• 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!

It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

lwf said:
If the paradigm shifts, then the scientific consensus will reflect this. Since it still has not, and indeed evidence of the opposite seems to be getting stronger, this particular paradigm you are promoting seems more like a political agenda rather than reflective of accurate science.
Click to expand...
Very little will shift, as long as the money continues to flow to those who stand on catastrophic AGW,
But the evidence does not support the concept of catastrophic global warming.
All the consensus in the world, means nothing to the data.
catastrophic man cause climate change, required a high feedback factor to be viable as a concept.
Within the temperature record, we have the pre 1950 warming. The climate feedbacks have had 70 year to act on those inputs.
When we look at the observed warming since 1950, and subtract out the known forcing, there is only a small
amount of warming which is unaccountable, and could be considered amplified feedback warming.
The remaining observed amount is too small to support a 2XCO2 ECS of ether 3C or 4.5C, and really cannot even support an ECS of 2C.
The numerical data, is not political, it is numerical data!
 
longview said:
Very little will shift, as long as the money continues to flow to those who stand on catastrophic AGW,
But the evidence does not support the concept of catastrophic global warming.
All the consensus in the world, means nothing to the data.
catastrophic man cause climate change, required a high feedback factor to be viable as a concept.
Within the temperature record, we have the pre 1950 warming. The climate feedbacks have had 70 year to act on those inputs.
When we look at the observed warming since 1950, and subtract out the known forcing, there is only a small
amount of warming which is unaccountable, and could be considered amplified feedback warming.
The remaining observed amount is too small to support a 2XCO2 ECS of ether 3C or 4.5C, and really cannot even support an ECS of 2C.
The numerical data, is not political, it is numerical data!
Click to expand...

The scientific community disagrees
 
Jack Hays said:
No. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of others feel the same about climate change deniers for the same reasons you feel that way about alchemy.
 
Jack Hays said:
I really don't care about that.
Click to expand...

It shows that your argument is special pleading. You hold a double standard. You reject other statistical outliers due to the ease with which the majority of other scientists debunk the theories, but embrace one particular statistical outlier in spite of the fact that the majority of other scientists have debunked the theory.
 
lwf said:
It shows that your argument is special pleading. You hold a double standard. You reject other statistical outliers due to the ease with which the majority of other scientists debunk the theories, but embrace one particular statistical outlier in spite of the fact that the majority of other scientists have debunked the theory.
Click to expand...

No. I reject alchemy (to take your example) because the science makes no sense to me. I accept the Svensmark/Shaviv alternative climate explanation because it does make sense to me and it fits the pattern of successful insurgent paradigms as set forth in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I couldn't care less about what ideas get how many votes. There's nothing less important. And no, Svensmark/Shaviv have not been debunked.

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]
 
lwf said:
But then wouldn't that also apply to any other pseudoscience as well? Does alchemy deserve the same standing as chemistry?
Click to expand...
Nir Shaviv's theory is not pseudoscience, and has been published in peer reviewed journals.
Nir J. Shaviv / Curriculum Vitae
His basic concept boils down to how the magnetic field of the sun interacts with earth and causes
and amplification or attenuation of the solar energy that passes through the atmosphere, by reducing or adding to clouds.
More magnetic field, less clouds, more solar energy reaches the ground.
Less magnetic field , more clouds, less solar energy reaches the ground.
The controversy Shaviv's theory, is in the weakness of the AGW theory, which applies all unaccounted for warming
to AGW. Shaviv's theory moves some of the observed warming from the unknown category to the known category.
This is very dangerous to AGW, because the concept is only hanging on by a thread.
Consider that the total Hadcrut4 observed warming above the pre 1900 average, is .93C
The total forcing from added greenhouse gasses, AGGI, is also about .93C.
If Shaviv were correct and between 1/3 and 1/2 of the observed warming were from solar changes,
then many of the assumptions used in modeling AGW, would be wrong!
 
longview said:
Nir Shaviv's theory is not pseudoscience, and has been published in peer reviewed journals.
Nir J. Shaviv / Curriculum Vitae
His basic concept boils down to how the magnetic field of the sun interacts with earth and causes
and amplification or attenuation of the solar energy that passes through the atmosphere, by reducing or adding to clouds.
More magnetic field, less clouds, more solar energy reaches the ground.
Less magnetic field , more clouds, less solar energy reaches the ground.
The controversy Shaviv's theory, is in the weakness of the AGW theory, which applies all unaccounted for warming
to AGW. Shaviv's theory moves some of the observed warming from the unknown category to the known category.
This is very dangerous to AGW, because the concept is only hanging on by a thread.
Consider that the total Hadcrut4 observed warming above the pre 1900 average, is .93C
The total forcing from added greenhouse gasses, AGGI, is also about .93C.
If Shaviv were correct and between 1/3 and 1/2 of the observed warming were from solar changes,
then many of the assumptions used in modeling AGW, would be wrong!
Click to expand...

In order for this to be the case, solar activity would need to be increasing. It has in fact been decreasing since the 1960's, which rules out solar activity as a cause for global warming and debunks Shaviv's theory.

Solar activity and climate - Wikipedia

Solar_irradiance_and_temperature_1880-2018.jpg
 
lwf said:
In order for this to be the case, solar activity would need to be increasing. It has in fact been decreasing since the 1960's, which rules out solar activity as a cause for global warming and debunks Shaviv's theory.

Solar activity and climate - Wikipedia

View attachment 67281817
Click to expand...
It is not TSI that regulates the formation or lack there of of clouds, but some aspect of the sun's magnetic filed.
I think the best way to describe the effect he is theorizing is like a Venetian blind,
the sunlight outside may not change, but the blind can limit or allow in from near zero to 100% of the available light.
The hand on the control, is some physical aspect of the Sun that is not entirely known at this point,
but is seen in the same 11 year solar cycle reflected in a 11 year cloud cycle.
(I believe he states that the cloud cycle is asymmetrical to the solar cycle)
 
longview said:
It is not TSI that regulates the formation or lack there of of clouds, but some aspect of the sun's magnetic filed.
I think the best way to describe the effect he is theorizing is like a Venetian blind,
the sunlight outside may not change, but the blind can limit or allow in from near zero to 100% of the available light.
The hand on the control, is some physical aspect of the Sun that is not entirely known at this point,
but is seen in the same 11 year solar cycle reflected in a 11 year cloud cycle.
(I believe he states that the cloud cycle is asymmetrical to the solar cycle)
Click to expand...

Sounds like one hypothesis to me. A good scientist would attempt to disprove this hypothesis, rather than hunt for information that might support it if we assume unproven things. Since there is far more evidence for AGW, it makes more sense to assume that global warming is caused by human activity when setting policy.
 
lwf said:
Sounds like one hypothesis to me. A good scientist would attempt to disprove this hypothesis, rather than hunt for information that might support it if we assume unproven things. Since there is far more evidence for AGW, it makes more sense to assume that global warming is caused by human activity when setting policy.
Click to expand...
The evidence of AGW is actually a lack of evidence that any other known concept can account for the observed warming.
This is detailed out in one of the consensus statements cited by NASA.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
American Geophysical Union

"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases,
are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)
Click to expand...
The problem with this type of evidence, is the door always remains open for us to learn,
new things and move some of the observed warming from the unknown category to a known attribution.

Also I believe Shaviv himself has attempted a falsification criteria, with the cloud experiments,
to see if cosmic rays formed cloud condensation nuclei, if they did not his theory would have been falsified,
but the cloud condensation nuclei were observed.
If AGW had the overwhelming evidence claimed, the a theory that shifted .27C from the unknown column to the known column
would not matter. Since AGW rests on a weak foundation of, the lack of any alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence,
and the margins are already thin, the the proponents must vigorously protest any other explanation.
It is the antithesis of the scientific process.
 
longview said:
The evidence of AGW is actually a lack of evidence that any other known concept can account for the observed warming.
This is detailed out in one of the consensus statements cited by NASA.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The problem with this type of evidence, is the door always remains open for us to learn,
new things and move some of the observed warming from the unknown category to a known attribution.

Also I believe Shaviv himself has attempted a falsification criteria, with the cloud experiments,
to see if cosmic rays formed cloud condensation nuclei, if they did not his theory would have been falsified,
but the cloud condensation nuclei were observed.
If AGW had the overwhelming evidence claimed, the a theory that shifted .27C from the unknown column to the known column
would not matter. Since AGW rests on a weak foundation of, the lack of any alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence,
and the margins are already thin, the the proponents must vigorously protest any other explanation.
It is the antithesis of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

But the sun has been ruled out unless we assume some physical property of the sun that we have no evidence for. The human impact on the atmosphere has been proven. The fact that there is disagreement on particulars does not discount the whole theory. AGW is the best theory because is supported by repeatable experiments and matches the data better than any other theory. The fact that some data hasn't been explained only means that the theory is still incomplete, not that it is wrong.

Not all theories are equal. The ones with the most evidence are probably, but not necessarily, the correct ones. The ones with the least evidence are almost definitely wrong. The chance of these types of theories turning out to actually be correct and embraced are infinitesimally small. The fact that the chance is non-zero is not sufficient reason to accept it as a legitimate alternative scientific theory.
 
lwf said:
But the sun has been ruled out unless we assume some physical property of the sun that we have no evidence for. The human impact on the atmosphere has been proven. The fact that there is disagreement on particulars does not discount the whole theory. AGW is the best theory because is supported by repeatable experiments and matches the data better than any other theory. The fact that some data hasn't been explained only means that the theory is still incomplete, not that it is wrong.

Not all theories are equal. The ones with the most evidence are probably, but not necessarily, the correct ones. The ones with the least evidence are almost definitely wrong. The chance of these types of theories turning out to actually be correct and embraced are infinitesimally small. The fact that the chance is non-zero is not sufficient reason to accept it as a legitimate alternative scientific theory.
Click to expand...
First off the way we measure TSI, has it's own issues, so the Sun has not been ruled out.
Secondly, The Cosmic ray solar regulation theory is not based on TSI, but some other aspect of solar change,
we only know it is solar related, because changes in cloud cover follow the same 11 year solar cycle.
If you think there is experimental data supporting AGW then present it and cite it's source?
Based on your own criteria,
Not all theories are equal. The ones with the most evidence are probably, but not necessarily, the correct ones.
The ones with the least evidence are almost definitely wrong.
Click to expand...
AGW is likely wrong, as it has the least empirical evidence.
Do you understand that Shaviv's theory in no way invalidates AGW, but only offers an alternative explanation for some of the observed warming.
 
lwf said:
Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked
Click to expand...

Old, and embarrassingly (for you) scientifically uninformed. Topped off by the smarmy attempt to label Shaviv "dirty." As if speeches at the Heartland Institute would somehow turn the head of the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

All the claims of having debunked either Shaviv or Svensmark arise from either dishonest strawman presentations of their arguments, or simple ignorance of the topic. I doubt you will believe me. But I have no doubt you will one day be embarrassed by that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Old, and embarrassingly (for you) scientifically uninformed. Topped off by the smarmy attempt to label Shaviv "dirty." As if speeches at the Heartland Institute would somehow turn the head of the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

All the claims of having debunked either Shaviv or Svensmark arise from either dishonest strawman presentations of their arguments, or simple ignorance of the topic. I doubt you will believe me. But I have no doubt you will one day be embarrassed by that.
Click to expand...

My source is 100% as authoritative and reliable as your own source: Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Judge finds fact-faking Facebook “fact-check” false[/h][FONT=&quot]By Christopher Monckton Die Welt reports that The Regional Court of Appeal in Karlsruhe has ruled against a fact-faking “fact-check” on Facebook. Last September Tichys Einblick (Tichy’s Insight), a centre-Right magazine in Germany, had published an open letter to the UN Secretary-General from more than 500 scientists, researchers and professionals in the worldwide Climate Intelligence…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
lwf said:
My source is 100% as authoritative and reliable as your own source: Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Nope.

About the author: Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and a senior researcher in the Astrophysics andAtmospheric Physics Division of the National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Lyngby, Denmark. In 1987, he obtained a PhD from the Technical University of Denmark and has heldpostdoctoral positions in physics at three other organizations: the University of California,Berkeley, the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. HenrikSvensmark presently leads the Sun–Climate Research group at DTU Space.

Acknowledgement: I thank Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, Nir Shaviv and Jacob Svensmark and two reviewers for contributing helpful comments to this manuscript.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom