EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
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.


Snowy123 wrote:
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.


Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.

_________________
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 3:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

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

The first and last paragraphs are like the salt and pepper of my post. I hate Wayne he said what I would say only better written with more detail and with references.

As to why we are still talking to you.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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

The first and last paragraphs are like the salt and pepper of my post. I hate Wayne he said what I would say only better written with more detail and with references.

As to why we are still talking to you.

Image


That's the same reason why I am still talking to you \:D/ :mrgreen:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:35 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:
Snowy

The first and last paragraphs are like the salt and pepper of my post. I hate Wayne he said what I would say only better written with more detail and with references.

As to why we are still talking to you.

Image


That's the same reason why I am still talking to you \:D/ :mrgreen:


ah but I'm right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:52 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:

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.


The Cosmic Rays have been shown observationally to multiply the forcing of the 11 year solar cycle by a factor of 5 to 7. That is a significant impact from GCRs.

Where do we know that the intensity of the CO2 forcing is large? With an insensitive climate system, the impacts of the CO2 forcing would be very small.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Fosgate wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
This is getting silly.


Not nearly as much so as asking someone for negative proof.


That is how science progresses actually, through falsification and through Paradigm shifts.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:56 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:
I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

Image


And the overall yearly trend in Cosmic Rays from ionization chambers show a record low in ionization in 1992 by a large margin.

Image

Source: Svensmark and Marsh 2000

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:46 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, 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.


Funny that you mention volcanoes.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo confirmed negative feedback in the climate system, making it unlikely that CO2 was the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming, since it would be too small to explain it, and thus another factor is needed to explain the warming.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... natubo.pdf

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity l and
response time t for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using
observational measurements of the temperature anomalies
of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long
wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density.
Using standard linear response theory we find l = 0.15 ±
0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of
1.4 (+0.7, 1.6).
The intrinsic response time is t = 6.8 ±
1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that
involves long response times and positive feedback
.


With responses and corrections here:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023829.pdf

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023695.pdf

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.


The Cosmic Rays have been shown observationally to multiply the forcing of the 11 year solar cycle by a factor of 5 to 7. That is a significant impact from GCRs.


No, they have not or the mechanism would not still be undeterrmined. You are assuming the correlation equals causation again.

_________________
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 7:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
This is getting silly.


Not nearly as much so as asking someone for negative proof.


That is how science progresses actually, through falsification and through Paradigm shifts.


No, the only thing one can use in the support of a negative proof is lack of a positive negation. Eventually sufficient lack of negation is evidence of the negative. The falsification would be positive evidence to counter a negative claim or lack of evidence for a connected positive claim.

_________________
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 7:43 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

Image


And the overall yearly trend in Cosmic Rays from ionization chambers show a record low in ionization in 1992 by a large margin.

Image

Source: Svensmark and Marsh 2000



Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.

_________________
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 7:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

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.


Funny that you mention volcanoes.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo confirmed negative feedback in the climate system, making it unlikely that CO2 was the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming, since it would be too small to explain it, and thus another factor is needed to explain the warming.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... natubo.pdf

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity l and
response time t for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using
observational measurements of the temperature anomalies
of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long
wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density.
Using standard linear response theory we find l = 0.15 ±
0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of
1.4 (+0.7, 1.6).
The intrinsic response time is t = 6.8 ±
1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that
involves long response times and positive feedback
.


With responses and corrections here:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023829.pdf

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023695.pdf



What? How does the negative feedback of a volcanic eruption make the positive driver unlikely? It makes the feedback used in the climate models of the time less robust, but that is about it.

_________________
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 8:15 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:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.


The Cosmic Rays have been shown observationally to multiply the forcing of the 11 year solar cycle by a factor of 5 to 7. That is a significant impact from GCRs.


No, they have not


Really?

Shaviv 2005

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as
a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.
This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux
into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over
the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can
be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative
forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just
those associated with the TSI variations
, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification
mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:16 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:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

Image


And the overall yearly trend in Cosmic Rays from ionization chambers show a record low in ionization in 1992 by a large margin.

Image

Source: Svensmark and Marsh 2000



Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.


The neutron monitors also show a significant decline in GCR counts in 1992, it is just not a yearly value of GCRs as it is shown with the ion chambers.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.


The Cosmic Rays have been shown observationally to multiply the forcing of the 11 year solar cycle by a factor of 5 to 7. That is a significant impact from GCRs.


No, they have not


Snowy123 wrote:
Really?

Shaviv 2005

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate
. With this in mind, we use the oceans as
a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.
This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux
into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over
the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can
be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative
forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just
those associated with the TSI variations
, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification
mechanism, though without pointing to which one
.


Now show us the evidence of the mechanism for that cause. Remember correllation is not causation no matter how hard you want to believe it.

_________________
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 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 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