Why is the climate changing. (Page 17)

kittybobo34: We know that the world was this warm once before durring Roman times, but little was noted about how it affected the environment then,.
Other than the Vikings settling Greenland for a while.

theHating: okay, what i see is that the debate about the science has ended among the professional skeptics. AGW is very complex, like evolution, and not every farmer and insurance salesman may understand the data the same way a climatologist would. i know for a fact no one here is a climate scientist, just like all the proponents for creationism are not career paleontologists. there is definitely a disconnection between the public debate and what is actually being debated by scientists and it is when certain interests are threatened by the implications of AGW that they so fiercely attempt to misinform the public.

and so, just like with evolution, even though i know im no expert, i do understand enough of AGW and know that there are some things scientists desire more data on, but the observations of aggregated data are done under the most scrutiny, and it is simply not fair to reduce well-known facts such as the effect of co2 in earth's greenhouse effect to contrived fallacies. the problem i have with liars is a) i know they are lying and b) my own ignorance or idiosyncrasies prevent me from proving it. the latter is what people like anthony watts prey on.

so, here i thought ghost was claiming the current levels of co2 wont have as big an effect like what the specialists say because they dont really know how the greenhouse effect works on earth, probably they dont study it enough or are conspiring to misinform. and then the idea that the sun is really what has the biggest influence on earths climate. well, that still begs the question of why do the glaciers continue to melt.

well, i plan on reading the IPCC, seems pretty straightforward, even has some pictures to keep my attention for longer that 5 seconds, plus i think if other laymen can understand it, being that it was written for and at the request of politicians around the world for varying reasons. anthony watts may thing it's a hard-to-read document for the laymen, but maybe he IS a layman considering he thinks "trick" in the context of data yield for experiments or determining "pdf" or even the mechanics of a supercomputer simulation means something nefarious and disingenuous.. so, maybe we should let the weathermen predict weather, and the climatology will continue to model the intensity of said weather.

im not saying anthony watts doesnt know how to do his own job, im saying he knows how to be clever with the narrative he presents using cherry-picked fragments of AGGREGATE data to distort the publics understanding of science and it is causing people to lose lots of trust in the institutions that are responsible for promoting and developinh knowledge, and instead putting that trust into the establishment that is responsible for making money from a population of misinformed consumers.

theHating: but if the argument against the science of AGW has been reduced to "sorry, but academia brainwashed you", then that is a pretty lousy argument.

theHating: the greenhouse effect is well-known, well-studied, and im sorry, but anthony watts is wrong, co2 is well represented in climate models, contrary to what watts may claim, and the sky is blue, contrary to what dogs may claim.

take it away, arnold!

theHating: whats crazy, is when you try to think about how big the earth is, soooo big that it makes people think its flat even today. the earth is huge, amd what is so crazy is how humans have managed to create an imbalance in something that is so big and largely independent of humans for its existence.

theHating: and that other weird idea that we should burn more fossil fuels, its like if you took your kid to the store and he tells you he doesnt like broccoli, and in fact broccoli is found to cause cancer, well needless to say, that kid will be eating his vitamins one way or another, but if he thinks candy is a good source of food long term, he is mistakenly wrong.

co2 is water soluble, which means it is absorbed into the ocean without much resistance. this affects ocean ecosystems and creates a feedback which has a given probability of disaster based on current levels and rates of pollution.

POLLUTE MORE! oh yes, nevermind the effects of acid rain, co2 isnt the only thing man pollutes the planet with, and im sure those gases follow the same logic being that at least one of them eventually decays into co2 (methane if im not mistaken) because it will help the emergency care industry recoup some of the losses they got thanks to obamacare, right? how? well, thanks to all this extra plant-saving not-pollution-instead-beneficial various kinds of aerosol, namely co2 and sulfer, the entire populace is now contracting asthma and other respiratory diseases and this brings business to the healthcare industry that we so desperately dont want to subsidize. no, instead lets subsidize the development of the science, but worry about the cost of its implications? -- some other generation can ponder that once we're dead and awol from the cult of culture

ghostgeek: Ever visited the demon site? I seem to remember somebody saying that it was funded by the oil companies. They must be very stingy because the site asks for donations.

ghostgeek: Now back to the plant food, a.k.a. CO2. No one is denying it's a greenhouse gas but many people do wonder why it's being demonised. After all, the sun is the most active it's been for thousands of years and the little ice age ended around 1860, so its natural to expect the planet to warm up. Yes, CO2 may have been rising during the same period but that doesn't necessarily establish a causal link with rising temperature. There could be an alternative explanation for the temperature increase. Actually, there is an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation, one that should be considered if Climate Change is more than a secular religion.

ghostgeek: In how many branches of science, other than in climate science, is debate actively discouraged? Open any popular scientific magazine and you'll see that new discoveries are being made all the time and old theories are being overturned. This is science. The debate never ends. Climate science should be no exception.

ghostgeek: The mechanism by which cosmic rays induce cloud formation has been established experimentally. The link between the activity of the sun and the level of cosmic rays entering the earth's atmosphere has also been established. This is real science, not political grandstanding.

theHating: yes, i have visited the site you linked me wattsupwiththat.com. thats how i found out about his funding ties. the heartland institute was one source of funding for anthony watts discredited propaganda, specifically some temperature data and thermometer data. the heartland institute calls itself a conservative/libertarian thinktank. if you were reading, i never cited with any certainty an oil interest that directly funded watts, smh. and if you know what the heartland institute does versus what they say they are about, you would see they are about protecting corporate interests, which oil and fracking is the top of their list. .....

lol, alt-facts for greenhouse effect, pretty lame argument, you dont understand the greenhouse effect, im not sure you understand co2 is opaque to IR, but thats okay, because nothing is stopping you from studying it right from the horse's mouth: anthony watts, whom does understand the greenhouse effect, but in his attempt to discredit it with alt-facts, 1) fails to reckon with 100 years of peer review and experimentation on the greenhouse effect. he does this by citing a couple of what he calls "failed experiments", in particular, some co2/photon experiment with bill nye and some other person i can't recall, but in any event the guy is a hack. 2) he makes some off the cuff remark about co2 opacity in just a certain fraction of the IR bandwidth, this flies in the face of what is observed in science, that being co2 is opaque to nearly 100% of the IR bandwidth. 3) he conflates risk assessment with the actual scientific understanding of the behavior of co2. he does this by cherry-picking some quotes made by scientists from working group 2 of IPCC that were tasked with assessing what is called "pdf". pdf, though i forget what the acronym stands for, is a set of key data based on scenarios of emission rates, and what they do is aggregate data, simulate it on a supercomputer and adjust the rates of emission in the sim to produce a prediction of climate events. but that is where the doomsday claims come from, the risk assessment end of AGW.

here is an analogy, a weatherman takes in aggregate data to assess the possibility for rain on Thursday afternoon. when he looks at all of his data, he will then make a prediction, say 80% chance of rain and thunderstorms.

what AGW model does is account for the human part of the climate change, being co2 pollution, deforestation, some agri-business.

there are plenty of skeptics, scienctists are professional skeptics, but there are none among the climatologists who think co2 somehow only does so much, saturates, gets offset by some other negative feedback cycle we dont yet understand... et cetera, the skeptics in the media are circular. creationists, climate change denialists, and people who think cigarettes dont cause cancer all have one thing in common for sure: they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the science.

my recommendation is study it. dont get sucked into propaganda and alternative facts if you have no excuse not to study it.

theHating: you know what, ghost, you are wrong

the moon is what is causing global warming, we need to launch something at it or get rid of it somehow or we aren't gunna make it to tgi fridays for beers and pong next week

kittybobo34: The thing is we are putting out co2 at a rate that is unprecidented. , closest thing to it would be millions of years ago when a whole series of Siberian volcanoes when off. The warming then was severe.
Most of the climate cooling and warming, other than that is due to the Milankovich cycles, and we are on the warming side of that cycle too.

kittybobo34:

ghostgeek: There seems to be a disagreement between many astrophysicists, nuclear physicists and related scientists on one side and most climate scientists on the other side. The astrophysicists tend to believe that the Solar and galactic cosmic rays are important to determine the cloud formation and therefore the climate on the Earth. The climate scientists usually believe that the main driver of the climate is something completely different.

