Horrible analogy. It doesn't even make sense,
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
100-reasons-why-climate-change-natural-and-not-manmade
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Horrible analogy. It doesn't even make sense,
Of course it doesn't to you. You botched your brain surgery.
The fact that you think that just any schmuck - Like Joe Bastardi's - opinion is as valid as the expert's (scientists that publish and so are subject to peer review and fact checked) is proof that you should have had an expert do your surgery for you.
No expert denies man made global warming. Essentially 100% of them agree that it is real and being caused by man's release of greenhouse gasses.
Step away from the right wing echo chamber.
any real science should be considered when we determine what impact if any that man made co2 causes warming. That should be the first question.
How come there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on failing models.
2. right now the theory is aerosols do block or reflect some warming... seems like a good theory to me. but they are still working on it.
For instance recent papers from CERN and other places are starting to find that incoming cosmic rays may create aerosols that may increase cooling clouds.
the going theory is clouds can warm (the cumulous clouds most likely keep heat in) and clouds can cool and block warming rays... for instance tropical clouds.
At the moment the models are not modeling clouds and water vapor well and clouds may have a much larger impact on warming and cooling than co2.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html
Possible long term effect
The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study.
The
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html#jCp
here was a comment at skeptical science
Based on the abundant literature that does exist supporting the influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's climate, how can anyone justify the IPCC ignoring cosmic rays and scenarios for stronger solar forcing in some of their global climate model iterations? The sun's activity significantly increased coeval with industrialization into a sustained solar max (see first link below), and it seems critical to understand the role of both solar activity and AGW to attempt to model Earth's climate.
Recent examples of the abundant literature that Cosmic Rays do influence Earth's climate (beyond the CERN nature paper above) include:
Pnas 9400 yr cosmic ray record correlated with asian monsoon.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Pnas paper showing causation that cosmic rays force global climate in multi year time intervals and also a century of strong correlation
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full
Video of Cern Paper (simple 5 min overview):
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought
Older papers include:
Geel, B.V. Raspopov, O.M. et al. The role of solar forcing upon climate change, Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999), pg 331-338.
The Svensmark set of papers like:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
Additionally literature: there are many papers that find the sun's highly periodic (22 yr today) signal of the Hale cycle paleomagnetic reversals preserved in regional climate proxy data like tree rings and lacustrine varves, and this solar magnetic periodicity most likely related to cosmic rays (here is one with an overview of some of the occurences):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10933-008-9244-0
and here is more from the CERN experiment...
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
How come there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on failing models.
2. right now the theory is aerosols do block or reflect some warming... seems like a good theory to me. but they are still working on it.
For instance recent papers from CERN and other places are starting to find that incoming cosmic rays may create aerosols that may increase cooling clouds.
the going theory is clouds can warm (the cumulous clouds most likely keep heat in) and clouds can cool and block warming rays... for instance tropical clouds.
At the moment the models are not modeling clouds and water vapor well and clouds may have a much larger impact on warming and cooling than co2.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html
Possible long term effect
The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study.
The
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html#jCp
here was a comment at skeptical science
Based on the abundant literature that does exist supporting the influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's climate, how can anyone justify the IPCC ignoring cosmic rays and scenarios for stronger solar forcing in some of their global climate model iterations? The sun's activity significantly increased coeval with industrialization into a sustained solar max (see first link below), and it seems critical to understand the role of both solar activity and AGW to attempt to model Earth's climate.
Recent examples of the abundant literature that Cosmic Rays do influence Earth's climate (beyond the CERN nature paper above) include:
Pnas 9400 yr cosmic ray record correlated with asian monsoon.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Pnas paper showing causation that cosmic rays force global climate in multi year time intervals and also a century of strong correlation
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full
Video of Cern Paper (simple 5 min overview):
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought
Older papers include:
Geel, B.V. Raspopov, O.M. et al. The role of solar forcing upon climate change, Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999), pg 331-338.
