The Solar Minimum

a proof (scientific one)

Greehouse gasses create a nice rock in the solar system that is capable of supporting life.

previous shifts in climate have corresponded to higher or lower concentrations of Greenhous Gasses in the atmosphere
If humans, since the industrial revolution have been placing more GHG into the atmosphere, while at the same time, removing natural carbon sinks (rainforest) ,

reasonably, doesn't that at least put the possiblity of human exaggeration of the natural warming and cooling cycles?

Reasonably, any possibility, no matter how improbable, is to be considered if other explanations fail.

The relation of CO2 to Temperature, except for 3 examples across 4 and one half billion years, has always been that the rise of temperature causes the rise of CO2. By citing this link and deducing that a rise in CO2 will produce a rise in temperature is demanding that the future causes tha past.

Those 3 examples are all from many, many years ago. Antarctica has melted twice in the mean time.
 
I believe in science, actual science.

Science not supported by Gore nor Exxon.

Science does support what I have said, unlike your positions, which are based on your personal greed and anger.
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into them by imperfect people.
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.

You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.
 
At long last acknowleging the obvious.

There is hope for you yet Chris.
When you can appreciate man's smallness in relation to it all then you may know the truth.

:lol:

I was thinking the same thing.

He makes the obvious arguement he has been attempting to deny for so long!

I thought that's what I read. My immediate thought was, "Why all the hullabuloo about CO2 if there's only one cause?
 
When the environmental movement started, cleaning up was the main issue? Like air pollution, or water pollution?

The world has changed since then.

Saying that I am following Gore because I believe the science, is like saying I'm asian just because I like rice, or that you follow Rush Limbaugh just because you are a republican.

Nice way to end a decent debate because you are now scared. Fuck you too.

This is what they do best here at USMB, it's a Conservative echoing chnamber...

Um ... echoing "conservative" chamber?

Wow ... just wow ... you love being naive.
....and projecting. :lol:
 
When the environmental movement started, cleaning up was the main issue? Like air pollution, or water pollution?

The world has changed since then.

Saying that I am following Gore because I believe the science, is like saying I'm asian just because I like rice, or that you follow Rush Limbaugh just because you are a republican.

Nice way to end a decent debate because you are now scared. Fuck you too.

This is what they do best here at USMB, it's a Conservative echoing chnamber...

Um ... echoing "conservative" chamber?

Wow ... just wow ... you love being naive.

yep, another example, thx, denial...
 
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into them by imperfect people.
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.

You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and atmospheric CO2 is not going down, it is going up. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. This is not a natural occurrence.
 
The IPCC report only accepted something like 7% of all the papers and information that were submitted to it.

Now, doesn't that make you wonder which information they cherry picked?

Do you have anything on that, because I can't find anything
Another poster here has the hard numbers and links.

On top of that, many of the "scientists" on the IPCC were in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with meteorology or climate.

"Another poster", Dude's copout for being such a lazy ass that he will not do a lick of research to back up his knownothing opinion.:razz:
 
You are new, so your lack of knowing what was discussed here already is just because you are too lazy to read through some of the threads, which also explains why you still only know the 5% of the story fed to you by the Gore machine.


I know what the Gore machine fed the people, and it's sad that you haven't even paid enough attention in this thread to read that I don't follow Gore. I worked in atmospheric science analysis for years after school, I was doing the data while Gore was still mopping the Oval Office floors, after the Clinton parties.

I've been reading through many of the environment threads here, just not posting on many, because they keep repeating the same babble (Gore's a douche, Gore uses his own plane, Blah, blah, blah)

Not all climate change believers worship Gore, just like not all Lefties worship Obama. It's the right wing talk machine that says these things, and the right believes them.

I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.

No, you are following Gore, you just don't want to see it. Gore owns the scientists that are "accepted", the peer pressured ones who's findings always support only a few major corporations ... which Gore owns. There is more to this than just the failed science based on circumstantial evidence, there is a lot of money. Gore's money precisely. Look into the past, further back than you are, you are following environut philosophy, not environmental responsibility. When we started this movement, before Gore got his venomous claws into it, it was about just cleaning up. That's all we have to do still, just clean up after ourselves. Here's the clue, heat increase was originally connected to the ozone, because of increased radiation. Since that prediction failed, they had to blame it on something else. Conveniently the CO2 levels started rising because an algae that was growing to handle the increased CO2 for whatever reason, was destroyed because it threatened some fish (the truly fucked up thing is that they are trying to destroy what little is left because it's a "threat" to another fish). But did they see that connection and admit they fucked up ... no, like you, they don't really care. It's all about looking like they care. The movement changed when Gore altered a report, so he could endorse his products out of fear, it worked and you are proof it worked. So he now keeps doing it. Until you stop and see the whole picture, you know nothing. No matter you degrees, studies, anything you may think has meaning, you know nothing.

Your kind fucked up the movement I originally got involved in because I don't like people, and I wanted a nice clean forest to escape to ... well guess what, now it costs $20 to go to those clean forests, thanks to you idiots. Now you are pushing for laws for products and services (which profit Gore of course) that are actually worse for the environment than those they replace, but instead of you learning everything about them, you swallow some propaganda about them and are willing to see everything lay in ruin just so you can pretend to care. But here's the kicker, I don't give a fuck what happens to humanity, I care only about getting my forests back and seeing nature balanced again. Now you all push for this "corn" fuel ... there goes more of the forest, and the price just to hike in a clean one will cost twice as much because of it. So fuck you.

Love your attitude Kitten. You are not going to get your forests back. They are going to burn in the next 30 years. Ignoramouses like you have created that situation, and there is no longer any way to rectify it.

Now I enjoy people, and want to see the rest on humanity doing well. A bitter dried prune of a young lady like you would not understand that. I also want to hand the next generation the world a better place than I found it. That will not happen.
 
a proof (scientific one)

Greehouse gasses create a nice rock in the solar system that is capable of supporting life.

previous shifts in climate have corresponded to higher or lower concentrations of Greenhous Gasses in the atmosphere
If humans, since the industrial revolution have been placing more GHG into the atmosphere, while at the same time, removing natural carbon sinks (rainforest) ,

reasonably, doesn't that at least put the possiblity of human exaggeration of the natural warming and cooling cycles?

Reasonably, any possibility, no matter how improbable, is to be considered if other explanations fail.

The relation of CO2 to Temperature, except for 3 examples across 4 and one half billion years, has always been that the rise of temperature causes the rise of CO2. By citing this link and deducing that a rise in CO2 will produce a rise in temperature is demanding that the future causes tha past.

Those 3 examples are all from many, many years ago. Antarctica has melted twice in the mean time.

And Code, you know all of this not to be true. The Milankovic Cycle, and the position of the oceans, continents, and Himalayan Mountains are what are causing our current cycles of continental glaciation.
 
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into them by imperfect people.
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.

You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

Mineral weathering removes CO2 from the air. When the Milankovic Cycles reach the point where they are no longer warming the southern ocean, that ocean also starts absorbing CO2 as it cools. In other words, the cooling does indeed precede the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by mineral weathering and the absorbtion of CO2 by the cooler water created by the Southern Ocean getting less sunlight. And when that CO2 is removed, it accelerates the cooling, just as when the Southern Ocean is being warmed by the Milankovic Cycle, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere, accelerating that warming.

And one can find this explanation with any good article on the Milankovic Cycle. If one wants to.
 
You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and atmospheric CO2 is not going down, it is going up. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. This is not a natural occurrence.

Watch what happens to the CH4 background level in the Arctic Ocean this August and September. If it exceeds last years outgassing, we may already be over the tipping point.
 
[/COLOR]

In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and atmospheric CO2 is not going down, it is going up. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. This is not a natural occurrence.

Watch what happens to the CH4 background level in the Arctic Ocean this August and September. If it exceeds last years outgassing, we may already be over the tipping point.

If we experience a CH4 explosion the effects could be much greater than what we have seen from CO2.
 
You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and atmospheric CO2 is not going down, it is going up. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. This is not a natural occurrence.


Illuminated football fields are not a natural occurrance either. These do not cause the Earth to warm. I will concede that the CO2 is increasing. What I am wondering is why that increase is not preventing our recent plateauing of temperature...

Getting back to the football fields, if the Vikes win the Super Bowl under the lights, it may cause the world to end or at least cause hell to freeze over, so perhaps there is a connection between climate and Illuminated football fields.
 
a proof (scientific one)

Greehouse gasses create a nice rock in the solar system that is capable of supporting life.

previous shifts in climate have corresponded to higher or lower concentrations of Greenhous Gasses in the atmosphere
If humans, since the industrial revolution have been placing more GHG into the atmosphere, while at the same time, removing natural carbon sinks (rainforest) ,

reasonably, doesn't that at least put the possiblity of human exaggeration of the natural warming and cooling cycles?

Reasonably, any possibility, no matter how improbable, is to be considered if other explanations fail.

The relation of CO2 to Temperature, except for 3 examples across 4 and one half billion years, has always been that the rise of temperature causes the rise of CO2. By citing this link and deducing that a rise in CO2 will produce a rise in temperature is demanding that the future causes tha past.

