Umm, no. The greenhouse effect is specifically on the role of CO2 and similar gases have on warming the atmosphere.
The only debate is over how much impact human generated CO2 plays and most people who study it conclude the impact is significant.
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
The only debate is over how much impact human generated CO2 plays and most people who study it conclude the impact is significant.
Sheer insanity is your lack of understanding on how science works. The theory that best matches observations is considered the best theory until either contrary evidence is found or a better theory is proposed.
The fact that you can't even be bothered suggesting an alternate theory means you see this as a religion rather than science.
Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
I didn't think you understood or are capable of understanding the Greenhouse Effect.
Its just way over your head, isn't it?
I mean, you can't even use the quote function on the board correctly.
How the heck would you be able to understand basic science?
Sure, right after you tell us why you claim to be neutral and scientific while ignoring the conclusions of hundreds of independent scientific studies?
I know my expertise is in engineering and production systems, not in climate science. Unlike you I am able to understand that if different scientists keep reaching the same conclusion then there is a pretty solid basis for their work.
So how about you explain it to us in detail then?
Do not forget to clearly explain why the atmosphere should be or not be heating up as per the Greenhouse effect
Do not forget to explain what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
While your at it explain how well you understand the impact of soil on the carbon cycle?
No links just explain what you know
That will be a short post
You are a blithering idiot
Look at all that global warming hitting Los Angeles:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-snow-20190221-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-snow-20190221-story.html
1. I am neutral as there is a lot to consider and I am not going to be intimidated
2, There first thing I was taught in science is a hypothesis can only be disproven by the experimental data.
A poll is a collection of opinions and the results can vary depending on the question, the timing, who is asked and how the question is framed
3. Science is not proven by consensus
https://principia-scientific.org/the-consensus-of-scientists-talking-to-little-green-men-from-mars/
The Consensus Of Scientists Talking To Little Green Men From Mars (early 19th century)
And I know from my experience and education that while mans understanding of science has made tremendous progress, the amount we truly understand is still less than what we do not understand.
There are some real behavioural issues occuring in climate science , if you do not support or even if you are undecided on the the primary question, you do not get published & you do not get funding.
That pretty much ensures a consensus would you not agree?
There are lots of extremely intelligent scientist who do not buy the consensus. some violently oppose it & some who believe it is more hysteria with an element of truth but way overblown.
Other scientist just look at the state of climate science and breath a sigh of relief that their specific field of study is not the three ring circus that is climate science
also relived that they can disagree with colleagues in a respectful and co-operative manner
Imagine a work environment where asswipes like Frankfooter get in your face because you do not agree with him on this one issue?
What are the chances of quality work & the truth coming out of an environment like that ?
I'll make it a short post to give you a fighting chance at understanding it.
Greenhouse gases, like CO2 and methane, allow energy from the sun into the atmosphere but also trap it from escaping. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas but its a feedback effect, as in it is dependant on the temperature whereas CO2 is a forcing effect as it can increase or decrease the temperature of the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for about 80% of the greenhouse effects temperature changes. Without greenhouse gases the surface of the planet would be 0ºC, instead of the 15ºC it presently is. Adding more CO2 or methane increases the atmosphere, as shown by our adding 100 ppm and increasing the global temp roughly 1ºC.
mr science, as someone who doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change, how do you account for the 1ºC of warming the planet has undergone?
Note that using 'natural variablility' is not an answer as it doesn't mean anything.
1 - you are not neutral. You have chosen to believe Anthony Watts, a blogger with no science degree, over NASA and the IPCC.
That is very much not neutral
2 - You have no alternate hypothesis nor have any data that disproves anthropogenic climate change
This researches are being done at CERN and published in Nature:; said:
Sun, Cosmic Ray, Clouds and Climate:
There is a strong correlation between solar activity and Earth’s climate. Jasper Kirkby wrote a wide-ranging paper, https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Cosmic Rays and Climate in which he described the background to the planned CLOUD experiment at CERN, which would test the Cosmoclimatology theory.
In the paper, Jasper Kirkby presented a number of graphs which showed correlations between GCRs and climate. Of course correlation, is not causation, but as GCRs are controlled by solar activity the correlations do show a strong relationship between solar activity and Earth’s climate.
From the paper:
Over 500 million years:
Figure 1. Correlation of cosmic rays with temperature over the past 500 million years. [The paper’s Fig.11].
Note: The GCR flux varies as the solar system passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way.
Over 12,000 years:
Figure 2. Correlation of GCR variability with ice-rafted debris events in the North Atlantic during the Holocene. [The paper’s Fig. 8].
The paper explains how the 14C and 10Be records are independent proxies for GCRs, and how ice-rafted debris relates to climate.
Over 3,000 years:
Figure 3. Correlation of δ18O and Δ14C with rainfall. [The paper’s Fig. 9].
The paper explains how Δ14C is a proxy for GCRs, and δ18O is a proxy for rainfall.
Over 2,000 years:
Figure 4. Correlation of GCRs with Central Alps temperature over the last two millenia. [The paper’s Fig. 3].
Over 1,000 years:
Figure 5. Correlation of GCRs with temperature over the last millenium, and also with glacial advances in Venezuela. [The paper’s Fig. 2].
The paper describes the underlying data.
In another paper, Beam Measurements of a CLOUD Chamber , http://cds.cern.ch/record/496023/files/0104041.pdf
Jasper Kirkby showed some 20th century correlations:
Figure 6. Correlation of GCRs with NH temperature. [The paper’s Fig. 12].
Figure 7. Correlation of sunspot cycle length with temperature. [The paper’s Fig. 6].
Solar cycle length probably has little to do with GCRs, but I included it here (a) to show that the sun’s effects might not be limited to just GCRs, and (b) to underline the fact that solar influence is harder to see on this timescale.
In total, the papers show that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that solar variation has a major effect on Earth’s climate on virtually all timescales from decades upwards. The main exceptions are the timescales on which the Milankovitch cycles dominate and make other influences very difficult to see. (Milankovitch cycles are caused by variations in Earth’s orbit, not by solar variations.).
Finally, Forbush Decreases provide an opportunity to test for solar impact over the very short term. A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic ray intensity following a coronal mass ejection (CME) (description from Wikipedia). Dragić et al [7] found a correlation between GCRs and Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR) during Forbush Decreases.
Figure 8. Observed DTR changes during Forbush Decreases (FD). Top panel is for FD intensity 7-10%, bottom panel for >10%. [Dragić paper’s Fig. 5].
There is typically an inverse relationship between DTR and cloud cover. NB. Although Dragić et al found correlation with GCRs, Laken et al [8] found that there was a “small, but statistically significant” influence from solar activity that was not caused by GCRs.
Correlation of GCRs with climate do indicate that solar activity is involved, but not how. To link parts of climate to particular solar features such as GCRs or Ultra-Violet (UV) or solar wind or total irradiance, we will need mechanisms.
3.Galactic Cosmic Rays
The experiments that have been conducted on GCRs and Cosmoclimatology show some of the intricate complexities within Earth’s climate process. The journey of discovery was far from easy, with false starts, interacting factors, unanticipated problems, and, of course, a climate science establishment ready to throw up any obstacles they could.
In the end, Nigel Calder was able to claim that the whole chain of action from supernova remnants to variation in climate had been demonstrated, https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/sky-experiment/
and that nearly all the breakthroughs had been made by Henrik Svensmark and the small team in Copenhagen.
The front end of the chain of action, from the stars to the solar modulation of cosmic rays, was well known. The rest of the chain, from there to Earth’s climate, had to be discovered and demonstrated.
3.1 The SKY Experiment
The 2006 SKY experiment at DNSC was aimed at testing the theory that GCRs could cause the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN).
The background to the experiment is explained by Nir Shaviv in his article Cosmic Rays and Climate. After showing that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant, he asks: However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? In the SKY experiment, the DNSC team set up a cloud chamber to mimic the conditions in the atmosphere, in order to test for the physical mechanism. They then observed ionisation by gamma rays, and found that it did indeed lead to the formation of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei.
This was the experimental result described in the much-delayed Royal Society paper referred to earlier [4]. As reported in the Royal Society’s press release: “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists trace the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than atmospheric scientists have predicted. That may explain the link proposed by members of the Danish team, between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”.
But there were a few more steps in the mechanism that still had to be tested.
3.2 The Link between the Sun, Cosmic Rays, Aerosols, and Liquid-Water Clouds
In 2009, Svensmark, Bondo and Svensmark [9] took a major step forward, when they used Forbush Decreases to demonstrate a complete link from cosmic rays through aerosols to liquid-water clouds.
The paper’s Conclusion begins: “Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization.“.
But that phrase “Irrespective of the detailed mechanism” was a problem. They needed to know what the mechanism was.
3.3 The Aarhus Experiment
By 2006, the CLOUD experiment had been designed to test the mechanisms in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, a pre-experiment had been completed to check the validity of the main experiment, and by 2008 five new groups had joined the CLOUD collaboration ,
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1172365/files/SPSC-SR-046.pdf
but the main experiment was taking a long time to get going. Opposition from mainstream climate scientists wasn’t exactly helping. So the DTU team decided to conduct their own experiment.
With help from Aarhus University, the team went back to the SKY cloud chamber, to conduct more advanced experiments, with the aim of demonstrating the complete mechanism by which GCRs create clouds.
The result was reported by Enghoff et al in their 2010 paper Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam .
They reported: “We find a clear and significant contribution from ion induced nucleation and consider this to be an unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions not far from the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion component of the nucleation.“.
The CLOUD Experiment
CERN’s CLOUD experiment reported its results in 2011. But shortly before that, the director-general of CERN made the extraordinary statement that the report would be politically correct about climate change. Nigel Calder explained it thus: “The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.“.
When the result was published in Nature the next day, in Nigel Calder’s words it “clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds“.
Nigel Calder actually said rather more than that (read the full article). In particular: “[The new CLOUD paper is] so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph.
Figure 9. The graph from the CLOUD paper.
A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.”
I can only suppose that leaving such an important graph out of the printed paper is what the CERN director-general meant by “politically correct”.
3.5 The Final Link
Needless to say, the climate science gatekeepers didn’t accept the findings. Their objection was that there was no explanation for the observation that sulphuric acid persisted at nighttime, whereas all the climate models assume that it cannot persist without ultra-violet light. (From Nigel Calder).
In 2012, Henrik Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen published the final link in the saga. Their paper, Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation, found that ionisation from GCRs maintained the required sulphuric acid. GCRs continue unchanged at night-time, of course, while UV does not.
One final quote from Nigel Calder:
“So Svensmark and the small team in Copenhagen have had nearly all of the breakthroughs to themselves. And the chain of experimental and observational evidence is now much more secure:
Supernova remnants → cosmic rays → solar modulation of cosmic rays → variations in cluster and sulphuric acid production → variation in cloud condensation nuclei → variation in low cloud formation → variation in climate.
Svensmark won’t comment publicly on the new paper until it’s accepted for publication. But I can report that, in conversation, he sounds like a man who has reached the end of a very long trek in defiance of continual opposition and mockery.“.
I hope to live long enough to see Henrik Svensmark receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Will climate science now recognise that it has been getting everything wrong for decades? I doubt it. Not until their leaders can be removed and replaced by scientists who will give as much critical scrutiny to CAGW as they do to competing theories.
PS The CERN research will disproves the anthropogenic climate change !
PPS Checkmate BASKETCASE & Groggy ( FRANKFOOTER).
Last edited:
My theory is the theory of most scientists - we don't know. Climate is a chaotic system with many factors affecting it - clouds, wind patterns, ocean currents, solar activity, earth's tilt, the magnetic field, volcanic activity, land use, wildfires....
Most scientists, 97% to be exact, who study the matter say with 95% certainty that man made greenhouse gas increases are driving climate change.
Your 'theory' that most scientists don't know is a fantasy.
Right, but lets be truthful here Frankie, you dont understand all the science either, you're just following the herd
Don't conflate your inability to understand my posts or the links I use with my understanding, Phil.
Its true you obviously can't understand or follow the science.
But I know enough to be able to poke holes in absolutely everything you post here on climate change and to be able to spot bullshit from real science.
You're a fake wannabe who spends all day on his computer. You're not a scientist, and you never will be one.
And no, you dont understand more about global warming science than me, or anyone else on Terb
You too, don't worry, you can leave all the 'complicated science' to me and you can just use your common sense to defend racism and Trump.
Its more your style.
