EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:52 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:

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?


Well there is no logical way that pirates can change the amount of energy reaching Earth's Surface, or the energy leaving Earth. There is however, a way for the sun to do such a thing.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
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.


What? You have gone completely off the paper's statements. The impact of the sulphuric acid on nucleation was to increase it in the presence of the cosmic rays. If there is insufficient multiplication factors to the cosmic rays, there is clearly insuffcient effects from the cosmic rays themselves.

_________________
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 11:22 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
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?


Snowy123 wrote:
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.


Then why are you not SKEPTICAL of the LARGER unknown factors than those which are more known? IF really should be the key point for any true skeptical opposition

_________________
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 11:25 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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?


Snowy123 wrote:
Well there is no logical way that pirates can change the amount of energy reaching Earth's Surface, or the energy leaving Earth. There is however, a way for the sun to do such a thing.


If the pirates burning of captured ships created enough particulate matter to cause reflective cooling that would explain the effect. I used "if" so you should accept that just as readily as the "if" used in the cosmic ray hypothesis, right? :-

_________________
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 12:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:

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.



If? So you can't prove anything and are just making stuff up to look intelligent. Since we don't know what low level clouds were doing for a large part of earths history and have no way of knowing you can just say they were whatever you want them to be.

Look I don't claim to be an amateur climatologist but I'm not an elected Representative from North Carolina so I ain't fooled that easily. I KNOW there is no way you could be right unless the plot from sunshine is science fact rather then science fiction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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


If? So you can't prove anything and are just making stuff up to look intelligent. Since we don't know what low level clouds were doing for a large part of earths history and have no way of knowing you can just say they were whatever you want them to be.

Look I don't claim to be an amateur climatologist but I'm not an elected Representative from North Carolina so I ain't fooled that easily. I KNOW there is no way you could be right unless the plot from sunshine is science fact rather then science fiction.


Image

That's my point, genius.

If CERN confirms that the link is strong between GCRs and Clouds then it would be more likely that a significant decrease in cloud cover over the 20th Century has likely occured.

Prove that the sun has not had a significant influence on climate change over the 20th Century, instead of throwing out baseless assumptions.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:33 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:
If the pirates burning of captured ships created enough particulate matter to cause reflective cooling that would explain the effect. I used "if" so you should accept that just as readily as the "if" used in the cosmic ray hypothesis, right? :-


This is getting silly. Such impacts would hypothetically be lost in the chaotic noise of the climate system and would be very regional and short lived. Cosmic Rays are primarily responsible for GLOBAL ionization across the troposphere.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:34 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:

Then why are you not SKEPTICAL of the LARGER unknown factors than those which are more known? IF really should be the key point for any true skeptical opposition


I am skeptical that we can not say with certainty that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes BECAUSE of these large unknowns.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:35 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:
What? You have gone completely off the paper's statements. The impact of the sulphuric acid on nucleation was to increase it in the presence of the cosmic rays. If there is insufficient multiplication factors to the cosmic rays, there is clearly insuffcient effects from the cosmic rays themselves.


That does not mean that there are insufficient effects from the cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays have been shown to multiply the production rate by a factor of 10. It just means that sulphuric acid is not the main cause of nucleation in the boundary layer. Something else is.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:04 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If the pirates burning of captured ships created enough particulate matter to cause reflective cooling that would explain the effect. I used "if" so you should accept that just as readily as the "if" used in the cosmic ray hypothesis, right? :-


This is getting silly.


I agree, but you keep trying to support silly hypotheses in the hopes of upsetting the established science.

Quote:
Such impacts would hypothetically be lost in the chaotic noise of the climate system and would be very regional and short lived. Cosmic Rays are primarily responsible for GLOBAL ionization across the troposphere.


No, they would not be lost in anything if they were, in fact, drivers. Volcanic eruptions are localized events, yet they impact the climate around the world. You are supporting one hypothesis and condemning another based solely on your personal beliefs and nothing else. There is no supporting evidence for the mechanisms and the hypotheses have garnered little interest from those who are experts in the fields. It is the experts you usually can give the best determination of the validity of an hypothesis.

_________________
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 2:06 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Then why are you not SKEPTICAL of the LARGER unknown factors than those which are more known? IF really should be the key point for any true skeptical opposition


I am skeptical that we can not say with certainty that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes BECAUSE of these large unknowns.


Any unknown will do in this case, yet you still give the unsupported hypotheses more credibility in your posts than the theories with real scientific support. That smacks of hypocricy at least and at worst ..... :twisted:

_________________
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 2:11 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:


If? So you can't prove anything and are just making stuff up to look intelligent. Since we don't know what low level clouds were doing for a large part of earths history and have no way of knowing you can just say they were whatever you want them to be.

Look I don't claim to be an amateur climatologist but I'm not an elected Representative from North Carolina so I ain't fooled that easily. I KNOW there is no way you could be right unless the plot from sunshine is science fact rather then science fiction.


Image

That's my point, genius.

If CERN confirms that the link is strong between GCRs and Clouds then it would be more likely that a significant decrease in cloud cover over the 20th Century has likely occured.

Prove that the sun has not had a significant influence on climate change over the 20th Century, instead of throwing out baseless assumptions.


Ah calling me a genius. I think your being sarcastic I don't think the same thing you think so I must be thick that's the point. Isn't you that has a hissy fit and crys to the moderators if you aren't shown due respect?

I am asking you the question; show me the mechanism; you basically admit that it has not been demonstrated yet but if I wait this CERN might confirm it. You then ask me to prove a negative. and throw in an attempt at sarcasm.

This conversation does not seem very productive.

But its fun! Its like getting headshots playing call of duty the only frustrating thing is the noob doesn't know he's been shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:50 pm 
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:
spot1234 wrote:


If? So you can't prove anything and are just making stuff up to look intelligent. Since we don't know what low level clouds were doing for a large part of earths history and have no way of knowing you can just say they were whatever you want them to be.

Look I don't claim to be an amateur climatologist but I'm not an elected Representative from North Carolina so I ain't fooled that easily. I KNOW there is no way you could be right unless the plot from sunshine is science fact rather then science fiction.


Image

That's my point, genius.

If CERN confirms that the link is strong between GCRs and Clouds then it would be more likely that a significant decrease in cloud cover over the 20th Century has likely occured.

Prove that the sun has not had a significant influence on climate change over the 20th Century, instead of throwing out baseless assumptions.


Ah calling me a genius. I think your being sarcastic I don't think the same thing you think so I must be thick that's the point. Isn't you that has a hissy fit and crys to the moderators if you aren't shown due respect?

I am asking you the question; show me the mechanism; you basically admit that it has not been demonstrated yet but if I wait this CERN might confirm it. You then ask me to prove a negative. and throw in an attempt at sarcasm.

This conversation does not seem very productive.

But its fun! Its like getting headshots playing call of duty the only frustrating thing is the noob doesn't know he's been shot.


Your first and last paragraphs are not necessary.

The mechanism has been proven, and both the co2 mechanism and the cosmic ray mechanism have been proven to have an impact. It is just a question of which one is stronger than the other.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Snowy123 wrote:
This is getting silly.


Not nearly as much so as asking someone for negative proof. If that's how you think, it's no wonder the discussion has gone the way it has. The fact that you've been so much as entertained by other posters is pretty striking as well. :yawn:

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

Image

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 10 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group