Can I Call HCGW Deniers Idiots?

I've made enough of an argument. But not enough to break through your mental block. And I posted a short video that makes any argument unnecessary. You can see what is happening with your own eyes. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That video is worth many more. Now, refute that. Tell me more of what you think I didn't do. It is amusing.

 

You have not addressed causation, the heart of the debate. The rest of your posts are just fluff.

 

Here is the causation. "Human Caused" global warming. Is that fluffy enough for you?

 

~ It could be "mental block " ... ? '

 

Well short of the mark.
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
". . . Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans. Seeing a poor polar bear floating on an iceberg does not mean that humans caused warming. (Actually, the bear population is now probably at its highest in modern times!). The same goes to receding glaciers. Sure, there was warming and glaciers are receding, but the logical leap that this warming is because of humans is simply an unsubstantiated claim, even more so when considering that you can find Roman remains under receded glaciers in the Alps or Viking graves in thawed permafrost in Greenland. . . . "

 

So, it is to be the "global warming is a natural process" argument. From what I have heard, we are actually supposed to be heading toward another ice age. But the opposite is happening. So, who screwed up with the approaching ice age prediction. I would ask how and why, but it just doesn't matter to me. Next, you want evidence that humans are to blame for global warming. Exactly what kind of evidence would convince you. Various pictures of massive amounts of people representing the entire population of that country doing the same holding up flaming torches? Come on. Lay your best BS on me.

 

No, it is not. It is a solar-based argument. From the same link in #30:

". . . So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. . . . "

 

No
At present none of the factors that cause natural warming are affecting the planet. As fir would we know about it - there is an entire field of science called paleoclimatology which looks at past climate changes, so yes we would and do know about it

 

Wow! In which case why have you not submitted that to your government? Where is the paper in support of this? I mean 80 years of data compared to over 300 million years of data collected and analysed by paleoclimatologists is well, astounding! / sarcasm

There is no question that thermal expansion occurs but would you be so kind as to show me where, in the IPCC report that is being ignored

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/

What part of their analysis is erroneous?

Oh! And BTW please explain this


https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

 

Except, of course, for the sun.
Forbes censored an interview with me

1. Shaviv, N. J. Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.) 113, 11101 (200 local version (not paywalled)
2. Howard, D., Shaviv, N. J., Svensmark, H., The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data, J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 120, 3297–3306 (2015)
3. Ziskin, S., Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50, 762–776, (2012). local version (not paywalled)
4. Svensmark, H., Bondo, T. & Svensmark, J. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 15101–1510 (2009)
5. Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, H. The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 121, 8152–8181 (2016).
6. Shaviv, N. J. Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic spiral arms, iron meteorites, and a possible climatic connection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 051102–05110 (2002)
7. Shaviv, N. J. The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth. New Astron. 8, 39–77 (2003)
8. Shaviv, N. J., Prokoph, A., Veizer, J., Is the Solar System's Galactic Motion Imprinted in the Phanerozoic Climate? Scientific Reports volume 4, Article number: 6150 (2014)
9. Svensmark, H. & Friis-Christensen, E. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships. J. Atmos. Sol. -Terr. Phys. 59, 1225–1232 (1997).
10. Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J. O. P., Marsh, N. D., Enghoff, M. B. & Uggerhøj, U. I. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proc. R. Soc. A 463, 385–396 (2007)
11. Kirkby, J. et al. Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation. Nature 476, 429–433 (2011).
12. Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B. & Pedersen, J. O. P. Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation. Phys. Lett. A 377, 2343–2347 (2013).
13. Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J., Svensmark J., Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 2199 (2017)

 

A couple of scientist speculated about it back in the seventies - the press ran riot and the rest is history - its a red herring

But there is some evidence - not strong but some that we are heading toward a “Maunder Minima”

 

Here is the paper.

1. Shaviv, N. J. Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.) 113, 11101 (200 local version (not paywalled)

 

See comments 24 and 34 at the Skeptical Science website on "Ocean Heat Content and the Importance of the Deep Ocean" for a skeptical analysis
of N.J. Shaviv's paper, "Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter ...".
Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean (skepticalscience.com)

comment #24
chris at 08:50 AM on 25 September, 2011tblakeslee, need to be careful in taking Shaviv's analysis at face value, due, amongst other things, to his selection of data
sets. For example much of his analysis is based on a set of tide guage records of Douglas (1997), which shows a marked cyclic variation of local sea level that matches the solar cycle. However, this doesn't match the globally averaged sea level variation, especially the satellite-derived record which doesn’t show a marked variation with the solar cycle; e.g. see this paper and Figure 3 - can't find a downloadable version right now: Church JA, White NJ, Aarup T, et al. (200 Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future Sustainability Sci. 3, 9-22. It’s proposed that the tide guage measures, many of which are close to continental margins, have solar forcings magnified by more rapid warming/cooling in shallow waters, and that this amplifies the amplitudes of responses to forcings by a factor of 2-3 relative to the globally averaged response. So Shaviv’s use of this data to determine a radiative forcing from sea level response may well be erroneous (greatly overestimated) by that sort of factor. Whatever the origin of the discrepancy between tide guage measures and satellite measures with respect to amplitudes of response to solar cycles, I suspect that Shaviv’s analysis will be found to be a rather marked overestimation of the solar cycle response and his required “amplification”. There are some other problems with the paper that we could discuss. Notice that Shaviv himself points out problems with his analysis; e.g.: “Note that the relatively low correlation coefficient between the OHC and solar signals may seem somewhat suspicious” (page 10) This is a serious problem (i.e. that the OHC content variation doesn't really correlate with the solar cycle). Note also that Shaviv neglects to account for the effect of volcanic eruptions, which is important for assessing solar cycle effect on OHC, since for two of the 5 cycles (or 6; it’s not clear from Shaviv’s paper) analyzed, the volcanic forcing happens to be in phase with the solar cycle. This will produce a spurious “amplification” of any apparent solar effects that is not, in fact, related to solar effects. This has been pointed out by Lean and Rind in their recent analysis of attributions to 20th century warming (see section 4 on page 4 of their paper)

 

This is from Shaviv’s own blog - not exactly a non-biased source most of the “references are to his own work - a large proportion of the rest are to Henrik Svensmark - another “it’s the sun! Believer. Meanwhile here is the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.8_SM.pdf

 

As noted previously, the IPCC alarmists apparently believe that if they keep their heads under the covers the monsters will go away.

 

Tsk tsk.
THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER

". . . It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. Each one of the data sets has different advantages and disadvantages. . . .

Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations. . . . "

 

Hmm this is from a blog but a referenced blog https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...lectroverse-global-warming-policy-foundation/.
Debunks it quite nicely
Here is another debunking of Shavivs claims
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html

 

NOT a published paper

 

The link is to the paper itself.
And Shaviv has dealt with his critics.

 

It is a discussion of the published paper already linked.

 

Your first link references nothing more recent than 2016, and the second is dated 2004. It seems you're not familiar with the material or the state of the discussion.

 

Oh my God man kind is going to kill us all we have to depend on the government to save us so let's give the government ever more power to regulate every aspect of human existence
....

The cult of "science".... Chicken littles

 

But has yet to make an impact on the exisiting science

 

To be honest it actually seems that no one is paying any attention to shaviv other than you - his theory has been debunked further output from him has not shifted that goalpost

 

As I said, "existing science" is hiding under the covers.