h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Now you mixing up temperature and energy.

GW puts more energy into the atmosphere - that energy is essentially kinetic in nature (hotter gas molecules move faster), so higher wind speeds are only to be expected, at any time of year.

We are getting more & faster tornadoes, more and faster tropical storms.

Why should we not get more and faster autumnal winds?

And why on earth would you expect every year to produce exactly the same winds? As with any chaotic system, you get short-term highs and lows which mask long-term trends, which you should know and acknowledge if you as as expert as you attempt to imply.

(As for this explanation you claim to have given, I do not recall seeing it - could you give a link or repeat it?)

Now, back to the nub of the argument: where is you physical, real-world evidence of the End Times, matched up to specific verses from either scripture or the NWT?

On the Christian forum.

Why is China getting so much snow just now?

James

Hmmm, could it be something to do with the altitude, do you think?

The mountains, the high plateaus?

Or maybe, just maybe, because it's currently WINTER there?

"On the Christian forum."

Link, please, because I can only see you posting quotes from scripture and the NWT, not actual *evidence*.

Take some time off then and watch the news.

You obviously do not watch the news much, because the snow in China is usual for this time of year according to the news that is, then we know what a propaganda machine that is do we not?

James

That should read not usual.

James

OK, so they've got more snow than *usual*.

It isn't freakish, though, just heavier than usual.

You cannot base a trend on one result. One early snow season does not mean that all subsequent snow seasons will start early.

No BUT we can ask ourselves what is the sun doing which it has not been doing of late?


Then we can follow a trend.


James

How many times?

The Sun has been shown to have no part in the current global warming trend.

The presence or absence of sunspots does not make the Earth hotter or cooler.

That used to be the old fashion theory, up to date scientists now know better/

James

Any references?

I do not file my magazines Kiteman, science or otherwise I do not have the room, I just try to keep myself up to date, I am not an author or a science teacher that would need them for reference,sso the best I can say is reference the new scientist for quite some time in the past.

Then you might be able to get the same information from NASA, or the Astronomer.

James

That would be the New Scientist article that says;

"The cooling and warming during the ice ages and interglacial periods, however, was far greater than would be expected from the tiny changes in solar energy reaching the Earth."

or

"there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny"

or

"So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

Is that the one?

No there is some were a short article recognising that sun spots are not cool spots as thought but hot with increased wavelengths in the ultra violet range, which can also be damaging to humans. The article was nearly twenty years ago.

In the article it mentions that warnings about the damage this can do to humans it not emphasised in Australia because they might think that when the sun is at low levels that going into the sun is ok when in reality the sun is always hazardous to Australians.

James

In post 50, you said "up to date scientists now know better", implying that you had seen *new* research into the Sun's effects on the Earth's climate, and now you confess to it being a decades-old article regarding a minimal increase in the risk of skin cancer when sunspot activity is high?

I have just searched the NS website for articles containing references to both "sunspots" and "UV", but could find none. That means your idea of refuting the latest published research (as I linked above) is to try and casually pass off a half-remembered, out-dated article, which does not seem to exist, as "up to date".

Suit yourself.

James

http://spaceweather.com/

SOLAR MINIMUM VS. GLOBAL WARMING:
From 2002 to 2008, decreasing solar irradiance has countered much anthropogenic warming of Earth's surface. That's the conclusion of researchers Judith Lean (NRL) and David Rind (NASA/GISS), who have just published a new analysis of global temperatures in the Geophysical Research Letters. Lean and Rind considered four drivers of climate change: solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ENSO (El Nino), and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The following plot shows how much each has contributed to the changing temperature of Earth's surface since 1980:

James

Have you got a closer link - that's just the front page, which is all aurora now.

Sorry I do not have, here is another sight I go to from time to time.

http://sidc.oma.be/

James

That's a nice site.

It's the one I used to debunk your last lot of claims about sunspots wrecking the Earth's weather (when you were forecasting disaster, it was forecasting peace and quiet).

It doesn't have anything about solar-forced global warming, though.