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

Sorry but that's the way science works. To prove a hypothesis you have to disprove all other possible causes. That's the inconvenient truth. The AGW cult has not been approaching this as science. They try to prove their hypothesis correct while discounting all other possible causes of climate change and calling those that propose them tools of the oil industry. This is not science it's a fanatical movement of zealots. In science you assume your hypothesis is wrong until you find evidence to the contrary. The AGW so called scientist do just the opposite. Here's how real science works.

"A hypothesis is a testable prediction of what you think the results of a research study are likely to be. It is a statement about the relationship between two or more variables. In statistics, the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis.

A null hypothesis is a working hypothesis that is to be disproved by a statistical test in favour of the alternative hypothesis. Rather than trying to ‘prove’ your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – you have to ‘refute’ or ‘nullify’ the null hypothesis. You have to assume that your alternate hypothesis is wrong until you find evidence to the contrary.

Karl Popper said, ‘All swans are white cannot be proved true by any number of observations of white swan – we might have failed to spot a black swan somewhere – but it can be shown false by a single authentic sighting of a black swan. Scientific theories of this universal form, therefore, can never be conclusively verified, though it may be possible to falsify them.’

Popper’s idea about doing science is that you formulate a hypothesis, try to prove it wrong, and, from your results, formulate a new hypothesis. Why not try to prove it right? Because you can’t; you never know if there isn’t one more experiment that will prove it wrong.

Einstein said ‘A thousand scientists can’t prove me right, but one can prove me wrong’. We can’t prove a hypothesis but we can disprove it.

It is easier to disprove a hypothesis – it would take just one observation to refute the hypothesis, than it is to prove a hypothesis – it is impossible to test every possible outcome.

Science advances only through disproof.

Absolutely proving a hypothesis is impossible. As to prove something implies it can never be wrong. However, well-designed scientific experiments can allow researchers to strongly infer from empirical evidence that their hypothesis is correct.

There is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science."

 

No, it's not an assumption. There was ~300 ppm before the industrial revolution. 25% of the 400 ppm is from humans. At 500 ppm it will be 40%. Your 3% figure is deceptive because you implied that was the amount attributable to humans in the atmosphere. That's what bloggers do. The Watts Up With That blog got caught doing exactly what you just did. Now, I don't think there was anything fraudulent about it. I just think it was honest mistake.

 

The problem with any estimate is we have no way of knowing what the Earth's C02 level would be if we didn't exist. The only thing we can say with certainty is our contribution is infinitesimal. We also have no way of knowing what the climate would be if we didn't exist and our effect on it is in reality nothing but speculation.

 

You're totally misunderstanding. We are not proving a hypothesis here. We are trying to disprove it or falsify it. The null hypothesis you are looking for is "all warming is caused by nature". That's the default assumption or null hypothesis you want to consider. It's the "no difference" or null statement that relates to the fact that you are assuming there is no (or null) effect from all non-natural mechanisms you are test. It's also easily falsified because all you have to do is find one counter example. It's also a perfectly fine hypothesis.

Again, if I were to say "The Sun is the dominant contributor to climate change and the only way to prove it is to disprove all other options" you'd cry foul. That's an impossible statement to test because no matter how many options you disprove I'll throw another one at you infinitum. And what about the options that aren't even known yet. How do you even go about disproving those?

 

Now you are getting my point. It is the height of arrogance to assume we know everything that causes climate change and at best all we can do is disprove any known natural causes in an attempt to prove the AGW hypothesis. Sadly the so called scientist pushing AGW have failed to do even that and instead immediately dismiss all dissenting opinion and those that present them as shills for fossil fuel. Real scientist still debate the cause for the little ice age and even why it ended or if it has indeed ended. Anyone pretending to know for certain why the climate is doing what it's doing today is not a scientist they are a hack with a political agenda.

 

No one is saying we know everything. That's what you're trying to push with your "disprove everything first" approach. The primary hypothesis of AGW that "man is a significant contributor to the current warming" is really easy to falsify. All you have to do is present a convincing argument that one natural mechanisms is dominating the warming...just one. That is the hypothesis AGW is based on. Why can skeptics not find one convincing thing to falsify it? On the flip the other testable hypothesis "all warming is caused by nature" (which by the way I came up with...not you) is also easily falsified. And lo and behold when went searching for things to falsify it we found something interesting. That is the greenhouse gases and land use changes that humans are responsible for. And experiment after experiment cannot rule that out no matter how much experimentation happens. In fact, there is abundant evidence that says anthroprogenic effects match up with the warming with a reasonable margin of error. So what we have is a really convincing counter example to falsify "all warming is caused by nature" and we have nothing to falsify AGW...yet anyway. And the longer this goes on and the more evidence that is collected the harder it will be to falsify it. That's how theories evolve.

