http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag

Good little vid, stub.  Thanks for the link.

It seems that no one with a brain bothers to look at anything more than a few dozen years of data to make predictions over the next hundred years. I wrote about this almost two years ago and so far, it has proven true.

To summarize what I wrote: the sun is the source of heat in the solar system. The Earth is still coming out of the last big ice age from a billion years ago. NASA has proven this, meaning that the solar system is warming. NASA proved this 40 years ago and it seems the global warming people only want to use some of the data not all of it. Our planet along with all the other planets have been warming at the same rate so unless you can prove that we are warming all the planets because of man then man is not the cause of global warming. Yes, the planet is getting warmer and will continue to get warmer as the SUN expands. My estimates are 140k years before the oceans start to boil away. The experiments on the Moon in the 70’s confirm that it has already started and documented but again no one wants to look at old data. Look at the planet Venus, it has no humans yet it has boiled away almost all of its water. Look at the Sahara, it used to be green and lush valleys and is now a barren region what makes you think that we caused this? the climate has been changing for millennia yet people only want to focus on the last fifty years. How can you honestly say that the warming trend we are going through is caused by man when the planet has been proven to be warming for over a hundred million years? Man has only been around for the last ten thousand years. It is short sighted to point to man as the cause, or even as a contributing factor.

The SUN stopped having sunspots and we start cooling at the same time. This was predicted by science years ago and still we want to say it is man that caused warmth or cold. Yes, you can say man is the cause if you exclude volcanoes, the heat from the Sun, and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, then and only then can you point to man as the cause. Until then all we have is idiots running around screaming the sky is falling. Can we stop this warming or cooling? NO! Did man cause this warming or cooling? NO! Can man contribute to the warming or cooling? YES! In the same way that a mosquito bite contributes to a man with a slashed throat bleeding to death.

Solar forcings are also discussed here.

 

At least now we've had several Climate Alarmist Crocks of the Week to compete, so to speak.

The second video is from the same author and is in fact part of the same series as the video posted by stubby above that you seemed to like so much. The crock of the week is a different series and an entirely different author.

Funny how who posted the link matters more to you than the content of the video itself.

Did you in fact even bother to watch stubby's video, because it was fully supportive of Phil Jones *and* AGW.

You're right, that is funny, coming from a guy who has no interest in my opinion.  I have to laugh at your self-absorption, Mumble.

I said it was good, not that it was a definitive defense of AGW.  I happen to understand the concept of 'statistical significance' and it ain't all it's cracked up to be, let alone some holy grail, when it comes to establishing cause and effect relationships.  Besides, I've never said we weren't in the midst of a warming period; I think the evidence is pretty strong that we are (or, perhaps, have been), but it's not a slam dunk that this is the warmest it's ever been.  That Jones, Mann & the other principals providing the substantive underpinning of AR4 have been, shall we say, exagerating a bit seems pretty clear, however.

My scepticism has always been about what the warming is being used for - about the proposition that anthropogenic CO2 is the principal cause and that we must therefore do something drastic to our global economy, and further that doing that something will somehow fix it.  That piece of it has become a racket.

Oh, and stubby's never called me an asshole.

Ah, that explains it.

And of course I called you an asshole without any provocation on your part, at least as far as you remember.

Whatever floats your boat, my friend.

The planet has been warming since the end of the last big ice age. We have had warming spurts and cooling. Cherry picking is what they did to get man made global warming. Over the last hundred years, we are warming, over the last thousand years we are warming, over the last million years we have been warming, over the last 60 million years we have been warming. Over the last billion years, we have been warming. Man has only been the dominant species for the last 10k years. The last big ice age lasted a few hundred million to as much as two billion years. Sorry going off of memory here. To take a fifteen-year snap shot of our climate and say that not only is the planet warming but it is due to man is silly at best. Historical records are all we have and they are spotty at best. We have not had any comprehensive climate data until the early 1960's and we have not refined this data collecting method until the early 90's. When Dr. Jones says recently been cooling he means the last 15 years the same time that everyone was screaming man made global warming. We had a mild warming trend that peaked around 1995 and has been going down ever since. The data points to the world getting warmer, it points to the Sun contrary to your documentaries you graced us with. I will try to explain it again if you don't mind.

The Sun is getting older, as it ages it expands. With that expansion, we have a habitability zone, as the Sun expands the zone moves out with the expansion. The zone is about one hundred million miles wide at one time the zone covered the planet Venus and the Earth was in the cold. We are now at the back end of that zone. Mars is getting warmer because it is in the front of the zone, while Venus is so hot it boiled off all its water, The Earth will suffer the same fate as Venus. Eventually the Sun will expand and swallow Mercury, and then Venus. Scientists are still debating if the Earth will be swallowed up or not before the Sun dies but all agree that either way all life on Earth will be extinguished long before the Sun dies.

This expansion does not happen over night, it happens slowly over time. So you will see times when there is more expansion and times when there is less but it is still expanding like the child being measured for growth. For math purposes, it is accepted that the Sun is expanding about 10% per hundred or thousand years depending on whom you ask. The Sun is already a million miles across and is getting bigger. The expansion is due to reduced mass, from the consumption of fuel, this reduces its gravitational pull on itself and the planets in the system. The warming has been documented as far out as Pluto yet, we are told that the warming from the Sun is not all that important. No, Sun no heat, but don't pay attention to that minor fact. It is all man's fault. No credible scientist is saying that the Earth is not warming the argument is if man is the cause, a contributing factor, a negligible factor, or no factor at all. The IPCC's four reports on Man Made Global Warming, which is now called Climate Change, point to man playing a minor role in climate change, at a rate of, if all their data is correct and all their models are right on the mark, say that man will be responsible for a rise in average global temperatures by .006 of one degree over the next hundred years. This is what everyone is screaming about. Can any one here tell when the temp drops or raises .006 of a degree?

Now we find out that their data is not all that scientific. The numbers have been played with just to reach the .006-degree mark. The best they can do to predict the weather is 4 days out and they update that every day, the rest of your seven day forecast is educated guesses that are close but they get to amend them each day. with that in mind i find it hard to believe that we can tell with any certainty what the weather will be like 100 years from now, warmer or cooler. We don't have 100 years of data to work with for guesses that big. We have almost 30 years of good data so far and we still don't have world wide data only data in populated areas of the world and even that does not go back a full 30 years.

How about trying it with a citation or two to back up your unsupported claims.

Of course it does and it's output changes in a number of different cyclic and non-cyclic ways as it does so. However to assume that the sun is essentially the only forcing factor in climate is both simplistic and wrong.

"It is accepted." Classic. And for math purposes no less. Those three words typically introduce the most god awful bullshit possible and this time is no exception. By whom is this accepted and who precisely did you ask?

What in god's name are you talking about? The sun is expanding in *size* i.e. radius, or volume, or output or what every 100 to 1000 years? You have got to supply some citation for this because this is just nuts.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun "the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising." That's 10% every BILLION years. Also "The increase in solar temperatures is such that already in about a billion years, the surface of the Earth will become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life." Also see Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited.

Of course then having setup this sun centric model of climate that increases by 10% every 100 years you make no conclusion and simply jump to the following undocumented claim about the IPCC reports.

Show me.

Show me where in the IPCC report it says the human contribution of global warming is .006 degree over the next 100 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007

From the above link the best case IPCC prediction is 1.1 - 2.9 °C by 2100 and that presumes measures that no one at this point seems willing to take. The more likely scenarios are within the 1.4 - 6.4 °C range by 2100. As far as what portion is due to human activity is not stated in the wiki summary but it does state that "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations" and "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium." This is hardly .006 degree in 100 years.

[quote who="Mumblefratz" reply="10" id="2541804"]”Yeah, yeah. More garbage from Watts and D'Aleo, full of errors per usual.
Since you don't bother to provide any reference to this unnamed report I guess I'll have to do it for you.

The 111 page report itself is Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, both infamous deniers with documented ties to ExxonMobil and whose expertise is pretty much limited to having been TV weathermen. Of course this is not a peer reviewed article nor would any reputable journal publish such drivel.[quote]

Which shows 2 things immediately:

1. You dont know what you are talking about.  They are skeptics, not deniers.

2. Then why Was the Work of Watt stolen by Dr.Menne? And then they could not even get the raw data right!

Clearly the only denier is Grant Foster who is more of a raving denier of facts than anyone else you list (or was that supposed to be a secret who Tamino is?)

You see the only deniers in this are those so blinded by their religious faith that they cannot even acknowlege a point when it does not contradict their dogma!  But the APPEARANCE that it may sends them into fits of rage, right MF?

Dig and dig?  They are up to over 24 errors in the AR4 (and just starting to look at AR3) without hardly trying!  But then I guess digging through 2600 pages of dogma is dig and dig to the faithful!

But even better is you using opinion to argue against facts!  The "rebuttal" you quote offers no quantative rebuttal to D'aleo and Watt, just some smoke and mirror opinions lacking in factual basis!  But since it comes from your gods, you take it as facts!  You have lost all comprehension of facts versus opinion, but then that is nothing new.

Sorry I was on vacation and did not check to see what "opinions" MF was dealing as facts before today.

Don't you love how the "deniers" of truth always resort back to Wiki, even though it has been proven They had an inside man at that site making sure that only the religious answers got published?

 

Paladin, check your mail - re: Silent Thunder