uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-10-2019, 15:06   #76
Registered User
Akrasia's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,500
Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
Your supposed consensus has been debunked numerous times. I can provide links
Provide the links please, and then find me a single reputable scientific body that agrees with your view on climate change

When you cant find one, then try to explain how the complete lack of disagreement amongst reputable scientific institutions on Mans role in causing climate change doesn't count as a consensus
Akrasia is online now  
28-10-2019, 16:03   #77
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,301
Just to clarify you call 15% a small, insignificant increase right ? That seems the basis of your drivel.

Please confirm.

Edit: Thats the CO2 levels when I was a lad (early 70s) and your figure quoted earlier. Its bang on a 15% increase, just want to confirm to I can add to the list.

Also while you are at it do you believe single element molecules like O2, N2 have no green house effect, the total greenhouse effect is from the combination of the greenhouse gases.

You also said earlier that CO2 is not poisonous, thats not strictly true (but not relevant to this debate) do you know its used to kill chicks in the poultry industry ?

Last edited by SlowBlowin; 28-10-2019 at 17:36.
SlowBlowin is offline  
28-10-2019, 18:29   #78
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
RE 4 - Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern have produced elaborate model calculations supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.
I'm comfortable reading original science papers. If you have any specific links I'd be happy to look. Otherwise I presume you mean this project (summary here, but there are thirty related papers, not all of them relevant. Further paper summary pdf here). Two of the more relevant papers would appear to be here and here (correct me if I'm wrong). The first one casts doubt on a set of UV variability satellite measurements, suggesting the data set is flawed. The second examines both the variability due to the 27 day solar rotation cycle, and the 11-year solar activity cycle. It finds the atmospheric temperature response to be "at the lowest boundary of previously reported values", with uncertainty as to whether the heating is external at all, or due to random internal atmospheric fluctuations. This is hardly a smoking gun.

But the most telling quote is from the project director:
Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.

In other words, whatever the effect of solar variability the project director himself says that it will only be a lesser signal on top of human-induced warming. I expect you must have more than this if you are seeking to replace anthropogenic CO2 as the primary explanation for warming. Happy to follow any other links you have.

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
Many solar variables contribute to the variance we see in temperature: distance, orbit cycles, axis tilt, magnetic fields, sunspots, solar wind, cosmic rays, the passage of earth through our galaxy, etc. Even though the total energy coming from the Sun is nearly constant, a) those tiny fluctuations can make a difference, and b) there are many other factors that can and do change.
Yes, but the ones that are to do with Earth's movement and its various nutations are well understood, as are their timescales. There is little doubt that orbital changes will eventually plunge us back into a glaciation, but that's not today's problem. If you've got links to how those other "tiny fluctuations can make a difference" and to the "many other factors", I am happy to follow them. Obviously I prefer peer-reviewed papers to mere assertions.

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
In particular, magnetic field changes can have significant influence on the shape of the jet stream, and that can influence cloud formation.
As before ... got any links?

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
Willie Soon, a solar physicist, showed that the tiny variations in incoming solar radiation can have a more direct effect on temperature than CO2 does, but it takes very sensitive measurements and careful analysis to see the signal. Willie and his team first did many months of inspecting data from weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere, throwing out spurious and made-up measurements, to put an accurate temperature picture together.

Then they plotted total solar irradiation (TSI) and found a very good first-order correlation, much better than with CO2. Their graph accurately shows the most recent cooling trend since 1998.
Then by all means, link me to that rather than your Swiss study which says the opposite. However, I note that Soon's methodology in other papers has had strips torn off it by other scientists, and he has collaborated with people like Viscount Monckton who I can provide links to on youtube telling barefaced lies about solar irradiance.

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
Not only do fluctuations in solar energy drive changes in climate, the oceans react to increases in solar energy by generating clouds that help regulate temperature. Since 2013, much research has been aimed at constructing a more accurate picture of past temperature/solar radiation correlation and developing a realistic solar-driven climate prediction model, taking the greenhouse effect into account.

Again this is all very vague. Are these your own assertions or do you have links to articles/papers?

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
Sunspots fluctuate in roughly 11-year cycles. It’s complicated, but in general these cycles show a moderate amount of correlation with temperature. The period of no sunspot activity 400 years ago corresponds to the Little Ice Age, when winters were significantly colder than they are today. The current cycle peaked in 2014. Solar experts speculate that the next cycle, which starts in 2020, will have fewer sunspots. If that turns out to be true, temperatures could be heading down, rather than up.

If you have seriously researched this then you must know that the correlation has been challenged, and the Little Ice Age is generally thought of as a regional rather than global phenomenon. Your own link suggests that the next solar minimum will be a blip compared to overall anthropogenic warming.

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
RE 5 - no more than the alarmist claim that manmade CO2 emissions are the primary driver of global climate change and increases in same are pushing us towards climate catastrophe.

The basic physics of CO2-induced warming is well understood. Less certain is the amount of amplification caused by feedbacks. Even less certain are the model predictions for future impact. I agree with you that predictions of catastrophe are overdone, but it doesn't mean we need to do somersaults to find alternate explanations. The denialist approach seems to be to simultaneously claim that little or no warming is occurring, that something over which we have no control is causing warming, and that climate policy makers are being alarmist. Those are all independent claims, each requiring its own evidence.

Originally Posted by Aretheymyfeet View Post
RE 6 - calling the substance that we exhale, plants require to survive and that forms the very basis of all organic life on earth a 'poison' is clearly ridiculous.
You used the word pollution in your last comment. Let's stick to that. And of course any substance, no matter how beneficial in the right contexts, can be harmful and polluting in the wrong ones.
ps200306 is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Remove Text Formatting

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Share Tweet