France roasts in record heatwave, two die in Spain

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If there was no 'pause', then why did the IPCC address the issue in its 5th report which came out in 2013. They don't use the word 'pause', but use 'hiatus' instead. Here's what they concluded in the summary of the Working Group 1 report, which deals with the physical sciences rather than the political issues which are addressed in the overall summary.

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

 

"In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend."

 

Of course there will always be a trend in climate, whether regional or global. Climate is never static, and the long -term trend will be either up or down in temperature depending on the starting point which is chosen. If you were to start the current warming trend from the height of the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period, there would be no current warming at the present time, perhaps even a slight cooling. If you started the trend from the beginning of life on our planet, about 3.8 billion years ago, you would find a very significant, overall cooling trend.
 

This why Michael Mann did his best to hide the existence of the MWP and LIA, and claim they were not global.

I'm going to assume you get all your information from denialist sources and that's why you are not familiar with later developments:

Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data

An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science¹.

That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

https://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

 

There has since been lots of research that confirms this.

[toofarnorth]

On 6/29/2019 at 9:56 AM, sammieuk1 said:

Sure a zoom function would help to get things moving here to???? 

Agree , speshly the bum pointing to the sea.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

This why Michael Mann did his best to hide the existence of the MWP and LIA, and claim they were not global.

Ah, the great Michael "Piltdown" Mann, a real prize one.

 

As he was revealed to have written to his colleagues during the Climategate scandal: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”

 

Yet some ideologues still hold him up as an exemplar of fine science, which doesn't say much for their standards of either ethics or science.

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Ah, the great Michael "Piltdown" Mann, a real prize one.

 

As he was revealed to have written to his colleagues during the Climategate scandal: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”

 

Yet some ideologues still hold him up as an exemplar of fine science, which doesn't say much for their standards of either ethics or science.

Yes, go for character assassination instead of science. It's a pity that Michael Mann doesn't submit his work to what you consider an authoritative site, temperature.global, with its famously high standards and anonymous staff. Instead his research is peer-reviewed and published in the leading scientific journals.

And there is this:

"In 2011 the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Timothy Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy. Mann promptly sued for defamation.^[59] In June 2019 the Frontier Centre apologized for publishing, on its website and in letters, "untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

National Review also published what Mann claimed were defamatory articles. National Review dared him to go ahead and they would publish his emails.  When he did go ahead they changed their tune and claimed freedom of the press protected them. So far as I know, they have repeatedly failed in using that legal strategem.

Anyway this is just your attempt to deflect from the fact that the science is overwhelmingly against you and the ridiculous notion that a roughly 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on global temperature.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If there was no 'pause', then why did the IPCC address the issue in its 5th report which came out in 2013. They don't use the word 'pause', but use 'hiatus' instead. Here's what they concluded in the summary of the Working Group 1 report, which deals with the physical sciences rather than the political issues which are addressed in the overall summary.

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

 

"In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend."

 

Of course there will always be a trend in climate, whether regional or global. Climate is never static, and the long -term trend will be either up or down in temperature depending on the starting point which is chosen. If you were to start the current warming trend from the height of the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period, there would be no current warming at the present time, perhaps even a slight cooling. If you started the trend from the beginning of life on our planet, about 3.8 billion years ago, you would find a very significant, overall cooling trend.
 

This why Michael Mann did his best to hide the existence of the MWP and LIA, and claim they were not global.

If you had been following the research on the MWP you would know that paleoclimatologists have a pretty good idea now of why it happened. And those factors do not figure in modern global warming.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered/

And by the way, here's Mann's hockey stick.

You'll not that the medieval warm period is warmer than any time until about the year 2000. You really shouldn't believe the lies that denialist websites continue to spout.

As for clouds, your version of what rising temperatures mean for them is quite dubious. Here's a fascinating article about the relation of clouds to global warming

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I'm going to assume you get all your information from denialist sources and that's why you are not familiar with later developments:

Not at all. That's a completely wrong assumption. I get my information from various sources that provide the information on climate change, including NASA, NOAA, the various Bureaus of Meteorology for past weather events, and of course, the IPCC which I quoted in my previous post.

 

The sixth assessment report from the IPCC is still a work in progress, so I can't quote from that,yet.

 

As I'm sure you know, the IPCC is the most authoritative source for information on climate change, so why would you assume I get all my information from so-called 'denialist' sources when I've just quoted the IPCC?

 

Having got the information or data from the various sources, some from the alarmist camp, and some from the skeptical camp, I then use my nous to work out what makes the most sense from the perspective of the methodology of science, as I understand it.

 

The true methodology of science requires repeated experimentation and the opportunities to create experiments for the purpose of falsification. Any information or data which cast the slightest doubt on the prevailing theory, has to be thoroughly examined, not brushed under the carpet as appears to sometimes happen in government sponsored climate research centres.

 

As I've mentioned before, the issue is one of 'certainty'. The nature of the subject of 'climate change' does not lend itself to certainty. All good scientists understand that. However, in order for political action to take place, a high degree of certainty about the harmful effects of rising CO2 levels is required to be expressed by at least by some of the scientists.

 

A blatant example of such non-scientific exaggeration is the 97% consensus mantra. If you take the trouble to investigate the matter you will find that a large proportion of climatologists are not willing to express a view either way, that CO2 levels are the main driver of the current warming and will cause catastrophe if not reduced. The 97% figure applies only to those few who are prepared to stick their neck out for either political purposes or emotional concerns. The other 3% take the view that CO2 levels have an insignificant effect.

 

If you believe there is an actual 97% consensus among all climatologists (re Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), then you can be certain that you are gullible. ????

 

Regarding your quote about the 'pause':

 

Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data.
 

An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis.

 

It seems we're still not certain. ????

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Not at all. That's a completely wrong assumption. I get my information from various sources that provide the information on climate change, including NASA, NOAA, the various Bureaus of Meteorology for past weather events, and of course, the IPCC which I quoted in my previous post.

 

The sixth assessment report from the IPCC is still a work in progress, so I can't quote from that,yet.

 

As I'm sure you know, the IPCC is the most authoritative source for information on climate change, so why would you assume I get all my information from so-called 'denialist' sources when I've just quoted the IPCC?

 

Having got the information or data from the various sources, some from the alarmist camp, and some from the skeptical camp, I then use my nous to work out what makes the most sense from the perspective of the methodology of science, as I understand it.

 

The true methodology of science requires repeated experimentation and the opportunities to create experiments for the purpose of falsification. Any information or data which cast the slightest doubt on the prevailing theory, has to be thoroughly examined, not brushed under the carpet as appears to sometimes happen in government sponsored climate research centres.

 

As I've mentioned before, the issue is one of 'certainty'. The nature of the subject of 'climate change' does not lend itself to certainty. All good scientists understand that. However, in order for political action to take place, a high degree of certainty about the harmful effects of rising CO2 levels is required to be expressed by at least by some of the scientists.

 

A blatant example of such non-scientific exaggeration is the 97% consensus mantra. If you take the trouble to investigate the matter you will find that a large proportion of climatologists are not willing to express a view either way, that CO2 levels are the main driver of the current warming and will cause catastrophe if not reduced. The 97% figure applies only to those few who are prepared to stick their neck out for either political purposes or emotional concerns. The other 3% take the view that CO2 levels have an insignificant effect.

 

If you believe there is an actual 97% consensus among all climatologists (re Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), then you can be certain that you are gullible. ????

 

Regarding your quote about the 'pause':

 

 

 

 

It seems we're still not certain. ????

Oh please. Either you didn't know that research existed, which would be an honest omission, or you did and decided not to acknowledge several years of research that have confirmed that original report. In fact more shame on if you are as widely read as you claim and still didn't acknowledge the latest research. 

 

 "If you take the trouble to investigate the matter you will find that a large proportion of climatologists are not willing to express a view either way, that CO2 levels are the main driver of the current warming and will cause catastrophe if not reduced"

But since you couldn't honestly state this without having investigated the matter yourself, can you share the sources with me? Or is this going to be another case someone with dubious claims resorting to the Journal of Look It Up Yourself.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Oh please. Either you didn't know that research existed, which would be an honest omission, or you did and decided not to acknowledge several years of research that have confirmed that original report. In fact more shame on if you are as widely read as you claim and still didn't acknowledge the latest research. 

 

What's the matter with you? It's true I hadn't previously read the article you linked from Nature.com, but thank you for providing it. I commented on it and made the valid point that there was still an uncertainty, because of the quote from the article, "the apparent pause 'might' have been a temporary mirage".

 

I'm also a bit wary of organizations that alter previous temperature records in order to maintain the predicted warming trend. If the global temperature does begin to fall in the near future, and continues to fall for a significant period, I suspect there will be a lot of fraudulent adjustments of the temperature records in order to save the reputation of many scientists with alarmist views like Michael Mann. I fear that chaos will result with many courts being overburdened with law suits. ????

 

But since you couldn't honestly state this without having investigated the matter yourself, can you share the sources with me? Or is this going to be another case someone with dubious claims resorting to the Journal of Look It Up Yourself.

 

Of course I can share the source with you. The reason I didn't is because I suspect you would automatically dismiss any reports from any skeptical website because you are so firmly anchored in the CAGW alarmism.

 

As I've already mentioned, the continuation of government funding for climate research is dependent upon certainty being maintained. The claim of a 97% consensus has been created in order to support that certainty.

 

If such a consensus were real and truthful, then that would imply that most climate scientists were second rate. How could there be such an overwhelming consensus among quality scientists on an issue which is so complex and chaotic as climate?

 

Anyway, here's a couple of sites that explain in some detail how John Cook arrived at his bogus 97.1% consensus.

 

"Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming.
Cook calls this “an overwhelming consensus”.
They examined “11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/

 

 "In the abstract to their article, the authors write:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/david_friedman_14.html

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What's the matter with you? It's true I hadn't previously read the article you linked from Nature.com, but thank you for providing it. I commented on it and made the valid point that there was still an uncertainty, because of the quote from the article, "the apparent pause 'might' have been a temporary mirage".

 

I'm also a bit wary of organizations that alter previous temperature records in order to maintain the predicted warming trend. If the global temperature does begin to fall in the near future, and continues to fall for a significant period, I suspect there will be a lot of fraudulent adjustments of the temperature records in order to save the reputation of many scientists with alarmist views like Michael Mann. I fear that chaos will result with many courts being overburdened with law suits. ????

 

 

 

 

Of course I can share the source with you. The reason I didn't is because I suspect you would automatically dismiss any reports from any skeptical website because you are so firmly anchored in the CAGW alarmism.

 

As I've already mentioned, the continuation of government funding for climate research is dependent upon certainty being maintained. The claim of a 97% consensus has been created in order to support that certainty.

 

If such a consensus were real and truthful, then that would imply that most climate scientists were second rate. How could there be such an overwhelming consensus among quality scientists on an issue which is so complex and chaotic as climate?

 

Anyway, here's a couple of sites that explain in some detail how John Cook arrived at his bogus 97.1% consensus.

 

"Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming.
Cook calls this “an overwhelming consensus”.
They examined “11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/

 

 "In the abstract to their article, the authors write:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/david_friedman_14.html

First off, the critiques you cited provided absolutely no backing for your contention that climatologists who don't support AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are unwilling to express their opinions.ly. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Nor to they provide any support for your claims about some kind of government financed conspiracy. I

This is your idea of sound critiques? Really? The silliness of Joanna Nova can best be summarized in her contention that climatologists who are supporters of AGW could be like scientists who denied flight was possible even after the Wright brothers succeeded. This is just a very silly person. Not just that, apparently this article is quite old since the last climate report it cites is the IPCC

Anyway, even if Cook's paper was unsound, which it isnt, there have numerous other studies that support Cook. The one which showed the lowest support for anthropogenic global warming was Verheggen/s in 2014. That was a direct survey of scientists, not papers. That came in at 91 percent support and included all kinds of scientists,. It found that those with greatest expertise in the field had the highest rate of support for AGW. What's more, contrary to cries of media unfairness, denialists actually got greater media exposure on average than  did supporters.

In fact, you'll not that the newer a study of scientific opinion is, the greater the degree of support for AGW.

And here's a list of all studies done on scientific opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Some are direct surveys of scientists. You'll not that the new a survey is, the more likely it is to show greater support for AGW. And universally they show that the greater the expertise, the more likely is support of AGW.

 

Nor did you offer any support for your contention that Michael Mann denies the reality of MWP. Because he doesn't. His famous graph actually supports it. So where did that falsehood come from?

And as for this...

"If such a consensus were real and truthful, then that would imply that most climate scientists were second rate. How could there be such an overwhelming consensus among quality scientists on an issue which is so complex and chaotic as climate?"

You actually think this is sound reasoning? Your characterization of the research is definitive? The consensus has grown because of years of research confirming it. What you fail to note about IPCC reports is that as the years go by the reports show that the previous ones have been too conservative in their predictions. Want to bet on what the next one shows?

And your explanation of why you didn't cite the numerous later studies showing that there was no hiatus in warming is just nonsense. You think scientific is like a fine wine and needs at least 6 years of aging before it can be referenced?

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

Anyway, even if Cook's paper was unsound, which it isnt

Cook's 'paper' was one of the silliest attempts to manufacture a belief since The Great Disappointment. It would actually do your cause some good to admit that.

 

Ideologues have this very low-resolution view of the world, which is essentially binary: Us v Them, Good vs Evil. In the climate space, they categorise everyone as either a Noble Climate Warrior or an Evil Denialist. 

 

It's a very immature and unhelpful approach. It's also why everything they say or write is so wooden and repetitive.

 

In the real world, there is nuance. It is quite possible to accept certain tenets of basic global warming theory while having reservations about some of the more extreme predictions; about suggested policy; about the dreadful ignorant coverage by the mainstream media, and about some of the shoddy and illegal practices carried out by scientists in their pursuit of the global warming crusade.

 

All of these are legitimate concerns, and it's too bad that the ideologically possessed SJW types are not mature enough to be able to grasp that.

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Cook's 'paper' was one of the silliest attempts to manufacture a belief since The Great Disappointment. It would actually do your cause some good to admit that.

 

Ideologues have this very low-resolution view of the world, which is essentially binary: Us v Them, Good vs Evil. In the climate space, they categorise everyone as either a Noble Climate Warrior or an Evil Denialist. 

 

It's a very immature and unhelpful approach. It's also why everything they say or write is so wooden and repetitive.

 

In the real world, there is nuance. It is quite possible to accept certain tenets of basic global warming theory while having reservations about some of the more extreme predictions; about suggested policy; about the dreadful ignorant coverage by the mainstream media, and about some of the shoddy and illegal practices carried out by scientists in their pursuit of the global warming crusade.

 

All of these are legitimate concerns, and it's too bad that the ideologically possessed SJW types are not mature enough to be able to grasp that.

And one day you are going to actually cite facts instead of dubious unprovable generalizations. As I pointed out there have been numerous studies of scientific opinion about global warming including direct surveys of scientists. They back up Cook and provide absolutely no support for VincentRJ's contention "If you take the trouble to investigate the matter you will find that a large proportion of climatologists are not willing to express a view either way, that CO2 levels are the main driver of the current warming and will cause catastrophe if not reduced." even though he said he had evidence to support it. He has yet to produce that evidence.

And given that virtually all the "evidence" you cite comes from denialist websites,  and given your propensity to resort to ad hominen attacks when confronted by factual evidence,s, it's impossible to credit your claims to be open minded or that you even have much if any use for science. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you used a fake website to claim that June 2019 was below average in temperature. I think that kind of dishonesty speaks for itself.

[RickBradford]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And given that virtually all the "evidence" you cite comes from denialist websites,

No, that's just more of your ideological delusion; I am a "denialist", so any sources I quote must be "denialist". And because I then quote "denialist" sources, I must be a "denialist".

 

It's the sort of puerile circular argument which is much favored in the SJW community.

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, that's just more of your ideological delusion; I am a "denialist", so any sources I quote must be "denialist". And because I then quote "denialist" sources, I must be a "denialist".

 

It's the sort of puerile circular argument which is much favored in the SJW community.

Actually you've got it backwards. Because the sources you cite are denialist, I think it's a fair bet to assume you are too. And the fact that your alleged support of AGW is so circumscribed as to make it virtually meaningless. You're like someone who says they like beer and to prove it puts a dropperful in a glass of water and drinks it.

Edited July 8, 2019 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually you've got it backwards.

You don't really understand the concept of a circular argument, do you?

 

If you did, you would realise that it's impossible to get it "backwards", because it goes around both ways. Hence, the "circle".

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nor did you offer any support for your contention that Michael Mann denies the reality of MWP. Because he doesn't. His famous graph actually supports it. So where did that falsehood come from?

Do you mean it supports it if you draw the graph along the top of the error limits, shaded in blue on your graph, and shaded in grey on the graph that I've copied from the 2001 IPCC report? 

 

I'm not sure if those error limits were provided by Michael Mann, but what they demonstrate is the very large uncertainty about the temperatures of the past.

 

If you use the highest point of the error limit, the 1998 temperature record is still about 0.5 degrees warmer that the hottest part of the MWP. If you use the lowest point of the error limit, then the 1998 temperature become about 1.5 C hotter than the height of the MWP.

 

If you use the '40 year smoothed' black line, shown in the IPCC graph, which gives a better indication of the overall trend, then the 1998 temperature is shown as 0.8 C warmer than the high point of the MWP.
With such a large margin of error one can get almost any result one wants if one changes the graph within that error margin.

 

Quote

"

If such a consensus were real and truthful, then that would imply that most climate scientists were second rate. How could there be such an overwhelming consensus among quality scientists on an issue which is so complex and chaotic as climate?"

 

You actually think this is sound reasoning? Your characterization of the research is definitive? The consensus has grown because of years of research confirming it. What you fail to note about IPCC reports is that as the years go by the reports show that the previous ones have been too conservative in their predictions. Want to bet on what the next one shows?

And your explanation of why you didn't cite the numerous later studies showing that there was no hiatus in warming is just nonsense. You think scientific is like a fine wine and needs at least 6 years of aging before it can be referenced?

 

Yes I do think it's sound reasoning, and the wide error limits shown in the Hockey Stick graph support such reasoning.

 

But no, science is not like a fine wine that needs 6 years of aging. Whatever the aging, the existence of the wine is a scientific fact. The fineness or taste of the wine is a subjective experience influenced by price and reputation, and the consensus of opinion by the expert wine tasters, just like the belief in the alarming effects of CO2 is influenced by an imagined consensus on the topic, by the so-called experts..

 

Even expert wine tasters can be influenced by price and reputation, as experiments have shown when expensive wine is transferred from the original bottle, showing how fine and expensive it is, to a cheap bottle, and vice versa, during wine-tasting experiments.

 

Your wine analogy describing the methodology of science is more appropriate for those who believe in the 97% consensus.

 

As I've mentioned before, scientific certainty on any issue requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions that produce consistent results, and also requires conditions that allow experiments to be set up in an attempt to falsify a particular theory.

 

Professor Stephen Schneider, now deceased, expressed this problem of certainty very well. It's known as the “Double Ethical Bind” of Climate Change Communication.
Here's what he said.

 

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

So Please tell us Bristol Boy, what is your balance between trying to be effective and being honest? 5% honest? 10% honest? ????

 

Here's an article you'll probably hate but try forcing yourself to read it.

A quote from the Introduction:

 

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

 

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/hall_of_shame.htm#Introduction

 

 

The Hockey Stick shown in the 2001 IPCC report

Edited July 8, 2019 by VincentRJ

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you mean it supports it if you draw the graph along the top of the error limits, shaded in blue on your graph, and shaded in grey on the graph that I've copied from the 2001 IPCC report? 

 

I'm not sure if those error limits were provided by Michael Mann, but what they demonstrate is the very large uncertainty about the temperatures of the past.

 

If you use the highest point of the error limit, the 1998 temperature record is still about 0.5 degrees warmer that the hottest part of the MWP. If you use the lowest point of the error limit, then the 1998 temperature become about 1.5 C hotter than the height of the MWP.

 

If you use the '40 year smoothed' black line, shown in the IPCC graph, which gives a better indication of the overall trend, then the 1998 temperature is shown as 0.8 C warmer than the high point of the MWP.
With such a large margin of error one can get almost any result one wants if one changes the graph within that error margin.

 

 

Yes I do think it's sound reasoning, and the wide error limits shown in the Hockey Stick graph support such reasoning.

 

But no, science is not like a fine wine that needs 6 years of aging. Whatever the aging, the existence of the wine is a scientific fact. The fineness or taste of the wine is a subjective experience influenced by price and reputation, and the consensus of opinion by the expert wine tasters, just like the belief in the alarming effects of CO2 is influenced by an imagined consensus on the topic, by the so-called experts..

 

Even expert wine tasters can be influenced by price and reputation, as experiments have shown when expensive wine is transferred from the original bottle, showing how fine and expensive it is, to a cheap bottle, and vice versa, during wine-tasting experiments.

 

Your wine analogy describing the methodology of science is more appropriate for those who believe in the 97% consensus.

 

As I've mentioned before, scientific certainty on any issue requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions that produce consistent results, and also requires conditions that allow experiments to be set up in an attempt to falsify a particular theory.

 

Professor Stephen Schneider, now deceased, expressed this problem of certainty very well. It's known as the “Double Ethical Bind” of Climate Change Communication.
Here's what he said.

 

 To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

So Please tell us Bristol Boy, what is your balance between trying to be effective and being honest? 5% honest? 10% honest? ????

 

Here's an article you'll probably hate but try forcing yourself to read it.

A quote from the Introduction:

 

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

 

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/hall_of_shame.htm#Introduction

 

 

The Hockey Stick shown in the 2001 IPCC report

I don't know why I should bother answering this since there's a good chance the mods will delete it because you've repeatedly violated the 3 sentence rule. I've never understood why it's so difficult for some people to quote just sentences and provide a link to the rest.

 

And you're right about the Michael Mann graph. But do you know why you're right? Because Mann ended up revising his graph. Which was the one I used  Not because he denied that there was a medieval warm period. But because the data he had access to at the time he published was uncertain.  And the reason he did make a change is because further research showed that there was a MWP. And do you know who one of the chief researchers was? Michael Mann. But what you consistently don't acknowledge, for reasons I won't speculate about, is that the conditions that caused the MWP don't exist now. They could recur and amplify the warming. Just as the 1998 El Nino amplified briefly the warming trend. But because they warm the climate, doesn't rule out other factors doing so as well. So bringing it up as a way to cast doubt on MWP is irrelevant. And finally since MWP was caused by different factors why would whatever temperature it reached have any relevance to the issue now?

 

As for your allegations about scientists attitudes, that's all they are.  As is the contention the most climatologists are reluctant to express an opinion about AGW. You told me you had evidence for that. Still waiting.

