It's the Sun, Stupid.

It's the Sun, Stupid.

darkbeaver

#91

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 6th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro

Too bad the banks can't charge for free energy like the sun, yet you promote the dirty energy they can charge for.

Funny.

It' s too bad that you don't know that banks live and breath on free energy, your's. That's right you are a simple biological solar conversion unit for a banker. You promote arse boils Avro.

Tonington

#92

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 6th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

As I understand things no mater or energy exists that is not applicable to electromagnetic plasma.

You're working backwards if you think this proves causation. Not terribly surprising. More nonsense. This kind of logic leads one to claim that the cost of damage from a fire is dependent on the number of fire fighters fighting said fire. A variable is missing, and when you include the missing variable, this association between the number of fire fighters and the costliness of the fire is no longer valid.

Tonington

#93

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 7th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Turns out I was wrong. See where Easterbrook labeled this chart as years before present (2000 AD) ? I had earlier stated that the ice core only goes to 95 years before present, and that this graph is pure misrepresentation by Easterbrook as the data only commences 95 years ago. But in fact, this data comes from a paleo-climate convention, stating that present is the year 1950. So in fact, the data only go as far as 1855 in the GISP2 ice core!

Updated data from this paper:
--

produces a figure that looks like this:

Approximately 0.75 degrees warmer than the previous high temperature for this interglacial on Greenland!

darkbeaver

#94

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 7th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're working backwards if you think this proves causation. Not terribly surprising. More nonsense. This kind of logic leads one to claim that the cost of damage from a fire is dependent on the number of fire fighters fighting said fire. A variable is missing, and when you include the missing variable, this association between the number of fire fighters and the costliness of the fire is no longer valid.

You're working from the exact same direction as I am and yet you're uninformed enough not to realize it. That is pathetic indeed. You're an avowed exponent of thermal climate driving caused by the alleged reflective ability of CO2, I also believe in the solar driver but I'm able to measure the current, map the magnetic fields of earth, gauge their strength and conclusively tie weather phenomena directly with electrical field. Tornadoes on mars are common, huge continental sand storms happen regularly on the same planet all without an appreciable atmosphere in fact the atmosphere could not make wind to move a feather. CO2 is caused by heat it does not cause heat.
You are funny, and the fire department analogy is funny because you're the one missing the near infinite and universal variable, but you ignore it even as you use it to communicate your rediculous religious CO2 convictions. You are missing the principal variable electricity, so don't take your air guitar so seriously.

Tonington

#95

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 7th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

You're working from the exact same direction as I am and yet you're uninformed enough not to realize it. That is pathetic indeed. You're an avowed exponent of thermal climate driving caused by the alleged reflective ability of CO2

Wrong, the absorptive ability. Gases and aerosols which reflect have a negative radiative forcing, not a positive radiative forcing. And there is actual evidence of this. You can perform experiments yourself with simple equipment.

darkbeaver

#96

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 7th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Wrong, the absorptive ability. Gases and aerosols which reflect have a negative radiative forcing, not a positive radiative forcing. And there is actual evidence of this. You can perform experiments yourself with simple equipment.

I'm not disputing that. I am suggesting that the overwhelming strength of electric fields renders the gas model inconsequential as a forcing mechanism, this is the obvious bit that must be the base of any functional climate model. "Negative radiative forcing" please please please now you are introducing naked science fiction. Heat moves one way only. At least you argue very well.

Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 7th, 2011 at 04:19 PM..

Tonington

#97

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 7th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

I'm not disputing that. I am suggesting that the overwhelming strength of electric fields renders the gas model inconsequential as a forcing mechanism, this is the obvious bit that must be the base of any functional climate model.

Well your suggestion is without merit. As I said, there are experiments you can perform all by yourself to show the radiative impact. You can even have controls so that you're sure that the only variable that has changed is the concentration of greenhouse gas.

Your blog science isn't really science. Suggestions are not results. Come back when you have results disproving over one hundred years of experiments in physics labs.

darkbeaver

#98

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 8th, 2011

-- | -- --
New Year Brings Devestating News To AGW Alarmists: New Research Shows Little CO2 & Warming Correlation

Read --. A new peer-reviewed study finds little, if any, causal relationship between increased fossil fuel CO2 emissions and global warming. This lack of empirical evidence is of no real surprise to skeptics, and probably is the best explanation as to why climate agencies across the world have been forced to -- -- -- warming.
This study also indicates why the IPCC's global climate models consistently fail: the models assume human CO2 causes global warming, which this study finds to be false.
"The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes.....The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface.....The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable." [Paulo Cesar Soares 2010: --]

Tonington

#99

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 8th, 2011

That is a large pile of crap. Temperature correlations with carbon dioxide? The forcing factor for carbon dioxide is small, while the forcing factor for seasonal changes, and internal variables like ENSO are huge. The auto-correlation will be dominated by this natural variability, unless you filter out those signals, which Soares never does. Also, he makes several references to increased solar activity, without ever providing a reference, or figure. If you don't eliminate the variance associated with any of these other exogenous factors, then you can't be sure that the correlation you're testing is between one variable and another at all.

It's analogous to using a hammer to fix a micro-processor.

Unsurprising that this result was touted at µWatts.

darkbeaver

#100

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 8th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well your suggestion is without merit. As I said, there are experiments you can perform all by yourself to show the radiative impact. You can even have controls so that you're sure that the only variable that has changed is the concentration of greenhouse gas.

Your blog science isn't really science. Suggestions are not results. Come back when you have results disproving over one hundred years of experiments in physics labs.

The science that I follow is so sound that it is used everyday in practicle applications and the products used by literally billions of people on this planet, plasma science is working science. It would seem that you are unaware of that. The prime energy variable, solar electromagnetic, cannot ever be excluded from climate models, models that do exclude that powerful force quite simply cannot be anything other than completely bogus despite your protestations.CO2 follows temperature. There are no greenhouse gases and there is no bloody greenhouse.

Tonington

#101

Re: It's the Sun, Stupi

Jan 8th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

The prime energy variable, solar electromagnetic, cannot ever be excluded from climate models, models that do exclude that powerful force quite simply cannot be anything other than completely bogus despite your protestations.

Of course it can't, and it isn't. Without the 1365 +/-1 Watts of solar irradience, a climate model would depict Earth as a snowball. But this wasn't a climate model, if you think this paper was then you need to actually read it for yourself. There is a huge difference between a climate model, and a statistical model used to analyze data. It was simple correlation analysis, and severely flawed correlation analysis. If you don't refine the signal, then the two factors you're interested in will be influenced by the other exogenous variables.

darkbeaver

#102

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 9th, 2011

Tonington

#103

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 9th, 2011

All based on a conceptual model with no empirical evidence! You're a case study in pseudoscientific beliefs Beaver

eh1eh

#104

Re: It's the Sun, Stupid.

Jan 9th, 2011

Song break.

Similar Threads

This is stupid
by Nikki | Apr 1st, 2007

stupid stupid stupid world we live in
by Haggis McBagpipe | Aug 30th, 2005