Simple Question About AGW

[Alric]

BTW, your definition of light is flawed...

I did find that physicists have been referring to the entire EM spectrum as "light". I think most biologists would disagree with that usage.

One way to get around it would be to distinguish "visible light" from "light" but that is rather inelegant and ignores the biological concept that is light.

Anyway, this is off topic and it appears we are both right depending of the context and discipline.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.

This is false on several counts, but the important one is that someone calling himself a scientist doesn't even know what the word means.

As for personal attacks, shall we check and see who always does it first? Not me, pal.

 

[EliRabett]

There no difference btw AB&C on CO2 forcing

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.

 

[Pipirr]

Here's the direct link to the bunny burrow:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html

 

[TrueSceptic]

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.

If you are the real Rabett, welcome.

You can post URLs after a few posts but I can't remember how many.

 

[mhaze]

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.

I also didn't see any logic in splitting differences. A is A and B is B and C is C. A, B and C are best considered as (CO2 plus trace gas CO2 equivalent) = total co2 equivalent (forcing).

Note there is one sure method to establish that Scenario B is what did occur. Click to enlarge.



from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001330temperature_trends_1.html

Just use Hansen's GISS numbers.

Almost magically they are sooo close to Hansen's predictions!

 

[Slimething]

Anyway, this is off topic and it appears we are both right depending of the context and discipline.

Yeah. Life's too short. I say to-may-toe and all that jazz.

I'm a chemist, not a physicist but, trust me, most of us are too lazy to say electromagnetic radiation when we can get away with light.

 

[Slimething]

This is false on several counts, but the important one is that someone calling himself a scientist doesn't even know what the word means.

Oh, small one, I know perfectly well what science is. It's my livelihood. You're the one who thinks it means the study of any natural phenomenon. I advised you to buy a dictionary but perhaps even that is too advanced for you. Pick up a primer from last year and learn your ABCs first. Then you'll find that words in the dictionary are listed in bold starting with the a's then b's, c's and so on. The definitions follow in normal face after the pronunciation and the part of speech the word is. Now, look up science and let us know what you find.

As for personal attacks, shall we check and see who always does it first? Not me, pal.

Frankly, you have offered nothing but personal attacks. You have offered nothing of substance to this discussion. Nothing at all. Please point if out to me if I've missed it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, small one, I know perfectly well what science is. It's my livelihood. You're the one who thinks it means the study of any natural phenomenon. I advised you to buy a dictionary but perhaps even that is too advanced for you. Pick up a primer from last year and learn your ABCs first. Then you'll find that words in the dictionary are listed in bold starting with the a's then b's, c's and so on. The definitions follow in normal face after the pronunciation and the part of speech the word is. Now, look up science and let us know what you find.

Frankly, you have offered nothing but personal attacks. You have offered nothing of substance to this discussion. Nothing at all. Please point if out to me if I've missed it.

Clearly, this illustration of GWS behaviour belongs elsewhere.

 

[varwoche]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?

Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract:

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change 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.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract:

The only question is, should it be discussed, or is it in the category of Lockwood and Frolich, too bad and too obviously refuted by a quick google check, to make it worthwhile to discuss?

Hmm....

Quickly reading the article, I'm puzzled. This refutes what, exactly? And according to who?

 

[mhaze]

Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract:

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence.

Here are the three papers-

Rusov et al. I (PDF)
Rusov et al. II (PDF)
Sloan & Wolfendale (PDF)
​

Considering the somewhat obvious errors in Sloan, we can say the current science leans in the direction of a cosmic ray influence on climate.

 

[bobdroege7]

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence.

Here are the three papers-

Rusov et al. I (PDF)
Rusov et al. II (PDF)
Sloan & Wolfendale (PDF)
​

Considering the somewhat obvious errors in Sloan, we can say the current science leans in the direction of a cosmic ray influence on climate.

arXiv?

peer reviewed, shirley you jest!

Published in what journal?

It's a large flaming ball of gas and its coming straight toward us.

 

[varwoche]

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence.

It would have been a notable accomplishment for me to comment about things that I didn't know existed! Quite curious indeed. To say that I don't take you seriously is a vast understatement mhaze, and this sort of childish idiocy doesn't help your cause much. Notwithstanding, thanks for posting the links -- I'll check them out as soon as I can.

 

[mhaze]

Correction, the first two are not peer reviewed by way of publishing in arXiv. But note that most arXiv articles are also submitted to peer reviewed journals for publication.

Varoche: Oh, okay. Well, if you didn't know about them, I retract my bit of spin there, clearly inappropriate.

 

[zooterkin]

Varoche:

Didn't we do this before? It's varwoche.

 

[bobdroege7]

Correction, the first two are not peer reviewed by way of publishing in arXiv. But note that most arXiv articles are also submitted to peer reviewed journals for publication.

Varoche: Oh, okay. Well, if you didn't know about them, I retract my bit of spin there, clearly inappropriate.

But note that most peer reviewed journals reject any submitted manuscripts that have already been published out of hand.

Editor Sir, what should I do with this manuscript, it's already been published on arXiv?

Float test it, son.

Damn, Sir it flunked the float test.

Better fish it out, and file it in the circular file.

 

[mhaze]

But note that most peer reviewed journals reject any submitted manuscripts that have already been published out of hand.

Editor Sir, what should I do with this manuscript, it's already been published on arXiv?

Float test it, son.

Damn, Sir it flunked the float test.

Better fish it out, and file it in the circular file.

Isn't it more in the line of a online repository/archive? More than 80% of the articles there are published elsewhere, if I recall correctly.

Not that this has anything to do with the quality of the reasoning, logic or data in the paper; on the contrary, it is a way to avoid the reasoning, logic, data, and most of all, the conclusions, in the paper.

Not that these are the only three articles on cosmoclimatology, either, they just happened to appear about the same time.

Question: Is there a discussion on cosmic ray effects on cloud formation in IPCC AR4? If so, where?