@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @BrianK Quote: When you want to treat science with the same criteria no matter the outcome give us a call. and in today's news: Dust plays role in warmer global temps: study A decrease in airborne dust and volcanic emissions has contributed to warming the North Atlantic Ocean in the past three decades, a study showed. Link

Yeah - and the documentation I mentioned a few postings earlier sees this as a immense danger.
There are huge deposits of frozen methane hydrate in the ground of the oceans.
As long as pressure and temperature stay constant, all is fine.
But if ocean temperature increases, those deposits will melt and the methane gas (whose greenhouse effect is several magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of CO2) will be released to the atmosphere.

There have already been reports on methane gas leaking from the bottom of the oceans - so ocean temperature doesn`t seem to be far away from the melting point of those methane hydrate deposits.

And then we have have huge areas of permafrost, where also methane hydrate deposits are included.

Needless to say that those permafrost areas are thawing at an increasing speed.

The report said that if all these methane hydrate deposits would melt and release their methane to the atmosphere, mean annual temperature could rise by 15 degrees Celsius within one decade...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Those with eyes should look and those with ears should listen...

I guess it is valuable for anyone.

Quote:

And this list included the paper at hand - so - of course someone "has said this particular article was peer-reviewed":

A cut and paste error from me sorry. The original peer-reviewed paper is the one just above this faulty one.

Quote:

Eeeerrrrrrmmmmmmmmm - my question on the benefit of any AGW propaganda was not referring to any editorial - it was meant in general...

So is the editorial I quoted...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Interesting ... Not a single word of CO².

It seems to me that only AGW supporters believe that GW supporters think that Global Warming is mainly caused by CO²...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy
No worries.. The ocean temp has been decreasing over the last few years.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK A perfectly correct, true, accurate, relevant and objective statement: not a single word of CO² in this full paper dealing with ocean temperature fluctuations and that correctly uses observational data to drive a physical model (not the other way round used by full fledged crackpot pseudo-scientists and acknowledged by their smaller and smaller horde of blind believers). .../... Bye, TMTisFree

Ahhhhh - now I see:
THAT`S what you call "proper and honest Science"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: BrianK wrote: Certainly you throw out things because they don't meet your criteria. What's with this heavy handed approach that our criteria can only match yours? Only when criteria is proper and honest Science.

Last edited by Dandy on 05-Apr-2009 at 09:16 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... Quote: Your graph wasn't based on real data Twisting facts as usual. The graph is based on real quantitative data you do not have access to, ...

Hmmmmm - that somehow sounds familiar.
Reminds me of the "pro AInc"-fraction here, where some of it`s members claimed to know AInc have something big in the pipeline, but are not allowed to speak about it, as they are bound by NDAs, contracts or the like...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Like the "Alps without glaciers"-paper?

I just see you miss the important point in the paper's title: the title is not "Alps without glaciers", it is "Alps without glaciers?" See the difference?

Btw it is a paper from a book entitled "Die Alpen! Les Alpes!" with a lecture comity and available here. So not a real peer-reviewed paper, but a scientific paper based on a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific book written by scientists and lectured/edited by scientists. The king of book usually published by academic scientists.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

It seems to me that only AGW supporters believe that GW supporters think that Global Warming is mainly caused by CO²...

It seems you have not completely recovered from your surgery, or has the surgeon cut some other important part too?

Quote:

THAT`S what you call "proper and honest Science"...

You don't like my ads, do you? It is a little bit provocative, but anyone with a full brain should understand the difference between advertisement and Science.

Quote:

Hmmmmm - that somehow sounds familiar.

You mean like changing the paper's title from "Alps without glaciers?" to "Alps without glaciers"? Correct.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... Quote: Its a hard fact you can`t simply discuss away that the alps had glaciers at a height of 3210m during the Roman period - big enough to keep Ötzi`s body frozen. Sure. It is also hard fact that the place where IceMan were found is not the same as the mountain described in the article.

But the same massive.
You`re not trying to imply that one mountain had glaciers, while the surrounding mountains of the same massive had not, are you?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: But I KNOW from my own observations and experiences that the climate here has been warming during the 5+ decades of my lifespan so far. You are that old? Just kidding! Have you a record of the past temperatures? Because without...

Yes.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: It was just today the news had it that the Wilkins Ice Shelf (which has an area of 13,000 square kilometers) is breaking up faster and faster due to the warmer climate. And? What is the relationship with CO²? Because if you have none, that the climate changes or ice melts is like saying sun heats.

O.K. - let me try it this way:
CO² is one of the greehouse gases (and by far not the strongest one) that contribute to GW aside from other reasons like e.g. terrestrial orbit changes and sunspot activity.

While mankind currently has near to no way to influence methane release to the atmosphere (aside perhaps from avoiding farting) or to influence the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (stop breathing & sweating?) or to change the terrestrial orbit or to increase sunspot activity, it has the abilty to reduce/avoid CO² release to the atmosphere.

We have found ways to pollute the atmosphere with CO² with our fossile fuels burning technologies - so all we have to do to reduce/avoid CO² emission is to stop to walk on this way.

So - if we want to do something against GW, reducing CO² emissions is the only option I can see so far.

Or can you come up with ideas to influence the other factors?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Last night there was an interesting documentation on German TV about periodic climate changes on our planet in the past. It was shown that earth`s orbit changes between circular and elliptical and that this causes the natural climate changes. IIRC, the reason for the orbit changes is intensity of the sunspot activity. This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AGW. Uh? Humans already have colonized other planets?

May I ask where you got this idea from?
Star Treck?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: If the orbit is more circular, the climate is warm - and if the orbit is more elliptical, the climate is cold. Scientists have found out beyond doubt, that there is not just the 11 year cycle between minimum and maximum of sunspot activity, but also a cycle of several hundred years when there is no sunspot activity at all. It was said that this caused the "little ice age" during mediaeval times and that we are just again approaching such an period of no sunspot activity. Mostly correct.

And you`re not asking yourself why the polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting, while the climate should become cooler by the missig sunspot activity?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: The fact that the climate currently is nevertheless warming instead of cooling is credited to human activity by the vast majority of the climate scientists, they said. Ha-ha!, the passport's sentence to be able to diffuse the documentary as being acceptable (read politically correct).

Hmmmm - not sure what my or any other passport has to do with this matter...


EDIT: Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 05-Apr-2009 at 09:55 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... Quote: Eeeerrrrrrmmmmmmmmm - my question on the benefit of any AGW propaganda was not referring to any editorial - it was meant in general... So is the editorial I quoted...

Yeah - but what I was waiting for was not a quote of some editorials, it was an answer to my question, you know?
(Please stay on topic)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

But the same massive. You`re not trying to imply that one mountain had glaciers, while the surrounding mountains of the same massive had not, are you?

It is a possibility: do you know the orientation of the mountains given both locations?

Quote:

Yes.

Good. Are you sure your measurements are not biased in any way (no UHI, same time of measure for 50 years, diurnal and nocturnal, no tree around, no air conditioner, no chimney, no land usage changes around etc)? Is your weather station a standardized one?

Quote:

CO² is one of the greehouse gases (and by far not the strongest one) that contribute to GW

Biiip: that is just an hypothesis based on bad correlation with temperature within a time period less than "it is commonly accepted by climatologists, 30 years, and that is short enough to reflect climate changes while long enough to discount short term weather variability", dixit BrianK.

Quote:

While mankind currently has near to no way to influence methane release to the atmosphere

I am sure my cows release methane.

Quote:

it has the abilty to reduce/avoid CO² release to the atmosphere

Sure. But for which goal? A political one or a scientific one?

Quote:

We have found ways to pollute the atmosphere with CO² with our fossile fuels burning technologies - so all we have to do to reduce/avoid CO² emission is to stop to walk on this way.

First, it is not currently proved that fuels come from fossils and even if it is, fuels have been produced by nature so are natural per definition which implies, second, that CO² is not a pollutant and, third, that your conclusion is erroneous based on 1 and 2/.

Quote:

So - if we want to do something against GW, reducing CO² emissions is the only option I can see so far.

The correct way to deal with a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Quote:

May I ask where you got this idea from?

It is your idea: Quote:

This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AGW.

What do you think AGW mean? Changes on other planets of our solar system to support Anthropogenic Global Warming? Really sure?

Quote:

And you`re not asking yourself why the polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting, while the climate should become cooler by the missig sunspot activity?

I am asking myself what is so confuse with you. Check your facts before saying such wrong claims. And what has the lack of sunspot to do with climate?

Quote:

Hmmmm - not sure what my or any other passport has to do with this matter...

This 'passport' is an obligatory metaphor to say that the producer of the documentary has to put something related to AGW to be able to pass the censure. Reread the last sentence:Quote:

The fact that the climate currently is nevertheless warming instead of cooling is credited to human activity by the vast majority of the climate scientists, they said.

The current trend is cooling since 1998 not warming.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: It seems to me that only AGW supporters believe that GW supporters think that Global Warming is mainly caused by CO²... It seems you have not completely recovered from your surgery,

You`re right - tomorrow I will get the stitches taken out.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: or has the surgeon cut some other important part too?

Hmmmmmm - good question - let me see:
Hand and all five fingers still there - so I`d say no as far as I can see...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: THAT`S what you call "proper and honest Science"... You don't like my ads, do you? It is a little bit provocative, but anyone with a full brain should understand the difference between advertisement and Science.

I forgot to add the smiley and had to edit my post to add it.
Seems you have been faster with your reply.
Sorry - my fault - didn`t mean to upset you.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Hmmmmm - that somehow sounds familiar. You mean like changing the paper's title from "Alps without glaciers?" to "Alps without glaciers"? Correct.

Dropping the question mark accidently in the translating- and copy/paste procedure (may I remind you you made a copy/paste mistake yourself?) is by far not so dramatic than this sentence in the paper:
"Had they [the glaciers] even partially disappeared completely?"

What now - partially disappeared or completely?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Yeah - but what I was waiting for was not a quote of some editorials, it was an answer to my question, you know?

Your question: Quote:

Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what?

To reply to your question, you have to see around who are the main actors of the mess and what they are after. You will see that all of the show is consistent with money and ideology, not Science.

Hints: Gore, Strong, Obama, Strong and Gore's business: Chicago Climate Exchange and Generation Investment Management LLP, the ideology, etc

Now, no one will prevent you to continue believing...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Dropping the question mark accidently in the translating- and copy/paste procedure (may I remind you you made a copy/paste mistake yourself?)

My error has appeared not to be entirely one.

Quote:

"Had they [the glaciers] even partially disappeared completely?"

From which paper? The German paper I think: could you please put the original German sentence here (I learnt German language for 5-6 years, it is probably rusty now but we never know)?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: But the same massive. You`re not trying to imply that one mountain had glaciers, while the surrounding mountains of the same massive had not, are you? It is a possibility: do you know the orientation of the mountains given both locations?

What do you mean with "orientation of the mountains"?
All the mountains point to the sky - but that`s certainly not what you mean...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Yes. Good. Are you sure your measurements are not biased in any way (no UHI, same time of measure for 50 years, diurnal and nocturnal, no tree around, no air conditioner, no chimney, no land usage changes around etc)?

Hmmmmm - why should there be "no tree around, no air conditioner, no chimney, no land usage changes around"?

Most wheather stations have trees around, some air conditioners and chimneys nearby and land usage changes around - e.g. the wheather station at Cologne Airport...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Is your weather station a standardized one?

Yes.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: CO² is one of the greehouse gases (and by far not the strongest one) that contribute to GW Biiip: that is just an hypothesis based on bad correlation with temperature within a time period ...

No - it is commonly accepted by the scientific community - except by a few AntiGlobalWarming fascists, perhaps...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: While mankind currently has near to no way to influence methane release to the atmosphere I am sure my cows release methane.

Find a way to stop them from doing so...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: it has the abilty to reduce/avoid CO² release to the atmosphere Sure. But for which goal? A political one or a scientific one?

Ahhhh - now we start dicussing my question what benefit the AntiGlobalWarming propaganda has at all.

What would you prefer - saving some money by not doing anything, but having to die by the consequences of the disclaimed GW or spending all your money on the environment and survive?

And don`t come and tell that its all just a unprooven hypothesis - it might be too late if you wait for the proof - you might be "grilled" before a result is in sight.

If you prefer to wait for the proof you can as well play Russian roulette...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: We have found ways to pollute the atmosphere with CO² with our fossile fuels burning technologies - so all we have to do to reduce/avoid CO² emission is to stop to walk on this way. First, it is not currently proved that fuels come from fossils

You`re right - fuel comes from the gasoline station.

You must be kidding...

Are you trying to re-write the chapter about the genesis of crude oil?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: and even if it is, fuels have been produced by nature so are natural per definition

No sir.

Millions of years ago the sun made trees and other plants grow.
When the land with such forests dropped below sea level in the course of millions of years, the wood was more and more covered by sediments, which compressed and heated it and so generated gas, crude oil, turf, brown coal, coal up to the point where temperature and pressure are sufficiant to generate diamonds.

Today we drill holes, pump the crude oil up and burn it.

This way we fetch the sunshine from millions of years ago and let it "shine" in addition to the daily sunlight.

This way we are "lighting up thousands to millions of suns" every day simultanously since the beginning of industrialisation - and THIS is being far, far away from being natural...

If you insist to approach the problem in a scientific way, you have to look at it this way.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: which implies, second, that CO² is not a pollutant

If you want to judge wether CO2 is a pollutant or not you have to look at its effective heat capacity.
Or just try to breathe pure CO2 - if you survive 5 minutes I`ll agree that CO2 is not an pollutant.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: and, third, that your conclusion is erroneous based on 1 and 2/.

Which I just refuted.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: So - if we want to do something against GW, reducing CO² emissions is the only option I can see so far. The correct way to deal with a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Go and play Russian roulette - nice to have known you...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: May I ask where you got this idea from? It is your idea:

I`m sure you can point me to where I said so.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AntiGlobalWarming. What do you think AGW mean?

Sorry - I translated it as "Anti Global Warming", but just saw that this was wrong and it actually means "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
My mistake.

Please read all my previous mentioning of "AGW" as "Anti Global Warming".

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Changes on other planets of our solar system to support Anthropogenic Global Warming? Really sure?

This was not my claim.
Someone else claimed that earlier in this thread.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: And you`re not asking yourself why the polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting, while the climate should become cooler by the missig sunspot activity? I am asking myself what is so confuse with you. Check your facts before saying such wrong claims. And what has the lack of sunspot to do with climate?

One or two postings ago you commented my explanation as "Mostly correct" - so you see me confused now that you now make a 180-degree turn...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Hmmmm - not sure what my or any other passport has to do with this matter... This 'passport' is an obligatory metaphor to say that the producer of the documentary has to put something related to AGW to be able to pass the censure. Reread the last sentence: Quote: The fact that the climate currently is nevertheless warming instead of cooling is credited to human activity by the vast majority of the climate scientists, they said. The current trend is cooling since 1998 not warming.

Yeah - in the junk science papers from the "Anti Global Warming" fraction perhaps...

BTW:
Didn`t you just say one or two postings ago that at least an period of 30 years is required to be able to talk of a "trend"???
You can`t have it both ways...

Edit:
changed "AGW" to "AntiGlobalWarming"

Last edited by Dandy on 05-Apr-2009 at 11:55 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 05-Apr-2009 at 11:52 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dropping the question mark accidently in the translating- and copy/paste procedure (may I remind you you made a copy/paste mistake yourself?) My error has appeared not to be entirely one.

The same with my error - no matter if with or without question mark - the direction in which it points is the same...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: "Had they [the glaciers] even partially disappeared completely?" From which paper? The German paper I think: could you please put the original German sentence here (I learnt German language for 5-6 years, it is probably rusty now but we never know)?

Waren sie sogar zum Teil ganz verschwunden?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

As you disagreed on MWP.

At this time the length of the WMP seem to not match comparing any 1 landmass to another. In addition, the starting dates and ending dates on each land mass appear to be different. Personally yes I want to see more work at understanding and defining when this period was truly a global occurrance. To date there are some regional indications that some areas might have been warmer than today but the evidence that this was a Global phenonmena is, IMO, still under research.

Quote:

The profound sense of Kuhn's claim is that it will never be what you call a 'scientific consensus' because of the very fact that any scientific truth will always have opponents who will question it: this is the way Science works and this a a good thing

First we are in agreement that it is a good thing.
To the heart of the matter the problem is your incorrect use of unanimous for 'scientific consensus'. Scientific consensus is the general agreement of the collective position in a theory by scientists in that field. It's not the unanimous view, as you said that never exists.

Varous of your points you list are false. For example (2) you posted the UAH data, and others, which demonstrated temperature rises since 1998. And certainly temps haven't been falling since 2001. Again you agreed in a previous post of peak in 2007. So clearly you agreed, and rightly so, that temps have risen since 2001. But now you post that dreck?

Quote:

It does not prove it is wrong.

You're free to do your work however. But, take some responsibility to say they define it as X and I define it as Y and we both call it Z. It helps stop the confusion you inbed into conversations...

Quote:

Not a problem though: Mann has now recognized the occurrence of MWP, he has merely debunked his past work based on wrong statistics, thus acknowledging with Pr Wegmann's report which was just, and now is more, right.

How and what Mann does remains to be seen. And how he does it may be more akin to Wegmann it may be more off. Nice loaded guesses...

Quote:

It is not a study in the scientific meaning of the word

So any area of study is under science and science defines what a study is? I hope you see your present circular definition.

Quote:

Given that to you Mathematics is not a Science, there is little to no doubt you don't understand the difference.

If you actually read how I defined the two this shouldn't be a problem. Of course the scientific consensus of how these are defined may well differ.

@Dandy

Quote:

Not sure what you`re trying to say with that...

Sorry go back to the last thread and you read the 2-3 pages of quotes from TMTiF trying to prove to us that the tinfoil hat wearing moonbattery conspiracy theory of GW creating their own secret religion to try and take over the world.

@Dandy

Quote:

What do you mean with "orientation of the mountains"?

You know South, East, West, etc.

Quote:

Hmmmmm - why should there be "no tree around, no air conditioner, no chimney, no land usage changes around"? Most wheather stations have trees around, some air conditioners and chimneys nearby and land usage changes around - e.g. the wheather station at Cologne Airport...

Have a look here.

Quote:

No - it is commonly accepted by the scientific community - except by a few AntiGlobalWarming fascists, perhaps...

That is the mantra of the few remaining Anthropogenic Glogal Warming (AGW) ecoterrorists except it is untrue as demonstrated in my previous posts if you search a bit..

Quote:

Ahhhh - now we start dicussing my question what benefit the AntiGlobalWarming propaganda has at all. What would you prefer - saving some money by not doing anything, but having to die by the consequences of the disclaimed GW or spending all your money on the environment and survive? And don`t come and tell that its all just a unprooven hypothesis - it might be too late if you wait for the proof - you might be "grilled" before a result is in sight. If you prefer to wait for the proof you can as well play Russian roulette...

Ahhh, the big scary marketing campaign by the neo-catastrophysicists...

Quote:

Are you trying to re-write the chapter about the genesis of crude oil?

Others have done it before: check the previous thread. It is not because your mind is comfortably formated with old theories that I should feel obligated to instruct you.

Quote:

If you insist to approach the problem in a scientific way, you have to look at it this way.

The correct scientific approach is to include mankind as a part of Nature. Supporting an other one is just reductive naturocentrism in line with the dogmatic 'back to the trees' agenda of doctrinal environmentalists.

Quote:

If you want to judge wether CO2 is a pollutant or not you have to look at its effective heat capacity. Or just try to breathe pure CO2 - if you survive 5 minutes I`ll agree that CO2 is not an pollutant.

And if you kill yourself, I will have a chance to not respond to such extremist non-sense.

Quote:

One or two postings ago you commented my explanation as "Mostly correct" - so you see me confused now that you now make a 180-degree turn...

Your mostly correct explanation: Quote:

If the orbit is more circular, the climate is warm - and if the orbit is more elliptical, the climate is cold. Scientists have found out beyond doubt, that there is not just the 11 year cycle between minimum and maximum of sunspot activity, but also a cycle of several hundred years when there is no sunspot activity at all. It was said that this caused the "little ice age" during mediaeval times and that we are just again approaching such an period of no sunspot activity.

Your entirely incorrect claims: Quote:

And you`re not asking yourself why the polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting, while the climate should become cooler by the missig sunspot activity?

1/ your "polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting" is not exact; check previous posts/threads;
2/ my "And what has the lack of sunspot to do with climate?" still stands.

Quote:

Yeah - in the junk science papers from the "Anti Global Warming" fraction perhaps...

Given your rhetorical approach mixed with dusted facts since the beginning, it seems that you stop reading the scientific literature some decades ago.

If you have nothing new to propose, I have no time to lose in food fighting.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

The same with my error - no matter if with or without question mark - the direction in which it points is the same...

The direction is the same for you because you are preconditioned to feel that way. For me a direct interrogative sentence with a question mark can potentially be replied with 'yes', 'no' or 'dunno' until evidences point to either case or there are no evidence at all.

Quote:

Waren sie sogar zum Teil ganz verschwunden?

Thanks. The author seems to ask if the glaciers had even sometimes (or occasionally) entirely disappeared. That would explain the question mark of the title. You should check the context to be sure.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".