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy. Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere. Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%. Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%), or almost all is the inert gas argon. Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.




Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. The main atmospheric ‘intermediary’ between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing. The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2. Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!! It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.




Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned). Much credence is given to the ‘hockey-stick effect’ of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing. The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input. This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions. Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as ‘gospel’ by many nations. In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001. Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60°C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature. Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050°C over the past decade! Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event. Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?

A man-made ‘greenhouse’ does not create new heat. A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket. Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous). It is a dampener! It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change. It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change. Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).





It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth. The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B. Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly. With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies. This process occurs with plankton too. But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility. As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record. If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe. In fact it is the opposite! Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase. Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases. There is no physical evidence to support that. In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!


CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2 as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere 750 Gt
Oceans – surface 1,000 Gt
Oceans – intermediate / deep 38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus) 2,200 Gt

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra-- Hey, I've seen a few of these threads where you and Random Guy debate global warming, and I'm just wondering where you stand on increased use of wind and solar energy, renewable resources, etc... I understand (but to be honest don't actually agree with) your skepticism regarding warming, but I'm not clear on your views concerning a focus on alternative energies... serious question-- not an attack, not sarcasm, ok?
I'm all for all the above including nuclear power, when the price makes various sources viable. I agree we need to significantly reduce our fossil fuel usage. I would like to see us at least reduce our usage to the point we are self sufficient.

I'm not a pro oil or pro coal guy. I just try to be reasonable about the issues. If you read my various, you see I am happy with our work since the 70's in cleaning up emissions. I am not happy about Mexico's and Asia's emissions. They are a large contributor of Black Carbon pollution, from not using clean burning technologies.

Some people for example advocate using hydrogen. Well, it takes 44,000 watt hours of power to make the equivalent of one gallon gas. OK, so we burn more coal so we can make a dangerous hydrogen power transportation system. Not very bright in my opinion. Most alternates offered have consequences of their own. Besides the danger of hydrogen in accidents, at 10 cents a kWatt, it cost $4.40 just for the power to make it. Add profits, labor, etc... How much would hydrogen cost?

[Tully365]

I'm all for all the above including nuclear power, when the price makes various sources viable. I agree we need to significantly reduce our fossil fuel usage. I would like to see us at least reduce our usage to the point we are self sufficient.

I'm not a pro oil or pro coal guy. I just try to be reasonable about the issues. If you read my various, you see I am happy with our work since the 70's in cleaning up emissions. I am not happy about Mexico's and Asia's emissions. They are a large contributor of Black Carbon pollution, from not using clean burning technologies.

Some people for example advocate using hydrogen. Well, it takes 44,000 watt hours of power to make the equivalent of one gallon gas. OK, so we burn more coal so we can make a dangerous hydrogen power transportation system. Not very bright in my opinion. Most alternates offered have consequences of their own. Besides the danger of hydrogen in accidents, at 10 cents a kWatt, it cost $4.40 just for the power to make it. Add profits, labor, etc... How much would hydrogen cost?

Cool-- thanks for the answer. The funny thing is that you and Random Guy probably agree on as many things as you disagree on... though, admittedly, threads where everyone agrees aren't usually as interesting as those with the dramatic tension of disagreement.

It seems to me that the global warming debate has become something akin to the debate on Religion in our country... neither side will give in because the topic is too enormous for simple facts and figures and because no one really agrees on the true scale and scope of the issue.

My view is that we should focus on finding cleaner energy sources because 1) a less polluted world is appealing to everyone 2) If the US innovates these alternative energies, we can also profit from them, and 3) Most of us agree that being beholden to Saudi Arabia & others is not good from the standpoints of financial well-being, National Security, and, what the hell, I'll throw in the moral and esthetic angles too.

[DarrinS]

Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm



Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.


An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.

That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years.

The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E microwave radiometer, an instrument package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite. AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).

[DarrinS]

It seems to me that the global warming debate has become something akin to the debate on Religion in our country... neither side will give in because the topic is too enormous for simple facts and figures and because no one really agrees on the true scale and scope of the issue.




In a way, you are right. Global warming catastrophists are a kinda like religious zealots. If you don't run around saying that sea levels will rise by 200 feet (Meredith Viera said this on the kick off of NBC's "Green week"), then you are considered a "denier" or a heretic or whatever. Look, I'm all for being environmentally responsible, but I don't think it's a good idea to unnecessarily frighten people.


Here's a very good video on the MSM's role in GW hype.

W9XyEjV-1cQ

[Wild Cobra]

Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

The original graph in the article (1592 x 612) can be found here (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) along with other nice data. I like these:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.000.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

[Tully365]

In a way, you are right. Global warming catastrophists are a kinda like religious zealots. If you don't run around saying that sea levels will rise by 200 feet (Meredith Viera said this on the kick off of NBC's "Green week")

Actually, I was referring to both sides. Identifying Meredith Viera as a pro-global warming leader is kind of like naming SequSpur as a prototypical Spur fan.

[RandomGuy]

Global warming we've done. A LOT.

Bears in a cave, we haven't.

Indeed.

Bears in a cave = funny

Anthrogenic Global Warming = not so much.


Pop quiz:

Languages tend to change over time, as do individual words, some more than others.

Everyday words tend to change the least, such as bodyparts and so forth. This is why the german word for hand is... "hand". English and German diverged centuries ago, but this word among others was fairly stable.

What word was found after analysis to be the most stable over time in the European family of languages? (according to my old linguistics professor)

[RandomGuy]

Some people for example advocate using hydrogen. Well, it takes 44,000 watt hours of power to make the equivalent of one gallon gas. OK, so we burn more coal so we can make a dangerous hydrogen power transportation system. Not very bright in my opinion. Most alternates offered have consequences of their own. Besides the danger of hydrogen in accidents, at 10 cents a kWatt, it cost $4.40 just for the power to make it. Add profits, labor, etc... How much would hydrogen cost?

That depends on the cost of electricity and the efficiency of the process you use to convert electricity into usable energy for transportation.

With technological innovation, the latter will rise, and the former will fall.

One of the interesting things about renewables like solar photovoltaic is that the first solar panels created in the 60's and 70's (if memory serves) are still producing electricity decades later. A lot of the cost analysis of such things makes the assumption of 10-15 years of usable life of any panel, but no one truly knows. They do lose generating capacity over time, but there are some reasonable estimates that put the usable life span of solar panels at 50 years.

Technology gains have shortened the "payback" time for solar panels, both energy payback and monetary, and will certainly continue to do so.

[DarkReign]

What word was found after analysis to be the most stable over time in the European family of languages? (according to my old linguistics professor)

Does it have to spelled the same or just pronounced the same?

[RandomGuy]

Does it have to spelled the same or just pronounced the same?

The english version will suffice. This word would be almost recognizable to a person a thousand years ago as today.

[I Love Me Some Me]

The english version will suffice. This word would be almost recognizable to a person a thousand years ago as today.

DOOMZ?

[Wild Cobra]

That depends on the cost of electricity and the efficiency of the process you use to convert electricity into usable energy for transportation.

With technological innovation, the latter will rise, and the former will fall.

Am I to understand that you say the efficiency of making hydrogen will increae and the cost of electricity will go down?

Hydropgen can already be made rather efficiently. The problem is the process causes it's own problem... Pollution! There are several chemical reactive processes to release hydrogen. What do you do with the waste? As for hydrogen extraction from water with electricity... If you ever made that more efficient, you probably have perpetual motion!

Now the cost of electricity. Do you really forsee a time when it costs ud less rather than more? I only see it if some technical breakthrough like cheap cold fusion becomes available. We continue to demand more energy from limited supplies. Prices can only rise under such circumstances.



One of the interesting things about renewables like solar photovoltaic is that the first solar panels created in the 60's and 70's (if memory serves) are still producing electricity decades later. A lot of the cost analysis of such things makes the assumption of 10-15 years of usable life of any panel, but no one truly knows. They do lose generating capacity over time, but there are some reasonable estimates that put the usable life span of solar panels at 50 years.

Technology gains have shortened the "payback" time for solar panels, both energy payback and monetary, and will certainly continue to do so.

I am all for solar panels and I agree. I myself have used the sort lifespan argument, but most things do last longer unless abused. I don't get much sunlight where I live, but I did incorporate a solar cell charger to a car battery for my storage shed. Didn't have to run any AC that way, and use 12 volt lighting when I need light. Works great. I get enough sunlight to keep retain more power than I use. Any thought of using solar power for the house is out of the question unless I were to cut a clear path to the sun out of the way, destroyong several tall fir trees. I like the trees better.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I was referring to both sides. Identifying Meredith Viera as a pro-global warming leader is kind of like naming SequSpur as a prototypical Spur fan.

Can you name one of us 'Deniers' who act like zeolots? I only see unreasonable pushing of propaganda from the 'Alarmists.' People like me provide reasonable information.

[DarkReign]

The english version will suffice. This word would be almost recognizable to a person a thousand years ago as today.

Hmmm, if I had to guess...

Okay.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm, if I had to guess...

Okay.

The answer:

To fart.

German:

Fuhrzen.

I think it says something about the humanity that the word fart is one of the most used and recognizable words around. When you can dig up a 1600 year old joke book from ancient greece and find jokes on flatulence that says to me that fart jokes are a high art form.

