EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:38 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:21 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
One of the better explanations of the CERN experiments in a more lay presentation.

http://thrsation.edu.au/do-cosmic-rays- ... -cern-3246


CERN did not disprove anything about the Cosmic Ray hypothesis. They will be testing to see if the particles formed by Cosmic Rays can grow into CCNs in their next paper.


Other than the number of particles produced being insufficient in number and size to account for the observed effects? Even if they can grow to sufficient size that whole insufficient number really leaves a hole in the hypothesis.


This is a misrepresentation of the paper's conclusions.

The concentrations of suphuric acid in the boundary layer of the atmosphere were not enough to explain the observed nucleation, it says nothing about ions.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:24 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Everyone loses with CAGW, you won nothing except your own denial. [-X :razz: 8) :lol:


So what is it that I am denying besides disagreeing with your opinion?


And the science over the last 150 years in the hopes each and every new straw presented for you to grasp actually has some basis in refuting that existing science.


Yes there is a Greenhouse Effect.

That's what science has told us over the last 150 years. It does not tell us how powerful this effect is. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas as well as we know that cell phones emit radiation. Does that mean that the number of people talking on their cell phones determines the temperature of a building?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:26 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of AGW and skeptical of mass CAGW.

One of them being that we do not know what Cloud Cover has done over the 20th Century.


Well the fact that you can think up reasons not to believe something does not make you a skeptic I could believe that the Royal family are lizard people and not members of the human race, an ex Coventry city goalkeeper believes it, so why shouldn't I?


That is a very good reason to be skeptical, because if it has decreased substantially due to solar changes, then the AGW hypothesis will go up in smoke. A 10% decrease in low cloud cover would equate to a 8 w/m^2 forcing. Compare this forcing to a 40% increase of CO2 that has been observed, which is around 1.48 w/m^2.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:31 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/ ... -print.pdf

The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s
to the 1950s, then a decrease from 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase
from the 1980s up to the present.
During the last three decades the estimated clearsky
SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland
based on direct radiative flux measurements.


This is not terribly impressive, since this only covers Switzerland and not the entire globe.

With temperatures increasing in the early 20th Century, wouldn't we expect a change in GLOBAL cloud cover, because of either a feedback to warming, or because the clouds are causing the warming?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:42 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.


Causation from one variable would only track if no other variables changed. That is why correlations with higher numbers of variables is suspect, especially when there is no evidence for a mechanism for the cause.


The correlation values can tell us how much of the variability in one variable can be explained by the other variable. When Georgieva et. al gets r values of 0.85, it means that 85% of the variance over the last 150 years can be explained by solar variability, which is amazingly high for such a chaotic climate system.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Where is there evidence of cause being ignored?


Dismissive of any strong correlations between solar output and temperature is one.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Having talked to you for several years now Snowie, why are you so passionate about your position and not listen to the IPCC position on climate? Your predetermined postion excludes the mainstream science position based in evidence. At the environment site you were just adamant that there can't be any deep sea warming during the hiatus. Evidnece doesn't seem to move Snowie, its my observation that you are totally bonded to your predetermined viewpoint.


Snowie,

Could you start a new thread to explain the basics of the geomagnetic thing? I am unsure what it's about as it's a bit beyond me unless it's the cosmic ray/cloud formation rate as altered by solar weather. (Is that it??)


Hey Tim,

I can do that for you.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:04 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
CERN did not disprove anything about the Cosmic Ray hypothesis. They will be testing to see if the particles formed by Cosmic Rays can grow into CCNs in their next paper.


Other than the number of particles produced being insufficient in number and size to account for the observed effects? Even if they can grow to sufficient size that whole insufficient number really leaves a hole in the hypothesis.


This is a misrepresentation of the paper's conclusions.

The concentrations of suphuric acid in the boundary layer of the atmosphere were not enough to explain the observed nucleation, it says nothing about ions.


The nucleation measured was insufficient even with the multiplication effect of the sulphuric acid to match the observed conditions in the boundary layer of the atmosphere.

To be "skeptical" would mean treating all hypotheses with equal skepticism, not picking and choosing some to be skeptical and others to bend over backwards to try to support, would it not? Denial of some scientific evidence while not requiring evidence at all in other cases, is where the term "denier" originates.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
So what is it that I am denying besides disagreeing with your opinion?


And the science over the last 150 years in the hopes each and every new straw presented for you to grasp actually has some basis in refuting that existing science.


Yes there is a Greenhouse Effect.

That's what science has told us over the last 150 years. It does not tell us how powerful this effect is.


Actually, it does. We know what the black body temperature would be and we know what the measured temperature is so we know what the GHE power is.

Quote:
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas as well as we know that cell phones emit radiation. Does that mean that the number of people talking on their cell phones determines the temperature of a building?


No, but the number of cell phones in use will have an impact on the temperature of a building, just not much of one for a normal sized building and use ratio even with all of the heat producing aspects are included.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:12 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, but the number of cell phones in use will have an impact on the temperature of a building, just not much of one for a normal sized building and use ratio even with all of the heat producing aspects are included.


Right, but it won't have much of an impact.

That's why showing proofs of CO2 being a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases increasing are not a proof of Carbon Dioxide having a large impact on the climate and being the dominant driver of recent warming.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/ ... -print.pdf

The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s
to the 1950s, then a decrease from 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase
from the 1980s up to the present.
During the last three decades the estimated clearsky
SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland
based on direct radiative flux measurements.


This is not terribly impressive, since this only covers Switzerland and not the entire globe.

With temperatures increasing in the early 20th Century, wouldn't we expect a change in GLOBAL cloud cover, because of either a feedback to warming, or because the clouds are causing the warming?


So where is your data on the global cloud cover for the last century?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.


Causation from one variable would only track if no other variables changed. That is why correlations with higher numbers of variables is suspect, especially when there is no evidence for a mechanism for the cause.


The correlation values can tell us how much of the variability in one variable can be explained by the other variable. When Georgieva et. al gets r values of 0.85, it means that 85% of the variance over the last 150 years can be explained by solar variability, which is amazingly high for such a chaotic climate system.


If there is confirmation and a mechanism and the rest of the stuff science requires.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:28 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Where is there evidence of cause being ignored?


Dismissive of any strong correlations between solar output and temperature is one.


Science does not view correlation as evidence of cause. Period. The temperature has risen in proportion to the inverse number of pirates, thus pirate loss is the cause of the temperature rise?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:43 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The nucleation measured was insufficient even with the multiplication effect of the sulphuric acid to match the observed conditions in the boundary layer of the atmosphere.

To be "skeptical" would mean treating all hypotheses with equal skepticism, not picking and choosing some to be skeptical and others to bend over backwards to try to support, would it not? Denial of some scientific evidence while not requiring evidence at all in other cases, is where the term "denier" originates.


All they showed was that sulphuric acid was not important in the boundary layer.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/ ... -print.pdf

The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s
to the 1950s, then a decrease from 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase
from the 1980s up to the present.
During the last three decades the estimated clearsky
SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland
based on direct radiative flux measurements.


This is not terribly impressive, since this only covers Switzerland and not the entire globe.

With temperatures increasing in the early 20th Century, wouldn't we expect a change in GLOBAL cloud cover, because of either a feedback to warming, or because the clouds are causing the warming?


So where is your data on the global cloud cover for the last century?


That's the thing: We don't know. It seems logical that Cloud Cover should have changed either a feedback to warming, or because the clouds are causing the warming. If Low Clouds decreased by 10% over the 20th Century, it would represent a forcing of 8 w/m^2, which would be enormous compared to the CO2 and anthropogenic forcings.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group