• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yet another climate reconstruction confirms warming.

Jack Hays said:
Au contraire. I have won the day, because truth is my ally. There will come a day, and I know it's coming, when I will hope that these posts are recoverable and you will hope they are not.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Sounds like a religious preacher to me.

The Rapture will be upon us, and you will be held in judgement! Hallelujah!

LOL.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sounds like a religious preacher to me.

The Rapture will be upon us, and you will be held in judgement! Hallelujah!

LOL.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Click to expand...

Like Galileo and Einstein, vindication will come.:peace
 
iguanaman said:
His work did nothing to prove that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas. Nothing is over unfortunately.
Click to expand...

His work deals with realities that Alarmists wish to ignore.
 
To add to the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) picture in post 40 on temperature:

FARpage202_zps264ee476.png
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
He gets that 10% figure from science.

Oh, wait. He doesn't believe in those types. Must have pulled it out of his.... You know.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish.

Do you have any idea how laughable I find it that people know the truth that don't understand this science? How laughable it is that someone parrots what the so call experts say?

If you wish to debate this issue, then learn the sciences enough to do so, instead of sounding like a child that says "but my daddy told me..."
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, it might have as much as a 10% impact on the warming we have seen.
Click to expand...

According to your mental climate supercomputer of course. Why don't you rent your head out to NASA?
Hint: Cosmic rays are deflected by our magnetic field and therefore are irrelevant.

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
According to your mental climate supercomputer of course. Why don't you rent your head out to NASA?
Hint: Cosmic rays are deflected by our magnetic field and therefore are irrelevant.


What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my saying CO2 may have a 10% effect on temperature.

Skeptical Science is a joke. It's an alarmist blog site.

Yes, the cosmic rays are either all, or nearly all stopped by the magnetic field. However, if you wish to get into that area of science, know that this field varies, and these magnetic field create "particle showers" when cosmic rays strike, that do make in into the atmosphere, and these vary in intensity with the magnetic changes of the earth and the cosmic rays.

With these sites, it's more what they leave out than what they say...
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
That has nothing to do with my saying CO2 may have a 10% effect on temperature.

Skeptical Science is a joke. It's an alarmist blog site.

Yes, the cosmic rays are either all, or nearly all stopped by the magnetic field. However, if you wish to get into that area of science, know that this field varies, and these magnetic field create "particle showers" when cosmic rays strike, that do make in into the atmosphere, and these vary in intensity with the magnetic changes of the earth and the cosmic rays.

With these sites, it's more what they leave out than what they say...
Click to expand...

At least they do the research instead of blindly following. They easily blew the whole cosmic ray "solution" out of the water with real data. Although the fact that there is no data to show a long term decrease in cosmic rays at all should be enough for anybody but kooks. What did they leave out?
 
iguanaman said:
At least they do the research instead of blindly following. They easily blew the whole cosmic ray "solution" out of the water with real data. Although the fact that there is no data to show a long term decrease in cosmic rays at all should be enough for anybody but kooks. What did they leave out?
Click to expand...

No they didn't. The graph does show lag opposite of their claim, their scale skews it. Increased cosmic rays cause an indirect increase in other rays and particles. They didn't address that part at all.

And...

Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot definitively use one varable only wjen others affect the output, and to say cosmic rays don't have an effect by comparing it to the whole...

Really now. Nobody is claiming that cosmic rays are "the primary variable."

Now when they disprove such research to be invalid by actually exploring the methodology used as well, I will listen.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Let the AAAS know that.
Click to expand...




Maybe you would like to present some of their proof of their beliefs instead of just talking about what they are just talking about.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sounds like a religious preacher to me.

The Rapture will be upon us, and you will be held in judgement! Hallelujah!

LOL.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Click to expand...



Ah! At last you see the emptiness of the AGW hype. The "Proof" is always couched in the warnings of dire consequence.

You accept the emptiness of the approach and yet deny that emptiness when it is used by the AGW Alarmists.
 
Lord of Planar said:
To add to the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) picture in post 40 on temperature:

FARpage202_zps264ee476.png
Click to expand...



It's interesting, is it not, that the IPCC discarded all of this science to accept the Hockey Schtick in a later assessment.
 
code1211 said:
Sorry, that's not proof.

This may be the crux of your problem. You don't know what proof is.
Click to expand...

Data is as close to proof as possible for mankind. Prove there is no warming then. You can't.
 
iguanaman said:
At least they do the research instead of blindly following. They easily blew the whole cosmic ray "solution" out of the water with real data. Although the fact that there is no data to show a long term decrease in cosmic rays at all should be enough for anybody but kooks. What did they leave out?
Click to expand...




Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

<snip>
Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 9, 2004
Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.
<snip>
 
iguanaman said:
Data is as close to proof as possible for mankind. Prove there is no warming then. You can't.
Click to expand...



Straw man.

AGW Science demands that the warming is affected in a particular way to a particular extent and that it will conform to particular predictions.

It does not. Hansen is the best on the bench and he missed by 150%.

http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif
 
code1211 said:
It's interesting, is it not, that the IPCC discarded all of this science to accept the Hockey Schtick in a later assessment.
Click to expand...

They discarded nothing. The medieval warm period was not a global phenomena and you can see it in this graph.

NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom