Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

My recollection is that although Parados has grudgingly acknowledged the sun's influence, he rarely talks about it and pretty much ignores it. It has also been grudgingly acknowledged that the sun may contribute up to I believe 0.2 to 0.3 C in the rise of temperature, I'm not sure what number Parados believes, but hello, 0.2 - 0.3 is a large portion of the measured rise in temperature, and is obviously much more than a very minor player. So the facts don't really match the global warmers rhetoric.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

My recollection is that although Parados has grudgingly acknowledged the sun's influence, he rarely talks about it and pretty much ignores it. It has also been grudgingly acknowledged that the sun may contribute up to I believe 0.2 to 0.3 C in the rise of temperature, I'm not sure what number Parados believes, but hello, 0.2 - 0.3 is a large portion of the measured rise in temperature, and is obviously much more than a very minor player. So the facts don't really match the global warmers rhetoric.

Yes, we found numerous scientific opinion that resoundingly disputed scientific opinion as expressed in that National Geographic Article, and I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Parados himself has not disputed the sun as being a significant factor in global warming. But then, while still giving him benefit of the doubt on this one, Parados' strong suit has never been remembering, recognizing, or stating what is actually posted.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

No one in science nor myself have ever said the sun has no place in our climate

Quote:

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study SaysBrian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

If you don't see the difference in those 2 statements Fox, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

The sun provides the energy that warms the earth. The sun provides ALL of that energy. The warming is caused not by the sun but by the way the energy is removed from the earth. If you insulate your house Fox and then use the same amount of energy to heat it, it will be warmer than it was with that amount of energy before the insulation yet your furnace provided the SAME energy as before. The sun is the major contributor to the earth's climate. That doesn't make it the largest contributor to the warming since the energy from the sun hasn't really changed.

Quote:

Sheesh. And I thought I was the one accused of becoming old and senile.

Wouldn't you call that an ad hom argument Fox?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But then, while still giving him benefit of the doubt on this one, Parados' strong suit has never been remembering, recognizing, or stating what is actually posted.

Ad hom argument Fox? tssk, tssk, tssk.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I don't need to fund it, Parados, their is already plenty of funding if the science was being conducted in an unbiased manner. And there are already numerous scientists that have provided evidence for my views, which you and others like you choose not to believe.

So, what you are saying okie is that you don't believe the science because you know it is biased. Because you don't believe the biased science you see no reason to fund science that isn't biased. In other words you won't put even $5 where your mouth is.

The "numerous" scientists isn't really an accurate statement okie. They don't publish or you take their statements out of context.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
But then, while still giving him benefit of the doubt on this one, Parados' strong suit has never been remembering, recognizing, or stating what is actually posted.

Ad hom argument Fox? tssk, tssk, tssk.

No, actually it is not. I am commenting on your track record via your specific posts in which you have misrepresented what I have said or accused me of saying something or believing something or thinking something or not being willing to do something, none of which are or were true or verifiable.

Ad hominem would be accusing you of wanting to do things like that or planning to do things like that. When you have actually done it, it isn't ad hominem.

On another matter, perhaps you would like to retract your statement re the sun? Or at least acknowledge that you were in error about that?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Actually, based on your use of the term "ad hom" it is Fox. You can deny it if you wish but it certainly is a personal attack based on your use of the term "ad hom" when you don't like the way others point to your previous actions.

Quote:

Ad hominem would be accusing you of wanting to do things like that or planning to do things like that. When you have actually done it, it isn't ad hominem.

ROFLMAO. Do you ever listen to what you say Fox?
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-505#post-3667434
Thomas actually provided the link to your statement that supported what he said.

You might want to check out your definition of ad hom here.
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-506#post-3667475

Quote:

Ad hominem does not have to be blatantly insulting but draws an assumption of the unstated thought or emotion or character of the other person.

Quote:

On another matter, perhaps you would like to retract your statement re the sun? Or at least acknowledge that you were in error about that?

