The Great Global Warming Swindle... [modified]
-
From the Independants critique: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2. modified: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^][^] Look at the IPCC data. A 25% reduction in suphates in 1975 is enough to end a 25 year Global Cooling trend, reverse it, and create a warming trend. How much more proof do you need that it is the sun that drives temperature change. -- modified at 11:57 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
From the Independants critique: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2. modified: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^][^] Look at the IPCC data. A 25% reduction in suphates in 1975 is enough to end a 25 year Global Cooling trend, reverse it, and create a warming trend. How much more proof do you need that it is the sun that drives temperature change. -- modified at 11:57 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Not to defend the idiocy that is global warming, but aren't they just saying that sulphate pollutants cause global cooling and negated the effects of global warming so that, once cleaned up, the net effect was global warming? I don't think their statement implicitely discounts global warming. Just to reiterate, I'm not defending the idiocy that is global warming.
-
Not to defend the idiocy that is global warming, but aren't they just saying that sulphate pollutants cause global cooling and negated the effects of global warming so that, once cleaned up, the net effect was global warming? I don't think their statement implicitely discounts global warming. Just to reiterate, I'm not defending the idiocy that is global warming.
They are saying that sulfates caused cooling by reflecting the suns energy. 1) Now, imagine that warming was totally caused by CO2. Reducing sulphates would have no effect. 2) Now, imagine that warming was controlled by CO2 80% and the sun 20%. Reducing sulphates would have very little effect. 3) Imagine warming was 80% sun and 20% CO2. Reducing sulphates would have a very large effect. And this is what happened. Sulphates at 200 parts per billion cause cooling and a 25% reduction to 150 ppb cause global warming. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^] If sulphates are that powerful, it means the sun is that powerful and CO2 is relatively unimportant.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
They are saying that sulfates caused cooling by reflecting the suns energy. 1) Now, imagine that warming was totally caused by CO2. Reducing sulphates would have no effect. 2) Now, imagine that warming was controlled by CO2 80% and the sun 20%. Reducing sulphates would have very little effect. 3) Imagine warming was 80% sun and 20% CO2. Reducing sulphates would have a very large effect. And this is what happened. Sulphates at 200 parts per billion cause cooling and a 25% reduction to 150 ppb cause global warming. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^] If sulphates are that powerful, it means the sun is that powerful and CO2 is relatively unimportant.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Uh, I think the point is that you have to have a source of heat to warm things up. CO2 in itself does not create heat - it is an insulator. If sulphates were blocking incoming solar radiation (heat, i.e. infra-red) then there was no heat to retain. hence no global warming. By reducing the presence of sulphates in the atmosphere, infra red is able to penetrate and warm the surface of the earth. CO2, being an insulator, traps that heat rather than allowing it to escape the atmosphere. As regards your percentages, I see no reason to believe the effect is necessarily linear...
-
Uh, I think the point is that you have to have a source of heat to warm things up. CO2 in itself does not create heat - it is an insulator. If sulphates were blocking incoming solar radiation (heat, i.e. infra-red) then there was no heat to retain. hence no global warming. By reducing the presence of sulphates in the atmosphere, infra red is able to penetrate and warm the surface of the earth. CO2, being an insulator, traps that heat rather than allowing it to escape the atmosphere. As regards your percentages, I see no reason to believe the effect is necessarily linear...
What he said.
-
From the Independants critique: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2. modified: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^][^] Look at the IPCC data. A 25% reduction in suphates in 1975 is enough to end a 25 year Global Cooling trend, reverse it, and create a warming trend. How much more proof do you need that it is the sun that drives temperature change. -- modified at 11:57 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Woah, another brilliant demonstration :laugh:
fat_boy wrote:
Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Woah, another brilliant demonstration :laugh:
fat_boy wrote:
Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
With heatlamps and a tiny greenhouse.
-
From the Independants critique: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2. modified: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^][^] Look at the IPCC data. A 25% reduction in suphates in 1975 is enough to end a 25 year Global Cooling trend, reverse it, and create a warming trend. How much more proof do you need that it is the sun that drives temperature change. -- modified at 11:57 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
You are just an idiot, too stupid to follow the rudiments of the debate and, pathetic deluded fool that you are, possessing a baseless belief in your own understanding. The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere. This is the last time I will respond to a post of yours on the subject. You are just too retarded for me to waste my time.
John Carson
-
What he said.
What I said. What he said doesn't make sense.
-
Uh, I think the point is that you have to have a source of heat to warm things up. CO2 in itself does not create heat - it is an insulator. If sulphates were blocking incoming solar radiation (heat, i.e. infra-red) then there was no heat to retain. hence no global warming. By reducing the presence of sulphates in the atmosphere, infra red is able to penetrate and warm the surface of the earth. CO2, being an insulator, traps that heat rather than allowing it to escape the atmosphere. As regards your percentages, I see no reason to believe the effect is necessarily linear...
But what is mostly responsible. The sun or CO2? Now, for 30 years, CO2 went up, but the sun was blocked. Result? Global cooling. Then that bloak was reduced by 25%. Result? Global warming. CO2 during this whole 60 year period increasing, yet temperature followed sulphate concentrations. Logic, pure and simple, its the sun not CO2 that is the prime mover.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Woah, another brilliant demonstration :laugh:
fat_boy wrote:
Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
At last, you are getting the picture. And given that during a period of rising CO2, the earth cooled due to the sun being blocked, which one would you say was primarially responsible for temperature change, the sun or CO2?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
From the Independants critique: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2. modified: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig5-4.htm[^][^] Look at the IPCC data. A 25% reduction in suphates in 1975 is enough to end a 25 year Global Cooling trend, reverse it, and create a warming trend. How much more proof do you need that it is the sun that drives temperature change. -- modified at 11:57 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
:yawn: I just wish you had your own planet for you yourself and Stan, where you can find out who's "in control" of climate all life long.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
fat_boy wrote:
"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
You are just an idiot, too stupid to follow the rudiments of the debate and, pathetic deluded fool that you are, possessing a baseless belief in your own understanding. The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere. This is the last time I will respond to a post of yours on the subject. You are just too retarded for me to waste my time.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
This is the last time I will respond to a post of yours on the subject. You are just too retarded for me to waste my time.
what a pompus ass.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
What I said. What he said doesn't make sense.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
What I said.
Fine. What I said.
-
fat_boy wrote:
"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
You are just an idiot, too stupid to follow the rudiments of the debate and, pathetic deluded fool that you are, possessing a baseless belief in your own understanding. The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere. This is the last time I will respond to a post of yours on the subject. You are just too retarded for me to waste my time.
John Carson
-
K(arl) wrote:
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
With heatlamps and a tiny greenhouse.
:laugh:
-
:yawn: I just wish you had your own planet for you yourself and Stan, where you can find out who's "in control" of climate all life long.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
fat_boy wrote:
"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" ...cleaned up the sun light reflecting polutants revealing the true scale of warming? That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect. QED, by your very words you AGWers have hung yoursleves. Time to admit it, it is the sun in control, not CO2.
You are just an idiot, too stupid to follow the rudiments of the debate and, pathetic deluded fool that you are, possessing a baseless belief in your own understanding. The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere. This is the last time I will respond to a post of yours on the subject. You are just too retarded for me to waste my time.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere.
That's what he was discussing - the degree to which the sun affects the Earth's temperature compared to CO2. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the debate?
-
But what is mostly responsible. The sun or CO2? Now, for 30 years, CO2 went up, but the sun was blocked. Result? Global cooling. Then that bloak was reduced by 25%. Result? Global warming. CO2 during this whole 60 year period increasing, yet temperature followed sulphate concentrations. Logic, pure and simple, its the sun not CO2 that is the prime mover.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
But what is mostly responsible. The sun or CO2?
I don't understand what you mean. The sun and CO2 play two different and non-mutually exclusive rolls. One acts as a heat source the other as a heat insulator. It's hard to say that either the source or the insulator is more important as they act in tandem. Obviously the sun plays an important role, but there are other factors which could have an influence. These include the total radiative energy transfer, the axial tilt of the earth, magnetic activity on the sun, how to properly determine just how much heat is escaping, reflection due to snow and ice.... Why do you think the debate is so involved? It's not so black and white.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
John Carson wrote:
The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere.
That's what he was discussing - the degree to which the sun affects the Earth's temperature compared to CO2. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the debate?
Dan Bennett wrote:
That's what he was discussing - the degree to which the sun affects the Earth's temperature compared to CO2.
This is what he said: "That means it is the sun that is in control, not the CO2. If it were the CO2 in control, the sulphates wouldnt have had any effect." If you can't see that this is tripe, then anything intelligent I might add to the debate would clearly be lost on you.
John Carson