• 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]

From the link in #600:


[h=3]Mojib Latif: three statements, three times totally off the mark[/h]By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated by P Gosselin)
At the end of the year, it’s usual to take a look back. That’s what we wish to do at this blog.
Leading German climate scientist Mojib Latif made three historical statements in 2012 that are worth remembering. How much truth was there in his statements of that time?
STATEMENT 1:
Mojib Latif on December 4, 2012 in the talkshow “Pelzig hält sich”:
I want to say one thing again. I would be glad if it were the sun. Then we really could do nothing. Yes. But it is not that. If you look at the sun’s radiation, the sun has been weaker for 50 years. And how is a weakening sun supposed to cause massive warming?”
​
False. The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field.
solar-forcing-img.png

Figure: Development of solar activity over the past 400 years. White curve shows total solar irradiance (TSI), yellow peaks mark sunspots. Source: PAGES2K website, downloaded in 2016.​
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Leading German Climate Scientist Mojib Latif Caught Up In A Web Of Contradictions[/h]By P Gosselin on 8. January 2019
Click to expand...

This article seems to have been written by someone without a clue. For example:

"The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field."

TSI most certainly does not include cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field. It is simply the total amount of solar energy per square metre arriving at the Earth per unit time.

Why do you read, let alone post, this drivel, Jack?
 
From the link in #600:

STATEMENT 2:
Mojib Latif on December 4, 2012, in the talkshow “Pelzig hält sich“:
Yes, you can quantify everything. That is, of course, a plain lie if it is claimed that we do not take the sun into account. There is no climate model that does not take the sun into account. I do not think we are fools. This somehow gives the impression that we are the biggest idiots of all time. It’s not like that.”
​
False, Mr. Latif. A look at the radiation drive in the 5th IPCC Climate Report is enough to see that the sun plays almost no role in the models. CO2: 1.68 W/m2, sun: 0.05 W/m2. The sun is made practically as a non-factor in this.
strahlungsantrieb-ar5-1024x864.png

Figure: Radiation as a driver among the individual climate factors according to the 5th IPCC report. The sun plays practically no role in the IPCC.​
———–

STATEMENT 3:
Mojib Latif in an interview with the Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung (NOZ) on September 12, 2012:
NOZ: Mr. Latif, does the sun more likely to contribute to global warming or the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, CO2?
LATIF: It’s a mix of both. It is clear that man has been responsible for more than half of the rise in temperature since the beginning of industrialization.”
​
Just before that in the Austrian daily Austrian daily ‘Die Presse‘ (DP) on February 9, 2012, he said the following:
DIE PRESSE: Back to the previous warming, 0.8 degrees for 100 years. For [Fritz] Vahrenholt, half comes from the sun. And at the IPCC everything comes from CO2?
LATIF: No, the IPCC never said that. It is very careful and says that about half of the warming is anthropogenic.
DIE PRESSE: Then it says the same as Vahrenholt?
LATIF: Yes, that’s what drives me crazy: An exaggerated threat is built up and then torn up with great relish.”
​
Again Latif is wrong. Here it’s enough to just look at the Special report of the IPCC concerning the 1.5°C target:
Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, the observed mean global surface temperature in the decade 2006-2015 was 0.87 °C (probably between 0.75 °C and 0.99 °C) higher than the average for the period 1850-1900 (very high confidence).
Estimated anthropogenic global warming is consistent with the extent of observed warming within ±20% (likely range).”
​
In other words: According to the IPCC, the total warming observed over the last 150 years is anthropogenic.
———–
Three Latif statements, three times over the line.
Is Latif’s criticism of the Die kalte Sonne book still valid under these circumstances? We would like to talk to Mojib Latif about it personally. After his earlier refusal, is he now perhaps ready for discussion? We hope for good climatic developments in 2019.
We wish all Die kalte Sonne blog readers – and of course Mr. Latif – a Happy New Year!



 
Surface Detail said:
This article seems to have been written by someone without a clue. For example:

"The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field."

TSI most certainly does not include cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field. It is simply the total amount of solar energy per square metre arriving at the Earth per unit time.

Why do you read, let alone post, this drivel, Jack?
Click to expand...

Beside the point. Try to focus.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Solar Minimum is Coming | Science Mission Directorate[/h]
[url]https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming
[/URL]



Jun 27, 2017 - Solar Minimum is Coming. High up in the clear blue noontime sky, the sun appears to be much the same day-in, day-out, year after year.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I just read the interesting series of articles #591 through #593; and #596 and #597 that you have posted. :thumbs: My personal record-keeping journal on what's been going on in my own garden for the past 25 years, while not as scientific as the climate experts are describing, has been suggesting the same outcome. As an example, there are certain vegetables like sweet corn, and a few other groups, that I had to stop growing several years ago because they just didn't have time to ripen! Gardening is too much hard work to get nothing in return except disappointing results! :thumbdown:

Off topic, but I was recently released from the hospital after being treated for pneumonia - it's very scary when you struggle to breathe cause your lungs aren't working right! :eek: Unfortunately that means no tobogganing, skiing, or other wintertime fun for me this year, and I sure enjoyed that! :boohoo:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I just read the interesting series of articles #591 through #593; and #596 and #597 that you have posted. :thumbs: My personal record-keeping journal on what's been going on in my own garden for the past 25 years, while not as scientific as the climate experts are describing, has been suggesting the same outcome. As an example, there are certain vegetables like sweet corn, and a few other groups, that I had to stop growing several years ago because they just didn't have time to ripen! Gardening is too much hard work to get nothing in return except disappointing results! :thumbdown:

Off topic, but I was recently released from the hospital after being treated for pneumonia - it's very scary when you struggle to breathe cause your lungs aren't working right! :eek: Unfortunately that means no tobogganing, skiing, or other wintertime fun for me this year, and I sure enjoyed that! :boohoo:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.

Sorry about your health scare, but very glad you are back on track. Take it easy this winter.
 
Surface Detail said:
This article seems to have been written by someone without a clue. For example:

"The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field."

TSI most certainly does not include cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field. It is simply the total amount of solar energy per square metre arriving at the Earth per unit time.

Why do you read, let alone post, this drivel, Jack?
Click to expand...
I doubt he reads any of his copied and pasted blog drivel other than the titles.
 
Jack Hays said:
The original is in German. This is a simple translation error.
Click to expand...

Nope it was NOT a "simple translation error". It's just wrong.

Here it is in the original German:

"Falsch. Die Sonne ist in den letzten 50 Jahren in Wahrheit stärker geworden, wenn man die Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (weiße Kurve im Diagramm) berücksichtigt, die auch die kosmische Strahlung bzw. das Sonnenmagnetfeld mit einbezieht."
 
Quaestio said:
Nope it was NOT a "simple translation error". It's just wrong.

Here it is in the original German:

"Falsch. Die Sonne ist in den letzten 50 Jahren in Wahrheit stärker geworden, wenn man die Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (weiße Kurve im Diagramm) berücksichtigt, die auch die kosmische Strahlung bzw. das Sonnenmagnetfeld mit einbezieht."
Click to expand...

Yup. The English translation is spot on. It's simply wrong.
 
Quaestio said:
I doubt he reads any of his copied and pasted blog drivel other than the titles.
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
Nope it was NOT a "simple translation error". It's just wrong.

Here it is in the original German:

"Falsch. Die Sonne ist in den letzten 50 Jahren in Wahrheit stärker geworden, wenn man die Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (weiße Kurve im Diagramm) berücksichtigt, die auch die kosmische Strahlung bzw. das Sonnenmagnetfeld mit einbezieht."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your German is inadequate to this problem. The key is the abbreviation "bzw." (beziehungsweise) which has no real equivalent in English and bedevils foreign learners of German. A machine translation (and that's what this is) will opt for the lowest common denominator choice, which in this case produces almost the opposite of the actual meaning.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your German is inadequate to this problem. The key is the abbreviation "bzw." (beziehungsweise) which has no real equivalent in English and bedevils foreign learners of German. A machine translation (and that's what this is) will opt for the lowest common denominator choice, which in this case produces almost the opposite of the actual meaning.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are bull****ting as usual. I spent 10 years living and working in Germany, and I speak fluent German. I know what "beziehungsweise" means, and so it seems does the translator of this article (P. Gosselin; it's not a machine translation). In this case a simple "and" is acceptable. More precisely, the author is stating that TSI includes cosmic radiation and the solar magnetic field to the extent that either are present. The latter part really goes without saying in English, which is why "and" is fine.
 
Surface Detail said:
Nope. You are bull****ting as usual. I spent 10 years living and working in Germany, and I speak fluent German. I know what "beziehungsweise" means, and so it seems does the translator of this article (P. Gosselin; it's not a machine translation). In this case a simple "and" is acceptable. More precisely, the author is stating that TSI includes cosmic radiation and the solar magnetic field to the extent that either are present. The latter part really goes without saying in English, which is why "and" is fine.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Jack never looks good when confronted with someone who actually knows stuff.

Quick! Somebody call Polgara!
 
Surface Detail said:
Nope. You are bull****ting as usual. I spent 10 years living and working in Germany, and I speak fluent German. I know what "beziehungsweise" means, and so it seems does the translator of this article (P. Gosselin; it's not a machine translation). In this case a simple "and" is acceptable. More precisely, the author is stating that TSI includes cosmic radiation and the solar magnetic field in the event that either are present. The latter part really goes without saying in English, which is why "and" is fine.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but after ten years in Germany your German is not very good.

Sorry again, but it's a Google machine translation.

Falsch. Die Sonne ist in den letzten 50 Jahren in Wahrheit stärker geworden, wenn man die Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (weiße Kurve im Diagramm) berücksichtigt, die auch die kosmische Strahlung bzw. das Sonnenmagnetfeld mit einbezieht.

False. The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field.

 Should be: ". . . which, along with the solar magnetic field, inhibits cosmic rays."
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your German is inadequate to this problem. The key is the abbreviation "bzw." (beziehungsweise) which has no real equivalent in English and bedevils foreign learners of German. A machine translation (and that's what this is) will opt for the lowest common denominator choice, which in this case produces almost the opposite of the actual meaning.
Click to expand...

Falsch.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but after ten years in Germany your German is not very good.

Sorry again, but it's a Google machine translation.

Falsch. Die Sonne ist in den letzten 50 Jahren in Wahrheit stärker geworden, wenn man die Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (weiße Kurve im Diagramm) berücksichtigt, die auch die kosmische Strahlung bzw. das Sonnenmagnetfeld mit einbezieht.

False. The sun has actually become stronger in the last 50 years when one considers the total solar irradiance (TSI – white curve in the diagram), which also includes cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field.

 Should be: ". . . which, along with the solar magnetic field, inhibits cosmic rays."
Click to expand...

You own earlier post states "German text translated by P Gosselin". It is not a machine translation. And your translation is completely wrong. "Einbezieht" means "includes", not "inhibits". You really are full of it, Jack.
 
Surface Detail said:
You own earlier post states "German text translated by P Gosselin". It is not a machine translation. And your translation is completely wrong. "Einbezieht" means "includes", not "inhibits". You really are full of it, Jack.
Click to expand...

Yes, Gosselin is responsible for the translation because it's on his blog. Nonetheless he used a machine translation, and there's no reason why he should not. Remember, he's not a native German speaker.
While "einbeziehen" literally means "include" it has many other figurative meanings. The range expands even further when paired with the preposition "mit." If you don't like "inhibits" then you could choose "controls" (literally, "achieves control over").
In any case, you're wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Jack never looks good when confronted with someone who actually knows stuff.

Quick! Somebody call Polgara!
Click to expand...

WTH, 3G? What prompted you to bring me into a conversation you were having with someone else about the German language? I never learned how to speak or read German! :screwy
 
polgara said:
WTH, 3G? What prompted you to bring me into a conversation you were having with someone else about the German language? I never learned how to speak or read German! :screwy
Click to expand...

He does not like the idea that you do cheerleading better than him.

It is his only skill. So easily threatened, even when you are not doing that, for the unthinking it is difficult to keep up.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, Gosselin is responsible for the translation because it's on his blog. Nonetheless he used a machine translation, and there's no reason why he should not. Remember, he's not a native German speaker.
While "einbeziehen" literally means "include" it has many other figurative meanings. The range expands even further when paired with the preposition "mit." If you don't like "inhibits" then you could choose "controls" (literally, "achieves control over").
In any case, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being absurd. Words have meanings, as LoP is so fond of pointing out. This also applies to German words. The meaning of einbeziehen is to include, incorporate or involve. It has no meaning, figurative or otherwise, remotely related to inhibit. Look in any German-to-English dictionary, for example: https://www.linguee.de/deutsch-englisch/search?source=auto&query=einbeziehen

Also, Pierre Gosselin, while not a native speaker, has lived in Germany since 1990, and would therefore be expected to have reasonable German, especially when translating a subject close to his heart. As a sometime professional German to English technical translator, I can confirm that his translation is spot on and is almost certainly not a machine translation. It is the content of the article that is wrong, not the translation.
 
Surface Detail said:
Now you are just being absurd. Words have meanings, as LoP is so fond of pointing out. This also applies to German words. The meaning of einbeziehen is to include, incorporate or involve. It has no meaning, figurative or otherwise, remotely related to inhibit. Look in any German-to-English dictionary, for example: https://www.linguee.de/deutsch-englisch/search?source=auto&query=einbeziehen

Also, Pierre Gosselin, while not a native speaker, has lived in Germany since 1990, and would therefore be expected to have reasonable German, especially when translating a subject close to his heart. As a sometime professional German to English technical translator, I can confirm that his translation is spot on and is almost certainly not a machine translation. It is the content of the article that is wrong, not the translation.
Click to expand...

In Google, go to the appropriate German language blog page. In the upper right hand corner of your screen, Google will ask if you want the passage translated to English. Click yes. The translation will appear exactly as in the post we have been discussing.
As for figurative meanings of einbeziehen:

einbeziehen - English translation in English - Langenscheidt ...


https://en.langenscheidt.com/german-english/einbeziehen

to bring sth into one’s sphereof influence, to achieve controlof sth



etwas in seinen Machtbereicheinbeziehen




Translation for 'einbeziehen' using the free German-English dictionary by LANGENSCHEIDT -– with examples, synonyms and pronunciation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom