Remember me
▼ Content

Nws about the Sun by Svensmark



Page 1 of 212>
Nws about the Sun by Svensmark19-03-2019 01:15
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=547add8078-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_11_10_34_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-547add8078-20143849

Figure 9 in here shows that the solar forcing might be as strong as any CO2 one.
19-03-2019 12:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=547add8078-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_11_10_34_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-547add8078-20143849

Figure 9 in here shows that the solar forcing might be as strong as any CO2 one.


I commented on Svensmark's drivel in another thread. This is what I wrote:

IBDaMann wrote: You've got to be kidding me. This paper would receive an F if it were handed in for a grade at a school ... unless we're talking about Columbia University or Berkeley.

1) The title, "The Sun's Role in Climate Change," implies we're going to be learning about a cause (sun) -> effect (Climate) in nature. Unfortunately "Climate" is never defined formally ... actually it isn't defined at all. Well, at least we know up front that we aren't going to be getting any science.

2) ... followed by five pages of irrelevant solar trivia.

3) At the bottom of Page 6 we find Section 3, "Correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth" and while the reader is presented a bunch of colorful but obviously fabricated charts and graphs and some unsubstantiated overgeneralized speculations about past environmental ecologies, the section disappointingly omits any direct correlation between solar activity and the as yet undefined "global climate" contradiction. I got a kick out of Page 16 where Svensmark presumes no one has paid attention up to that point and states unabashedly "Other ideas have been put forward to explain the Sun–climate link." Hey, Svensmark, you haven't presented any such ideas yet. You can't use the word "others" yet.

4) This is hilarious. On Page 17 we find Section 6 "Future solar activity." The very first sentence says it all: "Predicting changes in solar activity is beyond our current capabilities." So that should be the end of the section. But no. Svensmark inserts three paragraphs of filler. I'm guessing he was under contract to produce a certain number of pages.

5) So finally we get the conclusions section on page 18 "Impact of solar activity." There might as well have been no report up to this point. The "conclusions" are completely independent of, and are not supported by, anything beforehand.

Svensmark's Conclusion: Climate models including only small changes in TSI, of the order of 0.1%, suggest that the solar contribution to climate variation is small, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, and volcanoes are the main cause of recent and future climate changes

This paper is summarily dismissed and filed.



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
19-03-2019 16:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(313)
hahahaha THAT is considered to be a PAPER??? hahahaha

It doesn't even define it's terms, it has a bunch of filler, and the conclusion doesn't follow... Yeah, it would certainly receive an F from me... It's doomed from the start if its key terms are not defined...
20-03-2019 13:39
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Hmm, let`s see what this two post write on the subject..
"a bunch of colorful but obviously fabricated charts and graphs and some unsubstantiated overgeneralized speculations"
hmm.. that´s very thin.. how about all this data is real and you are wrong?
Maybe we start with something simple.. Herschel and his correlation between the grain price and the sun spot numbers..
It seems plausible, that there is an effect which is completely ignored by the "consensus science" with disastrous consequence for the accuracy of their prognosis
20-03-2019 13:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote: Hmm, let`s see what this two post write on the subject..
"a bunch of colorful but obviously fabricated charts and graphs and some unsubstantiated overgeneralized speculations"

hmm.. that´s very thin.. how about all this data is real and you are wrong?

I wrote the above because the charts really are colorful and pretty but are obviously fabricated and Svensmark uses them to make unsubstantiated and overgeneralized speculations. It's pretty clear if you read that section.

Laws of Nature wrote: Maybe we start with something simple.. Herschel and his correlation between the grain price and the sun spot numbers..
It seems plausible, that there is an effect which is completely ignored by the "consensus science" with disastrous consequence for the accuracy of their prognosis

Have you heard of Nostradamus?

You are committing the same egregious foul that Svensmark makes of flashing glimpses of correlations while failing to even address the burden of showing causality. In fact, the entire document is a waste of ink that avoids any and all causality up until the "conclusions" are laid out that are independent and unsupported by anything in the 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
21-03-2019 19:05
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
>> but are obviously fabricated
I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is

>> Have you heard of Nostradamus?
Yes, and?

>> flashing glimpses of correlations
So there are correlations?
(which in turn means, there might be an effect much stronger than TSI to cause these correlations.. exactly like Svensmark indicates)
21-03-2019 19:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is

The data presented in the graphs is fabricated. They aren't even RandU, they are defecated.

Laws of Nature wrote:
>> Have you heard of Nostradamus?
Yes, and?

... then you either don't understand the reference or you didn't read that section of Svenmark's paper.

Laws of Nature wrote:
>> flashing glimpses of correlations
So there are correlations?

Yes, unrelated correlations.

Please, ask me how correlations can be unrelated.

Laws of Nature wrote:
(which in turn means, there might be an effect much stronger than TSI to cause these correlations.. exactly like Svensmark indicates)

Nope. The unrelated nature of the correlations precludes any such "effect."


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
21-03-2019 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is

The data presented in the graphs is fabricated. They aren't even RandU, they are defecated.


That's what a randU is. A fabricated number (or number equivalent, such as NONE, ALL, MANY, etc.). It is the 'predictable' random number. This number always comes out of the mind, whether it is a direct number, or an algorithm that generates 'random' numbers that doesn't use any source of entropy. Crappy random number generators can generate these, or they can be thought up directly and used as 'data'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-03-2019 21:14
21-03-2019 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Hmm, let`s see what this two post write on the subject..
"a bunch of colorful but obviously fabricated charts and graphs and some unsubstantiated overgeneralized speculations"
hmm.. that´s very thin.. how about all this data is real and you are wrong?
Maybe we start with something simple.. Herschel and his correlation between the grain price and the sun spot numbers..
It seems plausible, that there is an effect which is completely ignored by the "consensus science" with disastrous consequence for the accuracy of their prognosis


This is a Pascal's Wager fallacy. Blaise Pascal once tried to use this fallacy to justify joining the Christian church.

Using it is only further admission that the Church of Global Warming is just a religion.


The Parrot Killer
21-03-2019 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
>> but are obviously fabricated
I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is


The best answer for this question can be found in the first article of the Data Mine thread.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2019 00:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Into the Night wrote: That's what a randU is. A fabricated number (or number equivalent, such as NONE, ALL, MANY, etc.).

Understood. I have always appreciated your use of "randU" to drive home that point. It's just that there is one teeny-tiny aspect of it that rubs me the wrong way, but my objection is so trivial that I have never mentioned it.

... but I'll mention it now.


You use "randU" to mean arbitrary selection when it is actually used to generate (pseudo)random data. Conflating "random" and "arbitrary" is one of my pet peeves, but that just means that I avoid it when I write; I will continue to applaud your wielding of the term.

That's it. Nothing more.

My way of saying that they aren't even good enough to be random data, but are so poorly selected is to say that they aren't even randU but are defecated.

So I ask you to forgive me the seeming impropriety. I will normally join in solidarity but this one is just a little more difficult for me. I'll try harder next time.


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
22-03-2019 02:53
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
IBdaMann wrote:

The data presented in the graphs is fabricated[..], they are defecated.
[..]

Or of course there is the option that you are wrong..
Hmm, I dont know you beside from what you write here.. color me unimpressed so far.. I might go with Svensmark is potentially up with something and you might be a clown writing a lot of unrelated nonsense being proud of using improper language.

Have you ever tried to follow a scientific argument?

Let´s start again.
Herschel found a correlation between the number of sun spots and the price of grain.
Do you want to add something scientific to this or should we move on?
22-03-2019 02:53
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Into the Night wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:
>> but are obviously fabricated
I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is


The best answer for this question can be found in the first article of the Data Mine thread.

I guess that is a no then.
22-03-2019 03:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:
>> but are obviously fabricated
I am not sure I understand, could you cite any graph from anywhere which is not fabricated for comparison and tell me what the difference is


The best answer for this question can be found in the first article of the Data Mine thread.

I guess that is a no then.

I guess that's a "You can't read" then.


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
22-03-2019 03:42
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)

I guess that's a "You can't read" then.


My reading ability is really offtopic (So would it be is Pascal really used the grain price as justification to join the church, which I highly doubt), please post such things elsewhere.

After all these unnecessary long posts, have we established, that there are correlations presented by Herschel and Svensmark?
And until proven otherwise, there is the possibility, the data is very real and relevant as forcing for global warming.

Just a side note: in a scientific debate, you actually have to present facts, rambling on about random numbers is at best an opinion or in case of the posts above it just looks incoherent.
22-03-2019 04:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
First, here's a better link:
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf

Laws of Nature wrote: Or of course there is the option that you are wrong..

Nope, not when Svenmark is offering as data "measurements" that were obviously fabricated. I'll take it that you aren't smart enough to realize that he had to fabricate the sunspot record going back to the 1600s (pg. 3), or temperature "anomalies" (I bet you don't even know what that is supposed to mean and why it's utterly bogus) going back to the 800s (pg. 7), or quantities of drift ice back to 10,000 b.c.(pg. 9), or ocean heat content (pg. 11), and for several others.

Laws of Nature wrote: Hmm, I dont know you beside from what you write here.. color me unimpressed so far.

Well, let's see ... you are scientifically illiterate, you cannot recognize a religion when it is right in front of you, you have no ability to discern when something is obviously fabricated and you are reduced to petty name-calling before you have even made it out of the starting gate.

You are exactly that kind of person I would prefer remain unimpressed.

Laws of Nature wrote:Have you ever tried to follow a scientific argument?

Since I am not scientifically illiterate, Svensmark cannot baffle me with gibber-babble. Your scientific illiteracy gives you an excuse.

Laws of Nature wrote:
Let´s start again. Herschel found a correlation between the number of sun spots and the price of grain. Do you want to add something scientific to this or should we move on?

Yes, I will. Mere correlation is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Without establishing causality, you have only coincidence.

Scientists generally accept that coincidences happen all the time. Scientists reject any and all conclusions that are drawn from coincidences.

One more time: Without establishing causality, you have only 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
22-03-2019 05:31
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
IBdaMann wrote:[..] scientific illiteracy[..]

I dont believe Svensmark created the sunspot dataset, but observatories in Europe, mainly Greewich and Zurich, you are wrong.
However, Svenmark presents other solar proxies as well (also not measured by him)

His manuscript goes on quantifying the potential effect and discussing several potential causes for the correlation (UV, cosmic rays and changes to the earth electric field).. so you are wrong again claiming they were missing.

I think people should be very careful listening to someone who is wrong so often, dont you think?
22-03-2019 08:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:

I guess that's a "You can't read" then.


My reading ability is really offtopic

No, it IS the topic. You were invited to read the first article in the Data Mine. You obviously haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to it, when it would have answered your question.
Laws of Nature wrote:
After all these unnecessary long posts, have we established, that there are correlations presented by Herschel and Svensmark?

Meaningless. Correlation is not causation. It is also not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
And until proven otherwise, there is the possibility, the data is very real and relevant as forcing for global warming.[/quote]
Define 'global warming'. The only data I accept is that which conforms to the Data Mine. Any other is discarded.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Just a side note: in a scientific debate,

There is no such thing as a 'scientific debate'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not a debate.
Laws of Nature wrote:
you actually have to present facts,

Science isn't 'facts'. Science is a set of theories.
Laws of Nature wrote:
rambling on about random numbers is at best an opinion

No, it is what they are. They are random numbers of type randU, which is to say fabricated out of someone's mind.
Laws of Nature wrote:
or in case of the posts above it just looks incoherent.

No, that is what they are. You are trying to make an argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2019 13:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:I dont believe Svensmark created the sunspot dataset,

Why would you believe that it matters who actually fabricated the data? The conclusions are nevertheless invalid and are summarily dismissed.

Laws of Nature wrote:However, Svenmark presents other solar proxies as well (also not measured by him)

What do you think a "proxy" is? Are you smart enough to recognize an attempt to legitimize illegitimate data?

Laws of Nature wrote:His manuscript goes on quantifying the potential effect and discussing several potential causes for the correlation

I take it you don't quite understand that speculating about possible causality does not suffice for establishing causality.

Svensmark can speculate on his own time and he can get back to me when he has actually figured it out and can support it.


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
22-03-2019 13:45
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Into the Night wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:

I guess that's a "You can't read" then.


My reading ability is really offtopic

No, it IS the topic. [..]

Did you ever wonder why no one takes you serious?
You repeat yourself, but dont understand the world very well.
Just try to look into it..

Yes, we can measure temperature of things.
Facts are very helpful when it comes to science.
People talk about science.
You are a clown.
22-03-2019 13:55
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
IBdaMann wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:I dont believe Svensmark created the sunspot dataset,

Why would you believe that it matters who actually fabricated the data? The conclusions are nevertheless invalid and are summarily dismissed.
[..]

It means your little conspiracy theory about Svensmark is incorrect.
He took a number of valid datasets and corrleated them.
You fail to point out any flaw with any measured value he used.
Tell me which one might be wrong, you are getting very boring.

This let him to the conclusion, that if there is more than just a correlation, the sun has a way stronger influence on the global temperature, than the consensus models are assuming and he quantified this effect and gave potential pathways (falsifiable theories btw!).
22-03-2019 17:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:

I guess that's a "You can't read" then.


My reading ability is really offtopic

No, it IS the topic. [..]

Did you ever wonder why no one takes you serious?

They do. It's just you and other liberals that don't.
Laws of Nature wrote:
...deleted insults...
Yes, we can measure temperature of things.

Certainly you can, but you cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers. Apparently statistical math eludes you.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Facts are very helpful when it comes to science.

Not a bit of it. Science is set of theories, not facts.
Laws of Nature wrote:
People talk about science.
...deleted insult...

Yes they do. Perhaps you might someday if you ever leave your religion.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2019 17:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Laws of Nature wrote:I dont believe Svensmark created the sunspot dataset,

Why would you believe that it matters who actually fabricated the data? The conclusions are nevertheless invalid and are summarily dismissed.
[..]

It means your little conspiracy theory about Svensmark is incorrect.
He took a number of valid datasets and corrleated them.

Combining random numbers to produce random numbers doesn't mean anything.
Laws of Nature wrote:
You fail to point out any flaw with any measured value he used.

See the first article in the Data Mine. That's a good place to start. I know you're scared to look at it.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Tell me which one might be wrong, you are getting very boring.

He doesn't need to. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Laws of Nature wrote:
This let him to the conclusion, that if there is more than just a correlation, the sun has a way stronger influence on the global temperature, than the consensus models are assuming and he quantified this effect and gave potential pathways (falsifiable theories btw!).

Cosmic rays have nothing to do with the Sun. The theory is not falsifiable. There is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth, or what it would be if you somehow shut off the cosmic rays (since you can't shut off the cosmic rays).


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2019 19:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote: Did you ever wonder why no one takes you serious?

For just how many people do you pretend to speak?

Laws of Nature wrote:
You repeat yourself, but dont understand the world very well.
Just try to look into it..

That certainly involves a lot to know. The whole world? Personally I would need a few months just to master Tibetan monks.

Laws of Nature wrote: Yes, we can measure temperature of things.

He specified the earth. We cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. All we can do is trust science, estimate (guess) an emissivity for the planet and calculate an estimate (guess) of earth's temperature to whatever level of confidence our guess engenders ... but doing that would involve the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which precludes the silly notion of Greenhouse Effect and of Global Warming.

Laws of Nature wrote: Facts are very helpful when it comes to science.

Only a scientifically illiterate person would think that data and "facts" are somehow needed if you already have the science for a given application.


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
23-03-2019 01:43
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Clown I "We cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."
Clown II "You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."
I will call this the clown theory I, because "Science is set of theories, not facts." is clown theory II.
Or did you mean you statements as facts? You contradicting each other (and the real world)

Seriously guys, after your long posts devoid of anything related to Svensmark, you decided to write some longer posts.. may that will get you anywhere, right!?
"He doesn't need to [show any problem with the data sets used by Svensmark]."
Of course not, my bad, its a free world..
However, until he or anyone else does, it will simply stand, that there is nothing wrong with the data sets Svensmark used.
This is where we are at the moment.

P.S. Your view on my religion or potential fear of any post also has nothing to do with the discussion of Svensmark
23-03-2019 03:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote: However, until he or anyone else does, it will simply stand, that there is nothing wrong with the data sets Svensmark used.

... in your mind. You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish to believe. I respect your freedom to rationalize your religious proclivities any way you wish. You don't need anyone's approval.

Laws of Nature wrote: This is where we are at the moment.

Yes it is. Agreed.


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
23-03-2019 05:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1628)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Clown I "We cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."
Clown II "You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."
I will call this the clown theory I, because "Science is set of theories, not facts." is clown theory II.
Or did you mean you statements as facts? You contradicting each other (and the real world)

Seriously guys, after your long posts devoid of anything related to Svensmark, you decided to write some longer posts.. may that will get you anywhere, right!?
"He doesn't need to [show any problem with the data sets used by Svensmark]."
Of course not, my bad, its a free world..
However, until he or anyone else does, it will simply stand, that there is nothing wrong with the data sets Svensmark used.
This is where we are at the moment.

