Thank you for some sanity. My sister @Juicyjessie and I were discussing what we believe was another similar question from this lady. You cannot, it appears, convince her that global warming is happening, whatever the cause.
Learn logic. It helps.Logic is greater than science since science depends upon valid reasoning in order to function.It is CONTINGENT upon it.75% of your post is an argument from authority. It provides no bearing on whether or not your claim is true. ZERODefining what climate science is, is also not an argument.Just because something is a science does not mean what that science discovers is automatically valid. If that was the cause there would be no such thing as superseded scientific theory.Your argumentation is a JOKE.Your last paragraph is simply stating an argument from assertion. Its a hilarious fallacy that undermines your entire post.The same predictions that are coming from your "global warming" has been repeatedly documented to be FALSE.Smart people are those who dismiss theories whose predictions are repeatedly demonstrated to be false.It's a little thing in science called FALSIFICATION.This idea that scientific ideas have never been falsified is awesome.I bet you still believe in alchemy.FYI Climate scientists have made studies to prove other climate scientist predictions, FALSE.http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/apr/a3.php I bet you believe everything any doctor says. He's a doctor, he must be right.Getting 2nd opinions are foolish!HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
@dogbert444 No one cannot, it appears convince either of you that your delusions are false.Pointing out someone is closed minded is not only unproductive, its not an argument.
Yes, young lady, you have a lot to learn...Including about logic.
Yes, old lady, you have a lot to learn about logic and science.Difference is, what you did again is just make an assertion without evidence.My previous post already demonstrated your lack of understanding of both science and logic.My rebuttal demonstrated your claim that i dont understand science is FALSE.Your recent comment is tantamount to saying "nuh uh".
Since apparently making claims without evidence is a valid form of argumentation...You are a 56 year old incel, man living in his mothers basement who obviously believes the world is flat.I don't need any evidence though.#logic.
Since you think that my argument is coming by appealing to authority, fine. I am the authority.'Here it is:A greenhouse gas is any gas which has three or more molecules.Yes, water is a greenhouse gas.Over 99% of Earth's atmosphere is composed of nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), argon (Ar). None of these are greenhouse gases because N2 has two atoms, O2 has two atoms, and Ar is a noble gas meaning it has only the one atom.The more atoms a molecule has, then the more bonds it will have - the more it will be capable of storing energy.On any planet anywhere in the universe, there ultimately comes something called a heat balance. The light from that planet's sun penetrates the planet with some of it bouncing back into space, but the rest of it becoming heat as it is absorbed by the molecules of all the things on the planet. However, ultimately, that heat energy is re-radiated back into space. So, overall the amount of energy that falls on the planet is also the same that goes back into space.(more)
But the problem is that the atmosphere is like a blanket. Light is composed of high frequency photons so it is easy to penetrate the atmosphere, but heat is low frequency photons that can be absorbed by certain molecules more easily... and the more bonds a molecule has, the more it can absorb those heat photons and cause the molecules to wiggle or move faster (that is, have higher kinetic energy) and pass on some of that energy as it collides with other molecules.Since temperature of anything is the measure of the average kinetic energy of its molecules, this means that the absorbed heat is raising the temperature.So, what is happening is that the heat balance is slowly changing. Energy that should be radiating into space is being retained and that is causing the world's overall temperature to slowly increase.That's the physics of it in layman's terms.If you want me to explain it further, you need to take a class in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and learn things like the Equipartition Theorem and Maxwellian Distributions. Do you know these things? I do. To people like me who understand these things, global warming is as intuitive as arithmetic.
I forgot to mention a key part...The reason that the heat balance is slowly changing and causing warming is that we are steadily adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - gases with extra bonds and thus can retain extra energy.
"Equipartition Theorem and Maxwellian Distributions" sounds good but they are not really relevant here on this macroscopic scale. Your theoretical arsenal seeks to kill a fly with a cannon. I think the asker nailed it when she pointed out that your argument is about credentials while you still are missing the causal effect proof in fact. That always remains the missing link in this.
@Passinggas Actually, they are relevant because that is how the energy is redistributed across Earth.
There is no climatologist that will attempt to model the entire earth’s atmosphere using microscopic idealized gas model statistics because a full 3D simulation mesh would crash. Higher level approximations are required to make it run in practice. that's all
@Passinggas Look I am not going to have this conversation with a child.I have been studying physics for 40 years... back when you were swimming in your father's balls while he was playing with his Mighty Morphing Power Rangers.Think for a moment:A man who won a Nobel Prize in Chemisty 116 years ago was the first to predict exactly what has happened. In the intervening 11 decades, we who get paid to do STEM for a living overwhelmingly agree on what is happening.==========You need to understand something:I am 56 and will die soon. Global warming doesn't mean much to me.You are 20. You have about 70 more years on this planet.You will be living with the consequences of what is happening.You have a choice to make. You can:A. Accept the reality of what is happening and act accordinglyORB. Deny the reality of what is happening and live with the unfortunate consequences of your willful ignorance.As a human, I am merciful.Nature is not.It does not give a shit about you or your suffering or how rich or poor you are or what deity you worship or if you are a Republican or Democrat or whatever.It has mercilessly been trying to kill you since the day you were born.Nature is a Godzilla and you and I are just screaming citizens in Tokyo.So, if you wish to survive, you need to learn its ways. You can't defeat nature; you can only anticipate what it is going to do and then act in such a way that what it is going to do doesn't kill you.Learn this lesson because you are inheriting a world in which, if you do not, evolution will use its scythe accordingly.
"Look I am not going to have this conversation with a child." you just proved my point, diversionary.
@Passinggas May God have mercy on your soul.Nature will not.
Now that you have moved the goalposts to another hilarious faulty rebuttal... 1. All of that was nothing more than an explanation of what greenhouse gases are. Defining what something is does not prove that that something is real. I already refuted and pointed out that you simply defining what something is, IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Yet you do it again. Id say you debate like a 4 year old but that be insulting 4 year olds.I suppose you believe in leprechauns because someone can define them. They are usually depicted as little bearded men, wearing a coat and hat, who partake in mischief. They are solitary creatures who spend their time making and mending shoes and have a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.Therefore leprechauns exist? Learn logic.2. You use the term "global warming" which demonstrates you clearly dont know what you are talking about. Proof? A simple Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature.There is a preference to the term among the greatest minds of Climate scientists.Proof: climatecommunication.yale.edu/.../..._May_2014.pdfWhile it is still used in some scientific journals, it is for the most part an outdated and less accurate term. Any scientist who still uses it IMMEDIATELY loses credibility."I think climate change and global warming are used interchangeably," says Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (a name that, in squeezing the two terms together, notably drops warming). "When people talk about the general phenomenon of climate change, they assume the process of global warming." But he knows that scientists draw a distinction: "Since global warming has been well established, scientists have begun to focus more and more on other aspects of climate, necessitating the use of the more inclusive phrase climate change."
3. Your lack of logic betrays you AGAIN."I have been studying physics for 40 years"- This does not prove your claims are true. Appeal to authority AGAIN. It's completely irrelevant."A man who won a Nobel Prize in Chemisty 116 years ago' YAWN. There it is again. Don't argue who credentials, argue evidence. "A. Accept the reality of what is happening and act accordingly"Argument from assertion. The same fallacy you keep repeating.Saying something is reality does not demonstrate that it is in fact reality.Fail again.
I'd say you debate like a 4 year old, but that'd be insulting 4 year olds.Even after i have pointed out your failings in logic, you keep repeating the same fallacies i have pointed out.Can your brain even learn something? Anything? It does not seem that way or you wouldn't keep making the same logic errors after they have been pointed out to you.Also, you want to point out someone who, I guess, got one prediction correct. (which you also have not demonstrated)
Here are some of MANY predictions that the people who you are backing GOT WRONG. The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")
8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")I could be here all day showing the MANY MANY times they got it WRONG.Yet people like you keep believing in them.HA.
If someone pours water into a glass and makes a prediction that "it will turn red" and it doesn'tA rational person would go, hmm... maybe that theory is false.But not you, not you.Instead you go, Well MAYBE one day if they keep pouring that water, there will be sometime that it will turn red.In fact! You are so open minded that even after there are dozens and dozens of times that it does NOT turn red. And even after decades of predictions that it will turn red and it doesn't you keep hanging in there!I call people like you delusional gullible retards.But you be you.
