• 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

You said scientists are saying the sun "doesn't matter" but have yet to back up that statement in any way. So which is it. Are they saying the sun "doesn't matter" or are they saying the sun doesn't matter as much as you think it matters?

Because there's an enormous difference between those two statements, and you don't get to whine about "understanding science" if you can't properly distinguish the two.

Don't hold your breath for an admission.

Besides, he's already proven AGW doesn't exist and dismantled tge entire scientific community in a previous post.
 
Yeah. That's not a contradiction.

Look up the word 'accelerating' and get back to me.

Yet there is no sign of ocean rising any more than what would be expected where the atmosphere is cycling out of an ice-age.

Which of course means that redistributing income from those that produced it, thus EARNED IT, to those that did not, isn't going to slow it, or stop it. Nor is there any reason to do so.

The seas rise and the seas fall… as nature require they must. Your irrational fear of natural cycles, is however, hysterical… (in every sense of the word.
 
You can not back up your statement, and that doesn't surprise me.
Yes, I have an understanding of how the scientific process works, but that isn't the question. The question is, just who ever said that the sun doesn't matter?

I have. Which one do I need to elaborate on?
 
You said scientists are saying the sun "doesn't matter" but have yet to back up that statement in any way. So which is it. Are they saying the sun "doesn't matter" or are they saying the sun doesn't matter as much as you think it matters?

Because there's an enormous difference between those two statements, and you don't get to whine about "understanding science" if you can't properly distinguish the two.

A few completely dismiss it. I have also said they (the majority) don't account for the indirect forcing, and the carefully wording of the IPCC specifies direct forcing.

Yes, they are saying the sun doesn't matter as much as I know it does. It's simple science to see they are hiding the indirect forcing elsewhere.
 
I have. Which one do I need to elaborate on?

Which one of the many people who have contended that the sun doesn't matter? I don't know, take your pick.

or, if you prefer, perhaps you can find someone who says that the sun doesn't exist, but then, that was someone else's post, wasn't it?
 
A few completely dismiss it. I have also said they (the majority) don't account for the indirect forcing, and the carefully wording of the IPCC specifies direct forcing.

Yes, they are saying the sun doesn't matter as much as I know it does. It's simple science to see they are hiding the indirect forcing elsewhere.

How do you know that the changing output of the sun matters as much as you think it does? How much experience do you have in astronomy or physics? Are you an ecologist? Where is your evidence that the sun alone has been causing an increase in temperature over the past 150 years?

It's not like the IPCC didn't cover this, here's a link: IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

"The fundamental source of all energy in the climate system is the Sun so that variation in solar output provides a means for radiative forcing of climate change. It is only since the late 1970s, however, and the advent of space-borne measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI), that it has been clear that the solar "constant" does, in fact, vary. These satellite instruments suggest a variation in annual mean TSI of the order 0.08% (or about 1.1 Wm-2) between minimum and maximum of the 11-year solar cycle."

And before you go on about how the sun has been increasing in output over decades, if you do any research you will find that nuclear fusion does not work that way in something as unimaginably massive as a star.
 
A few completely dismiss it.
Show me one. Funny how before it was "the IPCC" saying that the sun doesn't matter. Now it's an unnamed "few."


I have also said they (the majority) don't account for the indirect forcing, and the carefully wording of the IPCC specifies direct forcing.

Yes, they are saying the sun doesn't matter as much as I know it does. It's simple science to see they are hiding the indirect forcing elsewhere.

Then show us where that sneaky hidden indirect forcing is. Do you mean stuff like that super sneaky research nobody has ever heard about regarding cosmic rays and cloud formation? You know, that hidden research in published journals that is routinely misinterpreted by journalists and presented as PROOF THAT CO2 DOES NOOTTHIINGGG? That indirect forcing?
 
The AWG Cult has now surpassed the Scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.

These are the same folks who thought AIDS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Y2K, Killer Bees, and God knows what else was going to wipe us out long ago.

It's nothing but a way to line pockets with government money and raise taxes on the wealthy. Transparent as can be.
 
The AWG Cult has now surpassed the Scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.

These are the same folks who thought AIDS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Y2K, Killer Bees, and God knows what else was going to wipe us out long ago.

It's nothing but a way to line pockets with government money and raise taxes on the wealthy. Transparent as can be.

I think you watch to much E! Television and read too much National Enquirer..

No scientists said any of that stuff (ill grant you an exception on bird flu- that's still a real threat).

And when you start with a stupid premise, it tends to lead to stupid conclusions, like its a way to raise taxes on the wealthy.
 
the awg cult has now surpassed the scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.

These are the same folks who thought aids, bird flu, swine flu, y2k, killer bees, and god knows what else was going to wipe us out long ago.

It's nothing but a way to line pockets with government money and raise taxes on the wealthy. Transparent as can be.

The bees, not the bees!
 
The thermometers were actually very accurate and calibrated. There weren't too many though, but British Naval records are pretty useful here.

Either way, its confirmed and backed up by temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before. This isn't a disputed scientific point.

I actually think science has a fantastically good record of predictions. In drug discovery, I'm constantly amazed at chemists designing a molecule that inhibits an enzyme exactly as they say it will. And that inhibition, dontcha know, does pretty much what the physiologists and biologists say it will. It's science.

"It's science."

Except that, it's usually not. At least not in a large proportion. Were it, there would be much more rigorous attempts to test the theories involved. And funding for research would be divorced from published works in favor of official policy. Experimentation would be demanded.

Also, recitation of scientific conclusions (a fairly abhorrent concept in classical scientific thinking,) is not science itself.

As I said, what most people think of incorrectly as "science," is abysmal at prediction. First of all, most people conflate and confuse science and technology. One might even ask "does pure science actually predict." I'd say the pure science doesn't, since it is involved in observation and experimentation with the goal of determining facts, and by its nature, the future is never a fact, Doctor Who notwithstanding.

Prediction would be a tool to test theory, not the theory itself. Certainly scientists, predict, bureaucrats and politicians wishing to thought of as "scientific" predict, authors and grant writers predict in the "name of science," and even the occasional honest man will predict using knowledge gained through scientific endeavor.

Economics is now considered a science, by economists at least, and we all know the veracity of their predictions. Research psychologists have certainly produced mountains of "scientific theories of learning" that "predicted" vast improvement in education, but have lead to legions of young adults who are scarcely literate. Pharmacological chemists routinely are said to predict outcomes for medications that are soon recalled as ineffective, often damaging and occasionally lethal. And of course, climatologists were predicting a soon-to-dawn ice age not so long ago.

As for "temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before," that's quite an assertion, given the billions of years that the planet has been chugging along, often hotter, often colder than what we find about us now.
 
Last edited:
"It's science."

Except that, it's usually not. At least not in a large proportion. Were it, there would be much more rigorous attempts to test the theories involved. And funding for research would be divorced from published works in favor of official policy. Experimentation would be demanded.

Also, recitation of scientific conclusions (a fairly abhorrent concept in classical scientific thinking,) is not science itself.

As I said, what most people think of incorrectly as "science," is abysmal at prediction. First of all, most people conflate and confuse science and technology. One might even ask "does pure science actually predict." I'd say the pure science doesn't, since it is involved in observation and experimentation with the goal of determining facts. Prediction would be a tool to test theory, not the theory itself. Certainly scientists, predict, bureaucrats and politicians wishing to thought of as "scientific" predict, authors and grant writers predict in the "name of science," and even the occasional honest man will predict using knowledge gained through scientific endeavor.

Economics is now considered a science, by economists at least, and we all know the veracity of their predictions. Research psychologists have certainly produced mountains of "scientific theories of learning" tht "predicted" vast improvement in education, but have lead to legions of young adults scarcely literate. Pharmacological chemists routinely are said to predict outcomes for medications that are soon recalled as ineffective, often damaging and occasionally lethal. And of course climatologists were predicting a soon-to-dawn ice age not so long ago.

As for "temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before," that's quite an assertion, given the billions of years that the planet has been chugging along, often hotter, often colder than what we find about us now.

NASA,NOAA, AAAS, IPCC, or you.

Which is more credible?
 
NASA,NOAA, AAAS, IPCC, or you.

Which is more credible?

I get no money, nor career advancement, nor job security nor tenure, nor promotion for repeating the "predictions" that will grant vast economic and political power to a set of ruling elites to whom I am subservient. You may draw certain obvious conclusions from that alone.

Further, you previously made a common, although highly misapplied appeal to "science." What you are doing here though is to make an appeal to institutional integrity. It is not an inherently invalid nor weak argument, but you should not mistake it for a "scientific" one.
 
Which one of the many people who have contended that the sun doesn't matter? I don't know, take your pick.

or, if you prefer, perhaps you can find someone who says that the sun doesn't exist, but then, that was someone else's post, wasn't it?
Maybe my choice of words is poor. They place it as insignificant, when it is significant.
 
How do you know that the changing output of the sun matters as much as you think it does? How much experience do you have in astronomy or physics? Are you an ecologist? Where is your evidence that the sun alone has been causing an increase in temperature over the past 150 years?


And before you go on about how the sun has been increasing in output over decades, if you do any research you will find that nuclear fusion does not work that way in something as unimaginably massive as a star.

Studies with poxy data have shown the sun to vary greatly over the last several centuries. The IPCC conveniently picks 1750 as their starting timeline to show industrialization has the effect they claim, when solar energy started increasing in 1713 after the maunder minima. During this time, if you take Lean et. al. 2000, and the supplemental 2005 additions, you find the sun has increased by 0.18% This is not talking a low to high solar cycle, but that much from the 11 year average. This is all backed up by other studies, though they have differing results. They all agree there are marked increases in the suns output. There is a growing consensus that the change is more like 0.24% as the sciences are more and more understood..

As your link correctly points out, even satellite data isn't certain because of instrument drift. The latest two SOURCE satellites with TIM and other equipment has the best calibrated equipment to date, and also has equipment seeing deeper into the shortwave spectrum. The trend from the start of satellite measurements shows a very marginal decrease.

Simply physics equations prove that a 0.18% increase in solar radiation gives a much larger increase of radiative forcing than the IPCC claims. The actual calculations are about 8 times larger for solar than the IPCC claims, because they only include the "direct forcing." They ignore the "indirect forcing."

The numbers have nothing to do with fusion, but more the magnetic changes in the sun. Scientists have noted short and long term cycles, and have predicted the solar output to be decreasing through at least the next two solar cycles, and some say we may enter a cooling as great as the maunder minima was.

As for the simple math of the sun. If we took at solar TSI vs. temperature and assign any number, I'll use 1360 W/m^2, to correspond to a global average of 15 Celsius, and increase the TSI by 0.18%...

15 C = 288.15 K

Watts to surface temperature is a fourth root/power of four function.

1.0018^0.25 = 1.00045

288.15 x 1.00045 = 288.28

288.28 = 273.15 = 15.13

15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).

However, it isn't that simple to go from no atmosphere to an atmosphere. When the IPCC stops lying to us, I might start believing them.

This 0.18% conveniently equates to a 0.12 W/m^2 forcing, directly absorbed by the atmosphere. take a look at this:

Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg


This is an accepted earth energy budget at the time of the AR4. Please note that the sun is also partially reflected, and absorbed by the surface. Any increase in surface absorption will be proportionally reemitted as upward IR. The greenhouse effect will also be affected proportionally. Changes in greenhouse gas level are not linear, but the output is linear to the input of power. This simple graph shows the actual change of direct and indirect forcing to be 0.93 W.m^2. Not just the 0.12 W/m^2. When you compare that to the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for forcing increases since 1750, you see it is 58% of the forcing change. The sun has the greatest influence.
 
The AWG Cult has now surpassed the Scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.
LOL...

That's good!

I need a sig, can I use that?
 
