Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:30 PM
347 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, Diomedes, New Cat's Eye, ringo, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,232 Year: 23,838/21,208 Month: 1,803/2,468 Week: 312/822 Day: 38/67 Hour: 4/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223242526
27
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 391 of 398 (800137)
02-20-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 5:29 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
Dana Nuccetelli blogs about climate and co2 over at the Guardian. He also works at Tetratech as an environmental scientist. What qualifies him to talk about climate science? Here is a link to his linked-in page listing his resume:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447

Anyone can talk about climate change. People that cite peer reviewed articles that are backed up by the majority of such articles in the field are reporting on it -- it is the science that is credible not the person.

If someone is going to argue against the 98% to 99% consensus then they better have some peer reviewed science articles in the field to report on, otherwise it is fake news about fake science.

So, he is not a professional climate scientist. The paper he is published in doesn't have any professional climate scientists in it. If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer? I can go on google scholar and see all the articles in climate science publications. AGW is a flawed theory. Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. Why would I post that stuff here? No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.

Perhaps because he doesn't have peer reviewed article in climate science journals?

... AGW is a flawed theory. ...

Perhaps because nobody has demonstrated scientifically that it is flawed.

... Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. ...

Perhaps because all the scientific evidence says CO2 IS a major cause of global climate warming. Again see the graphs.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. A person or organisation can be right about 90% of the time and still be wrong on some things because what they are wrong about is foundational to the rest of their conclusions. Climate change is one of those things. The argument can be totally sound but still be false because the foundation has serious flaws in it.

Credibility is in the science, not the people or the organization. If the science is wrong then that needs to be demonstrated scientifically or it's just opinion.

Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible

That is pure bullshinola, it is only "controversial" in the eyes of the denialists. Within the field 98% to 99% of the scientists agree that the science shows global climate change is caused by humans. There are people that still think the earth is flat -- is their view equally credible with the scientific consensus?

That's all you need for what? You think he made your point for you? All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?

Again, because he was treating symptoms as causes. But more directly, the atmosphere, ground and oceans show a definite heating trend, and there is also an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. So when you say "All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground" you are agreeing that the change in CO2 levels accounts for the change in temperatures that have been observed.

How all the gases in the atmosphere get warmed up is not the cause of the atmosphere getting warmer it is the process, the symptom. The source is the CO2 that transmits the heat to the rest of the atmosphere.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 5:29 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 9:33 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 392 of 398 (800139)
02-20-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 9:20 AM


Re: The sweet sound of silence
Message 338
http://science.howstuffworks.com/...science/question7461.htm

You claimed to refute the evidence in this simple article, but in actuality never addressed it at all. Are you able to refute the evidence and conclusions or not? It is really basic stuff. A serious take down should be quite easy for someone of you scientific expertise. (that is, if the evidence and conclusions are wrong)


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 9:20 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 9:30 AM Theodoric has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 880
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 393 of 398 (800140)
02-20-2017 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Theodoric
02-20-2017 9:29 AM


Re: The sweet sound of silence
It's not my fault you're slow on the uptake.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2017 9:29 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2017 9:33 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 394 of 398 (800142)
02-20-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 9:30 AM


Re: The sweet sound of silence
The last refuge of one that has no support for their arguments. The personal insult.

Thanks for the concession.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 9:30 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 395 of 398 (800143)
02-20-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by RAZD
02-20-2017 9:23 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
RAZD writes:

Again, because he was treating symptoms as causes. But more directly, the atmosphere, ground and oceans show a definite heating trend, and there is also an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. So when you say "All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground" you are agreeing that the change in CO2 levels accounts for the change in temperatures that have been observed.

And there are two other points of interest. First that a decrease in dissolved oxygen in ocean water has been observed. Second, it is STILL a fact that the only potential cause of global warming that we can address are the human created factors.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 9:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 396 of 398 (800182)
02-20-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 5:29 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?

I'm willing to concede that if our atmosphere consisted solely of the carbon molecules currently present and none of the other gasses, it'd be frickin cold here.

But we are talking about the atmosphere we do have. In that atmosphere, adding carbon dioxide captures more of the infrared radiation emanating from the earth's surface. These carbon molecules then transfer that heat to other things, such as the rest of the atmosphere, the ocean back to the surface etc. More heat, leads to higher temperatures.

Conversely, less carbon molecules capture less radiation, meaning more of this heat escapes without heating the atmosphere. Less heat being trapped in the atmosphere leads to lower temperatures.

Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible.

They can be, but that doesn't mean they are. It's actually not a controversial topic - the only real controversy is how we respond to it.

The Roswell incident is a controversial topic, by some measure. The story that a modified weather balloon holding a microphone as an experimental nuclear bomb detonation detector was covered up by the military as a national security secret is more credible than the military covering up interstellar aliens.

Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming

Two possibilities:
1) Systemic bias
2) Contrary views are not supported

How much is accepted in medical journals that heart attacks are not deleterious to health?

No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.

Solar activity and water vapour are very much discussed in climate change science.

Here is a paper A Decade of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer: Is a SolarCloud Link Detectable? for example:

quote:
The study identifies no statistically significant correlations between cloud anomalies and TSI/GCR variations, and concludes that solar-related variability is not a primary driver of monthly to annual MODIS cloud variability. The authors observe a net increase in cloud detected by MODIS over the past decade of; 0.58%, arising from a combination of a reduction in high-to midlevel cloud (20.31%) and an increase in low-level cloud (0.89%); these long-term changes may be largely attributed to ENSO-induced cloud variability.

Or Solar Influence on Global and Regional Climates:

quote:
The best estimates of the solar influence on the global mean air surface temperature show relatively small effects, compared with the response to anthropogenic changes (and broadly in line with their respective radiative forcings). However, the situation is more interesting when one looks at regional and season variations around the global means. In particular, recent research indicates that winters in Eurasia may have some dependence on the Sun, with more cold winters occurring when the solar activity is low. Advances in modelling top-down mechanisms, whereby stratospheric changes influence the underlying troposphere, offer promising explanations of the observed phenomena. In contrast, the suggested modulation of low-altitude clouds by galactic cosmic rays provides an increasingly inadequate explanation of observations.

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate:

quote:
The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

Investigation of cosmic ray-cloud connections using MISR:

quote:
Our long-term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed.

quote:
Thus, to explain observed global warming via CR modulation of albedos, it is necessary to postulate that a 5% decrease in the CR flux decreases global albedo by around half a percent. Fortuitously, the secular decrease in the CR flux since 1891 is equal to the average Fd magnitude in our composite analysis. Thus, if CR flux decreases were responsible for recent warming, then an albedo signal should be visible in our Fd analysis since the 95% confidence interval extends to only 0.0029. Instead, we observe that there is no global albedo response to a 5% decrease in CRs greater than 0.0029 and no hint of any weaker signals imbedded in the noise either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 5:29 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by foreveryoung, posted 08-17-2017 9:47 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 880
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 397 of 398 (817383)
08-17-2017 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Modulous
02-20-2017 3:11 PM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
modulus writes:

Our long-term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed.

A short term change in cosmic ray flux is unlikely to show up in total global albedo. The effect of cosmic rays is most likely to be long term and it's most intense effect would be in the intertropical convergence zone. An enormous amount of heat is lost to space in this zone through thunderstorms and hurricanes and cyclones. The sun also shines more directly in this zone than the other latitudes.

A increase in condensation due to cosmic rays would have the most effect here. Also, optical thickness would likely increase first before any change in albedo, so that would explain the lack of albedo change in the study. Also, increases in albedo in the ITCZ could be balanced by decreases at other latitudes. But the effect at the ITCZ would far outweigh any effect at other latitudes.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2017 3:11 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Modulous, posted 08-18-2017 7:32 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 398 of 398 (817640)
08-18-2017 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by foreveryoung
08-17-2017 9:47 AM


science, Dan, words
A short term change in cosmic ray flux is unlikely to show up in total global albedo. The effect of cosmic rays is most likely to be long term and it's most intense effect would be in the intertropical convergence zone. An enormous amount of heat is lost to space in this zone through thunderstorms and hurricanes and cyclones. The sun also shines more directly in this zone than the other latitudes.

Words. I'll repeat the science:

quote:
The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

I don't know what counts as 'long term', but the study you quoted goes back to the turn of the twentieth century.

quote:
The analysis above suggests that modulation of albedo is not responsible for the majority of global warming since 1900.

quote:
One caveat on these conclusions is that the upper bound of 0.0029 per 5% CR decrease was derived exclusively in the context of short timescale Fds. It is conceivable that
CRs influence climate via some unknown mechanism that only acts
on longer timescales, and thus wouldnt be apparent during brief Fd episodes. However the majority of CR mechanisms proposed
in the literature would be expected to manifest themselves on short timescales since the effects of CRs on atmospheric ionization are immediate, and cloud formation processes operate on the order of hours to days.

Although both short and long term analysis did not uncover any evidence for spatially localized CR cloud correlations, local effects
cannot be dismissed because the grid size of block-averaged MISR
data is large and the sampling errors in regional correlations
are too large to tightly constrain the magnitude of local effects.


I still contend that your claim that

No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.

remains false.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by foreveryoung, posted 08-17-2017 9:47 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2223242526
27
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017