That's isn't what I said, but I understand. You have to defend your hose of cards at all costs.
November was Earth’s warmest such month on record by a huge margin
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
That's isn't what I said, but I understand. You have to defend your hose of cards at all costs.
It's exactly what you said...otherwise, you could post a source. Do it and I retract my comment.
You confuse "a lack of willingness" with "unable to find". Don't worry, I'm definitely a proponent for religious freedom, so you have nothing to fear from me.
Soooo...no source. Completely made up. Got it. All you had to say.
Who has ever denied that?
The part you are too uneducated to understand is that climate HAS NOT changed in the 5000-10000 year range of human history. And climate typically changes on many thousands of years cycles. We are seeing change in far less than that, on par with some of the prior mass-extinction events in the paleo record.
And we unequivocally KNOW that we are presently driving it. If the climate were changing, and we had NO link to human influence, then all we could do is adapt. But because we KNOW that CO2 levels are the trigger right now, we KNOW that by stopping those emissions, the climate is going to remain stable for at least a few thousand more years for us. If the climate change driver right now were the sun, we could not stop that. If it were Milankovitch cycles, we could not stop that. If it were major volcanic CO2 releases, we could not stop that.
But it is NONE of those (which WERE the drivers on the graph that was posted). It is us, because none of the 'natural' variables is currently changing.
How do we know that no natural variables are changing? That's ridiculous. Nothing ever stays the same.
We also have no way of knowing that "the climate is going to remain stable for at least a few thousand more years for us."
An asteroid could strike and alter the climate tomorrow. You're blowing smoke out of your ass.
We also have no way of knowing that "the climate is going to remain stable for at least a few thousand more years for us."
An asteroid could strike and alter the climate tomorrow. You're blowing smoke out of your ass.
Let's say they're not changing in a way that would warm the atmosphere. Better? And we know because...you know...we can measure stuff.
I can try and dumb that down if it's too technical.
So because you don't like the idea that we are the primary driver of GW, you're hanging your hat on some undiscovered natural driver that's escaped EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST in the world.
Brilliant!
Really.
I'm not hanging my hat on anything. You guys are the ones who think we have the power to maintain a Goldilocks climate.
Brilliant indeed.
LOL....because we have the technical ability to MEASURE them.
Solar output - check.
Milankovitch cycles from orbital data - check.
Volcanic output of CO2 - check (it's <1% of human output, btw).
If there WERE a natural source that was dramatically changing....one would THINK that someone like Judith Curry would jump right on that and publish something showing it to be the cause of the recent warming.
But, you seem to want to live in a fantasy world, where using your brain to understand things is pushed aside to latch onto fairy tale ideas. >100 years ago, sickness and illness was caused by 'evil' or 'not being pure with God'. Today, because we have SCIENCE, we KNOW that those things are caused by viruses and bacteria. And we know many ways to combat them, with vaccines and antibiotics. Your antics here, applied to these fundamental tenets of medicine, would be the equivalent of setting up exorcisms to combat disease. Most grade school kids, I think, have a better understanding of the science here than you do. Maybe if you have some kids, they could share some of their homework with you and you could learn something...
Here is a link for the 'Year To Date' plot of global temps.
So much for the 'hiatus' since 1998...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/11/1880-2015
So much for the 'hiatus' since 1998...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/11/1880-2015
As reported in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature, Jasper Kirkby and his 62 co-authors from 17 institutes in Europe and the U.S. announced that the sun indeed has a significant influence on our planet’s temperature. Their “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets” (CLOUD) experiment proved that its magnetic field does, in fact, act as a gateway for cosmic rays that play a large role in cloud formation. The report stated “Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].” In other words, the big influence exists, yet hasn’t been factored into climate models.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/09/20/sorry-but-with-global-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/
LOL...no, it's not 'the sun'. We have VERY accurate solar output information since the 1950s, and VERY good proxy information from sunspots for >1000 years. And solar output in this century has been mostly stagnant, with a slight DECREASE. Sorry that Forbes cannot interpret scientific articles correctly, but you should probably get your financial news from them, and your science news from scientists....
If this is a 'big influence' on climate, then our current models WOULD NOT be able to replicate historical temperatures when run, using an 1850 or 1900 starting date. But (newsflash), they actually DO match real climate data WITHOUT this alleged feedback. Thus, it's doubtful that this is as significant as Forbes insists that it is....likely not that the authors think it is.
FWIW, historical sunspot activity/solar output ARE used in the models already, so to assert that this is something 'the models have never accounted for' is mostly incorrect, perhaps that is why the rest of the science community didn't react with wonder at their announcement....your article even asserts that, despite their 'cloud chamber box experiment', the effects they observed in their lab model WERE NOT directly observable in atmospheric interactions 'due to other variations'. That pretty much implies this effect is rather small as compared with other natural atmospheric phenomenon. Again, the climate models would NOT replicate historical data very well if they were missing a major feedback, but because they do, it directly contradicts the assertion here, which is the most likely explanation as to why it isn't the earthshattering news you think it is...
Keep Googling!!
Again no source doesn't necessarily mean made up. Is that what your little global warming bible said? If you religious type people were willing to discuss a source, even though you might not agree with it, then people might be more willing to find a source for you, but alas, anything that goes against your religion immediate drives you into a Flagellant type fervor, at which point it turns into insults and ad hominem.
Sorry for the delay in answering. I was busy preparing my first home-made stew. It turned out friggen delicious!
That's what they do, Trad. That's how guys like Joel and Tarheel roll. Why would you even post an article that people won't even read? It just doesn't make any sense.
That's pretty much all of us. We have our beliefs and it's rarely, if ever, going to change from some insight offered here. This is just arguing practice!
I understand that, but I will still try to generally refute what is in the article instead of just plugging my ears and screaming like a little kid.
I read it. I'm guessing it's more of the same from the denier crowd since the CERN CLOUD folks (the same people cited in your article) found that:
"...ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols [that form clouds] (emphasis mine)"
- Almeida et al. (2013)
Feel free to read the paper and refute it. You should also peruse:
"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."
-Kazil et al. (2006)
"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."
-Sloan and Wolfendale (2008)
"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"
-Kristjansson et al. (2008)
"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."
-Pierce and Adams (2009)
"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude (emphasis mine)."
-Calogovic et al. (2010)
"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."
-Kulmala et al. (2010)
"there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.(emphasis mine)"
-Laken et al. (2013)
"Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming 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 (emphasis mine)."
-Sloan & Wolfendale (2013)
"Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming (emphasis mine)."
- Erlykin et al. (2013)
A few other small problems. Remember when I told you we can measure stuff? That gives you this to explain:
Figure 6: Low cloud cover (blue line) versus cosmic ray intensity (red line) (Laut 2003)
Demonstrating that low cloud cover has disconnected from cosmic ray intensity and this:
Demonstrating that if cosmic radiation is responsible for warming, it's doing it through magical means.
The long and short...I suspect the denier crowd is - once again - misrepresenting research.
I think it demonstrates that we don't know everything and there's much more to learn.
But, you enjoy feeling smugly arrogant in the notion that we can control the climate.
LOL, you didn't even read the research before immediately dismissing it.
Sound familiar?
I read it. Not really impressed with the talking points over at www.skepticalscience.com. The way I read it, their refutation raises more questions than ever.
The citations come from actual research. You can look up each and every paper cited.
And exactly what questions does THIS raise?
If your contention is that galactic cosmic radiation is causing the current warming you have to explain this. You will, of course, say you don't have to explain anything. And your claim immediately collapses.
The citations come from actual research. You can look up each and every paper cited.
And exactly what questions does THIS raise?
If your contention is that galactic cosmic radiation is causing the current warming you have to explain this. You will, of course, say you don't have to explain anything. And your claim immediately collapses.
Different variables can have different effects at different times, in combination with other variables, resulting in changing outcomes. When talking about a system that is as complex as our climate, I have a hard time believing the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature to be the be all and end all of the whole thing. Way too simplistic, and the way the temps continue to jump around cast doubt about the correlation of even that.
I think it demonstrates that you don't know anything, and have no capability to discern between actual science and OpEds descriptions of science, with overzealous embellishments to match an agenda.
Every time someone tries to prove it, they are excommunicated from the scientific community. See most recently the French government meteorologist who got sacked for writing a book critical of global warming dogma.
Perhaps you missed my comment on the 'cloud chamber box' they used.
Of course I read it; and it doesn't support the claims you are attempting to make. They made ZERO effort to track their hypothesis vs real world data. It was a nice hypothesis to set up in a cloud chamber in their lab, but other people who tested this same idea years before and years since showed fairly clearly that the influence on cloud formation and climate is rather small at best.
Jeebus...THAT again?
There was NEVER anything posted showing he was fired for his book; the most likely explanation is that he violated the terms of his employment agreement. And/or used company resources for his 'personal gain' book he wrote.
That doesn't fit your narrative, though.
Funny, how Exxon scientists showed this was actually the case back in the 1980s....
I don't care about the Exxon scientists. Hell, they might be claiming this NOW to avoid the scientific inquisition.
Question for you: If it's all about the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Why would we have very hot years (1998) and not so hot years before and after? Shouldn't the average be moving more consistently? The amount of CO2 being emitted isn't going up and down.
ENSO (aka El Nino/La Nina)
There was a paper earlier this year which showed the impact of ENSO trends vs. long-term temperatures.
I can also link you graphs which show this more clearly, as their paper is rather technical in nature.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2605.html
They state outright (in fairly technical lingo) that when the PDO/ENSO shifts to an El Nino-favored pattern (and it is historically about 50/50 over the past 100+ years), warming will be much faster.
A simple evaluation using available online information verifies exactly what they are saying:
During La Nina-dominated phases, Earth's temperature has remained flat (or actual 'hiatus' in warming; virtually flat temperatures over decadal averages)
During El Nino-dominated phases, warming is pretty much 2x faster than the overall trend since pre-1900 (nearly 0.2°C per decade warming, or twice the long term average)
There's not an El Nino ever year, and yet the average temps still jump up and down. But I will grant it's more profoundly upward in El Nino years.
No, there's NOT an El Nino 'every year', but that doesn't mean the ENSO is static/the same just because the media only proclaims an El Nino, or La Nina once every few years. It varies quite a lot, within a narrower window, when El Nino/La Nina events are not extreme and thus not formally recognized.
This is a primary source of annual and intra-decadal variation (why the climate doesn't go up/down in precise stairsteps). You can see the past 65 years of ENSO variability here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
ENSO has only 'hit' an average deviation of 2.0°C or greater (for a 3 month running average/window) a few times in the last 50 years: 1972 (a 1 month window), 1982 (3 months running), 1997/8 (5 months running) and now. That means if August/Sept/Oct has a deviation value of 2.0, then September is given the 2.0 data point. If Sept/Oct/Nov falls to 1.8, then October's value is 1.8, and is not a month with a >2 ENSO deviation. An El Nino or La Nina is not 'declared' unless there is a string of 5 consecutive months like this with values >0.5 or <0.5. Strong events are greater than ±1.0; extreme events have at least one month with a >±2.0, like now and 1997/8.
The table is color coded, so you can see where small ENSO variations (hotter/cooler) have occurred, which correlate well with multi-year variation. Since the 97/98 event, we have had only small variations, and mainly cooler La Ninas, which explains the alleged 'hiatus'. But now that the PDO has shifted back to a bigger El Nino, we are right back to fast warming.
This is what I and others have been telling you ad nauseum on here regarding the fake 'hiatus' since 1998: using one of the biggest El Nino years ever recorded as a starting point is baloney. Now that we are entering a similar event, you can compare apples-apples. Right now, 2015 SHOULD match 1997 based on the timing of the El Nino.
Only the year after, 1998, was one of the hottest ever, NOT 1997, which was fairly 'normal' or 'cool'.
Thus, 2016 could even blow 2015 away for temperature records, and 2015 is already a major jump in temperatures over anything else in the recent records. That's not 'natural variation'; something creating these kinds of shifts is driving climate in only one direction. That 'something' is us, because NO ONE has been able to identify the 'natural' forcing behind the changes being seen.
