• 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!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

I also hate making these oil sheiks rich while they're ripping us off at the pumps. That really irks me :(

This is the worse part. Convincing the world that we need to stop financing the Middle East Sheiks would likely be a better way of mitigating fossil fuel usage.
 
Nowhere in your link does it state what the exact percentages are that I asked you for. You fail!!


Ah, so after you just post a link (that doesnt tell us anything) you now claim its absurd to asked for exact percentages

Then give us a range of percentages. And post a link that backs it up
Start here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

Actually, its you that believes in this global warming faith. The onus is on you to prove it
No, you are the one acting on faith. I base my opinion on evidence, you are making stark claims and denying evidence. Remember the CO2 chart? Only a fanatic would reject it. Speaking of more faith-based arguments:

Tell you what, let me use some common sense. I've lived on and off in Toronto for the past 25 years. Winters have NOT gotten any warmer, in fact they've stayed pretty much exactly the same. So if we've putting out all these CO2's over the last 100 years, shouldnt we also have noticed a drastic warming of our winters??
You're under the absurd assumption your vague memory of winter temperatures is valid scientific data. Human memory is simply incapable of statistically analyzing fractions of a degree over decades of time purely from memory. It is utterly astounding that anyone thinks they can make such a claim off the top of their head. Here's some data:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/has-canadas-climate-already-changed/11016

Toronto's winters have, in fact, gotten warmer. But your faith said it hasn't, just like your faith said the CO2 chart is wrong.

Al Gore and his retarded 'Inconvenient Truth' movie. Nothing that he predicted has come to pass yet
I am not interested in the claims of a politician regarding a complicated scientific topic.

This has to be the dumbest question you've posed yet. Its completely irrelevant


No, were not done here
Your dishonesty is noted. I have not done any fearmongering here. You're unable to admit that. My point is proven.


When you overstate and exaggerate the amount of global warming thats happening, you are adding to the fear.
Its as simple as that.
Show everyone where I did that, you liar.

Its you who's brainwashed. You've bought into the global warming scam.
Watch some of this:
I've seen it. They lie to you. Here are three I remember off the top of my head:

1) They take a man's statement out of context. Remember the guy talking about how there's so much CO2 in the oceans? The way it's in the film, they make it sound like he's saying out CO2 contributions are insignificant because the ocean dwarfs our influence. In context, he was actually explaining that the ocean CO2 reservoir makes our influence MORE dangerous: because if we warm up the planet a little, the ocean releases more CO2 which will amplify our impact. Don't believe me? Google the guy. He's publicly protested how they used his statements.

2) Blatantly cherry picking data. They show you a nice chart of solar activity vs. temperature, showing the correlation. And then suddenly they cut off the chart... right as the correlation breaks down. See, more recently the earth's temperature continued to rise while solar activity leveled off. Funny how they cut that off. Why wouldn't they show it to you?

3) The best was outright fabrication of data. They showed you a chart claiming most of the warming occurred before 1940. They attributed that chart to NASA. NASA's actual data differs, most of the warming most definitely occurred after 1940. Fabricating data is lying. Why would they lie to you?

I bet you don't remember these three points in the film. I bet you've never even watched it. We'll find out in your response when you claim ignorance or dodge.
 
You sound really angry buddy. Try taking a deep breath and count to 10 before you post

Both Lord of Planar and Jack Hays know that CO2 chart is accurate, but they are not going to call you out on it. They wont even mention it.
 
Could you image what would happen if they stopped getting all that research money? Or is they started getting no more research money than the non-alarmists get?

Quantify "alarmist" research.
 
Both Lord of Planar and Jack Hays know that CO2 chart is accurate, but they are not going to call you out on it. They wont even mention it.

I agree a high correlation can be shown, but can be shown with lagged solar changes too.

Correlation doesn't mean squat with multi-variables.
 
Start here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html


No, you are the one acting on faith. I base my opinion on evidence, you are making stark claims and denying evidence. Remember the CO2 chart? Only a fanatic would reject it. Speaking of more faith-based arguments:


You're under the absurd assumption your vague memory of winter temperatures is valid scientific data. Human memory is simply incapable of statistically analyzing fractions of a degree over decades of time purely from memory. It is utterly astounding that anyone thinks they can make such a claim off the top of their head. Here's some data:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/has-canadas-climate-already-changed/11016

Toronto's winters have, in fact, gotten warmer. But your faith said it hasn't, just like your faith said the CO2 chart is wrong.


I am not interested in the claims of a politician regarding a complicated scientific topic.


Your dishonesty is noted. I have not done any fearmongering here. You're unable to admit that. My point is proven.



Show everyone where I did that, you liar.


I've seen it. They lie to you. Here are three I remember off the top of my head:

1) They take a man's statement out of context. Remember the guy talking about how there's so much CO2 in the oceans? The way it's in the film, they make it sound like he's saying out CO2 contributions are insignificant because the ocean dwarfs our influence. In context, he was actually explaining that the ocean CO2 reservoir makes our influence MORE dangerous: because if we warm up the planet a little, the ocean releases more CO2 which will amplify our impact. Don't believe me? Google the guy. He's publicly protested how they used his statements.

2) Blatantly cherry picking data. They show you a nice chart of solar activity vs. temperature, showing the correlation. And then suddenly they cut off the chart... right as the correlation breaks down. See, more recently the earth's temperature continued to rise while solar activity leveled off. Funny how they cut that off. Why wouldn't they show it to you?

3) The best was outright fabrication of data. They showed you a chart claiming most of the warming occurred before 1940. They attributed that chart to NASA. NASA's actual data differs, most of the warming most definitely occurred after 1940. Fabricating data is lying. Why would they lie to you?

I bet you don't remember these three points in the film. I bet you've never even watched it. We'll find out in your response when you claim ignorance or dodge
Deuce, I'm in the process of moving so I don't have access to my full computer (only my cellphone). So I'll get back to your silly post in a week or two
 
Meteorology is a science also, and look how many times they get the weather forecast wrong.

If they cant forecast the weather accurately, then how the hell can they predict what the climate will be 50 years from now??

Yeah, OK. So next time they tell you a hurricane or tornado is coming your way, don't take them seriously and we can see what happens.
 
Yeah, OK. So next time they tell you a hurricane or tornado is coming your way, don't take them seriously and we can see what happens.
Yeah okay, and so how many times have they predicted the force of the hurricane or tropical storm correctly??

I lost count when they called it a hurricane 4 or 5, and it wound up to be a 2 or a 3 (or even less)
 
Yeah, OK. So next time they tell you a hurricane or tornado is coming your way, don't take them seriously and we can see what happens.

The meteorologists said Harvey was nothing to worry about. Oops!
 
Yeah okay, and so how many times have they predicted the force of the hurricane or tropical storm correctly??

I lost count when they called it a hurricane 4 or 5, and it wound up to be a 2 or a 3 (or even less)

Like I said guys: put your money where your mouth is, and completely ignore them. They don't know what they are talking about, right? Let us know how it turns out for ya.
 
67221536d1503090327-come-harvey-204351_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind-jpg
 
Yeah okay, and so how many times have they predicted the force of the hurricane or tropical storm correctly??
Actually, hurricane storm predictions have improved over the years, particularly the longer-range predictions. That includes both intensity and track. (See below)

What's still difficult, and will likely remain that way, is storm surge. There are lots of variables at landfall, and even a relatively small difference (e.g. a 13 foot storm surge, instead of a 15 foot) can mean a huge difference in terms of the damage caused by the surge.


image-20150526-24757-1m0dwc7.jpg


track-errors-over-time.jpg



I lost count when they called it a hurricane 4 or 5, and it wound up to be a 2 or a 3 (or even less)
Anecdotes are not evidence. That's basic scientific literacy. Just FYI.
 
The meteorologists said Harvey was nothing to worry about. Oops!
For the Houston area they were correct, Harvey was not a big wind/storm surge event, but a rain event.
They were predicting up to 40 or 50 inches of rain as early as Friday night, (the real rain started Sunday morning.)
 
Science / solar flare
[h=1]Study: When the sun pulses X-rays, Earth’s ionosphere pulses in sync[/h]A team of scientists led by solar physicist Laura Hayes investigated a connection between solar flares and Earth’s atmosphere. They discovered pulses in the electrified layer of the atmosphere – called the ionosphere – mirrored X-ray oscillations during a July 24, 2016 flare. NASA Detects Solar Flare Pulses at Sun and Earth When our…
 
Good luck.

Says the guy who still wont admit the CO2 chart I posted is accurate :lamo

Desert Storm is on "your team" so you wont contradict him, even when you know for a fact he's wrong. This is the behavior of a fanatic.
 
Last edited:
Says the guy who still wont admit the CO2 chart I posted is accurate :lamo

Desert Storm is on "your team" so you wont contradict him, even when you know for a fact he's wrong. This is the behavior of a fanatic.

The "good luck" wish was in reference to his move. I have no idea what chart you're talking about.
 
The "good luck" wish was in reference to his move. I have no idea what chart you're talking about.

Claim ignorance rather than disagree with your team. Makes sense.
 
Toronto's winters have, in fact, gotten warmer. But your faith said it hasn't, just like your faith said the CO2 chart is wrong
No they havent gotten warmer deuce, I should know because I live here (on and off).

Winters have stayed exactly the same, the only exception (ironically enough) has been the fall of 2017 so far.
Its been quite warm here in October and November, but it isnt winter yet so maybe we're headed for a deep freeze to make up for the warm weather we're having so far
 
Back
Top Bottom