Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Here we go, an older video on the subject.
An eighty minute long video is more than I want to watch on this subject, so I don't know whether what I'm about to share addresses it specifically, but...

So yes it's a thing.
...it's a thing that one scientist says is like a zombie that keeps coming back after being killed:

Why Solar Activity And Cosmic Rays Can’t Explain Global Warming (from just 18 days ago).

With respect to the sun, he writes:

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth.
With respect to cosmic rays, he refers to the Skeptical Science article, What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs.
So, I don't know, maybe these 700 papers are promoting a different theory, which the above doesn't address; maybe there are details that the above don't address, but as it is, the theory that the sun or cosmic rays are causing the warming of our planet rather than CO2 seems to me to be mistaken.
 
There's also this article in response to one particular scientist who advocates this theory (Henrik Svensmark):

Cosmic ray theory of global warming gets cold response (from 22 December 2017; emphases in quote below added by me)

The paper then argues that the result “should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications”.

Scientists involved in related research, however, doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.

“The authors need to quantify the effects in an atmospheric model rather than just speculating,” says Ken Carslow, of the University of Leeds, UK, who has also studied potential links between cosmic rays and aerosol formation as part of CERN’s Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. “It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important,” he states.

Terry Sloan, of the University of Lancaster, UK, whose own research has calculated the contribution of cosmic rays at less than 10% of the global warming seen in the 20th century, is also dubious. He points out that other atmospheric “impurities”, such as dust and salt particles, play more important roles as cloud-condensing nuclei.

The effects [of ionisation] are too small to measure except in the dust- and impurity-free atmosphere such as in their experiments,” Sloan says. “Dust in the atmosphere plays a much bigger part in cloud formation.”

Steven Sherwood concurs. The paper itself, he notes, only suggests the result “may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions”. Even if things do work in the real world the same way as in a laboratory, cloud growth due to ions would only make up “several per cent” of the total.

“Several per cent ain’t much, and the real atmosphere is not pristine,” Sherwood says. While the new research has shown that cosmic rays can produce particles big enough to seed clouds, that was never “the real problem” with Svensmark’s ideas. A bigger issue is the number of such particles, which “would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.”

“If clouds were affected by cosmic rays,” he adds, “they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed.”
 
I also stumbled on the paper Cosmic rays and climate from 15 November 2018. All I've read of it is the abstract, which puts it like this (emphasis added by me):

Climate change and global warming is generally attributed to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other possible contributing effects are constantly being sought. Because of the importance of solar irradiance as a driver of climate, and because the widely known effect of the solar cycle on cosmic rays, it has been speculated for more than 50 years that cosmic ray variations may have an impact on climate. The question has been how. A proposed mechanism would be through the effect of ionization from cosmic rays on the rates of nucleation of cloud condensation nuclei. The result would be an impact of the rate of cosmic rays on cloud formation that would subsequently impact the reflection of incoming short wavelengths and the trapping of outgoing long radiation; more cosmic rays would lead to more clouds and a net cooling of the planet (and visa-versa). This paper concludes that while the effect may operate, it is not sufficiently robust to be a significant contributor to the current warming of the planet.
 
Here we go, an older video on the subject. So yes it's a thing.
In fairness, the presenter in the video, Nir Shaviv, seems to have been open to criticism, and to have responded to it, and apparently the criticism and responses are presented on this page (thanks to Wikipedia), for anybody who wants to wade through and evaluate for themselves: http://www.sciencebits.com/Climate_Debate

[Edit: in fact, the original criticism by Rahmstorf et al. is not include on that page. Here it is: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html]

[Edit2: nor is the critique by Royer et al. Here it is: https://www.academia.edu/19732669/CO2_as_a_primary_driver_of_Phanerozoic_climate._GSA_Today]
 
Last edited:
In fairness, the presenter in the video, Nir Shaviv, seems to have been open to criticism, and to have responded to it, and apparently the criticism and responses are presented on this page (thanks to Wikipedia), for anybody who wants to wade through and evaluate for themselves: http://www.sciencebits.com/Climate_Debate

[Edit: in fact, the original criticism by Rahmstorf et al. is not include on that page. Here it is: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html]

[Edit2: nor is the critique by Royer et al. Here it is: https://www.academia.edu/19732669/CO2_as_a_primary_driver_of_Phanerozoic_climate._GSA_Today]
The real question in all this, is why most of the media aren't interested in the opposing points of view among scientists, and fob people off with the usual argument that 99% of scientists support CAGW. Ask yourself why most people only hear one side of the argument. Most of the problem isn't really 'science' at all. I mean we are fed the idea that storms are increasing in intensity, but as Will Soon pointed out, somewhere back in this thread, this idea is supported using graphs that are conveniently truncated on the left to exclude some very large storms. Cherry picking data in that way isn't hard to spot once you become aware of it.

