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

Verax said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, the bottom line is that it will never be accepted as theory, until the modeling can be made reliable, or until we have the technology to support it without modeling.

Have any reliable models?

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

Threegoofs said:

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...

Click to expand...

Haha, sounds about right. I can only imagine what kind of bizarre angle he'll be coming back with.

It still amazes me how dispensing basic rudimentary science is so controversial to conservatives.

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

Lord of Planar said:

Well, the bottom line is that it will never be accepted as theory, until the modeling can be made reliable, or until we have the technology to support it without modeling.

Have any reliable models?

Click to expand...

LoL, never be accepted as a theory? By who you? Do we really have to go back to the consensus argument again... my god man. You can believe whatever you want, stop misrepresenting mainstream science though.

If you don't like the models create a new thread with a very specific intent to question the models and place in this thread honest, accurate, criticisms about their weaknesses.

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

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

The amount of warming that CO2 can accomplish at the current concentrations is very minimal. That is what the actual scientists say. I've explained this to you and posted this for you before. I f you wish to remain willfully ignorant, you are welcome to do so.

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

Regarding your Straw Man argument, you talk about dumping a barrel of something into a lake. What is the something? What size is the barrel? What size is the lake? Was there already something in the lake causing problems that needed the barrel of whatever it is to be dumped in to correct a problem previously there whatever that was?

Even a straw man needs some bones to stand.

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

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the possibility that all things things affect all things when they contact each other, I agree. They do.

I hope that puts this to bed.

In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, I have explained to you that at the current concentrations, additional CO2 will not cause appreciable amounts of additional warming. For your ease of reference:

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

If you want to talk about your lake and your barrel, how big is the barrel? What was in the barrel? How big is the lake? What was in the lake before you dumped your barrel?

Did a scientist tell you to dump the barrel into the lake?

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

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that all of mankind, all 7+ Billion of us, can stop the contribution of CO2 to the Atmosphere?

That aside, though, reducing the contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 will not alter the warming or the cooling of the planet if the CO2 is not the cause of the warming or the cooling of the planet.

There is no scientific body on the planet that has pronounced AGW to be a Scientific Theory. There is not one scientific organization on the planet that is a proponent of AGW Science that has proposed a method by which this can be falsified so it really is not even a Scientific hypothesis.

Talk about not understanding the argument...

You have some serious proving to do.

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

Verax said:

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.

Click to expand...

The reason I brought up the THEORY of Evolution is that it, too, is a very complex idea that cuts across virtually all sciences. It affects all forms of life in all places in all climates and all times. It is arguably far more complex than the climate and yet it has been proven to reliable enough when making PREDICTIONS to be called a THEORY.

It works all of the time. When it seems to not be working, it turns out that it is working and is doing so in ways that we just did not consider. The questions posed by evolution re-inforce the science that supports it when the answers are found.

AGW "Science", on the other hand, has not one part of the requirements to be a Scientific Theory. The questions posed by AGW undermine the the science that supports it when the answers are found.

Are you saying that the THEORY of Evolution is not complex? Ever heard of DNA?

From your link:

<snip>
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution,etc.
<snip>

For your convenience, I've highlighted in RED those parts of the criteria that prevent this notion from being a Scientific Theory.

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

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

The big questions, of course, are: just who is we and exactly how "stopping our contribution" will be accomplished? Even if concensus existed on defining the problem is that "we" are far from having any agreement on any of the proposed "solutions".

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

Lord of Planar said:

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.

Click to expand...

If AGW had consistent predictive accuracy, that would be a giant step in the right direction to becoming a Theory.

Since it is consistently and constantly falsified by its own emptiness, it's difficult for a proponent to define an exercise by which it can be falsified without blowing up the whole notion.

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

Verax said:

Haha, sounds about right. I can only imagine what kind of bizarre angle he'll be coming back with.

It still amazes me how dispensing basic rudimentary science is so controversial to conservatives.

Click to expand...

It amazes me that people who accept fantasy as fact think they are following the Scientific Method.

Have you found that Science organization that calls this notion a Theory yet?

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

Verax said:

LoL, never be accepted as a theory? By who you? Do we really have to go back to the consensus argument again... my god man. You can believe whatever you want, stop misrepresenting mainstream science though.

If you don't like the models create a new thread with a very specific intent to question the models and place in this thread honest, accurate, criticisms about their weaknesses.

Click to expand...

The models are wrong.

What other quality is there that makes them either reliable or wrong?

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

Verax said:

LoL, never be accepted as a theory? By who you? Do we really have to go back to the consensus argument again... my god man. You can believe whatever you want, stop misrepresenting mainstream science though.

If you don't like the models create a new thread with a very specific intent to question the models and place in this thread honest, accurate, criticisms about their weaknesses.

Click to expand...

You are saying that talking about something and proving something are the same thing. They are not.

Scientists, you remember them, the guys who collect the data that is twisted by the propagandists, the scientists say this is not a theory. They say this because it does not meet the criteria needed to be a Theory.

Railing that they really, truly do even though they don't does not change the facts in the matter. This does not have the qualities demanded by Science to be a Theory. Why do the Diehards of AGW think that repetition of something that is untrue will make it true?

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

ttwtt78640 said:

The big questions, of course, are: just who is we and exactly how "stopping our contribution" will be accomplished? Even if concensus existed on defining the problem is that "we" are far from having any agreement on any of the proposed "solutions".

Click to expand...

Well, that's why I chek with scientist. I do believe in using bet evidence. While most doubt we (all humans) will significantly lower our contribution, they do say it can be done and can help. Not end; help.

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

code1211 said:

If you are talking about the possibility that all things things affect all things when they contact each other, I agree. They do.

I hope that puts this to bed.

In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, I have explained to you that at the current concentrations, additional CO2 will not cause appreciable amounts of additional warming. For your ease of reference:

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

If you want to talk about your lake and your barrel, how big is the barrel? What was in the barrel? How big is the lake? What was in the lake before you dumped your barrel?

Did a scientist tell you to dump the barrel into the lake?

Click to expand...

Jonova? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.

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

Boo Radley said:

Jonova? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.

Click to expand...

Not that this is anything new for you Joe, because you do this at every turn in arguing your case but, here for you, please take note....

4. Argument against the Person (Ad hominem):

Attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself. This also comes in several varieties:

Abusive: Lynch says that we should spend more state revenue on education because doing so would result in a more productive workforce. But lynch is a bleeding-heart, liberal Yankee from New York -- so you know that his opinion is worthless.

Circumstantial: Lynch says that we should spend more state revenue on education. But Lynch is a professor who wants a better salary -- so you know that his opinion is worthless.

From Hypocrisy: You've claimed that smoking is bad for one's health; but you smoke too.

Notice: if a person with low credibility asserts something without supplying evidence for it, then we should withhold judgment. But, if the person does supply reason for the claim, then we still need to look at those reasons and evaluate whether they support the conclusion in question.

Another thing to be aware of is convicting someone of holding contradictory beliefs. If we can show this, then we have indeed supplied a good reason to believe that the person is confused. But notice that people can change their minds. Changing your mind is fine; contradictory beliefs are not.

fallacies

Click to expand...

It is a good idea to avoid fallacious arguments because you can lose all credibility once your poor reasoning is exposed. And yours has...:2wave:

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

j-mac said:

Not that this is anything new for you Joe, because you do this at every turn in arguing your case but, here for you, please take note....



It is a good idea to avoid fallacious arguments because you can lose all credibility once your poor reasoning is exposed. And yours has...:2wave:

Click to expand...

Linking a fallacy isn't as important as understanding it. You can't in honest debate merely link any source. You have to link credible sources. I know you don't get this. And you confuse pointing it out with a fallacy. I'm sorry you're so mistaken. But I have done my best to point this out.

There is a ton of peer reviewed credible sources that back my view. Countering with something like jonova is not going to convince any honest critical thinker. That's just a fact.

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

code1211 said:

The reason I brought up the THEORY of Evolution is that it, too, is a very complex idea that cuts across virtually all sciences. It affects all forms of life in all places in all climates and all times. It is arguably far more complex than the climate and yet it has been proven to reliable enough when making PREDICTIONS to be called a THEORY.

It works all of the time. When it seems to not be working, it turns out that it is working and is doing so in ways that we just did not consider. The questions posed by evolution re-inforce the science that supports it when the answers are found.

AGW "Science", on the other hand, has not one part of the requirements to be a Scientific Theory. The questions posed by AGW undermine the the science that supports it when the answers are found.

Are you saying that the THEORY of Evolution is not complex? Ever heard of DNA?

From your link:

<snip>
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution,etc.
<snip>

For your convenience, I've highlighted in RED those parts of the criteria that prevent this notion from being a Scientific Theory.

Click to expand...

The falsifiable predictions are the climate change model. I've told you this several times now but you don't understand what it means.

Are you suggesting climate change theory goes against other theory? What exactly? LoL

So you think there is a simpler explanation huh? Do tell...

code1211 said:

It amazes me that people who accept fantasy as fact think they are following the Scientific Method.

Have you found that Science organization that calls this notion a Theory yet?

Click to expand...

Have you read any literature whatsoever on climate change? Do you know what a theory is? Its such a simple notion I don't think anyone bothers to say "Climate change is a theory". You should just know that it is...

code1211 said:

The models are wrong.

What other quality is there that makes them either reliable or wrong?

Click to expand...

So you say they're wrong... ok then... I guess that means they're wrong then... I'll let NASA know they're a bunch of morons.

code1211 said:

You are saying that talking about something and proving something are the same thing. They are not.

Scientists, you remember them, the guys who collect the data that is twisted by the propagandists, the scientists say this is not a theory. They say this because it does not meet the criteria needed to be a Theory.

Railing that they really, truly do even though they don't does not change the facts in the matter. This does not have the qualities demanded by Science to be a Theory. Why do the Diehards of AGW think that repetition of something that is untrue will make it true?

Click to expand...

Here you go again with your fantasy world. The scientists say this is not a theory? Really? What scientists? What organization? What on earth are you talking about? The scientists say AGW is just a bunch of bs or something? Really? Where do you think all the climate change science comes from? Politicians? Al Gore? Obama?

This is a waste of time to talk to a person like you, its just dumb. I'm here to share quality information with thoughtful people. Not debate this nonsense.

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

Boo Radley said:

Linking a fallacy isn't as important as understanding it. You can't in honest debate merely link any source. You have to link credible sources. I know you don't get this. And you confuse pointing it out with a fallacy. I'm sorry you're so mistaken. But I have done my best to point this out.

There is a ton of peer reviewed credible sources that back my view. Countering with something like jonova is not going to convince any honest critical thinker. That's just a fact.

Click to expand...

"peer review" is corrupt, and broken...Means little today. But that you think that using logical fallacies is the way to win a debate, or is even an accepted method of proving your point is just plain sad.

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

Boo Radley said:

Jonova? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.

Click to expand...

I have presented a scientific paper that says that the incremental green house effect of CO2 diminishes as the incremental concentration of CO2 increases. You have not addressed this. Please present even one scientific source that says that the green house effect of CO2 does not diminish as the concentration increases.

By the way, you have presented evidence that there are many who vaguely endorse a vague and poorly defined notion of some things they really do not specify.

How about this one for the diminishing effect of CO2:

http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Past-and-Future-of-Climate.pdf
<snip>
Figure 28: The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide
Can global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide save us from the coming decline in mid-latitude agricultural production? Not at all. The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the three degrees that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 400 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 388 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1 degrees of warming.
If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1°C every fifty years. Global warming due to carbon dioxide is real, but it is also minuscule. Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Very little can be expected of it from here.
This graph was generated by using the Modtran site maintained by the University of Chicago.
<snip>

The graph referenced is on page 38 of the link. The same on used by Nova and is created by the University of Chicago. JoNova reduces things to very common language.

The thing about real science is that it it is based on things that work the same way all the time.

The thing about AGW Science is that it changes whenever the agenda demands it change.

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

Verax said:

The falsifiable predictions are the climate change model. I've told you this several times now but you don't understand what it means.

Are you suggesting climate change theory goes against other theory? What exactly? LoL

So you think there is a simpler explanation huh? Do tell...



Have you read any literature whatsoever on climate change? Do you know what a theory is? Its such a simple notion I don't think anyone bothers to say "Climate change is a theory". You should just know that it is...



So you say they're wrong... ok then... I guess that means they're wrong then... I'll let NASA know they're a bunch of morons.



Here you go again with your fantasy world. The scientists say this is not a theory? Really? What scientists? What organization? What on earth are you talking about? The scientists say AGW is just a bunch of bs or something? Really? Where do you think all the climate change science comes from? Politicians? Al Gore? Obama?

This is a waste of time to talk to a person like you, its just dumb. I'm here to share quality information with thoughtful people. Not debate this nonsense.

Click to expand...

Well, we made some progress.

You say that the falsifiable part of the AGW Science is the models. Turns out they are all false. What falsifiable means is that if the predictions don't work, then the science is false.

Case Closed. You lose.


View attachment 67152268

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

code1211 said:

I have presented a scientific paper that says that the incremental green house effect of CO2 diminishes as the incremental concentration of CO2 increases. You have not addressed this. Please present even one scientific source that says that the green house effect of CO2 does not diminish as the concentration increases.

How about this one:

http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Past-and-Future-of-Climate.pdf
<snip>
Figure 28: The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide
Can global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide save us from the coming decline in mid-latitude agricultural production? Not at all. The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the three degrees that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 400 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 388 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1 degrees of warming.
If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1°C every fifty years. Global warming due to carbon dioxide is real, but it is also minuscule. Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Very little can be expected of it from here.
This graph was generated by using the Modtran site maintained by the University of Chicago.
<snip>

The graph referenced is on page 38 of the link. The same on used by Nova and is made by the University of Chicago. JoNova reduces things to very common language.

The thing about real science is that it it is based on things that work the same way all the time.

The thing about AGW Science is that it changes whenever the agenda demands it change.

Click to expand...

Excellent! This is the part that turns it from real scientific crisis, to political agenda in one simple explanation....

"If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1°C every fifty years."

So, this at the very least gives us hundreds of years to find alternatives and make them viable for broad spectrum use. It certainly doesn't match the current administration, or progressive agenda of doing away with our current system of energy without replacement available.

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

j-mac said:

"peer review" is corrupt, and broken...Means little today. But that you think that using logical fallacies is the way to win a debate, or is even an accepted method of proving your point is just plain sad.

Click to expand...

The only true test of this is whether or not it has been proven to be a Scientific Theory after 100 years of trying to do so.

It has not.

That the scientists will not make this proclamation says more than all of the politicians in all of the transfer the wealth organizations on the planet begging for cash.

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

j-mac said:

Excellent! This is the part that turns it from real scientific crisis, to political agenda in one simple explanation....

"If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1°C every fifty years."

So, this at the very least gives us hundreds of years to find alternatives and make them viable for broad spectrum use. It certainly doesn't match the current administration, or progressive agenda of doing away with our current system of energy without replacement available.

Click to expand...

My favorite is the not yet released 5th Assessment that predicts a temperature increase over the next century of between 1 and 7 degrees.

Seriously? 1 and 7 degrees?

Why not give yourself some wiggle room?

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

code1211 said:

Well, we made some progress.

You say that the falsifiable part of the AGW Science is the models. Turns out they are all false. What falsifiable means is that if the predictions don't work, then the science is false.

Case Closed. You lose.


View attachment 67152268

Click to expand...

Quick! Somebody get Obama on the phone. AGW has be debunked! The models are wrong because he says they are and pasted a graph!

This same person also uses CEO's of oil exploration companies as "scientific" sources that make up phony papers saying high concentrations of Co2 have little effect.

:lamo

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

Verax said:

Quick! Somebody get Obama on the phone. AGW has be debunked! The models are wrong because he says they are and pasted a graph!

This same person also uses CEO's of oil exploration companies as "scientific" sources that make up phony papers saying high concentrations of Co2 have little effect.

:lamo

Click to expand...

Still have no credible responses, do you.

That's okay. The lack of evidence to present is only because there is none on your side of the argument to rebut this stuff.

The emoticons are very convincing, though. Presenting an accurate prediction from thirty years ago would be even more convincing.