 

Not aware what falsifiability in science is?

 

I'm very aware of what it is.

 

This is where I think you go off the rails. A skeptic does not have to prove anything, it's the proponent of the hypothesis that has the burden of proof and he doesn't have to prove one of many natural phenomenon is causing our present climate, he has to prove it is not. The agw pushers don't make any effort to do this. Instead they try constantly to prove their hypothesis is correct and dismiss any evidence to the contrary as right wing denier fossil fuel financed propaganda.

 

Since you have not address a single statement I made, since you cannot tell what I do not know, since you cannot tell what I don't understand

I see another cult member reduced to pure trolling.

If you do not or do not understand any of my statement I can always try to tell and to explain.

That is the difference.

 

So I should not believe my eyes and see something else?

Is it your approach to the reality around you?

What is that that I should see and think about?

Where can I find it?

Is there in the IPCC report any note that it is not what the IPCC reporters see?

How do you know what they see?

The fifth time:

Does the sun warm the Earth in the night which is not shown (why?) in the report

 

I guess everyone thinks that the sun warms Earth.

I guess it is such a poor state of education or rather indoctrination now days.

When it is looks obvious to me that the sun does not warm the earth it looks obvious to 99.99% of people that it does.

That's why the GW hoax is possible.

That's why The IPCC posted such a bogus, illiterate and misleading picture.

Look:

The sun warms the earth.

The earth does a half spin and the infinite universe at absolute 0 Kelvin cools back down all what was warmed up .

And so 24/7.

Understand?

Atmosphere, no atmosphere, does not matter.

Understand?

No atmosphere - everything evaporates under the Sun and the Freezes at the breath of the absolute 0K (Kelvin) night.

Understand?

Absolute 0 is the the only one absolute physical value.

Kelvin is Lord of warming who gave it to us and who gave us the definition of temperature.

If you don't believe me that the Earth only cooling:

"1. There is at present in the material world a universal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy.


2. Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life or subject to the will of an animated creature.


3. Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been, or are to be performed, which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations going on at present in the material world are subject."

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html

(what he is saying is that Earth was too hot in the past and will be too cold in the future for us to live.

It only cools down).

Who is right, Kelvin or 243 Academies of sciences?

 

You just said in a recent post:
"The Sun does not warm the Erath."

Now how can we have a scientific discussion when you can't even get basic facts straight?

 

I know it may be confusing for so many.

I will try again.

Please take your mind off the vision of the reality given by IPCC, NASA and 184 academies of sciences.

The Earth is not flat; it is more like a globe:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj74anrhq3YAhWB4iYKHZTzDz8QjRwIBw&url=https://www.flipkart.com/thunderfit-original-globe-table-top-political-world/p/itmeqsgdst64ycbd&psig=AOvVaw0Y3C_endNb-RGOA4_6WzjR&ust=1514562421741781

And it is not standstill, it is revolving.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/mclass/jr/Day2/Day_Sol_Eq21_RevolvingEarth.gif&imgrefurl=https://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/mclass/jr/DayYear/TimeDay_TG.html&docid=zItx3mU9kNBJuM&tbnid=OtlLqKruMfTraM:&vet=10ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg..i&w=600&h=600&bih=759&biw=1536&q=earth globe day night spinning&ved=0ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=600&imgdii=5h8LCVHvjyEy2M:&vet=10ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg..i&w=600

See?

At any moment a part of it comes under the sun to get heat from the sun AND AT THE SAME MOMENT an exactly equal part goes away from the sun to give the same amount of heat away to the universe.

See?

You cannot calculate energy budget of the earth counting only heat incoming from the sun and not counting exactly the same amount of heat coming out from the earth at the same time.

I know it is very, very difficult, but try to get this concept that the earth, as any other planet, is not only warming by the sun but also is cooled by the infinite universe AT THE SAME TIME, no matter what is atmosphere if any.

(If the amount of coming out was even slightly (.001F per a year) less than coming in, the Earth would have warmed to 1000F over the last million years.

Obviously such a suggestion is a total absurd as everything else which comes from IPCC, NASA, NAS and 213 academies of science.)

I don’t know how to make it more simple, but let me know if there is still a confusion.

 

Since nobody else has made such a claim, so why are you pretending they did?

That is, why are you making up a fake story that NASA and every scientific academy uses a flat earth model?

 

I suppose if our planet did not have an atmosphere, could not radiate stored heat, lacked oceans and many other variables you could be partially correct. Alas....you are not.

 

Someone posted a diagram of the Earth's energy budget similar to what I have below (it might have even been this very diagram...I don't remember). Inquistor said that diagram shows the Sun shining 24 hours/day on a flat Earth. At first, I thought he was joking or just poking fun at the person who posted it. But no, he literally took that diagram to mean that the Earth is flat. I am so not sh*ting you either.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...t-to-be-dimming.521495/page-8#post-1068442004

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...t-to-be-dimming.521495/page-8#post-1068442037

 

So, the lesson we learn is that you can't tell the difference between an actual model and a very simplified diagram of an average.

That Trenberth diagram doesn't represent any particular spot on earth at any particular time. The various climate models calculate the numbers for every spot on a very round earth, very definitely taking into account day and night. That Trenberth diagram is then an average of the model output for every spot on earth, also averaged over time.

 

Sure. Solar input, cosmic ray absorption, and orbital stability. All of which are currently calculated as constant, unchanging values in models today. Then, factor in cloud propagation and albedo, and suddenly, the "warming" seems to vanish in the models. So, I'd say, there is a natural mechanism that is dominating the warming, poor methodology.

 

They're candidates for sure. But, they aren't convincing. The reason is that each of those predict that the Earth should be cooling right now. And yet...the Earth continues to warm.

I do agree that GCR's are not included in most general circulation models. The same can be said for Earth's orbital elements. There's probably still much to be learned about GCR's before we can include them. However, with Milankovich cycles they have been extensively studied and have been included in some models. The problem there is that those cycles work on extremely long time scales on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 or more years. These cycles are barely perceptible on time scales of decades. Also, research suggests that the link between orbital cycles and climate is actually closer to 100,000 years. The 10,000 year cycles don't seem to make any significant difference.

I disagree about solar. Solar irradiance is absolutely included in modeling. When it's excluded the models simulate the Earth descending into an ice in a matter of months.

Can you describe a theory/model that correctly predicts the global mean temperature behavior in regards to solar, GCRs, and orbital cycles? I'm not aware of any that have been successful. But there are tons of attempts that have failed. Refer to Easterbook and his long list of failures.

 

Found another religious believer to throw your knives at and to convert to your brand?

Have fun; no irony, no sarcasm meant.

 

You can learn no lessons.

No claim that the diagram accepted by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, IPCC, NASA, NAS and other 99% of scientists represents any particular spot on earth at any particular time was ever made.

1. The claim was made that all, with no exclusion, working theories and laws of natural sciences, all with no exclusion, inventions keeping our life interesting and desiring have been based on observation of phenomena either in nature or in a laboratory experiment.

2. The claim was made that “Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”. (The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 1: Atoms in Motion)

3. The claim was made that no attempt to conduct an experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy from the sun during the day than (the half of the process omitted in the diagram) it emits to the coldest, infinite in mass, Cosmos during the night was ever made, not even asked by anybody to be made. (Question: no experiment is required in physical sciences anymore???!!!)

(Comment: No attempt, no dollar spent while $billions have been already spent to combat this never observed, non-existing and thus no different from Flying Spaghetti Monster effect of CO2.)

The conclusion from the facts 1, 2, 3 was made: GW idea is absolutely sick, no different from Flying Spaghetti Monster under the bed idea.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, IPCC, NASA, NAS, 99% of scientists and you, please feel free to argue the facts one by one as they are stated and numbered for your convenience or, if you all have no arguments, to suggest another conclusion.

 

I suppose that is simply a question of our ability to describe those processes accurately in the models then. The dynamics that both suggest or project an expected outcome may generally be unreasonable. So, while we "think" we "know" something, that doesn't mean that effectively that we do, does it? And while we may "feel" that we are able to "accurately" describe these very dynamic and complex processes, that doesn't or shouldn't be interpreted as being comprehensive in any way.

 

Do you honestly believe we know every possible natural cause for climate change?