General Climate Discussion

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron
Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting naa naa naa may count as debunking among some but not for everyone.

The "naa naa naa"-argument is something that only your side ever uses. It has been practiced to perfection by lasz and other retards.


Here is the explanation for the temperature rise on Mars

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html


And riddle me this, s hitface, if the temperature rise was because of increased solar output why are all measurements of the sun showing that the energy output has been decreasing over the past 20 years...and why is Venus not getting warmer?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by straffo
well if it work for Lazs , shouldn't it work for every one ? (except the women of course !)

I think no one will disagree that lazs needs no one to answer for or defend him but I've yet to see him miss an opportunity to respond in detail to every point made in this thread. His responses are far removed from the insults and claims that "facts" have been "debunked" without a shred of supporting evidence. Lazs may be many things but hardly as you have characterized him here.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Hortlund
The "naa naa naa"-argument is something that only your side ever uses. It has been practiced to perfection by lasz and other retards.


Here is the explanation for the temperature rise on Mars

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html


And riddle me this, s hitface, if the temperature rise was because of increased solar output why are all measurements of the sun showing that the energy output has been decreasing over the past 20 years...and why is Venus not getting warmer?

Shifting reflective dust is one theory for warming on Mars but it hardly debunks increased solar activity as the cause.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron
Shifting reflective dust is one theory for warming on Mars but it hardly debunks increased solar activity as the cause.

Didnt I just tell you that since 1985, solar activity has been decreasing? did you not see that part? Did you not understand it? Or are you ignoring it (ie going "naa naa naa")?

Your side never changes. Always wrong, always making s hit up, always ignoring facts, always trying to distort facts, spin the truth and grab isolated statements out of context pretending they mean something they dont. Its beyond pathetic.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Didnt I just tell you that since 1985, solar activity has been decreasing? did you not see that part? Did you not understand it? Or are you ignoring it (ie going "naa naa naa")?

Your side never changes. Always wrong, always making s hit up, always ignoring facts, always trying to distort facts, spin the truth and grab isolated statements out of context pretending they mean something they dont. Its beyond pathetic.

Where are you getting your "facts"?

Are you saying this is bogus? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron
Where are you getting your "facts"?

Are you saying this is bogus? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Yup, the idea that the sun is driving global warming has been debunked.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16622370.800


And
In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects."

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yup, the idea that the sun is driving global warming has been debunked.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16622370.800


And
In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects."

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf

From your source: "A correlation between the sunspot cycle and temperatures in the northern hemisphere seemed to account for most of the warming seen up until 1985. But new results reveal that for the past 15 years something other than the Sun—probably greenhouse emissions—has pushed temperatures higher."

Something... probably... They don't even deny that sun activity has  contnued to increase, just that something else must be causing global warming, like greenhouse gasses, yeah, that's it.

I'm not subscribing to read more.



Haven't read all of your second source but it seems to be only about cosmic rays and I can't find your quoted excerpt.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron

I'm not subscribing to read more.

How symptomatic...

and lets take a look at that continued increase shall we...














....











exciting huh...











And now lets see you try to marry that chart with this one... best of luck

[Shuffler]

I still can't help but laugh about the 2 Global Warming meetings in Chicago.... cancelled because of heavy snow....  

[AKIron]

Where'd you get that second quote Hortlund. I can't find it in the second article. Was it in the first?

[moot]

What a mess.. No one know anything for sure, but you wouldn't think so, looking at some people's arguments...

[AKIron]

How about this one from the same source as your pic.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron
How about this one from the same source as your pic.

How about this one? Its about as relevant.



Quick question, why do you think yours ends at 2000?


More:
The Sun’s brightness (or irradiance, which is a direct indicator of the amount of energy coming from the Sun to the Earth) increased between 1977 and 1985, but has been decreasing since 1985. Less irradiance, or brightness, makes less heat energy coming to the Earth. Such a scenario would indicate a cooler Earth, not a warmer one.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by Shuffler
Report on ABC (I think it was) talked about a jet that flew from europe to the US and back with no passengers. Stated how much fuel was burned and how much carbon was made. Only problem was that the carbon weighed something like 600% more than the fuel burned.

Seems if your a Global Warming "Enthusiast" your calculations can be as miscalculated as you want them to be.

Jet fuel is an alkane - a group of hydrocarbons composed of only Carbon and Hydrogen (no Oxygen). Alkanes are also known as paraffins. You seem to be overlooking the fact that when jet fuel burns, it combines with oxygen from the atmosphere !! An atom of Carbon (C) has an atomic weight of 12, and a molecule of Oxygen (O2) has a molecular weight of 16 so that CO2 has a molecular weight of 28.  Thus, if two tonnes of CO2 are produced by the burning of jet fuel, more than one tonne of the CO2 produced comes from oxygen already in the atmosphere.

So as you can see, the total waste output from the burning of jet fuel  weighs more than the fuel itself, because the combustion process uses oxygen not in the fuel itself, but in the atmosphere.

Moray and Hortlund will correct any mistakes I've made with the chemistry. And if they need help,  they can always consult Lazs.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Quick question, why do you think yours ends at 2000?

 

Could it have anything to do with this...?