EnviroLink Forum

Which still leaves that whole problem of nothing showing the accuracy of any model
and the point you seem to be missing.

_________________
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

Yes it is. It is the SAME logical fallacy, as there are many facts that back the scientific theory of GHGs having driven the climate over the last 150 years and moreso in the last few decades. If one is a fallacy BOTH are fallacies. It is really that simple and to claim one must be flawed while the other is perfect is a hypocritical position as a result. If the logic is applied equally and without bias both "notions" are logical fallacies according to the application of the quote you presented.

_________________
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

No, it just shows that your interpretation of the completeness of this paper's conclusions is not correct.



Assuming the effect is hidden and not nonexistent, which is a problem in claiming certainty.



Or the real cause also triggers the decrease, which is also a possibility for a new and less supported hypothethesis.



The lack of study leading to a conclusion this somehow overturns the previous and extensive research is where you erred.

_________________
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

So you're saying that because the ERBE summary does not mention Dr. Allan or his paper, means that they do not agree with each other?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Now this is simply not correct. Even Pro AGW scientists and their studies, like Raymond S. Bradley et. al, found that since 1860 that the Solar Forcing caused half of the warming seen since 1860. They state that the rest of the warming could have been caused by many different things. GHGs most certainly did not "drive" temperatures over the past 150 years. That was the sun, and even Pro-AGW scientists agree. Where the disagreement starts to take place is in the late-20th Century, where Pro AGW scientists claim that this is where the GHG forcing overwhelmed natural factors, but skeptical scientists disagree.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

I think my interpretation is very much correct, that a CR-Influence on Climate Change has been found in the paper, as they clearly state in the conclusions. More tests need to be conducted, since the CR-Climate Hypothesis is still relatively new. However,there is no doubt that there is a CR-Effect on the climate, with the FDs showing the most pronounced effects on the atmospheric aerosoles.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

No, I am saying the ERBE summary does not show the accuracy of the unnamed models you claim supports Allen's paper.

_________________
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

The ERBE summary came up with a value of 13-21 w/m^2 as the Cloud Forcing. Dr. Allan's paper, using models and direct observational evidence was in line with this value, at 21 w/m^2.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

It is correct from a scientific perspective. The driving of the temperature above the natural forcing variations is what is being discussed when global warming is mentioned. Yours is the type of statement which seems to create a strawman unrelated to the real science.



You mean where the vast majority of the scientists agree there is a fringe group which disagrees?

_________________
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

No, GHGs driving the climate since 1860 is not correct by any scientist's perspective, as I have presented the Bradley paper, that has 600+ citations, which highlights that the solar forcing has contributed to 1/2 the observed warming since 1860, and highlights potential decadal variability that contributed to the 20th Century Global Warming.

And there is not a fringe group that disagrees... I'll bring up many prominent scientist's names if you would like, that disagree.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Hardly, as the difference between "an effect" and "THE major effect" is huge.




Given the study found the effects of the CR on the formation of aerosols to be insufficient to explain the connection you claim is supported.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressRel ... 5.11E.html
Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.
“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”

_________________
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

Your claim would be correct ONLY if there was no change in temperature prior to 1860. The only people who claim all warming must be attributed to human action in order for there to be an issue are those who either do not understand science or who are merely trying to support a political agenda. No real scientist is making such an asinine claim.



There is a fringe group in the experts in the fields of climatology. The "scientists" in general might have a higher percentage, but those without expertise in the field cannot be given the same credibility as the true experts. You can use the Oregon Petition-ish references all you like, but the facts are against you in saying there is not a fringe group of experts which disagree.

_________________
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

How does that prove the accuracy of the models used exactly? It shows the ERBE summary had an upper value estimate that aligns, but it does not show the accuracy of anything relating to the models used by Allen. If the true value were 13, which is the lower estimate by ERBE, Allen's models are off by almost 62%.

_________________
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

So an increase in the diurnal temperature during Forbush Decreases, which indicates a clear Cloud influence on climate, or the fact that there is a lag in the Global aerosoles right after the Forbush Decrease does not indicate a major GCR effect on Cloud Cover?

Kirkby et. al 2011 found that there was a "significant" influence of Cosmic Rays on aerosol production, and that vapours previously thought that could contribute to aerosol production were not that important for aerosol production.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Well yes, there was warming before 1860, and the study attributed most of the rise in temperature before 1860 to solar variations, with half of the warming from 1860-present to Solar Activity. And I agree that if most of the Global Warming was caused be humans, then action would need to be taken. But this is not the case at all, as I explained earlier. CO2 is like a fly in a football stadium, with Clouds being all of the people inside the football stadium, and Ozone Depletion being the football players. CO2 is not an important player at all in the Global Climate System.

I would agree that most of the government funded scientists probably agree that Global Warming is mostly man made. However, I find that most meteorologists and particle physicists are skeptical about AGW, with most retired scientists being skeptical as well.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.