Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You guys are just blowing smoke. Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research.

This says the opposite.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."

So, Harris-Mann guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point.

Earth Temperature back to 2200 BCE View attachment 2375724
Click to expand...
its not asking you to do the research you posted an unlabled unlinked graph saying its cloud effect

surely you could tell us where you got it from is it that hard?

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
^^^ thats not a scientific paper the graph it shows
"Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing."Browning described his climatic theories and findings in Climate and the Affairs of Men, which he co-authored with Nels Winkless III and published in 1975.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak"Climate: The Key to Understanding Business Cycles, Raymond H. Wheeler, Tide Press (1983)
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. every link i can find for this one links traces back to article


EDIT that graph hasnt even got temperature down the side
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Are you still lost? The link is for the PDO. The chart you are crazy about is the PDO, not clouds.

Trolls intentionally miss it all. You missed this. Drop back to Wheeler.

"Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s."

I'm providing examples of cycles. There is much, much more out there. But, it is all gleaned from specific trends in specific research. This takes a more upleveled, much more accessible historical view. Are you going to deny that there is any cyclical aspect at all?

Or do you perhaps say this chart has no basis at all? That you will have to show.

Your turn. Show anything that can present any long term cycles. Your best is 40 years of land heating data if I remember. I'll try to re-state in less words.

Until we know the periods we cannot draw conclusions. There is a lot of homework you can do on periodicy and statistical analysis as they pertain to short and long term feedback in the atmosphere heat cycles. But, there are no conclusions.

Trans-polar stratospheric exchanges and deep ocean trans-equatorial current exchanges are just barely discovered, much less understood. Much work to be done.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Are you still lost? The link is for the PDO. The chart you are crazy about is the PDO, not clouds.

I'm providing examples of cycles. There is much, much more out there. But, it is all gleaned from specific trends in specific research. This takes a more upleveled, much more accessible historical view. Are you going to deny that there is any cyclical aspect at all?

Or do you perhaps say this chart has no basis at all? That you will have to show.

Your turn. Show anything that can present any long term cycles. Your best is 40 years of land heating data if I remember. I'll try to re-state in less words.

Until we know the periods we cannot draw conclusions. There is a lot of homework you can do on periodicy and statistical analysis
as they pertain short and long term feedback in the atmosphere heat cycles. But, there are no conclusions.

Trans-polar stratospheric exchanges and deep ocean trans-equatorial current exchanges are just barely discovered, much less understood. Much work to be done.
Click to expand...
look at the chart and then point out where the temperature scale is

that link is not a scientific paper
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Or how about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice cores for cycles.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

"As judged from Vostok records, climate has almost always been in
a state of change during the past 420 kyr but within stable bounds
(that is, there are maximum and minimum values of climate
properties between which climate oscillates)."

They find gases and they make charts. They discuss rationally the feedback potentials including orbital forcing. But, they do not draw a conclusion.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
"warm" "very warm" "very cold"

your seriously putting that up expecting it to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
Oh, did we kick over your 4000 year old weather station? What a joke you are. It's is a proposition of relative values based on Wheeler, that's all, toad stool.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Or how about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice cores for cycles.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

"As judged from Vostok records, climate has almost always been in
a state of change during the past 420 kyr but within stable bounds
(that is, there are maximum and minimum values of climate
properties between which climate oscillates)."

They find gases and they make charts. They discuss rationally the feedback potentials including orbital forcing. But, they do not draw a conclusion.
Click to expand...
well done so we've established that climate has changed in the past im not sure if your trying to insinuate that im against that position but hey we got some where

are you trying to tell me that current climate scientists are unaware of this ice data?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Oh, did we kick over your 4000 year old weather station? What a joke you are. It's is a proposition of relative values based on Wheeler, that's all, toad stool.
Click to expand...
is that the standard of what your going to be bringing to the table? temperature stations labled "very hot" ?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
thats your be all and end all in proof that AGW is wrong?

bit of a cop out dont you think?
Click to expand...
You pretend to not listen, so I don't care. I said many times I have not set out to prove AGW wrong. Just saying it over and over means nothing. Like our President. Don't mean nothin'

You set this right-fight, but I'm not playing. It is a bit confusing when you are in AGW Religion and don't even know it. You expect to proselytize, preach to the choir, or crucify. So, ask a family member, phone a friend, or continue to feebly harass me. Don't mean nothin' Maybe change back to girlsih screams, because the fight is only in your mind. I don't care.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You pretend to not listen, so I don't care. I said many times I have not set out to prove AGW wrong. Just saying it over and over means nothing. Like our President. Don't mean nothin'

You set this right-fight, but I'm not playing. It is a bit confusing when you are in AGW Religion and don't even know it. You expect to proselytize, preach to the choir, or crucify. So, ask a family member, phone a friend, or continue to feebly harass me. Don't mean nothin' Maybe change back to girlsih screams, because the fight is only in your mind. I don't care.
Click to expand...
pretend not to listen??

i have diligently look at the links you have given me so that i can have a clearer idea what you are trying to get across

i have asked for the source3s of the graph you shown so i can have a better idea


if you try to feed me a shit sandwich like that cartoon graph and accompanying text then i am going to say something. im not just gonna agree blindly because you think i should

so we've got the ice core we know that there are natural cycles on earths temperature. wheres this "cloud effect" papers your talking about
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
I guess you just haven't read the entire thread? I'm done repeating myself. I'm done with the contrived contention that I'm trying prove or disprove anything. So, you can't seem to get your mind clear. Not my fault. Is this as feeble you can get in the harassment?

Good. I'm done.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I guess you just haven't read the entire thread? I'm done repeating myself. I'm done with the contrived contention that I'm trying prove or disprove anything. So, you can't seem to get your mind clear. Not my fault. Is this as feeble you can get in the harassment?

Good. I'm done.
Click to expand...
i've read a fair bit into the thread theres a whole bunch of graph's without links

theres a paper you posted on "Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation"

but that paper does not disprove global warming or prove a negative cloud effect

why did you make this thread if you werent trying to show something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top