For example, the BBC made a big thing about the fact that last Easter was the hottest on record. Well what could be more contrived - Easter doesn't come at the same time each year! Overall the summer here in Britain has been disappointingly cool and wet.

David
 
The real question in all this, is why most of the media aren't interested in the opposing points of view among scientists, and fob people off with the usual argument that 99% of scientists support CAGW.
Presumably because the debate is seen to be peripheral, and hasn't changed the view of the 97%.

Cherry picking data in that way isn't hard to spot once you become aware of it.
It's certainly rife in climate skepticism. Case in point:

Easter doesn't come at the same time each year!
You've cherry-picked this example from amongst a much bigger cache of examples where the same time of year is used.
 
Presumably because the debate is seen to be peripheral, and hasn't changed the view of the 97%.



It's certainly rife in climate skepticism. Case in point:



You've cherry-picked this example from amongst a much bigger cache of examples where the same time of year is used.
The point is, not to argue the details again, but to ask why only one side of the case is ever discussed. If the case for CAGW were as clear as is claimed, there would be nothing to lose by having a decent debate. When it comes to examples of climate change, the first thing to debate would be what the ground rules are for siting evidence.

The media rarely mention certain facts which might make people think twice:

1) The very small temperature rise since 1880 - their chosen start date.

2) The question as to how much weather you can 'explain' based on that tiny increase.

3) The fact that China and India have plenty of well qualified scientists and yet are permitted to open new coal mines and new coal fired power stations.

David
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Hi LoneShaman,

I won't respond in detail to your post, because, frankly, given that I lack expertise in this area, it is too time-consuming to research your claims in detail, and try to independently assess their truth. Instead, I will mostly respond by way of others who seem to know much more than either of us.



Oh? That's not what the scientists who responded to the letter/petition you shared maintain - see the link below.



Doctor Keith Strong has a three-part series on YouTube from back in 2014 taking apart the misrepresentations (some apparently deliberate/knowing) in some earlier videos of Ben's from around that time. Based on this series, I don't consider Ben to be at all reliable. Keith is a solar physicist, which seems to qualify him to critique Ben at least on the issue of solar forcing. Ben apparently has little to no (climate) science training.

Part one is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- 15 MAY 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on carbon dioxide:


Part two is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- PART 2: SUNSTROKE -- 18 June 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on solar forcing:


Note in particular at 2:19 that with respect to Ben's claim that "climate models have turned a blind eye to the sun", Keith demonstrates that all five IPCC reviews to that date had mentioned solar forcing multiple times, increasing over time.

So, it seems that Ben's claims on solar forcing date back to at least 2014, and that they are misleading and even outright false. It thus seems highly unlikely that his claim that climate models have been lacking certain types of (solar/cosmic) inputs, which when added eliminate human forcing, is true. To repeat: can you find anybody else who is making this claim, other than those who are simply repeating Ben? In other words, can this be independently verified? It should be big news if it is true.

Part three is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED III: CONSISTENT INCONSISTENCIES -- 7 JULY 2014 and it addresses Ben's inconsistencies and misrepresentations:




Except that very few of them had any related qualification, and many weren't even scientists. This petition is comprehensively taken apart here:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...s-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
Thank you for these links and videos Laird. The videos were interesting, a good length and by describing how the use and omission of evidence can manipulate our understanding, a good introduction to the true science of climate study. I learnt a lot ;;/?
 
If we go back to Ben's Video, He claims it is already accepted, Solar forcing is in. So arguing it's validity might not be the valid argument.

No, the Sun could not be the significant driver, that's just crazy talk. :)

So it seems that this area of contention has accumulated enough weight that it finally can no longer be ignored, the 700 or so papers i imagine, this was the point of the video. And that it has already been done. Maybe at least we can now recognize the message being communicated for what it is.
 
Last edited:
A

Aliceinunderland

No, the Sun could not be the significant driver, that's just crazy talk.
The 3rd video on Laird's post above shows how the whole of the solar system, i.e. the other planets should show a similar solar effect as on the earth, and they don't.
 
Presumably because the debate is seen to be peripheral, and hasn't changed the view of the 97%.
The debate is seen as peripheral by those absolutely convinced of CAGW. Which isn't 97% of all scientists. It's not even 97% of all those who are actual climate scientists, of whom (comparatively) there aren't that many. It's been done to death, but Cook's paper, which he speaks briefly about in the video below, is nonsense:


The comments to the video pick up on this, but a very succinct summary (only one summary amongst many on the Web) of the Cook paper has this to say:

John Cook — a climate alarmist who first claimed that there was a consensus of 97% of scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — originally examined 11,944 abstracts on climate.
In fact, however, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming.
The 11,944 abstracts break down as follows:

  1. 64 explicitly endorse the idea that more than 50% of global warming is manmade;
    1. 922 explicitly endorse the idea that there is global warming but refrain from any claim that it is predominantly manmade;
    2. 2,910 implicitly endorse the notion of manmade global warming but make no claim regarding humans’ contribution vs. natural contributions (e.g., solar minima/maxima, and ocean events such as El Nino and La Nina);
    3. 7,970 take no position at all regarding global warming, natural or manmade;
    4. 15 reject or minimize manmade global warming but proffer no percentage of change from natural or manmade causes;
    5. 9 explicitly reject or minimize AGW as being less than 50% of global warming.
IOP’s list of abstracts are here:
Thus, 64/11,944 = 0.5% of the abstracts take that view that humans are the “main cause” (i.e., over 50%) of global warming. That number, however, includes *all* abstracts, including those that took no position on the issue at all. John Cook commingled the abstracts that took no position at all with those who believed global warming was uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to segregate those two groups but we would need the original data set of abstracts for that. Instead, we can generously assume that all 7,970 in category 4 really have not expressed any view at all on the issue. If so, then subtracting those from the original data set of 11,944 leaves a difference of:
11,944
- 7,970
= 3,974 (who have expressed a view on the issue)
Thus, the 64 abstracts out of that 3,974 — the 64 claiming that human activity causes over 50% of global warming — is equal to:
64/3,974 = 1.6%
The “97%” figure mentioned by Cook, et al., as a “consensus” — including the recap of Cook’s data in the Institute of Physics article linked above — is nothing but a public-relations ploy.

And yet, here you are continuing to parrot the 97% figure as if it were a solid fact. Why? My guess is that, having made up your mind already that CAGW is real, that predisposes you to accept any "evidence", however ill-founded, that bolsters your opinion. And it also explains why sceptics like myself despair of trying to get proponents of CAGW to at least consider counter-evidence. You apparently aren't willing, for instance, to view an 80-minute video -- how about this 13-minute one, then, which I've posted before:


Possibly, you'll dismiss it; maybe Stefan Molyneux's political views don't entirely agree with yours. I know a number of his views don't agree with mine. The video below of his is one particularly exercises me because it contains elements I agree with and elements I disagree with. But I'll give him this: he's worth watching because, agree or disagree, he's interesting, and in some things, imo, he's probably right.


How about this one of his, again relating to climate change?:


I've chosen to focus on Stefan because he's an example of someone whose views both attract and repel me. I find some of what he says very uncomfortable, but he often has fair points to make and I don't believe he can be dismissed out of hand. He makes me think; he challenges me; and he has a perfect right to say what he says even when it discombobulates me. For me, this exemplifies the sceptical approach to dealing with the world: what is most important is the truth, however disconcerting it might be. We need to challenge our most dearly-held opinions and see if the other guy might have at least something valid to say.

That said, we don't know the truth, about anything, really. I see from another thread that you're an NDE believer, contra the apparent Western consensus, whilst with CAGW you go with the apparent Western consensus (whether or not that consensus is actually real). In one area, you're a conventionalist, and in another, an unconventionalist. And what marks out a conventionalist? I'd say it's the propensity to go with the herd, or at least with what one believes is the herd. If you weren't a conventionalist about CAGW, you'd have researched John Cook's paper, or at least reviewed what others on the other side had to say about it, and been prepared to at least consider whether his 97% figure was bogus.

The fact that you don't appear to have been so prepared is what tells me that you aren't entirely serious in your dedication to the truth concerning CAGW. Whether or not there's an apparent consensus about it, I think you owe it to yourself to consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

As to LS and my surprise that I haven't been able to find confirmation of his opinion that soon everything will change, you shouldn't take that to mean that I have rejected that view. We could have to await the next IPCC release to see what it says. My guess is they will find some way, if not to dismiss the influence of solar radiation/cosmic rays, at least to try to minimise it.

