Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science

#21
Thanks Syne - good links. To heat or cool a planet you need to change the balance of heat in and heat out. Redistribution of heat may look like climate change (locally) but isn't the same as heating or cooling a planet.

You have probably seen a cloud chamber [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber ]
Quote:A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor.
A supersaturated vapour of water sums up the cloud forming regions of the atmosphere. Storms are interesting as redistributors of heat. Clouds are interesting as reflectors of heat - which can certainly disrupt weather patterns locally and potentially change the total energy balance of the planet.

I'm looking at https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/glo...mperature/ and I'm not seeing any evidence of an 11 year cycle - are you?
Reply
#22
Quote:Mars does not have an intrinsic global magnetic field, but the solar wind directly interacts with the atmosphere of Mars, leading to the formation of a magnetosphere from magnetic field tubes. This poses challenges for mitigating solar radiation and retaining an atmosphere.
Terraforming of Mars - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
Quote:I'm not seeing any evidence of an 11 year cycle

its been many years since i was reading up on this
rough memory was last that the 11 year cycle was observed as a pattern, not an actual cycle of the body.
like a seasonal effect of shifting magnetic's or polarity's or something such like.


i do recal asking a couple of different scientists and they relied effectively "yes" but that the result was observed by scientists and not scientifically proven to be a repeating cycle.
the last solar satellite to go up is probably offering more clarification around such things.


Quote:The sun's temper varies on an 11-year cycle, typically taking about 5 1/2 years to move from the quieter period of solar minimum, to the more turbulent solar maximum. Sunspots sometimes erupt into powerful solar storms that shoot streams of charged particles into space, occasionally in the direction of Earth.Jun 15, 2011

https://www.livescience.com/33345-solar-...ivity.html
Reply
#23
H2O is as much a greenhouse gas as CO2, as they both have three molecules that allow them to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. So at the very least, cloud formation initiated by particle forcing contributes to climate change on par with CO2. Even though H2O is 2.5% (25,000 ppm) and CO2 is only about 0.0397% (399 ppm) in the atmosphere. You see, particle forcing doesn't have to, itself, transmit the heat energy. It only has to initiate the static electricity to mobilize cloud formation of the existing atmospheric H2O, which can subsequently trap heat. And it's this particle forcing that is unaccounted for in older climate models...and erroneously attributed to human forcing. And it's not even about storms, only clouds. An increase in the global average cloud cover has the potential to trap magnitudes more heat, through blanketing, than CO2, hence why simply accounting for particle forcing can make the CO2 contribution insignificant.
Reply
#24
(Mar 7, 2019 10:50 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I'm not watching a 40 minute video. Tell us what the flaw is in so many clear and concise sentences..

the video is purpose made  propaganda

i would rate this as being in violation of site rules.
Reply
#25
I didn't watch the video. I consider "climate change science" to be poorly-disguised politics, and quite frankly I post to this board in hopes of avoiding the incessant political hatred and division that's inescapable almost everywhere else.

I am a climate change skeptic, but for my own reasons.

Longer term, the range of natural climate variation on Earth is much larger than anything that's been observed recently. As far as global warming goes, there have been periods in the Earth's history when the planet had no polar icecaps. As far as global cooling goes, there appear to have been 'snowball Earth' periods in which the polar icecaps extended to the equator. There are lots of hypotheses about why these huge temperature variations occurred (volcanic, solar, albedo, changes in the atmosphere's chemical composition due to life perhaps). But I don't think that anyone really knows for a fact.

I remember a professor telling me years ago that Earth's recent (in geological terms) history shows multiple recurring ice-ages with shorter warm periods (called 'interglacials') interspersed between them. If that pattern is still continuing (there's no good reason to assume it's suddenly ended) then we might currently be living in the most recent interglacial, which might be getting towards the end of interglacials' typical duration. So if that's true, then the threat to the Earth's climate today might be the onset of a new ice-age that will last tens of thousands of years. In other words, global warming might be a good thing (especially for Canada).

I'm not convinced that the scale of observed global warming is anything for me to worry about. There seems to have been a global rise of about 1.5 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800's. That's pretty minimal.

How we got there is interesting too. Throughout the 1800's Age of Coal temperatures seem to have been pretty stable. This was the period of European industrialization, when London was afflicted by air pollution like that seen in Beijing today. No significant rise in global temperatures.

Then there was a slight rise of about 0.5 degrees C from about 1910 to 1940. This may (or may not) be associated with the introduction of automobiles. (That connection is my speculation and remains to be demonstrated.)

From 1940 to 1980 temperatures seem to have been pretty flat again. Then a larger excursion of about 1.0 degrees C (2/3'ds of the global temperature increase over the last 200 years since the Industrial Revolution) is seen from 1980 until the present.

In the West, the period since 1980 has generally been a period of deindustrialization when big factories were closing down everywhere. (Britain once had a steel industry, believe it or not. One of the biggest in the world. It used to manufacture ships and airplanes.) Automobile emissions standards have gotten far more strict.

So assuming that the 1.0 degree C increase since 1980 is the work of human beings and not some unknown natural cause, what accounts for it? In my opinion, one word: China. The period since 1980 has seen dramatic reductions of emissions in the US and Europe, while China has been industrializing like crazy on a scale never before seen in human history.  


[Image: HadCRUT4.png]


But nobody wants to address that.

Instead, the whole global warming hysteria (and that's precisely what it is) has been enlisted in the left's never ending war to destroy "capitalism". It isn't a coincidence that nobody heard anything about the global warming threat until after 1990, when communism imploded and hordes of academics were suddenly adrift in search of a new glorious cause.

Global warming has to be battled! In a grand crusade! On Western soil! By turning history around 180 degrees and by rejecting the fruits of the Industrial revolution!

Anyone who fails to salute is denounced as "anti-science".

While everyone remains silent about China, where most of the global warming seems to be coming from, and who stands to inherit domination of the planet after Europe and the United States abdicate their world leadership.

Even if we assume that global warming will continue unabated, it doesn't sound like the end of the world. Climate projections for 2080 (a long time in the future) for North America actually show an improvement in climate for most places. Many places changes probably won't be noticeable. Chicago will be like Kansas City is today. (It will still experience cold winters and warm summers.) Winnipeg's climate will be like Minneapolis today, probably not a noticeable change. Toronto will see more improvement, becoming more like New York City today. It will still experience snow storms, but winters should be shorter and less extreme. My own San Francisco Bay Area will be more like LA is today, probably an improvement though conceivably drought conditions might exacerbate. Portland OR will still see lots of rain but stop seeing much snow (more like California's Sacramento valley). Vancouver BC will resemble Seattle of today, not a dramatic change at all. (Ski resorts like Whistler might see more rain and less snow, but in 60 years downhill skiing could easily move east to the Okanagan area.)

Contrary to all the recent sensationalist news stories about the paper below, what one takes away is how small the predicted climate changes in 2080 will be. And how many of them seem to improve the liveability of places that currently have extreme climates.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08540-3

So I remain largely unconvinced and at this point unmoved.
Reply
#26
Evidence for human-caused global warming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4

Quote:So assuming that the 1.0 degree C increase since 1980 is the work of human beings and not some unknown natural cause, what accounts for it? In my opinion, one word: China. The period since 1980 has seen dramatic reductions of emissions in the US and Europe, while China has been industrializing like crazy on a scale never before seen in human history.

Yazata...isn't believing China is causing global warming with its greenhouse gas emissions belief in human-caused global warming?
Reply
#27
That's just the thing. Most climate change skeptics don't claim humans have zero effect on the climate and openly admit the climate is changing...as it always has....and even currently in a warming trend. They just seriously doubt that the prognosis is so immediately catastrophic that we need to tank the world, or more likely just western, economy to combat it. Even if only half of the natural causes for climate change are erroneously attributed to humans, our attempts to help are misguided, as CO2 emissions might not have much impact (and climate scientists already say the impact will be minimal...maybe already past the point of no return) but maybe something like cloud seeding would actually moderate the natural forcing variability.

Ignoring a whole half of the equation, e.g. natural variability, betrays the political agenda and scaremongering centered around catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change, ala AOC's "the world is going to end in 12 years" nonsense.
Reply
#28
Looking at the end of the lecture - What did we learn? What did anyone else learn (or feel was helpfully expressed to a naive adience)?
This is what I took from the lecture...
I learned a little about weather which is irrelevant to global warming..
Although clouds were mentioned the significance was not made clear. I think clouds reflect a significant amount of sunlight so more clouds should tend to reduce temperatures - but could be wrong.
The speaker did not seem to acknowledge that global temperature equlibrium occurs when energy gained=energy lost. The effects he mentioned (apart from cloud formation) were orders of magnitude too small to have a significant effect on the global equilibrium temperature. My 'orders of magnitude' claim arises from using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation for a black body to get an order of magnitude estimate of the energy involved to change the equilibrium temperature by 1 degree C,. I doubt that a naive audience could use the Stephan-Boltzmann equation - nor did the speaker intend them to.

He mentioned the Maunder minimum - a time of low sunspot activity and low temperature. The cloud chamber hypothesis suggests low radiation (from sunspots) would cause fewer clouds so the temperature would rise. - anyone got any science on this? - Must seem like I haven't just listened to a 'science' lecture.
Reply
#29
when the start of the propaganda war on science was infesting the entire country's education system with the intellectual virus of creationism to a baited audience per-conditioned to acclimatize to bi-partisan bully culture for financial survival... its hard to conceive many to be speaking with any logic or sanity.

is it any wonder that the loudest propaganda voices rallying against science are coming from the religious conservatist's and the alt-right religious ?
not really.

it is a convenient proxy battle for a power grab at power over information by ideological extremists.

using the teen-age anti stock animal hysterical scream brigade to flag  waive and re-name as liberal intellectuals is equally dishonest
Reply
#30
(Mar 9, 2019 10:06 PM)confused2 Wrote: Looking at the end of the lecture - What did we learn? What did anyone else learn (or feel was helpfully expressed to a naive adience)?
This is what I took from the lecture...
I learned a little about weather which is irrelevant to global warming..
Although clouds were mentioned the significance was not made clear. I think clouds reflect a significant amount of sunlight so more clouds should tend to reduce temperatures - but could be wrong.
The speaker did not seem to acknowledge that global temperature equlibrium occurs when energy gained=energy lost. The effects he mentioned (apart from cloud formation) were orders of magnitude too small to have a significant effect on the global equilibrium temperature. My 'orders of magnitude' claim arises from using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation for a black body to get an order of magnitude estimate of the energy involved to change the equilibrium temperature by 1 degree C,. I doubt that a naive audience could use the Stephan-Boltzmann equation - nor did the  speaker intend them to.

He mentioned the Maunder minimum - a time of low sunspot activity and low temperature.  The cloud chamber hypothesis suggests low radiation (from sunspots) would cause fewer clouds so the temperature would rise. - anyone got any science on this? - Must seem like I haven't just listened to a 'science' lecture.

Like I said, apparently he was overly optimistic when he said "This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand."

Although cloud cover during the day can reflect UV radiation away from the surface, cloud blanketing traps accumulated heat being released by the surface, which includes heat held in heat sinks like the oceans. The fact that he was discussing climate change means that he was acknowledging temperature equilibrium...unless you think a change in the climate is altering anything else but said equilibrium. And I already explained to you how particle forcing doesn't need to transmit heat when it causes more trapping of accumulated heat...using the same mechanism you tout solely for CO2, even when there is vastly more H2O in the atmosphere.

Again, fewer clouds, composed of the greenhouse gas H2O, would mean less heat being trapped. So the heat that reaches the surface due to less cloud cover can be released nightly...allowing natural heat sinks to release some heat as well.

What don't you understand about H2O being a greenhouse gas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse...ouse_gases
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Change will NOT end human civilization by 2050 C C 1 43 Jun 8, 2019 12:14 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate change responsible for uptick in kidney disease? C C 0 102 Feb 17, 2019 09:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why climate change skeptics are backing geoengineering C C 0 167 Jan 4, 2019 06:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change C C 1 149 Dec 11, 2018 06:32 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Is Climate Change Draining Nutrients From Crops? C C 0 221 Aug 27, 2018 06:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Climate change to overtake land use as major threat to global biodiversity C C 1 162 Jun 21, 2018 04:43 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into Gasoline C C 2 272 Jun 20, 2018 12:10 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Climate Change Is Weakening a Crucial Ocean Current C C 0 233 Apr 11, 2018 08:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Can We “See” Climate Change? C C 9 1,131 Oct 25, 2017 07:42 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Will Climate Change Make Rockslides Worse + Shield to protect Earth from solar storms C C 0 253 Oct 3, 2017 05:01 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)