I don't believe I am in error. If you would like to point out the error, feel free. But you should keep in mind what I actually said if you want to criticize my statement. You should post where I said it to avoid being accused of "ad hom" under your usage of the term Fox. You can refer to your post to Thomas to understand what I mean.

Foxfyre wrote:

Parados' strong suit has never been remembering, recognizing, or stating what is actually posted.

It seems you are drawing an assumption about my character Fox so by your definition which I QUOTED from you with a link to it makes your statement an "ad hominem."

For someone that has trumpeted how they avoid using "ad homs" you sure use a lot of them Fox.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am commenting on your track record via your specific posts in which you have misrepresented what I have said or accused me of saying something or believing something or thinking something or not being willing to do something, none of which are or were true or verifiable.

That would be another assumption about my character. Since you didn't provide any evidence to support it you would be guilty of what you accused Thomas of. So.. you are 3 posts and 3 "ad homs" Fox.

But anyway Fox.. since you have accused me of something and provided no support, what do you make of this statement by you?

Foxfyre wrote:

Those speaking untruths about other members or dishonestly attempting to diminish people or misrepresent them in the eyes of others are absolutely violating those members' rights.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-503#post-3666997

Don't worry Fox. I am NOT going to let your quotes about "ad homs" go when you attack other posters under the standards you use for others. You need to live by the rules you make for others Fox.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Don't worry Fox. I am NOT going to let your quotes about "ad homs" go when you attack other posters under the standards you use for others. You need to live by the rules you make for others Fox.

In Foxfyre's irrational world, Foxfyre's attacks on others are never "ad homs" because she has annointed herself as GOD.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will define the terms on which I will pass judgment.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-508#post-3667701

Accordingly, if you attempt to hold Foxfyre to the same "terms" upon which she passes judgment on others, she will simply redefine the "terms" to exclude herself from any reproach.

1 Reply

@parados,

You want to take a poll of the members on THIS thread as to whether you have ever misrepresented what they said Parados? I suggest you probably don't want to go there.

Stating that you have a track record for misrepresenting what I (or other members say) is a criticism but it is not ad hominem. Had I argued it on the basis that you intentionally misrepresent what others say or you WANT to LIKE to misrepresent what others say, THAT would be ad hominem.

And I did post a piece from National Geographic that clearly disproved your statement about the sun.

1 Reply

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
273
Chief Meteorologist Bob Breck of WVUE-TV in New Orleans rejected man-made climate fears. "As you well know, those of us older than 50 recall the same type of scare tactics back in the late 60s & 70s. The ‘consensus' of scientists back then were warning of global cooling and the possible beginning of a new Little Ice Age. How could so many brilliant scientists have been so wrong?" Breck wrote to EPW on May 20, 2007. "The new (translation-younger) ‘consensus' of scientists want you to believe that they have better data, that they have computer modeling and (worse yet) they're smarter! They want us to believe that the current warming will continue forever, yet there is nothing in the climatological history of our planet that indicates this will be the case. On the contrary, there is ample evidence to explain the current warming, that CO2 is NOT the driver, and that other factors (deep ocean current cycles, solar energy fluctuations) are more responsible," Breck explained. "The media has decided that the facts, other than carbon dioxide being the driver, are not sexy enough to warrant any coverage. I hope there are enough members of Congress who remember the global cooling scare of 30-40 years ago," Breck concluded

.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So if enough members say something than it is true Fox? That is a rather interesting argument from you. I bet that more people here will say that you misrepresent than I do. Of course when they say that to you, you claim it is an ad hominem. Rolling Eyes

Your piece did NOT disprove my statement at all. 10 is all of 10 but 1 is ALL the change from 10 to 11. The sun is the majority of the climate but it isn't the majority of the change. Reread what I said and what the National Geographic said.

0 Replies

Did you notice, Ican? The coward Paradox did not respond to your post.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra L A W--With such a background as yours( the most brilliant woman lawyer in the USA) why did you quit your Big Law job, where you made $750,000 a year?

(But you and I both know that you never had such a job; you could not have had such a job while flatulating all over these threads so often)

So, why are you fraudulently representing yourself as Debra L A W? In the light of your inability to be accepted by the real legal world,you should be known as Debra L O S E R!

1 Reply

Okie wrote:

Re: Foxfyre (Post 3667458)
My recollection is that although Parados has grudgingly acknowledged the sun's influence, he rarely talks about it and pretty much ignores it. It has also been grudgingly acknowledged that the sun may contribute up to I believe 0.2 to 0.3 C in the rise of temperature, I'm not sure what number Parados believes, but hello, 0.2 - 0.3 is a large portion of the measured rise in temperature, and is obviously much more than a very minor player. So the facts don't really match the global warmers rhetoric.

0 Replies

Ican wrote:

Re: genoves (Post 3662788)
Genoves, thanks for your documentation and comments.

Here's more from one of my sources.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
272
Meteorologist John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel and former meteorologist for ABC's Good Morning America, slammed the "recent political hype and media frenzy" about man-made global warming fears. "The recent political hype and media frenzy about ‘Global Warming' is, in my studied opinion, an unprecedented episode of mass extremism and silliness," Coleman wrote in a May 19, 2007 email to EPW. "I believe that fifty years from now, serious scientists, political leaders and news editors will look back with astonished embarrassment at the irresponsibility of their predecessors. Its not that the Earth's atmosphere isn't somewhat warmer in 2007 than it was in 1907. It is. It is not that mankind's civilization isn't contributing to warming. It is. But the recent warming trend is not extreme or wildly accelerating or irreversible or destined to destroy our way of life. As I see it, the predictions of future catastrophic consequences of warming are totally without foundation," Coleman explained. "Much of what minor warming has been underway in recent years is the result of natural fluctuations in the heat output of the Sun and from other natural cycles. Much of the man made warming is from Urban Heat Islands and is well documented. Many other human activities from agriculture to aviation are having some impact on climate. These changes are worthy of study, reasonable concern and corrective action. All of that is taking place. But as for the dire predictions that dominate the political and media coverage today, there are serious doubts in my mind about their validity," he continued. "The historic data on which many of the ‘studies' are based seems to have been selected and massaged to produce the investigators biased predetermined conclusions. And, the notion that the historic measurements are accurate within less than a degree of two is questionable. The old instruments were crude by any modern standards. And inference of past temperatures from other environmental traces seem to me to be subject to significant error. All computer forecast models require a basic set of assumptions. In many cases the bias of the investigators seem to have produced assumptions that have little reasonable basis," he concluded. (LINK)

0 Replies

-1 Reply report Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:20 am Okie- This thread has had a great many opinions posted on it. It appears that the left wing has given up its ineffective floundering. The evidence clearly shows that Obama's ruthless "cap and trade" plan will not work. It will cost the American People Millions of dollars in increased electric bills. It will cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will create inflation TO ADD TO THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT ALREADY ALLOCATED BY OBAMA.

But the most important events of all will take place in Copenhagen in December.

Then the American people will know that we cannot adopt a scientific position which has not be proven in the face of Chinese and Indian intransigence.

Will Obama be so stupid as to accept the Chinese demands as listed below?

-1

Note:

Wall Street Journal P. A6, May 22, 2009

Quote:

China, in a new document outlining its stance ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, says it wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. But that is a far more aggressive cut than the level proposed in the U.S.'s Waxman-Markey bill. Europe, in turn, has pledged to cut emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 30% if other advanced economies follow suit.

The divergent views come as negotiations begin in earnest for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. China's 40% target represents the high end of cuts in emissions mentioned in the 2007 Bali road map, which stopped short of endorsing a specific target.

Beijing is urging wealthier nations to agree to tougher greenhouse-gas emissions standards.
China is also asking rich countries to donate at least 0.5% to 1% of annual gross domestic product to help poorer countries cope with climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions, it said in the document, which was posted on the Web site of the National Development and Reform Commission, its economic policy-making body.

China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions. The country is widely considered to have surpassed the U.S. as the world's top polluter.

But the Obama administration's push to adopt limits on carbon emissions is also isolating China, which has argued that the U.S. should take steps before poorer nations do.

India has also refused to accept any carbon caps, arguing like China that they would limit economic growth and unfairly penalize late-developing nations. Europe and the U.S. generated the bulk of the carbon gas already in the atmosphere, they argue, and should bear a greater burden of the cost to fix it.

********************************************************

WHAT GALL!

China wants rich countries to donate o.5 to 1.0 of ANNUAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT to help poorer countries cope with climate change and Greenhouse Gas emissions???

When the US has a 10% Unemployment Rate?

When the Obama Administration is adding TRILLIONS to our national debt?

When large corporations are already (see GM) outsourcing jobs so that they do not have to spend the Billions necessary to attempt to reduce the alleged global warming?

0 Replies

Central England temps for May come in at 12.1C, which yields an average so far in 2009 of 7.24C, which is 0.64C lower average than the average for the first 5 months of 2008. I realize this is only a small set of information, but the reason I pay attention to the Central England temperatures is because it is an area with one of the longest records of temperature recordings, and 2008 was one of the coolest there in approximately the last 10 years or so. And 2009 there is shaping up as another year of relatively cool temps, possibly cooler than 2008.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

1 Reply

Herr Hinteler is correct. The scientists must follow the consensus and the line dictated by the leader at the top. EVEN in Nazi Germany the professors toed the line. As Professor Roepke wrote--"It was a scene of prostitution that has stained the honorable history of German learning" .

There were other countries which toed the line before World War II.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Previous • Post: # 3,665,564 • Next Foxfyre

1 Reply report Mon 1 Jun, 2009 11:50 am And, at least to some scientists, it remains quite possible that the primary driving force of climate on Planet Earth is the sun.

Quote:
New Solar Cycle Prediction
05.29.2009

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. . . .

Above: Yearly-averaged sunspot numbers from 1610 to 2008. Researchers believe upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will be similar to the cycle that peaked in 1928, marked by a red arrow. Credit: NASA/MSFC

Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.

"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."

In recent months, however, the sun has begun to show timorous signs of life. Small sunspots and "proto-sunspots" are popping up with increasing frequency. Enormous currents of plasma on the sun’s surface ("zonal flows") are gaining strength and slowly drifting toward the sun’s equator. Radio astronomers have detected a tiny but significant uptick in solar radio emissions. All these things are precursors of an awakening Solar Cycle 24 and form the basis for the panel's new, almost unanimous forecast.

According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. . . . .

. . . .Meanwhile, the sun pays little heed to human committees. There could be more surprises, panelists acknowledge, and more revisions to the forecast.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm

Quote:
Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy. Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. -- Dr. Theodore Landscheidt
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

*****************************************************************

Foxfyre is to be commended for her fine research. I hope she will not mind if I point out that Ican has also posted similar charts in the past. All of these were passed over by Paradox. I don't think he was able to rebut the evidence.

I do not see any rebuttal by him for the evidence above. He( Parados) only makes impotent and unsourced claims.

0 Replies

Anthony Watts- a retired climatologist-- wrote:

“But there are two components to the global warming theory that are in question right now. Many people believe that CO2--by itself--cannot explain all of the warming we have seen.

“The other problem has to do with the positive feedback mechanism. The positive feedback mechanism assumes--in the models and in the theory--that the warmer it gets on the Earth’s surface the more water vapor goes into the atmosphere; the more water vapor that goes into the atmosphere causes then more warming and therefore it builds on itself.”

This theory has problems, Watts explained, because it doesn’t account for how the atmosphere responds to an increase in water vapor--it rains.

“The alternate to that theory is that we have a negative feedback mechanism in our atmosphere and that once we reach certain points the natural systems will kick in and automatically reduce the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere through precipitation.”

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know