Remember me
▼ Content

Nws about the Sun by Svensmark



Page 2 of 2<12
02-04-2019 02:30
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Lol.. there is no point you are making.. so the data is okay now, good.
How about the correlations between the data sets, are these calculated correctly?
Or more precise, if there is any flaw in how these corrlations were determined, please point them out.
We already come a long way in the last few posts, its not very far from now on..
02-04-2019 03:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Lol.. there is no point you are making.. so the data is okay now, good.
How about the correlations between the data sets, are these calculated correctly?
Or more precise, if there is any flaw in how these corrlations were determined, please point them out.
We already come a long way in the last few posts, its not very far from now on..


Nice sleight of hand but I was watching and I saw it.

You jumped back to "correlations" and avoided "causality." That's a no-no.

You (and Svensmark) are on tap to provide the causality before proceeding any further. Without that we could at best discuss an interesting coincidence.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2019 04:19
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Okay, from the lack of anything substantial, I guess we can conclude the data is good and the correlations are good too!
These clowns are wiggly.. next I am trying to nail a pudding to the wall!

What does Svensmark do with this good data and correlations, he find plausible mechanisms, which might cause such a behavior.
Is there any scientific reason you might to add, which makes
- changes in the atmospheric circulation caused by a changed UV absorption
- cloud cover changes due to cosmic ray modulation by the sun
or
- changes to the electric field
impossible? I dont think so, but go wild and expose Svensmark..
02-04-2019 06:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Okay, from the lack of anything substantial, I guess we can conclude the data is good and the correlations are good too!
These clowns are wiggly.. next I am trying to nail a pudding to the wall!

What does Svensmark do with this good data and correlations, he find plausible mechanisms, which might cause such a behavior.

I don't think anyone is rejecting your idea that Svensmark is speculating over potential possibilities surrounding a coincidence.

I can get more interesting speculations from my teenage daughter and her friends.

What is anyone's motivation for reading Svensmark's document?


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2019 06:39
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
So, you are down to nothing, right?
Let`s recap and close up..
The data is good, the correlation is there and you could bring up nothing against his potential explanations , science wins on all accounts, you should move on to a new clown show.
02-04-2019 08:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:So, you are down to nothing, right?

I'm down to a question. You won't answer.


Laws of Nature wrote:Let`s recap and close up..

Darn, I thought you were going to answer my question so we could close up.

Yes, yes, Svensmark speculates on a coincidence. For some reason that interests you. Good for you. There is an entire tabloid industry for people like you, except the tabloids do everything to make it all interesting.

QUESTION: Why should anyone else read Svensmark's document?

Give me an answer an this will be closed.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2019 15:06
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Why should anyone read a manuscript showing how the sun could be a major driver for the recent global warming? Well, its just orders of magnitude more important than anything you and that other clown wrote here!
Since you seem to be hellbend to drown the conclusions in a bunch of nonsense, I will repat them for you:
I just wrote:
"So, you are down to nothing, right?
Let`s recap and close up..
The data is good, the correlation is there and you could bring up nothing against his potential explanations , science wins on all accounts, you should move on to a new clown show."
03-04-2019 04:54
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1642)
Man-made CO2 doesn't explain the many recorded climate/weather swings, that some times last years in some areas. There really isn't accurate or reliable, useful data, for much of the past recorded history. Reconstructed data isn't good data, huge margin of error, in relation to the very small numbers being argued. Just like various religions, people will argue back and forth about who's beliefs a right, and why. Who's god is better, stronger... The only way any will find out, is when they meet their maker, at which point, arguing won't seem so important anymore.

Computer simulations are biased, the programmers are going to code them, to reflect and support their beliefs. Any results they get, that don't validate their beliefs, must be flawed and adjusted. They won't accept random nonsense for output, just keep working on the code, until it gives the expected results. I don't know anybody who constantly, sits down and writes perfect code, never has to go back and fix anything. With so many things software driven these days, and the constant fixes and updates, it a fair assumption, that it would be rare for a program to perform as expected, first try, or even after years of development.

The only way to honestly test these theories, is to wait a century or more, and see what happens. The root of the argument, is whether we do nothing, and see if any of the dire predictions, come true, as the simulations show. Or we remove much of the CO2, and stop contributing more. CO2, is naturally occuring, and there are too many natural sources, we have no control of, not to practical, think we could have a huge impact on stopping in all wildfires, volcanic eruptions, or venting. CO2 is just one gas, of many, some classify as 'Greenhouse'. It's chosen, because of the tiny amount, and mankind contribute regularly, so likely something that could potentially be control. Not likely, since the natural sources can greatly exceed our total contribution since the beginning of time, with one active volcanic year. Any efforts, and progress we might make, would be wiped out with just a couple of natural events. Basically, we could try to experiment with reducing CO2, but it's highly likely to fail, since it would take a long time to achieve any such goal, even if nature cooperated. Nature needs that CO2 for food production, so doubtful we could expect much help. Besides, I like to eat regular, as most living creatures do.

The rational human thing to do, would be not to fight something we have no control over, or hope of changing, and use what we learned, and adapt to the changes. Those that wish to believe in computer simulations, can use those predictions to move to a an place on the planet, that better suits their wants and needs. They can also build the technology to mitigate the negative effects, to preserve what they value most, buy an air conditioner, put their ocean front, summer beach house on stilts. There are simpler, easier ways to prepare for armageddon, than trying to fight the planet.
03-04-2019 05:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:Why should anyone read a manuscript showing how the sun could be a major driver for the recent global warming?

Svensmark's document does not show any causality; it therefor does not show how the sun is/could be a driver for anything, much less something that is not possible.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Nws about the Sun by Svensmark:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It looks like sun spots decrease did cause the most recent little ice age326-02-2019 00:34
If Sun will die, Earth will die, all life will die, then why are people so afraid of death by climate cha125-02-2019 05:21
Will Green New Deal build Wandering Earth project to move Earth away from Sun?422-02-2019 21:24
The Sun II3906-10-2018 20:37
The Sun3006-10-2018 07:49
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact