Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
You are an idiot. That data was from a 1991 study by Friis-Christensen. There was no data past 1990 because it did not exist at the time of the study.
You must be in a time warp because I'm living in 2009. Like I said, if there were an correlation between the "inverse sunspot cycle" and the rise in global temperatures the graph would have been updated and spread all over the internet. It hasn't been because no such correlation exists other than that one time period. In other words, it's a fluke event.
I might be an idiot but I'm a reasonable, open-minded one so if you have anything concrete I sure would like to see it.
Besides, according to your reasoning, the rise in CO2 levels would be a by-product of the rise in temperature and no such direct relationship exists.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Besides, according to your reasoning, the rise in CO2 levels would be a by-product of the rise in temperature and no such direct relationship exists.
?????
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
The sunspot cycle may have an influence on short-term temperatures (weather) but such influence would occur within the larger framework of the over-all climate direction, i.e., which direction the global temperature is moving. It's well established that greenhouse gases and the Earth's orbit/axis tilt determine climate over thousands of years and that plate tectonics influence climate over tens of millions of years.
The global temperature is increasing today because we have dumped thousands of gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not because of any 11 year sunspot cycle.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Besides, according to your reasoning, the rise in CO2 levels would be a by-product of the rise in temperature and no such direct relationship exists.
What happens to the solubility of CO2 when temperature increases? What happens if you warm a soda in an open container?
Here is a clue:
http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/...tart=0&gallery=
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
You clearly didn't.
Ok, then explain why over the past million years the Earth has cycle through ice ages that begin and end.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
What you are suggesting is that because the "inverse sunspot cycle" raises global temperatures, the rise in atmospheric CO2 happens because the warmer oceans release CO2. That's a nice theory but it's not true because not only is atmospheric CO2 increasing, so is CO2 levels in the oceans. Nice try.:icon_razz:
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Actually, CO2 is constant on Earth. The only thing that is happening is that it is being transferred between land/sea and the atmosphere back and forth. It is a natural cycle. I'm not in the mood for a big in-depth explanation right now and am at work, but if you study your geology, you'll know that historically, temperatures will change before CO2 level ratios between land/sea and atmosphere measurably shift. Mankind isn't causing global warming in any real way, but needs to learn how to live with a warmer or cooler Earth, as the only thing 100% sure about the climate is that it changes. Don't buy into the political propaganda that wants to make a quick buck off of you for "green" initiatives just so we can spend our time on some worthless effort to control the climate with our current technology, rather than developing new technology to help us deal with it and manage our population growth in the future.
Also, support nuclear power and coal in America. Thank you.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Interesting that right now on Lou Dobbs they are talking about how we are in cooling period and it corresponds with low sunspot activity.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Interesting that right now on Lou Dobbs they are talking about how we are in cooling period and it corresponds with low sunspot activity.
Yeah, I saw that segment. The sunspot cycle of 11 years both heats and cools. Which means that in 11 years it will be darn hot. The sunspot cycle is super-imposed over the prevailing climate the trend of which is increasing global temperatures.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Yeah, I saw that segment. The sunspot cycle of 11 years both heats and cools. Which means that in 11 years it will be darn hot. The sunspot cycle is super-imposed over the prevailing climate the trend of which is increasing global temperatures.
You are confused. The average is 11 years. That is why the study was looking at inverse cycle length. They found when the cycle runs shorter than 11 years it gets hotter. If you read the actuary link, you would know that other sunspot parameters in addition to inverse cycle length also correlate to temperature.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
You are confused. The average is 11 years. That is why the study was looking at inverse cycle length. They found when the cycle runs shorter than 11 years it gets hotter. If you read the actuary link, you would know that other sunspot parameters in addition to inverse cycle length also correlate to temperature.
Oh, excuse me, the average is 11 years. The main point remains valid that it is a VERY SHORT TERM CYCLE and is super-imposed over the long-term climate trend. In other words, it affects weather and not climate. Case closed.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Oh, excuse me, the average is 11 years. The main point remains valid that it is a VERY SHORT TERM CYCLE and is super-imposed over the long-term climate trend. In other words, it affects weather and not climate. Case closed.
It has cumulative effects that may last for decades. The point is that the warming and cooling trends are influenced by solar activity and not CO2.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
It has cumulative effects that may last for decades. The point is that the warming and cooling trends are influenced by solar activity and not CO2.
You are confused. The graphs that you posted shows that you are wrong.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You are confused. The graphs that you posted shows that you are wrong.
You really should leave the science to the scientists. Look at the graph again. Suncycle lengths wax and wane. The cycle gets shorter for a few periods then it gets longer. It does not bounce around between a period less than 11 years and then a period greater than 11 years. All warming and cooling trends correlate with the graph.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Like I said, CO2 does not create global warming. Anyone who believes we're burning up our earth with it is fooling themselves and needs to study geology.
