Posted on Jul 12, 2015
8
8
0
Sun your not so hot! How much credibility do you put into climate science?
Great article with a video by NASA explaining the sun cycle.
Great article with a video by NASA explaining the sun cycle.
Climate Change
Science
Environment
Planning
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
4
4
0
Polar Special Part 1 - Top Gear - BBC
Part one of three. In one of their most ambitious challenges, Jeremy, James and Richard attempt to race from Northern Canada to the North Pole, a 450-mile jo...
Weather and climate is the result of a complex and fluid interaction of innumerable factors, far more than we realize, far, far more than we build into our computer models. This explains why the computer models that "experts" have been using to predict climatic change have universally failed. For example, remember how we were told that polar ice was going to disappear by 1990? Watch the boys from the Top Gear show transit polar ice from Canada to the North Pole. According to the experts they should have drowned...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ
(4)
(0)
Cpl Tim Lang
You hit the nail on the head Captain. In physics, climatology, and other fields we are bombarded with model based theories that do not account for all of the variables. As a result, they fail. It seems to me that if we read NASA's data on climate change, compare it to physical laws and the climate history that we know, then the more logical conclusion is that perceived climate change is more of a natural process.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I won't believe anything until the deomocrats say we have to believe this or we don't get to eat.
(4)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG (ret) William Martin, or that climate change hits the poor and minorities disproportionately.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I'm still on the global warming side, I think the proof of all the glacier melting at level not seen in modern times as an issue to watch.
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LCpl Mark Lefler, exactly. Atmospheric CO2 was natural then and it still is natural now; it is the result of a warming climate and not the cause. It is plant food and a normal part of respiration for all O2 using life forms
(1)
(0)
SGT Matthew Ellis
Capt Seid Waddell - as a chemist that is insane. The temperature increase required to release that quantity would kill most everything. More importantly, the idea that increasing CO2 levels is good because it is plant food is even more ridiculous. For starters, our ability to breathe relies on oxygen. You increase the percentage of CO2 in the air and the mole fraction of O2 drops. That is bad if you need that O2. And more CO2 does not make plants grow better. Were that true, we wouldn't have all of this excess carbon in the atmosphere because they'd be gobbling it up to grow better. Of course we are also whiping out half our plant life as well, but I'm sure that isn't a problem either.
Not saying panick, but I am saying don't go listening to politicians from either side who clearly have an agenda. Nor should you listen to studies funded by groups with agendas. Find an independent study conducted at a university. Not hard. Or better, learn about the relevant science yourself and you can draw conclusions from data that make sense.
Not saying panick, but I am saying don't go listening to politicians from either side who clearly have an agenda. Nor should you listen to studies funded by groups with agendas. Find an independent study conducted at a university. Not hard. Or better, learn about the relevant science yourself and you can draw conclusions from data that make sense.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
The problem (as a Chemist) is that you do not know about the various levels of the atmosphere and the variability all the way up to 100mb to assume that much. At the very least there is convection and advection as two primary modes of change. This setup is elaborate and too elaborate for snapshots which are nothing more than op-ed stuff.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Liberals have talking points. We have questions.... but, liberals suck at thinking..
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Following up on his brilliant earlier work “The Black Swan”, Taleb has written a paper called Error, Dimensionality, and Predictability (draft version). I could not even begin to do justice to this tour-de-force, so let me just quote the abstract and encourage you to read the paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/nassim-taleb-strikes-again/
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Following up on his brilliant earlier work “The Black Swan”, Taleb has written a paper called Error, Dimensionality, and Predictability (draft version). I could not even begin to do justice to this tour-de-force, so let me just quote the abstract and encourage you to read the paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/nassim-taleb-strikes-again/
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Following up on his brilliant earlier work "The Black Swan", Taleb has written a paper called Error, Dimensionality, and Predictability(draft version). I could not ...
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Science or more rather statistical analysis shows how screwed their models are. Errors based on errors that become more and more skewed as the model works itself out. But the IPCC and that bunch does not want to hear dissent. LOLOLOL. dumbasses.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
As help in doing so, here are a few reminders (these would also apply to many mainstream skeptics — I am not an outlier)
I don’t deny that climate changes over time — who could? So I am not a climate change denier
I don’t deny that the Earth has warmed over the last century (something like 0.7C). So I am not a global warming denier
I don’t deny that man’s CO2 has some incremental effect on warming, and perhaps climate change (in fact, man effects climate with many more of his activities other than just CO2 — land use, with cities on the one hand and irrigated agriculture on the other, has measurable effects on the climate). So I am not a man-made climate change or man-made global warming denier.
What I deny is the catastrophe — the proposition that man-made global warming** will cause catastrophic climate changes whose adverse affects will outweigh both the benefits of warming as well as the costs of mitigation. I believe that warming forecasts have been substantially exaggerated (in part due to positive feedback assumptions) and that tales of current climate change trends are greatly exaggerated and based more on noting individual outlier events and not through real data on trends (see hurricanes, for example).
Though it loses some of this nuance, I would probably accept “man-made climate catastrophe denier” as a title.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/climate-propaganda
I don’t deny that climate changes over time — who could? So I am not a climate change denier
I don’t deny that the Earth has warmed over the last century (something like 0.7C). So I am not a global warming denier
I don’t deny that man’s CO2 has some incremental effect on warming, and perhaps climate change (in fact, man effects climate with many more of his activities other than just CO2 — land use, with cities on the one hand and irrigated agriculture on the other, has measurable effects on the climate). So I am not a man-made climate change or man-made global warming denier.
What I deny is the catastrophe — the proposition that man-made global warming** will cause catastrophic climate changes whose adverse affects will outweigh both the benefits of warming as well as the costs of mitigation. I believe that warming forecasts have been substantially exaggerated (in part due to positive feedback assumptions) and that tales of current climate change trends are greatly exaggerated and based more on noting individual outlier events and not through real data on trends (see hurricanes, for example).
Though it loses some of this nuance, I would probably accept “man-made climate catastrophe denier” as a title.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/climate-propaganda
Climate Propaganda | Climate Skeptic
I am willing, even at the risk of the obvious parallel that is being drawn to the Holocaust deniers, to accept the “denier” label, but it has to be attached to a proposition I actually deny, or that can even be denied.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Been hearing all kinds of climate change crap since I was a kid in the '70s; gonna be a new Ice Age, gonna be flooded by such and such year.....the Earth's climate continues to go through various cycles at various times and our so called expert climatologists can never seem to get it right.....
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is the most credible information we have today. The solar cycles appear to be driven by the tidal forces the planets exert on the sun, producing complex but predictable effects on solar output.
Experiments done at CERN have shown that high-energy ionizing galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) seed cloud formation in earth's lower atmosphere, and this low cloud cover reflects more solar energy than it traps, resulting in a net cooling of the atmosphere.
The solar cycles moderate the amount of these cosmic rays that can penetrate to our atmosphere.
The greater the solar output the greater shielding from these GCRs and the fewer penetrate to our lower atmosphere, which leads to diminished cloud cover and increased global warming.
When the solar output is at a minimum more GCRs penetrate to our lower atmosphere which results in greater cloud cover and a cooling of the atmosphere.
We are coming into a period of lower solar output and can expect global cooling as a result.
Atmospheric CO2 has minimal effect on the climate at current levels; the CO2 levels have continued their steady rise while the climate has steadied and then cooled over the past 17 years.
Experiments done at CERN have shown that high-energy ionizing galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) seed cloud formation in earth's lower atmosphere, and this low cloud cover reflects more solar energy than it traps, resulting in a net cooling of the atmosphere.
The solar cycles moderate the amount of these cosmic rays that can penetrate to our atmosphere.
The greater the solar output the greater shielding from these GCRs and the fewer penetrate to our lower atmosphere, which leads to diminished cloud cover and increased global warming.
When the solar output is at a minimum more GCRs penetrate to our lower atmosphere which results in greater cloud cover and a cooling of the atmosphere.
We are coming into a period of lower solar output and can expect global cooling as a result.
Atmospheric CO2 has minimal effect on the climate at current levels; the CO2 levels have continued their steady rise while the climate has steadied and then cooled over the past 17 years.
(3)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
Global Warming -- Research Issues
Does the Sun cause global warming or climate change?
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S., there are two multi-decadal cooling trends in the chart period you posted and a third one after your chart ends; 1880-1912, 1940-1965, and 1997-2015.
Your chart ends at the peak of the 1965-1997 warming phase.
You will notice that atmospheric CO2 levels explain none of these; this is because CO2 has no effect on climate. Atmospheric CO2 is the result of climate change, not the driver.
Your chart ends at the peak of the 1965-1997 warming phase.
You will notice that atmospheric CO2 levels explain none of these; this is because CO2 has no effect on climate. Atmospheric CO2 is the result of climate change, not the driver.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - And don't forget the 4 hockey stick variants and how that variable was discarded for political reasons and how opposing opinion by so-called deniers are impugned or ignored.... lol
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSgt (Join to see), exactly. And we didn't even get into the fudged data or manipulated peer review process.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
An Albedic Curiosity
Willis Eschenbach / 3 days ago July 10, 2015
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I had one of my investigations take a curious turn recently. I was going to use as my springboard the most interesting 2015 paper entitled The Albedo Of Earth, by Graeme L. Stephens et al. However, a strange thing happened along the way. I got to thinking about their Figure 5, in particular Panel (a).:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/10/an-albedic-curiosity/
The importance here is that Mr. Stephens has read the coherent rebuttal and wishes not to respond one way or another. That is a problem. Because discussions on potentiality are not limited to consensus.
Willis Eschenbach / 3 days ago July 10, 2015
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I had one of my investigations take a curious turn recently. I was going to use as my springboard the most interesting 2015 paper entitled The Albedo Of Earth, by Graeme L. Stephens et al. However, a strange thing happened along the way. I got to thinking about their Figure 5, in particular Panel (a).:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/10/an-albedic-curiosity/
The importance here is that Mr. Stephens has read the coherent rebuttal and wishes not to respond one way or another. That is a problem. Because discussions on potentiality are not limited to consensus.
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I had one of my investigations take a curious turn recently. I was going to use as my springboard the most interesting 2015 paper entitled The Albedo Of Earth, by Gr...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Imagine that, solar activity affects climate change as well as volcanoes here on earth. And here we've been indoctrinated to believe man-kind evil causing climate change and because man-kind evil, you must pay a carbon tax.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-volcanoes-climate-history-20150710-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-volcanoes-climate-history-20150710-story.html
Ice cores yield history of volcanic eruptions, climate effects
A new method of analyzing ice cores has allowed scientists to more precisely determine when volcanic eruptions occurred on Earth over the last 2,500 years.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Who knows anymore, everyone has a chart or proof that they are right. I know it's still snows in the winter and I need my air on in the summer. I know that if I have a parade it will not rain, Other than that, I could care less anymore....Simply heard too much from all sides...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I won't worry until a reputable publication such as the National Enquirer reports on this.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google