Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.
LongQ said:
One could propose that the "bottom line" of policy informing output is the result of a calculation that uses many factors and measurements that are possibly actual but more often derived by adjustments, parameterisations or completely based on statistical calculations.
Anything used that cannot be directly measured or is a synthesis of unmeasurable data should make the results tentative until the parts of the measurement process that need to be improved in some way have in fact been improved and the data collected and verified.
Only then can it be considered sound enough to be included in policy making decisions.
In present times it seems that few are interested in applying that perspective before pushing policy.
One wonders why that might be.
Whilst reasoned debate is a valuable form of interaction between rational humans which should lead to greater understanding between the parties concerned thereby being of mutual benefit, keen observers may have identified limitations where this type of exercise is repeated with those similar in nature to that of a goldfish with an attention span of 10 secs and a presumed spawning in the environs of the MerseyAnything used that cannot be directly measured or is a synthesis of unmeasurable data should make the results tentative until the parts of the measurement process that need to be improved in some way have in fact been improved and the data collected and verified.
Only then can it be considered sound enough to be included in policy making decisions.
In present times it seems that few are interested in applying that perspective before pushing policy.
One wonders why that might be.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
durbster said:
No, I don't dispute it. The sun is the primary driver of earth's temperature.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
https://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-ages-follow-t...
“Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain,” said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. “There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”
Lotus 50 said:
durbster said:
No, I don't dispute it. The sun is the primary driver of earth's temperature.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
https://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-ages-follow-t...
“Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain,” said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. “There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”
Water vapour feedback fails at a rescue attempt - as any warmist will confirm, negative water vapour feedback can occur even with a water vapour increase; just because we find that unusually warm years have more water vapour in both the boundary layer and free troposphere does not mean that the warming caused the moistening (another causality fail for the contrary assumption junkscience); a peer-reviewed paper found negative-feedback cooling from water vapour of the same magnitude as claimed (but not observed) warming from CO2. Warmists' favourite climate gurus are acknowledged in the above.
Lotus 50 said:
Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.
The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
Apparently, all natural variations of temperature are already understood fully and modelled to within a fraction of a degree on a time-depency and geographical basis.The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
I know this since politicians have told me, that the science is settled and any variation measured accurately from the already well understood and accurately modelled to within a fraction of a degree on a time and geographical basis due to natural variation, must be due anthroprogenic influence.
turbobloke said:
Without the Sun, what would the greenhouse 'additional' temperature be, somehow arising from atmospheric gases independently of the Sun (that appears to be what was said)? The answer is zero. The planet would cool to a few degrees above absolute zero and remain there. The process would be far quicker without an atmosphere, sure. This is one way of approaching the impact of an atmosphere which is to delay cooling (and warming in a reverse thought experiment where the Sun switches on again). The small amount of additional carbon dioxide from humans could be associated with an insignificant and transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming.
In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
At real risk of getting into stuff that should be on the other thread, you reference Shaviv in 2008. Is that the same Shaviv that in 2012 published a paper concluding that the total solar component of 20th C global warming was: 0.27 C +/- 0.07 and that the anthropogenic forcing was 0.42 C +/- 0.11C?In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Without the Sun, what would the greenhouse 'additional' temperature be, somehow arising from atmospheric gases independently of the Sun (that appears to be what was said)? The answer is zero. The planet would cool to a few degrees above absolute zero and remain there. The process would be far quicker without an atmosphere, sure. This is one way of approaching the impact of an atmosphere which is to delay cooling (and warming in a reverse thought experiment where the Sun switches on again). The small amount of additional carbon dioxide from humans could be associated with an insignificant and transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming.
In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
At real risk of getting into stuff that should be on the other thread, you reference Shaviv in 2008. Is that the same Shaviv that in 2012 published a paper concluding that the total solar component of 20th C global warming was: 0.27 C +/- 0.07 and that the anthropogenic forcing was 0.42 C +/- 0.11C?In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
The same Shaviv that used data in his sole-author 2008 paper.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/Calori...
abstract said:
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, although without pointing to which one.
Once more, no diversions this time: how come the solar irradiance in IPCC treatments has been unamplified? How come the peer-reviewed science of Bucha and Svensmark on solar eruptivity forcings are basically ignored?It's appreciated that this isn't to leave room for an unobserved role for dastardly tax gas in the models.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 8th November 19:35
turbobloke said:
Lotus 50 said:
durbster said:
No, I don't dispute it. The sun is the primary driver of earth's temperature.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
In passing, if the junkscience of manmade global warming is under discussion then the correct phenomenon to associate with the non-existent empirical evidence for manmade global warming is the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' given that carbon dioxide was already present in the atmosphere before humans started burning fossil fuels and making concrete. The relatively small 5% perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide is not causing permanent dangerous warming, as shown by the data that do matter.
Meanwhile why is it that the IPCC junkscience fails to consider amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv 2008 iirc) and fails to consider solar eruptivity at all? The latter has been in the peer reviewed literature for years - Bucha and Svensmark.
kerplunk said:
Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?
I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.Lotus 50 said:
durbster said:
No, I don't dispute it. The sun is the primary driver of earth's temperature.
Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?
The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!
And now we wait to see whether dickymint will share on his theory with us.
XM5ER said:
durbster said:
I was asking in the context of Ali G's post, as he seems to be implying that no part of the AGW theory can be measured.
The trouble with trolls is that they are addictive. A little outrage here, a little annoyance there, releases a little adrenaline, a bit of dopamine when you write your reply and the whole cycle goes round again. Durbster you should change your login to Golden Brown.
I'd love to know what you think trolls are.
durbster said:
Thanks
And now we wait to see whether dickymint will share on his theory with us.
Whilst you wait try Notch-Delay Solar theoryAnd now we wait to see whether dickymint will share on his theory with us.
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?
I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.The only sense I can make of it is that by 'permanent dangerous warming' TB means it doesn't carry on getting endlessly warmer and warmer as in a runaway situation, but it's a strange way of putting it.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 8th November 20:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff