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.
Seriously, of all the denialist tripe, the notion that there's just no money in climate change denialism is easily the strangest.
You clearly do not know how Washington works; All legislation concerning industry, is written by industry, I know, I have worked in the energy industry for years.
You clearly do not know how Washington works; All legislation concerning industry, is written by industry, I know, I have worked in the energy industry for years.
Your government's own data shows no Cause & Effect from CO2 on temperature.
In fact, it's just the opposite. Warming temperatures result in an increase in CO2, but increasing CO2 does not cause warming temperatures.
Eichler et al. (2009) used the ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 759years. They found strong correlation between the reconstructed temperature and solar activity, suggesting the solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time (AD1250–AD 1850). They identified a 10–30 year lag between the solar forcing and the temperature response, and also obtained that the reconstructed temperature was not significantly correlated with the green house gas CO2.
Uh-oh....the house of cards that propaganda built is starting to collapse.
However,it is difficult to determine the quantitative role of solar activity on the Earth's climate change at present. More evidences need to be found to better understand the long term impact of solar activity on the climate change of our Earth.
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Connecting the correct dots....
Mircea
Did you really just post a graph demonstrating that temperate is linked to CO2 and not solar activity, and then assert the opposite within the same post?
Someone would have to come up with scientific evidence that doesn't support AGW for us to test that theory. So far it's never been done. And no, posting repeatedly debunked theories like "Mars is warming too!" doesn't count as scientific evidence.
Someone has come up with scientific evidence, and three sources of but many are cited in this passage:
The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that the average global temperature will probably rise between 1.1 and 6.4°C by 2090–2099, as compared to 1980–1999 temperatures, with the most likely rise being between 1.8 and 4.0°C (IPCC, 2007a). The idea that the Earth’s climate is changing is now almost universally accepted in the scientific community (Cooney, 2010; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2007), and even many scientists who dispute that climate change is anthropogenic are in agreement that it is happening (i.e., KutÃlek, 2011; Carter, 2007; Bluemle et al., 1999).
Therefore, even if we can’t agree on why climate change is happening, it should be possible to agree that it is happening, and with climate change happening, there will be effects on the environment, including the soil.
[emphasis mine]
Source: Soils and Climate Change: Gas Fluxes and Soil Processes
Department of Natural Sciences and Agriculture and Technical Studies, Dickinson State University *Corresponding author (Eric.Brevik@dickinsonstate.edu).
doi:10.2136/sh12-04-0012
Published in Soil Horizons (2012)
Papers like these....
A knowledge-aid approach for designing high-performance buildings
A new static lighting concentrator with optical coupler
A Reflection on Moral Distress in Nursing Together With a Current Application of the Concept
Aflatoxins in home produced cereals?
An Ant Colony Algorithm for efficient ship routing
College students' understanding of atmospheric ozone formation
Creation of Carbon Credits by Water Saving
Energy efficient residential house wall system
Environmental comparison of draught animal and tractor power
...merely mention AGW in passing, and yet it is claimed to be "peer-reviewed research in support of AGW."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
The problem is that correlation and causation still aren't the same thing. Correlation is merely suggestive, but ultimately meaningless unless you can explain a mechanism; if you can't, you're not really making an argument so much as speculating. Or in this case, cherry-picking. And the last thirty years of solar cooling demonstrate... you know what, you cited Usoskin, so:
So no, Nature isn't a heretical right-wing denialist blog, no matter how much you selectively interpret otherwise.
4. Summary and conclusion
The Sun is the main energy source for the complicated climatic system of our Earth. Therefore, the solar forcing is believed to have an effect on the Earth's climate change. The debate as to how much solar activity could affect the Earth's climate has never stopped since its appearance. One of the reasons for this long debate is the relatively short length of continuous data of direct observations in both solar activity and climate change.
Source: "Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years"
X.H. Zhao, X.S. Feng / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 122 (2015) p 26–33
To bad you didn't cite this part of Usokin:
Usoskin et al.(2005) compared the reconstructed series of SSN, cosmic ray flux and the terrestrial
Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures over time intervals of up to nearly 1800 years, and revealed consistently positive correlations for SSN and negative correlations for the cosmic rays in contrast with the temperature. The significance levels, as pointed out by them, vary strongly for the different datasets.
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
It's about time to put on the Converse All-Stars....
Rational people would understand the earth warms anyway while still coming out of the mini-ice age.
Also, Jesus. James Inhofe says so, and you've already admitted you consider him an authority on this matter through the act of presenting him as an authority on this matter.
4. Summary and conclusion
The Sun is the main energy source for the complicated climatic system of our Earth. Therefore, the solar forcing is believed to have an effect on the Earth's climate change. The debate as to how much solar activity could affect the Earth's climate has never stopped since its appearance. One of the reasons for this long debate is the relatively short length of continuous data of direct observations in both solar activity and climate change.
Source: "Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years"
X.H. Zhao, X.S. Feng / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 122 (2015) p 26–33
To bad you didn't cite this part of Usokin:
Usoskin et al.(2005) compared the reconstructed series of SSN, cosmic ray flux and the terrestrial
Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures over time intervals of up to nearly 1800 years, and revealed consistently positive correlations for SSN and negative correlations for the cosmic rays in contrast with the temperature. The significance levels, as pointed out by them, vary strongly for the different datasets.
You're not going to prove your argument by continually citing sources that disprove your argument. Usoskin et al. specifically noted that insolation was not the cause of recent global warming. The fact that solar activity may have caused warming in the past is completely irrelevant, as it definitely isn't causing our current warming episode. I don't even have to cite a source; you already did it for me! You already posted the relevant graphs and text! Just read your own post until you understand why you're wrong.
After reading where I last posted in this topic all the way to the last page, I still see nothing but the word "denialist" thrown around like a ball.
Not one of the global warming/climate changers has listed any remedies to stop the apocalypses their side keep predicting.
However, all the news that has come out, billions will go to undeveloped countries, and wasted on other things...How, and where will this extra money come from?
Why does Arnold worldwide have a tool to find "climate change deniers" on the Internet wherever they maybe?
After reading where I last posted in this topic all the way to the last page, I still see nothing but the word "denialist" thrown around like a ball.
Not one of the global warming/climate changers has listed any remedies to stop the apocalypses their side keep predicting.
However, all the news that has come out, billions will go to undeveloped countries, and wasted on other things...How, and where will this extra money come from?
Why does Arnold worldwide have a tool to find "climate change deniers" on the Internet wherever they maybe?
You seem totally ignorant of the fact that we have been taking action to reduce GHGs here in the US and Europe for over a decade.
You seem totally ignorant of the fact that we have been taking action to reduce GHGs here in the US and Europe for over a decade.
No, you people in DC seem to think everyone is stupid... What I find funny is that the Lima UN convention, is that they want to end fossil fules by 2050. I also know about there hypocrisy with their large carbon foot print too for that get together.
I find a lot of hypocrisies in that Lima UN convention, it makes it even more difficult to believe their ridiculous apocalyptic conspiracies, much less their data.
Oh and climate change ranks last in the United Nations own survey, so enough is enough, of the hysterical, hyperbole from climate changers.
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.
