Can I Call HCGW Deniers Idiots?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by brainglue, Jan 14, 2022.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. The main action has been subsequent to your references. This was the big one. Several more have followed.
    Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
    Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
    Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
     
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does the term "playing God" mean anything to you? Because that has been a trope in books and movies since Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote what many consider one of the first horror books, as well as one of the first science fiction books.

    And even more ironically, she penned the tale after her husband and a bunch of others traveled to scenic Lake Geneva, and got caught in the "Year Without a Summer". Lord Byron challenged each to write a "ghost story", and although most of them were renowned writers and poets, her story is the one that survives.

    So what exactly does one "do" about something natural? And on a side note, what is "natural"?

    In fact, given the last 500 million years, I would argue that most of Canada and Northern Europe should be completely uninhabitable as it should be under ice. And that there should be plentiful human habitation in the North Sea. Excuse me, Doggerland. So what exactly does one do about a natural occurrence?

    ANd what do we do right now about the most recent Hunga Tonga eruption? What exactly do we do if 2022 is a "Year Without a Summer"?
     
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    A paper published 1 year earlier by Tung and Camp found that the surface warming caused by the solar cycle was 0.18 degrees C/watt/square meter.
    The error bar was +/- 0.08 degrees C/watt/square meter. The peak-to-peak variation in the non-reflected effective solar constant is 0.17 watts per square meter
    at the top of the atmosphere. So Tung and Camp find an amplifying factor of 0.18/0.17=1.06 for atmospheric surface warming, about 1/5th as much as Shaviv found.

    This is from Shaviv's paper: Over the 11-year solar cycle, the “solar constant” of roughly 1366 W/m2 varies by about 1 W/m2, which is equivalent to ∼0.17 W/m2 on top of the ∼240 W/m2 global average of the non-reflected component.

    This is also from Shaviv's paper: 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.

    Shaviv is finding an amplifying mechanism that is roughly 4.7 to 6.6 times greater than the 1.06 factor found by Tung and Camp.

    Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection - Camp - 2007 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

    "By projecting surface temperature data (1959 – 2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time."

    "The filtered temperature time series now has a much higher correlation with the solar TSI index, with a higher correlation coefficient of r = 0.64 but the same (mean) regression amplitude of k = 0.18 ± 0.08K per Wm2 , although with a 20% smaller error bar."
    (K is degrees Kelvin, the regression coefficient, kappa, is the slope for the linear equation, delta Temperature = (kappa)times (delta TSI))

    Tung and Camp found that the regression coefficient was the same when raw data was used for the surface temperature but the error bars were 25% larger.

    "This is obtained without any filtering of the global mean signal, and gives confidence that the solar signal is not an artifact of our filtering to be presented below. The ‘‘solar cycle signal’’ obtained by regressing the global mean temperature onto the TSI time series yields the regression coefficient of k = 0.18 ± 0.10K per Wm2 of solar constant variation, suggesting a mean global warming of 0.16K from solar min to solar max."

    One of the 2 papers is wrong in its conclusions. Tung and Camps results were in line with previous results but somewhat higher. Shaviv's results were
    far higher than previous results.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not clear on what policies can’t be spoken of on this forum.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  5. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,340
    Likes Received:
    10,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When cornered, out comes a conspiracy theory.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,340
    Likes Received:
    10,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    +1
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,340
    Likes Received:
    10,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can put up any theory in this forum. Hell, there was even a thread on why homosexuality should be recriminalised that ran for 1000 posts.

    Your ban was probably because you were repeatedly insulting members.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,874
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Excellent! Masterful rebuttal Mike!
     
  9. MiaBleu

    MiaBleu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Messages:
    8,048
    Likes Received:
    6,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Personally......I see no percentage in calling anyone an idiot. Folks will believe what they choose to believe............and no amount of science or reasoning or physical evidence will change that. They are calcified in their belief........and will go to great lengths to find "evidence" that negates the obvious. Maybe the idea of what is taking place is just too scary for them..........so it is easier to go into denial.They have their own "explanations" for the climate, weather extremes and changes ...and these "explanations" seem to "work for them."
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is in Denial?

    I ask this question many times to be unanswered most of the time because it is a lie, and they know it since the few replies they do make are hilarious.

    Maybe YOU can handle the hard evidence of NO Climate Emergency in this Thread I started months ago that flummoxed most warmist/alarmists into true denial since they refused to accept the evidence from places such as NOAA, NASA, Satellite data and more.

    Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

    Deaths from climate-related phenomena are at an all-time low. If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.

    [​IMG]


    LINK
     
    bringiton likes this.
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No conspiracy is needed. Groupthink, confirmation bias and, especially, career self-preservation are more than sufficient as explanations.
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The amplifying mechanism was of course the point of Shaviv's paper, and the result reported by Tung and Camp merely illustrated the shortcoming of leaving it out. The mechanism? Cosmic ray flux as modulated by the solar wind.
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,874
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And more the basis of conspiracy than scientific reasoning

    I am still awaiting for someone to explain to me how thousands of scientists across the planet can somehow be tricked into “group think”

    As for confirmation bias - well anyone quoting known liars like Monckton……….
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,874
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The IPCC did not leave it out they dismissed it
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's a reference.
    Groupthink: A Study in Self Delusion by ... - Goodreads
    https://www.goodreads.com › book › show › 4004614...


