• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
aleCcowaN said:
It's not a matter of that. Those signers of that kind of petition could perfectly be 100% of climate scientists, it doesn't matter they are if they didn't examine the subject. It's not a matter of who is the scientist or not of who is the supposed specialist. It's a matter of what they did to arrive to the conclusion their signed, if they really signed it. Those petitions fall just by the act of screening them and the Oregon Petition may be a piece of vintage denialism, but it is already history.

If you are in a rush to convince shallow people about the inconvenience of paying attention to such kind of petitions, just tell "90% of doctors smoke Camel". Your act of counterbalancing figures with equally bad definitions of science is just promoting the concept that scientists, which for you it doesn't matter what they are, are truth-holders both within their specific intellectual scopes and beyond those scopes. There's nothing more contrary to the truth and more alien to science that that.

If you didn't get it yet: you're promoting the very type of misconception those petitions exploit. We have a saying "God, protect me from my friends as I'll take care of my enemies by myself.". I'll make room for it in my signature as here it's permanently true.
Click to expand...

Some people seem impressed by the number of 32 000 scientists rejecting AGW, i simply countered it with numbers of scientists in the USA using a very similar definition of who counts as scientists to show that it actually is a incredible small number.

and in the USA this definition of scientists and engineers is also used unrelated to AGW.

you didn't even know that people are still using the petition in debates. :rolleyes:
 
Snarf said:
Conservatives have a new line on climate change: “It’s real, but it’s nothing to worry about!”
Click to expand...
It's their latest prepared defensive line on which they're falling back - or, rather, they are advancing to the rear in a planned strategic realignment which will hasten their inevitable victory over the forces of totalitarian barbarism.

'"I don’t think anybody in this room denies climate change,” the Heartland Institute’s James M. Taylor said in his opening remarks Monday. “We recognize it, but we’re looking more at the causes, and more importantly, the consequences.” Those consequences, Taylor and his colleagues are convinced, are unlikely to be catastrophic—and they might even turn out to be beneficial.

Don’t call them climate deniers. Call them climate optimists.'
Click to expand...
"Climate optimists" is a useful non-pejorative term to which nobody could object. Well, not reasonably, anyway.
 
DC said:
Some people seem impressed by the number of 32 000 scientists rejecting AGW, i simply countered it with numbers of scientists in the USA using a very similar definition of who counts as scientists to show that it actually is a incredible small number.

and in the USA this definition of scientists and engineers is also used unrelated to AGW.

you didn't even know that people are still using the petition in debates. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I imagine they are; as brutality being an endless menace is what keeps me participating here, there and everywhere. I take your last sentence as a joke as you know I said that in a playful way (otherwise you have comprehension problems)

The problem is fighting fire with fire. There's nothing more dangerous than people who believe they know and believe they can convince common people about how easy is to know what they believe they know.

That's my objection about what you sistematically do.

Basically AGW is a problem impossible to encompass for any single person, even the most exalted climate scientist, and very difficult to fathom even having a lot of specialized education and some method -the lame definition of scientist you have found so handy-. You only can offer the common person examples of how we get to those conclusions and reinforce their critical thinking process to vaccinate them against the action of denialists who have rhetoric as their most powerful tool: they are quenching needs, from political ones to narcissistic ones, and they are not doing science, that's why they are a social inconvenience and aware or unaware pawns of vested interests, and not the Socratic gadflies they like to think they are.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I imagine they are; as brutality being an endless menace is what keeps me participating here, there and everywhere. I take your last sentence as a joke as you know I said that in a playful way (otherwise you have comprehension problems)

The problem is fighting fire with fire. There's nothing more dangerous than people who believe they know and believe they can convince common people about how easy is to know what they believe they know.

That's my objection about what you sistematically do.

Basically AGW is a problem impossible to encompass for any single person, even the most exalted climate scientist, and very difficult to fathom even having a lot of specialized education and some method -the lame definition of scientist you have found so handy-. You only can offer the common person examples of how we get to those conclusions and reinforce their critical thinking process to vaccinate them against the action of denialists who have rhetoric as their most powerful tool: they are quenching needs, from political ones to narcissistic ones, and they are not doing science, that's why they are a social inconvenience and aware or unaware pawns of vested interests, and not the Socratic gadflies they like to think they are.
Click to expand...

we will just have to agree to disagree on this then. you fight the fire your way, i fight the fire my way.
 
DC said:
no the sun is surely not a valid explenation for the later 20th century warming , solar cycles since the 1960's have become weaker.
Click to expand...
That's true but since the the 70's (despite the weakening solar cycles) the amount of solar radiation steadily increased for the rest of the 20th century, it's now decreasing in the 21st century along with much much weaker cycles. NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

aleCcowaN said:
Basically AGW is a problem impossible to encompass for any single person, even the most exalted climate scientist, and very difficult to fathom even having a lot of specialized education and some method -the lame definition of scientist you have found so handy-. You only can offer the common person examples of how we get to those conclusions and reinforce their critical thinking process to vaccinate them against the action of denialists who have rhetoric as their most powerful tool: they are quenching needs, from political ones to narcissistic ones, and they are not doing science, that's why they are a social inconvenience and aware or unaware pawns of vested interests, and not the Socratic gadflies they like to think they are.
Click to expand...

It's not that impossible a problem, in fact it will be obvious to all very shortly that AGW isn't an important facture. It isn't Humans driving the climate.

An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle
The estimates based on geomagnetic precursors give the best prediction of Rmax for five SSN cycles (20–24). In particular, an empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index has made accurate predictions of Rmax and Tr for two consecutive SSN cycles (23 and 24). The dynamo theories are unable to account for TCQP. If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling. The current status of the ascending phase of cycle 24 is described and the delayed reversal of the solar polar field reversal in the southern hemisphere in September 2013 is noted
Click to expand...
 
Looks like isn't NOT AGW but SGC (Solar Global Cooling) for the 21st century.

Slump into Solar Grand Minimum

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded
Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station.

According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
That's true but since the the 70's (despite the weakening solar cycles) the amount of solar radiation steadily increased for the rest of the 20th century, it's now decreasing in the 21st century along with much much weaker cycles. NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE



...[/B][/URL]
Click to expand...

no, decreased.

and the article you linked to does not support your claim at all.

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.
Click to expand...
 
DC said:
no, decreased.

and the article you linked to does not support your claim at all.
Click to expand...

Sure it does ...
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
Click to expand...
. my bold
 
Haig said:
Sure it does ...
. my bold
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

no it does not support your claim at all. nor can this trend during low activity explain the late 20th century warming.
 
DC said:
no it does not support your claim at all. nor can this trend during low activity explain the late 20th century warming.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, just read the article again, it's VERY clear

The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
Click to expand...

To make this a bit clearer for you ... although the solar cycle peaks declined the average TSI in the same period INCREASED by .05 percent per decade.

The energy from the Sun trended UP for ALL of the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Yes it does, just read the article again, it's VERY clear



To make this a bit clearer for you ... although the solar cycle peaks declined the average TSI in the same period INCREASED by .05 percent per decade.

The energy from the Sun trended UP for ALL of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

nope. on average the TSI declined since the 1960, despite a slight increase of TSI between cycles.

tsi_vs_temp.gif
 
Haig said:
The energy from the Sun trended UP for ALL of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
That is impossible. Because if that is true, it makes a lot of important people wrong, and since they can't be wrong, it didn't happen.

That is how science works now. Since the majority of scientists who matter believe all the warming is human caused, it can't be the sun. The sun can't have any influence on climate, because humans control the climate now. So it must be wrong.

Please don't ask me to actually look at data and research, it would be a waste of time, because I already know everything that matters.
 
DC said:
nope. on average the TSI declined since the 1960, despite a slight increase of TSI between cycles.
Click to expand...

You should take it up with NASA ... the study is VERY clear ... the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade.

93620main_sun5m.jpg
 
r-j said:
That is impossible. Because if that is true, it makes a lot of important people wrong, and since they can't be wrong, it didn't happen.

That is how science works now. Since the majority of scientists who matter believe all the warming is human caused, it can't be the sun. The sun can't have any influence on climate, because humans control the climate now. So it must be wrong.

Please don't ask me to actually look at data and research, it would be a waste of time, because I already know everything that matters.
Click to expand...

shows how little you know about science. experts are convinced because of the data......

in case you have data that contradicts it, lets see it.
 
Haig said:
You should take it up with NASA ... the study is VERY clear ... the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade.

[qimg]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


nothing to take up with NASA as they do not claim that average TSI increased from the 1970's on like you do.
why should i comaplain to NASA when you are missrepresenting their research and data?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom