His entire argument was summed up a few
posts ago. He hates big oil (and big corporations). Anything that attacks it, he supports.
The argument for AGW is so full of holes, it's ridiculous. Even many of those "scientists" are losing their enthusiasm for it because they know they jumped to so many unscientifically proven assumptions, it's unbecoming of their profession.
It warms, it cools, it warms, and it cools.
The earth was incredibly warm during medieval times. Must have been all the SUV jousting tournaments, I suppose.
Nope. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s and it's only become more advocacy than science over the years. The biggest trouble with the AGW theory is that it has failed to match real world data while the solar variance model predicted bother the mid 90s spike and the current lul.
You have to be insane to cast out the more reliable model for the less reliable one, but I have watched so many do just that. The only conclusion I can come to after watching this for decades is that a lot of people simply WANT the AGW theory to be right, and others have laid their career on the line for AGW and NEED it to be right.
Effect on global warming
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]
Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]
In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]
A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]
Yes, I know that. You completely missed my point.That the .12 number is the net change in solar forcing over that period, not the total amount of solar energy. They aren't saying the sun "doesn't matter." They are saying it matters a lot, but it hasn't really changed much this century. (On average. It oscillated up and down a fair bit but more or less evens out)
Solar forcing effect on climate change 'extremely small': IPCC scientist
Has an effect but isn't significant enough to be "the culprit".
If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/http://But you can make broad brush subjective statements like ". Conservatives aren't scientist and do not possess the right mind for scientific work" ?
A very unscientific and inaccurate analysis of a group of people.
Remember the last time you "called me out"?Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience, things that I do on a day to day basis that would make your head spin, things I promise you just don't have the base IQ to comprehend and I'm a proud Conservative. What I make look easy would perpetually confound you as most of your ilk are so married to a corrupt ideology the chance for true objectivity is a lost option.
When ever you want to test your percieved "higher intelligence" over mine I'm ready.
I'll expose your limitiations in an instant.
But I'm guessing like most liberals you'll crawfish away from this challenge. It's typical.
The left has done more damage to the legitimate science of alternative energies by politicizing them than any Conservatuve group.
Oh but wait, all we have to do is payup, more taxes on a imaginary construct called carbon credits and the world will be saved.
Sorry youv'e been called on your BS, what did you expect ?
Yep.I have had a pond since 1990. I never had algae growth in the winter but I do now and each year it gets worse. And I have noticed that weeds do not die off either. So, something is going on.
LOL...Because we are smart and actually read the literature before deciding rather than abdicate our own intellectual sovereignty to hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
See my last post.
And duh..... Of course an IPCC scientist will say that, else not be with them.
Who does that? I haven't noticed any. Who did i miss?American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
Nope. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s and it's only become more advocacy than science over the years. The biggest trouble with the AGW theory is that it has failed to match real world data while the solar variance model predicted bother the mid 90s spike and the current lul.
You have to be insane to cast out the more reliable model for the less reliable one, but I have watched so many do just that. The only conclusion I can come to after watching this for decades is that a lot of people simply WANT the AGW theory to be right, and others have laid their career on the line for AGW and NEED it to be right.
What I see is multifacited.If you were smart and read the literature you would know the evidence strongly supports AGW and you would know the snake oil salesmen are the fossil fuel corporations and their bought off politicians.
Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience...
Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This has been explained repeatedly but you guys keep saying the same thing over and over as though it hasn't already been accounted for.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]
Cool...
I too have a broad experience. I was an Engineering Technician when CMP was new, having to know some good chemistry, mechanics, electronics, computers, and other disciplines in what at the time, was secretive, proprietary, and revolutionized the semiconductor industry. I started working in '75 as a simple mechanic, '81 as an electronic technician, and job experience and qualifications brought me into the automation world. I had to learn several disciplines over the years, and just because I don't have a degree in the climate sciences, doesn't mean I can't rasp it well.
I can tell you don't trust my ability to analyze the science even though the science in question isn't that complicated. However, I do trust my own ability, and that's all that counts.
Worshiping at the feet of experts is something to be avoided.
What I see is multifacited.
1) AGW is a political tool.
2) The sciences are being tagugh wrong in this field. Meny scientists think they are right, others just know where the gravey comes from.
3) Most research and grant money available is to support beyond doubt, AGW, which they still have not done to proper scientific standards.
If numbers are your game, then think again. Dozens of wolves and a few sheep vote on what's for dinner...
American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
Fossil fuels account for 9 Trillion dollars a year. That's 15% of the world economy. The money they've spent attacking legitimate climate science has added an additional 75 Billion dollars in profits. In contrast, our planet spends less than 4 billion dollars annually on climate science.What I see is multifacited.
1) AGW is a political tool.
2) The sciences are being tagugh wrong in this field. Meny scientists think they are right, others just know where the gravey comes from.
3) Most research and grant money available is to support beyond doubt, AGW, which they still have not done to proper scientific standards.
If numbers are your game, then think again. Dozens of wolves and a few sheep vote on what's for dinner...
Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This has been explained repeatedly but you guys keep saying the same thing over and over as though it hasn't already been accounted for.
Show your evidence of this with links please, that dispute the mainstream findings on this.
Cool...
I too have a broad experience. I was an Engineering Technician when CMP was new, having to know some good chemistry, mechanics, electronics, computers, and other disciplines in what at the time, was secretive, proprietary, and revolutionized the semiconductor industry. I started working in '75 as a simple mechanic, '81 as an electronic technician, and job experience and qualifications brought me into the automation world. I had to learn several disciplines over the years, and just because I don't have a degree in the climate sciences, doesn't mean I can't rasp it well.
Who does that? I haven't noticed any. Who did i miss?
The claims I've seen are that the last decade+, we are effectively flat in the trend, and that warming is real, but by natural variation rather than by man. Now you have to twist what people day to talk about them saying that global warming is false.
I seen data that shows even more money is granted by politicians to keep AGW research ongoing.Fossil fuels account for 9 Trillion dollars a year. That's 15% of the world economy. The money they've spent attacking legitimate climate science has added an additional 75 Billion dollars in profits. In contrast, our planet spends less than 4 billion dollars annually on climate science.
Where do you think the money is?
Industry vs. scientists – who profits from climate disruption? | Scholars and Rogues
Then why the **** is it so freakin' hard for some here to admit that we've been steadily warming since the birth of the industrial age??? For ****'s sake, own it... the evidence is easier to figure out than a 3 piece puzzle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?