Global Warming: For Experts Only

[WeToddDid2]

New Study which is basically Old Study.
Svensmark had already written his -Variations on a Cosmic Ray Theory - but has shown on each occasion their basic science was wrong .

Unfortunately he has in the past made lame excuse for some serious flaws and fundamental errors , attempting to salvage the position. So here's yet another. He re-jigs and re-releases on the theme as regular as 11-year sunspots cycles. Now he's suggesting there is an amplification of cosmic ray effect, exactly what CO2 does. How convenient.

"He does not dispute that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a warming impact on the climate."

There is really no scientific need to look for such over elaborate theories based on Svensmark's (et al) disputed data.
Complicated suppositions and unproven tests are hardly helpful when all the time the very basic principles of science do explain how the rapid increases of artificial CO2 into the atmosphere, will increase Earth's temperature enough to throw the natural balance out of whack and potentially cause long term realistic serious consequences.

Yep, nothing new.

"The research team tested its ideas experimentally in a large cloud chamber.

Data was taken over a period of two years with total 3100 hours of data sampling.

Professor Svensmark said the new results gave a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity is reflected in variations in Earth’s climate.

“This new work gives credit to a mechanism that is much stronger than changes in solar irradiance alone,” Svensmark told The Australian.

“Solar irradiance has been the only solar forcing that has been included in climate models and such results show that the effect on climate is too small to be of importance,” he said.

“The new thing is that there exists an amplification mechanism that is operating on clouds in the atmosphere,” Svensmark said.

“Quantifying the impact of solar activity on climate from observations is found to be 5-7 times larger than from solar irradiance, and agrees with empirical variations in cosmic rays and clouds,” he said."

 

[LacesOut]

You mean like every expert on earth?

No expert denies it. None.


Are you smarter on this than all the experts?

Yes. There are many experts who don’t believe that man made co2 causes catastrophic warming. Many.
You just don’t want to believe it.
That’s your problem.

 

[OddTrader]

Also: Correlation =/= Cause-Effect !

Too many discussions on various correlation charts.

Very little (or zero) presentation on any Systemic cause-effect diagram, Yet (just my Google search)! ?

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees

It was the early 1990s. Climate scientists had long known that humans were warming up the planet. But politicians were only beginning to appreciate that it would take a staggering coordinated effort to get nations to burn fewer fossil fuels and avoid sharp temperature increases in the decades ahead.

Those policymakers needed a common goal — a way to say, Here’s how bad things will get and This is what we need to do to stop it. But that posed a dilemma. No one could agree on how much global warming was actually unacceptable. How high did the seas need to rise before we had a serious problem? How much heat was too much?

http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/climate-science-explained-10-graphics

This decoupling can also be seen at the country level in 21 nations from 2000-2014. Whether these are indicative of long-term shifts remains to be seen. We will need to see a deep decline if we are to limit dangerous climate change, and even with existing emissions-reduction commitments, global emissions are not expected to decline until at least after 2030.

 

[LacesOut]

Oh you are becoming so boring. In addition to being a liar. Still can't come up with ONE publishing climate scientist that denies man made global warming. OTOH....

• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

So geologists and physicists and chemists are ok when they are used to prove your point.
But peer reviewed articles by geologists and physicists and chemists that refute your ridiculous claims are unacceptable. Because they aren’t ‘climate scientists’ from Global Warming U.
You are spaced bro.

 

[futurecurrents]

So geologists and physicists and chemists are ok when they are used to prove your point.
But peer reviewed articles by geologists and physicists and chemists that refute your ridiculous claims are unacceptable. Because they aren’t ‘climate scientists’ from Global Warming U.
You are spaced bro.

Yes, I believe the experts over the non-experts. Maybe you do not.

OK, let me be clear here, because you seem to having some difficulty understanding.

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. NONE.

Furthermore, the non-climate scientists - the engineers and geologists and astrophysicists - offered up by the denial machine DO NOT refute man made global warming.

 

[LacesOut]

Yes, I believe the experts over the non-experts. Maybe you do not.

OK, let me be clear here, because you seem to having some difficulty understanding.

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. NONE.

Furthermore, the non-climate scientists - the engineers and geologists and astrophysicists - offered up by the denial machine DO NOT refute man made global warming.

There are many thousands of them.
Scientists who explicitly state that while man may contribute to earths climate change process...but not significantly and most certainly not in any catastrophic way.
There are thousands of them.
You cannot find a single one that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man made CO2 causes catastrophic warming.
So fuck off already and get ready for the next cold spell. Hopefully your HVAC business will boom and you can pollute the world more.

 

[futurecurrents]

There are many thousands of them.
Scientists who explicitly state that while man may contribute to earths climate change process...but not significantly and most certainly not in any catastrophic way.
There are thousands of them.
You cannot find a single one that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man made CO2 causes catastrophic warming.
So fuck off already and get ready for the next cold spell. Hopefully your HVAC business will boom and you can pollute the world more.

Thousands of what? Scientists that don't deny man made global warming? Gee, got me, LOL


Here, read this and learn something.

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[8]
• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[9]
• Human influence on the climate system is clear.[10] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[11] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[10]
• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"[12]
• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"[13]
• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[12]
• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[14]
• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[15] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[16]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgementsand so are not included in the scientific opinion.[17][18]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[19] which in 2007[20] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[21] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[LacesOut]

No you retard...thousands of scientists who understand that there is no credible data to suggest that manmadeCO2 is responsible for any catastrophic warming.
You just politicize the issue which means you have zero credibility.
Let the scientists do the work - there is no consensus. No matter what you cut and paste.

 

[futurecurrents]

No you retard...thousands of scientists who understand that there is no credible data to suggest that manmadeCO2 is responsible for any catastrophic warming.
You just politicize the issue which means you have zero credibility.
Let the scientists do the work - there is no consensus. No matter what you cut and paste.

If there is no consensus, among thousands of experts, it should be easy for you to find one quote, paper summary, anything from any publishing climate scientist saying that man made global warming is not happening.

The consensus is essentially 100%.

Yes I cut and paste the facts.

 

[OddTrader]

If possible, what I would like to learn from the scientists is a big picture regrading recent global temperature change has been due to:

1. What estimated % by the earth's heat?
2. What estimated % by the sun's heat?
3. What estimated % by the plastic micro-beads in the sea/air/etc? (World-wide bans?)
4. What estimated % by the CO2 from the manufacturers/farms/humans/etc, per individual sector?
5. What estimated % by the CFC in the last 100/50/25/12.5 years?
6. What estimated % by XYZ/etc?
7. What would be the interrelations among them?
8. Which are the uncontrollable ones by human efforts/technologies?
9. Which ones should be resolved soonest with long-term solutions, without creating some other sequential problems (avoiding like the CFC=>HFC, which is just like a joke created by some well-trained scientists!?)? LOL

Furthermore about this complex mega-system, the systems engineers would likely request the scientists to quantify many of the relevant measures, such as (let's concentrate on CO2 for now):

A1. Perhaps only part of the total CO2 each year would be usually generated by farming and mining industries?

Say, if the impact of CO2 is only 10% among all factors, and within this 10% CO2 there would be merely 20% generated by farming and mining industries, the politicians and some voters might be happy to support any reduction plan as these industries may get exemption due to relatively small adverse impact.

If they are not 10% and 20% as stated above, we then need to know what would be the %s.


A2. Maybe the absolute majority of total CO2 each year would be actually produced directly/indirectly by last (say) five years' amount of some others factors/gases/ocean-current/etc.!?


B1. It seems the overall status is still a bit primitive, not even having clear theoretical backing Yet.

Dynamic model (including time lag, feedback, and interactions) of CO2 impact on earth climate temperature:

Theory>>Basic science>>Science>>Applied science>>Engineering>>Technology>>Common practice!

B2. Why 2% reduction is preferred? According to Deming, this kind of target used in process control is a basic fault, when without a steady/stable process or system first built/reached.

Why not 10% or 100%? Who has the best knowledge to define this target? Where is the body of knowledge in this process/system?

"Common" and "special" sources of variation
Main article: Common cause and special cause (statistics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_process_control

Shewhart read the new statistical theories coming out of Britain, especially the work of William Sealy Gosset, Karl Pearson, and Ronald Fisher. However, he understood that data from physical processes seldom produced a "normal distribution curve"; that is, a Gaussian distribution or "bell curve". He discovered that data from measurements of variation in manufacturing did not always behave the way as data from measurements of natural phenomena (for example, Brownian motion of particles). Shewhart concluded that while every process displays variation, some processes display variation that is natural to the process ("common" sources of variation)- these processes were described as 'in (statistical) control'. Other processes additionally display variation that is not present in the causal system of the process at all times ("special" sources of variation), and these were described as 'not in control'.[6]

C. Commercial opportunities?

China is methodically building the world’s most ambitious carbon market
As Trump retreats, China steps forward on climate change.
By David Roberts@drvox Dec 22, 2017

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/22/16804594/china-carbon-trading-system


Of course, this is China, so covering “only” the power sector would immediately make its trading system the world’s largest, covering roughly 3.5 billion tons of CO2. By comparison, the world’s current largest system (in the European Union) covers around 2 billion tons, and the biggest in the US (California’s) covers around 395 million tons.

Assessment

China’s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030. The latest analysis from the Climate Action Tracker indicates that CO2 emissions may, in fact, already have stopped increasing and reached peak levels.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/China.html

However, total GHG emissions are likely to continue increasing until 2030, as China has not yet implemented sufficient policies addressing non-CO2 GHG emissions (CH4, N2O, HFCs etc.), although the rate of increase of total emissions would become near-zero under the most optimistic assumptions of continued coal abatement (at an average growth rate of 0.3%/year in total GHG emissions between 2017 and 2030). As the NDC acknowledges that addressing these gases is important, further policy action may be expected to address non- CO2 emissions as well.

D. ...