Pro tips.1. Go back to school. 2. Pick up an introduction to logic book.3. Stop pretending you know anything about science.4. Stop pretending you know anything about climate.
You also might have done better if you had addressed the claims in the video and refuted them.can't expect "open minded people" like yourself to do that though. HA.
I bet you're one of those idiots who thinks the global cooling consensus during the 70's was a myth.
I also find it amusing that someone who hilariously and stupidly argues from authority would lie about their credentials in a poor manor.If you are going to lie about your credentials, you would at least lie and say you had a climate science degree.But alas i have someone acting like an expert in climate science who does not even have a climate science degree.HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
If you don't want to watch the video the argument goes that the recent increase in cosmic rays caused the recent warming instead of carbon dioxide by interacting with and heating up the atmosphere. The problem is that if this was true then we would expect the upper layers of the atmosphere to heat faster than the lower ones. What we observe is the upper layers cooling and this is to be expected from a greenhouse effect because the IR that is released from the Earths surface is trapped in the troposphere, preventing it from reaching the stratosphere and mesosphere thus cooling them. Now there is another indirect cause related to cosmic rays and that's the hypothetical increase in high altitude clouds. High altitude clouds have a net warming effect because even though they reflect as much sunlight as low altitude clouds, they absorb more IR but if this was the case then the upper troposphere would be warming the fastest. It is warming but not as fast as the lower troposphere. In short: she's full of shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator You were pretty good until your conclusion.I did not claim the video was "True".It was an example of how some climate science is false.In short: YOU are full of shit.
1. None of what you said refuted anything in that article.2. The fact that a particular field of science was "new" does not change wheter or not the scientific claims are accurate or not. To take your argument seriously would be to discredit science based upon its age. I bet you believe in this pre-bronze age theory called math. pfft.Every new theory regardless of the evidence should be discarded by default. BECAUSE ITS NEW? haaaaaa.
Climate scientists today NEVER say "if we continue as we are" nah. never. lol.
Evolution is false because it was published by darwin around the 1800s. Computers haven't even been inveted yet. Scientists were MORONS back then! haaaa
And you're wrong I found you. You think climate change is happening. you're delusional.
I like the hundreds of peer reviewed articles youve provided that clearly demonstrate those actions prevented those predictions. oh wait.
You know whats great? When climate wackjobs like yourself believe in a prediction and it fails 20 years from now? You can just say... "Well we have better computers now of course they were wrong!" Haha.
Scientists back in the 70s said the following "You know, these computers are really slow, and because its taking a while this data must be wrong" "I know, right! This dot matrix printer of mine is slow too, therefore whatever info it prints out must be false!" "Should we not make any predictions?" "Sure why not. Hell, i know well probably be wrong, but well lie and act like we know what were talking about!" "But when were found out to be liars what then?""Well blame it on these computers that we think are great now. Well tell them were going to be more accurate with better tech! This way we can keep our jobs!" horray!
You wasted 10 minutes searching online coming up with irrelevant information. The least you could have done is spent that 20 minutes actually refuting something. This is you: "Im going to write a rebuttal to the claim "Climate predictions are false". "See i proved it wrong by AGREEING they were wrong by pointing out their slow computers!" hah. good one.
Are you done?Are you suggesting we should still be using "two sheep and one sheep is three sheep" maths, or are things like calculus useful?Five of the predictions were from one man. Paul Ehrlich. He's given to exuberance, but got people's attention, so changes were made.You can't even be bothered to read the article you posted: "unless immediate action is taken", "if present trends continue", "If present trends continue".Darwin had the right idea, but he didn't know how traits were inherited, for example. A field of science that's a decade old is a lot less mature than one five or fifteen times older.Scientists today are beyond "if we continue as we are", it's now "even if we do these things..." (we're still f*cked).Predictions were less accurate without masses of data and powerful computers. Do you know what a computer was like in 1970? A single bit of memory was a small bead threaded on a matrix of wires, today you can get a trillion bits (or more) in the same amount of space.They were working with unbelievably less raw data, and with hypotheses just a few years old, and they made some mistakes. Most people, when they make a mistake, will admit it and move on.You won't, so I'm done.
It is YOU that is suggesting that "because they are using sheep their conclusions are false."Just because something is "useful" does not make it true, or accurate.I suppose a sheep hearder who wanted to find out how many sheep he had should have resorted to calculus, THAT would have been more useful at the time.HAAAAAAAAAAAAACalculus is bullshit because its too simple. Thats old school math.Its like basic physics which is similar to just basic calculus / formula memorization. Operator algebras is consistently ranked as one of the most difficult fields of mathematics to get into. Its clearly superior and therefore because its more advanced, calculus must be false.HAAAAAAAAAAA13 Were NOT made from one man. You lose.You can't even bother to make an argument without sounding like an idiot.The fact that certain things happened after the fact, does NOT prove that it prevented the predictions.Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X. Which is a logical fallacy. Epic fail.Gee, maybe if 100 people cork 120 cows asses that will stop the current climate change hesteria. That's a trend you know.HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANo. WRONG. Darwin could NOT have had the right idea. That was a long time ago. We didn't have a single computer back then! Do you even know how technologically limited we were? No cellphones at all!!!Yes. Because those computers were really old they were less accurate. As a matter of fact when people played pong and turned the joystick one way, it went in the opposite direction! They only fixed pong in 2018. Nobody could control it. It was a pointless game that no one could ever play.#sarcasm.Your mistake was making a bullshit post full of logical flaws.You didn't admit it, which makes you a hypocrite.
Pro tip: If you are going to try and rebuke a claim don't then agree with it and explain why its true.:)
Why do scientists even bother when they can just wait 200 years when were more advanced?You see, the problem with modern day failed predictions is its not 200 years from today. The problem with 200 years from now is that its not 400 years from then.In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U. K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U. K. Register.I know i know. The year 2000 is too old to be true.
The following is proof that Germany is being hit by lots and lots of cold climate. RECENTLYwww.thelocal.de/.../cold-snap-lows-of-20c-set-to-hit-germany-at-weekendwatchers.news/.../ “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”Spiegel, 1 April 2000"The mercury in Rotenburg in Lower Saxony lowered down to 2.9 ° C (37.2 º F) on July 4, 2019, breaking its all-time record temperature for July month. "What did the MODERN climate delusional morons you adore say about this?Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006“Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.“We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 20102010 is too old so you got me there. HA.
The author of the videos' inability to understand that virtually all the impact the cosmic ray fluctuations have are absorbed by the ionosphere doesn't show that climate science is false. Also, I didn't say because Y followed X, Y must have been caused by X, I gave evidence (pattern of warming across the atmosphere) that linked X to Y and I gave one scenario in which cosmic rays could theoretically cause warming but showed why that couldn't account for what we're experiencing today. Also, now you're cherry-picking.
@Ad_Quid_Orator What the video shows is some climate science is false. Also If you are going to strawman me, at least make a correct claim. That post hoc fallacy statement was not directed to you. In other words your claim that i said you said that IS FALSE. in short, you're full of shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Also, again, no cherry picking evidence.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I believe in things with evidence you should too.
By "some climate science" you mean a negligible part of it. You might as well say that "some aerospace engineering is flawed" because they don't factor in the relativistic effects of windspeed even though it's negligible at the velocities they're looking at. Nope, you're still full of shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Some climate science is still climate science. Your analogy is bullshit like everything else youve said. because it assumes FALSELY, once again, that no climate scientists are wrong in thier assertions. You yourself claimed that "most climate scientists dont" which implies some do.So nope, Im right, and you're full of shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Pro tip. if you're going to make an analogy, dont make a rediculously false one that proves how stupid you are.
No field of science is perfect but the individual posting this videos inability to understand energy balance across the atmosphere doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change is wrong or the conclusions drawn about it are unreliable. The analogy is elucidating the same principal: in any field of science there are going to be factors that play such a small roll in what you're studying that they can be ignored and the conclusions drawn will be the same; ergo it isn't a false analogy. And apparently your vocabulary is so limited that you're just going to keep using the same insult I used on you.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Ergo. Wrong again. Not incorporating something is in no way the same as a claim being false. To imply my position is arguing perfection is also a strawman. Ergo, you're an idiot. Ergo, your elucidation is bullshit. And apparently you're so dense you dont know the differece between a small vocabulary and mockery.Pro tip. If you're going to defend a position, try not admitting its flawed.haaaaaa
Well he tried to argue that it was false because they didn't incorporate cosmic ray forcing so in this case it is. Also you say:"Pro tip. If you're going to defend a position, try not admitting its flawed.haaaaaa" and you also say:"To imply my position is arguing perfection is also a strawman." LMAO you call me "dense" but you're just such an imbecile that you can't even put fourth a coherent argument without contradicting yourself.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Also its probably not a good idea to keep moving the goalposts. Whether or not something plays a "small roll" does not mean that thing is so small that it can't be false. ergo, making an analogy comparing it to a scenerio that "a theory is false because it lacks in something" IS FALSE. The video brings up a topic that YOU even agreed has proved to be a false. The scientists who assert this effects global temps (according to YOU) is FALSE. it is not a matter of "lacking" in something. its a matter of some scientists INCLUDE something and thaf something is wrong. Ergo, you're full of shit.
But really, arguing that because the theory of climate change can't yet explain everything that has been observed is like saying that evolution is wrong because we can't yet explain everything about this history of life on Earth. What's it like being in the same intellectual thought camp as creationists?
@Ad_Quid_Orator you're such an idiot that you can't even prove a contradiction even when you quote me.
If the data has shown that there is no correlation between the cosmic ray activity and temperature at the time scales we're looking at (it does) then it doesn't need to be incorporated into the models.
Except you admitted that you weren't arguing from a position of perfection (i. e. it was flawed) but said I was hurting my case by admitting that climate science wasn't perfect? I'm sorry that is a contradiction but you're too dumb to see it.
@Ad_Quid_Orator But really arguing that i said that any science needs to explain everything is yet another strawman. I dont know, whats it like to be even stupider that a creatard? I would wager the dumbest creatard has a higher iq than you.
Yeah, I'm done wasting my time with this internet crank.
You'd wager that but just like you'd wager that the video shows some fundamental flaw in climate science, you'd be wrong.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Telling someone they shouldn't undermine thier own position is NOT arguing their position needs to be perfect. Ergo, you're full of shit.
Actually she has shown amazing competence in the field of climate knowledge and may soon be Trump's director of mental instability.
@Red_Arrow LOL! I think you are right!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.Not. An. Argument.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I imagine you also believe in leprechauns. Calling anything a conspiracy theory is not an argument.That antibiotic resistant bacteria has been repeatedly demonstrated by the scientific community.journals.plos.org/.../journal.pbio.2003775.g001Your comment demonstrates how incredibly stupid you are.
Holy shit. 3 temperature records broken demonstrates that humans are the cause.Nice logic.Go back to school.
An idiot is someone who continues to believe in a theory that makes predictions that are consistently proven wrong.I. e. You.
So what is your explanation for polar ice melting? For the disappearance of that glacier that was reported in the news a few days ago?
I have no obligation to respond to a question that is created by you "moving the goalposts."If you are going to argue "because you can't answer it" Or "because you are scared" would be a hilarious argument from ignorance. So go ahead and argue that."Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument."
... and who mentioned humans being the cause? It doesn't matter who or what causes it.
Just to further prove how dumb you are... The answer is: weather changes. 1. Even if the ice completely went away and NEVER came back that would still not prove that man was the cause.2. Even during this year 2019 it has been going up and down. This idea that it is dropping and will continue to drop is FALSE.neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
What are your theories then? What do you think happens to all the CO and CO2 given off by the Amazon fires, and other conflagrations world wide? Do you understand how all greenhouse gases work? I admit that I am only a post grad research student, so my understanding may not be as good as yours. Still, in a few decades, none of us will be around to argue about it. Desert creep will be taking over the world.
I never mentioned man being the cause. YOU did.
It 100% matters who caused it. That's the entire basis from the majority of climate change alarmists are making. You must live under a rock.
Man being the cause is the entire point. Almost NOBODY who is a "climate denier" argues that there are changes in weather patterns.Arguing that you aren't bringing up man being the cause demonstrates that you know less than nothing about this topic.Or you're just being dishonest.