P.S. Your view on my religion or potential fear of any post also has nothing to do with the discussion of Svensmark


No contradiction here. Each statement is entirely true and each stament supports the other. Try looking at it this way...

Into The Night: We cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."....because....
IBDaMann:"You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."

Maybe you can tell us how average global temps are accurately measured within and what margin of error. I see them as estimates and guesses, which makes them random numbers. How is this wrong?
Edited on 23-03-2019 06:04
23-03-2019 14:44
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
One way to do it requires 18 probes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

And you get relative error bars of about 30% for the decadal trends.
23-03-2019 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Clown I "We cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."
Clown II "You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."
I will call this the clown theory I, because "Science is set of theories, not facts." is clown theory II.
Or did you mean you statements as facts? You contradicting each other (and the real world)

There is no contradiction. Ignoring mathematics by calling it 'clown theory' is just denying mathematics.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Seriously guys, after your long posts devoid of anything related to Svensmark, you decided to write some longer posts.. may that will get you anywhere, right!?
"He doesn't need to [show any problem with the data sets used by Svensmark]."
Of course not, my bad, its a free world..

No, you are attempting to force a negative proof. That's a fallacy, dude.
Laws of Nature wrote:
However, until he or anyone else does, it will simply stand, that there is nothing wrong with the data sets Svensmark used.

Assertion fallacy. He has no data sets. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and it is not possible to measure any effect cosmic rays have upon the temperature of the Earth.
Laws of Nature wrote:
This is where we are at the moment.

Same place as before. You are simply declaring this 'data' to be valid. That doesn't make it valid. See the first article of the Data Mine for how to determine if data is acceptable or not.
Laws of Nature wrote:
P.S. Your view on my religion or potential fear of any post also has nothing to do with the discussion of Svensmark

It has everything to do with it.

You are member of the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2019 18:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
One way to do it requires 18 probes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

And you get relative error bars of about 30% for the decadal trends.


Measuring the temperature is an instantaneous measurement. The value can change literally within seconds. There is no trend if you can't measure the temperature in the first place.

Eighteen thermometers spread over the surface of the Earth means one thermometer for every 11 million square miles. That's like one thermometer in Seattle can tell you what the temperature is in Miami.

Did you know that temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile?


Apparently you have NO concept of statistical math.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2019 23:33
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
You should become a politic clown! It is amazing how fast you can change your point of view!
Are you still talking theory or have you entered real science with facts yet?
>> The value can change literally within seconds.
Why and more importantly how would the global temperature perform such a miracle?
This time I am really interested in hearing your theory.. you are highly amusing.. for a clown.
23-03-2019 23:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote: Why and more importantly how would the global temperature perform such a miracle?

I saw that!

I saw you move the goalposts while you had everyone's attention focused on eighteen individual thermometers. Coincidentally I just happened to be watching your other hand and I saw the sleight.

You're good, I'll give you that.

So your argument concerning the eighteen thermometers fell apart fast, and so you then asked why the average global temperature would change, which it wouldn't. We should take a poll and see how many people you actually fooled.


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
24-03-2019 00:58
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Hmm, so the global temperature does not change within seconds.. is this now a fact or still a theory?
May I recommend, that you two stay at unspecific rambling about number theory, rather than actually discuss scientific facts!? It seems too easy to make you look silly too fast..
"You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."
All it takes is that these 18 thermometers average over a large area of the surface each time they measure... oh guess what.... that is what they are doing..
Hmm strange, that real scientist seem so far ahead of you two geniuses!
I still vote that you are just misunderstood by people!
24-03-2019 04:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote: Hmm, so the global temperature does not change within seconds.. is this now a fact or still a theory?

I'm tempted to start calling you "Logarithm of Nature" because you are completely nonlinear.

Svensmark is playing a joke on his target audience, i.e. the scientifically illiterate and the gullible. What did he do/say that got you hooked? I really want to know. Work with me, let's perfect that secret ourselves and then let's open a hedge fund.

Laws of Nature wrote: All it takes is that these 18 thermometers average over a large area of the surface each time they measure... oh guess what.... that is what they are doing..

What have you been led to believe is the margin of error for this "measurement"?


