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.
We all know how the sun effects climate...Increased irradiation means warmer temperatures and decreased irradiation causes cooler temperatures....Unfortunately for your "It's the sun" hypothesis, the sun's energy has been on the downswing....
From the first page you linked to.... But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity.
The real problem, is that you made the case earlier that "total irradiance" was an improper measurement of the sun's influence on the climate. Now you're arguing that is what must be used. Pick one or the other. Either decide what specific spectrum matters... Or decide it's total irradiance.
AGW, despite the misleading name, is not necessarily across the board warming everywhere. A side effect of warming would be ice melting, disrupting the ocean flows that warm Western Europe, and leading to an ice age in Britain, Spain, France, etc.
"We have to define AGW to mean any and every change, meaning we can blame anything that happens, and even if nothing happens, on it. This makes it the universal evil, to be useful for advancing bad political agendas".
And yet we know almost nothing about how our climate systems function.
Seriously, this is not that hard to follow, if you really want to know something. We know VERY LITTLE about how the earth's climate functions.
We know a great deal about how earth's climate functions, otherwise we wouldn't be having this "debate".....Have you not noticed that I usually back up my statements with evidence from qualified people? http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-conten...ow_website.pdf
It's VENUS! THIS AIN'T VENUS. The compositions are completely different! hahahahahahaahahhahahaha I just can't join this conversation. I just can't. It's too serious and there's too much being said I just can't bother a rational discussion. It's too funny. Lord, take me now!
Yes this isnt Venus, but yet once again, they have far more CO2 than we do, so how the hell can that be true if humans arent there polluting it?
Rather than repeating the same old nonsense, why dont you explain it to me...
We all know how the sun effects climate...Increased irradiation means warmer temperatures and decreased irradiation causes cooler temperatures....Unfortunately for your "It's the sun" hypothesis, the sun's energy has been on the downswing....
From the first page you linked to.... But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity.
Quite correct - but the hypothesis is not "It's the sun"
The hypothesis is that the AGW modelers have failed to consider or at best accurately model influences like sunspot activity. If you want it in vernacular, the models suck because they missed a kinda big cooling trend.
This is not to throw out the theory of AGW wholesale, in fact, if you were a scientist, you might know that this hypothesis does not damage the theory of AGW at all. What it does do is indicate that the models suck.
That model that sucks is what your crowd is basing the "OH MY GOD, WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!" political position upon. It doesn't take much logical skill to see that if the model sucks (as in provides an excessively alarmist prediction by failing to consider all the inputs), then quite possibly a public policy based on the assumption that this sucky model is accurate could well be a poor policy to follow.
If there is .05% less oxygen in the atmosphere, we will die, forests will die, fish will die en masse. Animals will shrink because there is less oxygen for energy.
Yes, it is minute changes by percentages, but it only takes a little change to make a big effect.
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that 20.95 percent oxygen in the atmosphere is good, but changing to to 20.94% will result in instant decimation of most all life?
That's another assertion that is wholly without merit.
The real problem, is that you made the case earlier that "total irradiance" was an improper measurement of the sun's influence on the climate. Now you're arguing that is what must be used. Pick one or the other. Either decide what specific spectrum matters... Or decide it's total irradiance.
We know a great deal about how earth's climate functions, otherwise we wouldn't be having this "debate".....Have you not noticed that I usually back up my statements with evidence from qualified people? http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-conten...ow_website.pdf
I don't need any evidence. The debates over the merits of even LARGE factors proves that not only do not know any significant amount about the function of our climate, we are nowhere near understanding it enough to predict a single thing. Anyone claiming to know how it functions... is flat out ignorant... Or just blabbing lies.
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.