    In Groupthink, his final book, the late, eminent journalist and bestselling author Christopher Booker seeks to identify the hidden key to understanding much ...
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Their objective was to omit it, not to consider it.
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This Nobel Prize winner found the answer a long time ago.
    "Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
    Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another sad personal attack.
     
  19. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Tung and Camp paper was the first study to find a statistically significant correlation between ocean+land surface temperature and the solar cycle.
    They found a global peak-to-peak temperature change from solar cycle minimum to maximum of 0.18 degrees C +/- 44% per watt/sq. meter. They
    used a much more direct technique than Nir Shaviv and one far less susceptible to errors. They used linear regression and other statistical methods
    to correlate the solar cycle's total solar irradiance (TSI) with the global surface temperature. Since the average peak-to-peak change in solar
    irradiance is 0.17 watts/sq. meter they found an amplification of 1.06. That is higher than what other studies had found prior to their 2008 study.


    Shaviv found a much larger temperature change using different data and very different techniques. He found a temperature change of
    1.2 degrees C. +/- 25% per watt/sq.meter over land and oceans and 0.85 degrees C. +/- 24% over oceans only - see equation 22 on
    page 10 of his report. That corresponds to an amplification factor of 7.0 compared to the 1.06 found by Tung and Camp.

    The discrepancy in the results can't be attributed to Tung and Camp leaving out an amplifying mechanism. Tung and Camp weren't trying
    to find an amplifying mechanism and that wasn't the primary objective of the Shaviv paper. The Shaviv paper's primary objective is
    stated in the title - to quantify the solar radiative forcing. Both papers quantified the solar radiative forcing and came up with entirely
    different results. It is worth noting that in the Tung and Camp paper stated that there result for the regression coefficient (0.18 ) was
    higher than the results from earlier papers and that makes Shaviv's result even more of an outlier.

    " This value of k is about 50– 70% higher than the regression coefficients of temperature against irradiance variability previously deduced [Douglass and Clader, 2002; Lean, 2005; Scafetta and West, 2005], of 0.1K global- mean surface warming attributable to the solar cycles."
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2022
  20. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    How can one attribute the warming of the oceans for the past 30 years to the sun when the TSI and solar activity have slightly decreased over this time?
    Shaviv's paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter shows a very rapid response, both warming and cooling, due to the peak-to-peak variations in the
    solar cycle. There is no delayed response. Shouldn't we expect to see some
    leveling off of the warming if he is right?

    The year 2020 was the second hottest year on record with the sun close to a minimum in the cycle.

    Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
    [​IMG]

    Seasonal (3-month) heat energy in the top half-mile of the ocean compared to the 1955-2006 average. Heat content in the global ocean has been consistently above-average (red bars) since the mid-1990s. More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans. NOAA Climate.gov graph. based on data from NCEI.


    There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age' – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

    [​IMG]

    The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

    The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2022
    Melb_muser likes this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And again, Shaviv's point was that TSI is an inadequate measure.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The year 2020 is part of a downward temperature anomaly trend since 2016.

    [​IMG]

    Solar Update September, 2021

    This figure also shows a flat trend through the 1970s cooling period followed by a 40 year long downtrend in activity. Whatever solar processes caused the Modern Warm Period and…
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Subsequent research confirmed Shaviv's findings.

    ". . . . additional satellite altimetry data covering two more solar cycles just revealed the same. In fact, the sun + el Niño Southern Oscillation can explain almost all the sea level variations minus the long term linear trend (caused by ice caps melting). This is from Howard et al. 2015 (see ref. #2 at the end):

    [​IMG]

    Figure 2: Satellite Altimetry based sea level (minus linear trend) in dashed blue points. Red is best fit model which includes solar cycle + el niño souther oscillation.

    Clearly, the sun continues to have a clear effect on the climate. Note that it is impossible to explain the large variations through a feedback in the system because that would give the wrong phase in the heat content response.

    What does that imply?

    First, since solar activity increased over the 20th century, it should be taken into account. Shepherd’s radiative forcing graph should be modified to be:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 3: Radiative forcing contributions (graph from Shepherd's article) with the following added. The beige is the real solar contribution over the 20th century. The green is the total forcing (natural + anthropogenic) we get once we include the real solar effect.

    The next point to note is that Shepherd claimed that because solar activity stopped increasing from the 1990’s it cannot explain any further warming. This is plain wrong. Consider this example in false logic. The sun cannot be warming us because between noon and 2pm (or so), solar flux decreases while the temperature increases. As a Professor of meteorology, Prof. Shepherd should know about the heat capacity of the oceans such that assuming that the global temperature is something times the CO2 forcing plus something else times the solar forcing is too much of a simplification.

    Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase. . . . "

    Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
     
    Sunsettommy, bringiton and drluggit like this.
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I.e., they simply assumed it away rather than actually refuting it.
     
  25. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is perhaps a crystalline example of what scientific denial actually is. The certainty, the entitlement, its all neatly encapsulated in a single grammatically incorrect presentation sentence. It just doesn't get any better than this.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2022
    roorooroo likes this.

Share This Page