Ask a painter how positive and negative charges reduce over spray and you'll get a clue as to how magnetism f.cks with jet streams. Is that KISS enough for you?
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Ask a painter how positive and negative charges reduce over spray and you'll get a clue as to how magnetism f.cks with jet streams. Is that KISS enough for you?
So what if there were no anthropogenic forcings? Of course there were not, and why would you think that matters? So you're like Petros then, you bring up comparisons but fail to appreciate the difference between the scenarios, a difference which matters. It's not assumption that we have a tangible impact, it's based on measurements CM. That is precisely what makes it tangible.
This argument of yours isn't logical. There are plenty of things which have happened in Earth's history which humans have managed to also have impacts on. You know floods have lots of impacting factors, right? Humans have managed to affect flood patterns and severity. But if we examined previous flood cycles hundreds of thousands of years ago, we wouldn't find much evidence of human impacts. Now what part of that would then seem 'anthro-arrogant' to you, to say that humans have an impact on flooding?
Seriously, not logical.
Pete, hows that list coming?
Man being pretty damn clever has figured out to bend light with EM but that might be too complex for you noggin.
Of course it's not. On AGW, most folk made an emotional decision, and now they're scrambling to find "evidence" to support it, and ignoring evidence that points the other way.
It ain't science, it's politics.
What you are unable to do is articulate any difference in the cycles to begin with regardless of humanity's influence or not.
Until you can do this, any argument you forward is based entirely on incidental events/issues, etc.
Measure ghgs, anthro inputs and CO2 all you like, but in the end, the natural cycle is the dominant factor that has proven itself over and over and over again.
It,s a helluva lot cooler this interglacial event than the last. Neanderthals really f.cked up back then.
The giant, spherical climate denier
The earth is lying:
It's cold out there, but it's a fun cold.
The giant, spherical climate denier - Small Dead Animals
The earth is lying:
Clitantic scientists trapped in Antarctic ice claim expanding sea ice caused by 'global warming' - But data and studies refute claims.
You'd think these scienticians would be aware of the record expansion of Antarctic sea ice in the last few years, but "nope" springs eternal:(Chris) Turney (a professor of climate change at Australia's University of New South Wales) explained that "climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded."
Yeah, that's the ticket: An iceberg corralled the vessel, and then froze the open sea for miles around it into an impenetrable, contiguous, solid mass of ice so thick that icebreakers couldn't reach the ship...because of global warming.It's cold out there, but it's a fun cold.
The giant, spherical climate denier - Small Dead Animals
Previous cycles were driven by our planets orbital mechanics. Currently we are not experiencing more insolation at all. That's a huge difference. The cycle of glacials and interglacials is dominated by orbital changes and greenhouse feedbacks to those changes. This shouldn't be news to anyone who posts regularly in these threads. It's very old news.
What natural cycle? You're the one who brought up comparisons, yet you don't actually know the differences between those in the past and now, yet in your ignorance you're claiming it's all natural cycles. So provide some evidence then. Perhaps you can work with Petros on that list of forcings and relative changes.
Why would you be expecting insolation and orbital deviations when exiting the cycle as we head back into glaciation right on schedule?
More suppositions based on hypothesis and theory.
You speak as if these factors now cease to contribute in a manner as if they no longer exist.
Time to face facts here; 10-15 years ago, the warmists were wrong, their edited models spawned from those initial mistakes were wrong again, and the latest round has been highlighted with the AGW expedition to the Antarctic (to prove global warming no less) has been stuck in the ice along with all of the rescue vessels sent to assist.
I can't possibly think of anything more humiliating
And a cold snap in U.S. Midwest that hasn't seen the like in 20 years .But that is just weather .
I can. Being duped by one fossil fuel industry to eliminate another while footing the bill to expand the one you were duped into supporting because they convinced you it was green.
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why It Stopped | TIME.com
Sierra Club took $26M from gas industry to fight coal-fired plants | TheHill
Who is funding the attack on frakking for NG? The nuclear industry?
The moon goes from around +150 deg C to -150 deg C between its day and night. If there is no greenhouse effect, then why doesn't the Earth do the same thing?
Nonsense. Modelling the radiation physics alone, and ignoring the GCMs and feedback effects actually matches observations quite nicely. To date, anyways.
Light is EM.