No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

[Phys251]

I don't get why they are so anti-science.

Who is "they"?

 

[VanCleef]

Who is "they"?

Anti-Vacc. Flath Earther. Climate Deniers. Evolution deniers. etc.

 

[Jack Hays]

Who is "they"?

Anti-Vacc. Flath Earther. Climate Deniers. Evolution deniers. etc.

"They" include Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 312 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could otherwise warm ...

 

[VanCleef]

"They" include Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 312 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could otherwise warm ...

Debunked and over 10 years old. Never caught on because the evidence was invalid.

 

[Jack Hays]

Debunked and over 10 years old. Never caught on because the evidence was invalid.

Sure. That's why the theory was experimentally validated in 2017, with results published in Nature.

[h=3]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... - Nature[/h]
[url]https://www.nature.com › nature communications › articles
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 11 - ‎Related articles
Dec 19, 2017 - Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. H.Svensmark ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2843-3417 ...

 

[VanCleef]

Sure. That's why the theory was experimentally validated in 2017, with results published in Nature.

[h=3]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... - Nature[/h]
[url]https://www.nature.com › nature communications › articles
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 11 - ‎Related articles
Dec 19, 2017 - Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. H.Svensmark ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2843-3417 ...

It doesn't debunk AGW at all though. That's the issue.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

he galactic cosmic ray (GCR) warming hypothesis is based on the premise that GCRs can "seed" clouds, and clouds reflect sunilight. So if there are fewer GCRs reaching Earth (because a strong solar magnetic field is deflecting them away), the hypothesis says there will be fewer clouds, more sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus more global warming.

So more solar activity means a stronger solar magnetic field, which means fewer GCRs reaching Earth, which hypothetically means fewer clouds and more warming.

The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs.

The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction

https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html

A history of inaccuracy for Shaviv and Svensmark.

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Galactic cosmic rays can't explain global warming
In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased. In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years, especially over the past 50 years when global warming was strongest. Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) found that the contribution of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays (combined) to global warming is "less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."

 

[Jack Hays]

It doesn't debunk AGW at all though. That's the issue.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?



The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

A history of inaccuracy for Shaviv and Svensmark.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

The Sun has driven about half of the warming of recent decades. The GCR flux will drive the coming decades of cooling. I have excerpted some passages, but I suggest you read the entire link.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

. . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . . [/FONT]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can you also use it as an electro shock weapon, just in case?

LOL...

I know people who what stuck their fingers in it. It does a very nice, neat small cauterizing burn.

 

[longview]

I have cited two comprehensive reports (Chapter 2) and by proxy dozens of peer reviewed studies (and a sample of) showing for a fact CO2 increases the effects of Global Warming ( duhhrr Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet), and some of that is clearly man made (AGW).

You have yet to refute this fact with a peer reviewed source of any type.

None of the reports, have actually verified that CO2 has the effects claimed.
They all start with the presumption that the earlier estimates were correct.
Most of these assumptions and estimates are based on the idea of radiant forcing,
that CO2 can absorb 15 um photons, and then re-emit other photons and possibly another 15 um photon.
the direction of spontaneous is random, so some would be back towards earth.
The problem with the entire concept, is that there is almost no empirical evidence that this happens in nature,
and the lab conditions to make it happen in a lab, only exists up in the stratosphere.
Consider that when Feldman published his observational paper in 2015 he said.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of
the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little
direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing
atmospheric CO2.

and was not thrown out as a skeptic, it was because everyone knew he was correct.
Quite a few people had done plenty of calculations, ran line by line studies with the spectral databases, ect,
but no one had figured out a way to verify if the claim participation for CO2 was correct.
I am not even sure they agree on where the imbalance should be measured from.
Hansen in 1997, thought it should be measured at the tropopause, and had the
top of atmosphere number for 2XCO2 at 2.62 Wm-2 with the tropopause number at 4.75 Wm-2,

Later studies seemed to stick with the 4 Wm-2 range, but assigned it to the top of the atmosphere.
If we break down what Feldman actually measured, it comes in close to Hansen's 1997 Top of Atmosphere number.
Feldman measured a .2 Wm-2 per decade increase, over 11 years while CO2 increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
The existing formula is 5.35 X ln(CO2_high/CO2_Low)= delta forcing, the reverse of that would be,
delta forcing/ ln(CO2_high/CO2_Low)= multiplier, so .22/ln(392/369)=3.63,
This would make the forcing from doubling CO2, 3.63 X ln(2)=2.52Wm-2, Hansen was calculating 2.62 Wm-2.
Where do you think they are calculating the forcing imbalance from?

 

[cabse5]

Who is talking about reducing CO2? We just want to slow the increase. It will take millions of years for the Earth to reduce we have already released.

Less CO2 in the atmosphere causes vegetation to die. The brightest foliage is caused, in part, by goodly concentrations of CO2 in the 'sphere. Is it a coincidence that rainforests have the highest foliage in the world? No, partly 'cause it rains a lot and rain causes the greatest concentrations of CO2 to be expelled into the 'sphere. How's the foliage in, for example, Seattle or London? Bet it's great.

 

[cabse5]

Stopped reading right there. Atheism is as much of a religion as "bald" is a hair color.

Atheism and religion are cousins. They are both a systematic way of looking at things. Atheism is to religion as the Mercury is to the Ford. They are both ideologies. So is Wiccanism an ideology and it's allowed into American gov't. So is atheism allowed into American gov't. So is Islam allowed in American gov't 'cause no one is forcing Omar, the congresswoman from Minnesota who criticizes Israel, to remove her hijab in congressional hearings.

I guess the correct statement would be Judeo-Christian religion isn't allowed in American gov't.

 

[gfm7175]

Stopped reading right there. Atheism is as much of a religion as "bald" is a hair color.

Atheism IS a religion, Phys251...

Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. The initial circular argument of Atheism is "god(s) do not exist". All Atheistic arguments stem from that initial circular argument. Therefore, Atheism IS a religion.

See to it!

 

[Steve Case]

Atheism and religion are cousins. They are both a systematic way of looking at things. Atheism is to religion as the Mercury is to the Ford. They are both ideologies. So is Wiccanism an ideology and it's allowed into American gov't. So is atheism allowed into American gov't. So is Islam allowed in American gov't 'cause no one is forcing Omar, the congresswoman from Minnesota who criticizes Israel, to remove her hijab in congressional hearings.

I guess the correct statement would be Judeo-Christian religion isn't allowed in American gov't.

These seven Congress Critters are ordained clergy of one kind or another:

Doug Collins GA
Jody Hice GA
John Lewis GA
Mark Walker NC
Emanuel Cleaver MO
Bobby L. Rush IL
Tim Walberg MI

Source:
Faith on the Hill: The Religious Affiliations of the 114th Congress

At the moment I don't know if they wear the attire while on the job.

 

[gfm7175]

Atheism and religion are cousins. They are both a systematic way of looking at things. Atheism is to religion as the Mercury is to the Ford. They are both ideologies. So is Wiccanism an ideology and it's allowed into American gov't. So is atheism allowed into American gov't. So is Islam allowed in American gov't 'cause no one is forcing Omar, the congresswoman from Minnesota who criticizes Israel, to remove her hijab in congressional hearings.

I guess the correct statement would be Judeo-Christian religion isn't allowed in American gov't.

On the right track here, and generally correct, especially the last sentence, but I would instead say that Atheism and Islam are brothers... Atheism and Christianity are brothers... Atheism and Shinto are brothers... They are all members of the immediate family of religion. They are all initial circular arguments with other arguments stemming from those initial circular arguments. That's the very definition of what a religion is.

 

[ludin]

We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.

No we don't.
other than nuclear power there is nothing more efficient or cost effective than a clean running coal plant.
the cost to energy ratio is just too great to overlook same goes for natural gas or methane.

the only thing more efficient is a nuclear plant but there are huge upfront costs to building one.
solar works better on a micro level not a macro level and only in certain area's.
same goes for wind.

the only really green energy that is worth looking into is geothermal but even that has it's limitations.

 

[gfm7175]

Less CO2 in the atmosphere causes vegetation to die. The brightest foliage is caused, in part, by goodly concentrations of CO2 in the 'sphere. Is it a coincidence that rainforests have the highest foliage in the world? No, partly 'cause it rains a lot and rain causes the greatest concentrations of CO2 to be expelled into the 'sphere. How's the foliage in, for example, Seattle or London? Bet it's great.

Yup! CO2 is great... vegetation LOVES it... Not sure why people believe what the Church of Global Warming spouts off...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yup! CO2 is great... vegetation LOVES it... Not sure why people believe what the Church of Global Warming spouts off...

They don't want a green earth. They want a brown earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Please post the peer reviewed study directly showing AGW and CC are false using those laws.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Science is not a 'study' or a 'report'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Thanks. Meanwhile, I have an entire field of science directly backing the fact of AGW and CC with thousands of peer reviewed studies and massive reports.

Science does not use coscensus. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

None of which were debunked.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law debunk them.

It takes energy to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor is a source or sink of energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing, you cannot destroy energy into nothing. The 'greenhouse gas' model attempts to create energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is colder than the surface beneath it. You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Absorption of infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by warming the air above.it.

The 'greenhouse effect' attempts to trap infrared light from leaving Earth. This necessarily reduces radiance of the Earth. At the same time, temperature is increasing. This violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other, never inversely proportional.

No study or research is needed.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't have an entire field of science backing me up I just use simple logic. AGW climate change focuses on reductions of CO2 emissions, primarily. That and methane.
Methane and CO2 combined account for less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. I suppose you wish to make me believe there's a crisis of climate change when you wish to only reduce 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?

According to the Mauna Loa observatory, atmospheric CO2 at that location is around 0.04%. Methane is currently around 0.00018% of the atmosphere. Combining the two results in no more than 0.040018%, not anywhere near 5%.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface.

 

[Into the Night]

That's too bad. Do you at least have a massive amount of peer reviewed studies specifically stating AGW is false?

Science isn't studies. It does not use consensus. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are violated by the 'greenhouse gas' model.
Further, the very phrase 'global warming' is meaningless. No starting and ending times are specified, and it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It's a buzzword. Science has no theories based on meaningless buzzwords.

 

[Into the Night]

"Forest management?"

Describe that please.

It means thinning the trees and removing scrub that allows fires to reach up into the canopy. It means building firebreaks, especially around and near towns that you want to protect.

Warning, I live in a province where softwood is THE largest distributed product.

Fine. It's pretty big here in Washington, too.

The surface area of our forests is three times the land mass of the province.

Nope. Trees do not grow on vertical surfaces well, and do not grow at all above a certain altitude.

How? They are called mountains, as in the Canadian Rocky Mountains with elevations to over 2000 meters and practically straight up.

Trees generally do not grow on cliffs. They do not grow above a certain altitude.

We have over the years cut firebreaks and more recently created skirts around towns and villages, removing trees etc.

Good. This is part of forest management.

So, please explain to me how you "manage" a forest at 70 degrees angle and 2000 hectares?

Not needed. Forests don't grow on cliffs. As far as the area is concerned, you don't have to care about all of it.

I recall your idiot president suggested "raking". Please drop by British Columbia and demonstrate how management works

I don't seem to recall Trump making any kind of comment about forest management in BC.

Further, please explain how it is these forests got along fine for 10,000 years without major catastrophe,

They had major catastrophes. No one cared about that then, though. Forest fires are a normal part of forests existing at all. With the arrival of Man, the causes of forest fires has been multiplied.

but all of a sudden are consumed because of "improper management"

They always have been. No one was around to care or measure it.

-- there was NO ONE to manage the forest until man came along, how is it they are still standing as if your comment has any accuracy there would be fires 24/7.

You seem to think a forest fire destroys an entire forest. You are wrong. Forest fires, particularly in mountains areas, burn themselves out.

The world laughed and Swedes mocked the stupidity of your president.

Bigotry. I could also care less what you or anyone in Sweden might care about the President.

If you had two minutes to see an "average" forest here you would see just how idiotic and stupid your comment is.

I have seen your forests there. I live in Washington, remember? I travel to BC from time to time.

Lastly, what will you use for a rake on logs that weight 30 tons?

Don't need to rake it. Load it. A log that size is useful.

How will you "manage" fallen trees 2.5 meters in diameter, without destroying the forest around it?

Logging does not destroy the forest, if you replant. That's what Weyerhauser does.

YOu are all going to have to learn and accept that Donald Trump is very stupid.

He's smart enough on his own ground. You just don't like him.

 

[Into the Night]

We can make hydrocarbon fuels which are 100% carbon neutral,
Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel, whatever is in demand.

That we can, but it takes energy to do it. We also don't need to.

At this point the product would not be as cheap as the fuels made from oil, but the curves are in motion.

Correct. The process is not as cheap as just getting the stuff out of the ground. There is no 'curve'. The Fisher-Tropsch process has been around since WW2.

As technology improves, and surplus energy in the form of electricity get cheaper (Duck Curve),
there will come a point when man made fuel is the least expensive pump selection.

Not likely. You need energy to synthesize oil.

The Naval Research Labs did find one idiosyncrasy, the process seem to only make high octane fuels, no regular!

This is a conversion process. It does not synthesize oil.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have a single peer reviewed study showing that CO2 actually functions as claimed in the atmosphere all the time?

Such a theory would have to falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann theories.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure!

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Each contains dozens specifically for CO2. Here are some examples,

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions | PNAS
ACP - Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C | Nature Geoscience
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/

I can keep going.

See Chapter 2, search for CO2: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/ Each statement has linked peer reviewed studies as well.

None of these falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which would be required to satisfy the 'greenhouse gas' model.
Data is not science. Neither are the random numbers these studies keep quoting. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a 'study' or a 'research'.

 

[Into the Night]

Book smarts vs streetsmarts.

Just what you want in a scientific "debate"!

No science to see here...move along...move along...