 

 As for this..."As I've mentioned before, scientific certainty on any issue requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions that produce consistent results, and also requires conditions that allow experiments to be set up in an attempt to falsify a particular theory."

 

Utter nonsense By your criteria geology isn't a science. Nor astrophysics. Nor paleontology. You really want to go there? These are observational and historical sciences. As is climatology.

 

As for Stephen Schneider did you even think of taking into account when he wrote that speech? It was 1989. 30 years ago. Science marches on. And with each IPCC report the prognosis gets grimmer. And if you take a read on what Schneider actually did in his life, you can see where he stood on the serious threat that AGW posed and poses.

 

And no, I'm not going to bother to read something by Michael Crichton. Because he was a novelist. And why should I pay attention to the opinion of a novelist? Is eloquence some kind of scientific qualification?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

You don't really understand the concept of a circular argument, do you?

 

If you did, you would realise that it's impossible to get it "backwards", because it goes around both ways. Hence, the "circle".

A circular argument is A therefore B therefor A therefore B etc.

But as I pointed out, I went from A, the source and kind of information you use, to B, that you're a denialist. So no, it's not me who need to understand what a circular argument is.

And let me remind you for the umpteenth of the kind of crappy "evidence" and assertions you offered.

You asserted that June 2019 was globally below average in temperature based on a piece of junk website.

 

You asserted that there were more cold temperature records than hot set in June without providing the least shred of evidence. Given that the trend is strongly opposite to that, your assertion seems massively unlikely. Of course, you may not have gotten that from a denialist website. Maybe you made it up yourself. Which is even more damaging to your case.

 

Then there is your propensity to ad hominem attacks when you have no response to the information. The material for these attacks is exactly what is to be found on denialist websites. And is either false or irrelevant.

 

You asserted that there were record cold temperatures set in June in Germany.

 

And your connection of the Little Ice Age to the Maunder Minimum. Another favorite denialist bogeyman. The decline in temperatures began before the Maunder Minimum and persisted well after.  So nothing in the way of a causal connection has been demonstrated.

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

You asserted that there were more cold temperature records than hot set in June 

I never said anything of the sort

 

Quote

You asserted that there were record cold temperatures set in June in Germany.

"Records" are often quoted even though they don't date back to the beginning of recorded history, especially hot temperatures. That's what Wetter.com was doing, and it seems like a reasonable characterisation to me.

 

Quote

And your connection of the Little Ice Age to the Maunder Minimum.

I never mentioned the Little Ice Age at all.

 

Stop. Making. Stuff. Up.

Edited July 8, 2019 by RickBradford
Clarify

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

As for this..."As I've mentioned before, scientific certainty on any issue requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions that produce consistent results, and also requires conditions that allow experiments to be set up in an attempt to falsify a particular theory."

 

Utter nonsense By your criteria geology isn't a science. Nor astrophysics. Nor paleontology. You really want to go there? These are observational and historical sciences. As is climatology.

 

Dear me! I forgot to highlight 'scientific certainty' in bold. Realizing that you have poor attention to anything which casts doubt on the certainty of CO2 being the main driver of climate, I should have understood that you would miss that essential point. ????

 

There are lots of various fields in science which struggle with certainty due to the lack of accurate measurements, and/or the complexity of interacting forces which cannot be accurately observed and quantified.

 

Such disciplines are often given the term 'soft science' as opposed to 'hard science'. These can be misleading terms because the soft sciences, such as Climatology, Geology, Social Sciences, Psychology, Biology, Economics, and so on, can be very hard in the sense of difficult.

 

The hallmark of the “soft sciences” is their reliance on post-hoc analysis as the dominant means to determine relationships between factors, whereas the “hard sciences” predominantly use controlled experimentation. The common “science” part comes from the use of theories to explain phenomena and hypotheses to test those theories. The amount of control over the creation of the data vs. the selection of data is what places a hypothesis into the “hard” (more control) or “soft” (more selection) categories.

 

Geology is certainly a science and can identify the locations of fault lines where earthquakes might occur, for example, but has great difficulty in predicting when the next earthquake, or volcanic eruption, will occur, just as climatologists have great difficulty in predicting the future climate.

 

Engineering is a 'hard' science which can design the building of a house to withstand with certainty the strongest cycle or hurricane that is on the record, but the meteorologists cannot predict when the next category 5 cyclone will occur, so people generally don't bother spending that extra money to protect themselves from an uncertain event, and the government controlled building regulators, who have access to all the BOM records of past cyclones, generally don't insist that all dwellings are built to that standard, because that would  drive many people to different areas because of the additional cost as well as the scare of a future, devastating cyclone, and the economy in that location would suffer.

 

Most of the products we use in everyday life, such as motor cars, planes, televisions, iPhones, are products of the 'hard' sciences, as are rockets that can transport people to the moon. There is also often a mixture of the hard and soft disciplines. It's not always one or the other, especially in the medical field. New drugs go through a process of rigorous testing, in line with the procedures of the hard sciences, but because of the relatively long lifespan of a human, much longer than the lifespan of a mouse which was probably used in the initial experiments and tests, the harmful, long-term effects of a new drug on humans is not always known.

 

As for Stephen Schneider did you even think of taking into account when he wrote that speech? It was 1989. 30 years ago. Science marches on. And with each IPCC report the prognosis gets grimmer.

 

If it gets grimmer, it's because those in the 'soft science' fields of climatology are taking Stephen Schneider's advice, and the media is on board, reporting only scary events. Don't you understand the difference between politics and science? Really!  ????

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Dear me! I forgot to highlight 'scientific certainty' in bold. Realizing that you have poor attention to anything which casts doubt on the certainty of CO2 being the main driver of climate, I should have understood that you would miss that essential point. ????

 

There are lots of various fields in science which struggle with certainty due to the lack of accurate measurements, and/or the complexity of interacting forces which cannot be accurately observed and quantified.

 

Such disciplines are often given the term 'soft science' as opposed to 'hard science'. These can be misleading terms because the soft sciences, such as Climatology, Geology, Social Sciences, Psychology, Biology, Economics, and so on, can be very hard in the sense of difficult.

 

The hallmark of the “soft sciences” is their reliance on post-hoc analysis as the dominant means to determine relationships between factors, whereas the “hard sciences” predominantly use controlled experimentation. The common “science” part comes from the use of theories to explain phenomena and hypotheses to test those theories. The amount of control over the creation of the data vs. the selection of data is what places a hypothesis into the “hard” (more control) or “soft” (more selection) categories.

 

Geology is certainly a science and can identify the locations of fault lines where earthquakes might occur, for example, but has great difficulty in predicting when the next earthquake, or volcanic eruption, will occur, just as climatologists have great difficulty in predicting the future climate.

 

Engineering is a 'hard' science which can design the building of a house to withstand with certainty the strongest cycle or hurricane that is on the record, but the meteorologists cannot predict when the next category 5 cyclone will occur, so people generally don't bother spending that extra money to protect themselves from an uncertain event, and the government controlled building regulators, who have access to all the BOM records of past cyclones, generally don't insist that all dwellings are built to that standard, because that would  drive many people to different areas because of the additional cost as well as the scare of a future, devastating cyclone, and the economy in that location would suffer.

 

Most of the products we use in everyday life, such as motor cars, planes, televisions, iPhones, are products of the 'hard' sciences, as are rockets that can transport people to the moon. There is also often a mixture of the hard and soft disciplines. It's not always one or the other, especially in the medical field. New drugs go through a process of rigorous testing, in line with the procedures of the hard sciences, but because of the relatively long lifespan of a human, much longer than the lifespan of a mouse which was probably used in the initial experiments and tests, the harmful, long-term effects of a new drug on humans is not always known.

 

 

 

 

If it gets grimmer, it's because those in the 'soft science' fields of climatology are taking Stephen Schneider's advice, and the media is on board, reporting only scary events. Don't you understand the difference between politics and science? Really!  ????

I agree that it is unproven that CO₂ is the main driver of temperature rise / climate change. However, as the reason is not confirmed, then I think it's prudent to reduce levels so that at least the acidification of the oceans may be reduced, which may be more important. 

 

However, I must disagree with your suggestion that geology is "soft", it is widely accepted as being a hard science. As a sub discipline of geology, earthquake seismology, uses 'hard' methodologies, mathematics and quantitative data, but might be described as soft due to the enormous amount of variables that still confound accurate earthquake predictions w.r.t time and scale.

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I agree that it is unproven that CO₂ is the main driver of temperature rise / climate change. However, as the reason is not confirmed, then I think it's prudent to reduce levels so that at least the acidification of the oceans may be reduced, which may be more important. 

 

It is estimated that the average pH of the ocean surfaces has fallen during the past 150 years from a pH of approximately 8.2 to 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. However, the situation is much more complicated than the alarmists will admit. The pH of the whole ocean varies naturally by a far greater amount than 0.1. There is constant upwelling and downwelling of ocean currents which changes the pH constantly, and even the seasons of the year will change the average pH of the surfaces.

 

Geologists will also point out that there are possibly millions of submarine volcanoes along many ridges on the ocean floors. At any given time, hundreds of them could be active, but we usually do not see any signs of an active volcano on the surface because the ocean is so deep, the water pressure so great, and the water so cold that the emitted lava cools quickly and nothing spouts out from the surface.

 

Nevertheless, CO2 is constantly being emitted from multitudes of submarine volcanoes. Estimates of the total number of submarine volcanic sites in all of the oceans, ranges from 1 million to 3 million.
I wouldn't worry about the minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere having any significant effect on the oceans, if I were you. ????

 

However, I must disagree with your suggestion that geology is "soft", it is widely accepted as being a hard science. As a sub discipline of geology, earthquake seismology, uses 'hard' methodologies, mathematics and quantitative data, but might be described as soft due to the enormous amount of variables that still confound accurate earthquake predictions w.r.t time and scale.

 

Yes. I wasn't as clear as I could have been in that respect. It's not always a case of either/or. Broad disciplines that might generally be described as 'soft' are sometimes only soft in some respects, and hard in other respects. It's too simplistic to categorise them as either soft or hard. There's a spectrum ranging from soft to hard, with psychology, anthropology, economics and the social sciences at the soft end, and perhaps biology, geology and the medical sciences in the middle, and physics, chemistry and astronomy at the hard end.

 

Climatology, with regard to the accuracy of its predictions, is closer to the soft end in my opinion, but there are many 'hard science' disciplines used in Climatology. Unfortunately the causes of climate change are too complicated to allow accurate quantification. There are usually large margins of error, uncertainties, and reliance on computer models which often fail to produce accurate projections.

[nauseus]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is estimated that the average pH of the ocean surfaces has fallen during the past 150 years from a pH of approximately 8.2 to 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. However, the situation is much more complicated than the alarmists will admit. The pH of the whole ocean varies naturally by a far greater amount than 0.1. There is constant upwelling and downwelling of ocean currents which changes the pH constantly, and even the seasons of the year will change the average pH of the surfaces.

 

Geologists will also point out that there are possibly millions of submarine volcanoes along many ridges on the ocean floors. At any given time, hundreds of them could be active, but we usually do not see any signs of an active volcano on the surface because the ocean is so deep, the water pressure so great, and the water so cold that the emitted lava cools quickly and nothing spouts out from the surface.

 

Nevertheless, CO2 is constantly being emitted from multitudes of submarine volcanoes. Estimates of the total number of submarine volcanic sites in all of the oceans, ranges from 1 million to 3 million.
I wouldn't worry about the minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere having any significant effect on the oceans, if I were you. ????

 

 

 

 

Yes. I wasn't as clear as I could have been in that respect. It's not always a case of either/or. Broad disciplines that might generally be described as 'soft' are sometimes only soft in some respects, and hard in other respects. It's too simplistic to categorise them as either soft or hard. There's a spectrum ranging from soft to hard, with psychology, anthropology, economics and the social sciences at the soft end, and perhaps biology, geology and the medical sciences in the middle, and physics, chemistry and astronomy at the hard end.

 

Climatology, with regard to the accuracy of its predictions, is closer to the soft end in my opinion, but there are many 'hard science' disciplines used in Climatology. Unfortunately the causes of climate change are too complicated to allow accurate quantification. There are usually large margins of error, uncertainties, and reliance on computer models which often fail to produce accurate projections.

 

It's unlikely that any geologists could show that millions of submarine volcanoes exist; any active ones can easily be detected. Additionally the USGS put anthropongic CO₂  emissions far higher than those from all volcanic activity with the comment 'carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities'. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by nauseus

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

It's unlikely that any geologists could show that millions of submarine volcanoes exist; any active ones can easily be detected. Additionally the USGS put anthropongic CO₂  emissions far higher than those from all volcanic activity with the comment 'carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities'. 

The figure of a million or more is an estimate based upon an extrapolation of a smaller area of ocean ridges where the number has been counted. The oceans cover over 70% of the earth's surface. The total estimate of one million or more, over the entire ocean beds, seems to be generally accepted, but of course no-one really knows. Some estimates go as high as 3 million, and I've seen one as high as 10 million.

 

Those volcanoes that are in relatively shallow water can be easily detected, as plumes of smoke and lava burst through the water into the air. However most of the submarine volcanoes are at great depths where the water is extremely cold and at very high pressure, and the signs of any eruption are difficult to detect since there are no plumes visible at the surface.

 

This is another area of great uncertainty. It might be psychologically comforting to think we can protect the ocean biodiversity by reducing our CO2 emissions, but what's happening out of our sight and detection could likely have a far greater effect, rendering our expensive efforts to reduce minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere basically worthless.

 

"The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water.
 If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes."
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The figure of a million or more is an estimate based upon an extrapolation of a smaller area of ocean ridges where the number has been counted. The oceans cover over 70% of the earth's surface. The total estimate of one million or more, over the entire ocean beds, seems to be generally accepted, but of course no-one really knows. Some estimates go as high as 3 million, and I've seen one as high as 10 million.

 

Those volcanoes that are in relatively shallow water can be easily detected, as plumes of smoke and lava burst through the water into the air. However most of the submarine volcanoes are at great depths where the water is extremely cold and at very high pressure, and the signs of any eruption are difficult to detect since there are no plumes visible at the surface.

 

This is another area of great uncertainty. It might be psychologically comforting to think we can protect the ocean biodiversity by reducing our CO2 emissions, but what's happening out of our sight and detection could likely have a far greater effect, rendering our expensive efforts to reduce minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere basically worthless.

 

"The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water.
 If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes."
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

 

From millions to a million? Possibly. These estimates are just that.  

 

But the consensus remains that  anthropogenic CO₂  emissions are still vastly higher than volcanic. 

 

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/September-2011/Dragons-den-CO2-volcanic-or-anthropogenic

[bristolboy]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Dear me! I forgot to highlight 'scientific certainty' in bold. Realizing that you have poor attention to anything which casts doubt on the certainty of CO2 being the main driver of climate, I should have understood that you would miss that essential point. ????

 

There are lots of various fields in science which struggle with certainty due to the lack of accurate measurements, and/or the complexity of interacting forces which cannot be accurately observed and quantified.

 

Such disciplines are often given the term 'soft science' as opposed to 'hard science'. These can be misleading terms because the soft sciences, such as Climatology, Geology, Social Sciences, Psychology, Biology, Economics, and so on, can be very hard in the sense of difficult.

 

The hallmark of the “soft sciences” is their reliance on post-hoc analysis as the dominant means to determine relationships between factors, whereas the “hard sciences” predominantly use controlled experimentation. The common “science” part comes from the use of theories to explain phenomena and hypotheses to test those theories. The amount of control over the creation of the data vs. the selection of data is what places a hypothesis into the “hard” (more control) or “soft” (more selection) categories.

 

Geology is certainly a science and can identify the locations of fault lines where earthquakes might occur, for example, but has great difficulty in predicting when the next earthquake, or volcanic eruption, will occur, just as climatologists have great difficulty in predicting the future climate.

 

Engineering is a 'hard' science which can design the building of a house to withstand with certainty the strongest cycle or hurricane that is on the record, but the meteorologists cannot predict when the next category 5 cyclone will occur, so people generally don't bother spending that extra money to protect themselves from an uncertain event, and the government controlled building regulators, who have access to all the BOM records of past cyclones, generally don't insist that all dwellings are built to that standard, because that would  drive many people to different areas because of the additional cost as well as the scare of a future, devastating cyclone, and the economy in that location would suffer.

 

Most of the products we use in everyday life, such as motor cars, planes, televisions, iPhones, are products of the 'hard' sciences, as are rockets that can transport people to the moon. There is also often a mixture of the hard and soft disciplines. It's not always one or the other, especially in the medical field. New drugs go through a process of rigorous testing, in line with the procedures of the hard sciences, but because of the relatively long lifespan of a human, much longer than the lifespan of a mouse which was probably used in the initial experiments and tests, the harmful, long-term effects of a new drug on humans is not always known.

 

 

 

 

If it gets grimmer, it's because those in the 'soft science' fields of climatology are taking Stephen Schneider's advice, and the media is on board, reporting only scary events. Don't you understand the difference between politics and science? Really!  ????

Please, just because geologists can't predict the timing of earthquakes and volcanoes, doesn't mean that they can't predict anything. They can predict the course and timing of erosive forces. And they can also predict the fate of mountain ranges, where new ones will be formed and where old ones will die.. The can predict where the continents are heading. They can predict the effects that such human activities as coal mining will have on the environment.

As for engineering being a science really? Building a house is science? It's an experiment? You mean if the experiment goes awry the house falls down? Experimentation was the sine qua non you invoked for something to be a hard science, wasn't it? Engineers are no more scientists than are physicians, They depend on information gained by scientists but insofar as they function as engineers or physicians, they are not. If they actually do scientific research, sure, they're scientists. But that could be said of anyone. Could it be that someone who is an engineer is trying to claim credit for being a scientist?

And what makes your comment irrelevant is that climate science has had extraordinary success in predicting the course of the climate. They predicted that the poles would experience more warming than other parts of the world. They predicted decreasing oceanic acidity. They predicted the increase in extreme weather events. They predicted that the rise in global temperature would accelerate. Do you understand that high temperature records vs. low temperature records are now being set at a ratio of greater than 5 to 1.

And your past assertions about the rise in carbon dioxide not contributing to global warming is just nuts. Over 150 years ago a very great physicist name John Tyndall proved that a miniscule quantity of a green house gas added to a non greenhouse gas would greatly increase heat retentivity. This is ancient settled science.

[RickBradford]

An interesting new paper has appeared in Nature regarding the effect of cosmic rays on Earth's climate.

 

The mechanism, now well demonstrated, is that cosmic rays entering the Earth's atmosphere help the formation of low-level clouds, these reflect sunlight and therefore have a cooling effect on the climate.

 

This is especially interesting right now as we are entering a Solar Minimum, which increases the number of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere, so potentially leading to global cooling.

 

The paper is quite technical, and refers to an ancient event known as the last geomagnetic reversal, but it makes a welcome change from the kind of simplistic Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by the activists.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 

Co-author Professor Masayuki Hyodo commented: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it.

 

"This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Please, just because geologists can't predict the timing of earthquakes and volcanoes, doesn't mean that they can't predict anything. They can predict the course and timing of erosive forces. And they can also predict the fate of mountain ranges, where new ones will be formed and where old ones will die.. The can predict where the continents are heading. They can predict the effects that such human activities as coal mining will have on the environment.

As for engineering being a science really? Building a house is science? It's an experiment? You mean if the experiment goes awry the house falls down? Experimentation was the sine qua non you invoked for something to be a hard science, wasn't it? Engineers are no more scientists than are physicians, They depend on information gained by scientists but insofar as they function as engineers or physicians, they are not. If they actually do scientific research, sure, they're scientists. But that could be said of anyone. Could it be that someone who is an engineer is trying to claim credit for being a scientist?

And what makes your comment irrelevant is that climate science has had extraordinary success in predicting the course of the climate. They predicted that the poles would experience more warming than other parts of the world. They predicted decreasing oceanic acidity. They predicted the increase in extreme weather events. They predicted that the rise in global temperature would accelerate. Do you understand that high temperature records vs. low temperature records are now being set at a ratio of greater than 5 to 1.

And your past assertions about the rise in carbon dioxide not contributing to global warming is just nuts. Over 150 years ago a very great physicist name John Tyndall proved that a miniscule quantity of a green house gas added to a non greenhouse gas would greatly increase heat retentivity. This is ancient settled science.

Decreasing oceanic acidity? Are you having a laugh?

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

An interesting new paper has appeared in Nature regarding the effect of cosmic rays on Earth's climate.

 

The mechanism, now well demonstrated, is that cosmic rays entering the Earth's atmosphere help the formation of low-level clouds, these reflect sunlight and therefore have a cooling effect on the climate.

 

This is especially interesting right now as we are entering a Solar Minimum, which increases the number of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere, so potentially leading to global cooling.

 

The paper is quite technical, and refers to an ancient event known as the last geomagnetic reversal, but it makes a welcome change from the kind of simplistic Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by the activists.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 

Co-author Professor Masayuki Hyodo commented: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it.

 

"This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

Fascinating study. n fact it is long been established that there was a weak correlation between solar cycles and global temperatures. Nobody was sure why and now it looks like these scientists have uncovered the reason, or at least a reason, for the relationship. Climatologists can now focus on cloud cover.

 

However, scientists noted that somewhere around 1975 the correlation between solar activity and global temperature disappeared. Global temperatures no longer correlated with the solar cycles. So what was responsible for the change? What does it correlate with?The rise in CO2. 

 

In fact what disproves your case  is that starting in 1980 solar cycles have been weakening. 

Solar cycle 24 has been the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 21 that peaked around 1980.,,

During the last solar minimum in 2009, radiation peppering Earth from deep space reached a 50-year high at levels never before seen during the satellite era – and we’re getting close to those same levels and a new record is certainly on the table.

https://www.thegwpf.com/deep-solar-minimum-fast-approaching-cosmic-rays-continue-to-rise/

By your reasoning due to rising levels of cosmic rays the planet should have cooled. Yet despite the increase in cosmic rays, global warming has quickened its pace. In fact, 2009, the year of a solar minimum, was hotter than the 1998, the year of what is either the most powerful or 2nd most powerful El Nino on record, depending which criteria are used.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1998.tb06408.x

 Which means that the rise in CO2  correlates with global temperature much more significantly than any increase in cosmic ray radiation due to fluctuations in the solar cycle.

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Decreasing oceanic acidity? Are you having a laugh?

Sorry, I meant decreasing ocean alkalinity.

[RickBradford]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

By your reasoning due to rising levels of cosmic rays the planet should have cooled.

I never said that, or anything like it.

 

Quote

In fact what disproves your case  is that starting in 1980 solar cycles have been weakening.

I am not making a "case" for anything, merely pointing out some recent research which may be of interest to readers.

 

Stop making things up.