• 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!

Does the sun cause global warming or climate change?

In your typical dishonesty, you conveniently left out the last sentence of that particular paragraph. Would you care to now add it on and note how it totally changes the point that you were trying to make?
Why don't you, since you claim to have read it.
 
Why don't you, since you claim to have read it.

I read enough to know that you were quite dishonest in cherry picking a couple of sentences from a multi-page paper, leaving out an important following sentence, and claims it to be the whole elephant. You and Longview follow this tactic way too often.
 
I read enough to know that you were quite dishonest in cherry picking a couple of sentences from a multi-page paper, leaving out an important following sentence, and claims it to be the whole elephant. You and Longview follow this tactic way too often.
So you agree, papers are not straightforward, and don't give solid conclusions. Right?
 
I read enough to know that you were quite dishonest in cherry picking a couple of sentences from a multi-page paper, leaving out an important following sentence, and claims it to be the whole elephant. You and Longview follow this tactic way too often.
I wasn't dishonest at all. You are the one being dishonest. The next paragraph indicates it would double the solar component the IPCC claims, but again, that is only "direct forcing" without counting the increased effects it has on all other radiative aspects.

The greenhouse effect is reliant of two primary factors. The greenhouse gas levels, and the energy driving them. Any changes of the solar radiation, changes the greenhouse gas forcing as well. This is a factor that the IPCC et. al. totally denies.
 
So you agree, papers are not straightforward, and don't give solid conclusions. Right?

I'm not concerned with "solid conclusions". I'd just like even a single paper or article that showed solid support for your claim that it is solar energy that is the prime factor in today's global warming, If you can't find even one, what should my conclusion be?
 
I wasn't dishonest at all. You are the one being dishonest. The next paragraph indicates it would double the solar component the IPCC claims, but again, that is only "direct forcing" without counting the increased effects it has on all other radiative aspects.

The greenhouse effect is reliant of two primary factors. The greenhouse gas levels, and the energy driving them. Any changes of the solar radiation, changes the greenhouse gas forcing as well. This is a factor that the IPCC et. al. totally denies.

Please show the quote where they "totally deny" it.
 
I'm not concerned with "solid conclusions". I'd just like even a single paper or article that showed solid support for your claim that it is solar energy that is the prime factor in today's global warming, If you can't find even one, what should my conclusion be?
Wish in one hand and crap in the other.

I told you. I'm not going to look for it. The fact the you keep forgetting thing brought up makes it an exercise in futility. I don't give a flip if you don't believe me, because you are nothing but a nuisance here. No matter what I do, no matter what facts I present, you will not change. You will deny the science and either forget it again in the future, or pretend to forget it.
 
Wish in one hand and crap in the other.

I told you. I'm not going to look for it. The fact the you keep forgetting thing brought up makes it an exercise in futility. I don't give a flip if you don't believe me, because you are nothing but a nuisance here. No matter what I do, no matter what facts I present, you will not change. You will deny the science and either forget it again in the future, or pretend to forget it.

More ad hom. Again, it shows weakness on YOUR part. I don't understand why you don't realize that. I suppose it's just a years-long habit that you can't break.
 
More ad hom. Again, it shows weakness on YOUR part. I don't understand why you don't realize that. I suppose it's just a years-long habit that you can't break.
Maybe if you didn't have these non-stop insults, I might be more willing to help your understanding.
 
You're asking if a giant ball of fire causes the Globe to be warmer?

...Yes, yes it does.
 
There you go again.

There you went again. You don’t seem to be able to understand that when I post that phrase, it is ALWAYS in response to anad hom that you have made in the previous post. In other words, every time you see it, it is simply a reflection of yet another ad hom from you. So why is it that I have to use it so often?
 
There you went again. You don’t seem to be able to understand that when I post that phrase, it is ALWAYS in response to anad hom that you have made in the previous post. In other words, every time you see it, it is simply a reflection of yet another ad hom from you. So why is it that I have to use it so often?
Believe as you wish. Too bad you continually insult people when you can't stay on topic.
 
Believe as you wish. Too bad you continually insult people when you can't stay on topic.

See post #38 and try to understand it this time.
And again, it is YOU who has been warned TWICE in less than a month to quit trading insults. Why is that, do you think? Do you have any personal responsibility in the matter? And why are you doing it again?
 
See post #38 and try to understand it this time.
And again, it is YOU who has been warned TWICE in less than a month to quit trading insults. Why is that, do you think? Do you have any personal responsibility in the matter? And why are you doing it again?
I see...

You are flame-baiting me to get a violation...

OK...

I'm done with you until you start being reasonable and on topic. I suggest you stop making this about me.
 
I see...

You are flame-baiting me to get a violation...

OK...

I'm done with you until you start being reasonable and on topic. I suggest you stop making this about me.

Psychological projection. See post #38.
 
You are sort of on the right track. It is a scientific fact that SOMETHING caused all those climactic events. The challenge to climate scientists us to try to determine what.

Except as I have mentioned, the IPCC only considers man-made climate and refuses to investigate any other possible cause.

That's like a cancer research center investigating tobacco as the only possible cause of cancer, in spite of the fact the evidence shows that DNA, virus, carcinogens and other things cause cancer.


Clearly it was not humans, so what was it? Do you have any ideas?

Water vapor.

But none of that detracts from the scientific facts that is indeed human-produced CO2 that is the primary cause of today’s global warming,
Does that help you to understand it better?

There is no global warming. The Earth is not warming. The Earth is cooler than all previously 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods in the EPICA Ice Core Data.

Plus, they have it backwards. The Earth warms, then CO2 levels increase, not CO2 levels increase then Earth warms.

Do the math.

CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.

Since Earth does not emit Black Body Radiation at 2.7 microns, we only have to look at 4.3 microns and 15 microns, and we'll apply Wien's Law to both.

Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.

T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F

T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F

What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns, however the amount of Black Body Radiation Earth emits at 4.3 microns is minuscule, as this link proves: https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ee...absorption.gif

Water vapor is far more significant. Water vapor is the primary absorber of incoming radiation and the largest and most significant reflector of out-going radiation. Water vapor typically averages 13 TRILLION tons and by weight is far greater than CO2: 0.33% H2O vs 0.04% CO2. In terms of relative humidity, Earth is about 75% at ground level, decreasing to 45% at about 5,000 meters.

That means water vapor is concentrated near the Earth, unlike CO2.

Water vapor absorbs at 5.9, 6.5, 6.9, 7.2, 7.6, 8.2 and 9.6 microns.

Wien's Law:

T = 2,900 um-K / 5.9 um = 491°K = 424°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 6.5 um = 446°K = 343°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 6.9 um = 420°K = 296°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 7.2 um = 402°K = 263°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 7.6 um = 381°K = 226°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 8.2 um = 353°K = 175°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 9.6 um = 302°K = 83°F

As you can see from the graph and from Wien's Law, water vapor is far more powerful than CO2 could ever hope to be and generates far more energy than CO2 ever will.

Water vapor is the driver of climate, not CO2.
 
Except as I have mentioned, the IPCC only considers man-made climate and refuses to investigate any other possible cause.

That's like a cancer research center investigating tobacco as the only possible cause of cancer, in spite of the fact the evidence shows that DNA, virus, carcinogens and other things cause cancer.




Water vapor.



There is no global warming. The Earth is not warming. The Earth is cooler than all previously 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods in the EPICA Ice Core Data.

Plus, they have it backwards. The Earth warms, then CO2 levels increase, not CO2 levels increase then Earth warms.

Do the math.

CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.

Since Earth does not emit Black Body Radiation at 2.7 microns, we only have to look at 4.3 microns and 15 microns, and we'll apply Wien's Law to both.

Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.

T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F

T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F

What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns, however the amount of Black Body Radiation Earth emits at 4.3 microns is minuscule, as this link proves: https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ee...absorption.gif

Water vapor is far more significant. Water vapor is the primary absorber of incoming radiation and the largest and most significant reflector of out-going radiation. Water vapor typically averages 13 TRILLION tons and by weight is far greater than CO2: 0.33% H2O vs 0.04% CO2. In terms of relative humidity, Earth is about 75% at ground level, decreasing to 45% at about 5,000 meters.

That means water vapor is concentrated near the Earth, unlike CO2.

Water vapor absorbs at 5.9, 6.5, 6.9, 7.2, 7.6, 8.2 and 9.6 microns.

Wien's Law:

T = 2,900 um-K / 5.9 um = 491°K = 424°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 6.5 um = 446°K = 343°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 6.9 um = 420°K = 296°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 7.2 um = 402°K = 263°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 7.6 um = 381°K = 226°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 8.2 um = 353°K = 175°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 9.6 um = 302°K = 83°F

As you can see from the graph and from Wien's Law, water vapor is far more powerful than CO2 could ever hope to be and generates far more energy than CO2 ever will.

Water vapor is the driver of climate, not CO2.

I have lots of correction in reply, but realiy what's the use. You have all the denier patter and talkimg points down pat and care not what actual climate scientists say, which is that it is CO2 that is driving the present global warming. You could easily find out why it's not water valet within less than a minute by googling. And your first sentence is an out-and-out falsehood and common denier talking point. Climate scientists are taking all factors into account.
 
I have lots of correction in reply, but realiy what's the use. You have all the denier patter and talkimg points down pat and care not what actual climate scientists say, which is that it is CO2 that is driving the present global warming. You could easily find out why it's not water valet within less than a minute by googling. And your first sentence is an out-and-out falsehood and common denier talking point. Climate scientists are taking all factors into account.
If you know what denier talking points are, then you are reading them. I am amazed as who what you call denier talking points at time. I don't read them. Why are you reading them?

Maybe you read them because they come out of the blogs you read. Maybe you should focus more on real science instead of what a cheerleader of the agenda says. Start reading real peer reviewed papers for once.
 
If you know what denier talking points are, then you are reading them. I am amazed as who what you call denier talking points at time. I don't read them. Why are you reading them?

Maybe you read them because they come out of the blogs you read. Maybe you should focus more on real science instead of what a cheerleader of the agenda says. Start reading real peer reviewed papers for once.

"Blogs" = repetitive talking point. "Real science" = repetitive talking point.
 
If you know what denier talking points are, then you are reading them. I am amazed as who what you call denier talking points at time. I don't read them. Why are you reading them?

Maybe you read them because they come out of the blogs you read. Maybe you should focus more on real science instead of what a cheerleader of the agenda says. Start reading real peer reviewed papers for once.

Did you actually read what Mircea said? It was just a bunch of useless patter. And yes, he hit five or six of the standard denier talking points. *YAWN*
 
Did you actually read what Mircea said? It was just a bunch of useless patter. And yes, he hit five or six of the standard denier talking points. *YAWN*
No, I didn't read his posts past a simple skim. He presented more than i was ready to consider right or wrong.

You however... Denying material and calling it a talking point? What makes a talking point right or wrong anyway? Do you really how absolutely silly you are saying such things when science is involved? You are constantly using logical fallacies instead of addressing what is said.

Why do you continue to deny science.

Calling it a talking pint and dismissing it for that reason, is denying it.
 
No, I didn't read his posts past a simple skim. He presented more than i was ready to consider right or wrong.

You however... Denying material and calling it a talking point? What makes a talking point right or wrong anyway? Do you really how absolutely silly you are saying such things when science is involved? You are constantly using logical fallacies instead of addressing what is said.

Why do you continue to deny science.

Calling it a talking pint and dismissing it for that reason, is denying it.

It wasn’t science. It was just as I said, a bunch of standard denier talking points that just amounted to babble.
 
It wasn’t science. It was just as I said, a bunch of standard denier talking points that just amounted to babble.
It looks like its based on science, I'm just not sure the specifics of what he is doing, and don't have the time to get involved it that line.

Looks like to me, true to form, you are outright denying science again!

And dismissing something by calling it a denier talking point, is a pretty bad logical fallacy in my view. No wonder you never get respect. Is this how you rationalize denying science? Don't even consider it, use labels and name-calling instead? Bad form...
 
Back
Top Bottom