The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

Thanks for the display of opinion about those that understand science and don’t buy into the alarmist hype. It is instructive.

 

`
`
If the sun is dimming then we'll need to wear sunglasses less often
`

 

Great. Too bad you completely disregard all the NASA data in favor of a political view. No problem. You don't give a **** about the future, I realize that I can't do anything about it.

Meanwhile, my retirement plans are formulating around this concept:


Although my truck will have a flatbed for welding gear.

 

LOL. It'll be a few billion years before it dims that much...after its become a red giant and smoked the Earth into a cinder.

 

The error in your opinion is that data is sometimes also opinion in that the raw record is not what you see but an amalgam of opinion what it should be based on so many issues with the record. AGW itself is also opinion since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis based on flawed computer models and the least case worst scenario is trotted out to scare you into backing more government control, just like the CIA conclusion about global cooling in 1974.

 

That all sounds nice, but the fact remains you disagree with NASA and the data provided on the multiple links they offer on the subject. Why do you think they are lying and why do you think NASA not only let's these lies exist on their webpages but continues to spend millions launching climate satellites and monitoring them?

 

this is true to an extent, like an anti-smoker, they believe they are right, thus willing to only accept evidence that support their view thinking any contrary evidence might dissuade people from believing what that they know to be true - if the truth is on their side, which it may be, they need to stick to the facts, and research needs to be funded for all avenues, not just those that point to the conclusion of the message they want sent, and even if a result goes counter to their views, they need to release them as new data is always good, regardless where it leads us

 

It's evidence that modern Republicans are acting more like Democrats by putting emotion over logic and less like the Goldwater Republicans I grew up admiring. Personally, I believe the change came when Reagan made a deal with the devil in the form of Jerry Falwell and his "Christian Coalition". May he rot in Hell.

 

Were they right in the 70’s about cooling? The actual satellite record is extremely short and you would think NASA would rely on the best data but they ignore the USCRN system built for surface temperatures and the satellite record which covers most of the Earth unlike the problematic surface/ocean record they trot out.

 

Yet what are you swayed by other than appeal to authority and the hype around the political dogma.

 

The current research shows they weren't. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater smart or supremely stupid?

 

I'm swayed by scientific fact. Please cite where I'm swayed by "the hype around the political dogma" since I'm the one supporting the scientific data supplied by NASA, and not just on their climate pages, all of it. You, OTOH, pick and choose which pages you accept based upon your political beliefs.

Let's consider this: What is wrong with considering there could be a problem? You say there's absolutely no problem at all, that it's all made up. Based on what? Political rhetoric? You and I both know it's not NASA and, since you haven't cited any scientific sources, it's difficult to see how you are basing your conclusion that there are no problems, no risk at all.

 

For one your previous posts #183 show this is about politics for you. You ignore any and all inconvenient science for the political dogma.

 

Nice of you to take it out of context, but I can see why you want to dodge the hard questions. No worries. You are free to believe that dumping toxic waste in a stream is good because it doesn't affect you. Since you don't see the farms and ranches 100 miles downstream who are harmed by your actions, they don't exist in your mind. Rational people, however, do understand that actions have consequences. That to ignore a problem doesn't make it go away. Just because the vast majority of AGW problems won't manifest themselves until the next century doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means it won't affect you or I. If you need to assuage your guilt by ignoring it, that's your choice. My choice is the Serenity Prayer.

 

LOL, the usual tactic. If you don’t believe the dogma you just want to poison people. It is a vapid argument used to silence anything that does not fit the belief system.

 

Believe as you wish. No one can change your mind for you.

 

Belief isn’t my issue.

 

Nor mine. Which of us continually posts links to reputable scientific organizations and which only posts opinion and accusations?

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm






Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Less energy is escaping to space: Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time.

Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)



The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.





Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.





Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Addendum: the opening paragraph was added on 24th October 2013 in response to a criticism by Graeme, a participant on the Coursera Climate Literacy course. He pointed out that the rebuttal did not make explicit that it was man-made CO2 causing the warming, which the new paragraph makes clear. The statement "...and humans are adding more CO2all the time" was also added to the 'what the science says section.

 

Data has been manipulated to find warming again.

"In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

So now the cult actually questions if the sun warms the earth? Hilarious!

 

Kindly put in bold the part or parts you consider "evidence".

 

Sorry, too early for me to keep chasing your constantly moving goal posts. Is there any doubt that no matter how many quotes I list or bold that you'll never accept the scientific data and conclusions from NASA?

 

Bwahahahaha! Linking to the failed cartoonists communication project alarmist blog (UN)Skeptical Science. Priceless.

 

My goal post hasn't moved an inch. From the beginning I've asked for evidence and all I get is opinion and conclusion. Show me the evidence that man is significantly warming the planet. It would also be helpful if you told me what the climate would be like today as opposed to what it is if man hadn't warmed the planet. Any real evidence should be able to tell us that with precision.

 

If you choose to believe the NASA evidence is "fake news" or only opinion, no one will be able to change your mind.