This immediately conjured up an image of someone reclining on a beach, beer in one hand and technical paper in the other. That's the way to get a good review!

Rootwitch wrote:


LOL, I deserved that.

I find it interesting that we are discusing heat and global warming. My take Global warming or heat tracking to me is all local. I lived in the 50's when I thought the heat and heat index was higher than today where I live. For a few years it may approach those times but not overall. So hard to convince me or maybe others who remember that time. Also lest not forget the intense heat in the 30's. That too seems to be put on the back burner. I am sure these times have been documented too.(Suggest cycle to me) What I think is a real issue is the "Gore" scenereo where he jumped on the Solar-Green Bandwagon and is reaping millions on his contacts from Washington. Others are also "In The Loop" and are reaping rewards for favors on Federal Legislation. (My Opinion)So when the media and other experts suggest a Theory me like others are cynical of their approach or veted interest. Until that goes away the discussion of heat and global warming will continue. As for facts my take is for every pro fact sheet, it is only the next day we see a con fact sheet. (Works like Politicians running for Office)

Occam wrote:


Iam far from gullible. There is just too much past history where man had no influence over climate change. If anybody is gullible it is you not realizing that. I don't care what a "majority of scientists believe". At one time in history a "majority of scientists" believed the sun orbited the earth.

www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

Binford wrote:


There is definitely more past history than future history, but beyond that your logic is vacuous. Man had no influence over climate in the distant past so therefore he can not have an influence now and in the future? You want to connect the dots there? In the past people died of natural causes so no one can be murdered now? Because climate has varied due to natural causes it is not possible to change it with unnatural causes?



Not true, it wasn't most scientists that believed in earth centric universe. When most people or even most philosophers, priests and other intellectuals thought the sun revolved around the earth there were few, if any, scientists; nor was science a generally accepted means of investigating nature. The doctrine of the day was based on speculation, like you are doing, without empirical evidence, attempting to pursuade through force of argument and logic. Sometimes they got it right, but usually not and regardless they were rarely able to gain a consensus. And when they got it wrong it often went uncorrected for centuries - until science was established.

Modern science (rigorous observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena by experiment) didn't begin to evolve till Galileo and didn't fully come into itself until Newton, by then educated people understood the earth revolved around the sun and that science was the key to understanding the world.

Occam wrote:


That first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. There were probably far more people killed in years past, than there are today. Take for example the Roman Gladiator.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

And no I never stated that man has no influence over climate. Just not the huge changes that your trying "real hard" to convice everybody on this forum. I guess you probably believe as I stated in another post that earthquakes are caused by too much mining. Iam not gullible and not going to buy that one either. Iam sure you would if a "majority" said so.

And to think that Science didn't evolve till Galileo is far from the truth. Galileo was born in 1564 and there were lots of discoveries before then.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_cultures

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_astronomy

You really try hard to shape and bend things in your favor. You would probably make a good used car salesman.

what the heck are you talking about? I thought it was obvious I was making an analogy so you might recognize the fault in your logic; I wasn't launching a discourse on ancient death rates.


Of course there were many discoveries before Galileo and dating back into antiquity and there were notable natural philosophers in antiquity that might be considered scientists by todays standards. But the dark ages were not called the dark ages because of their exceptional enlightenment. The explosion of scientific knowledge began with Galileo and he is generally considered the father of modern science.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Occam wrote:


Your analogy was a slanted one to try to confuse, and get the answer you wanted just like your smoking one. They make very little sense.

occam wrote:


occam wrote:


Those above statements made by you seem to contradict themselves. There still are people that believe the sun orbits the earth. Do a google search.

occam wrote:


What makes you think your not wrong on your global warming idea? And don't try and reverse the question. Iam not set on "being right" as you seem to be.

occam wrote:


I guess we could ask you what caused global warming in past earths history, if your wanting to blame AGW for the current phenomenon.

Binford wrote:


Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet. For the planet to remain at a constant temperature the amount of energy, mostly infrared, that is radiated into space must equal the amount that is absorbed from the sun (mostly visible light). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change.

1. Changing the incoming solar radiation, i.e.changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt or in the Sun's intensity.
2. Changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, for example by changes in the amount of white ice covering the dark artic ocean,
3. Changing the amount of energy radiated back into space, for example by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations which slow the release of heat back into space.

Local climate will also depends on how the heat is distributed by ocean currents and winds.

Basically, glacial periods have ended when the Milankovitch orbital cycle has increased solar insolation (especially insolation on the northern continents), which warmed the planet enough to annually melt the winter snowfall and to release large amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere which in turn amplified the warming effect. In other words the warming was initiated by 1, and amplifed by 2 and 3.

Occam wrote:


Gee Occam, maybe clouds have something to do with it?

We already know climate models have exaggerated the "enhanced greenhouse effect" by 200-400%, so maybe it is time to evaluate the "theory".