Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

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. Perhaps because he doesn't have peer reviewed article in climate science journals? Perhaps because nobody has demonstrated scientifically that it is flawed. Perhaps because all the scientific evidence says CO2 IS a major cause of global climate warming. Again see the graphs. 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. 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? 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

Message 338
What is the greenhouse effect? | HowStuffWorksYou 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)

It's not my fault you're slow on the uptake.

The last refuge of one that has no support for their arguments. The personal insult.Thanks for the concession.

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.

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. 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. Two possibilities:
1) Systemic bias
2) Contrary views are not supportedHow much is accepted in medical journals that heart attacks are not deleterious to health? 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 Solar—Cloud 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.

---

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.

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 wouldn’t 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 remains false.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This just in:
Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The CauseComments?

Since Arrhenius told us more than 100 years ago that this would happen, it's a bit like finding a connection between drinking beer and higher rates of urine production. We pumped a bunch of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the result was warmer temps. It would be much more stunning if temperature have not increased.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

YAWNYet again, if Global Warming is a problem the the ONLY parts we can address are those parts created and caused by humans.What caused Global Warming is irrelevant to anyone capable of critical thinking.If it is happening and we want to try to slow the process the only thing we can do is reduce those factors that are under our control.It really is that simple.

It's always nice to have a massive government report to confirm the obvious.

Absent the science, and the government report is simply a report of the consensus among scientists, I would suggest that the fact that humans are the driver of global client change is not obvious.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is a natural cycle that drives changes in climate, so you do need to study the naturally occurring drivers of climate to assess what percentage of the change in climate is due to humans. What wasn't in doubt is that human activity was trapping more heat in the atmosphere than natural processes alone, and all we needed for that was measurements in atmospheric CO2.

Absent the science, it isn't obvious that the world is round. If the government figures it out, we'd better stop the presses.But the science isn't absent; we've known about it for a long time.