Lord of Planar said:
15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).
I do wish to acknowledge a slight error here. Not going to bother fixing it since no atmosphere vs. atmosphere doesn't really compare anyway.
 
Before anyone discounts my above work, I want you to remember I work within the realm of what the alarmists say, using their work, to disprove their work.

There is a funny thing about their claim as well, vs claimed temperature. They claim a 1.6 W/m^2 increase if forcing since 1750 using a baseline around 492 W/m^2. This is only a 0.325% increase in forcing, and known sciences put this at only a 0.22 degree increase. There are many of us who say the calibrations given to temperature monitering station in regard to urban heat islands is incorrect.

What if we only have increased in temperature by the calculated 0.22 degrees, and the corrections given to monitoring stations is incorrect?
 
Ill discount your work without reading it.

If its so groundbreaking that it invalidates the entire scientific structure of AGW, I'm sure PNAS will publish it.


Awaiting your definitive disproof of gravitation next.
 
Maybe my choice of words is poor. They place it as insignificant, when it is significant.

"they"? So there are more than one? Just who are "they"?

Who is this mysterious "they" who are saying that the sun doesn't matter?
 
Despite the absence of an El Niño, 2012 ranked 8th warmest on record. Through June, 2013 ranks 6th warmest. June 2013 was the 2nd warmest June on record with an anomaly of +0.67°C above the 1951-80 baseline. Only June 1998 was warmer with an anomaly of +0.74°C.
 
There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.

The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.
 
The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.

Studies with poxy data have shown the sun to vary greatly over the last several centuries. The IPCC conveniently picks 1750 as their starting timeline to show industrialization has the effect they claim, when solar energy started increasing in 1713 after the maunder minima. During this time, if you take Lean et. al. 2000, and the supplemental 2005 additions, you find the sun has increased by 0.18% This is not talking a low to high solar cycle, but that much from the 11 year average. This is all backed up by other studies, though they have differing results. They all agree there are marked increases in the suns output. There is a growing consensus that the change is more like 0.24% as the sciences are more and more understood..

As your link correctly points out, even satellite data isn't certain because of instrument drift. The latest two SOURCE satellites with TIM and other equipment has the best calibrated equipment to date, and also has equipment seeing deeper into the shortwave spectrum. The trend from the start of satellite measurements shows a very marginal decrease.

Simply physics equations prove that a 0.18% increase in solar radiation gives a much larger increase of radiative forcing than the IPCC claims. The actual calculations are about 8 times larger for solar than the IPCC claims, because they only include the "direct forcing." They ignore the "indirect forcing."

The numbers have nothing to do with fusion, but more the magnetic changes in the sun. Scientists have noted short and long term cycles, and have predicted the solar output to be decreasing through at least the next two solar cycles, and some say we may enter a cooling as great as the maunder minima was.

As for the simple math of the sun. If we took at solar TSI vs. temperature and assign any number, I'll use 1360 W/m^2, to correspond to a global average of 15 Celsius, and increase the TSI by 0.18%...

15 C = 288.15 K

Watts to surface temperature is a fourth root/power of four function.

1.0018^0.25 = 1.00045

288.15 x 1.00045 = 288.28

288.28 = 273.15 = 15.13

15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).

However, it isn't that simple to go from no atmosphere to an atmosphere. When the IPCC stops lying to us, I might start believing them.

This 0.18% conveniently equates to a 0.12 W/m^2 forcing, directly absorbed by the atmosphere. take a look at this:

Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg


This is an accepted earth energy budget at the time of the AR4. Please note that the sun is also partially reflected, and absorbed by the surface. Any increase in surface absorption will be proportionally reemitted as upward IR. The greenhouse effect will also be affected proportionally. Changes in greenhouse gas level are not linear, but the output is linear to the input of power. This simple graph shows the actual change of direct and indirect forcing to be 0.93 W.m^2. Not just the 0.12 W/m^2. When you compare that to the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for forcing increases since 1750, you see it is 58% of the forcing change. The sun has the greatest influence.

Do you have peer-reviewed studies backing up these claims?
 
Back
Top Bottom