20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: Kashai
Guess you're supportive of the Paris Agreement and setting up a 100 billion dollar slush fund that can be tapped into to build coal fired power plants in the third world. Obama gave them 500 million just before he left office, hopefully Trump puts an end to the nonsense of freely distributing US taxpayers dollars like that.

One sides is much better funded.

Based US government reports, SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

Link

a reply to: D8Tee



Maybe you did not read my last response but you did read my last link.

Again you really do not seem to comprehend what you are talking about.

There you go again making claims without any substance.

Paris agreement summary..

www.2degreesnetwork.com...

Full text..

unfccc.int...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee



Maybe you did not read my last response but you did read my last link.

Again you really do not seem to comprehend what you are talking about.

There you go again making claims without any substance.

I comprehend just fine.
What claims of no substance am I making up?
Nice of you to say that and not to point to anything specific, just goes to show you how intellectually dishonest you are in your approach to a simple debate.
Everything about you leads me to believe you have at most a grade school education level and yet you'd like to come across as an intellectual in this thread. It doesn't work that way, you should have quit a long time ago.
If I have made a claim without substance point it out to me please, don't just start making unsubstantiated claims as to my character.

a reply to: D8Tee


The feeling is mutual

Have a good night

a reply to: Kashai

Paris agreement summary..

www.2degreesnetwork.com...

Full text..

unfccc.int...

Did I ask for links to the Agreement? You don't think I have read that long ago?

What does the Paris agreement mean Kashai?

No going to quora or yahoo answers and copying some one elses words.

In your words, what that Agreement do?

a reply to: D8Tee


So your going to call me an "Idiot" and then ask me question?

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

As far as what you think about me that is about a relevant to me as nothing.

Again have a good night.

My goodness the data was all there and we could use some of the mod's help to get one to at least quit forgetting their own links were challenging them like that one has done over and over. The models failed and this one poster keeps attacking the windmill. The data is overwhelming that the models failed and that something to do with the Sun is pushing our climate. Our pollution is bad, no doubt. CO2 is simply not pollution. Lead, Arsenic, Mercury and other metals dug up from the earth and carelessly released into our drinking water is why I became an Environmentalist. Jacques Cousteau is the one that introduced my younger self to the issue. I am sure he would be on board with using provable data and might be ashamed of how the media is spreading obvious failed science as fact. He wanted the facts to attract people like me, not lies to push would be future environmentalist away because of hoax science.

a reply to: Justoneman

Jacques Cousteau is the one that introduced my younger self to the issue.

Aye, same here! I had the Encyclopedia set, The Ocean World According to Jacques Cousteau, excellent material, helped form my youth. Had the World Wildlife Fund Periodicals as well. I think that the environmental movement has been hijacked by the far left, happened in the early 80's or somewhere around there. I'm with you on focusing on real pollution and other issues that we are facing, C02 just isn't that big of a deal.

a reply to: Justoneman



Thanks for the laugh.

This getting absurd

All this data is refutable the economic issues are not. Some reason you seem to be ignoring that?

Have good night as well.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman



Thanks for the laugh.

This getting absurd

All this data is refutable the economic issues are not. Some reason you seem to be ignoring that?

Have good night as well.

I am starting to think, YOU have to make the last statement AND make innuendo that WE don't have the facts. Well Good night and goodbye. I consider real data not the fake mess and the real data is NOT ABSURD... challenging real data with lies, not keeping your lies straight is however. Dare to learn the facts. You can load up with the name calling and whatever that makes you happy, I will stick to the truth about the models.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

Jacques Cousteau is the one that introduced my younger self to the issue.

Aye, same here! I had the Encyclopedia set, The Ocean World According to Jacques Cousteau, excellent material, helped form my youth. Had the World Wildlife Fund Periodicals as well. I think that the environmental movement has been hijacked by the far left, happened in the early 80's or somewhere around there. I'm with you on focusing on real pollution and other issues that we are facing, C02 just isn't that big of a deal.

Spot on, the movement has been hijacked and it hurts the future environmental students to start out with bad data and politicize it. Like the famous scientist of Europe during the Inquisitional times, those that bring you the truth were to be 'shamed' this is heading out to be again.

a reply to: D8Tee

Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say

Go and look for yourself the evidence is all there.. Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.. The consensus is we are the cause and this has been the consensus for over two decades..

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: D8Tee

Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say

Go and look for yourself the evidence is all there.. Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.. The consensus is we are the cause and this has been the consensus for over two decades..

I have looked, have you?

An Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd. The alarmism and catastrophism are bubbles. AGW is a mild boon and the greening miraculous.

The only consensus you will find is that C02 levels have been rising since we have started measuring with instrumentation in 1958.

Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.

Did you read the thread?

Contained within you would find proof that:

1. Global Temps have not risen in 18 years.
2. The rate of sea level rise has shown no statistically significant acceleration.
3. There has been no increase in Hurricanes or Cyclones.

I would suggest to you that members that jump in at the end of a thread without reading it are the ones that come off sounding like idiots.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: D8Tee

Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say

Go and look for yourself the evidence is all there.. Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.. The consensus is we are the cause and this has been the consensus for over two decades..

I have looked, have you?

An Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd. The alarmism and catastrophism are bubbles. AGW is a mild boon and the greening miraculous.

The only consensus you will find is that C02 levels have been rising since we have started measuring with instrumentation in 1958.

Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.

Did you read the thread?

Contained within you would find proof that:

1. Global Temps have not risen in 18 years.
2. The rate of sea level rise has shown no statistically significant acceleration.
3. There has been no increase in Hurricanes or Cyclones.

I would suggest to you that members that jump in at the end of a thread without reading it are the ones that come off sounding like idiots.

And there are a few inside the thread who can't let it go when the data you I and a few others have presented from solid research and legitimate scientists with the right degree is proving to be so, well, silly. To many Al Gore wanna be's spouting the narrative of failed theory after failed theory. The data says AGW, from CO2 most especially, is dead in the water and we must move to another theory. Wherever the data leads us not where the narrative says it is supposed to take us!

a reply to: Kashai

I don't have the ability to watch youtube at the moment, can you give me a rundown of whats on your video please?

a reply to: D8Tee


Sure if you did not insult me at every opportunity I would do something like that.


Otherwise....:

In general actually.

a reply to: Kashai

Well then i can just go by the youtube comments.

. The computers aren't powerful enough to work out the models, the scientists dont want to say what we should do.

I've seen much the same presentations. "We don't have the processing power or data needed to predict future climate."
It's not something a lot of us are unaware of, the climate models are failing, it's obvious they don't have it right.

a reply to: D8Tee


Where is your link?

You should know better by now.

Is the only reason your giving me a hard time is because you think its healthy for me?????

Who is we????

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the

increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Predicting Impacts of Climate Change

Scientists have developed several computer-run simulations, or models, that combine and express in mathematical form what we know about the processes that control the atmospheric and hydrologic systems. The most advanced climate models are called General Circulation Models, or GCM's. These models are the primary tools used by scientists to try to predict the impacts of increased greenhouse gas concentration. The strength of these models is their ability to replicate input-response activities and relationships within complex systems that are far too elaborate for simple interpretation or logic. They have the ability to integrate various feedback processes in order to determine their effects on overall impact, and quickly generate different scenarios under varied assumptions about human activities.

A feedback can be defined as a direct result of a given process that either magnifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) the total effect of that very same process. One example of a positive feedback of global warming is the potential impact of increased concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. As the oceans and atmosphere warm, the rate evaporation increases, causing more water vapor to accumulate in the atmosphere. As we noted earlier, water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, causing even more heat to be trapped in the troposphere. Thus global warming is magnified by a result of its own existence.

Another example is the possibility of melting arctic ice caps releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Ice caps are a strong "sink" for carbon, storing the equivalent of almost one-third of the total carbon in Earth's atmosphere. As the Earth's temperature rises, and arctic permafrost and tundra melt, the carbon will be released into the atmosphere. The result is once again more heat being trapped and an even further increased global temperature.

environ.andrew.cmu.edu...

Maybe you should take a good look and going back to school.


Further...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...