I understand how that C02 has differing effects on the environment. Many studies have shown that C02 is not only not harmful but BENEFICIAL to earth.The climate change prediction that increased atmospheric CO2 and resultant global warming would cause a greater frequency and stronger intensity of rainfall has long been a staple of CAGW doomsday alarmism.But has it proven to be true?A recent study, conducted for the northern India geographic region, found that the hypothesized significant impact on rainfall - due to CO2 emissions and global warming - is not evident. "In a test of this hypothesis, Kant (2018) examined the precipitation records of four major weather stations in Uttar Pradesh, India, namely Bareilly, Allahabad, Lucknow and Babatpur, over the period 1969 to 2014"..."In contrast to model predictions, Kant reports that "rainfall of different intensities in yearly, monthly, June-September (monsoon) [periods] for all the four stations is not statistically significant." Thus, it would appear that neither the CO2 rise nor the temperature increase of the past four-and-a-half decades was sufficient to drive changes in hourly rainfall intensity in northern India."Those stubborn facts just keep ruining the doomsday cult narrative.
What you are arguing appears to be the following: "Climate change deniers think extreme weather patterns never happen!"WRONG. They would have to be completely ignorant of OH I DONT KNOW. THE ICE AGE.Many of them bring up the ice age. That must mean they dont think extreme weather ever happens.Yeah, that must be it.
lol. except for the many that DO.I could list a shitload. Just to name one for now, Henrik Svensmark.
Still, most don't.
Most people believe in a god. therefore he does.I care about reality, not what most people say it is.
But there's a reason most don't take cosmic rays into account: because there's no evidence for a relationship between cosmic ray activity and the temperature. Even if there was, if it was cosmic rays, the upper layers of the atmosphere would be warming up faster than the lower ones but the upper layers are in fact cooling. So no you don't care about reality, you care about cherry picked facts that support your pre-formed conclusion.
As for clouds, they can both cool and warm the planet depending on the altitude. Low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect while high altitude clouds have a net warming effect because while they both reflect light, high altitude ones absorb more IR from the surface. So theoretically, cosmic rays would lead to increased high altitude cloud formation BUT if this is what was causing the world to warm the upper troposphere would be warming faster than the lower portion. The upper troposphere is warming but not as fast as the air near the Earths' surface.
You have no evidence that I "cherry picked" anything.Asserting that there are NO scientists that incorporate cosmic ray activity into their models is in fact YOU cherry picking.Learn what the cherry picking fallacy is next time." suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"LYING about existing scientists is by definition suppression.At no point did I deny or lie about your claims. IN FACT I AGREE with the bullshit of past climate scientists being wrong about their predictions. Why?THATS THE WHOLE POINT.You can keep believing in a scientific theory that is constantly proven wrong.You be you.Keep disregarding scientific falsification as if it means nothing.So, no, wrong, its YOU who does not care about reality. You live in your world of delusions and your ill conceived notions of how science works.
"But there's a reason most don't take cosmic rays into account:"Yes. because there's NO reason why those scientists believe as they do.#sarcasm.The majority of people having a reason to believe something does not make the reason or the thing they believe in true.
It is a whack job calling logical people whack jobs.
@Red_Arrow A whack job is someone who claims without evidence that someone in a video calls people whack jobs.
From the first minute or so, it's someone saying that none of the climate scientists check their maths. From the notes, it sounds like he's a solar physicist who's upset at not being counted as a climate scientist, and opining on a subject that's not his area of expertise.I'd be more to be more inclined to take it seriously had the name of the conference, and "Ben"'s full name were attached to it.
And if he didn't misspell the names of authors he refers to. Mathis, not Matthis, and I can't find a matching paper in 2017. I've wasted enough time on this.
Correction: I found it."Solar forcing for CMIP6 (v3.2)Katja Matthes, Bernd Funke, Monika E. Andersson, Luke Barnard, Jürg Beer, Paul Charbonneau, Mark A. Clilverd, Thierry Dudok de Wit, Margit Haberreiter, Aaron Hendry, Charles H. Jackman, Matthieu Kretzschmar, Tim Kruschke, Markus Kunze, Ulrike Langematz, Daniel R. Marsh, Amanda C. Maycock, Stergios Misios, Craig J. Rodger, Adam A. Scaife, Annika Seppälä, Ming Shangguan, Miriam Sinnhuber, Kleareti Tourpali, Ilya Usoskin, Max van de Kamp, Pekka T. Verronen, and Stefan Versick"https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/