The Great Global Warming Swindle... [modified]
-
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
-
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
K(arl) wrote:
No, the answer can be both.
That is very unlikely, that two influences have exactly the same degree of influence.
K(arl) wrote:
Maybe.
Good, you are getting there. A few more years and I might have you convinced!
K(arl) wrote:
I don't get the connection
Sulphates themselves dont affect temperature, it is by bloxking the sun that they work. That is their media, the sun.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Hey, I am not forcing you to post dull responses to my posts. Feel free to ignore them if you have no interest, but if you do, why not post something that adds to the debate.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
You are annoying enough to evoke a response, but to narrow-minded to argue with. So that's the best you can get. :(
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!