Wayne Stollings wrote:
They warrant investigation, but without some evidence of mechanism the only uncertainity is whatever one wished to believe. I can believe there is a Martian heat ray being used by a spaceship cloaked from detection and claim uncertainty because I have created it in my mind. There is no evidence to support that uncertainty, so in the realm of reality it does not exist yet. If and when there is evidence then the real uncertainty can exist.
plenty of evidence, though.
Like of a mechanism? Wait, the CERN experiments showed there was insufficient production even with the compound multipiers.
CO2 is a GHG, which is proven in experimentation.
GHGs retain energy and warms our planet, which is proven in many ways.
CO2 levels have risen dramatically over the last 150 years, which is proven by measurments
Humanity has released more sequestered CO2 than required for the increase in the atmosphere.
And I can do the same "proof" with the sun.
The sun's activity has correlated with temperatures in the past over various timescales, (See Figure 1) and is known to impact temperatures with an increase in solar radiation, and a cloud decrease from Cosmic Rays.
What? Where is the evidence of the mechanism causing that cloud decrease? Not a correlation, but evidence of the specific mechanism.
Increased Solar radiation warms the planet, which is a basic fact.
Solar activity has dramatically risen over the past 150 years, which is proven by proxies and observations. (See Figure 1)
Except for the recent period where there has been a decrease in solar activity and no corresdponding decrease in temperature. Unless there is some other factor for positive temperature gain, such as GHGs you have a problem.
The increase in solar activity will have a profound impact on the atmospheric processes, since in the past it was a powerful climatic driver. (See Figure 2)
(Figure 1) From Figure 6 of Scafetta and West 2007
. The strong coherency between solar activity and temperature changes can be observed over the last 400 years.
Note the temperature starts to diverge after the start of the 20th century and is mainly above the scale at the end decade or so.
(Figure 2) From Figure 2 of Neff et. al 2001
The authors note that The similarity between the smoothed d18O and D14C
time series, both in their general patterns and in the number of
peaks, is extremely strong. Even millennial-scale trends and relative
amplitudes correspond. Furthermore, the high-resolution interval
between 7.9 and 8.3 kyr BP also reveals a close correspondence
between the two curves. The parallel evolution of d18O and D14C
seems very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Rather, the high
correlation provides solid evidence that both signals are responding
to the same forcing. Variations of D14C were attributed to changes in
the production rate in the stratosphere, induced by solar wind
modulation of the cosmic ray ¯ux. Maxima of 10Be concentrations
in polar ice cores that are synchronous with maxima in D14C further
reinforce this interpretation6,7,21.The high resolution and dating precision of the d18Orecord of H5
make it possible to perform a reliable frequency analysis. Spectral
analyses of the untuned d18O record are given in Fig. 4a and b. The
d18O results show statistically signi®cant periodicities centred on
1,018, 226, 28, 10.7 and 9 years. Two broader sets of cycles are
centred between 101±90 years and 35±26 years. These cycles are
close to the periodicities of the tree-ring D14C record (206, 148, 126,
89, 26 and 10.4 years), which are assigned to solar modulation7.
The period of natural temperature variations in that period of history should correlate very well. The problem is the recent period.
So in other words, what you have just done is presented a correlation and not causation, and a proof that CO2 is not causing zero warming. That is nice, but a better proof would be a proof that CO2 is causing most of the warming observed.
A correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation in such a case. Unless you have a duplicate uninhabited planet to use as a control, that is as close as it can get.
They have been proven to absorb and re-radiate energy causing the retention of said energy as heat. There are various other lines of evidence to support this theory, such as warming more during night hours.
That is not a fingerprint of AGW due to Greenhouse Gases, as many things, including warmer oceans and urbanization both reduce the Diurnal Temperature Range.
Not in areas which are not coastal, not immediately impacted by coastal weather patterns, or are not urban.
Yes, it is. If it is insufficient to account for the observed nucleation it is insufficient to account for any impact connected with that nuclealtion.
No, it does not say that GCRs do not cause a significant change in the nucleation rate in the troposphere or the boundary layer, so your logic is quite flawed.
It clearly states the measured nucleation rates were insufficient to account for the observed rates in the boundary layer. Thus, the observed nucleation rate and the impact from clouds formed by the observed nucleation rate cannot be attributed to the GCRs. There may be an impact, but not of the magnitude you have claimed. The logic is quite sound.