• 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!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Deuce said:
I've attempted to explain your fundamental misconceptions regarding climate models before.

Here's something that the so-called skeptics can't seem to grasp:

1) It is possible for a model to be accurate even when temperature trends end up not following the model projection.
2) It is possible for a model to be inaccurate even when temperature trends end up following the model projection perfectly.

But they don't want to discuss anything more than the bare surface. Temperature trends are running at the bottom end of the models, therefore AGW is all phony. As if that "real world" you claim to prefer is so simple.
Click to expand...



Hansen defined three scenarios. We are running at the CO2 increase rate most closely described by his A Scenario. I don't know what you are appealing to. He set the parameters for the assessment of the accuracy and he made the prediction.

He and everyone else in this discipline are unable to make an accurate prediction. This does not make them evil or conspiratorial or swindlers. It only means they are not yet capable of making an accurate prediction. Why are they unable? I would hope it is because they cannot coordinate the thousands of interactions that create the climate in their models. Jansen certainly missed. He missed by plenty. We are less warm than he thought we would be if the CO2 actually decreased.

The CO2 has increased at the rates it was increasing when he made his hunch prediction. He was wrong.

Why do you continue to say that wrong is right?

"HANSEN’S SCENARIOS

The three scenarios and their predictions are defined by Hansen 1988 as follows


“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.9 ⁰C, OVER FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

“scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.75 ⁰C, OVER THREE TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

“scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.29 ⁰C, ONLY 31% HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

So, only Scenario C, which “assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions” comes close to the truth.

THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL “CURTAILMENT OF TRACE GAS EMISSIONS”

As everyone knows, the Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2 proves that there has NOT BEEN ANY CURTAILMENT of trace gas emissions. Indeed, the rapid increase of CO2 continues unabated."
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Manc Skipper said:
More BS doesn't make the previous BS any more credible.
Click to expand...



So you're saying that 73 subsequent wrong predictions don't make Hansen's wrong prediction more credible?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...



An impartial revue of the data and science by all of those folks who are invested in an approach that produces erroneous predictions based on faulty assumptions seems a tad suspect.

If they are all wrong and they all agree with one another, why would this be an endorsement of any of them?

Please produce the accurate 30 year old prediction of Global Warming that is based on AGW Science
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
What your authors omit is that more than 66% of the survey did not state on opinion which means they did not endorse the AGW Science. This gives us a bit of faith in the scientists of our age.

However, of the 33% that did state an opinion, 97% of that small slice do endorse AGW Science. By the standards of AGW Science data, this is an accurate statement. By any rational measure of honesty, it's an outright lie. But in this particular realm, it must be considered to be accurate.

That 97% is a Red Herring:

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Click to expand...

You make a mistake. If the science they write about supports it, that is support. But notice the number that rejects. That's the position you hold. :lamo
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
An impartial revue of the data and science by all of those folks who are invested in an approach that produces erroneous predictions based on faulty assumptions seems a tad suspect.

If they are all wrong and they all agree with one another, why would this be an endorsement of any of them?m

Please produce the accurate 30 year old prediction of Global Warming that is based on AGW Science
Click to expand...

I'll give you some readings but I doubt facts will sway you from your faith:

Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

Evidence for global warming

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Climate Change: Evidence and Future Projections
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
An impartial revue of the data and science by all of those folks who are invested in an approach that produces erroneous predictions based on faulty assumptions seems a tad suspect.

If they are all wrong and they all agree with one another, why would this be an endorsement of any of them?

Please produce the accurate 30 year old prediction of Global Warming that is based on AGW Science
Click to expand...

More:

ABSTRACT
The diversity, frequency, and scale of human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are threatened globally. Projected increases in carbon dioxide and temperature over the next 50 years exceed the conditions under which coral reefs have flourished over the past half-million years. However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.

Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs

http://www.agro.uba.ar/users/fernande/Mahlman.doc


Climate Change: Evidence
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

But it's wrong!!!


...This is silly. There is no argument to be made here, especially because the whole thing was discovered by people looking to substantiate their theory on global cooling. Then people did some research, figured out why the planet is warming up, and here we are today. Science marches on.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
You make a mistake. If the science they write about supports it, that is support. But notice the number that rejects. That's the position you hold. :lamo
Click to expand...


I would imagine that there are various things that don't exist that many scientists don't bother to go on record to specifically say that they don't exist.

By your standards of endorsement, I would suppose that about 100% of scientists agree that the land of Oz is real and exists somewhere over the rainbow. After all, they have not specifically rejected that existence, have they?

If they have, please present that link.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
I would imagine that there are various things that don't exist that many scientists don't bother to go on record to specifically say that they don't exist.

By your standards of endorsement, I would suppose that about 100% of scientists agree that the land of Oz is real and exists somewhere over the rainbow. After all, they have not specifically rejected that existence, have they?

If they have, please present that link.
Click to expand...

Not remotely what I said. I can only suggest you read it again and try to answer what was actually said.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
I'll give you some readings but I doubt facts will sway you from your faith:

Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

Evidence for global warming

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Climate Change: Evidence and Future Projections
Click to expand...



Your assessment of the scientific method is wrong. Einstein said:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Albert Einstein


Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote

To prove that Anthropogenic global warming is right and that it actually exists, ALL of the proofs must be right. To create and maintain doubt, only one. The fact that the ongoing research exposes the lack of understanding by the science community shows more than anything else that they don't have the goods.

There are far more than one plank to cause doubt. As an example, if CO2 is the prime driver of warming, then this should be easily proven and beyond that, the exact contribution to warming by the 50 so discreet causers of warming should be definable and should be understood, quantifiable and documented. Please produce the link that does this.

I'll provide the 50 or so causers of warming for you to help you with your research:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
More:

ABSTRACT
The diversity, frequency, and scale of human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are threatened globally. Projected increases in carbon dioxide and temperature over the next 50 years exceed the conditions under which coral reefs have flourished over the past half-million years. However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.

Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs

http://www.agro.uba.ar/users/fernande/Mahlman.doc


Climate Change: Evidence
Click to expand...




I have no doubt that the globe is warming. At least it has been on balance for about 400 years. Please note that the warming which started 400 years ago pre-dates the industrial Revolution, the cause of the warming, by 200 years.

This notion of causality includes the assumption that the future causes the past.

Beyond that, it's a toss up whether or not we were much cooler than we are right now about 5000 years ago. Glaciers are receding to points that are exposing 5000 year old artifacts and mummified people. It is almost a certainty that we are cooler than we were 8000 years ago. How many glaciers in North America are older than 8000 years?

In the Holocene, we have been warmer than now and cooler than now. After the temperature rise that ended the Ice Age, the temperature has vacillated within about a 2 degree range and we are smack dab in the middle of that range right now.

The rise of temperature over the last 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees. This may strike some as an unprecedented and rapid rise in temperature, but it strikes me as astonishing stability. My living room has greater vacillations in temperature in the average winter evening.


View attachment 67151126
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
Your assessment of the scientific method is wrong. Einstein said:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Albert Einstein


Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote

To prove that Anthropogenic global warming is right and that it actually exists, ALL of the proofs must be right. To create and maintain doubt, only one. The fact that the ongoing research exposes the lack of understanding by the science community shows more than anything else that they don't have the goods.

There are far more than one plank to cause doubt. As an example, if CO2 is the prime driver of warming, then this should be easily proven and beyond that, the exact contribution to warming by the 50 so discreet causers of warming should be definable and should be understood, quantifiable and documented. Please produce the link that does this.

I'll provide the 50 or so causers of warming for you to help you with your research:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
Click to expand...

You're quoting without understanding the quote, nor relating it exactly to what we're discussing. The articled point out each brick would have to be shown wrong, and that is correct. You've also been shown good evidence, and that your reading of the charts was inaccurate. Can't do much about your faith, but the evidence is against you.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
I have no doubt that the globe is warming. At least it has been on balance for about 400 years. Please note that the warming which started 400 years ago pre-date the industrial Revolution, the cause of the warming, but 200 years.

This notion of causality includes the assumption that the future causes the past.

Beyond that, it's a toss up whether or not we were much cooler than we are right now about 5000 years ago. Glaciers are receding to points that are exposing 5000 year old artifacts and mummified people. It is almost a certainty that we are cooler than we were 8000 years ago. How many glaciers in North America are older than 8000 years?

In the Holocene, we have been warmer than now and cooler than now. After the temperature rise that ended the Ice Age, the temperature has vacillated within about a 2 degree range and we are smack dab in the middle of that range right now.

The rise of temperature over the last 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees. This may strike some as an unprecedented and rapid rise in temperature, but it strikes me as astonishing stability. My living room has greater vacillations in temperature in the average winter evening.


View attachment 67151126
Click to expand...

It's not either or. Look up ice studies in Antarctica.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
Not remotely what I said. I can only suggest you read it again and try to answer what was actually said.
Click to expand...




You responded to my observation that the 97% figure that you cited was the result of ignoring the 66% who did not either endorse nor deny the proposition. They did write on the topic so they apparently have no opinion on the causation which is an acceptable position.

It is only by throwing out 66% of the data that you can present the 97% figure. This is acceptable AGW Science, but no other science would accept it nor would they want to.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
You're quoting without understanding the quote, nor relating it exactly to what we're discussing. The articled point out each brick would have to be shown wrong, and that is correct. You've also been shown good evidence, and that your reading of the charts was inaccurate. Can't do much about your faith, but the evidence is against you.
Click to expand...



The evidence against me? I assure you that i do exist. It is Anthropogenic Global warming that you are not proving.

I accept that this thing that we are talking about which does not exist is nonexistent.

You must prove that it does exist. So far all you have done is explain that you have faith that this thing that you cannot prove in fact exists. All I am asking you to do is to prove it.

You may want to start by explaining how the future causes the past.

You are free to proceed.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
It's not either or. Look up ice studies in Antarctica.
Click to expand...




What is not either or? If you have proof to present, then please present it. Challenging me to find information to support your assertion is a bit lazy, is it not?

I do not intend to argue both sides of the issue for you.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
You responded to my observation that the 97% figure that you cited was the result of ignoring the 66% who did not either endorse nor deny the proposition. They did write on the topic so they apparently have no opinion on the causation which is an acceptable position.

It is only by throwing out 66% of the data that you can present the 97% figure. This is acceptable AGW Science, but no other science would accept it nor would they want to.
Click to expand...

No, their work merely didn't call for an opinion to be stated. The science spoke. The science supported.

And no, the acceptance is the same. You merely misstate what is being done.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
The evidence against me? I assure you that i do exist. It is Anthropogenic Global warming that you are not proving.

I accept that this thing that we are talking about which does not exist is nonexistent.

You must prove that it does exist. So far all you have done is explain that you have faith that this thing that you cannot prove in fact exists. All I am asking you to do is to prove it.

You may want to start by explaining how the future causes the past.

You are free to proceed.
Click to expand...


You faith will let you down.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
No, their work merely didn't call for an opinion to be stated. The science spoke. The science supported.

And no, the acceptance is the same. You merely misstate what is being done.
Click to expand...



You are assuming that you are right. Unless you have read all of the nearly 12,000 papers, you don't know what they said and you don't know for certain even what they wrote about.

All we can know is that there is a group of folks who reviewed the papers, made judgements and came up with a number. The methodology was obviously rigged and the mere fact that they made the judgements they made and tried to contrive the conclusion that they did is outrageous.

As i have said, since it is AGW Science, this passes for information. It is actually just politics.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
You faith will let you down.
Click to expand...




This is the standard fall back remark from all AGW Diehards. To prove something, all you need is proof.

To doubt something, all you need a lack of proof.

You believe something and have no proof. I doubt something because there is no proof.

Which of us has faith?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

You mean like a mega solar flare would radically harm and alter life on earth - and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it? That is another "could have happened that way" about what happened to the dinosaurs.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
This is the standard fall back remark from all AGW Diehards. To prove something, all you need is proof.

To doubt something, all you need a lack of proof.

You believe something and have no proof. I doubt something because there is no proof.

Which of us has faith?
Click to expand...

Fall back? I've given you a lot of evidence. I don't think you're interested in the science. There is plenty of evidence. You merely have to open your eyes.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

head of joaquin said:
Yes, yes, all three of them.

Climate change denialism is a rightwing meme, fostered and paid for by Big Carbon, and activiting the conspiratorial part of the tea party brain, such as it is. Progressives listen to scientists and try to make rational policy based on the best science.

It's sort of funny to hear you defend you position by claiming falsely that some liberals are as irrational as you are.
Click to expand...

Big Carbon? Bwuahahahahahahaha....... :lamo
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

code1211 said:
Hansen defined three scenarios. We are running at the CO2 increase rate most closely described by his A Scenario. I don't know what you are appealing to. He set the parameters for the assessment of the accuracy and he made the prediction.

He and everyone else in this discipline are unable to make an accurate prediction. This does not make them evil or conspiratorial or swindlers. It only means they are not yet capable of making an accurate prediction. Why are they unable? I would hope it is because they cannot coordinate the thousands of interactions that create the climate in their models. Jansen certainly missed. He missed by plenty. We are less warm than he thought we would be if the CO2 actually decreased.

The CO2 has increased at the rates it was increasing when he made his hunch prediction. He was wrong.

Why do you continue to say that wrong is right?

"HANSEN’S SCENARIOS

The three scenarios and their predictions are defined by Hansen 1988 as follows


“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.9 ⁰C, OVER FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

“scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.75 ⁰C, OVER THREE TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

“scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.29 ⁰C, ONLY 31% HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.

So, only Scenario C, which “assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions” comes close to the truth.

THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL “CURTAILMENT OF TRACE GAS EMISSIONS”

As everyone knows, the Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2 proves that there has NOT BEEN ANY CURTAILMENT of trace gas emissions. Indeed, the rapid increase of CO2 continues unabated."
Click to expand...

The part you are missing, which I have explained repeatedly, is that there are other variables involved in climate.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Boo Radley said:
Not quite the same. But follow your argument: we don't need no stink'in evidence. We just believe. That's not science. It is valid to make decisions based on available information, and not valid to merely think something because that's how you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Wow, project much? I asked you before to show me how the conditions of GW could be replicated in scientific surroundings by various scientists....You ignored that completely. Because it can't, and we have proof of the GW religion supporters skewing information to fit their conclusions. This isn't science, it is a rouse. A scam. And you buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom