Global Warming and sunshine

This graphic really ends the thread. TSI and temperature have diverged over several decades. Mop tried to claim that TSI was responsible for temperature increases and he is, once again, wrong and badly misinformed.

The rest is just window dressing and demonstrating how much smarter I am than you guys (as if this is really difficult). The dog stuff was more for personal amusement.

Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
 
The dogs weren't needed for amusement - you're cheap entertainment without the goofy props.

Anyone else want to answer what pasotex refuses to address now?
 
For a supposed scientist you sure think in very simplistic and binary terms. Your last post revealed a very juvenile part of you that has not yet matured. I can't decide if that means you are just some young kid in his 20's or if you are an older guy who still thinks like a kid. Regardless, you are not answering the questions except in a way that I could answer them too if I wanted to make your point. That doesn't impress me very much as there is another side to the question.

If you are at all knowledgeable about this specific aspect of the AGW debate you are probably aware of the Scafetta Wilson paper from 2009. They are convinced that there IS a link between TSI and warming and published a peer-reviewed paper suggesting as much:

There conclusion was the following:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I showed he was wrong (or in reality that his claims were utterly dubious since he won't produce his code and TSI is down) much earlier in the thread. You ignored it. Rinse, wash, repeat.
 
Can you read?

Reread the thread and get back to me. Raydog nails it. There are also links that include peer reviewed material.

I would suggest you click on them. Here is a newer one:

The Link
 
Oooohh, linking to John Cooks skepticalscience ? Totally unbiased viewpoints there! LOL you're too damn easy boy, I say, I say BOY!

Alrighty, back to your WOW friends - get your focus, it's scary out there!
 
seriously? the best you could do was post to a Skeptical Science blog posting? That's not peer-reviewed and you know it. Just because they reference some peer reviewed studies does not begin to mean they have refuted the Scafetta-Wilson piece. I am holding you to the standard you constantly hold me to and you are failing miserably. This study has been out for 3 years and there is not yet a peer-reviewed study refuting it? hmmm. consider me more impressed with the study than ever.
 
The prudent question would be do YOU read and fully comprehend the links you've posted. Because if you're going to base undeniable, undisputable, irrefutable truth upon what you're posting, then you need to check 'yo 'sef


oooh lookie, a media linkThe Link

btw, what was your high score today - you must've had a good run

NEXT!
 
I love watching so-called dispassionate science advocates getting emotional and resorting to ad hominem attacks. Its very entertaining.
 
great point. I am constantly amazed at how the "scientists" on this board engage in these discussions.
 
Interesting. A new study out in Environmental Research letters again raises questions about the Sun and cloud formation as a major component of climate change. The results suggest there is much that we don't yet understand. This shouldn't surprise anyone, but perhaps it will for those who are convinced that we have virtually "conquered" all knowledge on global climate. Once again, we are reminded how precious little we know and how far we need to go before we have a comprehensive understanding of what all is entailed in the climate.

Environmental Research letters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top