EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:17 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, but the paper being discussed was not mentioned in that "set of measurements" nor was there any support showing any models being shown correct or otherwise.



Because the paper was released after the ERBE measurements were released...


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now apply this same logical fallacy statement to your favorite theories and you should see the same application will apply. If you do not admit it you are risking a hypocritical stance.

Change GHG to clouds in the statement you quoted and you will see your problem.


The only problem with this, is that my argument has many facts to back the notion that Clouds have driven the climate over the past thirty years, as I explain here, so it is not a logical fallacy.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
[b]The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the
CR contribution difficult to detect
. T The present study should
be considered as a preliminary one. Several consequences of
DTR-CR connection remain to be tested:


You quote this from the conclusions, as if it disproves the section that I quoted from the conclusions, when it does not at all.


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

Quote:
The Climate System is naturally chaotic, and there are multiple dynamical processes that may hide the CR effect,


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

Quote:
which is why with Forbush Decreases, you can see the CR effect the clearest, and it is as clear as a pure cup of water.


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

Quote:
The CR Theory is still relatively new, which is why more studies need to be conducted, but this study points that more evidence has been found for a CR Influence on Climate while studying Forbush Decreases, as clearly stated in the conclusions.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:55 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:
Which still leaves that whole problem of nothing showing the accuracy of any model
and the point you seem to be missing.


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? :shock:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:24 pm 
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, 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.

.


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.

Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Which still leaves that whole problem of nothing showing the accuracy of any model
and the point you seem to be missing.


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? :shock:


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:44 pm 
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, I am saying the ERBE summary does not show the accuracy of the unnamed models you claim supports Allen's paper.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:48 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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

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


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:59 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.

.


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.


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


Quote:
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.

Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.

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


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.


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.

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:16 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, I am saying the ERBE summary does not show the accuracy of the unnamed models you claim supports Allen's paper.


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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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


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.

Quote:
We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:33 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Your claim would be correct ONLY if there was no change in temperature prior to 1860.

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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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