An Inconvenient Hypocrite

Mr. G said:
And isn't playing hard to get an integral part of romance? To analogize.

You're original question was about solar sunspot cycle length vs temperature. The period 1970 to the present is less than two 22-year sunspot cycles -- too brief a sampling interval to answer your original question.
Click to expand...

How does it compare to similar swatches of time period from previous time points?

Are such inconsistencies ( I believe that in the period 1970 to 2000, sunspot cycle length only accounts for half the global warming) also seen in previous timepoints?

PS. Have you read Eats Shoots & Leaves? Your abuse of the apostrophe is criminal.
 
Just to shortcut Mr. G's obfuscation, average global temperatures are affected both by the activity of the sun and by the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere.

Mr. G's graph is irrelevant, since the variation in solar activity is bound to swamp the carbon dioxide effects over the given time period.

What happens when you factor out the effects of varying solar activity, Mr. G?
 
James R

Mr. G's graph is irrelevant, since the variation in solar activity is bound to swamp the carbon dioxide effects over the given time period.
Click to expand...

What happens when you factor out the effects of varying solar activity, Mr. G?
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head, the solar activity overrides carbon effect at any time, to factor out the solar activity is to stack the deck, and that is what is happen with so much of the information being used to try and show that global warming is man made, or man has a effect on it. The sun drives our tides, and deep currents, which affect El Nino, La Niña cycles, which affect the weather cycles in the Americas and probably the rest of the world, and there are current in the rest of the oceans that have the same effect, and that is the problem, any projection made by the Global Warming alarmist has to much information missing to be usable for the type of prediction that are being made, to make them work they have to take information out of the calculations, not put information in, and they don't know all the variables in the process.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
You hit the nail on the head, the solar activity overrides carbon effect at any time, to factor out the solar activity is to stack the deck, and that is what is happen with so much of the information being used to try and show that global warming is man made, or man has a effect on it.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Those climatologist guys would purposely forget to factor in the largest contributor to mean temperatures!

I believe you.
 
James R said:
Just to shortcut Mr. G's obfuscation,...
Click to expand...
The graph is not mine. The graph's author is not my minion.
...average global temperatures are affected both by the activity of the sun and by the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere.

Mr. G's graph is irrelevant, since the variation in solar activity is bound to swamp the carbon dioxide effects over the given time period.

What happens when you factor out the effects of varying solar activity, Mr. G?
Click to expand...
Umm, let's see.

The sun stops radiating variably. *Sun Off* Atmospheric carbon dioxide freezes on the ground.

Okay. Now, let's measure the human contribution to global warming again.

Oh, that's right. No solar energy, no global warming and no man-made man-made component of global warming.

When you factor out solar variability you get a planet of historical uniform temperature. Like that has ever been a reality.
 
Last edited:
Oh Jamesy, you came and you gave me a tur-key
On my vacation away from Danesy

Oh Jamesy I stop and I think that you're cra-zy
When you tell me you'll drive my Mrs Daisy

Through a tunnel with your meced-es
Okay thats enough.
 
Mr. G said:
The graph is not mine. The graph's author is not my minion.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your graph.

When you factor out solar variability you get a planet of historical uniform temperature. Like that has ever been a reality.
Click to expand...

Not true, since carbon dioxide levels also affect global temperatures.


nicholas1M7 said:
Oh Jamesy, you came and you gave me a tur-key... [snip]
Click to expand...

You and Mr. G ought to get together. You make a great pair.
 
James R said:
Not true, since carbon dioxide levels also affect global temperatures.
Click to expand...
As do water vapor and bovine flatulence -- itself not dissimilar to leftie politicking (a relief for some, an irritant for others).
 
James R said:
Not true, since carbon dioxide levels also affect global temperatures.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but how much? This is not known.

Even if the current CO2 levels were to double, that would only mean an increase from 0.04 to 0.08 percent of the total atmosphere.
 
Perhaps, but how much? This is not known.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure it is known.

Climatologists have studied the correlations between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures over periods of millions of years, using ice cores and other methods.
 
James R said:
I'm fairly sure it is known.
Click to expand...

How would it be known? There has been no scientific testing of this hypothesis on any significant level. No controlled experimens and no oversight. It was an idea that without any testing became theory and without any testing evolved to truth.


Climatologists have studied the correlations between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures over periods of millions of years, using ice cores and other methods.
Click to expand...

Well I am a bit skeptical about that as well. Did you know that any air trapped in ice is considered 86 years newer than the ice it is trapped in. This was done becuase measure CO2 from Greenland, Alaska, Antartica and so on did not match up with projections made by climatologists. So they found a projected date that matched their measurements and made a rule that the air in Ice is 86 years younger than the ice. Does anyone else here sense a problem with this thinking?
 
James R said:
I'm fairly sure it is known.

Climatologists have studied the correlations between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures over periods of millions of years, using ice cores and other methods.
Click to expand...
The reason it is NOT known is because there is no way to test it. The vast complexity of the biosphere cannot be shrunk down to a laboratory sized experiment.

The ice core correlations between CO2 and temperature have been measured over approx. 800,000 years, not millions.

If you go back millions of years you discover that we are presently experiencing the lowest CO2 levels in history, relatively speaking.

If you go back far enough you'll find an atmosphere that was mostly CO2, methane and water vapour. Oxygen only appeared with the dawn of plant life.

The correlation from the ice core evidence does not
prove that C02 levels are a 'cause' of higher temperatures, in fact it demonstrates that they may be an effect, because they lag behind increases in temperature by approx. 800 years.
 
So now Gore comes to make his big speech and he was asked to sign the following pledge:

As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”​
Click to expand...
Big surprise, he refused.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
 
If you go back millions of years you discover that we are presently experiencing the lowest CO2 levels in history, relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Small comfort. Most of the animals and plants existing today are adapted to this climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top