• 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

His entire argument was summed up a few
posts ago. He hates big oil (and big corporations). Anything that attacks it, he supports.

The argument for AGW is so full of holes, it's ridiculous. Even many of those "scientists" are losing their enthusiasm for it because they know they jumped to so many unscientifically proven assumptions, it's unbecoming of their profession.

Yea I tried to stay clear of it, as you and other truely exceptional posters seemed to be doing a fine job of exposing his nonsense but what can I say ?

" they keep pulling me back in, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"
 
It warms, it cools, it warms, and it cools.

The earth was incredibly warm during medieval times. Must have been all the SUV jousting tournaments, I suppose.

Then why the **** is it so freakin' hard for some here to admit that we've been steadily warming since the birth of the industrial age??? For ****'s sake, own it... the evidence is easier to figure out than a 3 piece puzzle.
 
Nope. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s and it's only become more advocacy than science over the years. The biggest trouble with the AGW theory is that it has failed to match real world data while the solar variance model predicted bother the mid 90s spike and the current lul.

You have to be insane to cast out the more reliable model for the less reliable one, but I have watched so many do just that. The only conclusion I can come to after watching this for decades is that a lot of people simply WANT the AGW theory to be right, and others have laid their career on the line for AGW and NEED it to be right.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Effect on global warming

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]

In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]

This has been explained repeatedly but you guys keep saying the same thing over and over as though it hasn't already been accounted for.
 
That the .12 number is the net change in solar forcing over that period, not the total amount of solar energy. They aren't saying the sun "doesn't matter." They are saying it matters a lot, but it hasn't really changed much this century. (On average. It oscillated up and down a fair bit but more or less evens out)
Yes, I know that. You completely missed my point.

That net change of 0.12 W/m^2 is called "direct forcing change." The only direct forcing change is that which is directly absorbed by the atmosphere. There is indirect forcing changes also. The same percentage of change in solar energy amounts to about 0.93 W/m^2 of total forcing change when you include the "indirect" forcing. Now that of course, depends on which earth energy budget numbers you wish to start with.

Please note once again. They do not include any indirect forcing in their claim, and don't lie about it. They just totally omit it, knowing most people will not see what isn't included.
 
If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.

Who's going to publish such a peer reviewed paper? those who control those publication will find reason to reject it, because it doesn't fit their flat earth view.
 
But you can make broad brush subjective statements like ". Conservatives aren't scientist and do not possess the right mind for scientific work" ?

A very unscientific and inaccurate analysis of a group of people.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/http://
Only 6% of scientists identify as Conservative, that is a big tell.

Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience, things that I do on a day to day basis that would make your head spin, things I promise you just don't have the base IQ to comprehend and I'm a proud Conservative. What I make look easy would perpetually confound you as most of your ilk are so married to a corrupt ideology the chance for true objectivity is a lost option.

When ever you want to test your percieved "higher intelligence" over mine I'm ready.

I'll expose your limitiations in an instant.

But I'm guessing like most liberals you'll crawfish away from this challenge. It's typical.
The left has done more damage to the legitimate science of alternative energies by politicizing them than any Conservatuve group.

Oh but wait, all we have to do is payup, more taxes on a imaginary construct called carbon credits and the world will be saved.

Sorry youv'e been called on your BS, what did you expect ?
Remember the last time you "called me out"?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/162897-10-arrested-student-brawl-proviso-east-high-school-21.html

You were destroyed and walked away, would you like to do this again?
 
I have had a pond since 1990. I never had algae growth in the winter but I do now and each year it gets worse. And I have noticed that weeds do not die off either. So, something is going on.
Yep.

Never had algae until somehow, that species was introduced.
 
Because we are smart and actually read the literature before deciding rather than abdicate our own intellectual sovereignty to hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
LOL...

Isn't that the truth. Most of us like to actually understand what we talk about, instead of being sheeple or lemmings.
 
See my last post.

And duh..... Of course an IPCC scientist will say that, else not be with them.

Show your evidence of this with links please, that dispute the mainstream findings on this.
 
American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
Who does that? I haven't noticed any. Who did i miss?

The claims I've seen are that the last decade+, we are effectively flat in the trend, and that warming is real, but by natural variation rather than by man. Now you have to twist what people day to talk about them saying that global warming is false.
 
Nope. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s and it's only become more advocacy than science over the years. The biggest trouble with the AGW theory is that it has failed to match real world data while the solar variance model predicted bother the mid 90s spike and the current lul.

You have to be insane to cast out the more reliable model for the less reliable one, but I have watched so many do just that. The only conclusion I can come to after watching this for decades is that a lot of people simply WANT the AGW theory to be right, and others have laid their career on the line for AGW and NEED it to be right.

What literature is this? Which models are you talking about?

Any of these?
Climate Dynamics - incl. option to publish open access
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
Theoretical and Applied Climatology - incl. option to publish open access
Inter Research » Journals » CR » CR Home

Or more of these:
The Institute for Creation Research
 
If you were smart and read the literature you would know the evidence strongly supports AGW and you would know the snake oil salesmen are the fossil fuel corporations and their bought off politicians.
What I see is multifacited.

1) AGW is a political tool.

2) The sciences are being tagugh wrong in this field. Meny scientists think they are right, others just know where the gravey comes from.

3) Most research and grant money available is to support beyond doubt, AGW, which they still have not done to proper scientific standards.

If numbers are your game, then think again. Dozens of wolves and a few sheep vote on what's for dinner...
 
Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience...

Cool...

I too have a broad experience. I was an Engineering Technician when CMP was new, having to know some good chemistry, mechanics, electronics, computers, and other disciplines in what at the time, was secretive, proprietary, and revolutionized the semiconductor industry. I started working in '75 as a simple mechanic, '81 as an electronic technician, and job experience and qualifications brought me into the automation world. I had to learn several disciplines over the years, and just because I don't have a degree in the climate sciences, doesn't mean I can't rasp it well.
 
Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This has been explained repeatedly but you guys keep saying the same thing over and over as though it hasn't already been accounted for.


Break that down please:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

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.
 
Cool...

I too have a broad experience. I was an Engineering Technician when CMP was new, having to know some good chemistry, mechanics, electronics, computers, and other disciplines in what at the time, was secretive, proprietary, and revolutionized the semiconductor industry. I started working in '75 as a simple mechanic, '81 as an electronic technician, and job experience and qualifications brought me into the automation world. I had to learn several disciplines over the years, and just because I don't have a degree in the climate sciences, doesn't mean I can't rasp it well.

I encourage you to publish your findings. Otherwise, its just piffle under a pseudonym.
 
I can tell you don't trust my ability to analyze the science even though the science in question isn't that complicated. However, I do trust my own ability, and that's all that counts.

Could you give me a detailed explanation of the computer models used by universities and meteorological facilities to predict climate patterns and where exactly in the complex computer programming they got it wrong?
Or what exactly the report I mentioned in my OP got wrong and which data is erroneous?

Worshiping at the feet of experts is something to be avoided.

Do you take that attitude when visiting the Doctor? No-one said anything about worshiping experts, but when experts are almost universally in agreement, then chances are they are going to be right. They may not have all the exact details, but the overlying principle looks sound in those circumstances.

But feel free to deny the consensus opinion. If you want to believe climatologists around the world have been involved in some sort of conspiracy theory for the last 30 years, then that's your business.
 
What I see is multifacited.

1) AGW is a political tool.

2) The sciences are being tagugh wrong in this field. Meny scientists think they are right, others just know where the gravey comes from.

3) Most research and grant money available is to support beyond doubt, AGW, which they still have not done to proper scientific standards.

If numbers are your game, then think again. Dozens of wolves and a few sheep vote on what's for dinner...

1) Climate science has been politicized yes, it all started with the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign to discredit climate change as a weak hypothesis rather than a solid theory.

2) Science is being taught wrong? So please tell me... who is teaching it right and where are they located? Who is teaching it wrong? Everybody in the mainstream? All universities? Please lets see some specifics for such a bold claim.

3) Money corrupts huh? But only scientists that support climate change? Nobody else right? :roll: Undoubtedly it has some negative effects and is a problem but... are you suggesting it has poisoned the whole system to the point it cannot be trusted? The whole thing is a big corrupt conspiracy of lies and scientific whoring? Come on...

Are you making me shepherds pie for dinner???
 
American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh

What I see is multifacited.

1) AGW is a political tool.

2) The sciences are being tagugh wrong in this field. Meny scientists think they are right, others just know where the gravey comes from.

3) Most research and grant money available is to support beyond doubt, AGW, which they still have not done to proper scientific standards.

If numbers are your game, then think again. Dozens of wolves and a few sheep vote on what's for dinner...
Fossil fuels account for 9 Trillion dollars a year. That's 15% of the world economy. The money they've spent attacking legitimate climate science has added an additional 75 Billion dollars in profits. In contrast, our planet spends less than 4 billion dollars annually on climate science.

Where do you think the money is?
Industry vs. scientists – who profits from climate disruption? | Scholars and Rogues
 
Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has been explained repeatedly but you guys keep saying the same thing over and over as though it hasn't already been accounted for.


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.
 
Show your evidence of this with links please, that dispute the mainstream findings on this.

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?
 
Last edited:
Cool...


I too have a broad experience. I was an Engineering Technician when CMP was new, having to know some good chemistry, mechanics, electronics, computers, and other disciplines in what at the time, was secretive, proprietary, and revolutionized the semiconductor industry. I started working in '75 as a simple mechanic, '81 as an electronic technician, and job experience and qualifications brought me into the automation world. I had to learn several disciplines over the years, and just because I don't have a degree in the climate sciences, doesn't mean I can't rasp it well.

Thats awesome.

There are a few of us geeks in a lab, surrounded by High def multi- channel o-scopes, spectral analyzers and power supplies, plus some home built rigs to hack into various PCB front ends and the odd memory chip.

Allot of what we do is component level, Surface mounted stuff, hard on the eyes.

I also work on VFDs and Inverters, do power quality analysis for some big industrial plants that run allot of inverters.

I have some old hardware at home, tubes amplifiers and stuff that is before my time but still fascinates me..
Its all the same, manipulating electrons.

Iv'e always wanted a actual Krytron, a 50's era tube.

Verax is your typical blow hard, when it comes down to it they slink away into the ta grass.
 
Who does that? I haven't noticed any. Who did i miss?

The claims I've seen are that the last decade+, we are effectively flat in the trend, and that warming is real, but by natural variation rather than by man. Now you have to twist what people day to talk about them saying that global warming is false.

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)
 
Fossil fuels account for 9 Trillion dollars a year. That's 15% of the world economy. The money they've spent attacking legitimate climate science has added an additional 75 Billion dollars in profits. In contrast, our planet spends less than 4 billion dollars annually on climate science.

Where do you think the money is?
Industry vs. scientists – who profits from climate disruption? | Scholars and Rogues
I seen data that shows even more money is granted by politicians to keep AGW research ongoing.

Isn't it possible that the oil industry, for the funding that they do in this realm, is legitimate protection from lies?

I know, you will dismiss anything the "evil" oil companies do, right?
 
Then why the **** is it so freakin' hard for some here to admit that we've been steadily warming since the birth of the industrial age??? For ****'s sake, own it... the evidence is easier to figure out than a 3 piece puzzle.

Not steadily. We've warmed and cooled along the way.

The point is, it's irrelevant. There's NOTHING we can do about it anyway. A plague or an asteriod will blow mankind off the planet far sooner than anything like climate change.
 
Back
Top Bottom