cohenite, the sun has been in a period where cooling should have been happening; there has been little sunspot activity.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-solar-minimal-role-global.html


http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/10/no,-climate-scientists-don%E2%80%99t-think-we%E2%80%99re-heading-for-another-little-ice-age/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/comment-page-3/

Quote from the Real Climate site:
"After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. The solar signal for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (i.e. cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. But there are also many unknowns remaining, and the largest uncertainties concern clouds, cloud physics, and their impact on climate. In this sense, I find it ironic that some people still rely on the cosmic rays argument as their strongest argument against AGW – it does involve poorly known clouds physics! - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/comment-page-3/#sthash.M5NFLAd4.dpuf"

Dear bugsy and warmair,

I was hoping to have cohenite dig his hole a little deeper but that would have been servicing a guilty pleasure so thank you for bring it to a head.

I think the message so called 'photoluminescence' has delivered has been salutary especially in light of his own words;

“to top it off you gasp at my reference to photoluminescence as though your ignorance is the benchmark of truth or some such thing”

“Mr Redux asks again what photoluminescence means/ Mr Redux can do his own goggling.”

And we can't forget Leo's beautiful summation;

“Because he has no science to back his situation, he is driven to drag the thread off topic with antics, like stupid questions, rather than admit that his position has no merit.”

Oh these things are great fun.

hey ant

what about those ice core studies which you supplied which showed climate started warming before co2 increased?

How come they haven't undermined your religious faith.

I have still your link.

Do you need to see it again?

now ant these latest links you supply confirm solar effect on climate.
The terrorists have been denying and ignoring this effect for years.

They now belatedly acknowledge the effects and launch studies to refute the effect but the best they can come up with is assertions their studies show that they only effect the climate by 10% or they are not strong enough to effect immediate cooling by overcoming the warming.

Mate do you realise that if their studies prove defective, wrong or turn out like the ice core studies you will have utterly destroyed your own religion of AGW.

When that occurs what straws are you going to grasp at then.

Very droll Mr Redux. Excitation and emission but not with visible light. It's certainly excited you clowns. I guess the victories are far and few apart when you support AGW.

Now back to business. What about Beer Lambert and Hottel?

I note you and the giggle squad haven't said anything about them. And you won't because you will focus on the photoluminescence and ignore the lack of any evidence for AGW and the disproof of it offered by BL and Hottel.

Typical.

Steele suffers the delusion that he is smart, despite the fact that he has never outsmarted anyone but himself. Part of his delusional state is seeing an illustration of his idiocy, like the irrelevant nonsense over photoluminescsence as a victory for him. It showed him as a timewaster as well as a fraud-backer who ignores the fact that there is no science to support the AGW fraud while he tries to distract people with pointless nonsense.. Cohenite is right but was mistaken on one trifling point. Witless is wrong, but picked up one peripheral error by Cohenite. In his delusional reality, this makes him a winner.
He is, in reality, a loser, backing a fraud, without a shred of science to justify him.