Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

A masterpiece in mis-direction

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Apr 3, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just for interest

    Most who read this article will now be sure that any evidence against the man made proposition of GW is firmly closed

    Here the information points towards a theory which has been currently used to be a bit of a thorn in the GW alarmists side. Until now (so the claim goes), there has been a suggestion that the sun has an effect on the cloud formations which is one (of about a hundred factors, and not one of the largest) of the factors in controlling "surface" temperature.

    Much like the front licence plate and speeding as the main killer on our roads campaign. The use of simple and concise language in the article would compel the reader to firmly now agree and dismiss any further discussion of this based on the media's claim.

    As adding insult to injury a following claim is stated, which has slipped through.
    Well low and behold, global temperatures have actually been dropping over the past 7 years (statistical moving average).

    This article provides some context.


    Also the study (from the first link, which I have now a copy of) uses three methods, each which goes not to examine the potential effects, but is aimed squarely at discrediting the opposing theory with some malice.

    - They use selective "surface temperature" instead of mid and upper atmosphere measurements (excluded)
    - Cloud formation effects are one of the lower effects of cosmic rays and energy. Most is channelled as energy transfer into the oceans (not covered, actually stated as removed from the study)
    - They actually concur that CO2 is ranked 12th as a greenhouse gas (wow, even for them)
    - Studies were based on real time observations, without determining + or – lag effects for atmospheric controls

    I find it interesting as well as a theory is being used to discredit another theory which is opposing the original theory and models adopted by the political arm (WG3) of the IPCC.
  2. Yes.

    We Know.

    You think it's all crap.

    Try a search PP. This topics been done to death :LOL:
  3. pro-pilot - I have hatched upon a plan:

    1) Find rich benefactor, and enlist their financial support.

    2) Approach reputable university who have published these sorts of "OMG Climate Change is totally real!" findings, and then request a study of them, with offer of funding BUT also request an outcome for their findings [ie. tell them what we want them to find] that can be proven to be incorrect.

    3) Document it all.

    4) Bust this shit wide open.

    Whatcha reckon? Worth doing?
  4. Sounds like the plot for a good B grade movie :wink:
  5. Or an A Current Affair sting.
  6. Sorry i'm confused...
    In one of your recent threads on the topic you were saying that temperatures were going up but it was not due to Human effect but because of solar activity.
    Now you are saying that temperatures are falling.
    I am going to be blunt here. if you kept to one story instead of changing your tune every time you post. people may actually believe that you know what you're talking about. But seeing as you just jump back and forth how can we believe you actually have any real conviction of what the facts are?
  7. We've been through this before:

    Apparently it's simply a case of the world getting both cooler and hotter at the same time. Personally I don't see how this works, other than the fact it means PP can always make any data suit his argument one way or another. You just have to accuse anyone who comes up with a different conclusion to the data as being some unqualified extremist hack not worth listening to (because someone who hangs out anonymously in an internet forum is so much more reputable).
  8. you know PP - you're starting to sound like a broken record.
    if you REALLY want to 'awaken the world' to the 'truth' about global warming, maybe you should write about it somewhere other than a motorcycle forum.
  9. Yeah thanks, I'll keep my eye out for trash like this


    Maybe you should look at something else than a MC forum :-k
  10. PP, how about stop being an elitist wanker?

    I sense a thread close
  11. I have a question PP...
    You state that Solar activity is responsible for Global warming right...
    Now look at these two graphs. You will note that the 95, 85, and 75 dips in the Global temperature average, coencide nicely with solar flair activity. so would tend to back your argument on the serface, But then why is there a trend that is compleatly seperate of those dips? you can see the effect of the solar activity, and it is obviosly not responsible for the over all trend.

    Now i am aware that Wikipedia is not the most authoratative of sources, so i invite you to provide better data? Or will this do?
  12. If only people would stick to the OP there would not be an issue.
  13. you're hillarious PP, did you have to study to be that funny?
  14. See this is the problem... we need a point of reference to be able to identify how the OP is framed. but untill we can find our way through the inconsistansies in your point of view we are all simply left scratching our heads.
  15. I wouldn't normally take sides, but 2 of those threads concern Transformers and Boobies, respectively.

    You're out of line, PP :p
  16. PP for someone who 'claims' to be a scientist, you really are a dumbass.

    Edgelett said that maybe you should post your GLOBAL WARMING crap on another type of forum because you are sounding like a broken record. Meaning that you continually say the same shit over and over and we're all sick of it. I'm pretty sure I would get a 99% backup on that one from the rest of netrider.

    Stop it. Go somewhere else or at least post something DIFFERENT FFS! :roll:
  17. The facts are that the sun drives the entire atmosphere and also to a latent degree the ocean's "motor" if you will.

    The sun can affect the climate in several ways. Short, medium and long term.

    Short term is mostly to do with heating or cooling (depending on energy frequency output) of the mid to upper atmosphere.
    Medium is more to do with effects that upper layer then plays with surface temperatures (which usually has cycles, affected more by terrain and the longer term ocean energy transfer effects). Note this is where the article is claiming to dispel this theory, instead of its primary effect in the upper / mid atmosphere.
    Long term is more to do with a large lag in energy transfer between the whole atmosphere and the sun with the ocean. This may take centuries to translate into thermal changes in atmospheric gas exchanges.

    So the planet has this cycle of both cooling and heating. Inevitably the trends taken over a few years or even decades may look like they are correlating, when in fact it is a false friend.

    At the moment it appears that the short term solar effects are cooling the mid to upper atmosphere, while surface temp in regions (not globally) are heating.

    This is where the IPCC does not what the debate to go (the whole mid-upper atmospheric temperature trends) as it actually upsets their modelling.
  18. +10 million to the power of googolplex
  19. PP i'm going to be polite for some reason.

    my point, was that you seem to be very passionate about pointing out things you believe to be false/true regarding global warming. i'm saying that you might be better off posting those things on a forum/medium where people are going to pay more attention to what you have to say, because clearly people here are not particularly interested in your GW posts.

    You might find a better result & more interest in another place. Rather than getting frustrated at us for not paying attention, you'll find an audience receptive & you won't need to repeat yourself.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.