It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Climate Change Denial: Why?

page: 30
<< 27  28  29   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:08 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What am I missing? The bolded part agrees with his assessment.

The start of stronger solar cycles coincides with an increase in warming Wiki and was the cause of the maunder minimum which affected global temperatures.

As you can see we had stronger and stronger cycles all the way up to 2008. The cycle we are currently on (24) is the weakest
edit on 18-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

What am I missing? The bolded part agrees with his assessment.

I dunno, read again and tell me how global warming is a natural response to increased sun activity with no human contributions whatsoever. The bolded part either states the opposite or I'm lost in translation.

posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

It is saying that The Sun DOES contribute, and that how much The Sun effects warming continues to be a problem for climate models as they can't quite lock down how much it does contribute. They can link low cycles to periods of cooling and high cycles to periods of warming.
edit on 18-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm glad we can at least agree that pollution should be cleaned. That's one of my 'big two' reasons for disputing climate change so vigorously.

Water vapour is a very complex topic and more than positive forcing only.

Your link is broken.

But I seriously doubt anything in there is going to surprise me. The fact that clouds tend to cause cooler temperatures is fairly self-evident, and supported by the fact that water vapor can operate as an energy redirect or for both incoming and outgoing energy.

And while you're criticizing the models...

I am not criticizing the models; I am analyzing the models. Those are not the same.

An acceptable error would be on the order of 1-2%. That's only because the system is so complex. I work regularly with tests that need accuracies in the 0.1% range. That said, the exact numbers are not the only thing to look at... if the error increases with time, even a tiny amount, that could indicate an exponential cumulative error that invalidates the model over time. Intermittent but regular increases in error could indicate a sinusoidal error accumulation. Gaussian errors, on the other hand, are somewhat expected, as long as the variance is small. They would be inconsequential.

It's just not as simple as looking at a number and going, "Yeah, that's close enough." If you are familiar with statistical probability and control system design, we could have a much more exact discussion, but most people aren't. That's not a dismissal or insult; no one knows everything. A good example: I can't seem to get the hang of cooking, to the point I'm afraid to try and make a sandwich and have actually burnt ice cubes before (long story; don't ask).

The indicated planet is in the Kuiper Belt. That kinda puts the probability of it interfering with our climate to an observable degree pretty low. Maybe it does have an elliptical orbit as some have suggested, but I personally need to see more data before I swallow that story. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would not, however, berate a climatologist for trying that theory out in their models. The more exact the algorithms, the better results we will have.

That is where we differ. I want accurate results. I will not be satisfied with "it's close" on an issue so weighty. No good researcher would.


posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:53 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sure there's climate change...but we aren't the cause. The real culprit is our own sun.
Read the current research. Our sun runs just about everything on planet earth. It gives life.
and baby, it can take it away. Believe it.

posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 07:30 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Except for the fact that other studies found that solar activity had continued to increase. I have shown this many times in the past.

NASA News & Feature Releases
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003

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," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
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.

That research above was only focused from 1978 until 2002, and during that period the research covered, it was found that the Sun's activity during periods of quiet sunspot activity had been increasing.

The blue data points on the graph shows the number of magnetic storms from the Sun which had continued to increase until 2006. That coupled with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening has been allowing more radiation/energy to enter our Earth's atmosphere. What happens to a planet and it's atmosphere which is allowing more and more radiation/energy to enter it? (Remember that there is a lag in the response on Earth's temperatures because our oceans store a lot of energy when the sun's activity has been increasing, and as the sun's activity lowers this extra heat stored in our oceans is released)

Then again, remember that a lot of the warming we have been experiencing has been caused by the anomalous event known as ENSO which has nothing to do with CO2, as it is mainly solar driven.

A simulated lagged response of the North Atlantic Oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009
Numerous studies have suggested an impact of the 11 year solar cycle on the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with an increased tendency for positive (negative) NAO signals to occur at maxima (minima) of the solar cycle. Climate models have successfully reproduced this solar cycle modulation of the NAO, although the magnitude of the effect is often considerably weaker than implied by observations. A leading candidate for the mechanism of solar influence is via the impact of ultraviolet radiation variability on heating rates in the tropical upper stratosphere, and consequently on the meridional temperature gradient and zonal winds. Model simulations show a zonal mean wind anomaly that migrates polewards and downwards through wave–mean flow interaction. On reaching the troposphere this produces a response similar to the winter NAO. Recent analyses of observations have shown that solar cycle–NAO link becomes clearer approximately three years after solar maximum and minimum. Previous modelling studies have been unable to reproduce a lagged response of the observed magnitude. In this study, the impact of solar cycle on the NAO is investigated using an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model. Simulations that include climate forcings are performed over the period 1960–2009 for two solar forcing scenarios: constant solar irradiance, and time-varying solar irradiance. We show that the model produces significant NAO responses peaking several years after extrema of the solar cycle, persisting even when the solar forcing becomes neutral. This confirms suggestions of a further component to the solar influence on the NAO beyond direct atmospheric heating and its dynamical response. Analysis of simulated upper ocean temperature anomalies confirms that the North Atlantic Ocean provides the memory of the solar forcing required to produce the lagged NAO response. These results have implications for improving skill in decadal predictions of the European and North American winter climate.

I put on bold the following part for a reason.

A leading candidate for the mechanism of solar influence is via the impact of ultraviolet radiation variability on heating rates in the tropical upper stratosphere, and consequently on the meridional temperature gradient and zonal winds.

As I was saying, the weakening in the Earth's magnetic field allows more ultraviolet radiation into Earth's atmosphere, which is thought to be the leading mechanism for ENSO. Hence, with a weakening magnetic field, the Sun's activity itself doesn't have to be too strong to cause the anomaly known as ENSO.

Evidence for Nonlinear Coupling of Solar and ENSO Signals in Indian Temperatures During the Past Century

Do you really think that it was merely a coincidence that we have had one of the strongest Super El Niños at about the same time that Earth's magnetic field weakened 10 times more starting in 2014?

edit on 18-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 03:49 AM
Wonder if buzzy was hoping to prove the misconception man made climate change questioners are uneducated. Ironic from persons that believe by simple trust of a political stance which drives the narrative of the science?

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:32 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

That's exactly what was happening and why I decided to get involved in the thread. It's always those who are uneducated in the field who assume everyone who questions it is also uneducated.

I've found that many people who staunchly support it on these forums are often the most grossly uninformed and all their information is related to TV shows and blurbs. They wouldn't understand the science behind it if it was in picture format.

They want to seem smart on the internet so they think they are attacking an easy target. Once science gets thrown at them they get confused and angry and storm off.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.

That's the part I'm talking about, further increasing temps but near constant solar activity in the same cycle.


a reply to: TheRedneck

An acceptable error would be on the order of 1-2%.

You're a dreamer and I like it! It's a great vision to work on, but not very realistic with regards to climatology. We have yet to figure out clouds, the science is far from being complete.
There isn't one climate model close to your 1%, not one. 30% is quite the usual number.

I'm glad we can at least agree that pollution should be cleaned. That's one of my 'big two' reasons for disputing climate change so vigorously.

Dito. Keep on keeping on!
I've learned a lot and the disagreement seems to be rather marginal from my perspective. While cleaning pollution we'll reduce the human footprint and thus reduce the emission of greenhouse gases as well. Plain an easy.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

So there seems to be confusion, maybe I can clarify. That period is solar cycles 22, 23 and 24, all of which were very high solar activity. Solar activity did NOT drop until cycle 25. A great amount of warming happened during those periods.

We have seen virtually no warming since cycle 24 started to the point where the government had to comment on it:Source

They then link to the famous NOAA press release which says "hey guys, we aren't in a slowdown!"

Turns out the scientific community was alarmed by this because the raw data did not agree with NOAA. Several Universities got involved to point out why they had issues with the press release.

These adjustment methods sound good in theory and are all defensible from peer-reviewed literature, but the problem lies in that it is all done automatically with programmed algorithms that detect, then adjust for these biases and break points. It is the ultimate "black box", where no one outside of NCDC would be able to reproduce their processing. That alone is one opening for the seeds of distrust.

What is also bothersome is that the early decades of the station temperature records are consistently adjusted downward (cooler), so that now the century-long temperature trend is higher in the adjusted records than in the raw data.

The previous version of the NCDC Climate Division data set did not use the USHCN adjustment process on the historical station observations, but the new version does.

That is a very polite way of FSU saying "Hey, we kind of think you are being a tad dishonest here!"

It wasn't the first time NOAA was called out for similar practices. An amateur called them out so hard the previous year that they actually had to admit they made a mistake and fixed their numbers, only to do the exact same thing a year later.

I have a hard time trusting anything out of NOAA because of this.

Another problem I have with NOAA is they initiated a study and report on the California drought with the intention of linking it to global warming. The findings? It was natural and not linked to global warming in any way [url=]Source[/url ] and if anything, warming had helped there be more rain than they expected...

They were so upset they threw the next snippet into the findings, even though NO RESEARCH HAD BEEN COMPLETED FOR THAT PURPOSE:

Nonetheless, record setting high temperature that accompanied this recent drought was likely made more extreme due to human-induced global warming.

So they did everything they could to swing it back around to AGW. It's intellectual dishonesty at it's worst, and from an institution we are supposed to be able to rely on.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:24 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You finally got it!

The climate models are incomplete. They are giving unreliable predictions. They will get better with time.

Acceptable tolerance is not determined by ability, but by need. 30% is a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild A** Guess). 1-2% is probably accurate enough if it's Gaussian errors. I doubt you will ever see a paper that says, "xx% error is deemed acceptable because it's the best we can do."


posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 05:52 PM

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

That's the part I'm talking about, further increasing temps but near constant solar activity in the same cycle.

Did you coveniently ignore, like always, that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening which increases the amount of radiation, including ultraviolet, that enters the Earth's atmosphere which has been linked to stronger ENSO events and affects NAO?

Did you conveniently ignore that during the times when Earth has been warming the most has been exactly when we have had Super El Niños, and during the time when Earth's magnetic field has weakened dramatically?

Did you conveniently, like always, ignore the fact that the NASA research I linked even states that the Sun's activity hadn't subsided like the AGW camp love to claim which is nothing but a lie?...

Did you conveniently ignore the fact that other dramatic changes are happening to Earth which also does affect weather events and climate?...

It seems you like to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your claims.

edit on 19-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 08:45 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

I get the suspicion involved, but the scientists in question offered pretty clear results. Which was the point I replied to btw. How and why is the Max Planck Society involved with intellectual dishonesty now, where is your context? Did I miss something?


a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Look, I glimpsed into the study you linked but somehow my doubts seem to get ignored. You still remember how conversations work or are we supposed to sermonize only now?

You lost me there, just saying.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:37 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yes, you misunderstood their results though...

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 04:27 AM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This is a tangent from another thread.......but I am taking the podium for a sec.....

I want to ask everyone on here who denies Climate Change this question, so here goes:

May I ask the reason that you are resisting the idea of Climate Change? Why must you denounce and deny it?
Do you just not give a rip????

What...please - I think you all are just about some sort of "the money" thing.

But - the Earth is being raped. There is no question about that. Alternative energy sources and methods are huge potentials - my daughter is a Materials Science Engineer. The Millennials are ready to take this on. Solar has been in the wings since forever - back in the 70s we had environmental movements, you know.

The Millennials are our children - we raised them to be environmentally conscious.
Mother Earth News was our guide. Also, the [Old]Farmer's Almanac .

We even did things like de-tassle corn from the ground, with bandanas wrapped around our faces and drenched in dew with corn stalks towering above us and grabbing at our sleeves. THAT was hard work. I think every American kid should have to do that at some point in their lives. Swimming lessons, also. And other basic skills and experiences.

I can understand if some people were never exposed to that - never went camping, never visited a National Park, never threw hay or midwifed a horse's birth - never did any of that "outdoor" stuff.

If that is you, I'm deeply sorry you were deprived of that background, but that doesn't change the facts! Just because the class is above your head doesn't mean the subject being taught is "wrong."

Just because your upbringing didn't provide you with knowledge about how it all works does not mean that it doesn't. You are denying basic civilization data. But you don't have to. You can learn what's all about the windmills all over western Kansas and eastern Colorado. You can learn about the square miles of solar panels that exist around the world.

You can catch up - and do it!!!
Just try!!
The first point I would like to make is that climate change is based upon computer modelling unfortunately the result can be influenced by the data inputted and who's agenda this happens to be serving
The second point is extremely simplistic however it is based on fact and not computer models
There's been many ice ages documented throughout history. During most of these ice ages there was no industrialization no motor vehicles no agriculture no way that man could have influenced anything.
Yet by virtue of the fact we are not currently in an ice age one must assume that the ice created during these ice ages must have melted what melts ice ? Of course the simple answer is heat so if man was not able theinfluence the result what did ? The answer to this is also the answer to climate change it may be a simple hypothesis however is based on fact not a computer generated model

top topics

<< 27  28  29   >>

log in