Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 92 of 92
  1. #76
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I was looking at the reference in wiki for 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:



    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 also:





    Again, temperature and solar output have a very close relationship.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 09:01 PM.

  2. #77
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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:

    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 ac ulate, 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.



    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.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 08:59 PM.

  3. #78
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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".

  4. #79
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Today's Arctic and Antarctic trends are looking good...










  5. #80
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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

  6. #81
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    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!

  7. #82
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.

  8. #83
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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:






  9. #84
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You're a in zombie reanimator, WildCobra. You know that? This thread went nowhere the first time. It died. Did that bother you?

  10. #85
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    And yay more unsourced graphs from WC. I guess he thinks he has credibility.

  11. #86

  12. #87
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Solar forcing guy now has a top job at the NOAA.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/91230...-hired-at-noaa

  13. #88
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Gro...ticle13385.htm
    How is the Arctic sea ice lookin today?

  14. #89
    Grab 'em by the pussy Splits's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Post Count
    25,330
    How is the Arctic sea ice lookin today?
    bag of ice is still $0.99 in the zip code

  15. #90
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,149
    Biden has a lot of cleaning up to do.

  16. #91
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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.

    Moron. Wrong in 2008, and wrong now, you stupid, stupid mother er.

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

    Eat a bag of s and off to the sun.

  17. #92
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    See also:

    The stultifying compendium.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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