[DarrinS]

Actually, I was referring to both sides. Identifying Meredith Viera as a pro-global warming leader is kind of like naming SequSpur as a prototypical Spur fan.


I didn't refer to her as an expert. I was just pointing out that the MSM goes nuts with this stuff and no one really calls them out on it.

[Wild Cobra]

Southern sea ice is more than 300,000 square kilometers greater than average.

How about it believers...

[Wild Cobra]

Bump

[Winehole23]

BumpYou're a fuckin zombie reanimator, WildCobra. You know that? This thread went nowhere the first time. It died. Did that bother you?

[Bartleby]

The answer:

To fart.

German:

Fuhrzen.

I think it says something about the humanity that the word fart is one of the most used and recognizable words around. When you can dig up a 1600 year old joke book from ancient greece and find jokes on flatulence that says to me that fart jokes are a high art form.

I remember hearing that "mama" (ma, mom etc.) is fairly universal as well--I think it has to do with the sounds infants make when breastfeeding, or so the theory goes.

[Winehole23]

There is the redeeming fart joke. Good point, Bartleby.

[ratm1221]

I find it funny that the people that argue that there is no global warming because there is no evidence to support it, are the same people that believe there is a man that lives in the sky.

[Winehole23]

I find it funny that the people that argue that there is no global warming because there is no evidence to support it, are the same people that believe there is a man that lives in the sky.Eh, more like ordinary.

People won't accept reasons for what they believe. They may use reason on children, students and unbelievers, but belief in the sense that believers mean it, is not rationally based at all.

[Winehole23]

There is a semantic tangle over the word belief. Scientists mean something different by it.

[RandomGuy]

Southern sea ice is more than 300,000 square kilometers greater than average.

How about it believers...

How about the fact that the western portion of antarctica actually turned out to be warmer than we thought it was?

How much of your science is sponsored by the coal/gas/oil companies?

Since they have every motivation to lie, and to fund science that refutes how much they are really damaging the environment with their products, how much of that science have you found?

What flaws in reasoning have you found in some of the science you quote here?

Do they make claims that their data cannot fully support?

[DarrinS]

How about the fact that the western portion of antarctica actually turned out to be warmer than we thought it was?


What percentage of Antarctica does this "western portion" represent? What is going on with the rest of Antarctica?

[DarrinS]

I find it funny that the people that argue that there is no global warming because there is no evidence to support it, are the same people that believe there is a man that lives in the sky.


Who are you referring to?

I'm not a religous person.

[ratm1221]

Who are you referring to?

I'm not a religous person.

Oh, you're THAT guy...

[Winehole23]

Oh, you're THAT guy...I think DarrinS is saying he doesn't like the professional consensus. That's a little different than being an obtuse fundamentalist. He's a scientist with a competing theory, or something like that.

[Wild Cobra]

I was looking at the reference in wiki for Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) since things get edited from time to time. Found an edit that is either flat out wrong, or being intellectually dishonest. It reads:


There has been no increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years. This is to me, a flat out lie. In fact, what can be read of the summary reads:

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.

Now if they mean a specific wavelength of light, that may be true. However, even the article does not imply this. I couldn't read the source article itself since I'm not a paying member of the site, but I accessed this graphic from it:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/solardatavstemperature.jpg

If they claim brightness hasn't changed over 100 years then why does the bottom graph say otherwise?

From a good article I found in the wiki notes (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf) also:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/temperature1900to2000.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/TSIwatts1900to2000.jpg

Again, temperature and solar output have a very close relationship.

[Wild Cobra]

Also cited incorrectly in wiki due to citing IPCC propaganda:

Now here’s something that doesn’t take much deductive reasoning to see how they propagate misinformation.Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf):

Page 665:

The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing
As the increased density of greenhouse gasses accumulate, the height of how much they warm is reduced as more IR is blocked sooner. That would be the working method of this theory is it is true.

Page 702-703:

Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another ‘fingerprint’ of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been responsible for the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed.
Remember how I keep saying in some posts “with all other factors static.” Here is a perfect example. If CO2 and other greenhouse gasses remained constant, this would be the predicted result. However, they just said the increase in CO2 will cool the stratosphere. One is canceling out or overwhelming the other. Remember, the sun’s effect on the stratosphere is a direct on, but through three other layers first. Not radiative forcing. The increases are first off, going to affect the Exosphere, Thermosphere, and Mesosphere first, already absorbing nearly all the specific spectra of radiation that oxygen, ozone, etc. absorb. Temperature peaks around 50 km in the starting in the mesophere. Ozone first starts heating the atmosphere from incoming solar radiation at about higher than 60 km. It’s at a pretty low concentration until it starts rising at 75 km. Changes to the stratosphere would be very insignificant, as the higher layers of ozone and other gasses already trap the bulk of solar radiation.

Why is the stratosphere so cold? Because it is transparent to radiation both incoming and outgoing! Why would anyone in their right mind expect a notable measurable change? The troposphere is about 220 K (-53 C/-63 F) at 10 km and rises to about 270 k (-3 C/27 F) at its top.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/tempvsaltitude.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/O3vsaltitude.jpg

Now before someone jumps to conclusions about the graphs, remember, radiative forcing from spectral vibrations is nearly logarithmic. It works very much like radioactive half-life. The incoming solar radiation heat is trapped more at the entry area than where it penetrates later. If you trap 50% of an incoming spectra at a specified O3 gas content, then there is only 50% remaining. The next equal O3 gas content then traps 25% (50% of 50%) of the radiation The next, 12.5%, etc...

Very little specific spectra left to make changes to O3 content in the stratosphere. The same theory why increased CO2 causes it to cool, means almost no changes from incoming solar increases.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmmm, if I had to guess...

Okay.

You should know better than that DR. OK didn't enter the common vernacular until 1840 during the presidential election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay

That was one of the few presidential slogans I learned about in civics class, along with "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too".

[Wild Cobra]

Today's Arctic and Antarctic trends are looking good...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I was looking for something similar, and found an absolutely well written article on the sun's influence to Global Warming:

Global Warming, Ice Ages, and Sea Level Changes:
Something new or an astronomical phenomenon occurring in present day?

What certain special interest groups don't want you to know
(https://sites.google.com/site/bensonfamilyhomepage/Home/ice-age-and-global-warming)

[Shastafarian]

Well, I was looking for something similar, and found an absolutely well written article on the sun's influence to Global Warming:

Global Warming, Ice Ages, and Sea Level Changes:
Something new or an astronomical phenomenon occurring in present day?

What certain special interest groups don't want you to know
(https://sites.google.com/site/bensonfamilyhomepage/Home/ice-age-and-global-warming)


Greg Benson is an earth scientist with 30 years of geologic study and 25 years of experience in the oil and gas industry.I'm shocked I tells ya. Shocked!

[Wild Cobra]

I'm shocked I tells ya. Shocked!
I said this before. Those who can to, those who cannot, teach.

Just because he works in the field does not make the information false. Only idiots believe such. Geoscientists are the only qualified ones to assess global warming. Not glorified meteorologists. What other field pay good money in those science disciplines?

Take the paragraph out of context why don'tyou:


Greg Benson is an earth scientist with 30 years of geologic study and 25 years of experience in the oil and gas industry. He earned his degrees in geology at the University of Southern California (1979) and the University of Arizona (1981) and currently works as a research specialist in geologic modeling.

[Wild Cobra]

The original images are no longer valid links in the OP. I believe these images are close enough to the original those six years ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/640px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_ACRIM_Composite.jpg

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/figure11.png

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're a fuckin zombie reanimator, WildCobra. You know that? This thread went nowhere the first time. It died. Did that bother you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yay more unsourced graphs from WC. I guess he thinks he has credibility.

[boutons_deux]

Hottest 12 Months On Record: NOAA Data ‘Show No Pause In Warming’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/21/3581943/hottest-12-months-on-record/)


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_Projected_NOAA-638x367.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/21/3581943/hottest-12-months-on-record/

[Winehole23]

Solar forcing guy now has a top job at the NOAA.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa

[Winehole23]

Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htmHow is the Arctic sea ice lookin today?

[Splits]

How is the Arctic sea ice lookin today?

bag of ice is still $0.99 in the zip code

[pgardn]

Solar forcing guy now has a top job at the NOAA.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa

Biden has a lot of cleaning up to do.

[RandomGuy]

In a way, you are right. Global warming catastrophists are a kinda like religious zealots. If you don't run around saying that sea levels will rise by 200 feet (Meredith Viera said this on the kick off of NBC's "Green week"), then you are considered a "denier" or a heretic or whatever. Look, I'm all for being environmentally responsible, but I don't think it's a good idea to unnecessarily frighten people.


Here's a very good video on the MSM's role in GW hype.

W9XyEjV-1cQ

Moron. Wrong in 2008, and wrong now, you stupid, stupid motherfucker.

Your kids will curse you behind your back and your grandkids will be embarassed at your stupidity.

Eat a bag of dicks and fuck off to the sun.

[RandomGuy]

Solar forcing guy now has a top job at the NOAA.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa

See also:

The stultifying compendium.

Shocking at how the partisan hacks have made science a four letter word.