Global Warmin Related to the Sun

[Attero Dominatus]

The finest scientific institutions the world has ever known disagree with you. No offense, but the opinions of the finest scientific institutions in the world have more weight than the opinion of Freedumb2003, a guy on the Internet.

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean.

More: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

[Attero Dominatus]

AGW is a political position, not a scientific one.

Yeah it is nothing more than an excuse to take money from people and business through excessive taxes on carbon emissions and fuel consumption.

[Chris_]

AGW is a political position, not a scientific one.

Yeah it is nothing more than an excuse to take money from people and business through excessive taxes on carbon emissions and fuel consumption.

When you are told "if you come to THIS result, I will pay you" then any and all investigations are suspect.

[Chris_]

GW is perhaps an observed phenomenon.  The observation period is so small that it has no statistical nor scientific significance (except for fund raising purposes).  And, of course, we are on a global cooling trend for the last 5 years.  This is why the guesses of scientists on the cause (which is what makes a scientific theory) cannot and do not pass scientific muster.  A 2% fluctuation in a 20 year period on an object that occupies 1,083,206,246,123,080,894,852 cubic meters, and is 4.5 billion years old? That is why they won't posit theories.

A 20 year period? The NASA global temperature record goes back 125 years and the CRU global temperature record goes back 150 years...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

And, borehole analysis yields temperature data going back 500 years...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

I can't help but think that if you were confident in your pronouncement that scientists don't have enough data to make predictions about climate that you wouldn't be trying to minimize the amount of data they actually have. Then again, maybe you're just misinformed.

AGW is a political position, not a scientific one.

The finest scientific institutions the world has ever known disagree with you. No offense, but the opinions of the finest scientific institutions in the world have more weight than the opinion of Freedumb2003, a guy on the Internet.

No, they haven't.  I have yet to see how HUMAN-CAUSED AGW meets any scientific theory criteria.  That the temperature is increasing, by a small %, is certainly predictable by the data.  But I don't see any scientific causation.

Maybe you need to learn what a scientific theory is, how it is testable, and how it can be debunked, before you cut and paste.

[The Night Owl]

No, they haven't.  I have yet to see how HUMAN-CAUSED AGW meets any scientific theory criteria.  That the temperature is increasing, by a small %, is certainly predictable by the data.  But I don't see any scientific causation.

Considering that you mistakenly believed that scientists are building climate models which are based on only 20 years of data, no one should be suprised that you don't see the link between human activities and global warming. I don't know where you're getting your information about climate change and what scientists are doing to study it, but based on what you've written so far, I can tell that you are grossly misinformed.

Scientists have a theory to explain climate change on Earth right now. That theory is based on a vast array of evidence which provides scientists with data they can use to build a model of climate which can be tested and falsified. Of course, climate models are not instantaneously falsifiable, but every year that passes provides scientists with evidence that their climate models are either right or wrong. So far, the models are proving to be right.

Maybe you need to learn what a scientific theory is, how it is testable, and how it can be debunked, before you cut and paste.

Perhaps you need to explain why you think that all the work done on climate change is not science... is not testable... is not falsifiable. Lay it out for us.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

Dust storms.

And Jupiter, and Venus, and Saturn, and several moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Dust storms as well, or is it somehow Shrub's fault?

[Lauri]

GW is perhaps an observed phenomenon.  The observation period is so small that it has no statistical nor scientific significance (except for fund raising purposes).  And, of course, we are on a global cooling trend for the last 5 years.  This is why the guesses of scientists on the cause (which is what makes a scientific theory) cannot and do not pass scientific muster.  A 2% fluctuation in a 20 year period on an object that occupies 1,083,206,246,123,080,894,852 cubic meters, and is 4.5 billion years old? That is why they won't posit theories.

A 20 year period? The NASA global temperature record goes back 125 years and the CRU global temperature record goes back 150 years...

and how old is the earth? 

[Lauri]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

Dust storms.

And Jupiter, and Venus, and Saturn, and several moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Dust storms as well, or is it somehow Shrub's fault?

Al Gore and Clinton get a free pass since they didnt know he would make so much money from this whole scam when he was VP...

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

Dust storms.

And Jupiter, and Venus, and Saturn, and several moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Dust storms as well, or is it somehow Shrub's fault?

Al Gore and Clinton get a free pass since they didnt know he would make so much money from this whole scam when he was VP...

That's all it is... is a scam towards socialism. Even those who have seen the evil of socialism and communism know it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1783449/posts

[The Night Owl]

And Jupiter, and Venus, and Saturn, and several moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Dust storms as well, or is it somehow Shrub's fault?

I've already told you why Jupiter is getting warmer...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=2398.msg34737#msg34737

You have yet to present any information to support your claim that Venus, Saturn, and various moons are getting warmer and yet here you are repeating the same unsubstantiated claim.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

And Jupiter, and Venus, and Saturn, and several moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Dust storms as well, or is it somehow Shrub's fault?

I've already told you why Jupiter is getting warmer...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=2398.msg34737#msg34737

You have yet to present any information to support your claim that Venus, Saturn, and various moons are getting warmer and yet here you are repeating the same unsubstantiated claim.

And you have yet to stop jerking off to pictures of Ava at DU.

Dude, I'm done with ya. The facts can be beaten into your skull with a sledgehammer, yet you'll still reply with the same idiotic shit about this sham known as global warming.

Wanna save the Earth? Get the **** off your computer and throw it out the window. I'm sure the Goracle will give ya a carbon credit or two for that one.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

All your Jupiter GW post did was show yet again that there are non-industrial reasons for GW...maybe not the sun but not human either.

Keep arguing like this and AGW will be little more than fodder for cheap jokes on late night talk shows.

[The Night Owl]

All your Jupiter GW post did was show yet again that there are non-industrial reasons for GW...maybe not the sun but not human either.

No one is disputing the fact that global warming can be caused by natural processes, but the fact that global warming can caused be natural processes does not mean that the global warming being observed on Earth is due to natural processes.

Arguing that the existence of natural planetary warming cycles is proof that the warming happening on Earth right now isn't anthropogenic is kind of like arguing that the existence of natural lakes proves that man-made lakes don't exist.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

All your Jupiter GW post did was show yet again that there are non-industrial reasons for GW...maybe not the sun but not human either.

No one is disputing the fact that global warming can be caused by natural processes, but the fact that global warming can caused be natural processes does not mean that the global warming being observed on Earth is due to natural processes.

Yet the prepondeance of GW causes within our solar system are from obviously non-human sources.

Arguing that the existence of natural planetary warming cycles is proof that the warming happening on Earth right now isn't anthropogenic is kind of like arguing that the existence of natural lakes proves that man-made lakes don't exist.

That sword swings both ways which leads me back to my prevailing point: AGW is nothing worth legislating about.

Why get panicky over something occurring across the solar system?

[The Night Owl]

Yet the prepondeance of GW causes within our solar system are from obviously non-human sources.

So? What is your point?

Why get panicky over something occurring across the solar system?

The only warming we need to worry about is the warming occurring on Earth. The warming occurring on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto cannot affect humanity in any significant ways. The warming occurring on Earth can affect humanity in very significant ways.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And yet with GW occurring in so many environs under so many natural causes you're determined to panic.

GW is nothing to legislate your head over.

[Wretched Excess]

And yet with GW occurring in so many environs under so many natural causes you're determined to panic.

GW is nothing to legislate your head over.

these are the same people that legislate where you can smoke, for god's sake.

[Chris_]

No, they haven't.  I have yet to see how HUMAN-CAUSED AGW meets any scientific theory criteria.  That the temperature is increasing, by a small %, is certainly predictable by the data.  But I don't see any scientific causation.

Considering that you mistakenly believed that scientists are building climate models which are based on only 20 years of data, no one should be suprised that you don't see the link between human activities and global warming. I don't know where you're getting your information about climate change and what scientists are doing to study it, but based on what you've written so far, I can tell that you are grossly misinformed.

Scientists have a theory to explain climate change on Earth right now. That theory is based on a vast array of evidence which provides scientists with data they can use to build a model of climate which can be tested and falsified. Of course, climate models are not instantaneously falsifiable, but every year that passes provides scientists with evidence that their climate models are either right or wrong. So far, the models are proving to be right.

Maybe you need to learn what a scientific theory is, how it is testable, and how it can be debunked, before you cut and paste.

Perhaps you need to explain why you think that all the work done on climate change is not science... is not testable... is not falsifiable. Lay it out for us.

Because it starts from the conclusion. 

And please tell me how it is falsifiable.

I am all eyes.

[The Night Owl]

Because it starts from the conclusion. 

And please tell me how it is falsifiable.

I am all eyes.

Because scientists are far more qualified than I am to explain falsifiability in climate science, I'll let them do the talking...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Because scientists are far more qualified than I am to explain falsifiability in climate science, I'll let them do the talking...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/

heh

From your link:

There are indeed a great many aspects of the Theory of Global Warming that are falsifiable without waiting for the next century's climate to come upon us. There are, to start, all the laboratory tests of basic physics, such as the infrared absorption properties of CO2 and water vapor. There are also field tests of the predictions of these basic physical theories, as is done when one measure water vapor and temperature in the atmosphere, and compares the predictions of radiative transfer theory with observed infrared radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere by satellite, or at the surface by radiation sensors. One can check the evaporation formulae used in climate models against the measured evaporation at buoys in the ocean, or the predictions of cloud models against observed cloud reflectivity. Going up the scale in complexity, one can compare the predictions of the theory against observations of recent climates, and of climates of the more distant past. General circulation models encapsulate the assumptions of the theory, and provide the tool necessary for testing hypotheses in such a complex system.

A lab test may be able to discern absorption rates etc but this is hardly the same as testing a homogenous environmental system. To claim as much is to claim the scientist is aware of each and every variable condition within the environment and has accounted for it in its proper overall context within accurate degrees.

A lab experiment will only prove that when scientists select X elements under Y conditions they can recreate what they think is Z result.

Yet scientists can't even tell you if your breakfast of eggs and coffee are harmful, beneficial or neither. Flip on the latest Discovery Channel documentary on any random subject someday and listen for the words, "scientists used to think..." You won't have to wait very long.

[AllosaursRus]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

What I would like to know is how man made emissions are influencing GB on Mars?!!!