Leslie

If I did not know better Martin, I could say you are in denial.

Les

Geezer

I'm intrigued to know what makes you more qualified than the scientists who say it isn't happening.

Clearly the case is not settled.


Geezer

Martin2005

What am I supposed to be in denial of Les?

Martin2005

Dave you are back on your 'all politicains are corrupt' and 'therefore it must all be a conspiracy' hobby-horse again.

I said again and again that I have a very open view on this issue, I don't have the scientific background in order to disect all the various scientific studies. What makes me grumpy is all the people on here who keep stating with certainty that it's not happening...talk about making themselves hostage to fourtune!!

It could be possible that the GW science is right and that the politicians are using the issue to tax us more.
It could be true that the scientist are WRONG and that the politicains are using the issue tax us more.
It could also be true that the science is right and that the politicians are faced with having to act to prevent (or reduce) a castophic climate disaster occuring.

Leslie

Idid not say you were Martin, just that you don't seem prepared to look at the evidence against GBW. Or the other happenings which can also affect the Earth's climate.

Les

Klaatu

It appears Al "I invented the Internet" Gore's claim that "More Co2 leads to more warming" is flawed. Funny that! No sunspots, and has been for a LONG time. NASA are "hoping" cycle 24 "picks up", I have no idea why. Funding?

Klaatu

True however, it's the resulting "policy" one needs to be concerned about.

coolangatta

Martin2005, I don't know you and I don't wish to insult you...but surely you can appreciate the analogy I'm making?
Yes, I agree that, a small organism can kill a large animal (having reproduced/multiplied by huge factors after entering the host).
However, back to the current subject.
The point I was making which, when giving you the benefit of doubt, I think you deliberately overlooked, is that our world is governed by 'rules'. All of those rules are a product of numbers. Putting it quite simply, the numbers don't add up when considering 'man-made CO2' against the claimed effect.
I hope to be around this forum when we have the global warming 'experts' making excuses for their lack of mathematical acumen or, more likely, attempting to defend their positions (read 'padding their rear-ends') after having taken the global warming bandwagon shilling. Shame on them

Leslie

If you look up Maunder's Minimum you will get a pretty good indication of the effects of a lack of sunspots on our climate. Certainly nothing to do with man's activities. That will maybe answer your question about what NASA would like to see.

There have been virtually no sunspots worth mentioning for quite some time now, we should be past the eleven year minimum in the cycle and if that eventually equates to what was happening during the time of Maunder's studies then we have a very different worry with relation to global temperatures. Martin2005 does not appear to be prepared to have a look at that-does not suit his argument I suppose!

I have a vested interest in sunspots since I am concerned with long distance HF communications and there have been very few observed for a long time now.

Les

Geezer

I thought no sunspots or low activity meant warming, but we are currently cooling but sunspot activity is still very low?

Geezer

Martin2005

Here we go again.

Les none of this is news. Who denies that solar activity impacts upon earth climate....nobody I suspect.

Solar activity will be one of the key variables in the climate models as will atmospheric CO2. Clearly (or at least clearly enough for the IPCC) solar activity doesn't explain all of the temperature increases.

You guys make me scream sometimes, it's always one or the other, black and white with you.

Do you really believe that the science hasn't accounted for Solar activity?


PS sunspot activity has been pretty constant since 1969, yet temps have steadily increased, how comes?

Klaatu

[QUOTE=Martin2005;8334700]Here we go again.

Les none of this is news. Who denies that solar activity impacts upon earth climate....nobody I suspect.

Solar activity will be one of the key variables in the climate models as will atmospheric CO2. Clearly (or at least clearly enough for the IPCC) solar activity doesn't explain all of the temperature increases.

You guys make me scream sometimes, it's always one or the other, black and white with you.

Do you really believe that the science hasn't accounted for Solar activity?


PS sunspot activity has been pretty constant since 1969, yet temps have steadily increased, how comes?[/QUOTE]

Really? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg

Martin2005

[quote=Klaatu;8336282]


Yes really!

Leslie

No Martin-here YOU go again!

Did you see the sunspot count for the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries? What was the effect of that on the Earth's climate and what did Maunder observe? Have you looked, or can't you bear to examine it?