The effect of admitting they have been wrong would be to cast even more doubt than currently exists on modern "science" and its pseudo-religious concern with consensus. There could come a time of backlash -- even from those who currently support certain aspects of science without question. And in any case, if we go into another cold period in the near future, there'll be a lot of explaining to do. Cold is a whole lot more dangerous than warmth.
 
Last edited:
The 3rd video on Laird's post above shows how the whole of the solar system, i.e. the other planets should show a similar solar effect as on the earth, and they don't.
This is a strawman though, it is not Ben's personal theories on trial that is the issue, this just follows one logical fallacy to another.
Should the whole solar system really manifest as a similar effect, what effect exactly? Well maybe Ben thinks so... Maybe he is wrong? Interesting but pointless. Maybe it has to do with magnetic field strength and structure, the interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind density as well as embedded solar cycles. Maybe we have to look further than a internet intellectual dick measuring contest?
 
Last edited:
A

Aliceinunderland

Maybe, but dick-measuring aside, how is it logical that on one hand we reject the claims of scientists refuting the matter of NDEs and embrace the claims of scientists refuting human-caused climate-change? It is another herd vs herd, and choose your scientists according to belief.
 
Maybe, but dick-measuring aside, how is it logical that on one hand we reject the claims of scientists refuting the matter of NDEs and embrace the claims of scientists refuting human-caused climate-change? It is another herd vs herd, and choose your scientists according to belief.
Well we each have a individual mind, I think you know where I am going with this.. point being, think for yourself, sometimes it might take learning something new and some time should be taken. Just the opposite of herd mentality.

BTW You can interchange the words reject and embrace and come away with an entirely different point of view, tailored to which ever side you lean towards.
 
Maybe, but dick-measuring aside, how is it logical that on one hand we reject the claims of scientists refuting the matter of NDEs and embrace the claims of scientists refuting human-caused climate-change? It is another herd vs herd, and choose your scientists according to belief.
Yup. It all comes down to belief in the end. To support our beliefs, we draw on evidence. It's a question of whether or not we accept or reject evidence based on our prior beliefs, or in spite of them.

If John Cook had used his data to prove that the consensus was bogus, which in fact he could have done (to be consistent with the empirical evidence he'd found), his paper would have been pilloried by CAGW supporters. And yet, it was accepted and eagerly embraced by them. Why? Because the spin he put on the data supported their prior beliefs.
 
Hi Michael, I found this on WUWT. It goes back to 2012 but would appear to show some of the history of what we have been talking about.

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on 'extreme weather'
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12...changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

So the IPCC issued a response. With some of the standard and debatable talking points.
Solar forcing effect on climate change ‘extremely small’: IPCC scientist
https://theconversation.com/solar-f...e-change-extremely-small-ipcc-scientist-11589

So we see the usually back and forth as these things usually do as it was a few years ago. The video's I posted suggest that this has not gone away but has in fact represented a change in thinking. We'll have to let this play out. To me this looks like cracks appearing back in 2012, perhaps the dam has finally bust?
 
I should add that I wasn't always a "climate sceptic" (actually, a CAGW sceptic -- big difference). When I first heard about CO2 induced potentially Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, I was more favourably disposed towards modern science than I am now, and simply accepted it.

Only when Climategate happened did I, without prejudice, start to look at the evidence, and discovered that CAGW wasn't actually supported by it. Mind you, my approach wasn't a defensive one: I wasn't emotionally invested in what the results of my studies might turn out to be. It would have been much harder for me if I had been so invested.

Genuine science is about following the evidence wherever it might lead, regardless of what one might like to believe. Today, unfortunately, science has become about supporting something only if it accords with one's preconceived notions. This makes the hope of trying to ascertain the truth virtually impossible. I'm not saying that truth can actually ever be achieved, but we must at least try to achieve it, otherwise the world will find itself -- as it currently does -- in a parlous state.
 
Hi Michael, I found this on WUWT. It goes back to 2012 but would appear to show some of the history of what we have been talking about.

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on 'extreme weather'
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12...changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

So the IPCC issued a response. With some of the standard and debatable talking points.
Solar forcing effect on climate change ‘extremely small’: IPCC scientist
https://theconversation.com/solar-f...e-change-extremely-small-ipcc-scientist-11589

So we see the usually back and forth as these things usually do as it was a few years ago. The video's I posted suggest that this has not gone away but has in fact represented a change in thinking. We'll have to let this play out. To me this looks like cracks appearing back in 2012, perhaps the dam has finally bust?
Thanks, LS. I'll look into those links and may get back to you about them in due course.
 
Top