Global Warming: For Experts Only

[jem]

what the fuck are you lying about now.
I tell you on just about every thread... the same property of co2 that traps energy and shoots some of it to earth ... traps incoming energy coming in and shoots it back into space.

I explain co2 acts like a blanket and a shield.
I provided the NASA satellite experiment which proves it acts as shield.

I have also explained there are studies which show that as you add more co2 its properties as a blanket decrease logarithmically.

I also show you through peer reviewed paper by humlum and other peer reviewed papers that co2 levels trail changes in temperature.

So why the hell would I deny co2 traps some upward IR from the earth and sends some of it back? you act like you are proving something.

you just post the same shit with discussing any of the science which is not favorable to your superstition about co2. you are just a drone.

If you wish to talk science... point out with science how what I said above is wrong.

You will cease being a troll moron when you understand our atmosphere is a very complex system with negative feedbacks. If it did not have negative feedbacks we would probably have had a runaway heating situation and everything would have burned away.

So you admit the charts are correct. Interesting that both and pie dodge their factualness.

Your red herrings are exactly what a think tank operator would do.

Talk about anything but the facts.

 

[piezoe]

I have not referred to solar luminosity. I said all solar activity and as for Cosmic Flux, there is nothing new! It goes back to Henrik Svensmark in 2003 and is mired in controversy.

Shaviv's work from 2005 was left wanting to put it politely by other direct research and in 2012, when high quality satellite data showed cosmic rays erm excuse me, "cosmic ray flux (CRF)" , had no statistically significant influence. This also confirms Lockwood and Fröhlich findings in 2007 and others which negated solar activity and cosmic rays as mentioned earlier. They do not meet with the evidence.
Also journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00306.1 finds galactic cosmic rays do not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover which is opposite to what Shaviv ( and earlier proposers of this effect) need.

I just wanted to comment that I am somewhat familiar with the Laken, et al. paper you cited. In this paper Shaviv's 2005 paper is cited without much comment. I think the Laken paper contains at least one serious error, Fig. 5, in that it is using GCR uncorrected for energy. Only Cosmic rays with energy greater than ~10 GeV can penetrate the earths atmosphere. This is the varying sub-component of TSI that affects ionization and cloud seeding. The other problem is that the Laken paper, like the IPCC and so many others, have tried to correlate cloud cover with TSI (total solar irradience), but of course cloud cover does not correlate with TSI. It is the ionization from CRF above 10 GeV that is correlated, not TSI. I don't see, therefore, the Laken et al. paper as a refutation of the Shaviv findings. The IPCC models do not of course attempt to model cloud cover, which is critically importnat. Shaviv is somewhere in the middle ground between the IPCC and Salby. His work indicates that Anthropomorphic contributions are larger than Salby has maintained, but considerably smaller than the IPCC maintains.

 

[stu]

If memory serves me correctly, the flat earthers also refused to provide one peer-reviewed scientific study.

They'll make any, same and similar claims as GW deniers.

I suggest for your own sake, you don't rely on your memory for anything important.

 

[stu]

What exactly is your point? I thought it was that observed temperature change can not be explained by direct solar radiative forcing. I don't disagree with this, and neither does Shaviv!. You have failed utterly to even try and understand Shaviv's contribution to the science. It is not cosmic rays directly, it is ionization related to Cosmic Ray Flux that is linked to cloud formation according to Shaviv. In fact new laboratory results are supportive of his hypothesis. (Cosmic rays are the same thing as gamma radiation) . You may not realize that when solar radiative flux is measured it is generally not the entire spectrum that is measured but typically uv through infrared. This is the radiation that is directly observable as heat or is convertible to heat (IR) upon absorption. And of course gamma has also been measured, but there is no observable direct link. Everyone was looking for a direct link between changes in solar radiation and temperature. But observable direct links are too weak to explain observation. Shaviv has proposed that there is an indirect mechanism that up until ~2005 had been entirely overlooked. There is a link between cloud formation solar driven ionization. What he is proposing is quite different than what has been well considered previously.

What is my point? Really!?
Your point appears confused piezoe but thanks for expanding.
It's like you have been hypnotized by the likes of Shaviv and Salby but at the same time recognize the flaws in their ideas, though you seem to want to step around them for no good apparent reason.
Even if Shaviv's proposals were by some inexplicable means to be found valid, when you read through what he is saying, it is that there might be a relationship between solar influences and cloud formation but only in certain situations, though even then it wouldn't /doesn't / couldn't account for the exceptional increase in global warming. So he invents (I use the word loosely) or should I say - suggests the idea of an 'indirect mechanism'.

The problem with that is, it doesn't change anything as galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased over a corresponding period(a cooling effect)... " which is exactly the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" as cited previously.
So according to that fact alone, his 'indirect mechanism' may as well be down to fairy farts as it won't meet with observed scientific data in any event. The only measurable observable scientific explanations that do meet and can account for increased temperatures are man made emissions.

Which was my point all along. So if anything, Shaviv is anyway indirectly confirming the overwhelming role of anthropic GW, as once again, natural causes, particularly the one he proposes, could not account for the observed rise in temperatures, even if he or you believe his idea has some sort of merit.

 

[stu]

I just wanted to comment that I am somewhat familiar with the Laken, et al. paper you cited. In this paper Shaviv's 2005 paper is cited without much comment. I think the Laken paper contains at least one serious error, Fig. 5, in that it is using GCR uncorrected for energy. Only Cosmic rays with energy greater than ~10 GeV can penetrate the earths atmosphere. This is the varying sub-component of TSI that affects ionization and cloud seeding. The other problem is that the Laken paper, like the IPCC and so many others, have tried to correlate cloud cover with TSI (total solar irradience), but of course cloud cover does not correlate with TSI. It is the ionization from CRF above 10 GeV that is correlated, not TSI. I don't see, therefore, the Laken et al. paper as a refutation of the Shaviv findings. The IPCC models do not of course attempt to model cloud cover, which is critically importnat. Shaviv is somewhere in the middle ground between the IPCC and Salby. His work indicates that Anthropomorphic contributions are larger than Salby has maintained, but considerably smaller than the IPCC maintains.

I wasn't aware I referred specifically to Laken. The observed data countering Shaviv is much more recent.
I do however acknowledge your willingness to post the comment above, where we have Shaviv advising Salby that anthropic activity is greater than Salby is allowing for!!

That really is the underlying point. It is specifically what the great preponderance of science finds. That the comparatively recent measured extreme increases in global warming can only be explained by the overwhelming Anthropomorphic contributions, not natural events.

It is unconscionable why anyone in their right mind would even want to deny the fact.

 

[Tom B]

They'll make any, same and similar claims as GW deniers.

I suggest for your own sake, you don't rely on your memory for anything important.

I remember that in addition to being an imbecile, you have no sense of humor. Please continue to wallow in your miserable life.

 

[piezoe]

...That the comparatively recent measured extreme increases in global warming can only be explained by the overwhelming Anthropomorphic contributions

This is appearing to be less and less likely as more studies appear. Go to 4:13 in the Nir Shaviv youtube video I posted a link to for a nice summary of IPCC problems. It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant. Anything the IPCC doesn't know how to include in their models they find an excuse to ignore. This is a very convenient truth.
https://screenshots.firefox.com/0pvuQdvuPjuZDUJx/www.youtube.com

 

[stu]

I remember that in addition to being an imbecile, you have no sense of humor. Please continue to wallow in your miserable life.

jeezus man chill out. Talk about miserable AND overreaction.

 

[stu]

This is appearing to be less and less likely as more studies appear. Go to 4:13 in the Nir Shaviv youtube video I posted a link to for a nice summary of IPCC problems. It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant. Anything the IPCC doesn't know how to include in their models they find an excuse to ignore. This is a very convenient truth.
https://screenshots.firefox.com/0pvuQdvuPjuZDUJx/www.youtube.com

When the only studies that appear to you as believable are Shaviv and Salby against overwhelming scientific evidence, then of course man made emissions will seem less likely to be relevant.

But for you to say man made emissions are insignificant is, to put it scientifically, bullshit.

Basically Shaviv and Salby would have better hypothesis for showing anthropomorphic emissions were insignificant if they just kept dividing current levels by 2 until reaching a figure they liked better.

 

[piezoe]

When the only studies that appear to you as believable are Shaviv and Salby

Where on Earth did you get that idea? You must have read related threads I've contributed to?

But for you to say man made emissions are insignificant is, to put it scientifically, bullshit.

Even Hansen unwittingly has shown this to be the case if the feedback is negative, not positive. Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2. (At the projected levels. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.) The mechanism for positive feedback is unknown (some assumed it was increased water vapor and thus clouds, but as you yourself pointed out, current understanding is that clouds are net cooling. ) In other words, positive feedback is assumed despite the absence of a plausible mechanism! However NASA Scientist (at the time) Ferenc Miskolczi has published a theoretical paper showing that negative feedback is a requirement of the observed energy balance. You can, therefore, add Miskolczi to your list of brilliant physicists who are throwing cold water on Hansen's hypothesis.

As someone interested in science you should also be reluctant to accept the assumption of positive feedback in the absence of a plausible mechanism. By contrast, plausible mechanisms for negative feedback do exist. Because positive feedback systems are unstable and are driven to there positive limit, any proposed positive feedback mechanism must include an explanation of why we Homo sapiens still exist on this planet.