Do you understand the normal sunspot cycle I wonder. Have you not noticed that Global temperatures increased with the increase in the sunspot numbers in recent years and did you know the numbers of sunspots which are being observed in our present time. And why have global temperatures remained steady for the last ten years and have recently decreased in fact. Do you even understand the effect that sunspot activity has on the Earth.

If you want to have an even opinion on the whole business of the Earth's climate and the factors which affect it you should be prepared to look at all sides of the matter.

Les

Martin2005

I refer you to the above chart, if you can explain how sun-spots and recent temp rises are correllated i would appreciate it.

I do have an 'even opinion' Les, I'm not the one saying one side is definitely wrong and that it can all be explained by one variable (sun-spots), when the reality is that we are talking about complex multi-variant systems

Klaatu

[QUOTE=Martin2005;8336461]Are you SERIOUS about that source? "God and Science"?

Klaatu

I tell you one thing about this southern hemisphere's summer, first 10 days of it, it's been COLD! Just like the extra cold winters there we see on the news here.

Luan Pra bang

Well the graph clearly shows an increase in average number of sunspots and it also clearly shows an avarage increase in temperature, that would be the correlation. The number of sunspots does not drop until about 1998 n the graph from what I can see but as we have established we are now in a global cooling phase so it all seems to add up ?
Correlation has limited value though in terms of climate where there are huge numbers of variables to consider.

Martin2005

How on earth did you get a correllation from that? It's pretty clear that sun-spot activity in the past 4 decades is fairly constant yet temps are on the rise.

Martin2005

[quote=Klaatu;8336749]Do you dispute the numbers and the lack of correllation, if so please put me right with some other data.

BTW this is why I usually don't bother with the googleathons that these sort of threads generate.

Leslie

Keep trying Martin!

Les

Martin2005

[/Well that was the point I trying to make, thats why once you strip out the effects all the known variables (including bloody sunspots) CO2 emmisions have significant explanatory power within the models]

The models structure could be wrong of course, but I'm yet to read/see/hear a single other theory that explains recent rises in temperature.

Of course if you have the answer I'm all ears

coolangatta

[quote=Martin2005;8336853]Martin, you argue with others disputing numbers but again you ignore my post, No 129, which is solely based on mathematics Quote "Martin2005, I don't know you and I don't wish to insult you...but surely you can appreciate the analogy I'm making?
Yes, I agree that, a small organism can kill a large animal (having reproduced/multiplied by huge factors after entering the host).
However, back to the current subject.
The point I was making which, when giving you the benefit of doubt, I think you deliberately overlooked, is that our world is governed by 'rules'. All of those rules are a product of numbers. Putting it quite simply, the numbers don't add up when considering 'man-made CO2' against the claimed effect.
I hope to be around this forum when we have the global warming 'experts' making excuses for their lack of mathematical acumen or, more likely, attempting to defend their positions (read 'padding their rear-ends') after having taken the global warming bandwagon shilling. Shame on them
" Quote

You cannot have your cake and eat it!

Martin2005

[quote=coolangatta;8336889]
The man versus natural imapcts on climate is an interesting one, here's a specific example and it is specific to the myth constantly trotted out by climate change sceptics (and it involves numbers )


The claim is that volcanic action around the world in one day spews forth more greenhouse gases than all of man's activities in one year.

The claim is completely false. In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year (1 petragram=1000 tergrams). So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do. In fact, human activity exceed that of volcanic activity early in the Industrial Revolution (by 1870).

coolangatta

[quote=Martin2005;8336931]Noted, and thanks for acknowledging my post
However; I'm not discussing Volcanic CO2 v Human CO2, but rather Human CO2 v massive atmosphere mass and 'claimed effect'.

Martin2005

[quote=coolangatta;8336967]I don't know the answer. Does the fact that the atosmphere is massive and C02 output is relatively small inconparison change the arguement?

Surely that depends on chemistry and physics AND maths, if it doesn't then why not chop down every tree on earth as there impact on the environment must be inconsequential?

Of course put you could put I tiny drop of cyanide into a bath of water, using your arguement it would be quite safe to drink it.

coolangatta

Indeed, if the bath is big enough the effect is negligible. May even be beneficial

Martin2005

It also depends on how big the drop is, and how long it has been dripping