• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Role of the Sun in Global Warming

Surface Detail said:
Retain heat, yes. Continue to warm, no. Stop wriggling.
Click to expand...

I must ask.

Do you wish us to think you stupid?

As long as the burner is hotter than the pot of water, it will continue to warm that water. Electric stove burners get several hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. Water boils at 212 F.

Seriously. Do you want us to label you as stupid?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I must ask.

Do you wish us to think you stupid?

As long as the burner is hotter than the pot of water, it will continue to warm that water. Electric stove burners get several hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. Water boils at 212 F.

Seriously. Do you want us to label you as stupid?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your concept of ‘remove from heat’, and if you want to be dishonest in your arguments.

Who uses electric stoves, anyway?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess it depends on your concept of ‘remove from heat’, and if you want to be dishonest in your arguments.

Who uses electric stoves, anyway?
Click to expand...

I specified the criteria, that the dial for the electric burner was the heat source.

I'm sorry if you are to daft to read and comprehend what is said. That's your problem. Not mine.

Electric stoves?

They are the primary types of stoves purchased where electricity is cheap, like the Pacific Northwest, using hydropower.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I specified the criteria, that the dial for the electric burner was the heat source.

I'm sorry if you are to daft to read and comprehend what is said. That's your problem. Not mine.

Electric stoves?

They are the primary types of stoves purchased where electricity is cheap, like the Pacific Northwest, using hydropower.
Click to expand...

The dial isn't the heat source (unless there's something badly wrong with your burner!); the burner is the heat source.

Anyway, you never specified an electric burner before. Is this some sort of pathetic attempt to wriggle out of the corner you have painted yourself into?
 
Surface Detail said:
The dial isn't the heat source (unless there's something badly wrong with your burner!); the burner is the heat source.

Anyway, you never specified an electric burner before. Is this some sort of pathetic attempt to wriggle out of the corner you have painted yourself into?
Click to expand...
I did specify electric burner in that other tread. I repeatedly specified "electric" burner.

The dial is what modulated the heat. From zero to 100%.

Yes, the burner produces the heat, but it is also the thermal mass that doesn't respond instantaneously to changes.

In parallel, the sun dials (modulated) the heat to the oceans.

The oceans then have a long equalization time to the atmosphere.

I'm sorry if this is too complex for you to comprehend.

Your best bet not to look stupid, is not to disagree until you learn these sciences.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is not the official NASA predictions. That's from some activist that got his pseudoscience acknowledged in NASA News. That was a prediction that was rejected by NASA a few years later. We have been over this before you came on board.

Here is the revised [prediction for cycle 24 before cycle 23 ended:

ssn_predict_2009.gif


It is based on better science, and the consensus of the solar scientists.

Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Updated May 2009 | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
Click to expand...

So the solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center is now a "psuedoscientist." You truly have no clue. NASA completely blew their prediction of Solar Cycle 24. What you posted was 3 years AFTER NASA made their predictions in 2006. NASA had to seriously revise their so-called "prediction" based upon actual observation.
 
Glitch said:
So the solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center is now a "psuedoscientist." You truly have no clue. NASA completely blew their prediction of Solar Cycle 24. What you posted was 3 years AFTER NASA made their predictions in 2006. NASA had to seriously revise their so-called "prediction" based upon actual observation.
Click to expand...

How ever you slice it, the 2009 prediction was at worse, revised from an earlier 2006 prediction you wish to cliam, and was much closer.

It was predicted before the onset of cycle 24 started, so it is more valid than the one you are stuck on.

Get over it. You are wrong, plain and simple.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How ever you slice it, the 2009 prediction was at worse, revised from an earlier 2006 prediction you wish to cliam, and was much closer.

It was predicted before the onset of cycle 24 started, so it is more valid than the one you are stuck on.

Get over it. You are wrong, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has already been established that you are clueless calling Dr. David Hathaway, a member of the MSFC solar physics group for 29 years, a "psuedoscientist." ROFL! NASA couldn't predict tomorrow's weather, and you are latched on to their posterior as is they are infallible gods. Worshiping at the alter of the fraud Hansen. A truly pathetic spectacle.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, it has already been established that you are clueless calling Dr. David Hathaway, a member of the MSFC solar physics group for 29 years, a "psuedoscientist." ROFL! NASA couldn't predict tomorrow's weather, and you are latched on to their posterior as is they are infallible gods. Worshiping at the alter of the fraud Hansen. A truly pathetic spectacle.
Click to expand...

Explain him being wrong then please.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I did specify electric burner in that other tread. I repeatedly specified "electric" burner.

The dial is what modulated the heat. From zero to 100%.

Yes, the burner produces the heat, but it is also the thermal mass that doesn't respond instantaneously to changes.

In parallel, the sun dials (modulated) the heat to the oceans.

The oceans then have a long equalization time to the atmosphere.

I'm sorry if this is too complex for you to comprehend.

Your best bet not to look stupid, is not to disagree until you learn these sciences.
Click to expand...

The science of...electric stoves?

LOL

How pathetic
 
Threegoofs said:
The science of...electric stoves?

LOL

How pathetic
Click to expand...

LOL...

You are definitely sufferer the left side effects of the D-K Effect curve.

The reality is so much more complex than you perceive, but it is still simple.

I have to wonder, how low is your IQ?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I did specify electric burner in that other tread. I repeatedly specified "electric" burner.

The dial is what modulated the heat. From zero to 100%.

Yes, the burner produces the heat, but it is also the thermal mass that doesn't respond instantaneously to changes.

In parallel, the sun dials (modulated) the heat to the oceans.

The oceans then have a long equalization time to the atmosphere.

I'm sorry if this is too complex for you to comprehend.

Your best bet not to look stupid, is not to disagree until you learn these sciences.
Click to expand...

No, the oceans don't have a long equalization time to the atmosphere. Why would they? This is just getting sillier and sillier. It's actually the other way round: the atmosphere warms quickly, while the oceans, with their massive thermal inertia, act as a drag on warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
In parallel, the sun dials (modulated) the heat to the oceans.

The oceans then have a long equalization time to the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Hey Lord... did you ever find any studies or even any data to back this up or is it all still just wild speculation on your part? Last I knew you don't have jack ****.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, the oceans don't have a long equalization time to the atmosphere. Why would they? This is just getting sillier and sillier. It's actually the other way round: the atmosphere warms quickly, while the oceans, with their massive thermal inertia, act as a drag on warming.
Click to expand...

The bigger the mass, the longer the equalization.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/24/reverse-polarity-sunspots-appear-on-the-sun-ending-a-39-day-stretch-of-spotless-days/"]
magnetogram_strip.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Reverse Polarity Sunspots appear on the Sun – ending a 39 day stretch of spotless days[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Dr. Tony Phillips writes: A new solar cycle is coming. Today, two sunspots emerged on the solar disk. Their reversed magnetic polarity marks them as members of new Solar Cycle 25. This quickening of new-cycle solar activity suggests that the sun is not entering a new Maunder Minimum despite the recent scarcity of sunspots. Today,…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/24/reverse-polarity-sunspots-appear-on-the-sun-ending-a-39-day-stretch-of-spotless-days/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Some thing isn't right about their predicted graph. The longest solar cycle on record is 13.6 years. Cycle 24 will be less than 12 years, then they show the cycle 25 prediction graph to be almost 15 years.

{Merry Christmas}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom