Thousands gather for climate change rally in D.C.

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Still waiting for you to prove my chart wrong.

It's not necessarily that the data is wrong it's mostly that it is presented at an angle making any deviations difficult to see. One is around 1900 that shows temperature deviating from your CO2 increase.

That deviation and others does correlate with sun spots and cycle strength. If you go all the way back to the little ice age you'll see correlation with the sun. And, bear in mind there are different aspects to the sun's effects such as irradiance and solar magnetic field which have different effects on the earth's climate. You'll see much better correlation with temp and even just this irradiance chart than CO2. It's obvious to even the casual observer.

<img src=http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/23454/full/irradiance.gif width=500 height=360>

 

[pspr]

Here comes the problem. Other than the 11 year sunspot cycle, scientists don't seem to be able to predict the increases and decreases in the output from the sun. Here are a couple but they aren't very convencing as far as magnitude or what happens beyond a few years.

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/May_2011_Solar_Cycle_24_Prediction.gif/320px-May_2011_Solar_Cycle_24_Prediction.gif>

This one shows the cycle pattern going into the cold Dalton Minimum compared to the last 3 modern cycles. This is scary if it repeats.

<img src=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dalton_fig9.png>

 

[pspr]

And here is a solar prediction from a site called icecap.us . I'm sure they are the opposite of a global warming alarmist. LOL I haven't read the site to see what, if any, basis they have for this prediction.

<img src=http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Future_TSI.jpg>

 

[futurecurrents]

The chart I posted is easily read by a grade-school child. If you can't read it you have problems. The chart is correct and you cannot prove it wrong.

While solar has increased over the last three hundred years and has contributed to the rise in temps, over the last 50 years solar has gone down while temps have continued to go up. Because of the higher amount of CO2.

The amplitude of the recent temp rise dwarfs that of any solar and temperature variations over the last thousand years.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The chart I posted is easily read by a grade-school child. If you can't read it you have problems. The chart is correct and you cannot prove it wrong.

While solar has increased over the last three hundred years and has contributed to the rise in temps, over the last 50 years solar has gone down while temps have continued to go up. Because of the higher amount of CO2.

The amplitude of the recent temp rise dwarfs that of any solar and temperature variations over the last thousand years.

What part of CO2 lags global temperature by 800 years do you fail to understand?

Here is a link to help you out. It has reference links to the studies by scientists who clearly demonstrate that CO2 lags global temperature by 800 years.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

Our current CO2 levels are simply reflective of the global temperature peak that occurred in 1300AD.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The chart I posted is easily read by a grade-school child. If you can't read it you have problems. The chart is correct and you cannot prove it wrong.

While solar has increased over the last three hundred years and has contributed to the rise in temps, over the last 50 years solar has gone down while temps have continued to go up. Because of the higher amount of CO2.

The amplitude of the recent temp rise dwarfs that of any solar and temperature variations over the last thousand years.

Ha ha ha. Everything you have said above is wrong.

It seems you are the one who doesn't know how to read a chart. The charts I posted blow yours right out of the water. You don't even understand English or your comprehension is non existent.

Maybe you had better visit the link in the latest post in this thread. Not that you will understand it.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3748606#post3748606

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

What part of CO2 lags global temperature by 800 years do you fail to understand?

Here is a link to help you out. It has reference links to the studies by scientists who clearly demonstrate that CO2 lags global temperature by 800 years.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

Our current CO2 levels are simply reflective of the global temperature peak that occurred in 1300AD.

Ummmmm, not this time. It's different this time. Why can't you denier numbskulls understand that ?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

Ha ha ha. Everything you have said above is wrong.

It seems you are the one who doesn't know how to read a chart. The charts I posted blow yours right out of the water. You don't even understand English or your comprehension is non existent.

Maybe you had better visit the link in the latest post in this thread. Not that you will understand it.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3748606#post3748606

And still......this chart is correct. You can't prove it wrong because it is fact.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

And still......this chart is correct. You can't prove it wrong because it is fact.

But it doesn't say anything. Any apparent correlation is incidental.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Ummmmm, not this time. It's different this time. Why can't you denier numbskulls understand that ?

So you surrender to the facts we have presented. I understand. Good move.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:
...It's different this time....

LOL