/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8546470
>>The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy etc.
>The sun's output has not changed much and can't explain the observed warming.
This statement is based on a cherry-picking of sources. There are a number of papers which show that there is a high variability in solar fluctuations. Pic related.

>>8094294
Nonsense. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that show high solar variability in the recent past. Pic related (magnify to get references). NASA chooses to only look at papers the show low variability.

>>7749697
Don't forget children, we pretend that only weakly varying solar influence exists.

Whatever you do, don't look behind that curtain (or at that pic) and see all those papers that demonstrate strongly varying solar influence.

>>7732217
>Your reliance on this "uncorrected" data only proves that you are unwilling to accept that scientists adapt their views as new methods of analysis and data arise. Solar irradiance has peaks at 1960 and 1980. The "uncorrected" graph here >>7730379 (You) has peaks at around 1950 and 1990, with no corresponding peaks in solar irradiance. The "uncorrected" graph here >>7730375 (You) has a peak at around 1940, with no corresponding peaks in solar irradiance.

Adapt =/= tamper. The temperature tampering is naive at best. And you're confounding the discussion between temperature tampering and solar influence. So let's talk about solar influence. You keep insisting that only solar luminosity; accounted for in an essentially linear way is the only possible explanation of what is going on (other than anthropogenic CO2). Then with that simple-minded, and false assumption, you go "therefore humans must have caused it." That's as absurd an argument as "gosh don't know how the universe got here, therefore God caused it!" Completely anti-scientific.

And then you show papers vetted by warmist reviewers who never publish anything else. Am I supposed to be impressed? A bit of honesty would acknowledge that some interpret solar variation as being much larger. That significant variation coupled with ocean oscillations explains the majority of recent variance; arguments from ignorance and paid shills be damned. Pic related. And why do you refused to think of other influences on the climate like cosmic rays; or do you deny the CERN research?

In the end, you have an argument from ignorance, backed up by an unfalsifiable dogma. And certainly not a science.

>>7621515
As usual, NASA/UN IPCC cherry-picked their data. Pic related. Low solar activity data is on the right; high solar activity data is on the left. That data is completely ignored because it does not fit the narrative.

See: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/solar-activity/Hoyt-Schatten.pdf

and for a summary: http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Nicola-Scafetta-def.pdf