Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:29:45 GMT
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:09:31 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:27:49 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Rich's problem is that he is a Libertarian and feels that if folks
really believed there was a problem and acted politically, some of his
personal freedoms might be constricted by popular demand. He judges
things entirely with his emotional, knee-jerk response to personal
freedom and without the use of any impartial, intellectual facility on
the subject of human impacts on global warming goes. At least, so far
as I can ascertain.
Jonathan, I had no idea you were a warmingist.
If you're not one, then why do you resort to ad hominem attacks?
What is so odd and unusual about your choise of words, is that I
didn't resort to making my point that way. In fact, I wrote this,
which you deleted from your reply and provides some point of reference
for those who are interested in studying some of the facts of the
issue. Something I don't think you've done:
: Solar output is very, very closely monitored by satellites, including
: the newest one (I think) called SORCE. See the composite data at:
:
: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
:
: The bottom two charts pretty much spell it out and any thinking person
: would have a hard time trying to explain that data while at the same
: time trying to talk about Mars and Earth. That's the view from space,
: and so far as I know, the sun doesn't _beam_ light towards certain
: planets and not other planets, so that should be representative in
: terms of variation (magnitudes, of course, will be different at
: different planets.)
:
: ><snip of prodding comment>
: a more recent paper (not the only one) on the subject is Mike Lockwood
: and Claus Froehlich's paper, "Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in
: Solar Cliamte Forcings and the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature,"
: Proc. R. Soc. A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880, which is published
: online. This is a 2007 evaluation, so it is up to date. In the back
: of that paper are references to some 70 or more additional papers, in
: reference.
If you notice, I didn't only prod you to try and earn an informed
opinion on the subject (something you should do and something I have
no problem pushing you towards, verbally, when I feel like doing so.)
I provided a reference to a paper I've read, is available freely on
the web (it is published online and you can find it easily), and
addresses itself to your incorrect, earlier point. In addition, I
pointed you to THE preeminent site, which provides the comprehensive
composite of satellite data on the subject -- from the first orbital
platform launched through to the more modern one, namely SORCE. That
doesn't just give you a selected tidbit of data from one satellite,
but the composited information. From there, you can also go reference
the individual data, as well. For example, SORCE data sets are also
available freely on the web, and directly for your own use if you want
that.
I could provide more references to recent papers, but many of them
will require you to contact the authors to get copies. I've never had
trouble with that, but I figured I'd start with the more easily
available information first. Just to see if you will even attempt to
educate yourself here. If you do that much, I have some papers I can
send and I can certainly help you acquire others you think you will
read them. I don't want you to take my opinion on anything you don't
want to -- best to get your science from the scientists, anyway.
Jon
.
- References:
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Simon S Aysdie
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Jonathan Kirwan
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- Prev by Date: Re: Low end desktop for EE tasks?
- Next by Date: Re: Intermittent Wiper Inventor Dies
- Previous by thread: Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- Next by thread: Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|