"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

The consensus is getting bigger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879862,00.html

From TFA:

"...the Earth will still be swamped by huge rises in global
temperatures, triggered by human activities, that will affect
the planet over the next few decades."

Where's the part about global warming not being real?

I really don't understand why you posted half a dozen links that all
refute your own argument.


What is my argument?

Not one of any of the articles refute the fact that the sun warms the earth
and global warming is driven by the sun, climate change is driven by the
sun's output variability.

Are you aware that the greatest warming trend occured early in the last
century before greenhouse gas emissions greatly increased?

Are you aware that humans create less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, more
on the order of 0.28%, the same variability of the sun measured over the
last 17 years?


//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

More lockstep agreement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

The consensus grows and grows!!!!!!!!!

From TFA:

"Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of
"greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed
to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible
to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg
Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be
responsible for new extremes in weather patterns."

Why do you think this article debunks global warming? It seems to state
quite plainly that it is a real phenomenon.

//Walt

With the right time scale one can show the earth is cooling. Or it depends
where the measurement is taken.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:


http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

You really didn't read any of these links before you posted them, did you.

Go to my post on Faraday Paradox with Ganz. The reread the magnetic field
evolution in cycle 23.

You aren't catching on are you?

How much did you drink?


See slide # 10:

Conclusions

o Solar output cannot account for rapid increase in Global Warming

o Solar Cycle 23 is an important case study for both observation
and theory

o Promising results on magnetic field evolution in Cycle 23

//Walt

Name the components of solar output and relative energies.

How would a magnetic field on the sun affect the earth's climate?

Let's discuss the article.

Gilligan wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 -0400, Walt
wrote:


I really don't understand why you posted half a dozen links that all
refute your own argument.

//Walt

I think we can achieve consensus on this easily and quickly. :^)

Yes we could. If only...

I think the consensus is that a consensus cannot be reached!

Cheers
Marty

Gilligan wrote:
"Walt" wrote
Gilligan wrote:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

You really didn't read any of these links before you posted them, did you.


Go to my post on Faraday Paradox with Ganz. The reread the magnetic field
evolution in cycle 23.

Uh, no thanks. I know a red herring argument when I see one.

If you're losing the argument, change the subject.


See slide # 10:

Conclusions

o Solar output cannot account for rapid increase in Global Warming

Let's discuss the article.

What's to discuss? It concludes that variations in solar output cannot
account for the measured global warming.

I know you desparetely WANT for it to be that way, but that's not what
the data imply. Sorry. Wishing won't make it so.

Confusing the issue with a bunch of techno-babble may fool some of the
people. Nice try, but no thanks.

//Walt

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 -0400, Walt
wrote:


I really don't understand why you posted half a dozen links that all
refute your own argument.

//Walt

I think we can achieve consensus on this easily and quickly. :^)

Yes we could. If only...

I think the consensus is that a consensus cannot be reached!


At least someone is thinking!

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
"Walt" wrote
Gilligan wrote:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

You really didn't read any of these links before you posted them, did
you.


Go to my post on Faraday Paradox with Ganz. The reread the magnetic field
evolution in cycle 23.

Uh, no thanks. I know a red herring argument when I see one.

No you don't.


If you're losing the argument, change the subject.

I brought up magnetic fields before this article was posted.



See slide # 10:

Conclusions

o Solar output cannot account for rapid increase in Global Warming

Let's discuss the article.

What's to discuss? It concludes that variations in solar output cannot
account for the measured global warming.

I know you desparetely WANT for it to be that way, but that's not what the
data imply. Sorry. Wishing won't make it so.

Confusing the issue with a bunch of techno-babble may fool some of the
people. Nice try, but no thanks.

//Walt

Do you know where all the most accurate ocean bottom maps and most complete
marine mammal sound repository is?

With the US Navy. It is all classified data with the submarine fleet.

Do you know who NOAA calls for complete data when a solar event happens?
NORAD. The US Air Force has the most complete and longest record of solar
data in the world. They have been monitoring solar output before satellites
evren went into space. Why? - to prevent damage to satellites and to
forecast radio propagation. Not just typical radio traffic but things such
as over the horizon short wavelength radar. The USAF has the sun
characterized quite well, inclusive of output in visible, xray, IR, UV,
particles, radio and sub harmonic plasma frequencies. Soon the USAF will
reveal that the sun has been heating up, and much more than the few tenths
of a percent in the current scientific literature. The USAF plans to return
the aliens they are holding at Wright Paterson in exchange for the aliens
help in turning down the sun's output. Klaatu barada nikto!

Gilligan wrote:


Do you know who NOAA calls for complete data when a solar event happens?
NORAD. The US Air Force has the most complete and longest record of solar
data in the world. They have been monitoring solar output before satellites
evren went into space. Why? - to prevent damage to satellites and to
forecast radio propagation. Not just typical radio traffic but things such
as over the horizon short wavelength radar. The USAF has the sun
characterized quite well, inclusive of output in visible, xray, IR, UV,
particles, radio and sub harmonic plasma frequencies. Soon the USAF will
reveal that the sun has been heating up, and much more than the few tenths
of a percent in the current scientific literature. The USAF plans to return
the aliens they are holding at Wright Paterson in exchange for the aliens
help in turning down the sun's output. Klaatu barada nikto!


A little early in the day to be this inebriated, don't you think?

//Walt

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/...msat%20data%22

The sun is getting warmer.

And people are getting dumber.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/...msat%20data%22

The sun is getting warmer.