[paker]

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers

Where do I apply??????????

[paker]

Originally Posted by david85

As to the green house effect, you are wrong, because the green house effect doesn't actually work like a green house. Greenhouses don't warm up because of different gasses inside, they warm up because of lack of air circulation. I'm a little surprised that you would dispute that.

The first thing you notice in a greenhouse is how much easier it is to breathe because all the plants are sucking the CO2 like a pack of sharks on a bloody seal.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by paker

Where do I apply??????????

Although in my opinion you well qualify, you might be a bit late! Publicly, Exxon is admitting there is a problem:

"We know enough now - or, society knows enough now - that the risk is serious and action should be taken."

Exxon Vice President for Public Affairs Kenneth Cohen

[david85]

Originally Posted by karlos

Although in my opinion you well qualify, you might be a bit late! Publicly, Exxon is admitting there is a problem:

And you believe them?

LMAO

If Exxon cut funding in 2007, who is funding them now?
Does this mean you won't attack exxon anymore?

[david85]

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

As a point of curiosity, since you have said that it doesn't matter to your opinion if the SAT are going up or down, is there any proof that you would accept that AGW is a crisis and not a political power grab?

One of the first things a true scientist will tell you is that correlation is not automatically causality. You can't prove to me that we are causing any of the global rise or fall in temperatures. Change is the only constant in climate. To say that a couple hundred years of weather observations (only 30 of which is with satelite) qualifies you or me to tie climate to human industrial activity is, well words escape me for how unrealistic that is considering the age of the earth. Proxy reconstructions simply don't have the resolution needed to compare to observations so thats even worse. Climate models I won't even touch.

Local weather like urban heat islands or in the case of some recent chinese weather hacking I can believe. Although even the chinese experiment is something I am skeptical about since a second storm came shortly after the first so that might just have been some boasting on their part.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by david85

And you believe them?

LMAO

If Exxon cut funding in 2007, who is funding them now?
Does this mean you won't attack exxon anymore?

The key word of my statement was "Publicly". The day they stop funding political parties at elections is the day I will take them more seriously. Did you look at my link that showed how connected in so many ways, Exxon was to climate skeptics?

From the moment George W Bush announced he was running for president, $50m came in from Texas-based energy companies.
But they are hundreds of millions of dollars better off from his time as governor of Texas - and because of decisions taken in the first months of his presidency.

This is where the real manipulation of the US government and climate policy has happened in the past and not from the AGW scientists. Personally, I don't think corporations or companies should be able to fund elections (in any country) to me that is not democracy.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by david85

One of the first things a true scientist will tell you is that correlation is not automatically causality. You can't prove to me that we are causing any of the global rise or fall in temperatures. Change is the only constant in climate.

I know correlations are not proof for you David and neither are they for me. Undeniably though there is shown to be a strong correlation between the suns radiation and earth temperatures (over long periods) but then we get the situation of the recent decade, where you would expect cooling because the suns activity is less BUT instead of cooling the temperature still increases as the AGW theory predicts. This suggests we better get prepared for some hot days when the sun moves past this 11 year minimum and combines with AGW. As shown below, the radiative forcing of AGW gases exceeds the reduction in solar radiative forcing (even below Maunder Minimum levels) and this is what we are seeing.
The fact that 2009 was one of the warmest years on record (as well the last decade being one of the warmest on record) as well as being one of years of least solar radiance in a hundred years, all the more validates the assumptions of the author as shown below.
To date, I have heard of no theory other than the AGW one, that explains the departure of temperature not following the solar radiance decrease. No wonder science is concerned and MAYBE even Exxon!

Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD. Could we be heading into another Maunder Minimum? Solar activity is currently showing a long term cooling trend. 2009 saw solar output at its lowest level in over a century. However, predicting future solar activity is problematic. The transition from a period of 'grand maxima' (the situation in the latter 20th century) to a 'grand minima' (eg - Maunder Minimum conditions) is a chaotic process and difficult to predict (Usoskin 2007).
Let's say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007). In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. Add to this the extra CO2 emitted in upcoming decades and other greenhouse gases such as methane. The warming from man-made greenhouse gases far outstrips any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.
However, our climate has experienced much more dramatic change than the Little Ice Age. Over the past 400,000 years, the planet has experienced ice age conditions, punctuated every 100,000 years or so by brief warm intervals. These warm periods, called interglacials, typically last around 10,000 years. Our current interglacial began around 11,000 years ago. Could we be on the brink of the end of our interglacial?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/te...s_solwind.html

[david85]

I can see where the second graph comes from (seems to be a skeptical website), but I don't know where you got the first graph. Can you post a link for that?

If we are indeed headed for an extended warm period, I don't really see that as a bad thing instead of heading into another ice age......regardless of the cause.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ic...#anchor2108263
(same website as your second graph, scroll down about half way to find this above graph)

[paker]

Originally Posted by karlos

The fact that 2009 was one of the warmest years on record (as well the last decade being one of the warmest on record) as well as being one of years of least solar radiance in a hundred years, all the more validates the assumptions of the author as shown below.
To date, I have heard of no theory other than the AGW one, that explains the departure of temperature not following the solar radiance decrease. No wonder science is concerned and MAYBE even Exxon!

How do you explain this if 2009 was one of the hottest years on record?

[Jeff from KY]

Originally Posted by paker

So why the big concern about a 1 degree rise in temperature in 1000 years? What's the problem? I don't see one.

Trolling or incredible ignorance? Got to be trolling. Good luck with that.