parados wrote:okie wrote:blatham wrote:hi beautiful!
Threads that continue on this long usually move from the terrific to the trite and back.
How the heck are you?
Is suggesting that the sun is affecting temperature trite?
Suggesting the sun is affecting temperature isn't trite. Most scientists say the same thing. Suggesting the sun is causing all the warming and then comparing your figures over 120 years with a figure from 25 years and claiming because they are the same proves you right would be trite.
We hear very very little in the press, and very little credence is given to the sun as a significant player in the perceived global warming problem. From the following site, even though they admit the sun could be a significant factor but since they don't know what factor it is, they say the following:
"There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3
Quote:Quote:Haggling over tenths of a degree, or hundreths of a degree, I would agree is trite, as Parados is doing. My basic premise still stands, that the sun is likely a reason for global warming, how much I don't know, and I would submit nobody knows.
Your basic premise has changed it seems. But rather than looking at the actual math or presenting us with yours you declare yourself correct but when challenged you then say "nobody knows." Just because you can't support what you first claimed doesn't mean no one else can support their position.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you would have known I did my math in a few minutes as a tongue in cheek exercise to show the logic behind the concept. I have said repeatedly that arguing over a tenth of a degree is a pointless exercise. My main point is that it is scientifically logical to conclude that variations in the solar cycles can affect the climate, and may be the dominant reason for what we are measuring now. I don't think I have ever claimed that I knew for sure the amount of impact it contributes, but I have expressed an opinion that it is totally logical and reasonable to believe it is an important contributor, and that the factor was being unduly ignored and downplayed.
Quote:Quote:
Now in regard to the greenhouse effect, all Parados has accomplished here is argue that precipitation affects ice. Wow, what a novel concept, that I am glad that the likes of Parados has finally awakened to.
That statement of yours is completely asinine and shows you for what you are. ican and you have attempted to use the increase in ice on Antartica as somehow proving that the Antartica and the globe aren't warming. Gee. the ONLY thing you proved is that percipitation affects ice. Something I already knew but others here were trying to show precipitation only occurs if someplace 1. doesn't warm or 2. gets cooler.
To turn the argument around, how often do we hear that the decrease in Arctic ice may actually be due largely to precipitation, not temperature?
Quote:Quote:
I wish all global warmers could wake up to that, and as part of another novel concept they could also include water vapor as a component of greenhouse gas of the supposed greenhouse effect.
Again with the silly arguments. I never said that water vapor wasn't a component of the green house effect. I only pointed out that your claim made no sense and still doesn't make sense since you compared 120 years to 25.
You apparently did not read the posts wherein I cited 120 years to 120 years as you requested, so can you move on?
Well, great, Parados, I am glad a few scientists are beginning to get on board with the water vapor studies. Again, I notice they have to assign it to manmade causes, but where is the evidence that man is entirely responsible for that? Interesting they say water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas, well what a revelation that must have been to them, what have some of us been saying for the last 20 years or so, since this all came up? And then they admit they have very little historical water vapor data and that they are only now beginning to collect more. Big question, since they lack alot of data concerning the most important greenhouse gas, how in the world have they been cranking out all their computer models with all of the dire predictions, without sufficient data for the most important factor? Just a question, pardon me for being stupid and asking another dumb question.
