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

Your point?

 

Do you believe the sun warms the earth?
Do you believe water vapor warms the earth?
Do you believe CO2 warms the earth?

 

It appears you are unaware of the varied disagreements and hypothesis in the scientific community. If one is to be rational one must be versed in all the science and not just the populist science.

 

The sun warms the Earth. Water vapor traps outgoing radiation but provides no energy. The outgoing energy equals the incoming energy. The hypothesis the CO2 is a temperature control knob which states that it alone cannot warm the Earth to the level claimed but requires water vapor as a multiplier is not a proven fact.

 

Currently the minor reduction in solar TSI equals all the other heat sources other than the sun. This is significant and one of the reasons solar scientists predict coming cooling.

 

We both understand that water vapor isn't an energy source, nobody here is dumb enough to claim that it is. But does it trap in heat and make the earth warmer?

 

Of course.

 

Disagreed about the scientific method not applying. There is something to be said about deductive reasoning. As Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

 

An hypothesis is not a known fact.

 

Awesome, I think you know where I am headed. If you increase the water vapor (humidity) wouldn't that strengthen the warming effect and make things warmer? Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas like water vapor?

 

Denial of facts is not scientific refutation of facts.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-to-be-dimming.521495/page-6#post-1068441491

Several years ago, on an employee forum, one of our far left members was ranting and raving in sync with Gore's recent movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I told him that, while there are a lot of important facts and concerns there, running around like Chicken Little would probably backfire on him and those like him. Sadly, I was correct. Now the entire situation has been so politicized on both sides, most people can't tell where the science ends and the bullshit begins.

 

Of course one of the problems in all of this, including the surface temperature record, are all of the known unknowns, spacial inconsistencies in the record, and lack of uniform coverage.

One thing so far is a lack of any trend in precipitation and measurable water vapor.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf

 

Still doesn’t change the fact an hypothesis is not a fact.

 

Correct. Now tell me all the evidence and conclusions in the NASA links are bullshit and that their science doesn't measure up to your standards....of political beliefs.

 

Again you return to politics. Not surprised.

 

That CO2 doesn't have to provide any energy at all for it to be responsible for the accumulation of heat in the lower atmosphere.

 

Despite what temperature records we have I think I have still made my point that increasing water vapor levels or CO2 levels will make temperatures higher than they would have been. Even if temperatures weren't going up that doesn't mean that increases in water vapor, CO2, or the sun isn't making temperatures higher than they would have been because without those increases the temperature would have been even lower.

 

Duplicate

 

Solar TSI has decreased. Solar activity has decreased allowing more cosmic rays to hit Earth which is turn increase clouds which regulate temperature. There is so much that is actually unknown that to state absolutes based on computer models that do not include the known unknowns and unknown unknowns that it is misguided to base policy on their output but that is exactly what is happening.

There is no trend in water vapor that is identified at this time.

 

Computer models are very powerful because they can go further than just applying scientific formulas and instead apply those formulas in very precise ways on mountains of data. For example if CO2 is responsible for 2 C of temperature and if we double CO2 then we can roughly estimate that temperature will go up by about 2 C +- a large margin of error. But with computer models we can make far more precise calculations about maybe where that warming will be, the general graph of how it will happen, and factoring other things as well. Even if they are not exactly right about how much warming they will be at least they will give us the general idea.

If computer models estimated that eating hamburgers every day will increase my weight by 23.6 lb by 2018 and try to factor in as much as possible at least they will give me the general idea that my weight will go up significantly.

 

GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. They model a planet, just not this one because they are incapable of it due to the unknowns and physical and mathematical limitations.

 

Must not I believe my own eyes like you do?

Look again:

 

You have not supported that claim with any evidence that they are using bad data. Computer models as you have guessed are only as good as the data they are based on. For example, I can very precisely use physics to predict how fast something will fall. I can even create a computer model to use those formulas and even better factor in things like friction, air current etc. The accuracy of our computer models on CO2 depend on how accurate our formulas are for predicting the heating of an area when CO2 is introduced to block heat.

 

Making a theory is not writing a fiction in natural sciences..

“This rule we must follow that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses" [argument from deduction]. - Newton. Scientific method.

 

As with predicting a falling object, if they were accurate they would only need one model.