The Maunder Minimum Is Dead - Didn't Affect Earth's Climate.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am talking about a prediction that we will have mini-ice age within about 15 years, which makes a complete mockery of current global warming predicition.

WHAT prediction of a 'mini-ice age'? Your post doesn't reference that in any way what-so-ever.

Your quote from Dr. Popova certainly doesn't say that, the sensationalist headline of the article says that. Who cares what an intern sub-editor thinks?

You quote Popova from the article:

“There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity.

She is completely and utterly wrong about that. Assuming she has been quoted accurately, why should anyone take anything else she has to say seriously after a silly remark like that?

The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago.

So what? Who says every historical climate change had to be caused by man? That is a ridiculous claim and it is irrelevant to the current debate about what is happening RIGHT NOW (not that there is any debate about that).

What happened over the last 400 thousand years ago has the following impact on the current situation: we can see what major factors contributed to those changes and can see that none of them are relevant to the current situation.

Historical warm ages and ice ages took thousands of years to develop not a few decades.

a reply to: rnaa

Considering that Hansen is still refusing to release the raw data which resulted in the production of the famous Hockey Stick graph....exactly how do you know that the "rate' of climate change is unprecedented in history?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Hansen didn't publish the Hockey Stick. Michael Mann did. Also the raw data for it is available.

a reply to: Kali74

of course you are correct. I apologise. totally. I believe you. we are all doomed to die of heat from global warming. There is no other conclusion. The debate is over. We must save the planet by paying carbon taxes.

There is no possibility that there is any mistake.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It always comes back to this. People who deny reality are doing so because they think they will pay more taxes.

Ergo, because of Greed. I sure hope you ain't religious.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: pheonix358
I love it when some absolute idiot can claim that the big heater in the sky does not control the weather.

How typical and how stupid do they think we are?

We may as well just go back to blaming sprites and fairies.

I wonder who paid for this piece of junk science.

P

Following your argument, the closest planet to the sun ought to be the hottest, then... right?

Mercury is cooler than Venus, however.

You didn't just say that reall? Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a much thicker atmosphere. And a much higher pressure sort of like a pressure cooker. Most objects we send to the surface is crushed in a matter of hours not to mention the extreme temperatures and acid rain. But even with that the temperature difference is around 50 degrees.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ironic, isn't it, that Dr. Mann named his table "The Hockey Stick" and REAL hockey sticks used to have wood (from trees with tree rings!) shanks....and now they are (no doubt) made of petro chemical composites.

He should have likened his graph to some sort of candy lollipop on a stick (a subtle poke at those suckers buying his schict).

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


But, but, can we pay our carbon taxes FAST ENOUGH to "save the planet." I fear MANY will use credit cards, thus causing the issuance of MILLIONS more those little rectangles of petro chemical origin...which will cause MORE GLOBAL
WARMING...which will force more true believers to seek even MORE credit to pay more carbon taxes, which will cause...oh my...my head is spinning!!!!

How did those Bronze Age types keep track of their Indulgences?!?

Settled science. That just frosts me (see what I did there?!?) NO science is EVER settled (unless there is political and financial gains to be had!!!

originally posted by: dragonridr
You didn't just say that reall? Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a much thicker atmosphere. And a much higher pressure sort of like a pressure cooker. Most objects we send to the surface is crushed in a matter of hours not to mention the extreme temperatures and acid rain. But even with that the temperature difference is around 50 degrees.

What are you talking about?

pheonix358's argument was that the 'big heater in the sky' determines everything - the end, ignore everything else, the Sun is too big, etc. It is a favorite argument amongst those who deny reality.

I pointed out the obvious discrepancy between Mercury and Venus; the former being cooler despite being closer to the Sun (because as you have mentioned, the thick atmosphere of the latter). Thus, the Sun isn't the only consideration - a refutation of that faulty reasoning.

In that context, I'm not sure what your objection is.

a reply to: Glinda
Question: what are all the current carbon taxes in the U.S.?

Alternatively, what about the world?

Surely if it is such a terrible thing, there are a vast number of examples.

What causes some places to get 80 degree weather in the Summer and 30 below zero in Winter?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

we are all doomed to die of heat from global warming.