Those 3 examples are all from many, many years ago. Antarctica has melted twice in the mean time.

And Code, you know all of this not to be true. The Milankovic Cycle, and the position of the oceans, continents, and Himalayan Mountains are what are causing our current cycles of continental glaciation.


Of course I know this. "All of the other causes" is why I am so suspiscious of the motivation of those who trumpet the importance of CO2 as a mover in this process.

Without the current arrangements of continents, we would not have the Ice Age glaciation cycle at all. We also would not have them without the Milankovitch cycles. They seem to occur with or without higher or lower CO2. Ice Ages, in truth, start when CO2 is at its peak in each cycle.

All of the ocean currents, decadenal oscillations, Mexican babies, ocean conveyors and so on have a far greater effect than CO2.

The number of Sun spots, the TSI, the attitude of and distance to the Earth relative to the Sun and dust and debris in the air all have a greater impact on climate than does CO2.

The impact of CO2 in fact is so slight that any effect is it has is over powered by anything else that is occurring within the climate system.

For the last week and for almost all of the summer in Indy, our highs have barely reached the historic averages. I like warm weather. I've missed Summer so far this year.
 
You just keep getting increasingly stupid. Just because a geologist cannot reproduce a batholith at will negates it's existance? We can and do study phenomona routinely that we cannot reproduce. From plate tectonics to sunspots. And we are producing this period of warming. We know that from studying how previous periods of warming were produced by GHGs. Physics cares nothing for the source of the GHG. Once it is in the atmospere, the laws of physics describe what is going to happen.


In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

Mineral weathering removes CO2 from the air. When the Milankovic Cycles reach the point where they are no longer warming the southern ocean, that ocean also starts absorbing CO2 as it cools. In other words, the cooling does indeed precede the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by mineral weathering and the absorbtion of CO2 by the cooler water created by the Southern Ocean getting less sunlight. And when that CO2 is removed, it accelerates the cooling, just as when the Southern Ocean is being warmed by the Milankovic Cycle, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere, accelerating that warming.

And one can find this explanation with any good article on the Milankovic Cycle. If one wants to.


And once again, it is proven that CO2 is a slave to other factors that are far mor powerful in every example than is CO2 in the effect it carries for climate.

If you know that temperature drives the level of CO2 and not the other way around, what is your motivation for the constant drum beat to control the climate through the control of CO2?

This makes as little sense as trying to delay the warming of Summer by refusing to open the Public Swimming Pools.
 
[/COLOR]

In all of the previous Interglacials, when CO2 reached it's peak, the next Ice Age started.

Do the laws of physics demand that higher CO2 causes Ice Ages to begin?

In all of these cases, the temps started dropping and a few hundred years later, the CO2 followed it downward.

Mineral weathering removes CO2 from the air. When the Milankovic Cycles reach the point where they are no longer warming the southern ocean, that ocean also starts absorbing CO2 as it cools. In other words, the cooling does indeed precede the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by mineral weathering and the absorbtion of CO2 by the cooler water created by the Southern Ocean getting less sunlight. And when that CO2 is removed, it accelerates the cooling, just as when the Southern Ocean is being warmed by the Milankovic Cycle, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere, accelerating that warming.

And one can find this explanation with any good article on the Milankovic Cycle. If one wants to.


And once again, it is proven that CO2 is a slave to other factors that are far mor powerful in every example than is CO2 in the effect it carries for climate.

If you know that temperature drives the level of CO2 and not the other way around, what is your motivation for the constant drum beat to control the climate through the control of CO2?

This makes as little sense as trying to delay the warming of Summer by refusing to open the Public Swimming Pools.

Temperature does not drive CO2. Were you to read the literature on the Milankovic Cycles you would know that the forcing of the cycles is not enough to create the swings in the glaciation that we observe.

And GHGs, CO2 being at present the prime one, do trap heat. That is simple physics. That you constantly deny that fact indicates either you have no understanding of how GHGs work, or that you are a tool of the energy companies.

We will see a some very hot years in the near future, record setting years. Then, when we have a year that is a little cooler, you will once again trumpet 'global cooling'. How many times will this happen before even the most dense begin to realize that you are scamming them?

June, 2009 was the second hottest June on record, globally. And the El Nino is just in formative stages. I will be calling you and the rest that deny reality as this develops.

Watch the Arctic this summer. We may surpass even the 2007 minimum. And we hope that what we saw last year concerning the CH4 outgassing will not repeat itself, or be worse.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top