• 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!

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

AS I suspected, the paper makes a number of assumptions.
The first is that the warming between the glacial period and the pre industrial temperature is 5K (5C).

They then assume the greenhouse gas levels for the two periods,

I am not saying the assumptions and estimates are wrong, only that they are all subject to debate, and have wide variation
on their own.
Next they assign forcing to the estimated changes.

In short, there are plenty of assumptions made, and this is not evidence.


You are such a stickler! :mrgreen:
 
[h=2]Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. August 2020
Share this...


Günther Aigner released a German video with the title “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“ (The Alps glaciers in climate change: status quo).
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
Today global warming alarmists insist blaming climate change on man-made CO2 emissions. Yet, everywhere we look it’s difficult to find any correlation between CO2 and warming. Pre-industrial history shows that changes in CO2 in fact followed temperature changes.
Today we look at some climate charts of the European upper Ostalpen to look for hints what may be behind the warming since the late 20th century. We know glaciers there have been receding over the recent decades.
First is a mean temperature chart of the region for the May to September period going back 133 years:

Chart cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner
Plotted are data from the Austrian ZAMG and the Swiss MeteoSchwiez, 5-year smoothed (green) and the linear trend (black). Clearly there’s been a long-term warming., but the vast share of the warming occurred since the late 1970s, after a 30-year period of cooling (since the early 1940s).
What could have happened since the early 1980s?
Of course CO2 emissions rose since 1980, and summer temperatures high in the Ostalpen rose. But is there something else?

One thing that could cause summertime temperatures to rise and glaciers to melt is sunshine. So Aigner plotted the number of sunshine hours for the May-September period for each year and produced the following chart:

Source: Cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner
As the above chart shows, the sun has shined considerably more over the recent decades than it used to in the 1970s, or late 19th century. Today the region sees about a whopping 200 hours more sunshine than 120 years ago! More sunshine would mean more warmth.
The plot of sunshine hours indeed looks awfully similar to the plot depicting mean temperatures. . . .
 
[h=2]Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. August 2020
Share this...


Günther Aigner released a German video with the title “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“ (The Alps glaciers in climate change: status quo).
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
Today global warming alarmists insist blaming climate change on man-made CO2 emissions. Yet, everywhere we look it’s difficult to find any correlation between CO2 and warming. Pre-industrial history shows that changes in CO2 in fact followed temperature changes.
Today we look at some climate charts of the European upper Ostalpen to look for hints what may be behind the warming since the late 20th century. We know glaciers there have been receding over the recent decades.
First is a mean temperature chart of the region for the May to September period going back 133 years:

Chart cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner
Plotted are data from the Austrian ZAMG and the Swiss MeteoSchwiez, 5-year smoothed (green) and the linear trend (black). Clearly there’s been a long-term warming., but the vast share of the warming occurred since the late 1970s, after a 30-year period of cooling (since the early 1940s).
What could have happened since the early 1980s?
Of course CO2 emissions rose since 1980, and summer temperatures high in the Ostalpen rose. But is there something else?

One thing that could cause summertime temperatures to rise and glaciers to melt is sunshine. So Aigner plotted the number of sunshine hours for the May-September period for each year and produced the following chart:

Source: Cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner
As the above chart shows, the sun has shined considerably more over the recent decades than it used to in the 1970s, or late 19th century. Today the region sees about a whopping 200 hours more sunshine than 120 years ago! More sunshine would mean more warmth.
The plot of sunshine hours indeed looks awfully similar to the plot depicting mean temperatures. . . .

Just curious, besides reading Thomas Kuhn and every known "skeptic" or denialist blog you can find, do you ever read actual scientific publications?

So just curious (I know this didn't cause you any concern because you love data that confirms your bias) but:

1. Where did the "number of sunshine hours" data come from?
2. Why did the region increase in number of "sunshine hours" over that time frame?

Looks like "Dr. Pierre" (who got an ASSOCIATES degree and then went on to get a Bachelors degree) is asking that question too, but it doesn't really matter what the answer is because it is just like with Creationists who find a single thing to question about evolution so that they can throw up their hands and shout: "SEE! NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING PERFECTLY! So my pet theory can be true too!"

(I suspect even Thomas Kuhn would find that form of "scientific revolution" kind of pathetic).
 
. . . So just curious (I know this didn't cause you any concern because you love data that confirms your bias) but:

1. Where did the "number of sunshine hours" data come from?
2. Why did the region increase in number of "sunshine hours" over that time frame? . . .

It's stated in the post.

Chart cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner
 
It's stated in the post.

