• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sun Is Going Dim

Russell797 said:
Except that you can't site even one. The 'one' Einstein is referring to is convincing evidence which FORCES a change in thinking..
Click to expand...

Einstein was referring to the Nazi-sponsored anti-Einstein tract "One Hundred Against Einstein."

I already cited Nir Shaviv's presentation at Cambridge, and today I started a thread on Henrik Svensmark's and Shaviv's new paper, which takes dead aim at AGW orthodoxy.
 
Now I can say I attended a Circle Jerk....thanks...
 
LowDown said:
NASA data shows that the sun is getting progressively more dim. It's now at it's lowest ebb in 37 years of observation in terms of radiance. This appears to correlate with low sun spot numbers.

Climate science dogma would be to slap a linear extrapolation on the trend and predict that the sun will go out in 20,400 years.
Click to expand...

Actually, if true, climate science just got a huge boost. I wonder if you can figure out why. :roll:
 
Russell797 said:
The error is on your part in taking an unsubstantiated hypothesis as evidence of something...It is not.
Click to expand...

Heh heh.

H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
The paper is here http://www.nature.com/ncomms
[h=3]Abstract:[/h]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
H. Svensmark 1, M.B. Enghoff 1, N.J. Shaviv2 & J. Svensmark1,3
Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under present atmospheric conditions the growth rate from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth rate. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.
 
blackjack50 said:
Religious right winger here. I believe in climate change. Just figured I’d let you know.
Click to expand...

You are an anomaly. Only about 25% of right wing conservatives accept the scientific consensus, and none, as in zero of those in Congress apparently do..They vote as a block to reject the science.
 
Jack Hays said:
Heh heh.

H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
The paper is here http://www.nature.com/ncomms
[h=3]Abstract:[/h]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
H. Svensmark 1, M.B. Enghoff 1, N.J. Shaviv2 & J. Svensmark1,3
Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under present atmospheric conditions the growth rate from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth rate. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.
Click to expand...

How about you site those scientist who accept this research and speculation as it pertains to being a driver of present day global warming.

What one person thinks or does matters little if the research does nothing to advance science....Assuming the physics involved is well founded, how does it impact on the current warming trend exactly?
 
Jack Hays said:
Einstein was referring to the Nazi-sponsored anti-Einstein tract "One Hundred Against Einstein."

I already cited Nir Shaviv's presentation at Cambridge, and today I started a thread on Henrik Svensmark's and Shaviv's new paper, which takes dead aim at AGW orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

Einstein was right of course...Just one incompatibility with theory forces an adjustment or rejection of any theory. That's how science advances...Show me where the scientific community is being forced to adjust according to new evidence and you will have a valid point...up until now, you and no one else have done so.

You keep going back to the same issue of GCR as if it has been demonstrated to be relevant. It has not been.
 
Russell797 said:
How about you site those scientist who accept this research and speculation as it pertains to being a driver of present day global warming.

What one person thinks or does matters little if the research does nothing to advance science....Assuming the physics involved is well founded, how does it impact on the current warming trend exactly?
Click to expand...

Russell797 said:
Einstein was right of course...Just one incompatibility with theory forces an adjustment or rejection of any theory. That's how science advances...Show me where the scientific community is being forced to adjust according to new evidence and you will have a valid point...up until now, you and no one else have done so.

You keep going back to the same issue of GCR as if it has been demonstrated to be relevant. It has not been.
Click to expand...

I suggest you review the new Svensmark/Shaviv paper to spare yourself future embarrassment.
 
Jack Hays said:
I suggest you review the new Svensmark/Shaviv paper to spare yourself future embarrassment.
Click to expand...

I suggest you stop posting from WUWT. You are already an embarrassment to anyone with a scientific background.

When will Svensmark convince the greater scientific community? Another paper claiming essentially the same thing gets him/you nowhere.

Let's see what the response is from other scientists and how many spin offs this research produces....from other independent research groups.
 
Russell797 said:
You are an anomaly. Only about 25% of right wing conservatives accept the scientific consensus, and none, as in zero of those in Congress apparently do..They vote as a block to reject the science.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you know what the scientific consensus is in agreement with.
As we have discussed before, the consensus is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
whose addition will cause some warming.
Everything beyond that, is not part of the consensus.
Unlike what you would like to believe, accepting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
is NOT acceptance of the full suite of the IPCC's catastrophic predictions.
 
Russell797 said:
I suggest you stop posting from WUWT. You are already an embarrassment to anyone with a scientific background.

When will Svensmark convince the greater scientific community? Another paper claiming essentially the same thing gets him/you nowhere.

Let's see what the response is from other scientists and how many spin offs this research produces....from other independent research groups.
Click to expand...

The "scientific community" is about to be stood on its head. The paper is here.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms
 
Russell797 said:
Einstein was right of course...Just one incompatibility with theory forces an adjustment or rejection of any theory. That's how science advances...Show me where the scientific community is being forced to adjust according to new evidence and you will have a valid point...up until now, you and no one else have done so.

You keep going back to the same issue of GCR as if it has been demonstrated to be relevant. It has not been.
Click to expand...

What you are missing is that with the concept of AGW as presented by the IPCC,
there is a demarcation, between where the science ends, and the speculation begins.
It is difficult to find a working link to Baede, et al 2001, but it is still cited by AR5 as,
1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described; many of these were summarized
more comprehensively in earlier IPCC assessments (Baede et al., 2001).
Click to expand...
Here is what Baede says,
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same,
the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2.
In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the
surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%),
in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
So a Paper written for the IPCC shows that the science portion of the warming,
the radiative forcing, has a scientific basis.
The paper also goes on to say that they "believe" that feedbacks will amplify the warming further.
Radiative forcing---Science
Belief in amplified feedbacks----speculation.
 
LowDown said:
NASA data shows that the sun is getting progressively more dim. It's now at it's lowest ebb in 37 years of observation in terms of radiance. This appears to correlate with low sun spot numbers.

Climate science dogma would be to slap a linear extrapolation on the trend and predict that the sun will go out in 20,400 years.
Click to expand...

What I haven't heard yet is how this is our fault, and what I need to tell/force other people to do in order to fix it. Damn you, Trump!
 
Jack Hays said:
The "scientific community" is about to be stood on its head. The paper is here.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms
Click to expand...

Not a single mention of the relevance to the current warming trend is present in the paper...

I have told you in the past that Svensmark does reputable science....but the extrapolation to it's relevance to modern day global warming is not there. Nor is it even implied in the paper.
 
longview said:
What you are missing is that with the concept of AGW as presented by the IPCC,
there is a demarcation, between where the science ends, and the speculation begins.
It is difficult to find a working link to Baede, et al 2001, but it is still cited by AR5 as,

Here is what Baede says,

So a Paper written for the IPCC shows that the science portion of the warming,
the radiative forcing, has a scientific basis.
The paper also goes on to say that they "believe" that feedbacks will amplify the warming further.
Radiative forcing---Science
Belief in amplified feedbacks----speculation.
Click to expand...

The uncertainty pertaining to how cloudiness changes in a warmer world involves whether or not they produce a net warming or cooling effect. Clouds are separate from atmospheric water vapor. Clouds are liquid water and ice. Clouds both enhance warming through a greenhouse effect (backscatter) and produce cooling (reflectivity). Depends on the height and composition of the cloud.

Amplified feedback is not speculation...Additional water vapor absolutely increases the greenhouse effect. Reduction of land and sea covering ice and snow reduces albedo. Vegetation type and land use changes alter albedo. Aerosols alter albedo. Clouds alter albedo AND the greenhouse effect.

We have every reason to "believe" net amplifying feedback is positive. How much exactly on balance? That's the uncertainty.

We "believe" Big Bang cosmology because the evidence strongly points to it. We believe General Relativity because all the available evidence points to it. We believe biological evolution by natural selection because the evidence points to it...

We don't know for a fact any of those explanation...we believe they are most likely correct because by doing science we come to those conclusions. So we do with AGW. Global warming "lukewarmers" like to point toward studies which emphasize low ECS while ignoring all those which do not...

BTW...you do yourself no favors by voting up another posters ridiculous post...Jimotivator...
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
The uncertainty pertaining to how cloudiness changes in a warmer world involves whether or not they produce a net warming or cooling effect. Clouds are separate from atmospheric water vapor. Clouds are liquid water and ice. Clouds both enhance warming through a greenhouse effect (backscatter) and produce cooling (reflectivity). Depends on the height and composition of the cloud.

Amplified feedback is not speculation...Additional water vapor absolutely increases the greenhouse effect. Reduction of land and sea covering ice and snow reduces albedo. Vegetation type and land use changes alter albedo. Aerosols alter albedo. Clouds alter albedo AND the greenhouse effect.

We have every reason to "believe" net amplifying feedback is positive. How much exactly on balance? That's the uncertainty.

We "believe" Big Bang cosmology because the evidence strongly points to it. We believe General Relativity because all the available evidence points to it. We believe biological evolution by natural selection because the evidence points to it...

We don't know for a fact any of those explanation...we believe they are most likely correct because by doing science we come to those conclusions. So we do with AGW. Global warming "lukewarmers" like to point toward studies which emphasize low ECS while ignoring all those which do not...

BTW...you do yourself no favors by voting up another posters ridiculous post...Jimotivator...
Click to expand...

The Science is still only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the amplified feedbacks are speculation,
as there is not any empirical evidence that someone can point to and say, "this alone could be caused by Amplified feedbacks.
From the CERES data there does appear to be feedbacks, but they are attenuation s, not amplifications.
 
longview said:
The Science is still only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the amplified feedbacks are speculation,
as there is not any empirical evidence that someone can point to and say, "this alone could be caused by Amplified feedbacks.
From the CERES data there does appear to be feedbacks, but they are attenuation s, not amplifications.
Click to expand...

So when I state that a reduction in ice and snow area is a positive feedback you don't believe me? Or that forests are darker than tundra or sandy deserts? That increased water vapor further enhances the greenhouse effect...You think those are matters of speculation?
 
Russell797 said:
You are an anomaly. Only about 25% of right wing conservatives accept the scientific consensus, and none, as in zero of those in Congress apparently do..They vote as a block to reject the science.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yep. Why not? Whatever you say.
 
Russell797 said:
So when I state that a reduction in ice and snow area is a positive feedback you don't believe me? Or that forests are darker than tundra or sandy deserts? That increased water vapor further enhances the greenhouse effect...You think those are matters of speculation?
Click to expand...
In order for the reduction of ice and snow to be a positive feedback, the rate of the loss of ice and snow would have to change.
We have been loosing ice and snow at a fairly high rate for the last 12,000 years, so I think the
ice and snow changes are already part of the record.
What is what we call speculation? That which we cannot measure!
They believe that an increase in water vapor could enhance the greenhouse effect, but it could just as easily
cause greater cloud cover and negative feedback.
So far it is not something that someone has measured.
About the only thing we have actual measurements for is the change in top of atmosphere FLUX vs the
change in CO2 level, and that evidence is not very convincing.
CERES_to_CO2.png
 
longview said:
In order for the reduction of ice and snow to be a positive feedback, the rate of the loss of ice and snow would have to change.
We have been loosing ice and snow at a fairly high rate for the last 12,000 years, so I think the
ice and snow changes are already part of the record.
What is what we call speculation? That which we cannot measure!
They believe that an increase in water vapor could enhance the greenhouse effect, but it could just as easily
cause greater cloud cover and negative feedback.
So far it is not something that someone has measured.
About the only thing we have actual measurements for is the change in top of atmosphere FLUX vs the
change in CO2 level, and that evidence is not very convincing.
View attachment 67226293
Click to expand...

The Earth has generally been cooling for the past 8,000 years from what is known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum....So, over that time the global ice volume will have decreased progressively more slowly....now the warmer it gets the faster the ice will melt. And we do measure past climate by means of various proxy methodologies. We do have climate reconstructions of past climate before direct measurement you know....or maybe you don't.

Increased cloud cover does not mean negative feedback...it could mean positive feedback...What makes you think a more cloudy sky produces a net cooling? But, increased water vapor WILL absolutely increase the greenhouse effect.

The chart fails to indicate the warming which has occurred since the year 2000. It has warmed and the only way for that to happen is for less energy to be lost to space from the surface than what it is absorbing...there is no other way. It has been warming yet the net flux remains a relatively constant positive. With warming the net flux should approach equilibrium, but it isn't because we keep adding CO2.

BTW, the scientific consensus is that that world is warming predominately by way of human activities...not simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas....what did you just make that up?
 
Russell797 said:
The Earth has generally been cooling for the past 8,000 years from what is known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum....So, over that time the global ice volume will have decreased progressively more slowly....now the warmer it gets the faster the ice will melt. And we do measure past climate by means of various proxy methodologies. We do have climate reconstructions of past climate before direct measurement you know....or maybe you don't.

Increased cloud cover does not mean negative feedback...it could mean positive feedback...What makes you think a more cloudy sky produces a net cooling? But, increased water vapor WILL absolutely increase the greenhouse effect.

The chart fails to indicate the warming which has occurred since the year 2000. It has warmed and the only way for that to happen is for less energy to be lost to space from the surface than what it is absorbing...there is no other way. It has been warming yet the net flux remains a relatively constant positive. With warming the net flux should approach equilibrium, but it isn't because we keep adding CO2.

BTW, the scientific consensus is that that world is warming predominately by way of human activities...not simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas....what did you just make that up?
Click to expand...

The rate of ice melt is slowing in terms of per unit per year, because there is physically less and less area to melt.
Proxies of past temperatures have poor resolution, and may not show much of anything from the recent warming.

Cloud cover could go ether way, but the range assigned to the uncertainty from clouds is .3 to 3.3C,
considerably larger than the predicted 1.2 C warming from forcing.

If you think my chart shows warming, you are not reading it right.
The chart is the measured energy imbalance (Net FLUX) as measured by the CERES satellite, vs CO2.
That we saw some warming, and a lot of CO2 increase, while the net FLUX remained flat,
should give all climate scientist pause.

Yes the Scientific consensus includes other human activity, but the meat of the prediction is based on CO2,
and the .63 C from forcing theorized from the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 406 ppm.
Without that we would not be having a AGW discussion.
 
So 37 years ago we had just gotten past the "Global Freezing" thing, so is this the next wave of cold, until the sun once again heats up and we have global warming again?
 
LowDown said:
NASA data shows that the sun is getting progressively more dim. It's now at it's lowest ebb in 37 years of observation in terms of radiance. This appears to correlate with low sun spot numbers.

Climate science dogma would be to slap a linear extrapolation on the trend and predict that the sun will go out in 20,400 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the next two or three cycles are expected to be weaker yet, according to experts in the field.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The sun is going a little dimmer...and yet the ten hottest years have been since 2000?
Click to expand...

I see you don't understand the concepts of ECS for the sun when dealing with the lag and thermal inertia of the oceans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom