• 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!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Lord of Planar said:
Break that down please:


They just acknowledged that the greenhouse gasses amplify the solar changes, without saying it. With no change in greenhouse gas concentrations, the radiative downforce caused by greenhouse gasses, approximately increases proportional to solar changes. What they claim for greenhouse gas increases are primarily solar changes that they hijacked into the CO2, CH4, etc. This is where the "idirect" solar effect is.
Click to expand...

They've acknowledged it plays a role and the question is does it play a very minor role or a moderate role. What are you trying to prove? This doesn't "debunk" anything, it is simply another factor to be considered.
 
jmotivator said:
You know, it's rather silly of you to claim that Solar variance is already "accounted for" and then quote an article that specifically points out that there is significant disagreement on the point.
Click to expand...

Yes it has been accounted for as a factor in the grand scheme of climate change, this is how science works. Are you suggesting it debunks anything?
 
Fenton said:
There are a few of us geeks in a lab...
Click to expand...

What people don't seem to understand is how most disciplines can be easily applied to others. take fluid dynamics vs. electronics for example. Flow is current, pressure is volts, etc.

Amplifiers...

Feedback...

Consider the greenhouse gasses as a positive feedback. The greenhouse gas is a nonlinear gain control that varies with concentration, but your output is nearly proportional to your input. I have talked to a climate scientist that had the "oh-sh--" realization when I was able to explain that to him. They are simply not taught to think like that. The education is based in the belief it is CO2 as the primary problem.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are so few links that anyone who is a true believer accepts as evidence. I'm not in the habbit of justifying everything I've learned with links that i would have to take time to look up. If you are google educated, thenIi would expect that is whay you ask. You want a "google war."

I understand the sciences. I don't need someone who links material to tell me what to think, and if the people reading my words cannot follow from lack of understanding the sciences, then what will links prove?
Click to expand...

So what are you doing then? You're just going to run around making cryptic comments with formula's from who knows where claiming things and if anyone questions you this is your response? That you just know it all and don't need to share with the rest of the class? That is not very productive.
 
Verax said:
So what are you doing then? You're just going to run around making cryptic comments with formula's from who knows where claiming things and if anyone questions you this is your response? That you just know it all and don't need to share with the rest of the class? That is not very productive.
Click to expand...
I have a bachelors in Earth Science. No, that doesn't mean that I'm an expert in climate science and doesn't make me an authority on this subject at all but it does give me the ability to recognize the language that Lord of Planer is speaking. There is nothing "cryptic" about it at all.
 
Middleground said:
Oh yes, the ole, "we have flatlined" deception. :doh :lol:
What you are refusing to say is that the 10 hottest years on record have occured post 1998. Instead, you laughingly choose to sugar coat it by saying we are flat. Talk about complete and utter denial. Tsk, tsk.

But let me help you out. Look how each decade is hotter than the previous. Wow, pretty telling, eh? So ****ing fess up and admit that the world has been steadily warming since the dawn of the industrial age. And not only that, but we seem to be getting hotter much quicker, too.

1880–1889 −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)

1890–1899 −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)

1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)

1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)

1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)

1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)

1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)

1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F)

1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)

1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)

1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)

1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)

2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
Click to expand...
OMG...

Why can't people understand why we can be at a decade+ flat period, and still see record temperatures? If after I explain this, and you still use that lame argument, I will just have to shake my head.

Each of those periods you listed are averages. Averages include values greater than and values less than the average. Any decade with the highest average, will statistically have most of the highest temperatures as well.

The stock market often uses language like "past performance does not guarantee future performance." Well guess what. Typically, we can expect such trends to continue, but only if we understand the trend we are looking at.

There have been three distinct increases on solar activity. I normally only mention two, the ones from about 1713 to 1780, and from about 1900 to about 1950. however, following the first increase, was a decrease from about 1790 to about 1810, and another increase from about 1820 to about 1840. Now any effects the sun has also has lag times of at least 4 decades to see the majority of change it causes.

I will suggest you do not discount the possibility that the last increase ending about 1950 has finally run it's course. The whole basis that temperatures will continue is based on the fantasy that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change. If the primary driver of temperature change is the sun, then counting on CO2 increases is wrong...
 
Middleground said:
^^^ See, Lord of Planar? :lol:

LOL, you make my point well. Keep your head in the sand, Erod.
Click to expand...

Yes, we had a notable cooling. My opinion is it was caused by solar reflective aerosols, that we have pretty much cleaned up since the formation of the EPA. Since then, it allowed the natural solar increase changes to continue, and increased the natural lag time to see the full extent of the increases.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I have a bachelors in Earth Science. No, that doesn't mean that I'm an expert in climate science and doesn't make me an authority on this subject at all but it does give me the ability to recognize the language that Lord of Planer is speaking. There is nothing "cryptic" about it at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't look back far enough in quotes to see where that data came from is part of what I was getting at, I know what math is :lol:. The cryptic part is Planar sort of talks in a hard to follow manner about various things, its almost as though it is intentionally obfuscated.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What people don't seem to understand is how most
disciplines can be easily applied to others. take fluid dynamics vs. electronics for example. Flow is current, pressure is volts, etc.

Amplifiers...

Feedback...

Consider the greenhouse gasses as a positive feedback. The greenhouse gas is a nonlinear gain control that varies with concentration, but your output is nearly proportional to your input. I have talked to a climate scientist that had the "oh-sh--" realization when I was able to explain that to him. They are simply not taught to think like that. The education is based in the belief it is CO2 as the primary problem.
Click to expand...

Many years ago as 13 year old learning the fundamentals of electricity I had a science teacher that used the water analogy to help us conceptualize the flow of electrons.

Although it's more analogous with DC than AC and it's function as a teaching tool stops pretty quickly once you get into electronics and waveforms.

Poor Edison, he was punked by his apprentice.
 
Verax said:
They've acknowledged it plays a role and the question is does it play a very minor role or a moderate role. What are you trying to prove? This doesn't "debunk" anything, it is simply another factor to be considered.
Click to expand...

really now...

They lie by omission, and you wish me to take their word on any of it? They still claim a "very low level of understanding" yet solar scientists will say otherwise. They have at least increased the assessments for black carbon in the AR5. Why not, it's an AGW component. However, they would have to reduce other warming agents too much or increase cooling agents too much if they actually shows the indirect solar effects as well. Claiming they don't understand the sun is an easy excuse to just include the direct forcing.

AR5radiativeforcing_zps36b0067c.png
 
Verax said:
So what are you doing then? You're just going to run around making cryptic comments with formula's from who knows where claiming things and if anyone questions you this is your response? That you just know it all and don't need to share with the rest of the class? That is not very productive.
Click to expand...

Why not? If you are truly interested in the truth, you will take time to understand enough of the sciences to understand my points. If all you do is believe what the flat earth society experts say, then you are a lost cause.

Think for yourself...
 
Verax said:
I didn't look back far enough in quotes to see where that data came from is part of what I was getting at, I know what math is :lol:. The cryptic part is Planar sort of talks in a hard to follow manner about various things, its almost as though it is intentionally obfuscated.
Click to expand...

I was never good as a technical writer. I always aced all technical courses, but was bad in grammar, spelling, etc. in school.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I was never good as a technical writer. I always aced all technical courses, but was bad in grammar, spelling, etc. in school.
Click to expand...


Apparently you didnt do real well with logic and critical thinking courses either.

The best minds in the world who have been studying this as a career have no doubts that CAGW is real and significant. This has been compiled with hundreds of studies and computer models which have nailed the warming pattern over the last 30 years better than we could have ever expected.

The current period of a 'plateau' of warming (i.e. we are equaling the warmest temperatures in the last 10,000 years this decade, but not exceeding them) can be at least partially be explained by variations in solar irradiance (the sun is at the lowest level of irrradiance in decades Deep Solar Minimum - NASA Science ) and the fact that the heat tends to be more pronouced in the oceans and in melting ice, which is clearly happening at a rapid rate.

The earth is warming. Not a matter of dispute among scientists.
The earth is warming at an unprecedented rate in human history. Also not really a matter of dispute.
CO2 is causing at least some of the warming, if not the majority. Not in dispute.
Pouring gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the future will worsen global warming. Not in dispute.
What to do about it? Thats in dispute, although there is no disputing that continuting to pour CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why not? If you are truly interested in the truth, you will take time to understand enough of the sciences to understand my points. If all you do is believe what the flat earth society experts say, then you are a lost cause.

Think for yourself...
Click to expand...

Well I don't know a tremendous amount about climate science and I'd guess that >99% of the posters on this forum don't possess the ability to debate these very specific details either. So I have to wonder who you are planning to debate with? I'm sure plenty will claim to be highly competent, but I think that is more just to stroke their ego.

I have a strong general scientific understanding and master in computer science, but not climate science. Mostly I just post on this forum to combat the crazies who think the whole thing is a complete lie with no scientific merit whatsoever, you know that is not the truth.
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently you didnt do real well with logic and critical thinking courses either.

The best minds in the world who have been studying this as a career have no doubts that CAGW is real and significant. This has been compiled with hundreds of studies and computer models which have nailed the warming pattern over the last 30 years better than we could have ever expected.

The current period of a 'plateau' of warming (i.e. we are equaling the warmest temperatures in the last 10,000 years this decade, but not exceeding them) can be at least partially be explained by variations in solar irradiance (the sun is at the lowest level of irrradiance in decades Deep Solar Minimum - NASA Science ) and the fact that the heat tends to be more pronouced in the oceans and in melting ice, which is clearly happening at a rapid rate.

The earth is warming. Not a matter of dispute among scientists.
The earth is warming at an unprecedented rate in human history. Also not really a matter of dispute.
CO2 is causing at least some of the warming, if not the majority. Not in dispute.
Pouring gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the future will worsen global warming. Not in dispute.
What to do about it? Thats in dispute, although there is no disputing that continuting to pour CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

are they not the same scientist that was caught fudging data and e-mails surfaced to prove as much. i say follow the money look to see who provided the money for that research to be done
 
Verax said:
Well I don't know a tremendous amount about climate science and I'd guess that >99% of the posters on this forum don't possess the ability to debate these very specific details either.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one reason I continually point out they are speaking of matters they do not understand, and try to get them to understand at least the basics.


Verax said:
So I have to wonder who you are planning to debate with? I'm sure plenty will claim to be highly competent, but I think that is more just to stroke their ego.
Click to expand...
I have really shaken the views of two individuals in a different forum who claimed to be climate scientists, of sorts. I believe both were/are in college for it. I only hope to lead people to the truth, over a matter that if we follow this path of unnecessary national spending, can only harm us.


Verax said:
I have a strong general scientific understanding and master in computer science, but not climate science. Mostly I just post on this forum to combat the crazies who think the whole thing is a complete lie with no scientific merit whatsoever, you know that is not the truth.
Click to expand...
Well, CO2 radiate forcing increases are real with increased CO2. The problem is that the AGW community's dogma is based on CO2 being the primary cause of warming. At best, the 3rd cause. It is laughable that the range of solar changes cited by solar experts would only cause values as low as the 0.12 W/m^2 cited by the climate experts.

One thing that is wrong about the climate sciences, is they do not set out to prove their claims, by trying to disprove them. I'm not real familiar with the computer sciences, especially to the level of a masters degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you make a program, you don't just test it to make sure it does what you want. Don't you also test your program to see what it does under unusual circumstances, unexpected inputs, etc. to find as many bugs as possible? I have never seen the climate scientists try to break their own theories. All they do is change the models to make them fit past results, always using CO2 as the key variable, and then these models are never capable of predicting future results. Seems like that have a very low understanding of more than just solar...
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
Well I don't know a tremendous amount about climate science and I'd guess
that >99% of the posters on this forum don't possess the ability to debate these very specific details either. So I have to wonder who you are planning to debate with? I'm sure plenty will claim to be highly competent, but I think that is more just to stroke their ego.

I have a strong general scientific understanding and master in computer science, but not climate science. Mostly I just post on this forum to combat the crazies who think the whole thing is a complete lie with no scientific merit whatsoever, you know that is not the truth.
Click to expand...

You seem to be motivated by a political agenda rather than a scientific premise owing to your generic descriptions and broad brushing of people who are actually looking at the issue of man made global warming objectivly.

And still waiting for you to " destroy me " or my post or what have you.

Self acclamations of victory don't count .
 
Lord of Planar said:
One thing that is wrong about the climate sciences, is they do not set out to prove their claims, by trying to disprove them. I'm not real familiar with the computer sciences, especially to the level of a masters degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you make a program, you don't just test it to make sure it does what you want. Don't you also test your program to see what it does under unusual circumstances, unexpected inputs, etc. to find as many bugs as possible? I have never seen the climate scientists try to break their own theories. All they do is change the models to make them fit past results, and then these models are never capable of predicting future results. Seems like that have a very low understanding of more than just solar...
Click to expand...

Bingo. 15 year Enterprise Architect experience(for the layman, its a fancy title for designing very large, Enterprise category computer systems) speaking here, you always test every piece of your system for positive and negative outcomes, as well as abnormalities(i.e. bad memory, file system errors, database corruption, etc ). And that is before you even bother with system testing or integration testing with other modules.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, that is one reason I continually point out they are speaking of matters they do not understand, and try to get them to understand at least the basics.



I have really shaken the views of two individuals in a different forum who claimed to be climate scientists, of sorts. I believe both were/are in college for it. I only hope to lead people to the truth, over a matter that if we follow this path of unnecessary national spending, can only harm us.



Well, CO2 radiate forcing increases are real with increased CO2. The problem is that the AGW community's dogma is based on CO2 being the primary cause of warming. At best, the 3rd cause. It is laughable that the range of solar changes cited by solar experts would only cause values as low as the 0.12 W/m^2 cited by the climate experts.

One thing that is wrong about the climate sciences, is they do not set out to prove their claims, by trying to disprove them. I'm not real familiar with the computer sciences, especially to the level of a masters degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you make a program, you don't just test it to make sure it does what you want. Don't you also test your program to see what it does under unusual circumstances, unexpected inputs, etc. to find as many bugs as possible? I have never seen the climate scientists try to break their own theories. All they do is change the models to make them fit past results, always using CO2 as the key variable, and then these models are never capable of predicting future results. Seems like that have a very low understanding of more than just solar...
Click to expand...

They didn't claim to be climate scientists. They said that they had studied it as an undergrad.

I'm not a big fan of argumentum ad auctoritatem, and I'm very much not someone who pretends to be an expert in a field which they know pretty much squat. It's pretty clear that your entire understanding of climate science is a strawman.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, CO2 radiate forcing increases are real with increased CO2. The problem is that the AGW community's dogma is based on CO2 being the primary cause of warming. At best, the 3rd cause. It is laughable that the range of solar changes cited by solar experts would only cause values as low as the 0.12 W/m^2 cited by the climate experts.

One thing that is wrong about the climate sciences, is they do not set out to prove their claims, by trying to disprove them. I'm not real familiar with the computer sciences, especially to the level of a masters degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you make a program, you don't just test it to make sure it does what you want. Don't you also test your program to see what it does under unusual circumstances, unexpected inputs, etc. to find as many bugs as possible? I have never seen the climate scientists try to break their own theories. All they do is change the models to make them fit past results, always using CO2 as the key variable, and then these models are never capable of predicting future results. Seems like that have a very low understanding of more than just solar...
Click to expand...

Yes with programming you want strong input validation and for all possible code paths to react in the proper manner or else you get unintended behavior.

If what you say about climate science is true then that is just bad science. I certainly hope the majority of the work doesn't function this way. You should never conduct work with the aim of it leading to a desired outcome, this is bad science 101. You're supposed to set everything up to the best of your ability to be accurate and then analyze the results and draw conclusions from that.

I wish more people on this board would debate more in this manner of actually providing some kind of substance, plausible arguments that may be valid.
 
Fenton said:
You seem to be motivated by a political agenda rather than a scientific premise owing to your generic descriptions and broad brushing of people who are actually looking at the issue of man made global warming objectivly.

And still waiting for you to " destroy me " or my post or what have you.

Self acclamations of victory don't count .
Click to expand...

LoL just stop, you win ok? :lol:
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG...

Why can't people understand why we can be at a decade+ flat period, and still see record temperatures? If after I explain this, and you still use that lame argument, I will just have to shake my head.

Each of those periods you listed are averages. Averages include values greater than and values less than the average. Any decade with the highest average, will statistically have most of the highest temperatures as well.

The stock market often uses language like "past performance does not guarantee future performance." Well guess what. Typically, we can expect such trends to continue, but only if we understand the trend we are looking at.

There have been three distinct increases on solar activity. I normally only mention two, the ones from about 1713 to 1780, and from about 1900 to about 1950. however, following the first increase, was a decrease from about 1790 to about 1810, and another increase from about 1820 to about 1840. Now any effects the sun has also has lag times of at least 4 decades to see the majority of change it causes.

I will suggest you do not discount the possibility that the last increase ending about 1950 has finally run it's course. The whole basis that temperatures will continue is based on the fantasy that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change. If the primary driver of temperature change is the sun, then counting on CO2 increases is wrong...
Click to expand...

Seriously, do you really think climatologists don't take solar activity into account when they make there calculations? Seriously?
 
Mithros said:
They didn't claim to be climate scientists. They said that they had studied it as an undergrad.
Click to expand...
Then you also visit that site and know who i talk about.


Mithros said:
I'm not a big fan of argumentum ad auctoritatem, and I'm very much not someone who pretends to be an expert in a field which they know pretty much squat. It's pretty clear that your entire understanding of climate science is a strawman.
Click to expand...
Why is it clear? I will disagree with your assessment. I most certainly lack many parts of the science to be a climatologist. For one, I do not have faith in their religion. I do very clearly, understand the aspects I speak of, enough to know they are full of BS.
 
Homer. said:
Seriously, do you really think climatologists don't take solar activity into account when they make there calculations? Seriously?
Click to expand...
I know they don't, at least in what they publicly release. If any of them have, I haven't seen that material. If you are aware of any, i would love to see it.

Again, they only release "direct" solar forcing, and never say how much the indirect forcing is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom