Jump to content

Wild Cobra

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wild Cobra

  1. I gave it to you. It doesn't matter to me what you believe of it.
  2. It most certainly can if I were to use daily, or even hourly values instead of annual. However, the percentages would be smaller. The only claim I am making is that if there is a response, that if slow enough, can account for solar effect of warming into this century. I don't know if my low values of 3% or 4% is in the ballpark. I could be off. What annoys me is the certainty by you and others that it is so much higher. Maybe I incorrectly assumed what you meant. Sorry if so. Do you claim radioactive decay is linear as will, since it consistently reduced by 50% over a giv
  3. I'm going to start ignoring everyone who starts off by misrepresenting my claims. Care to be serious?
  4. Then tell me what you need me to elaborate on instead of incorrect assumption. When I see an argument against an incorrect assumption, I think you are building a straw man to tear down. I see. Even though there is no conclusive way to quantify the effect of CO2, you expect solar to be? What is not clear about linking the SORCE data set and specifying annual? Do you see why I get so annoyed with you guys? The excel formulas are very simple. From the start, I take the 1610 TSI value for both the TSI and equalized values. In more recent spreadsheets, I changed the results
  5. This isn't a science class. I'm not going to explain the basic sciences of spectral depths of shortwave, convection, conduction, etc. If these basics are not already understood, I would be wasting my time. As for CO2, it has effect too, and I am not quantifying a temperature value by anything solar or greenhouse gasses. Once again, I was only showing a mechanism that shows longer times involved in how the sun can influence climate. Why are you all making more of it than what it is?
  6. You guys are impossible. Look at what I initially responded to. iNow states: I reply with a clarification, specifying the coupling between the solar-ocean-atmosphere, and never claim it to be more than one part of the whole: What type of bias does it take to continually twist what another says? Is it your method of confirmation bias? I am not specifying any particular period of time only stating that a annual value of equalization percentage for annual data conforms with both previous knowledge I have accumulated over more than a decade, and even with Hansen's 60% statement
  7. I simply used the same excel sheet and changed to a two state for illustration purposes, that it is exponential. Sorry, I thought that would be obvious. I'm not writing a thesis or paper to be peer reviewed. Why complain about simplicity that I'm pretty sure everyone understands the intent? Is complete refinement necessary for purposes of illustration how something progresses? I have wanted to use daily and uncorrected TSI values, but couldn't find any. There is something like a 7% change in value from the eccentricity of the earths orbit alone, but all I can find are norma
  8. That there is spiteful bias. Anyone who disagree with consensus is treated so much different than those making looser statements that do support consensus. Now that I got my graph in on the other post, and said my piece. I just might not come back again. I'm tired of this "clique" like environment.
  9. I gave a link to my formulation. It's exponential. If I do a single state change with my formulation we get this: 90% is at 55 years. Another thing when speaking of equalization, it is rarely stated at what percentage. One of Hansen's papers... says something to the effect that 60% of the equalization occurs in... I think 20 to 30 years. This too, matches. I haven't found that paper as I looked, but there is something to that effect. Any time equalization is mentioned, a percentage of equalization needs to be stated with it, else it's meaningless. After all, it takes infin
  10. I think you gave two examples just fine to support my contention. In the first "this," I stated what I thought I read by saying "If I read that correctly..." I then asked questions about it. In the second "this," I stated that some of this was very old. I used a 10 year reference. Can you find material from 10 years back with ease? And should I when I was being asked to source an opinion in a thread called "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" I have been hounded at every turn for any little reason. In a recent post in another thread, you assume incorrect facts and accuse me
  11. Why are you assuming? I never indicated a linear response. Did you look at my formulation? Since when does 0.0402 x 55 = 1?
  12. I don't discount the two month apparent lag at all. We all witness that the two annual solaces are late June and late December, but the temperature peaks are usually August/September or January/February. I am simply saying that there are likely more changes, that are slower at responding as well. Now I have complained about using blogs, but in a short time frame, I didn't find what I was looking for except for this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html In this, there is a 40 year lag claimed and accepted by those of Skep
  13. At the risk of responding to a moderator thread, I would be glad to have a proper thread to disuss this topic, without the fear of suspension. By all means Imatfaal. I welcome a proper thread.
  14. I was taken out in my opinion for what ever angle I could be, because I can threaten consensus. Once I said i would show an example once I saw one again, I was hounded and hounded. I was baited into that suspension for holding firm. How about we discuss the science instead of such things as you bring up? Don't you get it? My viewpoint of science has been censored. If I'm not careful, I will be suspended again. Maybe banned. Strange... How about responding to my viewpoint on science instead. Do you agree or disagree that my methodology for the graph I made has merit? Maybe not th
  15. Suspended at least. That's how you guys set it up. You know the rules and how the moderators respond. I was suspended for a week for not digging into a claim I made before. I said I would provide it the next time it presented itself. My initial claim was not to believe any blog, including those from skeptics. It snowballed into a suspension for me of a week: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=838272 My offense was not allowing the thread to be sidetracked farther, and refusing repeated demands. Now here we are again...
  16. I have been apprehensive about showing how solar can possibly affect more recent times because it appears to me that the moderators are quick to suspend or ban anyone who threatens the consensus. For me, it’s a question about how long it takes for the shortwave that penetrates the ocean and heat equilibrium to manifest itself. I don’t have an answer for this with any certainty, and have contemplated starting a thread in Speculations forum. Still, I will now, simply ask that people here consider the fact that larger masses take longer to do equalize. I have a suspicion that heat changes
  17. On the "many decades." Isn't it equally likely that the signal from solar changes may also take several decases?
  18. My point was already made. The definition of words have specific meanings. Those who purposely misuse words to mislead, are not to be trusted.
  19. Models... I said no such thing about Nature and the EPA. I'm speaking of the graph you presented in the polar bear thread. It is innacurate and from an agenda driven site, along with three of the four links in the later post. I highly suggest you research your graphs and links for accuracy before you post them when obtaining them from activist sites, because they most certainly show you in a poor light...
  20. Well, I went through and listed why every one of those links and graphs were wrong. I decided not to post it, because this is a tangent not needed. Words have meaning and all you provided was useless graphs made by bloggers using reputable data, and renaming graphs. Even the quote you provided by the CBO is altered in your presentation of it from the actual quote.
  21. iNow... Too bad the Farmers Almanac accurately points out 2013 was a quiet one. What you cite is another failed prediction I think. http://www.almanac.com/content/hurricane-forecasts-and-common-questions Don't you ever validate years old links before posting them? That Nature link is from 2010 and you should have verified it's accuracy. Unverified old predictions, innacurate graphs from agenda driven blogs, what else is up your sleeve?
  22. Now I could be in error, but I don't think I am. As long as depleted uranium remains in it's solid metalic form, or as a coloring in glass, etc. It is no threat. Once you atomize it or liquify it, then it becomes a toxicity problem. There are elements in our daily lives more radioactive than depleted uranium. How much radioactivity does your smoke alarm, produce? Wrist watch? Medical equipment? Potassium? 0.012% of potasium is of the radiactiove isotope. How much potasium do you consume daily?
  23. I will suggest it is hard to base anything accurate with older records. It'sn't it hard to accurately count these events before the use of satellites? More modern events include storms that never make it to population centers. Am I wrong about this?
  24. I think you have a point, but this forum does demand evidence when it is contrary to the consensus. Maybe this will help: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336s2/lectures/sec2/hurricanes3_updated_fall13_old.html Now it appears to me that a curve can be drawn through the graph going high, to low, and high again bottoming out in the early 80's. The TSI peaked in 1958 with a value of 1359.9801 W/m^2 according to the SORCE site. The next peak was lower in 1970 at 1359.9785 W/m^2. Each peak since has been higher than the 1970 peak until this most recent on
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.