Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Forget it, Bob, AGW denialism is a religion, logic won't work.
    Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
    Hyperwar, Whats New
    World War II Resources
    The best place in the world to "work".

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
      Forget it, Bob, AGW denialism is a religion, logic won't work.
      Keep it up Bob, AGW/ACC proponents are true-believers using fear and distortions to hustle social agendas, not science ones.

      MediaMatters, a leftist propaganda org, hardly an objective advocate for logic or science.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Keep it up Bob, AGW/ACC proponents are true-believers using fear and distortions to hustle social agendas, not science ones.

        MediaMatters, a leftist propaganda org, hardly an objective advocate for logic or science.
        And some of them are just plain batshitcrazy.
        Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
        Hyperwar, Whats New
        World War II Resources
        The best place in the world to "work".

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Keep it up Bob, AGW/ACC proponents are true-believers using fear and distortions to hustle social agendas, not science ones.

          MediaMatters, a leftist propaganda org, hardly an objective advocate for logic or science.
          Clearly you didn't actually read the excerpts, otherwise you never would have posted this. Look carefully. Casey and the 'Space and Science Research Corporation' are being dismissed by FELLOW AGW SKEPTICS.
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
            Clearly you didn't actually read the excerpts, otherwise you never would have posted this. Look carefully. Casey and the 'Space and Science Research Corporation' are being dismissed by FELLOW AGW SKEPTICS.
            I read them, you didn't look over other items at his site such as this list of articles by other researchers on Solar cooling;
            http://spaceandscience.net/id4.html
            Or this list;
            http://spaceandscience.net/id66.html

            And you are dodging the major issue, Sun as a key factor, to focus on one source advocating it's consideration, consider;
            EXCERPT;
            ...
            Long-term change

            Long-term secular change in sunspot number is thought, by some scientists, to be correlated with long-term change in solar irradiance,[102] which, in turn, might influence Earth's long-term climate.[103] For example, in the 17th century, the solar cycle appeared to have stopped entirely for several decades; few sunspots were observed during a period known as the Maunder minimum. This coincided in time with the era of the Little Ice Age, when Europe experienced unusually cold temperatures.[104] Earlier extended minima have been discovered through analysis of tree rings and appear to have coincided with lower-than-average global temperatures.[105]
            A recent theory claims that there are magnetic instabilities in the core of the Sun that cause fluctuations with periods of either 41,000 or 100,000 years. These could provide a better explanation of the ice ages than the Milankovitch cycles.[106][107]
            ....
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun


            The point isn't so much if SSRC is "credible" or correct as it is the assumption that the Sun will remain a stable and steady energy source per the "models" predicting ACC/AGW.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              Clearly you didn't actually read the excerpts, otherwise you never would have posted this. Look carefully. Casey and the 'Space and Science Research Corporation' are being dismissed by FELLOW AGW SKEPTICS.
              BTW Bob, there are a few other threads here covering the same material and arguments you are presenting. You may want to look thru those. ACC/AGW is becoming the "SeaLion" of the science forum.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
              Present Current Events are the Future's History

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                I read them, you didn't look over other items at his site such as this list of articles by other researchers on Solar cooling;
                http://spaceandscience.net/id4.html
                Or this list;
                http://spaceandscience.net/id66.html
                'Dr.' Abdussamatov has already been covered in this thread.
                My refutation revolves around the claims you made concerning global cooling in the other thread.

                Again, this list of resources presents John L. Casey as a credible source alongside the other individuals. The debunking of his credibility in the earlier post means that the other 'Cold Climate Forecasters' either:

                1. Are just as fraudulent and not to be regarded as credible, OR

                2. Should promptly submit letters of complaint to SSRC asking for their names to be removed from this list alongside Mr. Casey so as to minimize the damage to their reputation.

                As for this:

                Originally posted by G David Bock
                BTW Bob, there are a few other threads here covering the same material and arguments you are presenting. You may want to look thru those. ACC/AGW is becoming the "SeaLion" of the science forum.
                I posted on this thread, I received responses on this thread, and I will continue to offer my own refutations on this thread.

                It's only fair, isn't it?
                Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  Long-term change

                  Long-term secular change in sunspot number is thought, by some scientists, to be correlated with long-term change in solar irradiance,[102] which, in turn, might influence Earth's long-term climate.[103] For example, in the 17th century, the solar cycle appeared to have stopped entirely for several decades; few sunspots were observed during a period known as the Maunder minimum. This coincided in time with the era of the Little Ice Age, when Europe experienced unusually cold temperatures.[104] Earlier extended minima have been discovered through analysis of tree rings and appear to have coincided with lower-than-average global temperatures.[105]
                  A recent theory claims that there are magnetic instabilities in the core of the Sun that cause fluctuations with periods of either 41,000 or 100,000 years. These could provide a better explanation of the ice ages than the Milankovitch cycles.[106][107]
                  ....
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun


                  The point isn't so much if SSRC is "credible" or correct as it is the assumption that the Sun will remain a stable and steady energy source per the "models" predicting ACC/AGW.
                  I already posted a link to the University of California, San Diego's statement on this issue. I'll post it again in case you didn't see it:

                  http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/06_3.shtml

                  From the Article:
                  The Last 25 Years
                  Lean�s study found that "solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970". However, lest we take unwarranted comfort from the fact that the Sun seems most important and anthropogenic warming is less than originally estimated, keep in mind that if the Sun controls substantial climate fluctuations by changing its brightness by only 0.25%, a change of more than 1 percent in �virtual brightness� (from trace greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4) could have a considerably greater impact. The fact is we do not know for sure which will have the greater effect, but it is well to remember that the reconstruction of sunspots, their relationship to solar energy output, and the link to overall background brightness are areas of science that are still changing. Thus, solar contributions may be much less (or a somewhat more) than those currently estimated. In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component.
                  In terms of short-term solar changes, the only 'cycle' of note is the 11-year "sunspot cycle," which, well... I'll let the article do the talking

                  11-year Sunspot Cycles
                  Ever since the astrophysicist John Eddy pointed out in 1976 that the "Little Ice Age" occurred within a period of reduced sunspot activity, the search has been on for evidence that a variable Sun controls climate. The original idea was that sunspot cycles influence climate on an 11-year cycle, a concept explained in a book by Hoyt and Schatten (1997), The Role of the Sun in Climate Change .

                  Sunspots are huge magnetic storms that show up as darker regions on the sun�s surface. They tend to occur in cycles, with the number and size reaching a maximum approximately every 11 years. During periods of maximum sunspots the sun emits more energy (about 0.1 percent more) than during periods of sunspot minimums. Apparently bright spots that form around the sunspots radiate more energy, thus offsetting the effect of the dark spots. Note, however, that the energy difference is very small, amounting to approximately one tenth of the total effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gases have had on warming the atmosphere to date.

                  ...

                  Although many theories have been proposed to linked sunspot cycles to climate change, none have been proven.
                  Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    All of these graphs and articles 5 pages later and yet common sense still tells us that global warming is and always has been a myth.
                    I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                    --Salmon P. Chase

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Savez View Post
                      All of these graphs and articles 5 pages later and yet common sense still tells us that global warming is and always has been a myth.
                      Funny, I guess the fact that every single country in the world, including the United States, ratified the 2012 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change now means that the entire human race lacks basic common sense.
                      Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                        Funny, I guess the fact that every single country in the world, including the United States, ratified the 2012 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change now means that the entire human race lacks basic common sense.
                        This should be self evident... However, the US has not.ratified Kyoto or any other Gorebal Warming treaty.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                          Funny, I guess the fact that every single country in the world, including the United States, ratified the 2012 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change now means that the entire human race lacks basic common sense.
                          Those ratification signatures were made by politicians paid by governments, not by scientists without an economic angenda.
                          Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                            [...]

                            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/gridded

                            Click on the image to start the video. Note the sudden crash in emissions by Europe and East Asia just after the arrow crosses "1941."



                            [...]
                            Global carbon emissions (GtC)1939-1950...

                            1939 1192
                            1940 1299
                            1941 1334
                            1942 1342
                            1943 1391
                            1944 1383
                            1945 1160
                            1946 1238
                            1947 1392
                            1948 1469
                            1949 1419
                            1950 1630

                            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

                            More in the morning.
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Feb 15, 05:10.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                              Those ratification signatures were made by politicians paid by governments, not by scientists without an economic angenda.
                              Would be interesting to see how much "science" would be done if Guv'mint funding of ACC/AGW focused papers and research was cut off!
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                              Present Current Events are the Future's History

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                'Dr.' Abdussamatov has already been covered in this thread.
                                My refutation revolves around the claims you made concerning global cooling in the other thread.

                                Again, this list of resources presents John L. Casey as a credible source alongside the other individuals. The debunking of his credibility in the earlier post means that the other 'Cold Climate Forecasters' either:

                                1. Are just as fraudulent and not to be regarded as credible, OR

                                2. Should promptly submit letters of complaint to SSRC asking for their names to be removed from this list alongside Mr. Casey so as to minimize the damage to their reputation.

                                As for this:



                                I posted on this thread, I received responses on this thread, and I will continue to offer my own refutations on this thread.

                                It's only fair, isn't it?
                                "Fair" in your delusional deviations perhaps, but ignores the body of dialogue and evidence already presented. Re-inventing the wheel, or in context of this board, another "SeaLion" reduex!

                                One of several covered is far from conclusive, nor exclusive. Typical of the hubris of "libtard" minds to think that refuting/countering a point or two de-fuses the entire case against.
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X