muf.

quote:

Am I missing something here?

That’s up to you to decide. Personally, I’d appreciate a better forensic analysis of the subject.

Best regards, suricat.

muf.

Guess I owe you a better explanation now that I’ve researched the graph that you linked.

The source of your graph isn’t exactly what I would call a credible source.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Yes, even a .gif image usually reveals its source page on the web, but that’s not to say that the graph isn’t accurate, only that its source may be brought to question.

You ought to realise that internal politics within the climate fraternity places a question mark on temps for this time period. A look at the CA main blog only shows this too well.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411#more-7411

There are certainly questions that need to be answered as to the vertical polarity of some important images (among other things).

You seem to place importance on anthropogenic CO2. Where I’m concerned, the ‘warming’ properties of CO2 are no longer up for debate. Without the radiative atmospheric gasses all atmospheric heat transfer would rely on convection, which means that Earth would be subjected to more advection (winds) as well. Where CO2 absorbs, it also emits in more than one direction. Thus, it moves heat without the need for the dispersion of any atmospheric mass. IOW, it aids the cooling of atmospheric mass.

Perhaps a better outlook would be to understand a bit about palaeoclimatology. Doug L. Hoffman has a blog where he is trying to improve his book sales.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change

That’s his ‘Grand View’, but nearly half way down the page you’ll find a graph describing global temp over the ages. It isn’t a finely dated graph, but it shows what we may well be expected to encounter. There’s also a CO2 graph there (notice that the graphs are all at roughly the same time scale). Doug needs to be ‘credible’ for his book sales, so feel free to browse the rest of the site.

Best regards, suricat.

Yet another post that was ruined by a site that claims to run as an ‘Eve’ site, but doesn’t!

That’s it! I’m out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Propaganda Techniques
 
Run both sides of the argument up against these tests and see how badly AGW [both 'pro & con'] scans out!?!?
I think that we're being led a merry dance on Global warming and which ever way it pans out 'You' will end up losing!! 

maybe its time to stop picking sides and start fighting oppression!!?!

muf.

quote:

Run both sides of the argument up against these tests and see how badly AGW [both 'pro & con'] scans out!?!?
I think that we're being led a merry dance on Global warming and which ever way it pans out 'You' will end up losing!!

I concur absolutely! The UK has been lulled into the acceptance of EU mandates irrespective of the UK electorate’s decision (e.g.. no referendum on the subject of a positive EU agenda). The carbon trading agreements of the EU are grossly detrimental to the UK.

Whereas two decades ago I proffered the UK as a platform between the USA and Europe as a way forward, I now see this as a hindrance with the UN in its quest towards a world governance. All it has achieved is to alienate worldly cultures! We need a spiritually conjoining thread of understanding to overcome this.

quote:

maybe its time to stop picking sides and start fighting oppression!!?!

I hope you don’t really expect me to pick a side in a science debate, but the ‘oppression’ side of things is definitively political.

Vivre la liberté!

Best regards, suricat.

Just look at this muf.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

"When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground."

Surely every individual needs to input their democratic preference as to their acceptance or inacceptance of this EU policy that becomes automatically applicable to all parties (states) within the EU?

Let’s have a UK ‘referendum’!

Please note! This policy is driven by the UN’s mandate for global government. Thus, all EU states should (in theory) vote on EU compliance.

Best regards, suricat.

Thanks for that suricat
Very long but very interesting!
The propaganda is well underway in this country.

muf.



Enough politicking. Yesterday I read the best explanation of GHE (greenhouse effect) that I’ve ever seen. It was linked to a thread in the Climate Audit forum and can be found here.



Understanding this model of Earth’s atmosphere makes it a lot easier to understand Miskolczi’s theory on the relationship between CO2 and WV (water vapour) in our atmosphere as maintaining a ‘constant optical depth’ (CO2 being heavy and WV being light)! I think Son of Mulder would be interested in this link as well, if we could find him! This relationship shows WV only as a negative feedback to CO2 warming.



Best regards, suricat.



PS. I’m testing site systems with this post, so if it goes wrong you’ll need to excuse me.

Well that was a lousy attempt! I'm beginning to hate this place!


Just in case the link doesn't work the URL is:
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745

Worse still!!! The URL paste worked this time!!!

Excellent blog that suricat
 
followed a link off there and ended up with this


from JMs blog

muf.

quote:

followed a link off there and ended up with this

Yes, I found that as well muf. That may well be the ‘most longest lived molecule’ of CO2, but it certainly isn’t the ‘average life’ as presented of the ‘other’ gasses represented there.

Best regards, suricat..

From what I've read suricat it would appear that temperature has more to do with pressure than anything else so assuming that the people in the know are not completely thick and they know this also, what am I missing??

muf.

quote:

what am I missing??

World government!!

Best regards, suricat.

I went [honestly!] searching about 18 months ago for the effects of UV on AGW and all I came up with [consistently] was 'global governance'
 
I've got it narrowed down to two groups though the first seems more cohesive and focused:
1: Some kinda leftist/democratic elite(usual suspects)
2: Some kinda right wing/probably working [loosely] with the above, elite(usual antagonists)
It reminded me of a story I read visa-vis 'Roswell' where a general was asked about an alien space ship crashing to which he laughed the question off as 'fanciful'!!
A few days later the same general (wish I could remember his name!!) came back stating that there was no truth in rumours that there had been a  UFO sighting and crash over Roswell even though by then the story was dead and no one had mentioned it!! The next headline was 'Govt. denies UFO crash' and we all know where that story went!
Going back, why would two seemingly opposing groups be working together? I don't think they are! I think they are letting AGW run even though the science is so thin and then they will battle it out in the end-game for final dominance.Ultimately I think that we're being 'played' in the interim as pawns!!
 
*may edit this*

muf.

quote:

*may edit this*

I wouldn’t blame you. If I’d made that post it would’ve consisted of the first two lines, only.

The UN is ‘culpable’ simply by virtue of its ‘mandate’ and ‘agenda’! Surely these are the two reasons that hinder the progress of the UN in many spheres.

　

Here’s another falsification of IPCC claims that Himalayan glaciers are calving towards their extinction (yep, its Doug again);

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

This doesn’t mention any UV effect, but I still maintain that UV is a potent mediator of ‘glacial slippage’ for glaciers with little debris content and is also a warming factor for glaciers with a lot of debris content. Though the current low sunspot manifestation is a negative for glacial slippage (etc.) and a positive towards UV’s effect in this area (due to low UV and low ‘glacial slippage’/’ice melt&rsquo.

Best regards, suricat.

muf.

God only knows why my link wasn’t made active again. I’m really getting pissed off with this site and all of its malfunctions!!!

I also have a problem with my epilogue! You’ve read this, but it isn’t what I posted! Here it is with a ‘space’ between each character to foil BB scrip, Java, etc (it really buggers the ‘line wrap’ syntax as well):

"T h i s d o e s n ’ t m e n t i o n a n y U V e f f e c t , b u t I s t i l l m a i n t a i n t h a t U V i s a p o t e n t m e d i a t o r o f ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h l i t t l e d e b r i s c o n t e n t a n d i s a l s o a w a r m i n g f a c t o r f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h a l o t o f d e b r i s c o n t e n t . T h o u g h t h e c u r r e n t l o w s u n s p o t m a n i f e s t a t i o n i s a n e g a t i v e f o r g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ( e t c . ) A n d a p o s i t i v e t o w a r d s U V ’ s e f f e c t i n t h i s a r e a ( d u e t o l o w U V a n d l o w ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ / ’ i c e m e l t ’ ) .

 

B e s t r e g a r d s , s u r i c a t .

Well, I expect that to be correct, but what the hell is "&rsquo"????

　

Best regards, suricat.

PS. This was a nightmare scenario for my ‘spell checker’ so I didn’t use the ‘spell check’. Sorry if there were any typos!
More! the site has ignored double spaces! This makes my last post even harder to read.

As You know for C4, I concur, fully
How long before the science catches up?

muf.

quote:

How long before the science catches up?

Without ‘tuition’ (of the voting masses), your guess is as good as mine!

Education, education, education. That ‘must’ be the way forward!

Best regards, suricat.

Looks like a whole new can of worms has been opened