[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Until you provide links to pert reviewed studies to support your claims, your arguments are not facts,

No, that is just more false, absurd, and disingenuous nonscience from you. You have just stated that before the Internet existed, there were never any facts. It's just silly, laughable, puerile noise.

They are not even theories.

I have identified a causal mechanism. Your claim that that is not a theory is just a bald falsehood.

At best, they are unsupported hypotheses.

Your claim is false. I have supported my statements with relevant facts of objective physical reality and identified their logical implications.

Global warming is a fact.

And I have explained how it happened.

Anthropogenic climate change is a well supported theory.

If you consider question-begging computer models, post hoc fallacies, censorship and suppression of dissenting views, and systematically falsified data more convincing than actual physical events.

[late]

No.

Since 1978, the sun has decreased its activity while the temperature on the Earth’s surface has increased dramatically.

This disproves the claim that solar activity is the cause of global warming.

And the Sun is going to send more energy our way this decade...

Gonna be lots of fun.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

None of that is evidence.

An example of evidence is the graph showing solar activity decreasing while temperature increases. That is evidence disproving your claim about solar activity driving global warming.

[Truth To Power]

This is NASA:

Why are you and NASA pretending that TSI is the only relevant index of solar activity when it is known not to be one at all?

You're lying or nuts, or both.

I'm not the one who is reliant on bogus and dishonest propaganda masquerading as "science."

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Please specify exactly what should be used to measure solar activity in order to see if it drives global warming.

Be clear and specific.

[Truth To Power]

No.

You will now prove you do not know any science:

Since 1978, the sun has decreased its activity while the temperature on the Earth’s surface has increased dramatically.

No, it hasn't. It has increased slightly.

This disproves the claim that solar activity is the cause of global warming.

I see. So, if the temperature in my house is 15C, and I turn the thermostat up to 25C, and when the temperature reaches 18C I turn the thermostat down to 23C, and the house then warms dramatically to 22C, then that disproves the claim that the thermostat caused the house to warm because the house continued to warm after I turned the thermostat down?

See how easily I prove you have no knowledge of science?

[late]

See how easily I prove you have no knowledge of science?

And the sun will get hotter this decade, making things worse...

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Please specify exactly what should be used to measure solar activity in order to see if it drives global warming.

Be clear and specific.

I'm not an expert on solar activity, but it would have to be a set of quantities that are known to correlate well with change in global temperature, not one that was chosen as the only permissible index of solar activity only after it was established that it didn't correlate well with change in global temperature.

[Truth To Power]

And the sun will get hotter this decade, making things worse...

It might. We don't know. But why would you think it would make things worse? So far, warmer climate has been making things better.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

None of that is evidence.

Yes it is.

An example of evidence is the graph showing solar activity decreasing while temperature increases. That is evidence disproving your claim about solar activity driving global warming.

No it isn't, as already explained. It uses the wrong index, and disingenuously restricts the period to remove the relationship.

[Pants-of-dog]

You will now prove you do not know any science:

No, it hasn't. It has increased slightly.

No.

Someone already presented evidence in this thread showing that solar activity has steadily decreased since then. You are now either deliberately ignoring evidence, or you did not read it, or you did not understand it.

I see. So, if the temperature in my house is 15C, and I turn the thermostat up to 25C, and when the temperature reaches 18C I turn the thermostat down to 23C, and the house then warms dramatically to 22C, then that disproves the claim that the thermostat caused the house to warm because the house continued to warm after I turned the thermostat down?

See how easily I prove you have no knowledge of science?

Your thermostat did not cause the house to warm. Your furnace did. This is like arguing that you watch TV on your remote control.

And since you have no evidence for your claim about solar activity, and the evidence we do have disproves your claim, there is no more to say.

I'm not an expert on solar activity, but it would have to be a set of quantities that are known to correlate well with change in global temperature, not one that was chosen as the only permissible index of solar activity only after it was established that it didn't correlate well with change in global temperature.

So you have no evidence and are only speculating. This means that yor argument about solar activity is mere speculation.

Yes it is.

No it isn't, as already explained. It uses the wrong index, and disingenuously restricts the period to remove the relationship.

You can not even tell us what the right index is, so you are clearly just speculating and have no real knowledge.

[Steve_American]

I'm not an expert on solar activity, but it [it = any measure of solar activity] would have to be a set of quantities that are known to correlate well with change in global temperature, not one that was chosen as the only permissible index of solar activity only after it was established that it didn't correlate well with change in global temperature.

Lurkers, again TtP shows his true colors and methods.
He will only accept a measure of solar activity is the right one to use only after it is shown to correlate well with the known changes in global temps.
This is a perfect example of throwing out all evidence that he doesn't want to use and only using evidence that supports his theory of the cause of the known thing being investigated.
This alone should be enough for most Lurkers to ignore him.

However, there is another way TtP has shown his true colors.
In a reply to me near the bottom of the last page here, he asserted that whatever he asserts is "evidence" that he is right in making that assertion. While also asserting that whatever I and others assert is not evidence because (he thinks) we are wrong.
People, we here are like people in a debate club. TtP and I & other posters are like the students who are up front doing the debate, while you Lurkers are like the audience and the judges. Over centuries the rules of debate clubs have been found to work in that context. One of those rules is that the students up front must provide evidence with sources for what they say.
What TtP is asserting is like a very lazy student getting up front and just reviewing his reading on the subject of the debate. When asked by a judge about 'evidence', he just asserts that every word he says up there "is evidence". This, of course, is not allowed under the club's rules. Now, do you, the Lurkers, accept that TtP is equivalent to an expert witness in a courtroom testifying in his area of expertise?

BTW --- one other thing Lurkers ---
On the last page there were several images of a graph of time across the bottom and a red line with temp changes from 0 at 1880 and a yellow line with a measure of solar activity.
The graph of the temps is fine, because we can clearly understand the temp scale at the right.
However, the graph of the solar activity is not OK. The problem is that it makes it look like solar activity could be driving the temps, if the yellow line was going up instead of down as it moves to the right.
This may be true, or it may not be true. It would be true if, and only if, the energy actually reaching the Earth is sufficient to be doing that amount of heating. The graph, by itself, provides no evidence to support that claim. My expert sources [DR, Britt, whose talk I provided a link to on this site recently] said in that talk that the changes in solar activity are just noise. He went on, saying that the effect they have on the changes in the Earth's temps is hidden by the width of the line on his graph.
I can show you what this means with a thought example. If I change the scale on the left of the given above graph I can make the yellow line be almost a straight line at a slight angle from horizontal with all the waviness you see hidden in the width of the yellow line, or by changing the scale the other way I can make the the yellow line wildly move up and down from the top of the page to off the page at the bottom. It all depends on the scale used for the solar activity.
. . . It is possible that the scale you see for the solar activity was chosen to dramatically show that recently the red and yellow have diverged. Shown as a lot with the scale chosen.
. . . Again, my expert, Dr. Britt, said that solar activity has almost no effect on the heating of the Earth compared to the effect of CO2 being added to the air by humans. BTW, he also said in the same talk that the CO2 from volcanoes has been studied and also is very small compared to the CO2 being added by humans, despite the 1 large eruption that is known, and that did effect the temps for a year or so.
.

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, again TtP shows his true colors and methods.
He will only accept a measure of solar activity is the right one to use only after it is shown to correlate well with the known changes in global temps.

Right. Because that is a relationship instead of a non-relationship. Science can't do anything with non-relationships, only relationships. See how that works?

This is a perfect example of throwing out all evidence that he doesn't want to use and only using evidence that supports his theory of the cause of the known thing being investigated.
This alone should be enough for most Lurkers to ignore him.

Incredible. You obviously have no idea how science works. None.

In a reply to me near the bottom of the last page here, he asserted that whatever he asserts is "evidence" that he is right in making that assertion.

I said no such thing.

While also asserting that whatever I and others assert is not evidence because (he thinks) we are wrong.

Evidence that I prove wrong is not evidence. Obviously.

People, we here are like people in a debate club. TtP and I & other posters are like the students who are up front doing the debate, while you Lurkers are like the audience and the judges. Over centuries the rules of debate clubs have been found to work in that context. One of those rules is that the students up front must provide evidence with sources for what they say.

No it isn't.

What TtP is asserting is like a very lazy student getting up front and just reviewing his reading on the subject of the debate. When asked by a judge about 'evidence', he just asserts that every word he says up there "is evidence". This, of course, is not allowed under the club's rules. Now, do you, the Lurkers, accept that TtP is equivalent to an expert witness in a courtroom testifying in his area of expertise?

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. I never said that every word I say is evidence, you simply made that up. What I said was that the facts I identify are evidence. Which they are.

This may be true, or it may not be true. It would be true if, and only if, the energy actually reaching the Earth is sufficient to be doing that amount of heating. The graph, by itself, provides no evidence to support that claim. My expert sources [DR, Britt, whose talk I provided a link to on this site recently] said in that talk that the changes in solar activity are just noise.

He was lying.

He went on, saying that the effect they have on the changes in the Earth's temps is hidden by the width of the line on his graph.

That was also a lie on his part.

. . . Again, my expert, Dr. Britt, said that solar activity has almost no effect on the heating of the Earth compared to the effect of CO2 being added to the air by humans.

He's a liar. Temperature has much more effect on CO2 than CO2 has on temperature.

[Steve_American]

Right. Because that is a relationship instead of a non-relationship. Science can't do anything with non-relationships, only relationships. See how that works?

Incredible. You obviously have no idea how science works. None.

I said no such thing.

Evidence that I prove wrong is not evidence. Obviously.

No it isn't.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. I never said that every word I say is evidence, you simply made that up. What I said was that the facts I identify are evidence. Which they are.

He was lying.

That was also a lie on his part.

He's a liar. Temperature has much more effect on CO2 than CO2 has on temperature.

Well, it is too soon to post my last post to show he is wrong.
I'll just suggest that the Lurkers go back to the post he quoted to see better the exchanges. This site snips all of what TtP had said that I was referring to. So, you will need to read what he said, then what I replied, and then his reply here.
TtP may not have used those exact words, but that is what he meant.

Also, supposedly disproved evidence is still evidence. At least until you grok the disproof for yourself. If you can't grok the disproof, it is likely that the disproof fails to be a real disproof.
.

[Truth To Power]

No.

Yes.

Someone already presented evidence in this thread showing that solar activity has steadily decreased since then.

It has declined, but not steadily.

You are now either deliberately ignoring evidence, or you did not read it, or you did not understand it.

No. I already proved you are the one who is ignoring evidence or does not understand it.

Your thermostat did not cause the house to warm. Your furnace did.

That is a disingenuous quibble, and you are just being deliberately obtuse, as is your wont. The point is that turning the thermostat DOWN still resulted in the house heating UP as long as the house was cooler than the thermostat setting, just as solar activity stronger than the Holocene average but lower than the multi-millennium high of the 20th century still resulted in warming as long as the recovery from the chill of the LIA to more normal Holocene temperatures was incomplete.

This is like arguing that you watch TV on your remote control.

No it isn't. See above.

I am going to explain this in terms you will understand, even though I know you will pretend not to. I'll use round numbers for temperature. Let's say at the end of the LIA 200ya, temperature was 2C below Holocene average because of the previous 500y period of low solar activity. Solar activity then increased to more typical Holocene levels, and temperature increased by 1C over the next 100y, leaving it still 1C below the Holocene average. Then in the early 20th C, solar activity increased to a multi-millennium high that, if sustained, would have resulted in temperatures 1C above the Holocene average. By ~1960, when solar activity peaked, temperature had increased another 0.5C -- but was still 0.5C below the Holocene average. Solar activity then declined from the multi-millennium high back to Holocene normal by the early 21st century, but this declining solar activity nevertheless still caused temperature to increase up to Holocene normal because temperature had not yet fully recovered from the LIA low.

I would like lurkers to understand that this explains why temperature increased even while solar activity declined: it's a simple matter of thermal inertia. PoD will now pretend that he does not understand this explanation, or will offer some sort of disingenuous quibble. I invite you to judge for yourself who is interested in understanding climate and who is interested in deceiving you.

And since you have no evidence for your claim about solar activity,

False:

and the evidence we do have disproves your claim,

False:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 21GL093047

there is no more to say.

Well then, I trust you will say it.

So you have no evidence and are only speculating.

Disproved above.

This means that yor argument about solar activity is mere speculation.

Disproved above.

You can not even tell us what the right index is, so you are clearly just speculating and have no real knowledge.

No, that's just false. I don't have to be able to tell you what the right index is to know that TSI is a wrong index, just as I don't have to know what the right inflation index is to know that the CPI is a wrong index.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

It has declined, but not steadily.

No. I already proved you are the one who is ignoring evidence or does not understand it.

That is a disingenuous quibble, and you are just being deliberately obtuse, as is your wont. The point is that turning the thermostat DOWN still resulted in the house heating UP as long as the house was cooler than the thermostat setting, just as solar activity stronger than the Holocene average but lower than the multi-millennium high of the 20th century still resulted in warming as long as the recovery from the chill of the LIA to more normal Holocene temperatures was incomplete.

No it isn't. See above.

I am going to explain this in terms you will understand, even though I know you will pretend not to. I'll use round numbers for temperature. Let's say at the end of the LIA 200ya, temperature was 2C below Holocene average because of the previous 500y period of low solar activity. Solar activity then increased to more typical Holocene levels, and temperature increased by 1C over the next 100y, leaving it still 1C below the Holocene average. Then in the early 20th C, solar activity increased to a multi-millennium high that, if sustained, would have resulted in temperatures 1C above the Holocene average. By ~1960, when solar activity peaked, temperature had increased another 0.5C -- but was still 0.5C below the Holocene average. Solar activity then declined from the multi-millennium high back to Holocene normal by the early 21st century, but this declining solar activity nevertheless still caused temperature to increase up to Holocene normal because temperature had not yet fully recovered from the LIA low.

I would like lurkers to understand that this explains why temperature increased even while solar activity declined: it's a simple matter of thermal inertia. PoD will now pretend that he does not understand this explanation, or will offer some sort of disingenuous quibble. I invite you to judge for yourself who is interested in understanding climate and who is interested in deceiving you.

False:


False:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 21GL093047

Well then, I trust you will say it.

Disproved above.

Disproved above.

No, that's just false. I don't have to be able to tell you what the right index is to know that TSI is a wrong index, just as I don't have to know what the right inflation index is to know that the CPI is a wrong index.

Either quote the relevant text or this is yet another evidence free post of yours.

Edit:

From your second link:

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

Note that the bolded phrases explicitly support my claim. Note that increased solar activity is not mentioned as a cause of the observed warming.

[Truth To Power]

Either quote the relevant text or this is yet another evidence free post of yours.

The titles alone prove your claim that I have no evidence for my views was a bald fabrication.

From your second link:

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

Yes, they know they have to genuflect to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria in order to be considered for publication.

Note that the bolded phrases explicitly support my claim.

They most certainly do not.

Note that increased solar activity is not mentioned as a cause of the observed warming.

In that paragraph. Are you really claiming that unless solar activity is mentioned in every paragraph, the paper is not evidence that it is the dominant factor in recent climate change??

[Truth To Power]

Someone already presented evidence in this thread showing that solar activity has steadily decreased since then.

I repeat:

I am going to explain this in terms you will understand, even though I know you will pretend not to. I'll use round numbers for temperature. Let's say at the end of the LIA 200ya, temperature was 2C below Holocene average because of the previous 500y period of low solar activity. Solar activity then increased to more typical Holocene levels, and temperature increased by 1C over the next 100y, leaving it still 1C below the Holocene average. Then in the early 20th C, solar activity increased to a multi-millennium high that, if sustained, would have resulted in temperatures 1C above the Holocene average. By ~1960, when solar activity peaked, temperature had increased another 0.5C -- but was still 0.5C below the Holocene average. Solar activity then declined from the multi-millennium high back to Holocene normal by the early 21st century, but this declining solar activity nevertheless still caused temperature to increase up to Holocene normal because temperature had not yet fully recovered from the LIA low.

Do you or do you not understand that the above explanation conclusively refutes your claim that decreasing solar activity accompanied by increasing temperature disproves the link between temperature and solar activity?

I would like lurkers to understand that the above explanation explains why temperature increased even while solar activity declined: it's a simple matter of thermal inertia. PoD will now pretend that he does not understand this explanation, or will offer some sort of disingenuous quibble. [Note: I forgot his other habitual tactic, which he has now adopted: ignoring it]

I invite you to judge for yourself who is interested in understanding climate and who is interested in deceiving you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Since you have no evidence, your arguments and rebuttals are mere assertions and do not deserve any intelligent criticism.

Happy Hallowe’en!

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Since you have no evidence,

I have posted evidence, and there is lots more. No amount of blank denialism on your part can ever alter that fact.

your arguments and rebuttals are mere assertions

No, they are assertions of facts. That is what makes them evidence.

and do not deserve any intelligent criticism.

They certainly haven't had any, and I'm betting they won't.

I repeat:

I am going to explain this in terms you will understand, even though I know you will pretend not to. I'll use round numbers for temperature. Let's say at the end of the LIA 200ya, temperature was 2C below Holocene average because of the previous 500y period of low solar activity. Solar activity then increased to more typical Holocene levels, and temperature increased by 1C over the next 100y, leaving it still 1C below the Holocene average. Then in the early 20th C, solar activity increased to a multi-millennium high that, if sustained, would have resulted in temperatures 1C above the Holocene average. By ~1960, when solar activity peaked, temperature had increased another 0.5C -- but was still 0.5C below the Holocene average. Solar activity then declined from the multi-millennium high back to Holocene normal by the early 21st century, but this declining solar activity nevertheless still caused temperature to increase up to Holocene normal because temperature had not yet fully recovered from the LIA low.

Do you or do you not understand that the above explanation conclusively refutes your claim that decreasing solar activity accompanied by increasing temperature disproves the link between temperature and solar activity?

I would like lurkers to understand that the above explanation explains why temperature increased even while solar activity declined: it's a simple matter of thermal inertia. PoD will now pretend that he does not understand this explanation, or will offer some sort of disingenuous quibble. [Note: I forgot his other habitual tactic, which he has now adopted: ignoring it because he has realized it proves him wrong.]

I invite you to judge for yourself who is interested in understanding climate and who is mainly interested in deceiving you.