The Svensmark set of papers like:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
Additionally literature: there are many papers that find the sun's highly periodic (22 yr today) signal of the Hale cycle paleomagnetic reversals preserved in regional climate proxy data like tree rings and lacustrine varves, and this solar magnetic periodicity most likely related to cosmic rays (here is one with an overview of some of the occurences):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10933-008-9244-0
and here is more from the CERN experiment...
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
Normally, I do not post in this section because it's populated by idiots. However, pseudoscience infuriates me enough that I figured I'd respond to one point out of 100:
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
"Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production (green line) have risen to more than 35 billion metric tons per year, while volcanoes (purple line) produce less than 1 billion metric tons annually."
PS. Naturally, you gonna point out that volcanoes have been around for a while and where did all that CO2? Well, oceans and plants utilize CO2, which is what happened with volcanic CO2 before the industrial revolution. However, natural carbon sinks do not have enough capacity to adsorb all of the man-made CO2 (only about 50% get utilized). One of the proposed remedies is re-forrestation, especially of the rain-forrest in the Amazon.
PPS. All of these have been answered very well before, I am just too lazy to look for references.
Last edited:
Some background on the CERN experiments...
more at the link.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Polarizing lens
more at the link.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Polarizing lens
any real science should be considered when we determine what impact if any that man made co2 causes warming. That should be the first question.
How come there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on failing models.
2. right now the theory is aerosols do block or reflect some warming... seems like a good theory to me. but they are still working on it.
For instance recent papers from CERN and other places are starting to find that incoming cosmic rays may create aerosols that may increase cooling clouds.
the going theory is clouds can warm (the cumulous clouds most likely keep heat in) and clouds can cool and block warming rays... for instance tropical clouds.
At the moment the models are not modeling clouds and water vapor well and clouds may have a much larger impact on warming and cooling than co2.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html
Possible long term effect
The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study.
The
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html#jCp
here was a comment at skeptical science
Based on the abundant literature that does exist supporting the influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's climate, how can anyone justify the IPCC ignoring cosmic rays and scenarios for stronger solar forcing in some of their global climate model iterations? The sun's activity significantly increased coeval with industrialization into a sustained solar max (see first link below), and it seems critical to understand the role of both solar activity and AGW to attempt to model Earth's climate.
Recent examples of the abundant literature that Cosmic Rays do influence Earth's climate (beyond the CERN nature paper above) include:
Pnas 9400 yr cosmic ray record correlated with asian monsoon.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Pnas paper showing causation that cosmic rays force global climate in multi year time intervals and also a century of strong correlation
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full
Video of Cern Paper (simple 5 min overview):
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought
Older papers include:
Geel, B.V. Raspopov, O.M. et al. The role of solar forcing upon climate change, Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999), pg 331-338.
The Svensmark set of papers like:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
Additionally literature: there are many papers that find the sun's highly periodic (22 yr today) signal of the Hale cycle paleomagnetic reversals preserved in regional climate proxy data like tree rings and lacustrine varves, and this solar magnetic periodicity most likely related to cosmic rays (here is one with an overview of some of the occurences):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10933-008-9244-0
and here is more from the CERN experiment...
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
"How come there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on failing models."
liar
Some background on the CERN experiments...
more at the link.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Polarizing lens
Your brain must have gotten too many cosmic rays.
So that's why you did your own brain surgery and botched it? You thought being an expert didn't matter?
I hope you have learned your lesson. lol
What's the first words out of the mouth of someone who botched their own brain surgery?
"Hello, I'm here to fix your AC."
What's the first words out of the mouth of someone who botched their own brain surgery?
"Hello, I'm here to fix your AC."
And yet the HVAC guy is much smarter than you are. That must really aggravate you. LOL Makes you wonder about generalizing people huh?
And yet the HVAC guy is much smarter than you are. That must really aggravate you. LOL Makes you wonder about generalizing people huh?
Yeah... you are the guy who thinks that Environmental Science is a real Engineering major. Enjoy your delusions.