Ultimate online climate tool. No, I'm not talking about myself.

Sunspots are irrelevant if they don't effect solar radiance, moron. The number of sunspots isn't as important as the size/effect they have on radiance. The radiance is what determines how hot or cold we get.

Irradiance from the sun is dropping and has been since the mid 70s. Ergo, there hasn't been a correlation between global temperatures and the sun since the 70s.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Sunspots are irrelevant if they don't effect solar radiance, moron. The number of sunspots isn't as important as the size/effect they have on radiance. The radiance is what determines how hot or cold we get.

Irradiance from the sun is dropping and has been since the mid 70s. Ergo, there hasn't been a correlation between global temperatures and the sun since the 70s.
Click to expand...

i tried t explain it above. they're relevent bcause the amount of cosmic rays they disrupt affects how much clouds form.
 
tinfoil said:
i tried t explain it above. they're relevent bcause the amount of cosmic rays they disrupt affects how much clouds form.
Click to expand...

Considering that I have shown you a direct correlation between solar activity and TEMPERATURE globally, you'll have to do something similar. So far, the argument looks like this:

Me: Solar activity -> Temperature
You: Solar activity -> sun spots -> cosmic rays -> cloud formation -> temperature

You have a lot of links to establish there and you've done none but show the link between sun spots and cloud formation. You have yet to take it one step further and demonstrate that it effects cloud formation to a degree that effects the temperature by any considerable amount.
 
Basically, your arguments are all totally hogwash and anyone who spends five minutes can see that. Then you respond with more nonsense and the discussion continues ad infinitum because you're dead set on not accepting the actual science here but would prefer to make unwarranted inferences from spurious bits of evidence you find scattered around the internets.

You, sir, are a bigger waste of time than Dixie.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Basically, your arguments are all totally hogwash and anyone who spends five minutes can see that. Then you respond with more nonsense and the discussion continues ad infinitum because you're dead set on not accepting the actual science here but would prefer to make unwarranted inferences from spurious bits of evidence you find scattered around the internets.

You, sir, are a bigger waste of time than Dixie.
Click to expand...

You are so ignorant
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=206468&sectioncode=26
 
a multi million dollar facility devoted to researching cosmic ray flux is spurious?

LOLers

You are seriuosly underinformed, camera boy
 
Temperatures are clearly rising like a rocket!

graph-Jan1719:10:596118774414.gif
 
tinfoil said:
graph-Jan1711:18:139786987304.gif


That 100 year trend just isn't that scary. If it continues, we might warm 2 degrees in 100 years. Or abut the same rate of warming since the last glacial period.
Click to expand...

Tinfoil, do you have any idea what a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees means? Do you have any idea the actual scale of that? Or is this just one of your "This number seems small so clearly it's irrelevant!" arguments?
 
Fap said:
Tinfoil, do you have any idea what a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees means? Do you have any idea the actual scale of that? Or is this just one of your "This number seems small so clearly it's irrelevant!" arguments?
Click to expand...

yes. it's within the same rate that we've been experiencing for over 10K years on average. that's why they call it an inter glacial period. Come on dude, give me some credit here. Jesus christ, you people think I'm an idiot. Screww you if you are uninformed.
 
Fap said:
Tinfoil, do you have any idea what a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees means? Do you have any idea the actual scale of that? Or is this just one of your "This number seems small so clearly it's irrelevant!" arguments?
Click to expand...

fappy,

how many ice ages do you believe have occurred?
 
Mr. Conservative said:
My point was that I can draw arbitrary lines between two points and get that line to go any which way I want.
Click to expand...

Again, to look at the past ten years is NOT arbitrary. It is a commonly used time period. You and others are the ones pulling arbitrary periods.

That said, when looking at something like temperature changes, you do want to look at multiple time periods and not just one. Thus, while the ten year chart can show recent trends, you want to also look at the past 20, 50, 100 etc...years to get a better overall picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top