Tim the Plumber wrote:
Having talked to you for several years now Snowie, why are you so passionate about your position and not listen to the IPCC position on climate? Your predetermined postion excludes the mainstream science position based in evidence. At the environment site you were just adamant that there can't be any deep sea warming during the hiatus. Evidnece doesn't seem to move Snowie, its my observation that you are totally bonded to your predetermined viewpoint.
Since I get called a denier for presenting the IPCC's figures and pointing out that there will be no catastrophy from such a minor, erm.. well benefit actually, the act of putting forward a scientifically strong and sceptical view will only get worse responses.
It is the historical and mathematical evidence of the problem which you have ignored here. The rapid change in temperature patterns is already showing us signs of significant problems with plants not being able to adapt and pests being able to expand. Not to mention the whole dikes will be easy to build atound the whole ocean systems position. The math on that one is staggering just for one state here in the US.
Could you start a new thread to explain the basics of the geomagnetic thing? I am unsure what it's about as it's a bit beyond me unless it's the cosmic ray/cloud formation rate as altered by solar weather. (Is that it??)
The hypothesis is the solar output increases and more of the cosmic rays are deflected, the solar output decreases and more of the cosmic rays reach theatmosphere. The rays supposedly cause cloud formation which either cools or insulates the planet affecting temperature. Some of the reconstruction data to support the hypothesis is adjusted significantly, the mechanism is not supported by experimentation, and even some of those doing the specific research admit the effect on the climate is minor. Yet, it is the latest in straws which are supposed to overturn the science known now.