What he did was "cherry pick". He removed what he thinks are numbers that prove global warming is caused by the sun or cosmic rays and throws them out onto the table with no explanation how he rendered his conclusion. Then you parrot what he says. Once again all I ask is that either of you take the numbers you throw out, and explain how they back your proposition because with due respect to Jack Hays has presented a graph out of context of its study and tries to redefine what it must conclude to back his position global warming is not man made. As for you, you have more than proven in your responses you are not hear to debate as you say, just name call.
Maybe you need to review what you quote because I did and like many found his postulations clearly defective and I directly respond to your pulling the graph you did to assert the sun not man made activities is the reason we have the global warming we are talking about: https://skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark By the way your arbitrary claim that anything Svensmark said before 2017 can not be disputed I would argue most certaintly can i.e., https://www.realclimate.org/index.p...imatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/ Please explain why it can not. Also let me be direct and as clear as possible in repudiating Svensmark et al: "The academic reputation of the field of Sun-climate relations is poor because many studies do not address all, or even some of, the limitations listed above. It is also a field that in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming. In particular, figures and statistics with known errors, limitations and inaccuracies are repeatedly reproduced on the Internet and in the media (as discussed, for example, by Damon and Laut 2004), and publications are reported in a massively selective manner. None of this makes any difference to the scientific reality, or otherwise, of mechanisms connecting solar variability and Earth’s climate; however, it does make evaluation of the evidence much more difficult. Recent reviews have been presented by Reid (2000), Rind (2002), Haigh (2003, 2007), Beer (2006), Foukal et al. (2006), de Jager (2008), Gray et al. (2010) and Lockwood (2004, 2010, 2012)." The above comes from :https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3 which in fact is a thorough review repudiating what Svensmark and Shaviv postulate. So please don't assume I haven't reviewed. I just read more than one source. If you want assume I already know which scientists or authors you will rely on and can respond to them please do not. While there are not that many to respond to with due respect I listen to you and try find things to directly respond to your positions to show respect not be contrary. I appreciate your efforts and welcome them. Thank you.
Ahem. 1. Cosmic rays promote cooling, not warming, by increasing cloud formation. 2. The basis of Shaviv's thesis that the Sun was responsible for approximately half of 20th century warming is to be found here: Ziskin, S., Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50, 762–776, (2012). local version (not paywalled)
I did not say that anything Svensmark produced before 2017 cannot be disputed. I said critiques before 2017 have been rendered obsolete by subsequent research. There's quite a difference. I will leave aside the likely bad faith and purposeful misconstruing in those earlier critiques because that would send us on an unproductive tangent. And again, the current state of the question is well reviewed here: Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF).
all you do is cherry pick what a firms your religious beliefs. I am not interested in converting you I don't think it's possible. Me attempting to give you evidence that you will simply reject out of hand as biased or Cherry picked is useless so I won't do it. Believe whatever you wish I don't care I blatantly told you I wasn't here to debate with you. It is fruitless you wish to believe in this religion that's fine. I haven't called you any names. But feel free to cry about it.
I've already explained the issues with the "Earth's temperature is _____" claims... Such data collection methods have not eliminated location and time biases, and such biases can't be "adjusted for" after the fact... That's just making schiff up...
When you made this post in late June there was a heatwave here in the northeast of the USA in addition to the heatwave in the southwest. Where were you that you missed it? I solemnly state that there must be a curse that whenever a righty denies climate change a heatwave appears. Just like whenever a lefty holds a climate summit it snows. If we could all come together we could control the weather!
And despite it, you survived. You saw a fast rise in temperature for a long enough time to call it a wave yet you did not perish. Folks there is your evidence we will survive. We will strip down to T shirts but we will make it out alive.
Really? That surprises me - which journal was this critique published in? Now if you knew about climate change drivers you would be aware that climate scientists DO a factor in solar output https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html This is now dated but updates are currently being written meanwhile there is published research on this https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1298/1/012019/meta https://www.pnas.org/content/114/12/E2285.short https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/19/jcli-d-18-0134.1.xml Even undergraduates are learning about it https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11067 There are even some predicting a solar minima https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/ And those saying it may not happen https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/10
And there it shows that some still struggle with logical fallacies I called it a strawman because no one was predicting that members death
Well since this is my cut and pasted comment, what the hell are you talking about? Factually my remark is he survived. I did not say anybody predicted his death. And despite it, you survived. You saw a fast rise in temperature for a long enough time to call it a wave yet you did not perish. Folks there is your evidence we will survive. We will strip down to T shirts but we will make it out alive.