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
24-03-2019 09:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Hmm, so the global temperature does not change within seconds..

Irrelevant.
Laws of Nature wrote:
is this now a fact or still a theory?

Neither.
Laws of Nature wrote:
May I recommend, that you two stay at unspecific rambling about number theory, rather than actually discuss scientific facts!?

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There is simply a fact, or there is not. A fact is not a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
Laws of Nature wrote:
"You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers."
All it takes is that these 18 thermometers average over a large area of the surface each time they measure... oh guess what.... that is what they are doing..

Already addressed. Argument of the stone. Argument by repetition.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 03:14
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
"Irrelevant... Neither... Already addressed."
Is that Clown-speak for saying incorrect things earlier adn not manning up?

Clown: "There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact."
Wrong again!
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/scientific%20fact
You really dont get anything right do you?

>> What have you been led to believe is the margin of error for this "measurement"?
You seem to have a short memory.. I wrote
"One way to do it requires 18 probes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

And you get relative error bars of about 30% for the decadal trends."

Clown "Already addressed."
What does that mean? None of you could say anything factual or theoretical against any of the data sets, and thus they stand! And you can stomp your foot and yell irrelevant things all you want, this is not how science works.. it only exposes your lack of knowledge and understanding.
25-03-2019 19:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Laws of Nature wrote:
"Irrelevant... Neither... Already addressed."
Is that Clown-speak for saying incorrect things earlier adn not manning up?

Clown: "There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact."
Wrong again!
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/scientific%20fact
You really dont get anything right do you?

Webster defines a 'scientific fact' as an observation that is repeated until it is accepted as True.

There are Christians that have repeatedly observed that their prayers are answered. Thus, by this definition, Christianity is science.

Believers of the god Apollo have repeatedly observed his chariot rising into the sky each morning. Thus, by this definition, the Greek gods, including Apollo, are science.

Webster is not a science book or a philosophy book. Don't use it as one. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There are facts, or there are none. There is nothing 'scientific' about any fact. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation is not a part of science at all. It is incorporated into no theory of science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology, which is why they are not a proof. They are evidence only.

Yes. Webster is wrong. Not the first time. They are ignoring philosophy in providing this 'definition'. Dictionaries don't define words. That is not their purpose. No dictionary owns any word.

Laws of Nature wrote:
>> What have you been led to believe is the margin of error for this "measurement"?
You seem to have a short memory.. I wrote
"One way to do it requires 18 probes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

And you get relative error bars of about 30% for the decadal trends."

Clown "Already addressed."
What does that mean?

I already described the math errors you are making.
Laws of Nature wrote:
None of you could say anything factual or theoretical against any of the data sets,
Already did.
Laws of Nature wrote:
and thus they stand!

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Laws of Nature wrote:
And you can stomp your foot and yell irrelevant things all you want, this is not how science works.

Science isn't here. You are ignoring math this time.
Laws of Nature wrote:
it only exposes your lack of knowledge and understanding.

Inversion fallacy. You are simply projecting your own illiteracy onto others.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Into the Night wrote: There are Christians that have repeatedly observed that their prayers are answered. Thus, by this definition, Christianity is science.

I knew it!

Into the Night wrote:Believers of the god Apollo have repeatedly observed his chariot rising into the sky each morning. Thus, by this definition, the Greek gods, including Apollo, are science.

Yes! I knew it!

Wait, next you're going to tell me that Global Warming is science too, right?

I knew it!

Wait! Is science ... well, you know ... science? I'm dubious about anything that has that Stefan-Boltzmann conjecture that they say only applies to theoretical perfect things.


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
28-03-2019 13:25
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Many words in summary:
Me: "None of you could say anything factual or theoretical against any of the data sets,"
Clown: "Already did."
Me "and thus they stand!"

Exactly, you said nothing of relevance! Just some rambling and wrong things!
28-03-2019 16:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Many words in summary:
Me: "None of you could say anything factual or theoretical against any of the data sets,"
Clown: "Already did."
Me "and thus they stand!"

Exactly, you said nothing of relevance! Just some rambling and wrong things!

You miss the point. There is nothing wrong with any dataset. All problems lie in the conclusions that are drawn from data. Yes, we talk about data being bad or invalid, but really what are bad or invalid are conclusions that are not supported by valid data.

You should be asking "how are the conclusions bad?" and not "how are the data bad?"


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 1 of 212>





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