georgeob1, Your writing style shows your true personality; intelligence with sensitivity for the other person's opinion. One usually gets what one gives.
My last post was to have followed georgeob1's comments, but got intercepted. Sigh.
BernardR
Would you please take a time out over in the corner and chill out??
You are hogging this thread.
Mr.Sumac. I will consider your proposal. However, I do not take childish and irritating comments from people like Mr, Parados lightly--He said that I should stop "playing with myself". As soon as I am finished totally discredting him( he has discredited himself with his adolescent comment) I will be happy to leave the thread open.
Mr. Thomas said that Dr Lomborg generally agreed with the IPCC findings although he had some criticisms of them.
I posted the following,which Mr. Thomas may have missed to show that indeed, Dr. Lomborg did generally agree with the IPCC findings but did have some criticisms of them.
QUOTE FROM LOMBORG --p. 322
Do we want to handle alleged global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects...We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase there may be when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more efficiently in the developing world...THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...Cutting back any CO2 emissions quickly becomes very costly, and easily counterproductive. We should focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing the emission of greenhouse gases OVER THE LONG RUN. Partly, this means that we need to invest much more in research and development of SOLAR POWER, FUSION, AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
end of quote
I am sure that Mr.Thomas and anyone else reading this will understand that in his conclusion to the chapter of Global Warming, Dr. Lomber tells us that if we feel that Co2 MAY be accruing at a rate which may cause some difficulties down the road. we will have to make choices very carefully.( I hope you are reading this, GeorgeOB 1) .
That may be what Mr. Thomas means when he says that Dr.Lomborg generally agrees with the IPCC but is critical of some of their findings.
Bernard quoted-
Quote:THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...
How basic Bernard. Sticking plasters, blackboards, stand pipes and Charmin bog rolls.
BernardR wrote:..THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...
Or the moron in chief could invade another oil rich country and occupy it for a couple of years.
Don't want to talk about the solar cycle Bernie?
Why did you change the topic?
oh, wait, let me quote your example of good debating technique.
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from xxxxxx. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-
I dealt with Lomborg. You continue to quote him and make false statements about how he is accepted in the science community. Lomborg was your attempt to escape your earlier ridiculous statements. Hit and run Bernie. hit and run.. You accuse me of childishness.. only more hit and run... run Forest run
Frank Apisa wrote:BernardR wrote:..THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...
Or the moron in chief could invade another oil rich country and occupy it for a couple of years.
Frank, do you ever have any fact or evidence to offer instead of mindless nonsense? Just a suggestion, try to come up with something.
parados wrote:Don't want to talk about the solar cycle Bernie?
Why did you change the topic?
Parados, I don't think you were able to dismiss this information:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Parados, did you read the site and address the points? I think this thread has sort of gotten lost. I see solar cycles as one area that is currently being sort of ignored and pooh poohed by global warmers, but it obviously is a very central and pivotal point in this controversy.
One statement from the above says:
The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally
increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length
has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within
the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by
the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C.
okie wrote:Parados, I don't think you were able to dismiss this information:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Parados, did you read the site and address the points? I think this thread has sort of gotten lost. I see solar cycles as one area that is currently being sort of ignored and pooh poohed by global warmers, but it obviously is a very central and pivotal point in this controversy.
One statement from the above says:
The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally
increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length
has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within
the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by
the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C.
Well, maybe I can help you there, okie. I think your problem is that you are using old data. You are referring to Lassen's research from 1991, which showed a surprising correlation between solar activity and global warming.
Quote:On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."
Lassen updated his old graph. Here, have a look at it:
If you want to read a bit more about the errors in Lassen's outdated graph (the one you were referring to), here's a bit more:
Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data
So you see, okie, that solar activity is in no way ignored in the discussion about global warming. Quite the contrary. It just can't explain the recent rise in temperatures during the last 25 years.
And when you are talking about solar activity and telling us that we should look up the data, it would be very exciting if you would so good and refer to the latest research and not to misleading material that is 17 years old and has been corrected by the very scientists who did the original research.
Thank you very much.
Waiting, waiting (tap, tap, tap)
okie wrote:parados wrote:Don't want to talk about the solar cycle Bernie?
Why did you change the topic?
Parados, I don't think you were able to dismiss this information:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Parados, did you read the site and address the points? I think this thread has sort of gotten lost. I see solar cycles as one area that is currently being sort of ignored and pooh poohed by global warmers, but it obviously is a very central and pivotal point in this controversy.
One statement from the above says:
The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally
increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length
has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within
the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by
the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C.
Dealt with already back a number of pages before Bernie made one of his patented derailments.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2136583#2136583
and
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2136598#2136598
And it looks like OE has included lovely pictures now too, showing the same thing.
Thanks OE.
So you see no correlation with your supposed updated corrections? Not perfect, but correlation, it looks apparent to me. Curves never overlay perfectly. It appears to me that at least a portion of global warming during the last 100 years probably is due to the sun. If you want to make a perfect match between strength of peaks, perhaps not perfect more recently. As to more recent temperatures rises, do you have any site that shows data past 2000? I am a bit frustrated by reports, sometimes written in 2003 or 2005, not showing data past 2000. At least it seems this way. I am left to ask, is it because they don't have it or is it because their graphs don't look as good with the data? I will admit to being a natural skeptic.
Old Europe, the corrected curve does not change the correlation. You guys have not eliminated the solar connection at all.
okie, let me say this at first: I have no intention of "eliminating the solar connection" at all. I think it is important to consider all the parameters that influence terrestrial climate. Very important. And no serious scientist would just consider some parameters and ignore others, just because he wants to reach a certain conclusion.
And you will probably agree with scientists saying that a part of the global warming might be caused by solar activity. The question is, will you agree with them that the other part of the global warming might be manmade?
I doubt that. Because you exclusively agree with material that supports your take that humans have almost no effect on the climate anyway, and ignore the rest.
You present material that is some 15 years old, not because it's correct, but because it supports your beliefs.
Then people show you how the scientist you have quoted admitted errors, and corrected his publications. So what do you do?
You argue that the correlation is "not perfect, but correlation", that "it looks apparent" to you. Funny. Because the guys you quoted before and used as witnesses for your case rather put it like this: "The curves diverge after 1980, and it's a startlingly large deviation."
So which one is it? An apparent correlation, or a large deviation? Should I believe "natural skeptic" okie, or should I believe the scientists he quoted before?
But the really ridiculous part of your post comes when you argue that nobody presents recent data! You use outdated, misleading, 15 years old material that has been corrected in the meantime, and have the guts to ask other posters whether the best the they can do is to present material from 2000!?
Well, I have a suggestion for you: You find some published research from 2005 on solar activity and the influence on terrestrial climate, and present it here. Put your money where your mouth is. Then we can look at it, and I can promise you that I will look at it rather than ignore it because it doesn't align with my beliefs.
old europe wrote: okie, let me say this at first: I have no intention of "eliminating the solar connection" at all. I think it is important to consider all the parameters that influence terrestrial climate. Very important. And no serious scientist would just consider some parameters and ignore others, just because he wants to reach a certain conclusion.
And you will probably agree with scientists saying that a part of the global warming might be caused by solar activity. The question is, will you agree with them that the other part of the global warming might be manmade?
In regard to your last question, I am leaving my options open. I concede the possibility. I simply have not seen any compelling evidence to indicate that man-caused warming is indeed happening, or even likely happening. Not true with the solar data. The evidence seems to be fairly compelling, inasmuch as our data is dependable and accurate. And common sense tells us the theory is logical. In comparison, there are too many variables, projections, and assumptions involved with CO2 and the greenhouse effect to come to even a preliminary conclusion.
And if the solar effect is pretty compelling, then we are left with the situation wherein why do we need to blame the whole thing on a theory that has no proof or compelling evidence tied down? Why are there people wanting to make policy based on one theory, when in fact the other theory may be responsible for the situation?....a situation that likely we did not cause, nor can we do anything about.
Okie- Mr. Parados has shown that he is completely unable to deal with the evidence I have presented several times. He flits around the edges but has not addressed even 870% of it.
Strike One on him.
Mr. Parados cannot show that the solar warming IS NOT responsible for at least some of the warming.
Strike Two on him.
Mr. Parados has been blown completely out of the water by the report by Mr. Thomas that the book written by Professor Lolmborg is a valid and scientific book.
Strike Three on him.
One out for Mr. Parados.
okie wrote:I simply have not seen any compelling evidence to indicate that man-caused warming is indeed happening, or even likely happening. Not true with the solar data. The evidence seems to be fairly compelling, inasmuch as our data is dependable and accurate. And common sense tells us the theory is logical.
Sure. It looks fairly compelling. It's simple, it's logical, it's common sense - and it still can't explain the rise in temperatures during the last 25 years!
Again, because you probably missed it: "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."
Now, do you agree that solar activity alone cannot explain the recent rise in temperatures? Do you agree that the curves diverge, or not?
