|
Walt is right!
|
Walt is right!
|
Walt is right!
|
Walt is right!
|
Walt is right!
More lockstep agreement:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html The consensus grows and grows!!!!!!!!! |
Walt is right!
Oh those silly bloviators at NOAA!
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change. In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Obviously oil company shills!!!! If you don't agree with Walt you either: a. Are a bloviator b. Work for an oil company c. Engage in pseudo science! |
Walt is right!
Pseudoscience:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22 |
Walt is right!
"Gilligan" wrote: Who ****ing cares? My left little finger is damaged beyond all recovery! Where's the attorney buddies when you need them? sigh LP (missing Ellen) |
Walt is right!
"Jeff" wrote in message news:OWkUg.2010$fl.1759@dukeread08... "Gilligan" wrote: Who ****ing cares? My left little finger is damaged beyond all recovery! Where's the attorney buddies when you need them? sigh LP (missing Ellen) How in the hell did that happen on my computer? LP |
Walt is right!
Gilligan wrote:
Consensus indeed! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html Do you even bother to read the links you post? 'Cause some of them don't support your case. Mostly the ones from real sources like National Geographic. So, a brief set of clues for you since you seem to be devoid of a ticket on the clue train: o There is overwhelming consensus that the earth is getting warmer. o There is general consensus that human activity (mostly burning fossil fuel) is responsible for some of that warming trend. o There is a variety of opinion on how much of the warming trend is due to naturally occuring processes and how much is due to human activity. Few, if any, scientists claim that it's 100% due to human activity. Likewise, few claim it to be 0%. Consensus is that it's somewhere in the middle, but there is no consensus about exactly where in the middle. o The predictive models are all over the map. Like predicting the weather, making accurate predictions about exactly what is going to happen is far from an exact science. It's like trying to predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down a stairwell - you know it's overall path will be down, but predicting each and every bounce is not possible. Don't expect unanimity here, because you won't get it. As you can see, the scientific community is still hashing out many of the finer points. To point at some of these minor squabbles and say "Look! There's no consensus!" is to entirely miss points one and two above. But I hope you had a good time last night doing the midnight Google thing. You seem to have worked yourself up into quite a lather by the fifth or sixth post. Hope you're happy. Do you ever sail anymore? //Walt |
Walt is right!
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 |
Walt is right!
Gilligan wrote:
Oh those silly bloviators at NOAA! http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Again you post an article that undermines your argument: "Is the climate warming? Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). " So, it very plainly states that global warming is happening. There is no real debate about this. Now, why is the climate getting warmer? The primary theory is forcing due to increased concentration of greehouse gasses. Are greenhouse gasses increasing due to human activity? Well, yes: "Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. " What about naturally occuring changes in solar radiation? Do that play a part? Yes, but: "...the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. ...for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases." It's a pretty good article. I'd recommend everyone reading it. Just take off the partisan blinders before you do. //Walt |
Walt is right!
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. 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 |
Walt is right!
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. //Walt |
Walt is right!
