Does the sun cause global warming or climate change?

[watsup]

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...

Denying science = talking point. Means nothing.
Logical fallacy = talking point. Means nothing.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

If you think that, then you do not understand his argument.
His argument is that there are many factors that go into warming attribution, and the IPCC may not account for them all,
or not account for them accurately.
One thing is certain, the much greater warming in the Northern hemisphere, vs the southern hemisphere,
is not related to CO2 forcing, as both hemispheres have the same CO2 level, so some other factors are at play.

Hold it right there Heat causes tropical storm systems. That is why they are almost always in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea, with a few typhoons occurring near east Asia and Hawaii. Have you ever heard of hurricanes in the southern hemisphere? Except for Hurricane Sandy's weird path, have you ever heard of a hurricane that landed north of Virginia. It is clear to be based on hurricane/tropical storm reports over the years sun is a very important factor in natural global warming but CO2 made it much worse. So at minimum, we are guilty of speeding up climate change ever since somes correctly stated the term "global warming" to describe what was happen to natural environments.

 

[longview]

Hold it right there Heat causes tropical storm systems. That is why they are almost always in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea, with a few typhoons occurring near east Asia and Hawaii. Have you ever heard of hurricanes in the southern hemisphere? Except for Hurricane Sandy's weird path, have you ever heard of a hurricane that landed north of Virginia. It is clear to be based on hurricane/tropical storm reports over the years sun is a very important factor in natural global warming but CO2 made it much worse. So at minimum, we are guilty of speeding up climate change ever since somes correctly stated the term "global warming" to describe what was happen to natural environments.

Tropical cyclones do occur in the Southern Hemisphere, we do not hear about them as much because there is a lot more ocean.
As for the number of named storms, (This is higher) they changed the criteria of what qualifies as a named storm.
I am not saying that CO2 is not causing warming, but that the amount of warming appears like the forcing warming only
without much feedback ether way.

 

[Luce]

Actually, a few years ago, they were tracking how Mars was warming a similar amount as the earth was.

Thanks for reminding me!

You of course have a reputable link to this.

 

[longview]

You of course have a reputable link to this.

NASA A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

The results of this research show that an increase in darkened surface areas may
account for a one degree Fahrenheit rise in the surface air temperature of the planet.

Warming on Mars is happening.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You of course have a reputable link to this.

Years ago, I would have. This was a thing years back to talk about. You can search it as easily as I.

 

[Luce]

Years ago, I would have. This was a thing years back to talk about. You can search it as easily as I.

I see. You have made a claim of a fact. You don't have a link for that fact. It is my job to find that link and prove your case.

Denied.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see. You have made a claim of a fact. You don't have a link for that fact. It is my job to find that link and prove your case.

Denied.

Your loss.

 

[Luce]

NASA A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

Warming on Mars is happening.

Thank you.

It appears to be happening for similar reasons, too. Heat from sunlight is being trapped by dark areas caused by sandstorms, which cause more sandstorms.

Here, of course, it's atmospheric changes that are trapping the heat, which cause more atmospheric changes (methane release, etc).

 

[longview]

Thank you.

It appears to be happening for similar reasons, too. Heat from sunlight is being trapped by dark areas caused by sandstorms, which cause more sandstorms.

Here, of course, it's atmospheric changes that are trapping the heat, which cause more atmospheric changes (methane release, etc).

There are lots of things that could be causing the observed warming on Earth, CO2 being only one.
When we consider all the different combinations of possibilities, CO2's attribution drops a quite a bit.
CO2 is already very close to the point where there is no possibility for any amplified feedbacks.
Without the predicted amplified feedbacks, CO2 becomes an interesting scientific footnote.

 

[Buzz]

CO2 is already very close to the point where there is no possibility for any amplified feedbacks.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

 

[longview]

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Because that is where the data is pointing!
The wood For Trees graph I showed earlier has raw data associated with it.
Wood For Trees Raw Data
The numerical amount the much faster Northern Hemisphere warming dragged up the Global average,
was .1398C.
As I recall the remaining amount of observed warming from unknown sources, was less than .1C,
if we have yet another attribution of warming of .1398C, it would reduce the unknown warming to less than ZERO,
which would mean that the net of the feedbacks, is an attenuation, not an amplification!

 

[Buzz]

Because that is where the data is pointing!
The wood For Trees graph I showed earlier has raw data associated with it.
Wood For Trees Raw Data
The numerical amount the much faster Northern Hemisphere warming dragged up the Global average,
was .1398C.
As I recall the remaining amount of observed warming from unknown sources, was less than .1C,
if we have yet another attribution of warming of .1398C, it would reduce the unknown warming to less than ZERO,
which would mean that the net of the feedbacks, is an attenuation, not an amplification!

So... you are going to start claiming there are more negative feedbacks than positive? Despite the fact that there are no serious climate scientists who agree with your assessment of the numbers.

You really are going full denial of scientific logic and facts. What a shame.

 

[longview]

So... you are going to start claiming there are more negative feedbacks than positive? Despite the fact that there are no serious climate scientists who agree with your assessment of the numbers.

You really are going full denial of scientific logic and facts. What a shame.

Science is not about agreement, but what the data says!
If the claim is that forcing warming from added CO2 will be amplified, then all warming sources would be amplified.
Because actual warming from pre 1950, cannot be show to contain the level of amplification needed for an ECS of 2 C or greater
the entire concept of high amplified feedbacks, breaks down.

 

[Buzz]

Science is not about agreement, but what the data says!
If the claim is that forcing warming from added CO2 will be amplified, then all warming sources would be amplified.
Because actual warming from pre 1950, cannot be show to contain the level of amplification needed for an ECS of 2 C or greater
the entire concept of high amplified feedbacks, breaks down.

...in your opinion. How about really convincing me with something from a real climate scientist who agrees with your assessment of the numbers. I'm pretty sure I can show more that disagree with you than you can show that agree.

 

[longview]

...in your opinion. How about really convincing me with something from a real climate scientist who agrees with your assessment of the numbers. I'm pretty sure I can show more that disagree with you than you can show that agree.

It is not my opinion that science is not about agreement, but what the data says!
At some point I may publish my findings, but conflicts of interest, and unfinished work, will keep it on hold for a while.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Most of the indirect effects from CO2 is the added evaporation of water. Yes, this adds H2O in the atmosphere, but the RE value is about 1/3rd, and the GWP(0) of water vapor is less than half that of CO2. When we increase atmospheric H2O, we increase cloud cover which then reduces the surface insolation. We have both positive and negative feedback from CO2 which appears to cancel CO2 warming out.

There are no definitive quantification of these numbers, but it is becoming more apparent as the science progresses. One of these days, the IPCC et. al. will have to conceded that their agenda driven science is bad, regarding CO2 and the sun.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So... you are going to start claiming there are more negative feedbacks than positive? Despite the fact that there are no serious climate scientists who agree with your assessment of the numbers.

You really are going full denial of scientific logic and facts. What a shame.

I wouldn't call the scientists that write papers tailored for the IPCC et. al. serious.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is not my opinion that science is not about agreement, but what the data says!
At some point I may publish my findings, but conflicts of interest, and unfinished work, will keep it on hold for a while.

Isn't it silly on how people want to vote on what is right and wrong regarding science.

We at least know who not to trust!

 

[watsup]

It is not my opinion that science is not about agreement, but what the data says!
At some point I may publish my findings, but conflicts of interest, and unfinished work, will keep it on hold for a while.

You’re not going to publish your “findings” because you don’t have any. You have done ZERO original research into global warming. You have manipulated some numbers based on the research of others. No one cares. Go ahead and “publish” your “findings” and become a laughingstock among serious climate scientists if that is what floats yer boat.

 

[longview]

You’re not going to publish your “findings” because you don’t have any. You have done ZERO original research into global warming. You have manipulated some numbers based on the research of others. No one cares. Go ahead and “publish” your “findings” and become a laughingstock among serious climate scientists if that is what floats yer boat.

I know far more about new art than you might suspect!

 

[watsup]

I wouldn't call the scientists that write papers tailored for the IPCC et. al. serious.

I wouldn’t call dilettantes in an online chat room who think they know more than the climate scientists who have done the research and compiled the data to be serious.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You’re not going to publish your “findings” because you don’t have any. You have done ZERO original research into global warming. You have manipulated some numbers based on the research of others. No one cares. Go ahead and “publish” your “findings” and become a laughingstock among serious climate scientists if that is what floats yer boat.

Most papers in the climate science aren't original works these days. They just rehash the work done in other papers they cite.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I wouldn’t call dilettantes in an online chat room who think they know more than the climate scientists who have done the research and compiled the data to be serious.

Can you show me where I ever claimed to know more than the climate scientists? I might, but I have never made that claim. My claim has been that the journalists and pundits lie about what the climate scientists say.

Your dishonesty and name-calling is abhorring.

 

[watsup]

Most papers in the climate science aren't original works these days. They just rehash the work done in other papers they cite.

“Rehash” is not the correct word. “Build on” is. They build on previous scientific information and use it to move forward. I though you knew how science works. That is the basis of almost all science except for a very small amount of truly “original” work, such as Einstein with relativity. You sure don’t know much about science.