New report on climate change released today

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What happened to angelo? I hope he's okay. He might be injured after trying to run away after putting his foot in his mouth.

 

[angelo]

What happened to angelo? I hope he's okay. He might be injured after trying to run away after putting his foot in his mouth.

Chicken Little: " The sky is falling, the sky is falling! "

It's extremely unwise to argue with cult members who are guided purely by blind faith regardless of facts!

 

[George S]

SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...ajeure-the-suns-large-role-in-climate-change/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What happened to angelo? I hope he's okay. He might be injured after trying to run away after putting his foot in his mouth.

Chicken Little: " The sky is falling, the sky is falling! "

It's extremely unwise to argue with cult members who are guided purely by blind faith regardless of facts!

So you are not going to admit you put your foot in your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...ajeure-the-suns-large-role-in-climate-change/

Is his report peer-reviewed?

 

[angelo]

Human induced GW/CC is just that- a theory. The fact that the IPCC, which is a political body, has released reports based on the work of a large group of scientists does not mean that their conclusions are correct.

In fact, a number of leading scientists have withdrawn from the panel because of their concerns about the IPCC's climate models.

All scientists are aware that global temperatures are rising and have been rising at a reasonably constant rate for the the past 180-200 years, except between 1940 and 1975 when they actually declined.

We also are aware that CO2 levels have been rising quite rapidly in recent years. We should not be surprised that CO2 rise when temperature are rising because we that the ocean is the major sink for CO2 and is released when the temperature rises.

This relationship is demonstrated in ice cores, which show that CO2 levels have risen and fallen following temperatures over thousand's of years.

CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, but if greenhouse gases were the major cause of warming that we experience, then we would expect temperatures in the upper stratosphere to be higher than at ground levels. But the reverse is the case.

Further, there is no proof that CO2 levels have caused major increases in global temperatures in the past. Indeed, there have been periods [as Iv'e stated before] when CO2 levels were at least 12-15 times current levels during a major ice age.

Many scientists do not accept the various assumptions built into the computer models developed by the IPCC, as I've already stated, a political body.

Any true scientist worth his salt would remain scepital of the alarmist predictions based on nothing else but computer models of a system as complex as global climate.

This, especially so as many of the very same people were warning us of impeding ice age 40 years ago.

Remember that in late 2007 the High Court Justice in England highlighted the many errors in Al Gore's film and ordered a number of changes before his influential film An Inconvenient Truth could be shown to schoolchildren in Britain.

As the film and his books were full of exaggerations and just plain untruths!

 

[angelo]

So you are not going to admit you put your foot in your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...ajeure-the-suns-large-role-in-climate-change/

Is his report peer-reviewed?

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So you are not going to admit you put your foot in your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...ajeure-the-suns-large-role-in-climate-change/

Is his report peer-reviewed?

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

The scientific question is whether or not the sun's variable output is the primary factor in our current observed climate change, i.e. global warming. Not whether the sun has an impact on the Earth. It is not only a fool that might misconstrue what I wrote, but also an honest person with good intentions but ignorant, or a troll deliberately trolling. I draw no conclusion on your person, nor do I have to. Some guy made a report and the question is, is it peer-reviewed? A lot of individual experts say a lot of things, and I have to say this is especially true in physics. Look at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and there was a physicist supporting bizarre conspiracy theories and he wrote reports, too. But after the consensus was formed, a peer-reviewed paper showed why he was wrong.

I will also note that you've successfully changed the subject from your earlier errors on the last page. Perhaps you will admit how wrong you were?

 

[angelo]

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

The scientific question is whether or not the sun's variable output is the primary factor in our current observed climate change, i.e. global warming. Not whether the sun has an impact on the Earth. It is not only a fool that might misconstrue what I wrote, but also an honest person with good intentions but ignorant, or a troll deliberately trolling. I draw no conclusion on your person, nor do I have to. Some guy made a report and the question is, is it peer-reviewed? A lot of individual experts say a lot of things, and I have to say this is especially true in physics. Look at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and there was a physicist supporting bizarre conspiracy theories and he wrote reports, too. But after the consensus was formed, a peer-reviewed paper showed why he was wrong.

I will also note that you've successfully changed the subject from your earlier errors on the last page. Perhaps you will admit how wrong you were?

Errors, what errors would that be?

 

[AirPoh]

The author of this (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/06/climate-change-misconceived/), Iain Aitken, an Australian Climate Scientist,

Is he?

Are you able to advise what qualifications he has, or point me to any papers in climatology or a related discipline that he has co-authored?

Because I didn't find a single one in a quick search of Google Scholar, and I can't find any details of his scientific qualifications via a normal search on Google (there are rather a lot of people called Iain Aitken who appear in a Google search, so it's apparently an unfortunately common name).

The only qualification I can find that is directly attributed to him is at the top of the article you linked to - but neither 'author' nor 'guest blogger' suggests any actual expertise in climatology.

Why should we take his word, over that of 'bloke in the pub', much less over the claims made by large numbers of actual climatologists, with published works that have undergone peer review, and not just selection by a publisher who thinks it has commercial potential?

It seems that if he is a climate scientist, he's not been a particularly solid contributor to the field; So why should we take his word for anything?

He used to just be called "Australian author and climate analyst." I guess the Internet gave him a promotion.

Where do I sign up for that?

 

[AirPoh]

So you are not going to admit you put your foot in your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...ajeure-the-suns-large-role-in-climate-change/

Is his report peer-reviewed?

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

Who dismissed it?

 

[AirPoh]

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

The scientific question is whether or not the sun's variable output is the primary factor in our current observed climate change, i.e. global warming. Not whether the sun has an impact on the Earth. It is not only a fool that might misconstrue what I wrote, but also an honest person with good intentions but ignorant, or a troll deliberately trolling. I draw no conclusion on your person, nor do I have to. Some guy made a report and the question is, is it peer-reviewed? A lot of individual experts say a lot of things, and I have to say this is especially true in physics. Look at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and there was a physicist supporting bizarre conspiracy theories and he wrote reports, too. But after the consensus was formed, a peer-reviewed paper showed why he was wrong.

I will also note that you've successfully changed the subject from your earlier errors on the last page. Perhaps you will admit how wrong you were?

Errors, what errors would that be?

Assuming that anyone in the real world, who is not a denialist, dismisses the sun's role.

 

[TSwizzle]

Not convinced that having Jezza at helm to make Labour un-electable, the Labour party in the UK go all in with an economy destroying plan to delist companies from the stock exchange if they fail to "fight climate change";

UK companies failing to tackle climate change would be delisted from the London Stock Exchange under radical plans for greening the economy being drawn up by Labour. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said he would consider changing the law if necessary to force UK-listed firms to take adequate steps to fight the “climate emergency” facing the planet. Asked whether he would delist firms without climate change plans that are already quoted on the stock exchange, McDonnell replied: “Yes”. “It’s not about threatening or penalising, it’s saying here’s the steps we need to take to save the planet, it’s as simple as that,” he said.

Teh Gruaniad

We have to save the planet from.....a climate !!

A Rapture like cult.

 

[angelo]

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

Who dismissed it?

It is obvious to anyone that CO2 is the sole trigger of GW/CC/CD according to some so called climate scientists and everything else like the sun's role is papered over by the alarmists because that wouldn't fit the story of human induced GW/CC/CD.

 

[repoman]

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

Who dismissed it?

It is obvious to anyone that CO2 is the sole trigger of GW/CC/CD according to some so called climate scientists and everything else like the sun's role is papered over by the alarmists because that wouldn't fit the story of human induced GW/CC/CD.

Again, the sun's role in difference from how it varies from it's mean output in our lifetime (not deep past or future). The sun is majorly rock solid in total energy output compared to carbon dioxide. HOWEVER, the UV radiation swing is a lot larger.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

 

[angelo]

The last paragraph says it all. In other words, only by a return to the cave will we know if the sun has any effect on GW/CC/CD!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

 

[AirPoh]

Only a fool would dismiss the sun's role on what happens on the tiny rock Earth orbiting it's parent star!

Who dismissed it?

It is obvious to anyone that CO2 is the sole trigger of GW/CC/CD according to some so called climate scientists and everything else like the sun's role is papered over by the alarmists because that wouldn't fit the story of human induced GW/CC/CD.

Ah, make believe people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The last paragraph says it all. In other words, only by a return to the cave will we know if the sun has any effect on GW/CC/CD!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

In one sense they are right--the only true proof there is no natural factor is to change the man-made factor and see what happens.

However, they're nuts. We can measure the effects of the various natural things and we can clearly see they don't add up to what we see happening. By Occam's Razor it's the man-made CO2 that's the issue, not some unknown natural effect.

As for the effect of the man-made CO2:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/13/co2-levels-415-ppm-highest-human-history/

The last time carbon dioxide (CO2) levels hit such a high was around 3 million years ago, when the average temperature in the Arctic as 15 degrees Celcius (60F). At that point, the north was covered by trees, not ice, and mean sea levels were believed to be at least 25 meters (82 feet) higher.

 

[bilby]

It's actually really easy to determine the extent to which solar irradiance is responsible for the current warming trend:



Temperatures tracked fairly closely with irradiance, until we set fire to a bunch of cities in the early 1940s, which caused a short term cooling trend. Then we cut particulate smoke pollution in the '50s and '60s, and warming took off, uncoupled from the irradiance trend.

Whatever it is that's causing the warming we see since the 1970s, it isn't the Sun.

If only we knew of some other potential influence on temperature that has had a steady upward trend since the '70s.



I guess it will just have to remain a mystery.

 

[TSwizzle]

Good grief, Bill Nye goes all woke and stuff;

Bill Nye driven to F-bomb rant by climate change. “By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye says, losing his patience. “What I’m saying is the planet is on fucking fire,” he says while taking a torch to a globe. “There are a lot of things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots. Grow the fuck up. You’re not children any more. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis, got it? Safety glasses off, motherfuckers.”

Teh Gruaniad

Word !

 

[George S]

Good grief, Bill Nye goes all woke and stuff;

Bill Nye driven to F-bomb rant by climate change. “By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye says, losing his patience. “What I’m saying is the planet is on fucking fire,” he says while taking a torch to a globe. “There are a lot of things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots. Grow the fuck up. You’re not children any more. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis, got it? Safety glasses off, motherfuckers.”

Teh Gruaniad

Word !

Science does not work by edict. There is a "scientific method." It works this way: A scientist makes a prediction about the results of an experiment. If, when the experiment is run, the experiment works as the scientist predicted it is said to support his hypothesis. When a prediction fails the theory is discarded or modified and run again.

Scientists make their name by showing a prior consensus/accepted theory is either wrong or is a special case of a more inclusive theory. It is never decided by peer review or consensus or public opinion.

What experiment does Nye propose to support his hypothesis? I don't see any.

Let us suppose, though, that the theory that man-caused generation of CO₂ will seriously/catastrophically affect the future climate is correct. One solution to burning fossil fuels in power plants is modern -- Gen IV -- nuclear. It is designed so it cannot melt-down. It even uses fuel from prior generation nuclear waste. It has the advantage of providing energy which would be useful no matter whether Nye's predictions are right or wrong. It is less polluting than coal. It would also be supported by the climate scientists who believe that the coming solar minimum would lead to an ice age.