Who, exactly, has said that?

We must save the planet by paying carbon taxes.

Who, exactly, has said that?


Strawman fallacy.

Emissions Trading

a reply to: Greven

That the sun plays a BIG part.

Without the sun, there would be no climate on Earth (or Venus for that mater). Just frozen balls of rock.

The atmosphere of Venus does make for a much hotter surface temps than Mercury. It's composition is also a LOT different from Earth, including the pressure of it's atmosphere.

What I tend to see on these boards is: Ignore the sun, it's not important to climate.

Which isn't true. quite the opposite in fact.

Does that mean it's the only thing responsible? No. But then, not every one that questions AGW is saying it's all the sun's fault either.

As a side note: Mercury's night time side drops down to -180 C, making it quite a cold place due to it's very slow axial rotation (58 Earth days = 1 Mercury day).

a reply to: eriktheawful

It's composition is also a LOT different from Earth, including the pressure of it's atmosphere.

Yes, a lot more CO2. What does pressure have to do with it?

What I tend to see on these boards is: Ignore the sun, it's not important to climate.

Of course the Sun drives climate. That's rather obvious. But, if you would pay attention, you would see that the irradiance of the the Sun has not changed significantly (nor has insolation). Not nearly enough to account for the observed warming trend.

a reply to: xuenchen
Your source:

An early example of an emission trading system has been the SO2 trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the U.S. Under the program, which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50% from 1980 levels by 2007.[140]

en.wikipedia.org...

Remember acid rain?

a reply to: Greven

You think paying carbon taxes will help save the earth. That some how giving politicians MORE money will do anything "green" other than line pockets w/easy campaign cash?

Please learn ALL you can about an "exchange" (similar to the NYSE) that was attempted as a start up back at the turn of the century. It was the brainchild of some industrious Chicagoans and was to be called the Chicago a Climate Exchange (CCX) to be a place where carbon "credits" could be bought, sold, traded. And just who were those enterprising denizens of the Windy City? Well, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarett (and family); the Emmanual Brothers, and a newly elected member of the State House of Illinois named Obama (along w/his lawyer wife).

Kinda fascinating to me at least.

Now you may find great comfort in paying a tax on carbon as some sort of modern day green "indulgence" for the sins of "existing" in this time, but I do not.

a reply to: eriktheawful
Of course the Sun plays a part in the Earth's climate. Do you know how much?

Let me show you the Sun on a scale with both solar irradiance and temperature changes:

Please note the scale on the left - the tiny variance between the low and the high Watts/sq. meter.

Yes, the difference is a mere 2 Watts/sq. meter +/- 0.0735% variance.

originally posted by: Glinda
a reply to: Greven

You think paying carbon taxes will help save the earth. That some how giving politicians MORE money will do anything "green" other than line pockets w/easy campaign cash?

Please learn ALL you can about an "exchange" (similar to the NYSE) that was attempted as a start up back at the turn of the century. It was the brainchild of some industrious Chicagoans and was to be called the Chicago a Climate Exchange (CCX) to be a place where carbon "credits" could be bought, sold, traded. And just who were those enterprising denizens of the Windy City? Well, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarett (and family); the Emmanual Brothers, and a newly elected member of the State House of Illinois named Obama (along w/his lawyer wife).

Kinda fascinating to me at least.

Now you may find great comfort in paying a tax on carbon as some sort of modern day green "indulgence" for the sins of "existing" in this time, but I do not.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions about my opinions and not answering the question I asked.

Since you are so very concerned about them - what are the current carbon taxes?

Exchanges are not taxes. Cap and Trade is not a tax. Exxonmobil once said that a tax would be a better system.

a reply to: Greven

No. It plays a much bigger part.

What part of "No sun, no climate." do you not understand?

Switch the sun off, Earth dies. Turn the sun up too much, again, Earth dies.

Are changes in the sun now causing Earth's climate to change? I see people posting all over these boards yes and no.

I've seen it suggested that it's a combination of human, geological and solar.

I've seen it expressed in many different ways.

However, anyone that says the sun does not affect the Earth, or only affects it a little bit, might want to learn about solar radiation and how it warms our planet.