Chart cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner

LOL. "Video" arguments. Sorry, I've endured waaaay too many Creationist debates. I don't do other rando's videos. Sorry, again.

(Also simply saying the data is in a video doesn't really answer the question either. Where did Aigner get the data?)

But you didn't answer the really important question: why is there more sunshine days? (I understand that isn't important because it might be uncomfortable...and we gotta blame the sun.)
 
LOL. "Video" arguments. Sorry, I've endured waaaay too many Creationist debates. I don't do other rando's videos. Sorry, again.

(Also simply saying the data is in a video doesn't really answer the question either. Where did Aigner get the data?)

But you didn't answer the really important question: why is there more sunshine days? (I understand that isn't important because it might be uncomfortable...and we gotta blame the sun.)

Same question that ends the NTZ post:

The real question is why is the region less cloudy today?
 
Same question that ends the NTZ post:

The real question is why is the region less cloudy today?

Like I said. Pierre (the blogger rando with an associates degree AND a bachelor's degree) raised the question which actually seems like the IMPORTANT bit. But you don't care whether it ever gets answered, neither does Dr. Pierre. (And I'm not going to watch some OTHER rando's video to get to the bottom of it).

No, this is almost exactly like standard issue Creationism-Type arguments: just poke holes, throw flack up into the sky and see if you can obscure the data and bring up more "questions" and then the work is done.

Like I said: your skeptic/denialist buddies don't present any solutions to "mysteries"...they just ask questions and that's all they will ever do.

I would think for one who studies the history of science and how science changes would be way more familiar with how this sort of game is played. Like I said Creationists have been playing it for decades! The folks who worked for the tobacco companies back in the 70's and 80's did the same game "Raise doubt. Call it a day". Or folks like S. Fred Singer who was shoehorned into the national acadmies study on acid rain and then proceeded to come up with some truly bizarro means of downplaying even the NEED to deal with acid rain (it involved a silly game of assigning zero value to environmental protection and then calculating that doing anything would be a net "loss".)

If you don't understand how "fake" scientific revolutions work then how do you propose to identify a REAL scientific revolution?
 
Like I said. Pierre (the blogger rando with an associates degree AND a bachelor's degree) raised the question which actually seems like the IMPORTANT bit. But you don't care whether it ever gets answered, neither does Dr. Pierre. (And I'm not going to watch some OTHER rando's video to get to the bottom of it).

No, this is almost exactly like standard issue Creationism-Type arguments: just poke holes, throw flack up into the sky and see if you can obscure the data and bring up more "questions" and then the work is done.

Like I said: your skeptic/denialist buddies don't present any solutions to "mysteries"...they just ask questions and that's all they will ever do.

I would think for one who studies the history of science and how science changes would be way more familiar with how this sort of game is played. Like I said Creationists have been playing it for decades! The folks who worked for the tobacco companies back in the 70's and 80's did the same game "Raise doubt. Call it a day". Or folks like S. Fred Singer who was shoehorned into the national acadmies study on acid rain and then proceeded to come up with some truly bizarro means of downplaying even the NEED to deal with acid rain (it involved a silly game of assigning zero value to environmental protection and then calculating that doing anything would be a net "loss".)

If you don't understand how "fake" scientific revolutions work then how do you propose to identify a REAL scientific revolution?

Ah. I see that you're now reduced to conspiracy theory rants. Too bad.
 
“Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong.”
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

When you get some actual working experience in science you will have some really nice insights into "scientific revolution". You really should study actual science along with the history of science. Go out and get a job as a lab grunt to see the nuts and bolts of how science works, what it entails, how "concepts" are grounded, grow and why they are questioned when they are questioned.
 
When you get some actual working experience in science you will have some really nice insights into "scientific revolution". You really should study actual science along with the history of science. Go out and get a job as a lab grunt to see the nuts and bolts of how science works, what it entails, how "concepts" are grounded, grow and why they are questioned when they are questioned.

Unlikely. I'm 70 YOA and happily retired. Regardless, I need not actually contract COVID-19 to understand how it works (to take a timely example).
 
Unlikely. I'm 70 YOA and happily retired. Regardless, I need not actually contract COVID-19 to understand how it works (to take a timely example).

Excellent analogy!

You seem more in line with the kind of medical thinking that held sway in the 17th century where everyone simply took Galen's writings as how things should be, rather than having an understanding of how the human body works.

Your continual quotation of Kuhn and Myrdal et al about how science works is really pretty empty. You have no way to assess whether Kuhn is correct, or Popper is correct on how science advances, you simply find quotes from your favorite philosopher to confirm your personal bias.

You, without any real understanding of how science works, let alone the technical aspects of AGW, don't like AGW so you need "cover" to give you comfort for siding with the tiny fringe minority in the field. So you leaf through Kuhn and see things about "normal science" vs revolution and figure that "Hey, there have been revolutions in the past, so my personal opinion of how AGW isn't true can possibly be a new revolution!"

Sure, there's a slim chance, but you won't be right because you saw further than anyone...you will be right due to random chance.

It's like going to a roulette table and plopping all your money down on one color/number combination and winning. It doesn't require strategy or knowledge of how or why it was going to work out.

If I were you, ceteris paribus, I wouldn't bet against the house.
 
Excellent analogy!

You seem more in line with the kind of medical thinking that held sway in the 17th century where everyone simply took Galen's writings as how things should be, rather than having an understanding of how the human body works.

Your continual quotation of Kuhn and Myrdal et al about how science works is really pretty empty. You have no way to assess whether Kuhn is correct, or Popper is correct on how science advances, you simply find quotes from your favorite philosopher to confirm your personal bias.

You, without any real understanding of how science works, let alone the technical aspects of AGW, don't like AGW so you need "cover" to give you comfort for siding with the tiny fringe minority in the field. So you leaf through Kuhn and see things about "normal science" vs revolution and figure that "Hey, there have been revolutions in the past, so my personal opinion of how AGW isn't true can possibly be a new revolution!"

Sure, there's a slim chance, but you won't be right because you saw further than anyone...you will be right due to random chance.

It's like going to a roulette table and plopping all your money down on one color/number combination and winning. It doesn't require strategy or knowledge of how or why it was going to work out.

If I were you, ceteris paribus, I wouldn't bet against the house.

I see you have abandoned substantive discussion in favor of a personal attack. I won't speculate as to why you have done this, but rest assured I'm unimpressed.
 
I see you have abandoned substantive discussion in favor of a personal attack. I won't speculate as to why you have done this, but rest assured I'm unimpressed.

I haven't really seen any substantive scientific remarks from him. He reminds me of Media Truth.
 
I see you have abandoned substantive discussion in favor of a personal attack.

No, I am merely noting my understanding of how you are formulating your responses.

I think I'm pretty close.

I won't speculate as to why you have done this, but rest assured I'm unimpressed.

Trust me, I couldn't care less what "impresses" you. I see you as playing a shallow game predicated on facile use of philosophy in a topic you have no experience in to confirm your bias.

Again, I think I'm pretty close.
 
I haven't really seen any substantive scientific remarks from him. He reminds me of Media Truth.

Lord P, you MUST appreciate that I have consistently supported my position with primary source citations.

Your "opinion" is thus rendered inaccurate.
 
Hes, he was delusional thinking he was and electrical engineer, or what ever he claimed to be.

You really don't read very closely do you? Details not your thing?

This tells me a lot.

As noted before I have consistently supported my position, usually with primary resources from peer reviewed literature.
 
Lord P, you MUST appreciate that I have consistently supported my position with primary source citations.

Your "opinion" is thus rendered inaccurate.

Any amateur can take a published position, and find published remarks. Can you explain it in your own words like I do?
 
Any amateur can take a published position, and find published remarks. Can you explain it in your own words like I do?

Is this why you are avoiding discussing your position on ocean heating?
 
Is this why you are avoiding discussing your position on ocean heating?

I thought I explained it quite well. Did you not comprehend?

You haven't shown how I am wrong either.
 
LOL.

Total delusion.

Lord P is correct in one area: I have yet to roll out my own calculations based on the raw data here. There was a time when I used to do that armed only with Excel, R or JMP to discuss things like temperature trends but then I realized that my simplified calculations were often far off the mark because they were excruciatingly oversimplified. Since I am not armed with massive computing power or access to full-fledged climate modeling software and I have been quite honest all along that those "a priori" type calculations are not in my wheelhouse I tend to rely on the peer reviewed literature.

The fact that I can easily find literature that supports my position is a problem for Lord P precisely because he then has to wonder how his "back-of-the-envelope" calculations wind up with different conclusions. I have now encouraged him on numerous occasions to publish.

In reality Lord P has no reason to believe I have any of the degrees or experience which I have mentioned. I fully accept that. I have actually been quite complimentary of Lord P's personal work on here, but his desire is to do nothing but personally insult me. And given his clear lack of close reading of the posts he'll, no doubt, complain that I have not complimented him on his work. But that's only par for the course for those with outstandingly high IQ's.
 
Back
Top Bottom