Global Warming - Page 77

Professor Peabody · #**761** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Scientists predict the next solar activity cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the previous one and up to a year late. Accurately predicting the sun's cycles will help plan for the effects of solar storms.

The sun goes through a roughly 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back again.

The team predicts the next cycle will begin with an increase in solar activity in late 2007 or early 2008, and there will be 30 to 50 percent more sunspots, flares, and CMEs in cycle 24. This is about one year later than the prediction using previous methods, which rely on such statistics as the strength of the large-scale solar magnetic field and the number of sunspots to make estimates for the next cycle.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...lar_cycle.html

Let's see solar activity quells in 1998 and the temperature of the earth is now lower than 1998 levels, 11 years later, the exact solar cycle, the earth is going to warm up. It must be the CO2....right? Give it up carbon trading is already going the way of the rotary dial telephone.

Professor Peabody · #**762** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

When the producer of the movie also admits that he fabricated evidence for the movie - yes.

Please provide proof of that, he said it was a mistake and fixed it right away. Where do you get this stuff? The National Enquirer?

Professor Peabody · #**763** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Did you read my post at all?

No blathering gives me a headache.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

It is shameful if the IPCC is willing to deceive the public about the relationship of AGW to hurricanes.

But Lansea was criticising the reporting. Not the science. There is no suggestion in that article that any of the science is questionable.

The mere fact they are willing to fudge the facts to the media, even after Landsea's making them aware of the problem then dismissing what he had to say speaks volumes about their agenda. This was no accident, but what appears to be a calculated deception. Now that's credibility.

bugalugs · #**764** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Please provide proof of that, he said it was a mistake and fixed it right away. Where do you get this stuff? The National Enquirer?

He actually he said it was a mistake and fixed it right away - on 4 seperate occaisions! 4 different versions of that show have been broadcast a various times, as he has been forced to edit out his fabricated data.

But even after that - he still deliberately broadcast incorrrect data.

Watch these videos of Martin Durkin being interviewed by Tony Jones on the Australian ABC. His first major lie comes in around 5 minutes into the first video. Another good one around 2 min into the second video

Enjoy:
http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wor...windle-debate/

Transcript is here if you prefer:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...uly%202007.pdf

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a document to take seriously

MannieD · #**765** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

Way to change the subject.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of why about 98% of the atmosphere is not involved in warming the earth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

I already explained about water vapor, you don't want to listen.....your problem.

JUst keep coming back for more? wiki, earth's atmosphere

Quote:

Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor.

bugalugs · #**766** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

The mere fact they are willing to fudge the facts to the media, even after Landsea's making them aware of the problem then dismissing what he had to say speaks volumes about their agenda. This was no accident, but what appears to be a calculated deception. Now that's credibility.

But after 4 re-edited versions, the latest of which still containing factual errors and several of the contributors still claiming they were misrepresented - you still seem to think that Durkins documentary is worth quoting.

Now that's credibility.

bugalugs · #**767** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:16 AM

Prof. Peabody,

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Who predicted in 2005 we'd be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming?

Who is predicting what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?

Do you know the difference between "climate" and "weather"?

?

Professor Peabody · #**768** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

He actually he said it was a mistake and fixed it right away - on 4 seperate occaisions! 4 different versions of that show have been broadcast a various times, as he has been forced to edit out his fabricated data.

But even after that - he still deliberately broadcast incorrrect data.

Watch these videos of Martin Durkin being interviewed by Tony Jones on the Australian ABC. His first major lie comes in around 5 minutes into the first video. Another good one around 2 min into the second video

Enjoy:
http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wor...windle-debate/

Transcript is here if you prefer:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...uly%202007.pdf

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a document to take seriously

I strongly recommend everyone read the interview transcript and Durkin's explanations.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...uly%202007.pdf

Hoo boy.

Quote:

MD
Oh what a neat line. We are quite happy to go out and be really pugitistive and debate the science with anyone who prepared to do it. The thing that makes me slightly sad is. Oh I can’t do that can I? The thing that makes me slightly sad is that you know there is this aggressiveness to anyone who comes up and says look, the science doesn’t necessarily stack up. Look at the evidence there.

TJ
Let's move on.

I read the whole transcript, it's worthless and proves nothing. Where are the lies? He explained why he didn't use the IPCC charts because it's flawed data. If you look at the solar radiance charts 1985 is the only time the solar radiance and temperature significantly diverge and that divergence is slight compared to the CO2 and temperature charts.

Why does the IPCC charts lop off the medieval warming period? Doesn't it fit their CO2 agenda? The carbon heads have an agenda, that is to create a new commodities market based on incomplete science and ramrod it through before the Earth shifts into the next cooling cycle, which it looks like it already has. Lots of people have lots of money at stake on the warming side. If the carbonites succeed, hang on to your wallets.

Quote:

On Carbon Dioxide, a Better Alternative

By Keith Crane and James Bartis
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
Thursday, November 29, 2007; 12:00 AM

In either case -- tax or trade -- electricity and gasoline prices would rise. A tax of $30 per ton -- a level MIT suggests would make clean coal technologies an attractive investment to power companies -- would raise gasoline prices by 35 cents per gallon and household electricity bills by 20 to 30 percent. Under cap and trade, prices would have to rise by the same amount to get the same result.

Keith Crane is a senior economist and James Bartis is a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112802160.html