Pandonodrim (July 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm)

Great videos. Not only are they full of great (and solid) information, you present it in a way accessible to people on both sides of this issue.I think this is a very effective way of presenting truth that is fairly impossible to dispute by people who rely on propaganda for their arguments. I am subscribing and will direct people to these videos whenever possible.Thanks, and again, great job!

JagOnDaRoad (July 6, 2009 at 12:27 am)

Far from it. My advice: Don't worry about climate change. There are far more pressing matters. For instance, your income. Remember that sucking sound Ross Perot talked about? Well, the new sucking sound will come from the vaccum governments(plural) are going to use on your paycheck to fund bureaucracies that will be managed by appointed experts...experts at appearing to be experts. This guy may be an expert, but unless he is an expert at towing the line he will have no appointment.

JuanVoyce (July 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm)

gufpott - Thank you very much for the link. And yes--there is less warming recently per this data. Once I knew what I was looking for I was able to find the Hadley, NCDC, and GISS data. There is quite a difference between satelitte and ground data, isn't there?

pinkubento (July 4, 2009 at 12:36 pm)

Are you high?

JagOnDaRoad (July 3, 2009 at 3:33 am)

Who counts clouds? I apologize for throwing cold water on this debate, but I have a fatalist view: Consider a colony of ants, feverishly preparing for winter, excavating, storing food. Environmental change: a herd of cats stampedes and destroys the mound. Happens all the time. To be expected. Frequencies increase when mouse population explodes. Enter the bulldozer. Ants are gone. It will happen. Coal and oil will vanish, planet will remain. Enter the bulldozer. People, most, all ??, gone.

sjketchen (July 1, 2009 at 11:52 pm)

If the three satellite methods used to measure solar radiant output over the same period of time returned three different results, from increase to static to decline, it calls into question the reliability of any their measurements as being accurate. One of the fundamentals of science is that for something to be validated it must be repeatable.

gufpott (June 30, 2009 at 6:15 am)

">Can't find it...do you have a link? "I can direct you straight to a structured text file, but YT will not take the URL in this post (despite my attempts to fool it). I will send it in a personal message

JuanVoyce (June 29, 2009 at 9:39 pm)

"Have a look at the 30 year AMSU temperature series.">Can't find it...do you have a link?

MikeyCanuck123 (June 26, 2009 at 10:24 pm)

gufpott>"... 30 year AMSU temperature series... surfacestations. org... ".Thank you for the info.

clt1113 (June 26, 2009 at 2:18 am)

potholer54--Could you add the citations to the description box? It's a bit hard to read them in some places.

gufpott (June 24, 2009 at 6:08 pm)

"given the solar minimum"From 30 years' AMSU data 2008 was the 12th warmest and 2009 13th (these are averages for years ending May).Also we cannot expect instantaneous response to solar input when there is heat storage.(For example, look at how polar sea ice follows the seasons by approximately 3 months. This is exactly what would be expected from a simple heat storage system.)

gufpott (June 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm)

"A relevant question: is GW still going on"Yes that is a good question.Have a look at the 30 year AMSU temperature series. It doesn't respond in the way predicted by the AGW hypothesis.If you want to rely on other series, the researchers should first submit their data and methods for critical appraisal (as would be expected to earn the right to be called science). Until then, the prudent thing to do is to ignore those series.Also have a look at surfacestations. org