The Great Global Warming Swindle... [modified]
-
K(arl) wrote:
How could there be a greenhouse effect without the sun??
With heatlamps and a tiny greenhouse.
:laugh:
-
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
-
: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
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
What I said.
Fine. What I said.
No, I insist - what I 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
fat_boy wrote:
AGWers
I can guess at GW meaning Global Warming, but what's the 'A' mean?
'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
No, I insist - what I said.
I'm agreeing with you...What I said.
-
fat_boy wrote:
AGWers
I can guess at GW meaning Global Warming, but what's the 'A' mean?
'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
I'm guessing "anti-global warmers"...?
-
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
Probably both. The sun "gives" the heat, and CO2 avoids its reflection from ground to space. From what you said, I don't understand the critics imply a variation of the quantity of heat coming from the Sun, but claim that the conditions of reflection vary.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
fat_boy wrote:
AGWers
I can guess at GW meaning Global Warming, but what's the 'A' mean?
'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
Jesse Evans wrote:
I can guess at GW meaning Global Warming, but what's the 'A' mean?
Anthropogenic as in "caused by humans"
John Carson
-
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
John Carson wrote:
anything intelligent I might add to the debate would clearly be lost on you
Your pomposity knows no bounds. You could, of course, have replied with a simple (for us dimwits) logical rebuttle which exposes the stupity of his argument. Strangely, for an awesome intellect such as yourself, you chose to insult instead. Maybe I should stop replying to your messages as the magnificence of my answers are clearly lost on your candle powered brain. But that would make me a bit of a twat - so I won't.
-
You felt motivated enough to post this, yet couldnt come up with a rebuttal. Hmm, you are anoyed that I am right, and you cant deny it.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Sorry, but you aren't that important. Even if the soapbox gives you this feeling.
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:
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!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Why do you think the debate is so involved
Ah, so you agree there is still debate. Good. So you disagree with the IPCC and the hysterical eco-fundamentalists when they say the debate is over, the proof is abcoloute, it is all due to man made CO2?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
fat_boy wrote:
AGWers
I can guess at GW meaning Global Warming, but what's the 'A' mean?
'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
Probably both. The sun "gives" the heat, and CO2 avoids its reflection from ground to space. From what you said, I don't understand the critics imply a variation of the quantity of heat coming from the Sun, but claim that the conditions of reflection vary.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Probably both.
How can 'probably both' be an answer to the question: 'Which one is primarially responsible' The answer has to be CO2 or the Sun.
K(arl) wrote:
From what you said, I don't understand the critics imply a variation of the quantity of heat coming from the Sun, but claim that the conditions of reflection vary.
In this case, the sun is assumed to be constant, CO2 rising, but sulphates, by blocking some of the heat, cause the earth to cool. This means that the sulphates have more effect than CO2. And the media by which slphates act is the sun, so the sun is more effective than CO2. Which puts the IPCCs forcings for solar and CO2 comletely wrong, and probably backwards.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
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
Sulphartes act through the media of the sun. More sulphates = less sunlight. And despite increasing CO2, the earth cooled. So solar radiation received at the earhts surface is more effective than CO2. If you dont see that then there is no helping you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Sorry, but you aren't that important. Even if the soapbox gives you this feeling.
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! -
K(arl) wrote:
Probably both.
How can 'probably both' be an answer to the question: 'Which one is primarially responsible' The answer has to be CO2 or the Sun.
K(arl) wrote:
From what you said, I don't understand the critics imply a variation of the quantity of heat coming from the Sun, but claim that the conditions of reflection vary.
In this case, the sun is assumed to be constant, CO2 rising, but sulphates, by blocking some of the heat, cause the earth to cool. This means that the sulphates have more effect than CO2. And the media by which slphates act is the sun, so the sun is more effective than CO2. Which puts the IPCCs forcings for solar and CO2 comletely wrong, and probably backwards.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
How can 'probably both' be an answer to the question: 'Which one is primarially responsible' The answer has to be CO2 or the Sun.
No, the answer can be both. Why is the temperature hotter in a greenhouse than outside of it? Because of the sun, and because of the glass walls.
fat_boy wrote:
This means that the sulphates have more effect than CO2
Maybe.
fat_boy wrote:
And the media by which slphates act is the sun, so the sun is more effective than CO2.
I don't get the connection :~
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr