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

Empirical evidence is empirical evidence, even if it comes from a TV show. Especially since all they really did was demonstrate some well known principals anyway.

 

Did I say that? I said that NASA had it's mission changed under Obama a from space exploration to AGW verification.

 

If you do not accept evidence provided on the NASA website, no one will force you to do so.

 

There is no evidence there is just conclusion. Feel free to show me the evidence that man has warmed the planet. Copy and paste it,put it in bold.

 

You are literally quoting an article from almost 4 years ago before the warming picked up. And trends don't happen in straight lines, they happen in spurts and pauses. You only get this result when you cherry pick your range within 1998-2014. If you move even a little outside that range you get a lot of warming. You can't pick an arbitary starting and end point to get your pause you have look at several decades and draw a trend-line through them.

 

_Inquisitor_ said: ↑
So you agree with me that the IPCC model is the flat Earth model?

That the Sun does not shine on all Earth surface 24/7 as the IPCC flat Earth model imposes?

I don't think iamnonman will be any help to because I already tried many times to tell him that the Earth is not flat.

I know you did not.

Get familiar with the IPCC/NASA/NAS and other 140 academies of science belief that the Earth is flat and that Sun shines on it 24/7:

 

When these people have nothing to contribute to a discussion and only troll I send them away.

I don’t force them.

I know trolls don’t go away.

Go away.

 

I have no beliefs except one and it has no relation to the subject.

I am repeating again.

I do not deny that mountains of evidence exist.

I rather claim it does, that GW/CC is based on mountains of evidence.

I just point that GW/CC does not belong to natural sciences because natural sciences have no place empirical evidence and they are based on an experiment (observation of a phenomena) since 1687.

I just point that since it is based on empirical evidence GW/CC is a theology, religion, personal philosophy, cult.

I just point that the adepts of the cult see the Erath to be stand still flat with the Sun shining 24/7 on it.

I just point to the fact that they need no definition for terms they use while it is a must for natural sciences.

Like if I asked you asked you or any of them what is climate I would receive no answer.

Even theology does not avoid definitions.

GW/CC cult does.

I just point that they accept the fact that their cult is not based on an experiment and they see no need for it.

One of the proofs is that all they could find is Mythbusters mockery of an experiment.

Lol.

Mythbusters should be awarded Nobel Prize for dismantling laws of Thermodynamics.

Lol.

The correct earth energy budget:

T universe ←Q1 T earth surface ←Q2 T sun

↑

Q3

T earth core​

Q1=Q2+Q3

Source: any text book on thermodynamics (science of energy exchange and budgeting)

You can change the Earth atmosphere to 100% CO2, you can rip it off, it will have effect on the median Temperature of the Earth Surface.

Earth/Venus/Mars atmosphere is no heat source, no heat sink.

 

So does the theory that the sun warms the earth also "does not belong to natural sciences" and "is a theology, religion, personal philosophy, cult?" So what is the difference in evidence between this theory and the theory that water vapor warms the earth?

 

Hint: They aren't the trolls dude.

Yes, tell me about it.

 

The sun warming the earth isn’t a theory. AGW is an unfalsifiable hypothesis because the scientific method cannot apply.

 

You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that the sun warming the earth has scientific evidence? Do you believe water vapor warming the earth has scientific evidence? Do you believe CO2 warming the earth has scientific evidence? Can you provide the evidence?

I don't think you will be able to answer my question because you have a political agenda against CO2 even though it has the same evidence as other warming sources.

 

Incorrect and denying there is evidence only makes a person look like a science denier.

Still, even though I've posted the links several times before, here we go again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Global temperature rise

• 
  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 6

7
9


Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

15
4


Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

8


Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

10
11,12 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.13,14
Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

• In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
  

• National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
  
  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
  

• https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
  
  Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
  
  The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
  

• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
  
  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
  
  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

• https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/)
  
  

• Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
  

• L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
  
  R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
  
  http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  World Glacier Monitoring Service

• "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
  https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
  
  Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334
  
  Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.
  
  http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
  

• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

• C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
  

• Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
  
  http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
  
  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

 

It's definitely falsifiable. You just have to present a convincing argument explaining what natural mechanism is responsible for the bulk of the warming occurring.

 

First principles do not change the fact their is much disagreement in how they work in a non-linear chaotic system. It does not change the fact that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Now point out the politics in those facts.

 

If you understood what the scientific method is then you would know why it is unfalsifiable.

 

No, literally no one agrees with you. The IPCC does not advocate Flar Earth models. This Flat Earth gibberish is all yours.

The IPCC does not say that at all. Not even close. You're literally making stuff up right now.

 

So if you can't even present any reason in your worldview that the sun warms the earth then how do you expect others to present evidence that CO2 warms the earth? Any reason you present, I can give an analogous one for CO2.

 

Such ridiculous claims it is hard to have an intellectual discussion. The sun provides 99.99% of the energy to Earths oceans and atmosphere. CO2 provides no energy at all.

 

This is wrong. You fail to consider the hot core of the planet.

 

But how do you know the sun provides 99.99% of the earths energy, what evidence? Water vapor and CO2 may not provide energy but according to the scientists they trap the energy from the sun which warms the earth.

If you just assume the sun warm the earth but deny CO2 then this is being driven by a political agenda unless you have a logical basis for accepting the one over the other.

By the way, what evidence would convince you that CO2 is warming the earth? Do you believe that water vapor warms the earth?

 

The insulation in my house provides zero energy to my home. Yet without it my house would be colder. The insulation is trapping the energy I'm allowing into my home (via the burning of natural gas).

 

The remaining heat is minuscule compared to the sun. Ask yourself why it is so cold at depth if the Earth were providing any significant warmth.

 

You are the only one bringing up politics so one must assume that aspect is important to you.

 

You are so rational and scientific and trust science when its not about global warming.