Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[Threegoofs]

The displacement of CO2 from the center of climate science would indeed mark a paradigm shift, even if a modest place for it were retained.

After Copernicus Earth remained in the planetary system, just not at the center.

In other words, it’s mainstream, established science that virtually all scientists agree upon that CO2 is a significant climate threat.

Bout time you recognized that basic fact.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I did answer the question. If temperatures had only increased .22, or had gone down... of course that would, if it actually happened, cast doubt on global warming, either natural or anthropogenic.

And, if it suddenly started snowing five feet in Phoenix, that would be a shocker as well.

Any more hypotheticals you want to ask?

I am not finding that to be clear;

If the temperature of the earth does not raise by 0.2c over the next 2 decades will that cause you to abandon the global warming is a problem hypothesis?

It's a yes or no answer. [5]

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

It means that he is so unhappy to put any scientific type of failable test onto his religion that he will change the subject as quickly as possible with as irrelavent a reply as possible.

The religious do this all the time.

I fear it may suggest something much worse.

Such as?

I can't see that anybody would be paying for his posts. So what else?

 

[jmotivator]

I just saw something very recently that showed the sun has been entering a weaker phase.
Weaker sun, more cosmic ray penetration to earth, more cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, cooler climate.
Since solar strength is and has always been cyclical (over short & long periods) and historically correlate to temperature fluctuation better than CO2, it does indicate that we're likely entering a period of cooling.
In "The Neglected Sun" Shaviv noted that between 2001 to 2007 the IPCC models halved the amount of impact from the sun ... they really don't consider amplification.
I'm afraid the IPCC is unshakably committed to CO2 and because of that, a few here on DP are too ... the WUWT link will only reinforce their determination to remain flat-earthers.
For those deniers I link to the actual paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

We are entering the weakest solar cycle in at least 600 years. In a decade we may be actively pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling.

 

[bubbabgone]

Such as?

I can't see that anybody would be paying for his posts. So what else?

Oh no. Not that.
Not to belabor the point because I think he realizes it now, but it started to become clear that he was misreading the graph at his own link in #206.
I explained it to him in #230.
But that kind of basic error in understanding does suggest that tactics more sinister, but no less successful, can serve to convince some who just don't know enough to challenge.
I'm talking about data manipulation, choosing misleading time slices, confusing correlation with confirmation, ignoring millennia of climate records in order to misrepresent current records.
For example, how many times have you seen it said right here on DP that not only was there no warming pause but that this decade is the warmest "on record" ?

 

[Jack Hays]

In other words, it’s mainstream, established science that virtually all scientists agree upon that CO2 is a significant climate threat.

Bout time you recognized that basic fact.

Yes. It's that "mainstream" paradigm that will pass away, as did the Earth-centered Ptolemaic planetary system.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Oh no. Not that.
Not to belabor the point because I think he realizes it now, but it started to become clear that he was misreading the graph at his own link in #206.
I explained it to him in #230.
But that kind of basic error in understanding does suggest that tactics more sinister, but no less successful, can serve to convince some who just don't know enough to challenge.
I'm talking about data manipulation, choosing misleading time slices, confusing correlation with confirmation, ignoring millennia of climate records in order to misrepresent current records.
For example, how many times have you seen it said right here on DP that not only was there no warming pause but that this decade is the warmest "on record" ?

Well, yes, I agree but then I am on the skeptic side.

 

[Jack Hays]

Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source​

 

[Dittohead not!]

I am not finding that to be clear;

If the temperature of the earth does not raise by 0.2c over the next 2 decades will that cause you to abandon the global warming is a problem hypothesis?

It's a yes or no answer. [5]

In the highly unlikely event that the average temperature of the Earth does not increase by at least .2 degrees C over the next two decades, then I would abandon the global warming theory.

One thing that makes it a scientific theory, after all, is that it can be disproved.

So, are you taking bets? Better hurry, I'll be 95 in another two decades, if I'm still around.

Come to think of it, better make that .1 degrees in the next one decade. I might be around to see that one.

 

[Tim the plumber]

In the highly unlikely event that the average temperature of the Earth does not increase by at least .2 degrees C over the next two decades, then I would abandon the global warming theory.

One thing that makes it a scientific theory, after all, is that it can be disproved.

So, are you taking bets? Better hurry, I'll be 95 in another two decades, if I'm still around.

Come to think of it, better make that .1 degrees in the next one decade. I might be around to see that one.

Glad to see that you are able to draw a line n the sand.

Now were you able to say the same in 1998?

 

[Threegoofs]

We are entering the weakest solar cycle in at least 600 years. In a decade we may be actively pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling.

Because CO2 causes significant warming?

Odd you guys deny it in one thread, then pop up in another saying the opposite.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Glad to see that you are able to draw a line n the sand.

Now were you able to say the same in 1998?

Sure. Let's review:

1996 0.35 0.41

2016 0.99 0.91

These data, then, mean that the Earth had warmed to .35 degrees by 1996, and by .99 degrees by 2016. That would be an increase of .64.



Of course, the data from 2018 aren't in yet. Are you guessing that it will be less than .22? Where exactly did you get that figure?


Anyway, you need to look at temperature by decade, not year. There is too much fluctuation from one year to the next to draw any long term conclusions.

 

[jmotivator]

Because CO2 causes significant warming?

Odd you guys deny it in one thread, then pop up in another saying the opposite.

This shows how amazingly clueless you actually are.

 

[Threegoofs]

This shows how amazingly clueless you actually are.

So CO2 doesn’t cause warming?

Make up your mind.

 

[jmotivator]

So CO2 doesn’t cause warming?

Make up your mind.

LOL. Continuing looking like a buffoon, 3G, it is your most practiced part.

 

[Surface Detail]

LOL. Continuing looking like a buffoon, 3G, it is your most practiced part.

We can see who's looking like a buffoon, and it's not 3G. Why don't you answer his question?

 

[jmotivator]

We can see who's looking like a buffoon, and it's not 3G. Why don't you answer his question?

LOL. Are you new to this sub-forum? 3G knows what my position is on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, he is playing stupid.

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL. Are you new to this sub-forum? 3G knows what my position is on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, he is playing stupid.

Seems like it changes depending on the circumstance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

LOL. Are you new to this sub-forum? 3G knows what my position is on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, he is playing stupid.

We thought we knew your position, and yet you post:

We are entering the weakest solar cycle in at least 600 years. In a decade we may be actively pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling.

If CO2 is not the reason for global warming, why would we pump it into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling?

Either it is or is not a greenhouse gas. We already know that there is a lot more in the atmosphere than there was 100 years ago.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) -F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot:

Leif Svalgaard – click the​

I like the graph, but I wish the scientists would not use the corrected solar data. They need to start using the raw TSI values. Not the corrected values to 1 AU.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source​

I'd like to see all the transmission charts available, but can't find them in papers.

As important as the sun is, why do they ignore this variable?

 

[Jack Hays]

Leif Svalgaard – click the pic to view at source​

 

[Jack Hays]

The Solar Physics Group at NASA​

 

[Jack Hays]

Butterfly” Diagram

The Solar Physics Group at NASA​

 

[Jack Hays]