Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 11-1-2008 at 18:06
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
I note that Redwolf makes no claim that he, himself, is not stuffborn.


I'm not stubburn.

I am just secure in the knowledge that I am usually right.

:D
LSemmens

[*] posted on 11-1-2008 at 12:36
We can easily cure global warming, just stop everyone from letting off steam and talking hot air all the time! brshteeth
scholar

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 21:54
Quote:
Originally posted by victor
All evidence of global warming will be found to be correct.

Because governments have discovered it to be the best cash cow in modern history and they will milk it for all its worth.
John Coleman, a meteorologist who is critical of the man-made global warming alarmists, points out that scientists whose project financing depend on government research grants are under great financial pressure to toe the line with respect to the global warming scam. They can offer to do research that assumes or supports it and get financing, or they can lose their grants. A climatologist points out that scientists who are retired do not have the same financial vulnerability, and they are more likely to come out against it.
victor

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 20:08
All evidence of global warming will be found to be correct.

Because governments have discovered it to be the best cash cow in modern history and they will milk it for all its worth.
scholar

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 19:50
I note that Redwolf makes no claim that he, himself, is not stuffborn. In fact, I would guess he would agree that stubbornness is an excellent quality, in the right circumstances. I bet he would be as stubborn in protecting his family as would I.

If we were agreed on the cause, I would gladly fight by his side. He and I have a lot in common.kewl_glasses
victor

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 19:44
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150



Scholar can be as stubburn as a mule when he wants to be.

kewl_glasses


If I was a mule I would take offence at that. ;):D
scholar

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 19:26
Dr. John is correct in saying that Dr. Sorokhtin did not write accurately when he spoke of the ocean exuding carbonic acid. What Dr. Sorokhtin obviously meant to say was that the components of carbonic acid, carbon dioxide and water vapor, come from the ocean. When the water becomes precipitation and falls through carbon dioxide, it becomes the rainwater we collect at ground level--dilute carbonic acid.

Dr. John compares what Dr. Sorokhtin says with charts to which Dr. John refers--but is there any reason to believe Dr. Sorokhtin is working from the same data? The graphs to which Dr. John refers are labeled as graphs of surface temperature. Does Dr. Sorokhtin say that he is referring to surface temperature only, and not to the temperature in a wider volume of the biosphere?

Dr. Sorokhtin says there is a correlation between measured CO2 concentrations and estimated temperatures based on ice core data, but he explains the causality in the other direction, that when the oceans warm, more CO2 is released from the oceans. Warmth causes more atmospheric CO2, more CO2 doesn't cause the warmth. (Everyone sees this effect in carbonated soda. Pour soda warm instead of cold, or add energy to it by shaking it--the carbon dioxide comes out rapidly. Chill it and don't shake it before you open the bottle or can, and the gas does not come out of the drink so quickly. Does anyone say the carbonation warmed up the drink? No, the warmth of the drink makes the carbonation exit more quickly.) I have read elsewhere, not just here, that the data indicates the increase in CO2 lags behind the increase in temperature.

Dr. Sorokhtin's main point is that, while the greenhouse gas theory has never been proved to cause global warming,"The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters . . .solar activity and luminosity." To this I would add the effect Theravad mentions, plus the influence of variations in volcanic activity and atmospheric particles (due to volcanoes and/or large meteor strikes). When he argues for the influence of solar activity, that does not exclude the possibility that other factors could have greater effect from time to time. (Dr. John used similar logic when he said that the recent years of NO global warming do not disprove the greenhouse theory, because other factors could temporarily be holding back the temperature increase.)

Hi, Redwolf!waveysmiley It's good to see you!smokin:
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 17:28
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
If you bother to look at the data I linked to in my first post in this thread, you can see quite clearly that what the article author says is happening is not happening!!!

There is NO sign of a rise in temps that started in the 17th C as he claims, and there is no sign of us being at a 200 year peak of solar activity!

So why do you believe the things he says?:huh)


Uhhhh, because he found it on the Internet??????

And you KNOW you can believe EVERYTHING you see on the Internet or receive in your email.

Just ask Giron about the little blue pills. He'll tell you.

kewl_glasses
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 10-1-2008 at 17:27
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
Now I see no point in me posting lots of links that say the opposite thing, as scholar has faith in his sources and will never be persuaded otherwise.


That and you know what they say about arguing with a donkey.

Scholar can be as stubburn as a mule when he wants to be.

kewl_glasses
dr john

[*] posted on 8-1-2008 at 11:04
If you bother to look at the data I linked to in my first post in this thread, you can see quite clearly that what the article author says is happening is not happening!!!

There is NO sign of a rise in temps that started in the 17th C as he claims, and there is no sign of us being at a 200 year peak of solar activity!

So why do you believe the things he says?:huh)
scholar

[*] posted on 7-1-2008 at 18:10
Quote:
Originally posted by Theravad
I am not debunking the effect of carbon emission but the actual causal chain of current climate is far more complex and multi-faceted than just carbon.

T
And the scientists who point out that the carbon dioxide concentration does not effect the climate in a noticeable way do not say that carbon dioxide could not have any effect (e.g. if there was a way that humankind could increase carbon dioxide to half the atmosphere). But, the actual carbon dioxide is measured in hundreds of parts per million, not hundreds of thousands of parts per million. The amount of water vapor is so much more than that of carbon dioxide that its effect is overwhelming in comparison--but you don't hear anyone suggesting we need to restrict ocean evaporation. All the land animals exhale carbon dioxide--but we protect and encourage the continuation of animals. The variation in carbon dioxide from man-made burning is like adding buckets of water into the ocean. In fact, man puts out forest fires and puts in fire breaks (unnatural barriers to the spread of fires, such as agricultural fields with no trees for fuel in them) , and harvests lumber, which reduces the spread of wildfires caused by lightning strikes. Plants which mankind raises take in CO2 and give off oxygen. Not everything man does adds to CO2 totals, some things reduce it. And without the unevidenced CO2 forcing, the man-made global warming scam (as meteorologist John Coleman calls it) falls apart.
Theravad

[*] posted on 7-1-2008 at 17:32
Quote:
Originally posted by Theravad
( see "The Chilling Stars" ).



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/the_chilling_stars_by_calder_and_svensmark.html
Theravad

[*] posted on 7-1-2008 at 17:30
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john

But let's not let these facts get in the way of scholar's faith in the sun effect...


I posted in the other thread about Cosmo-climatology, there is a book published which sums up the cosmic radiation effect on cloud formation ( see "The Chilling Stars" ).

I am not debunking the effect of carbon emission but the actual causal chain of current climate is far more complex and multi-faceted than just carbon.

T
TooCute4Words

[*] posted on 7-1-2008 at 16:30
I prefer a warmer winter and am glad of global warming only because of that. But unfortunately it is damaging to us, so I guess something will have to be done to mend that, but cutting down on the things which harm our environment still won't be enough to help us.

Our Richard Branson has offered $25m (12.8m) for help to save our planet. What a generous man. Offering money for such an impossible task.

Here's the article,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/09/climatechange.climatechange
scholar

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 16:50
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
but isn't it interesting that the article ends with this
Quote:
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

something that the other science articles don't end with...
That is indeed one way in which the man-made global warning alarmists are sometimes dishonest--
1--There are people in the IPCC who know that the invented carbon dioxide forcing theory is false, and that man-made global warming has never been proven by empiracle data, but the IPCC removed mention of that from their report, AND they did not honestly say that the extreme version of their report was disputed by some of their scientists. I myself heard one of the IPCC scientists tell of how his name was listed as supporting conclusions that were wrong, and with which he disagreed. When he complained and asked that his name at least be removed from the list of those subscribing, they refused to do so until he threatened to sue them.
2--Man-made global warming alarmists often say there is a consensus agreeing with their opinion, even though there isn't. They won't end an article with, "This is the opinion of. . ." and then list only the names of those who actually worked on the article. They would like to give you the impression that there is general agreement, when there isn't. In fact, John Coleman gives an example of a man who changed from a supporting to a skeptical position on man-made global warming, because the evidence just isn't there.

Dr. John, do you know how many scientists subscribed to the document petitioning the US government to consider the man-made global warming theory to be unsupported by evidence and unproven?:)
dr john

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 16:24
Scholar's latest site starts with this
Quote:
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.


Strangely, no-one can see this rise starting in the 17th century when they look at the data - looks like the only big rise started in the 20th century (lower of the two images)
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/observing2.html

and it says this too
Quote:
Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution...

but as I'm sure scholar's dad told him, carbonic acid only exists in aqueous solution, it does not exist as a liquid or as a gas, so evaporating isn't possible.

Strangely scholar's latest site also says
Quote:
True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes.

before quickly going back into denial mode.

Now I see no point in me posting lots of links that say the opposite thing, as scholar has faith in his sources and will never be persuaded otherwise.

but isn't it interesting that the article ends with this
Quote:
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

something that the other science articles there don't end with...

And if you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle you'll find a graph of solar activity (as well as the assessment that it has no effect on earth's climatic)
EDIT Better graph of solar activity
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.gif
You notice that when solar activity fell between 1980 and 1985, average global temperature rose, and when solar activity fell in about 1990 to 1995, global temperatures were still rising. It didn't drop as your friend's article implies it should have done.

And the better graph shows a max in solar activity in 1960, when global temps dropped slightly (and the better graph does NOT show we are at a peak of solar activity just now, the peaks have been decreasing since 1960, while the temp has risen)

But let's not let these facts get in the way of scholar's faith in the sun effect...
LSemmens

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 12:24
Sorry Bear, I ain't "Blue", now... two of my sons, my daughter, and SWMBO, they can rightly be called "Blue", just not I.
the bear

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 09:24
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Post boosting again, are we scholar? Are you sure that you're not on the "election trail"?
(I've moved your duplicates to the trash!



Good on yer "Blue", e needs pruning his peas r getting above is sticks.


Regards the bear
LSemmens

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 05:56
Post boosting again, are we scholar? Are you sure that you're not on the "election trail"?
(I've moved your duplicates to the trash!
scholar

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 05:04
Also worth noting:

Quote:
Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution?the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.


:oAccording to this, carbon dioxide is GOOD for the Earth. If you are an environmentalist, limiting CO2 production is a bad thing to do.:o
scholar

[*] posted on 4-1-2008 at 04:54
Dr. Sorokhtin's article
Quote:
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason?solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.


According to this, those who are presently children will have a colder future toward the end of their lives.kewl_glasses