[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

you sure that's not "enwarmening"?

Like a fuzzy robe.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by compushlep

No, it's not "us" ... this is about you, LAN.

I have provided that same answer to you earlier, days ago, yet you ignored it as you have so many other times before with different points.

It was obvious to me already but this time you really exposed your approach for everyone here to see. You are behaving like an incompetent jester, or at times worse, like a flaming troll.

You're incapable of producing a logical argument on climate so you're left with threadbare partisan slant tactics. You don't even try to read what's put in front of you, rather you focus on how you can possibly label it all biased or hypocritical. In your zealous haste to desperately find something, anything, to marginalize that which you don't understand, that which you have little hope of comprehending, you latch onto the first thing you think will help you politicize the science.

That has been and still is your transparent aim. You have absolutely no hope in dicussing intelligently anything scientific using this approach. Yet you consistently fail to deliver even on the denial score, to the point of posting embarassingly ridiculous nonsense.

Anyone with an ounce of logic is laughing at your woeful attempts, and while I lost count on how many times you shot yourself in the foot already, this latest example of utter ignorance of the subject, utter lack of willigness to educate yourself (and a lack of willingness to understand the view of others), only shows how desperate your tactics have become.

Still, people here have tried to help you despite all that ... but you're incapable of realizing it. Obviously it has not occured to you what a fool you're making of yourself. So now I have reached the point where I can only pity your feeble attempts.

You make my point about your liberal arrogance far better than I ever could have.

[lizard]

Originally posted by Stoner:
The issue is to remove as much of industrialization's effects as possible and provide civilization with time to adjust to ecological pressures that are forecast.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Nothing man is going to do is going to reverse the process that's in play.

Originally Posted by me

I think we've passed the point of no return, personally

holy crap, I think we may agree (only in theory, let's not all get excited) on something.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

holy crap, I think we may agree (only in theory, let's not all get excited) on something.

Originally Posted by Stoner

The issue is to remove as much of industrialization's effects as possible and provide civilization with time to adjust to ecological pressures that are forecast.

This is a reasonable approach, so long as much of these industrialization's effects are removed by means of incentive rather than solely by restrictions and punitive measures.

[lotuseclat79]

Can marine phytoplankton be the cure for global warming?
Article here.

A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Good idea Lotuceclat.

[lotuseclat79]

Climate Models Consistent With Ocean Warming Observations
Article here.

Climate models are reliable tools that help researchers better understand the observed record of ocean warming and variability.


This is an image of global sea surface temperatures taken from Japan National Space Development Agency's (NASDA) AMSR-E instrument aboard NASA's Aqua spacecraft on August 27, 2003. The colors in this false-color map represent temperatures of the ocean's surface waters, ranging from a low of -2¡C (28¡F) in the darkest green areas to a high of 35¡C (95¡F) in the brightest yellow-white regions. Sea ice is shown as white and land is dark gray. (Credit: Courtesy NASDA/NASA)

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Scientists Study Sun's Radiation To Track Pollution Sources
Article here.

Colorado State University scientists are studying the reduction of solar ultraviolet radiation by atmospheric particles to learn how the various sources of pollution - biomass burning, auto exhaust and oil refining - affect the atmospheric chemistry and air quality of Mexico City. This particular technique will be used along with data retrieval from satellites around the world to study the influence of pollution on global warming and climate change.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Good idea, but Mexico city is hardly a good location, as there are nearly no pollution controls there, whatsoever, nor are there any good ways to trace the actual sources of ther pollution which would be an indicator if the UV method is accurate for modelling.

I'll stop just short of speculating why they would select Mexico City as their control sample, considering the variables.

[lotuseclat79]

Forget Global Warming, is the world ready for Global Cooling? (Ref: digg.com 570)
Article Read the sunspots.

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Forget Global Warming, is the world ready for Global Cooling? (Ref: digg.com 570)
Article Read the sunspots.

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling.

-- Tom

I almost posted this link yesterday.

Suffice it to say, watch who the REAL fear mongering politicians are.

[compushlep]

Tim Patterson? (from Tom's LINK)

"He's not a paleoclimatologist, he's a geologist, a rather obscure one at that.

You may now yawn."

As for the vehicle he chooses to disseminate his findings in, it's none other than National Post ... please do a search in this thread with that name, and also with 'National ComPost'.

I could post more to rebut (including peer-reviewed material), but enough said.



put a yawn smilie here

[valis]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

solar output drives climate change

hmmm.....seems to me I've heard that before somewhere......

[compushlep]

A new theory:
Correlations of Various Solar Indices and Climate

this theory has been developed by:
G. A. Schmidt, of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
Climate Modelling dept.

excerpts:

... using techniques that have been pioneered by a small subset of solar-climate researchers (references will of course be given) ... and to make it even more relevant, I'm going to take as my starting point research that Richard Lindzen has highlighted ...

^see charts 1 and 2, LINK:

... but that's just a couple of cycles and doesn't use up-to-date numbers. What happens after 1986?"

Well, that is a little problematic, however, the good early correlation is obviously still important (r=0.52! 1960-1986) and so we should be able to refer to it over and over again without noting that it breaks down subsequently (cf. Svensmark, 2007 referring to Marsh and Svensmark (2000)). But more importantly, it just demonstrates that the theory needs a little adjustment.

^see chart 3, LINK:

Let's look at the second half of the record. Well, there's another strong correlation for that period as well (r=-0.63, 1988-2006). Only this time the correlation is inverted, but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone ...

^see chart 4, LINK:

If we now put it all together, we can see that there is a reasonable match over the whole period....

... second term phase shift' combined with the change of sign of the Hale solar magnetic cycle in 1986, obviously changed the dynamics. This kind of phase shift is frequently seen in solar studies (cf. Landscheidt and many others), where it is rarely taken as a sign that two time series with decadal spectral power are in fact completely independent. Finally, it is permissible to leave off the more recent data points (cf. TGGWS) for "graphical convenience". So after just a little work, we have managed to rescue the original theory to match a much longer amount of data:

^see chart 5, LINK:

Some readers may scoff and suggest that in the absence of any mechanism, these powerful correlations are numerological artifacts arrived at using post hoc fallacious reasoning that have no predictive capability. That might appear to be a valid argument. However the ultimate test will of course be experimental.

For the complete comprehensive report of this convincing new argument see: LINK
...