User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Solar Geoengineering May Not Halt Ocean Warming, Study Says

  1. #21
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Impossible to know since how much warming is natural is unknown. This is an hypothesis, not a known.

    The top climate scientists in the world have concluded that close to zero of the warming since 1950 is natural. This is discussed in the 2013 IPCC AR5 report.

  2. #22
    Points: 43,584, Level: 51
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 1,666
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10173
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,643
    Points
    43,584
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,164x in 6,407 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The top climate scientists in the world have concluded that close to zero of the warming since 1950 is natural. This is discussed in the 2013 IPCC AR5 report.
    A government funded and produced report for politicians based predicated on a predetermined conclusion.

    There is no way to know how much warming is natural but fairly easy to conclude it is inline with the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

    A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.
    Stozhkov et al., 2017

    Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate

    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Hoosier8 For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (11-11-2018)

  4. #23
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    A government funded and produced report for politicians based predicated on a predetermined conclusion.

    There is no way to know how much warming is natural but fairly easy to conclude it is inline with the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.


    Stozhkov et al., 2017

    Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate
    I read the portion of the article that was free. There is a false statement in the abstract about climate change's proposed mechanisms not being firmly grounded. Then, there is a

    crazy prediction that "cooling is expected in the next few decades". It looks like they are predicting a negative shift in the global mean temp. of around 0.5 to 0.6 by the year 2024.

    The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) scenario on global temperatures is hypothetical and not supported by observation. The theory behind it is weak.

    How it works: Low solar activity means more cosmic rays striking Earth's atmosphere, more ionizing radiation, those charged particles attract molecules and grow in diameter by a factor of at least 1000, those larger particles become cloud condensing nuclei - attract water, more low clouds form that reflect sunlight away from the earth causing it to cool. High solar activity has the opposite affect causing earth to warm. GCR can be thought of as an enhancement of solar forcing.

    There has been much research on the GCR hypothesis over the last 20 years so it has been taken seriously but there has always been much skepticism.

    The skepticalscience.com site has an article, "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? (advanced explanation) that debunks the GCR hypothesis. They list 4

    criteria that must be true if GCR is correlated with the measured global mean temp. trend:

    1) Solar magnetic field must have a long term positive trend - there is no trend in solar magnetic flux, no trend in cosmic ray flux on earth, there is a +/-10% change in flux during the 11 year solar cycle
    2) GCR flux on Earth must have a long term negative trend - see above, no significant cosmic ray trend from 1960 to 2011
    3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed low level clouds increasing albedo (reflectivity) - there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between GCR flux and clouds (a typical result of an investigation)
    4) Low-level cloud cover must have a long term negative trend - there is little evidence for GCR's and variations in the Earth's cloudiness

    There are several detailed articles at the realclimate.org site that explain that there is no convincing evidence to support GCR's playing any

    significant role in climate. I have read a few articles in support of this hypothesis so I have looked at both sides.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 11-11-2018 at 07:07 PM.

  5. #24
    Points: 43,584, Level: 51
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 1,666
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10173
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,643
    Points
    43,584
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,164x in 6,407 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    I read the portion of the article that was free. There is a false statement in the abstract about climate change's proposed mechanisms not being firmly grounded. Then, there is a

    crazy prediction that "cooling is expected in the next few decades". It looks like they are predicting a negative shift in the global mean temp. of around 0.5 to 0.6 by the year 2024.

    The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) scenario on global temperatures is hypothetical and not supported by observation. The theory behind it is weak.

    How it works: Low solar activity means more cosmic rays striking Earth's atmosphere, more ionizing radiation, those charged particles attract molecules and grow in diameter by a factor of at least 1000, those larger particles become cloud condensing nuclei - attract water, more low clouds form that reflect sunlight away from the earth causing it to cool. High solar activity has the opposite affect causing earth to warm. GCR can be thought of as an enhancement of solar forcing.

    There has been much research on the GCR hypothesis over the last 20 years so it has been taken seriously but there has always been much skepticism.

    The skepticalscience.com site has an article, "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? (advanced explanation) that debunks the GCR hypothesis. They list 4

    criteria that must be true if GCR is correlated with the measured global mean temp. trend:

    1) Solar magnetic field must have a long term positive trend - there is no trend in solar magnetic flux, no trend in cosmic ray flux on earth, there is a +/-10% change in flux during the 11 year solar cycle
    2) GCR flux on Earth must have a long term negative trend - see above, no significant cosmic ray trend from 1960 to 2011
    3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed low level clouds increasing albedo (reflectivity) - there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between GCR flux and clouds (a typical result of an investigation)
    4) Low-level cloud cover must have a long term negative trend - there is little evidence for GCR's and variations in the Earth's cloudiness

    There are several detailed articles at the realclimate.org site that explain that there is no convincing evidence to support GCR's playing any

    significant role in climate. I have read a few articles in support of this hypothesis so I have looked at both sides.
    You think an hypothesis is firmly grounded? Shows what you know.

    Referring to (un)SkepticalScience, a failed cartoonists communication experiment, is like referring to Infowars for politics.
    Last edited by Hoosier8; 11-11-2018 at 07:34 PM.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  6. #25
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am trying to determine what Stozhkov has done. He says he has performed a spectral analysis of the temperature readings from 1901 to 2000 although the graph starts at 1880. The heavy

    solid black line represents calculations using that analysis. He has identified 4 periodic sinusoidal waveforms with various periods, amplitudes and phases. The periods are 204.6 years, 69.3

    years, 34.6, years, and 22 years and the amplitudes are 0.41 degrees C, 0.22 degrees C, 0.08 degrees C , and 0.09 degrees C respectively. From these waveforms he thinks that he can predict

    the future. That is my interpretation. As he says, "summation of the periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades". This is not even remotely climate science.

    This is pseudoscience.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 11-12-2018 at 02:43 AM.

  7. #26
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Around 50% of the warming following the "Little Ice Age" until 1950 was caused by solar forcing and a reduction in volcanic activity. The other 50% was caused by greenhouse gases. Since 1950 close

    to 100% of the warming is not natural. The mean global temperature only dropped by about 0.5 degrees C. max during the "Little Ice Age". Much of the cool weather was caused by volcanic eruptions

    and much of the cooling was regional and did not last long. The thermolhaline circulation probably slowed down also as a result of melting ice from the Medieval Warming Anomaly. That would

    have brought cooler weather to the NE U.S. and to Western Europe.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts