A question regarding the Sun

[Old Rocks]

Liability, as you well know, one can get very similiar charts from data from any of the National Academies of Science from any of the industrial nations. And from private research institutions such as Scripps and Woods Hole.

The lies concerning the use of skewed data from stations that are influenced by local heat effects are just that, lies. And that is what you deniers are down to now, outright lies.

Both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are losing ice by the gigaton. The North Polar Ice is melting, and exposing more ocean. Even though the 2007 low was not repeated in 2008, the 2008 low was the second lowest on record. We saw, for the first time, major clathrate outgassing in the Artic Ocean in 2008. The permafrost is rapidly melting and releasing even more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. Alpine glaciers are almost all in major retreat, in some areas where they were prevelant, they will be gone before 2050.

But all of this is either denied, ignored, or blamed on natural causes by those of you that simply cannot handle the truth. Within the next three years, barring a major volcanic eruption, you will have your nose rubbed in the stink of your willfull ignorance.

 

[Chris]

Ok for years now we have listened to the environuts claim the sun had nothing or almost nothing to do with the minor heating we have experienced up until 2000.

Now we are being told by these same people that the Sun IS causing a cooling period, eliminating the heating trend.

My question is, If the Sun had no real impact on HEATING the planet, why can these same people now claim with straight faces it is causing the heating to stop?

Please provide a link where a scientist says that the sun has no real impact on heating the planet.

 

[elvis]

Ok for years now we have listened to the environuts claim the sun had nothing or almost nothing to do with the minor heating we have experienced up until 2000.

Now we are being told by these same people that the Sun IS causing a cooling period, eliminating the heating trend.

My question is, If the Sun had no real impact on HEATING the planet, why can these same people now claim with straight faces it is causing the heating to stop?

Please provide a link where a scientist says that the sun has no real impact on heating the planet.

He is talking about the question of whether or not the sun has been the cause of global warming.

 

[Chris]

Ok for years now we have listened to the environuts claim the sun had nothing or almost nothing to do with the minor heating we have experienced up until 2000.

Now we are being told by these same people that the Sun IS causing a cooling period, eliminating the heating trend.

My question is, If the Sun had no real impact on HEATING the planet, why can these same people now claim with straight faces it is causing the heating to stop?

Please provide a link where a scientist says that the sun has no real impact on heating the planet.

He is talking about the question of whether or not the sun has been the cause of global warming.

That is not what he said.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and we are seeing record highs all across the southern states.

What will happen in 4 years when we reach the solar maximum?

 

[elvis]

Please provide a link where a scientist says that the sun has no real impact on heating the planet.

He is talking about the question of whether or not the sun has been the cause of global warming.

That is not what he said.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and we are seeing record highs all across the southern states.

What will happen in 4 years when we reach the solar maximum?

It is what he meant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok for years now we have listened to the environuts claim the sun had nothing or almost nothing to do with the minor heating we have experienced up until 2000.

Now we are being told by these same people that the Sun IS causing a cooling period, eliminating the heating trend.

My question is, If the Sun had no real impact on HEATING the planet, why can these same people now claim with straight faces it is causing the heating to stop?

Please provide a link where a scientist says that the sun has no real impact on heating the planet.

He is talking about the question of whether or not the sun has been the cause of global warming.

Since the Total Irridiance has stayed the same for the last 50 years, it could not be the cause of the warming that we have experianced in that period. Not only that, but with a solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, 2008 still tied 2001 as the eight warmest year on record. How then could the sun be the cause of global warming that we have experianced?

 

[Liability]

Liability, as you well know, one can get very similiar charts from data from any of the National Academies of Science from any of the industrial nations. And from private research institutions such as Scripps and Woods Hole.

The lies concerning the use of skewed data from stations that are influenced by local heat effects are just that, lies. And that is what you deniers are down to now, outright lies.

Both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are losing ice by the gigaton. The North Polar Ice is melting, and exposing more ocean. Even though the 2007 low was not repeated in 2008, the 2008 low was the second lowest on record. We saw, for the first time, major clathrate outgassing in the Artic Ocean in 2008. The permafrost is rapidly melting and releasing even more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. Alpine glaciers are almost all in major retreat, in some areas where they were prevelant, they will be gone before 2050.

But all of this is either denied, ignored, or blamed on natural causes by those of you that simply cannot handle the truth. Within the next three years, barring a major volcanic eruption, you will have your nose rubbed in the stink of your willfull ignorance.

Wrong. The only lies are from you AGW hoaxers who do intentionally use data you KNOW to be flawed to support your one-sided and scientifically invalid theories.

The Antarctic Ice cap is actually GAINING ice, by the way.

If you knew your way around actual science and had the capacity to open your eyes and your peevish little mind beyond the propaganda you willingly engorge yourself on, you could eventually come to see that we are heading for a period of global cooling.

Will there be periods of warming between now and then? Maybe. But, fear not Chicken Little. The sky is NOT actually falling.

 

[Liability]

I doubt many of you will bother to wade through it, but still:

Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok for years now we have listened to the environuts claim the sun had nothing or almost nothing to do with the minor heating we have experienced up until 2000.

Now we are being told by these same people that the Sun IS causing a cooling period, eliminating the heating trend.

My question is, If the Sun had no real impact on HEATING the planet, why can these same people now claim with straight faces it is causing the heating to stop?

The real experts have been saying all along that global warming isn't a threat...global cooling is. And it's caused by sun spots, which nobody can explain, but everyone (think NASA) knows result in cooling.

They're very worried about it. No sun, no crops, no food, no oxygen.

 

[edthecynic]

In further support of the proposition that data collection errors might just be responsible for skewing the reported results -- and thus the conclusions that might be derived from such "data" -- give this one a little thought.



Shock & Blog: Bad data fueling "global warming" hype?

Also, take a look at SOME of the placement spots.

Odd sites

A perfect example of how CON$ervative ignorance of how ANOMALIES work makes then vulnerable to the webs of deceit spun by professional liars.

That's just precious how you spell 'conservative,' you libtard.

Anyway, what I posted is not an example AT ALL of ignorance. Your "response" however sure as hell IS.

Let me give you an example so easy to follow that even one as dense as you SHOULD be able to follow along:

If 100 monitoring stations across some large region of the USA reflect that the temperature is rising on some summer day, but all of them are near air conditioners and planted on asphalt, for example, they will ALL report that the temperature is getting higher. But to what extent it is ACTUALLY getting hotter will remain unknowable BECAUSE of the lousy methodology.

That YOU are far too dense to comprehend the notion of "garbage in, garbage out" comes as no surprise. It is pretty basic science, afterall. Far beyond your limited grasp of reality.

Scientists are not as stupid as you think and they know how to collect accurate and useful data. Again, if you look at the chart of anomaly data you see it deviates from a zero point and not from a temp of say 50 degrees F for example. That zero point is an average of the the temp readings over at least a 20 year period in that same urban heat island location with the same thermometer and no other location or thermometer. So the anomalies are the deviation up or down from that average. So if the readings are higher than the average then the trend is warming, independent of any asphalt or anything else.
Get it?????

And again the urban heat island does not explain the 100 years of warming measured in the oceans, which I notice neither you or Dude will touch!!!!!!!

 

[JW Frogen]

.you cannot control what the sun does

Obviously a woman who has never heard of sunscreen.

Does your face look like your handbag?

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Scientists are not as stupid as you think and they know how to collect accurate and useful data. Again, if you look at the chart of anomaly data you see it deviates from a zero point and not from a temp of say 50 degrees F for example. That zero point is an average of the the temp readings over at least a 20 year period in that same urban heat island location with the same thermometer and no other location or thermometer. So the anomalies are the deviation up or down from that average. So if the readings are higher than the average then the trend is warming, independent of any asphalt or anything else.
Get it?????

And again the urban heat island does not explain the 100 years of warming measured in the oceans, which I notice neither you or Dude will touch!!!!!!!

Scientists are good or bad depending on lots of factors.

ALL temperature charts will reflect a "deviation" from some baseline. Whether it is from some arbitrary set point or not, as long as the actual temperature changes, the "deviation" will change accordingly. A warming "trend" will NOT tell you if its real or illusory (or how much it amounts to in reality) if the system you set up to take measurements is inherently flawed. Bad science doesn't yield good science.

If you measure temperature changes over time but you do your measurements in a scientifically sloppy fashion, the result is poor data leading to poor conclusions: garbage in, garbage out.

I realize you "don't see, yet." Or maybe it's just that you don't choose to see it.

HOWEVER, I confess that I have not addressed your question about the claim that sea/ocean temperatures have been increasing. There does seem to be some evidence of this in RECENT times. Frankly, to the extent that assertion is true, you might have the seed of a more persuasive argument, imho. I will have to address it later, however.

 

[Toro]

I used to think global warming was, if not a hoax, then overblown.

But I started seeing graphs such as this

As someone who has looked at about a gazillion graphs, this is the one of the most important pieces of data I have seen.

An empiricist, as opposed to an ideologue, would come to the conclusion that the trend in temperatures is up. So far, I don't see anyone here refuting this. Anyone wish to do so?

 

[Liability]

I used to think global warming was, if not a hoax, then overblown.

But I started seeing graphs such as this

As someone who has looked at about a gazillion graphs, this is the one of the most important pieces of data I have seen.

An empiricist, as opposed to an ideologue, would come to the conclusion that the trend in temperatures is up. So far, I don't see anyone here refuting this. Anyone wish to do so?

For roughly the last 160 years, the average global temperature DOES appear to be going up. Nobody I know denies that this appearance exists.

I believe one of the big questions -- amongst several big questions -- is WHETHER OR NOT the appearance is "real" or in some way, manner or form "illusory."

I am inclined to accept that the average temperature has risen. I am not in the slightest little bit inclined to believe that the rise in temperature has been shown, scientifically, to be (a) abnormal or (b) somehow "caused" by humankind.

In summary, the hoax portion of global warming (if there is a hoax) is NOT that temperatures seem to have gone up in the last roughly 200 years. The hoax, instead (if there is one) might be that the alleged cause of the warming is attributable to humankind's industrial-type activities.

 

[Oddball]

For roughly the last 160 years, the average global temperature DOES appear to be going up.

Which isn't even a tick of the geological clock.

 

[k2skier]

yes, like a micro second, but the only time the temps have risen this quickly before is because of a natural disaster, ie meteor, volcano...and with the temps still rising and the sun at a minimum...

 

[k2skier]

common sense and sustainability...

 

[Oddball]

Correlation doesn't equal causatiion....Common sense.

Also, it has been proven that CO2 concentrations follow upticks in temperature, rather than precede them.

 

[Citizen]

Correlation doesn't equal causatiion....Common sense.

Also, it has been proven that CO2 concentrations follow upticks in temperature, rather than precede them.

Even Gore's famous charts show that the rise in CO2 followed the rise in temperature.

 

[Darkwind]

You are both silly asses. Nobody has claimed the sun has nothing to do with warming and cooling. What has been observed is that the total solar irradiance has not increased in the last 50 years, while the amount of warming has. The fact that there is a cooling during a solar minimum has never been in question. In fact, the combination of a solar minimum and a strong and persistant La Nina should have produced some real cool years in 2007, and 2008. But both were in the top ten as far as warm years go. They should have been at least in the mid range for the last 150 years, 50th to 70th warmest, not in the top 10. As the solar cycle ramps up again and the inevitable El Nino arrives, we will see years that exceed 1998 and 2005. And then you silly asses will be back to claiming it is because of the sun increasing TSI, even though the average TSI remains the same. You fellows just cannot keep your logic or stories straight.

The people who can't keep their stories straight are the enviro-Malthusians.

The goofs on the Weather Channel can't tell anyone with any certainty what the weather is going to be like next week. Yet, change the title from "meteorologist" to "climatologist" and somehow those eggheads can tell us with certainty what the weather is going to be like 20 years from now.

And not a one of them has explained the cooling that has occurred since '98, even though the CO2 levels are supposedly continuing to rise.

What cooling???? Don't you Kool-Aid drinkers know that the decade from 1999 to 2008 has been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement?

Yep.
And all those instruments situated in parking lots near the exhaust of automobiles, outside air-conditioning units, on the tops of building can't possibly be wrong.

But never mind that three other planets have experienced the same global warming....oh wait, you all have had your asses handed to you on that term.....that three other planets have experienced the same climate change as the Earth and their industry just plain sucks. I mean, when was the last time you purchased any goods from Mars?