On Apr 12, 3:00*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:38:01 +0100, Cwatters wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
* Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument,
* Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years
of climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even
have a hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models"
that were fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last
decade of non-warming.

I guess you haven't heard they attribute that to La Nina...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786060.stm

And what causes "La Nina"? Your argument is circular. I point out that we
are at a solar minimum and thus, by Svensmark's theory, the climate
should be colder.

The first guy denies that it was colder.

You admit it's colder but attribute the colder climate to the ... climate..

You guys are not logical. No wonder you believe this stuff.

Ever watch rivulets of rain water flowing down a window pane?
Sometimes they oscillate between two meta-stable flow patterns. Since
the correlation with outside input is not obvious, you could say "the
pattern causes the pattern". It's possible climate is like that
too... at least that some such behavior is part of the mix.

Just a thought.

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:38:29 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:


Let's judge:
Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis: Based on science that says it
can't work. Brief period of correlation during the 1990s. Used Curve
fitting to make pre determined conclusion fit their hypothesis. Fails
to predict.

Svensmark Theory: based on science that says it should work. Has 4.5
billion years of agreement. Predicted last 10 years as well.

Unbaised judgment: Svensmark's theory.

The whole IPCC hockey stick fraud was an attempt to fool people into
thinking that the solar correlation was broken in the late 1990s.
You appear to have some strong biases.

Let's see... Some Danish group publishes a paper that says that Solar
cycle and climate change is strongly correlated, much more strongly
correlated than CO2.

Advocates of AGW claim that there was a dramatic increase in Global
temperature that breaks the correlation found by the Danish group.

Danish group recants.

But people note that upper atmosphere data doesn't agree with the AGWs.
They study the AGW claim of dramatic increase and find: The data
included data from areas that once were rural but now are urban heat
islands. When the urban heat islands were removed, once again follows
the Danish groups correlation with solar cycle. The inclusion of UHI
was either gross stupidity, or outright fraud.



If you would be so kind as to cite your sources, I'd like to have a
read through of them. Thanks.


If you were really serious about it, you'd already know about the hockey
stick fiasco and the urban heat centers.

And Svensmark? All you had to do was Google.

nah. I've done this too many times before; give a bunch of cites, and
then you never dismiss them all in one massive argumentum ad hominem. Had
you not been playing this "waste the oppositions time" game, you'd have
looked them up yourself.


--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

erg wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:00 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:38:01 +0100, Cwatters wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument,
Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years
of climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even
have a hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models"
that were fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last
decade of non-warming.
I guess you haven't heard they attribute that to La Nina...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786060.stm
And what causes "La Nina"? Your argument is circular. I point out that we
are at a solar minimum and thus, by Svensmark's theory, the climate
should be colder.

The first guy denies that it was colder.

You admit it's colder but attribute the colder climate to the ... climate.

You guys are not logical. No wonder you believe this stuff.

Ever watch rivulets of rain water flowing down a window pane?

Or a car's windshield? Isn't that fascinating?
Sometimes they oscillate between two meta-stable flow patterns. Since
the correlation with outside input is not obvious, you could say "the
pattern causes the pattern". It's possible climate is like that
too... at least that some such behavior is part of the mix.

Just a thought.

Have you ever been able to predict which drops will collect and which
way the bigger drop will run?

/BAH

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:31:02 -0700, erg wrote:

On Apr 12, 3:00Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:38:01 +0100, Cwatters wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
Â* Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument,
Â* Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion
years of climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't
even have a hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer
models" that were fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to
predict the last decade of non-warming.

I guess you haven't heard they attribute that to La Nina...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786060.stm

And what causes "La Nina"? Your argument is circular. I point out that
we are at a solar minimum and thus, by Svensmark's theory, the climate
should be colder.

The first guy denies that it was colder.

You admit it's colder but attribute the colder climate to the ...
climate.

You guys are not logical. No wonder you believe this stuff.

Ever watch rivulets of rain water flowing down a window pane? Sometimes
they oscillate between two meta-stable flow patterns. Since the
correlation with outside input is not obvious, you could say "the
pattern causes the pattern". It's possible climate is like that too...
at least that some such behavior is part of the mix.

Just a thought.


Yeah. prove it.


--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization