20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee



Where is over here?

If you looked into who actually ran those companies you could find that they schedule golf as well as other activities together.

No idea what you are talking about.

a reply to: D8Tee


Its a racket run by the present equivalent to ancient, "Warlords". Who came into power as a result that when the "Kings" were dethroned and replaced by people who knew more about how to run a government that the "Peasants" (now referred to as Civilians) comprehended at that time.

Another great thing about electric cars is that since you can easily reduce your electric bill by $40 to $50 per month by being more efficient, you can actually completely eliminate your transportation fuel cost! You really can’t use less gasoline unless you drive less or buy a more efficient car, but you can reduce your electricity usage at home and still drive as much as you always have. Simple measures like using a programmable thermostat, the use of LED light bulbs, replacing older appliances with Energy Star rated ones and turning off unnecessary lighting can make a big difference. In fact, five 100 watt light bulbs left on continuously for a year use nearly the same amount of energy as it takes to power an electric car 15,000 miles! Here’s how: Five 100 watt light bulbs use 500 watts. In 24 hours they use 12,000 watt-hours or 12 kWh. In 365 days they use 4,380 kWh. A typical EV that uses 30 kWh for every 100 miles will use 4,500 kWh to drive 15,000 miles. Simply by turning unnecessary lighting off at your home, you can drastically reduce or completely eliminate your annual transportation fuel cost. Try doing that with a gasser!

pluginamerica.org...

Time for some Comic Relief...

a reply to: Kashai

Good list but it's missing Idiocracy.

a reply to: D8Tee





I can assure you that similar was really a problem at the time or before, any where else upon planet Earth.

nvm

a reply to: Justoneman



I guess that leaves you and me...

originally posted by: D8Tee
How much data we have does some to present some challenges.

What was the actual temperature in the 1920's, huge portions of the world had no weather monitoring stations?

this is something that i always try to talk about aswell. its like measuring the elevation differences in a square mile using 10 points vs 1000 points. u could have aboslutely no change in the environment but the data will be different between the 2.

Date: August 14, 2007
Source: Cornell University

Summary:

About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell scientist. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases worldwide.

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: Kashai

Date: August 14, 2007
Source: Cornell University

Summary:

About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell scientist. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases worldwide.

www.sciencedaily.com...

and as consumers we are the driving cause of that pollution if were willing to buy our products from countries that dont give a rats a$$ about pollution

a reply to: TheScale


Are you in a country where leaders care about the fact that one can cut transportation costs down by leaving only lights on in the rooms you are using?

As far as I know no such place on Earth exists like that today.

a reply to: Kashai

wouldnt worry yourself too much, every time i post anything that has any scientific relevance or points out logical flaws in his arguments he simply ignores it, or basically insults me, so yeah, hardly any point in trying to discuss anything.

How can you debate and discuss when one half of that debate already believes he knows everything and anything that doesnt fit his agenda will simply be ignored or deflected.

To OP
at 58 with 30 years of experience... i think you have become too convinced of your own brilliance to believe you can be possibly be wrong about anything OP...its what i see... i just see an ego that has gone wild. If you want to talk about data analysis and error and uncertainty, please do it with a bit more detail than you have. Saying "I dont believe x" and leaving it like that shows your lack of scientific metal

There is evidence for both local and regional causes (e.g. drought stress) as well as global scale causes (e.g. global dimming). It's unlikely there's a single smoking gun to explain the divergence problem. More likely, it's a complex combination of various contributing factors, often unique to different regions and even individual trees.

One erroneous characterization is that scientists have been hiding the divergence problem. In fact, tree-ring divergence has been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literarure since 1995. A perusal of the many peer reviewed papers (conveniently summarised in D’Arrigo 2008) reveal the following:

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.

The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.

The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.

Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Kashai

wouldnt worry yourself too much, every time i post anything that has any scientific relevance or points out logical flaws in his arguments he simply ignores it, or basically insults me, so yeah, hardly any point in trying to discuss anything.

How can you debate and discuss when one half of that debate already believes he knows everything and anything that doesnt fit his agenda will simply be ignored or deflected.

To OP
at 58 with 30 years of experience... i think you have become too convinced of your own brilliance to believe you can be possibly be wrong about anything OP...its what i see... i just see an ego that has gone wild. If you want to talk about data analysis and error and uncertainty, please do it with a bit more detail than you have. Saying "I dont believe x" and leaving it like that shows your lack of scientific metal

Until I read the last part I thought you were talking about Kashai.....

So, all the papers from PhD's in the field fell on your deaf ears and blinded eyes. OK, I knew ahead of time that there would be few like that who would flame me. I guess you will have to believe what you wish. I am not all knowing. I use terms like 'IMHO' on purpose. I get to see the people lose their ever loving minds over the contradictory papers that the media appears to deliberately fail to bring up because it defies the lies I feel they are using in their narrative.

Today, where I live the forecast changed from two days ago and yesterday morning. Now we are going to be 15 degrees F cooler than two days ago and 20 degrees F from a week ago. You can't possibly believe the forecast models are accurate can you? I work with meteorologist as we predict where wind will carry pollution and every one of them will say that forecasts for temperatures are very hard to get right 7 days out. How can we expect that part of the science to be remotely able to predict temperatures when the National Weather Service can't get it right very many days ahead? Then add in the failed CO2 models, we have a farce and you , now fewer and fewer people still cling to it as if the greats like Einstein, Feynman and Sagan would have approved of your position.

I studied also the philosophy of science and I think others should also . Instead of parroting what Scientist you wish to believe you need balance. I hoped for those who can think for themselves we can get the balance in the discussion with this thread. Thank you for proving the point others have made about you believers of the IPP that are fervent members of the Church of man made global warming.

Meanwhile I reach for the thermostat to turn the heat up in my home on Cinco de Mayo....Go figure?

Some balance to the ice sheet is melting in Antarctica


www.leeds.ac.uk...

originally posted by: Justoneman
Today, where I live the forecast changed from two days ago and yesterday morning. Now we are going to be 15 degrees F cooler than two days ago and 20 degrees F from a week ago. You can't possibly believe the forecast models are accurate can you? I work with meteorologist as we predict where wind will carry pollution and every one of them will say that forecasts for temperatures are very hard to get right 7 days out. How can we expect that part of the science to be remotely able to predict temperatures when the National Weather Service can't get it right very many days ahead? Then add in the failed CO2 models, we have a farce and you , now fewer and fewer people still cling to it as if the greats like Einstein, Feynman and Sagan would have approved of your position.

And there it is. In one fell swoop, you've just demonstrated that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Weather =/= climate. That you don't understand this makes the very idea of you being an "environmental scientist" hilariously preposterous.

Thanks for the laugh, the payoff was worth it.

originally posted by: Justoneman
So, all the papers from PhD's in the field fell on your deaf ears and blinded eyes. OK, I knew ahead of time that there would be few like that who would flame me. I guess you will have to believe what you wish. I am not all knowing. I use terms like 'IMHO' on purpose. I get to see the people lose their ever loving minds over the contradictory papers that the media appears to deliberately fail to bring up because it defies the lies I feel they are using in their narrative.

Incorrect - The papers from PhD's do not fall on deaf ears and blind eyes... what they fall on, is another pile of other papers that make contradictory statements, in far greater numbers, which demonstrate more tenable linkages. Some are simply observational, others attempt links. So where did all those papers written by PhD's in the field fall? Apparently on your deaf ears and blind eyes because you... 'believe' them to be wrong. You have not, and neither have the papers, conclusively linked anything in terms of energy transfer mechanisms driving the climate based on the magnetic field. The Earths geomagnetic pole has flipped many times, it is not a repeatable cycle... it is not known what triggers the flip, nor do they have a stable periodic behaviour. None of the papers show with any statistical certainty that there is a good match with the data. What iv seen is handwaving and conjecture as I said.

Today, where I live the forecast changed from two days ago and yesterday morning. Now we are going to be 15 degrees F cooler than two days ago and 20 degrees F from a week ago. You can't possibly believe the forecast models are accurate can you? I work with meteorologist as we predict where wind will carry pollution and every one of them will say that forecasts for temperatures are very hard to get right 7 days out. How can we expect that part of the science to be remotely able to predict temperatures when the National Weather Service can't get it right very many days ahead?

Right so, as an Environmental scientist, not to understand the difference between climate and weather you are showing yourself as being very ignorant. Yeah I lived in a play for 7 years where the forecast couldn't be predicted from day to day. Iv also lived in places where the 5 day forecast is pretty damn accurate. Is this relevant to the discussion? No.

I guess what you are trying to say is "We don't know... what the weather will do, so how can we possibly understand the climate" It is a logically irrelevant statement while the two are related, they are not the same. You of all 'experts' should know that.

Then add in the failed CO2 models, we have a farce and you , now fewer and fewer people still cling to it as if the greats like Einstein, Feynman and Sagan would have approved of your position.

Well done, you know some big names of science, exactly how they relate to CO2 models... you might have to explain that to me... Oh you also might want to explain how exactly this magnetic driven model works because so far you seem to believe electric fields and magnetic fields are the same thing... you might want to fix that... being a free thinker is fine, but it doesn't mean you can just make stuff up as you go along.

I studied also the philosophy of science and I think others should also . Instead of parroting what Scientist you wish to believe you need balance. I hoped for those who can think for themselves we can get the balance in the discussion with this thread. Thank you for proving the point others have made about you believers of the IPP that are fervent members of the Church of man made global warming.

Ah and there we go, stereotyped statement number 125 thanks for the standard issue "Im a free thinker man... you guys are all closed minded" Its good to think outside the box, but, knowing where the box actually is, is a good start. And your statement regarding church membership is even funnier... you haven't even asked for anyones opinion who is asking you questions, you have simply just made accusations.

Do I believe climate change is 100% man-caused... nope, Do i think we are making what could be a natural process far worse and possibly turning into a man-driven run away process... im like 80/20

Sorry but, that might blow your mind that people don't believe things 100% one way or the other, seems like a trend these days to live by assumptions.

Meanwhile I reach for the thermostat to turn the heat up in my home on Cinco de Mayo....Go figure?

Yeah... again you seem to mistake weather for climate...

It reminds me of the 'If google was a guy' video with the woman sitting down and saying "Vaccines cause autism" and google replying "So i have this big pile of papers that say that they dont... and this one that says they do" Her snatching the single one and saying "I KNEW IT!"

In your philosophy of science, you should go back and read up on confirmation bias.

a reply to: Justoneman

You earlier stated that the sun is causing climate change.

Later you stated that the magnetic poles are causing climate change.

Surely in a paragraph you can link several sentences together that explain how either is causing climate change and any link between the two. Without just saying 'look at the 20 papers'. You, yourself, briefly explain your logic. For once.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: TheScale


Are you in a country where leaders care about the fact that one can cut transportation costs down by leaving only lights on in the rooms you are using?

As far as I know no such place on Earth exists like that today.

nope but u can make a difference albiet small in some cases by choosing the lesser of two evils. for example, dont buy those shoes that are made in a country that has practically no environmental concerns.