• 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!

A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm[W:43]

Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Actually continuing to gather data is a perfectly reasonable step.

Manufacturing imaginary carbon taxes is not a reasonable step but a scheme to line someones pockets..

Some people will get rich by investing in renewable technology, just as people have previously got rich by investing in coal, oil and gas. That, for good or bad, is how capitalism works.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Some people will get rich by investing in renewable technology, just as people have previously got rich by investing in coal, oil and gas. That, for good or bad, is how capitalism works.

Yeah. Government taxpayer money used to fund bs isnt capitalism.

Solyndra Scandal

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees . "
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Jack, you yourself posted a link to research indicating that solar activity has fallen to a 100 year low (actually, more like a 200 year low) over the past few decades. Yet the temperature continues to rise. Can you not see that this pretty much scuppers the solar forcing theory?

Edit: And why are you spamming the thread with links that have nothing to do with this topic? It's almost as though you don't want to have a serious conversation about it.

The "links that have nothing to do with this topic" are directly in reply to a post from Praxas. Not every discussion I have here is with you.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Jack, you yourself posted a link to research indicating that solar activity has fallen to a 100 year low (actually, more like a 200 year low) over the past few decades. Yet the temperature continues to rise. Can you not see that this pretty much scuppers the solar forcing theory?

Edit: And why are you spamming the thread with links that have nothing to do with this topic? It's almost as though you don't want to have a serious conversation about it.

It only "scuppers the solar forcing theory" for people who don't understand it.

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

Blog topic:
cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


After being asked by 5 independent people about the new sunspot number reconstruction and that it doesn’t show that the sun should have contributed any warming to the 20th century, I decided to write about it here. I have one word to describe it – irrelevant. It is also a good opportunity to write about new results (well, one that saw the light of day a few months ago) showing again that the sun has a large effect on climate. Yet, the world will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not.

By shaviv 0 CommentsRead more...

[FONT=&quot]. . . What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The second point I wanted to write about is a recently published analysis showing that the sun has a large effect on climate, and quantifying it. In an earlier work, I [/FONT]showed[FONT=&quot] that you can use the oceans as a calorimeter to see that the solar radiative forcing over the solar cycle is very large, by looking at various oceanic data sets (heat content, sea surface temperature and tide gauges). How large? About 6-7 times large than one can naively expect from changes in the solar irradiance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More recently, [/FONT]Daniel Howard, Henrik Svesmark and I[FONT=&quot] looked at the satellite altimetry data. It is similar to the tide gauge records in that it measures how much heat goes into the ocean by measuring the sea level change (most of the sea level on short time scales is due to thermal expansion). Unsurprisingly, we found that the satellite altimetry showed the same solar-cycle synchronized sea level change as the tide gauge records. However, because the satellite data is of such high quality, it is has a higher temporal resolution than the tide gauge records which allows singling out the thermal expansion component from other terms (e.g., associated with trapping of water on land). This allows for an even better estimate of the solar forcing, which is 1.33±0.34 W/m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] over the last solar cycle. You can see in fig. 4 how much the sun and el-Niño can explain a large fraction of the sea level change over yearly to decadal time scales. . . . [/FONT]
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

The "links that have nothing to do with this topic" are directly in reply to a post from Praxas. Not every discussion I have here is with you.

My apologies, but I'd appreciate a response to my point that there is has been no correlation between solar activity and global warming for the past few decades. Surely that simple fact disproves the solar forcing hypothesis.

Edit: OK, I see you have. It looks awfully hand-wavey though. I bet it's not passed peer review. I'll be back later.
 
Last edited:
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

My apologies, but I'd appreciate a response to my point that there is has been no correlation between solar activity and global warming for the past few decades. Surely that simple fact disproves the solar forcing hypothesis.

Please see #29.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

I have quite a nice life IRL, actually. Don't be grumpy just because your argument did not go well.

There's nothing wrong with my argument. Solar output peaked in the 1950s and has been falling since then. But the temperature of the Earth's surface has continued to rise, as has the sea level, showing that the oceans have also continued to warm. Also, there is no way that changes in solar activity can explain the cooling of the stratosphere and the enhanced warming of the Arctic as greenhouse warming does. There is no amount of waffle by Nir Shaviv and co that can explain away these facts. Greenhouse warming is the only viable explanation.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

There's nothing wrong with my argument. Solar output peaked in the 1950s and has been falling since then. But the temperature of the Earth's surface has continued to rise, as has the sea level, showing that the oceans have also continued to warm. Also, there is no way that changes in solar activity can explain the cooling of the stratosphere and the enhanced warming of the Arctic as greenhouse warming does. There is no amount of waffle by Nir Shaviv and co that can explain away these facts. Greenhouse warming is the only viable explanation.

Please see the second link in #15 and the link in #16. The data are against you.
And I don't know why you would characterize Shaviv's explanation as a waffle.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Please see the second link in #15 and the link in #16. The data are against you.
And I don't know why you would characterize Shaviv's explanation as a waffle.

No, the facts are against you, and I've just explained exactly why. If the sun's output is falling and the temperature is still rising, then clearly the sun's output isn't the main factor in the current temperature change. You really don't have to be a genius to understand that!
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

No, the facts are against you, and I've just explained exactly why. If the sun's output is falling and the temperature is still rising, then clearly the sun's output isn't the main factor in the current temperature change. You really don't have to be a genius to understand that!

And as Shaviv explained, you're looking at the wrong output. And you're ignoring the critical interaction between solar activity and GCR's. I'm afraid it looks like you're just not paying attention.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

No, the facts are against you, and I've just explained exactly why. If the sun's output is falling and the temperature is still rising, then clearly the sun's output isn't the main factor in the current temperature change. You really don't have to be a genius to understand that!

Thermal inertia of the oceans cause a long lag of warming or cooling seen from the sun. For whatever reason, The powers to be increased the previous three solar peaks, or decreased the 1958 peak. Only this last solar cycle is weaker than the 1958 peak.

TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

This is a devastating critique of the "settled science" claim.


A veneer of certainty stoking climate alarm

[FONT=&]Posted on November 29, 2017 | 89 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public. – Rupert Darwall
Continue reading

In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public. – Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall has written a tour-de-force essay “A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm“, which has been published by CEI [link to full essay].
Foreword
I was invited to write a Foreword to the essay, which provides context for the essay:
While the nations of the world met in Bonn to discuss implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration was working to dismantle President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and to establish a climate “red team” to critically evaluate the scientific basis for dangerous human-caused climate change and the policy responses.
The mantra of “settled science” is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a “consensus” on the topic of human-caused climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change, and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate, disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed.
This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the American Physical Society (APS). I was privileged to participate in this workshop, which included three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who do not—all of whom were questioned by a panel of distinguished physicists.
The transcript of the workshop is a remarkable document. It provides, in my opinion, the most accurate portrayal of the scientific debates surrounding climate change. While each of the six scientists agreed on the primary scientific evidence, we each had a unique perspective on how to reason about the evidence, what conclusions could be drawn and with what level of certainty.
Rupert Darwall’s essay provides a timely and cogent argument for a red/blue team assessment of climate change that provides both sides with an impartial forum to ask questions and probe the other side’s case. Such an assessment would both advance the science and open up the policy deliberations to a much broader range of options. . . .






I think Curry is very 'SOLD OUT'. The following comment reveals a degree of fanaticism:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

The comment implies that the world can stop the acceleration of AGW, and the deadly consequences, but that it's not worthwhile. That's ridiculous.

Her phD was in Geophysics, which is closely tied with the demands of the oil industry. She has refused to disclose her clients, and admits to being on the fossil fuel industry payroll. SOLD OUT!
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Yes, alright. Unlike you, I do have a life outside of this forum!

50 cents per post - a tough way to make a living.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

I think Curry is very 'SOLD OUT'. The following comment reveals a degree of fanaticism:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

The comment implies that the world can stop the acceleration of AGW, and the deadly consequences, but that it's not worthwhile. That's ridiculous.

Her phD was in Geophysics, which is closely tied with the demands of the oil industry. She has refused to disclose her clients, and admits to being on the fossil fuel industry payroll. SOLD OUT!

You understand nothing. The point of her remark was that the Paris Accord will produce a negligible result at great expense. As for Curry herself, her distinguished academic career needs no defense from me.

[h=3]Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by ... - Bjorn Lomborg[/h]www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-...




A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December's meeting.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Opinion
[h=1]Some Thoughts on Climate: Difficult Not to be Skeptical[/h]Guest essay by Michael Greer I was surprised, pleasantly surprised, UCLA allowed the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department to have Professor William Happer speak skeptically about Climate Change at a Physical Chemistry Seminar, until I learned two Conservative Chemistry professors had to do it under the radar. Nevertheless, in a room that could hold under 100…
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Moderator's Warning:
The personal comments need to stop. Address the topic in the OP, not each other.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

You understand nothing. The point of her remark was that the Paris Accord will produce a negligible result at great expense. As for Curry herself, her distinguished academic career needs no defense from me.

[h=3]Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by ... - Bjorn Lomborg[/h]www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-...




A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December's meeting.

You say that "I understand nothing". These were Judith Curry's words:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

She is saying that even though we can accomplish something (i.e. halting the acceleration of AGW), we should do nothing. You are the one guilty of changing her words to fit your narrative.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

You say that "I understand nothing". These were Judith Curry's words:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

She is saying that even though we can accomplish something (i.e. halting the acceleration of AGW), we should do nothing. You are the one guilty of changing her words to fit your narrative.

The point was the result will be negligible. Two-tenths of a degree? That merits a big "so what?"
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

The point was the result will be negligible. Two-tenths of a degree? That merits a big "so what?"

And if we do nothing, the acceleration will continue, and we might be up 2 deg C. Considering this alternative, two tenths looks pretty good. Her statement in and of itself, shows her bias, as she didn't even use Units on her temperature. This reveals that the statement was nothing but oil-industry propaganda, as a scientist would never make this error with peers.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

And if we do nothing, the acceleration will continue, and we might be up 2 deg C. Considering this alternative, two tenths looks pretty good. Her statement in and of itself, shows her bias, as she didn't even use Units on her temperature. This reveals that the statement was nothing but oil-industry propaganda, as a scientist would never make this error with peers.

I'm afraid you have not done your reading. The point is that even if all promised actions were taken by all countries under the Paris Accord the difference would be only two tenth of a degree.. Please read the link in #41.
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

Humor / Ocean Heat Content
[h=1]Friday Funny – Climate Central’s scare graph excuse: ‘The oceans ate the warming’[/h]Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the sheer desperation of claims being made. Such is the case of the agitprop known as “Climate Central” which is privately funded to produce slick graphics and scare stories about climate change. Case in point, their recent graph that purports to show why the atmosphere hasn’t warmed as…
 
Re: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

I'm afraid you have not done your reading. The point is that even if all promised actions were taken by all countries under the Paris Accord the difference would be only two tenth of a degree.. Please read the link in #41.

Your propaganda from the Bloggers is errant at best. I looked at the article, and they're just repeating some sloppy science rhetoric from elsewhere. Study and learn:

Paris_Agreement_Goals.jpg

Comparability of effort - methodology - Climate Action Tracker
 
Back
Top Bottom