Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point of my post was that our atmosphere controls our planets temperature. And the "Greenhouse Effect" controls warmth on our planet with gases like CO2. The average American releases 17 tons of carbon each year. And putting so much CO2 in our atmosphere is nothing to play with.
Two things:
1. Do you believe the content of our atmosphere is static?
2. Do you believe our atmosphere instantly adjusts to the amount of radiation being produced by the sun via it's variations or the variations in our orbit?
As rational people have been saying for some time, climate change is dictated by changes in the sun and not in CO2.
The fact that all the planets are heating should have been a hint. These AGW tree huggers can't get off their Co2 high horse long enough to add 1+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Two things:
1. Do you believe the content of our atmosphere is static?
2. Do you believe our atmosphere instantly adjusts to the amount of radiation being produced by the sun via it's variations or the variations in our orbit?
I'd go further and say that we may be going through a pole shift also. It is a scientific fact that our magnetic field is in a weakened state. THIS may also be an attribute to our temperature rise.
The point of my post was that our atmosphere controls our planets temperature. And the "Greenhouse Effect" controls warmth on our planet with gases like CO2. The average American releases 17 tons of carbon each year. And putting so much CO2 in our atmosphere is nothing to play with.
You may be interested to know other planets in our solar system have temperature fluctuations all corresponding to our own observed solar irradiance changes.
The point of my post was that our atmosphere controls our planets temperature. And the "Greenhouse Effect" controls warmth on our planet with gases like CO2. The average American releases 17 tons of carbon each year. And putting so much CO2 in our atmosphere is nothing to play with.
The point of MY post is that things relating to life, the universe, and everything are more complex than the small minds of the AGW movement can comprehend.
The AGW crowd may think that the answer is 42, but the answer isnt the end of the discussion. It is all about the question. When you ask the right question, the answer becomes obvious.
This is a case of denialists completely and utterly misrepresenting actual science.
Sure, the paper says 'the sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2' BUT in the abstract to the actual paper (which the link in the OP conveniently 'forgot' to link to), they very clearly state that this has to do with warming BEFORE the advent of modern industry, and ALL years after 1895 were omitted.
In addition, the fact that the authors are Chinese suggests that the translation/language barrier might have been a problem in describing their experiment in language that the disgusting filth from the denialist blogs wouldn't be able to pervert to serve their own selfish purposes.
The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.
You lose again, denialists.
The reason they omitted the years after 1895 is probably because there is absolutely ZERO legitimate debate as to whether or not the current warming is manmade, and if they had challenged that, they would have been immediately dismissed as cranks and denied publication.
I remember a few years ago hearing a report about how the temps were changing on Mars and other planets in a pattern than resembled climate shifts here on Earth. I also remember asking how that could be if our climate shifts were due to human activity(how many SUV's are on Mars, anyway?), and getting plenty of insults and labels(denier, etc.) in response but not much in the way of rebuttals.
Truth is hard to rebut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I read the article. At the bottom it links to a right-wing denialist site call "hockeyshtick". This is not science. There's no science here.
I'm sure that if the denialists ever post something of actual scientific merit, it will show up in the scientific publications. This is why they never, ever post anything from scientific publications; their claims have no scientific merit.
Better luck next time, denialists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
ROFL, because a site mentions the study you're going to discount the study?
If it's real, I'll read about it in real literature on the matter. And there's no doubt that the denialist website will claim the study proves something it doesn't, otherwise the denialist website wouldn't bother. Reading denialist websites is a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Way didn't you take the time to find out before flapping your lips?
It's real, see the link.
At lot of posters reek of Josef Göbbel's Shill Eau de Toilette in the 5.3 ounce spray for internet posters.
To categorically label everything you don't like as right-wing denialist site is clear evidence of a propaganda and disinformation campaign.
Are you seriously suggesting that a site titled 'thehockeyschtick' is going to be objective about AGW and deserves to be taken seriously?
I mean, come on... it's pretty clear that anything that doesn't fit their 'AGW is a hoax/not so bad/etc.' agenda is going to be ignored, and anything that sounds remotely like it would stir doubts (like the title to the study whose abstract NO ONE on this thread except me seems to have even read).
You will not be able to find any legitimate science publications that deny that CO2 is causing warming. There aren't any.
As a general rule, if you see an article like this that seems to have totally 'debunked' AGW, there WILL be something wrong with it-- in this case, it's that they're only studying pre-AGW solar activity while deniers want you to believe it covers the post-AGW world as well.
Some AGW-believers are going to be too eager to make a judgment and attack the authors of the study or the journal or something... but if you actually care about the subject and not just making 'liberals' feel bad about something they've said, you will care that these types of misleading or flat-out wrong articles appear on these sites ALL THE TIME.
These sites are about intentionally deceiving and misleading-- that's why they exist, why they take the position they do. The fact that people on this board keep eating up over and over even when it's blatantly obvious that they're doing this is beyond me.
If they're on the side of science, then why is there so much of this bull**** going on with the denialist/'skeptic' side, exactly? Why can't they just be straight and not intentionally mislead people?
It's because they are professional liars who know that most deniers don't even care about the truth, they just care about being right... so they can lie and then when that lie is revealed as such they just tell another lie and then another and another, so it doesn't actually matter that they've just lied to you 200 times in a row-- you're just happy to have the ammunition.
Are you seriously suggesting that a site titled 'thehockeyschtick' is going to be objective about AGW and deserves to be taken seriously?
I mean, come on... it's pretty clear that anything that doesn't fit their 'AGW is a hoax/not so bad/etc.' agenda is going to be ignored, and anything that sounds remotely like it would stir doubts (like the title to the study whose abstract NO ONE on this thread except me seems to have even read).
You will not be able to find any legitimate science publications that deny that CO2 is causing warming. There aren't any.
As a general rule, if you see an article like this that seems to have totally 'debunked' AGW, there WILL be something wrong with it-- in this case, it's that they're only studying pre-AGW solar activity while deniers want you to believe it covers the post-AGW world as well.
Some AGW-believers are going to be too eager to make a judgment and attack the authors of the study or the journal or something... but if you actually care about debate, you will realize that the type of site in the OP is about intentionally deceiving and misleading-- that's why it exists, that's why it takes the position it does. The fact that people on this board keep eating up over and over even when it's blatantly obvious that it's doing this is beyond me.
You and every other reader have been provided the link to the original article. Why dont you read it, and stop with this attack on some blog site that referenced it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
