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

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

Lord of Planar said:

Did he saw we don't change our environment?

Again, he specified warming. A part of environment, not the environment.

Click to expand...

This is Joe's usual tactic, I'm not biting this time. He can read....I think...

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

j-mac said:

This is Joe's usual tactic, I'm not biting this time. He can read....I think...

Click to expand...

Translation: I follow his point but don't have anything to counter. I understand. :lamo:lamo:lamo

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

Boo Radley said:

Translation: I follow his point but don't have anything to counter. I understand. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't attempt to read others minds. You just sound silly.

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

j-mac said:

You really shouldn't attempt to read others minds. You just sound silly.

Click to expand...

Not reading minds. I stated clearly: translation. :lamo:lamo:lamo

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

Boo Radley said:

Not reading minds. I stated clearly: translation. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Click to expand...

No, you projected what you think I was saying. As usual, you are just pathetically wrong....nite now :2wave:

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

j-mac said:

No, you projected what you think I was saying. As usual, you are just pathetically wrong....nite now :2wave:

Click to expand...

Nope. Interpreted what you actually said. :lamo

Nite.

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

j-mac said:

This is Joe's usual tactic, I'm not biting this time. He can read....I think...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put money on it.

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

ttwtt78640 said:

Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.

Click to expand...

True, but it's funny how the right always find the nut that went off on their face

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

Threegoofs said:

Instead of doing your homework for you again, why don't you show me one significant scientific organization that has specifically rejected the theory?

Click to expand...

You must have been a delight in grade school.

This is YOUR homework, not mine.

You tried to find this once before and failed.

Your are free to cite the science organization that that has declared AGW to be a scientific theory.

I'll give you a head start. The UK Met office knows this to be a hypothesis. You know, an unproven assertion.

However, by the standards set forth by Duke University for an assertion to qualify as a scientific hypothesis, this doesn't even meet those far looser criteria. You folks have a long way to go.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory
<snip>
The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: “It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
<snip>

http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

But co2 is a greenhouse gas, are you saying it is not a green house gas?

Click to expand...

Of course not. The fact of the matter is, though, that it can only do so much warming as is evidenced by the actual real world performance of the Climate.

As the concentration of CO2 increases incrementally, the resulting effect of each incremental increase diminishes. Think of it as having light escaping from a room though a window as the Earth's heat radiation escapes from the atmosphere.

Put a coat of paint on the window and the amount of light escaping decreases dramatically. Apply a second coat and the amount decreases a little more. Not as much as the first decrease. Apply a third coat and a fourth. With every additional coat, the decrease in the amount of blocked light becomes less and less. The same occurs with the Green house effect of CO2. At the concentration of CO2 we currently have, about 400 ppm, we are at about the "20th coat of paint".

The first 20 ppm would have been quite significant. The 20th has almost no impact.

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can « JoNova

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

Lord of Planar said:

Well, my take is yes. It is a greenhouse gas. However, that doesn't mean it has the most influence of what we base climate change on. Now where I would say Code is either technically wrong, or misspoke, is saying AGW means CO2. I read his words as meaning implying CO2 only, but I would distinguish the hypothesis as meaning CO2 is the largest contributor. That is where I strongly disagree.

Yes, CO2 has a minor role in climate change, and is also rather dependent of what you mean by climate change. Climate change is a catch all phrasing that the alarmist community went to.

There are so many factors that change climate. Starting with the sun, it is the source of almost all the earth's heat. A minor change in solar heat doesn't seem like much. Most of us think in terms of Celsius of Fahrenheit. However, when doing any math with temperature and heat other than addition and subtraction, one must first convert to kelvin. Scientists agree that the earth's average is about 15 C, or 288 K. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a long term solar change in tenths of a percent make a notable change.

Keep in mind, any temperature in Celsius equals to a number 273.15 higher in Kelvin.

Click to expand...

You're right, of course. The albedo and the various deforestation elements and heat island components are there as well all of the various changes to the eco systems just to support the 7 billion hungry mouths we have grown to as a race of humans. Made possible, in passing, by the blessings of fossil fuels.

CO2 is the great boogie man that is always thrown up so that is the one that is most misunderstood due to the willfully wrong presentation of materials by the Diehards.

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

Verax said:

I generally don't respond to your posts as they're abnormally silly but... you really need to be slapped for this nonsense you spam everywhere.

I never said I was 100% sure of prevailing climate change science. I think its the best science available and far more credible than anything the deniers present. I don't rail against legitimate skeptics, their job is important to the scientific community. Deniers are different than skeptics. You are a denier, LoP is a denier. You don't frame challenges to climate change in an honest, pragmatic, sensible manner. You blurt out tidbits of pseudo science all the while denigrating every aspect of the solid science being performed by the larger scientific body.

The terminology you use is offensive and controversial. You call science faith. You say that climate change science is chalk full of holes as though it is some kind of amateur kludged garbage thrown together on a whim. You then call it "fact".

You're basically a human form of a fossil fuel industry propaganda / disinformation campaign. If you think that crap you read is anything close to "expert" opinion or grounded in solid science, you're going to have a very skewed sense of reality. I suggest you get a good book on integrated science and have a read through it. Learn the scientific method and what good sources look like. Learn some critical thinking skills along the way and you can leave this denier nonsense in the past.

Click to expand...

Wow! Not a single fact to support anything you say, but **** sure of your assertions. Good for you!

Have you come up with even one science organization that has elevated this notion to being a Scientific Theory? If not, then the scientific community with which you claim affinity has not given the kind of support to this notion that you imply they hold.

Have you produced even one accurate 30 year old prediction of the temperature?

It is you who are crowing that science supports the assertions of AGW. At some point, there must be evidence in the real world that the assertion is more than just a dream.

I doubt with good cause. You believe with very little cause.

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

Boo Radley said:

No, it is the argument. He said we can't effect the environment. Can we or can't we?

Click to expand...

Okay, you may not know what a Straw Man argument is. It is a deceitful diversion from the actual topic.

For you reference:

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

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

Boo Radley said:

Yes, a part. Water s also a part. Neither is the whole. Both are part. Easier to see water. But if I can effect water, doesn't it stand to reason I can effect land? Air? Warming?

Click to expand...

The argument of AGW is: CO2 increased in the ecosystem due to the activities of man. As a result of this increase, warming occurred. By reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by the activities of Man, the warming will end.

The assertion is that man can control and direct the climate of the planet.

That is what we are talking about.

You are trying to create a diversion by attacking a straw man.

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

code1211 said:

You're right, of course. The albedo and the various deforestation elements and heat island components are there as well all of the various changes to the eco systems just to support the 7 billion hungry mouths we have grown to as a race of humans. Made possible, in passing, by the blessings of fossil fuels.

CO2 is the great boogie man that is always thrown up so that is the one that is most misunderstood due to the willfully wrong presentation of materials by the Diehards.

Click to expand...

Because it is the only one able to be exploited for wealth redistribution.

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

code1211 said:

Wow! Not a single fact to support anything you say, but **** sure of your assertions. Good for you!

Have you come up with even one science organization that has elevated this notion to being a Scientific Theory? If not, then the scientific community with which you claim affinity has not given the kind of support to this notion that you imply they hold.

Have you produced even one accurate 30 year old prediction of the temperature?

It is you who are crowing that science supports the assertions of AGW. At some point, there must be evidence in the real world that the assertion is more than just a dream.

I doubt with good cause. You believe with very little cause.

Click to expand...

You blew right past my suggestion to get a book on integrated science or at least read Wikipedia or something! You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The theory of climate change is a large, encompassing, well tested, explanation.

A hypothesis on the other hand is generally much more specific. You would say something like "I hypothesize eating 1750 more calories a day than my usual 2500 will cause me to gain half a pound of body fat a day". You would then perform a carefully controlled experiment where you eat the extra calories then test the effects, your weight, bodyfat scale, caliper measurements, etc over a range of time long enough to give enough accuracy to your unit measurements (weight, bodyfat %). If the results of your experiments, the data, seemed to corroborate your hypothesis you could conclude your hypothesis was correct. Now that doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is correct, just that it wasn't proven false.

For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.

For earth sciences we often have to use models. So what we really have is the "climate change model" which is a variation on climate change theory. The precise terminology doesn't really matter. "Elevating" climate change to a "theory" or "model" doesn't really mean anything. Its not like scientists have some party where they smack a bell with a hammer and declare climate change a theory that cannot be refuted or some such nonsense. A theory is just the best explanation for a well tested, well observed phenomenon. It doesn't mean its right, just that its a battle tested explanation that is probably right.

Another problem with what you are doing is you are cherry picking. You are taking tidbits of knowledge and saying look! look! its not perfect! It seems to suggest something else! Look! That tidbit may in fact suggest another explanation, however its just 1 tidbit of 100 and the other 99 support the opposite... So you see just focusing on small parts of the argument and drawing massive conclusions (the WHOLE thing is a fraud, incorrect), is really silly. You have to look at the entire picture and judge it as a cohesive whole. That is where the climate change model's strength lies. There is a lot of data, observations, explanations, individual hypothesis that support the theory. That is what the scientific method is all about... You build a solid brick wall of well tested, credible science and over time you trust it more and more, it becomes stronger and less likely to be wrong. When something new comes along that seems to suggest otherwise, you don't just pounce and say forget it! forget that whole brick wall of science, lets blow it all down and say its all wrong because this ONE piece of evidence doesn't seem to fit!

If you give it time and careful consideration you will find the science sorts itself out and the new information will be scrubbed and fit into the wall one way or another.

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

Verax said:

You blew right past my suggestion to get a book on integrated science or at least read Wikipedia or something! You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The theory of climate change is a large, encompassing, well tested, explanation.

A hypothesis on the other hand is generally much more specific. You would say something like "I hypothesize eating 1750 more calories a day than my usual 2500 will cause me to gain half a pound of body fat a day". You would then perform a carefully controlled experiment where you eat the extra calories then test the effects, your weight, bodyfat scale, caliper measurements, etc over a range of time long enough to give enough accuracy to your unit measurements (weight, bodyfat %). If the results of your experiments, the data, seemed to corroborate your hypothesis you could conclude your hypothesis was correct. Now that doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is correct, just that it wasn't proven false.

For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.

For earth sciences we often have to use models. So what we really have is the "climate change model" which is a variation on climate change theory. The precise terminology doesn't really matter. "Elevating" climate change to a "theory" or "model" doesn't really mean anything. Its not like scientists have some party where they smack a bell with a hammer and declare climate change a theory that cannot be refuted or some such nonsense. A theory is just the best explanation for a well tested, well observed phenomenon. It doesn't mean its right, just that its a battle tested explanation that is probably right.

Another problem with what you are doing is you are cherry picking. You are taking tidbits of knowledge and saying look! look! its not perfect! It seems to suggest something else! Look! That tidbit may in fact suggest another explanation, however its just 1 tidbit of 100 and the other 99 support the opposite... So you see just focusing on small parts of the argument and drawing massive conclusions (the WHOLE thing is a fraud, incorrect), is really silly. You have to look at the entire picture and judge it as a cohesive whole. That is where the climate change model's strength lies. There is a lot of data, observations, explanations, individual hypothesis that support the theory. That is what the scientific method is all about... You build a solid brick wall of well tested, credible science and over time you trust it more and more, it becomes stronger and less likely to be wrong. When something new comes along that seems to suggest otherwise, you don't just pounce and say forget it! forget that whole brick wall of science, lets blow it all down and say its all wrong because this ONE piece of evidence doesn't seem to fit!

If you give it time and careful consideration you will find the science sorts itself out and the new information will be scrubbed and fit into the wall one way or another.

Click to expand...

You are saying that a Scientific Model is the same thing as a Scientific Theory? You will need to alert the entire Science Community of this. You have a scoop.

Are you saying that Anthropogenic Global warming Science is more complex than the Theory of Evolution? Again, you have a scoop.

A Scientific Hypothesis is not just some guy who says, "Gee, I wonder it this thing over here is something to look at." It has a real live set of parameters and key among these the the method by which it may be falsified. There is no such method for the notion of AGW. I have linked to the form provided by Duke University so you can review the rigors to which a real scientist must go to create a hypothesis. As I said, key among these is the precise method that can be used to falsify the hypothesis.

There is no hypothesis for this empty group of notions, there is certainly no theory for it and there is no method provided by the proponents to falsify the results. The entire notion is empty. There has been more than 100 years to prove that this is an actual Scientific Theory. The Cubs will win a World Series before this wins the classification of being a Scientific Theory and, no, a model is not a theory in the world of science.



http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
<snip>
HYPOTHESIS DESCRIPTION FORM
1. Describe phenomenon to be explained.
2. Describe process(es) that you hypothesize to cause the phenomenon and describe how they do so.
3. Are there relevant observations/phenomena your hypothesis does not account for? If so, what are they?
4. Are there known facts that are inconsistent with your hypothesis? If so, what are they?
5. Describe what experimental results or observations could falsify your hypothesis.
<snip>

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

code1211 said:

Okay, you may not know what a Straw Man argument is. It is a deceitful diversion from the actual topic.

For you reference:

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

Click to expand...

I'm. Nit diverting. A strawman is beating up something easier. A red herring is more diverting to something more agreeable. I told you, j, and others I picked an easier more understandable place to start, and that we could build from there, which is addressing the topic. Now, if you and they lack the courage or ability to tackle this, don't. I understand. But, we effect. The water, the ground, he air, all of this is the environment. Each place a role in our lives on this planet. There is no logical reason to believe that you can effect everything but the planet warming, especially scientist point to how we do just that.

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

code1211 said:

The argument of AGW is: CO2 increased in the ecosystem due to the activities of man. As a result of this increase, warming occurred. By reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by the activities of Man, the warming will end.

The assertion is that man can control and direct the climate of the planet.

That is what we are talking about.

You are trying to create a diversion by attacking a straw man.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. You guys don't even Know the arguments. The argument is we can stop our contribution, thus slowing it down closer to a more natural cycle. It's hard to debate people who don't even know what they are debating.

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

Verax said:

For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.

Click to expand...

This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.

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

Lord of Planar said:

This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.

Click to expand...

I guess the same goes for Evolution then.

Or maybe you're wrong.

Hard to say which. You seem so confident.

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

Threegoofs said:

I guess the same goes for Evolution then.

Or maybe you're wrong.

Hard to say which. You seem so confident.

Click to expand...

In genetics, we have seen changes that are experimentally repeatable. To become a theory, it is required for testing to be repeatable. Now I disagree that evolution should be called a theory, but I accept that it is. Time and time again, there is not counter evidence to the ideas proposed. In the case of the complexities of anthropogenic global warming, the atmospheric mix cannot be properly simulated in a laboratory to do repeated testing on. It can only be modeled, and there are legitimate papers that have radiative forcing values for CO2 that decrease warming in some studies. It is not repeatable when values are all over the place.

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

code1211 said:

You are saying that a Scientific Model is the same thing as a Scientific Theory? You will need to alert the entire Science Community of this. You have a scoop.

Are you saying that Anthropogenic Global warming Science is more complex than the Theory of Evolution? Again, you have a scoop.

A Scientific Hypothesis is not just some guy who says, "Gee, I wonder it this thing over here is something to look at." It has a real live set of parameters and key among these the the method by which it may be falsified. There is no such method for the notion of AGW. I have linked to the form provided by Duke University so you can review the rigors to which a real scientist must go to create a hypothesis. As I said, key among these is the precise method that can be used to falsify the hypothesis.

There is no hypothesis for this empty group of notions, there is certainly no theory for it and there is no method provided by the proponents to falsify the results. The entire notion is empty. There has been more than 100 years to prove that this is an actual Scientific Theory. The Cubs will win a World Series before this wins the classification of being a Scientific Theory and, no, a model is not a theory in the world of science.



http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
<snip>
HYPOTHESIS DESCRIPTION FORM
1. Describe phenomenon to be explained.
2. Describe process(es) that you hypothesize to cause the phenomenon and describe how they do so.
3. Are there relevant observations/phenomena your hypothesis does not account for? If so, what are they?
4. Are there known facts that are inconsistent with your hypothesis? If so, what are they?
5. Describe what experimental results or observations could falsify your hypothesis.
<snip>

Click to expand...

Again, you need to read, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does the complexity of AGW have to do with evolution? What on earth are you even talking about?

Then you imply it is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis? What on earth are you talking about? It wouldn't be a hypothesis anyway as it contains many, many different factors from many different disciplines of science. It encompasses many individual hypotheses. It is a large unifying body of evidence. Again I don't think you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

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

Lord of Planar said:

This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.

Click to expand...

No, that is why it can't be a hypothesis. I'm really puzzled here, how can somebody who claims to know so much about science not even understand the most basic aspects of the scientific method? Climate change is a large term given to thousands of individual pieces of information, data, experiments, hypotheses, etc. As I responded to code it is a unifying theory the encompasses many different fields of science. It consists of many individual hypotheses. It itself is not a hypothesis... That is why we use models. You don't seem to understand the more complicated aspects of this. I thought I explained it quite simply but I guess you don't get it.

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

Verax said:

I'm really puzzled here, how can somebody who claims to know so much about science not even understand the most basic aspects of the scientific method?

Click to expand...

I have a theory about this.

It's complicated, involves quite a bit of self delusion, arrogance, paranoia, and a dash of troll. But I digress...