[ https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/cern-to-create-cloud-with-cosmic-rays.html ]

ghostgeek: Many arguments have appeared in literature that indicate that the cosmic rays matter. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen of Denmark have argued in 1997 that the cloudiness between 1987 and 1990 declined by 3 percent or so, just like the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth; the original driver of the cosmic rays intensity were the fluctuating sunspots. This argument has been extended to longer periods of time.

Also, Nir Shaviv, who has a blog, and Ján Veizer - a Slovak-Canadian emeritus professor - have argued that the ice ages in the last millions of years may have been correlated with the motion of the Solar system through the galactic arms which caused variations in the cosmic ray flux. The general mechanism is always the same: higher amount of cosmic rays is supposed to create a higher amount of clouds which should cool the Earth.

[ https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/cern-to-create-cloud-with-cosmic-rays.html ]

kittybobo34: The cosmic ray thing to me is rediculous. Cosmic rays are always streaming through us to little or no effect plus there is no way to determine what the past rates were.

ghostgeek: Scafetta and West (Geophysical Research Letters) find a significant correlation between the pre-industrial temperatures and the total solar irradiation - unexplainable by existing climate models - and estimate the contribution of the Sun to the 20th century warming as 50%.

[ https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/cern-to-create-cloud-with-cosmic-rays.html ]

kittybobo34: the Milancovitch cycles match perfectly the regular cycles of ice ages and warm periods.

ghostgeek: Take a look at the CLOUD experiment.

... In the latest work, published in Science, researchers built a global model of aerosol formation using CLOUD-measured nucleation rates involving sulphuric acid, ammonia, ions and organic compounds. Although sulphuric acid has long been known to be important for nucleation, the results show for the first time that observed concentrations of particles throughout the atmosphere can be explained only if additional molecules - organic compounds or ammonia - participate in nucleation. The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.

[ https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions ]

ghostgeek: An interesting result.

theHating: wow, you need to get this CERN video to the scientists, i really think you're on to something

theHating: why do you suppose cosmic rays don't affect the climate significantly?

theHating: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

There are a number of issues which really make the A&G paper poor in my view. One is the neglect in addressing old criticisms of the hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) change our climate by modulating clouds (see here, here, & here). Svensmark is very vague on the lack of any trend in GCR or other solar proxies since 1952. I confronted him about this question on an European Geophysical Society (EGS) conference in Nice a few years ago, and have since published a paper also making the point. The A&G article makes selective references, without answering the serious criticism forwarded by Damon & Laut (2004), Laut (2003), or myself. To be fair, the critical paper by Kristjansson and Kristiansen (2000) is cited, albeit only to say that Svensmarks’s own conclusion is “a counter-intuitive finding for some critics“. The remaining treatment of critical aspects is completed in the A&G article without further qualifications other than the following passage (my emphasis):

The chief objection to the idea that cosmic rays influence cloudiness came from meteorologists who insisted that there was no mechanism by which they could do so. On the other hand, some atmospheric physicists concluded that observation and theory had failed to account satisfactorily for the origin of aerosol particles without which water is unable is unable to condense to make clouds.

theHating: Abstract
The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number
of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, 1rst total cloud cover and then only low clouds,
and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the
scienti1c as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed
a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support
solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by
an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading
character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want
to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing
the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My 1ndings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such
links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention
to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly re9ect the underlying physical data.

c 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solar activity; Solar cycle lengths; Cloud cover; Galactic cosmic rays; Global warming