"Walt" wrote in message ... Gilligan wrote: Consensus indeed! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html Do you even bother to read the links you post? Absolutely 'Cause some of them don't support your case. My case is that there is no consensus. Unlike you, I'm willing to present both sides. Unlike you, I'm not going to ad-hominen some paper's author because I may disagree with him. Unlike you, I'm going to look at all the evidence and analysis. Mostly the ones from real sources like National Geographic. So, a brief set of clues for you since you seem to be devoid of a ticket on the clue train: o There is overwhelming consensus that the earth is getting warmer. True. I also believe it is getting warmer in general. o There is general consensus that human activity (mostly burning fossil fuel) is responsible for some of that warming trend. "general consensus" misuse of English. "some" is how much? o There is a variety of opinion on how much of the warming trend is due to naturally occuring processes and how much is due to human activity. Few, if any, scientists claim that it's 100% due to human activity. Likewise, few claim it to be 0%. Consensus is that it's somewhere in the middle, but there is no consensus about exactly where in the middle. "No consensus" o The predictive models are all over the map. Like predicting the weather, making accurate predictions about exactly what is going to happen is far from an exact science. I've said this all along. It's like trying to predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down a stairwell - you know it's overall path will be down, but predicting each and every bounce is not possible. Don't expect unanimity here, because you won't get it. Exactly As you can see, the scientific community is still hashing out many of the finer points. To point at some of these minor squabbles and say "Look! There's no consensus!" is to entirely miss points one and two above. Just 5 years ago models did not include solar variability. Is that a "fine point"? Because the models can't even predict the past - Is that a "fine point"? The squabbles are not minor or even "fine points". The squabbles are over accuracy and precision. Since when is +/- 30% accurate or precise? Go drive down the road with that kind of accuracy and report back to me what you find, if you survive. But I hope you had a good time last night doing the midnight Google thing. Midnight, check again both the time and time span. It's a matter of record and you will see that again your assertion is well off the mark. You seem to have worked yourself up into quite a lather by the fifth or sixth post. That would be around midnight, right? Hope you're happy. How could you tell? Do you ever sail anymore? Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or sweat equity. Bowling is as physically taxing as sailing, that is why old people do it. If most were to train at an olympian level for sailing they would die of a stroke. Their beer bellies would get in the way. How big is your belly? (No disrespect to those here who run, cycle, skate etc) //Walt So what is the consensus? That the earth is warming. Is there a consensus on the cause? No. Is there a consensus that all the causes are NOT understood? Yes. Is there a consensus that more research much be done to understand global warming? Yes Is there a consensus that the earth warmed considerably many times before man existed? Yes Is there a consensus that the earth cooled very rapidly after the warming? Yes Is there a consensus that man did not cause the warmings that occured greater than 100 years ago? Yes Is there a consensus that you have never refuted one thing I've said? Yes. The warming experienced today is caused by the sun. Changes in the climate are caused by the variability of the output of the sun. This cannot be refuted. |
Walt is right!
Gilligan wrote:
Sure is! http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html "At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report. The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases." So, what's your point? //Walt |
Walt is right!
Gilligan wrote:
Do you ever sail anymore? Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or sweat equity. You are a funny one, Mr Milstead. Obviously, you have never raced olympic class dinghys. Try racing a Laser in 20 knots someday and come back and say that again. It's just further proof that you are more than willing to run your mouth about things you know nothing about. //Walt |
Walt is right!
"Walt" wrote in message ... Gilligan wrote: Do you ever sail anymore? Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or sweat equity. You are a funny one, Mr Milstead. Obviously, you have never raced olympic class dinghys. Try racing a Laser in 20 knots someday and come back and say that again. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that just even training for olympic grade sailing would kill most of the people here. It's in writing! He "Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or sweat equity. Bowling is as physically taxing as sailing, that is why old people do it. If most were to train at an olympian level for sailing they -------------See it here! would die of a stroke. Their beer bellies would get in the way. How big is your belly? (No disrespect to those here who run, cycle, skate etc)" It's just further proof that you are more than willing to run your mouth about things you know nothing about. Are you senile? Maybe a bit wound up. Calm down, relax, read everything, think a bit. It can make things more productive. //Walt |
Walt is right!
"Walt" wrote in message ... Gilligan wrote: Sure is! http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html "At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report. The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases." So, what's your point? //Walt If 10 years ago scientists the consensus was that the sun's increased output did not cause global warming, and one year ago it accounted for 30%, then the trend is definitely that it will account for 100% in about 20 years. I'm using the same predictive techniques as global warming models. Is there a problem? |
Walt is right!
"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... |
Walt is right!
"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 is right!
"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 is right!
"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. |
Walt is right!
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 |
Walt is right!
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 |
Walt is right!
"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 is right!
"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! |
Walt is right!
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 |
Walt is right!
|
Walt is right!
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. |
Walt is right!
Gilligan wrote:
?? ? ?? Yes we could. If only... ? ? I think the consensus is that a consensus cannot be reached! ? At least someone is thinking! My head hurts! ;-o Cheers Marty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com