95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel

Climate change happens at such a slow pace and over such a long period of time, I doubt there would be any real data to suggest what effects mankind has had on it, either way. I just think it's amazing how big of a political hardline stance this has taken on over the past ten years. It seems like a republican must stand in bold defiance of any existence of climate change, and a democrat must insist that climate change is caused solely by man.

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

If you read the whole article, it's more about how wrong the guy is and links another article about why our current warming can't be attributed to the sun.

Link

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

And how does that fit in with NASA data that shows a positive correlation between increased solar activity and global warming. From the NASA study ...

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"

www.nasa.gov...

The link you gave me said "what you see is what you get". The actual data does not at all support that.

edit on 25-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

From the NASA link you provided:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Exactly my point. It has been going on for as long as they have data. This means it going on for a century is 100% possible. There is no data to contradict that. So the data says a century would be significant, the data says it COULD have been going on for a century, yet they conclude the sun is not significant. You see how silly that is? Not only that, but this 100% contradicts your other source that says the sun can NEVER be significant.

Happy1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Until the idiots in charge stop building nuclear reactors on faultlines, I think the whole global warming agenda is moot.

Can everyone agree that fukushima is THE environmental disaster of the last century?

Yet there are still many nuclear reactors on many faultlines around the world, especially in the USA.

Humanity is done - we are ruined. Nothing more to say.

And no amount of "global warming taxes" - which is what the "global warming agenda" idiots are all about - will fix this.

Funny, how the "global warming" will eventually end in "nuclear winter".

edit on 25-9-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)

What will lead to nuclear winter as you see it will be peak oil.

pikestaff
CO2, strange how a firm in america makes and sells CO2 producing machines to green house business, green house plant growers know that more CO2 means bigger crops, more profit, more people fed, more good all round, as it is, CO2 is still less than one percent of the total atmosphere, why does so little cause so much uproar?

Because CO2 ppm has a forcing factor on multiple positive feedback loops.

OccamsRazor04

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

If you read the whole article, it's more about how wrong the guy is and links another article about why our current warming can't be attributed to the sun.

Link

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

And how does that fit in with NASA data that shows a positive correlation between increased solar activity and global warming. From the NASA study ...

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"

www.nasa.gov...

The link you gave me said "what you see is what you get". The actual data does not at all support that.

edit on 25-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

From the NASA link you provided:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Exactly my point. It has been going on for as long as they have data. This means it going on for a century is 100% possible. There is no data to contradict that. So the data says a century would be significant, the data says it COULD have been going on for a century, yet they conclude the sun is not significant. You see how silly that is? Not only that, but this 100% contradicts your other source that says the sun can NEVER be significant.

That's not what the other source said.

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

If you read the whole article, it's more about how wrong the guy is and links another article about why our current warming can't be attributed to the sun.

Link

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

And how does that fit in with NASA data that shows a positive correlation between increased solar activity and global warming. From the NASA study ...

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"

www.nasa.gov...

The link you gave me said "what you see is what you get". The actual data does not at all support that.

edit on 25-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

From the NASA link you provided:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Exactly my point. It has been going on for as long as they have data. This means it going on for a century is 100% possible. There is no data to contradict that. So the data says a century would be significant, the data says it COULD have been going on for a century, yet they conclude the sun is not significant. You see how silly that is? Not only that, but this 100% contradicts your other source that says the sun can NEVER be significant.

That's not what the other source said.

Exactly my point. You have a source saying the sun can NEVER influence weather here. NASA data proves that wrong, and says 100 years of the solar increases we are experiencing WOULD influence weather. Now this is where it gets funky, we have data for about 50 years, and the increase has been observed for EVERY decade we have been watching at a rate of about 5%. We have no data before we started collecting it, so as far as we know it has been going on for the needed 100 years. I proved with actual data the sun can influence the weather on Earth, and it's estimated to take 100 years to see what we are witnessing today .... about 100 years of increases .. sound familiar?

That only leaves 5% of intelligent people who actually use their mind effectively.

Not surprising.

The MAJOR failure of the AGW hypothesis is the fact that it only takes solar irradiance into consideration and ignores all the other fun stuff pumping off of our sun that actually plays an even bigger role with regards to energy exchanges between the sun, the planets, the heliosphere, etc etc.

In a college science class, they'd get a failing grade for blatant lazy scientific methodology.

It's not in the sunshine, stupid.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Enlighten us. What exactly is not being considered?

OccamsRazor04

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74

OccamsRazor04

Kali74
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

If you read the whole article, it's more about how wrong the guy is and links another article about why our current warming can't be attributed to the sun.

Link

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

And how does that fit in with NASA data that shows a positive correlation between increased solar activity and global warming. From the NASA study ...

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"

www.nasa.gov...

The link you gave me said "what you see is what you get". The actual data does not at all support that.

edit on 25-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

From the NASA link you provided:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Exactly my point. It has been going on for as long as they have data. This means it going on for a century is 100% possible. There is no data to contradict that. So the data says a century would be significant, the data says it COULD have been going on for a century, yet they conclude the sun is not significant. You see how silly that is? Not only that, but this 100% contradicts your other source that says the sun can NEVER be significant.

That's not what the other source said.

Exactly my point. You have a source saying the sun can NEVER influence weather here. NASA data proves that wrong, and says 100 years of the solar increases we are experiencing WOULD influence weather. Now this is where it gets funky, we have data for about 50 years, and the increase has been observed for EVERY decade we have been watching at a rate of about 5%. We have no data before we started collecting it, so as far as we know it has been going on for the needed 100 years. I proved with actual data the sun can influence the weather on Earth, and it's estimated to take 100 years to see what we are witnessing today .... about 100 years of increases .. sound familiar?

You've shown in every post you have made in this thread that you aren't reading whole articles. No source I provided said anything close to the sun can NEVER influence weather here. No source I've provided has said the sun doesn't influence climate. You are extremely confused on the whole matter.

CranialSponge
The MAJOR failure of the AGW hypothesis is the fact that it only takes solar irradiance into consideration and ignores all the other fun stuff pumping off of our sun that actually plays an even bigger role with regards to energy exchanges between the sun, the planets, the heliosphere, etc etc.

In a college science class, they'd get a failing grade for blatant lazy scientific methodology.

It's not in the sunshine, stupid.

That's not an "AGW hypothesis."

Kali74


You've shown in every post you have made in this thread that you aren't reading whole articles. No source I provided said anything close to the sun can NEVER influence weather here. No source I've provided has said the sun doesn't influence climate. You are extremely confused on the whole matter.

Patently false. Per your article.

Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change, a new study suggests.

"As it turns out, most of the sun's power output is in the visible range—what we see as brightness," said Henk Spruit, study co-author from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany.

"The sun's brightness varies only because of the blemishes that are also visible directly on pictures: the dark patches called sunspots and the minute bright points called faculae. In terms of brightness changes, in large part, what you see is what you get."

The sun can not impact global climate per the article you posted. I posted a link where NASA data proves that the sun does have an impact, and if the current trend continued for 100 years it WOULD impact the climate on a global scale. We have about 50 years of data, and for as long as we have data the trend has been upwards with a 5% increase every decade. We have no data for the 50 years before that, it is 100% possible the trend has continued for a full century.
ETA: I am not saying that is the case. I am saying it is possible. There is ZERO data that refutes this, every shred of data we have shows an upward trend for as long as we have been monitoring, yet it is completely dismissed. I think that is stupid.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


No, I'm exactly right. You don't seem to understand the difference between influence and cause. The sun always influences weather but it isn't always strong enough to cause the climate to change.

ETA: I need to word that better because only a few people on this forum will understand what I'm actually saying... by virtue of stubbornness not lack of intelligence.

The sun is the source of everything on this planet, especially climate. The strength of the sun and our distance from it is what allowed life to exist on Earth. The sun because it has high output cycles and low output cycles and sometimes just does whatever it wants despite cycles, affects our climate and weather every minute of every day, but not equally at all times. The sun has been in a low cycle for quite a while now, which means we should have been cooling rather than warming. Thus this current period of warming isn't caused by the sun, it was caused by something else.

Kali74
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

No, I'm exactly right. You don't seem to understand the difference between influence and cause. The sun always influences weather but it isn't always strong enough to cause the climate to change.

No. You are patently wrong, again. I gave you the NASA data that proves 100 years of the increase we have been noticing for as long as we started collecting data would CAUSE global climate change.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"

You don't want it to be true so you are willfully blind and ignorant. Again, there is no way to prove it has been going on 100 years. There is no way to prove the sun is causing this. There is also no way to prove it is not. To dismiss it is just as foolish as to claim 100% it is the sun.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Again you seem to have trouble reading all of something...

I said and you ignored:

The sun is the source of everything on this planet, especially climate. The strength of the sun and our distance from it is what allowed life to exist on Earth. The sun because it has high output cycles and low output cycles and sometimes just does whatever it wants despite cycles, affects our climate and weather every minute of every day, but not equally at all times. The sun has been in a low cycle for quite a while now, which means we should have been cooling rather than warming. Thus this current period of warming isn't caused by the sun, it was caused by something else.

You're also ignoring a huge part of the equation here. Solar output has been low for quite a while now but we keep warming.





Solar output and temperature begin to deviate from each other dramatically somewhere around 1980.

reply to post by xuenchen


Only 5% of the population are scientists or engineers, and 95% of those agree with the IPCC report. Basically, that means that you are saying that 95% of the population that you mention are too intelligent to understand science. We're doomed.

One of my neighbors says that people need simply to think. Fine, but if you think with bad information, the result is erroneous conclusions. She listens to Fox News, who recently won a Supreme Court case supporting their right to lie, which they admit doing, and is supported by such psychopaths as the Koch brothers, who spread all sorts of lies to make sure they continue to rake in their billions of oil revenues. I guess the definition of intelligence, according to you, is the ability to suspend disbelief in lies.

sorgfelt
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Only 5% of the population are scientists or engineers, and 95% of those agree with the IPCC report. Basically, that means that you are saying that 95% of the population that you mention are too intelligent to understand science. We're doomed.

One of my neighbors says that people need simply to think. Fine, but if you think with bad information, the result is erroneous conclusions. She listens to Fox News, who recently won a Supreme Court case supporting their right to lie, which they admit doing, and is supported by such psychopaths as the Koch brothers, who spread all sorts of lies to make sure they continue to rake in their billions of oil revenues. I guess the definition of intelligence, according to you, is the ability to suspend disbelief in lies.

Forming conclusions based on assumptive deductions is dangerous.

You have made a good example of that.

I hope the 95% of the 5% of the population that are scientists or engineers aren't making the same mistake.

reply to post by Kali74


Can you show me where that is stated in the NASA source I provided?

You keep ignoring the ACTUAL DATA that I have actually provided. The only one ignoring things is you.

You post information on sunspot activity, as if that is the ONLY factor that matters.

Guess what, it isn't. My source is the amount of radiation produced by the sun during QUIET periods of sunspot activity. This amount has been increasing by 5% per decade for almost 50 years.

Ignoring the data on radiation because of sunspot data is like ignoring socioeconomic data in education outcomes because boys and girls get equal grades.

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

That is a rather dated study and Willson's interpretation of the data has been criticised. The problem is that a mixed, and incomplete, data set is used. Various adjustments for instrument idiosyncrasies and data interpolations are made. The claim was also based on a total of two solar minima. Pretty hard to come up with a trend with two data points.

But as the article points out, even that increase is not sufficient to account for the observed increase in temperatures.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

www.nasa.gov...

Another analysis of the data which Willson used:

The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM — SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Krazysh0t
Regardless of what you believe about Global Warming, do people honestly think it is a good idea to continue to pump harmful pollutants into our environment? So we may or may not be doing long-term damage to our planet through carbon emissions. We ARE however doing long-term damage to everything else.

Do people think that things like perpetual clouds of smog covering many major cities, industrial waste being dumped into many different water sources, trash dumped into similar places, deforestation, pesticides being washed into streams and rivers, and many more atrocities against nature that humanity commits are good things to live with?

Damn I hate this discussion. Just because the irrepairable part of long-term damage to the environment is still out for debate doesn't mean we aren't screwing things up. To believe otherwise is dishonest and shows great ignorance. We most definitely need to change our wasteful ways.

The republicans believe in all of those things, as long as they can make a profit. All you have to do to prove it, is to look at and read American history, wiping out the bison, the hydro mining in California, and rivers catching fire. The wealthy don't care, as long as their profits continue to roll in. This is one of the reasons they are fighting industrial hemp so hard, if everyone can grow it, their profits will decline. Corporations and their greedy stockholders are evil. They care about nothing but themselves.