Scientist Warning About Climate Change

[Eclogite]

There is currently a great schism in the scientific community between the solar scientists, and those focusing on the anthropocene.

As Buffy said, citation please.

 

These guys really need to get over their personal problems and combine their research so that we actually can have some semblance of a consensus as to the relative forcings of man vs the sun.

 

(Cough!) In the manner that has been achieved in the IPCC reports, you mean.

 

 

Some "scientists" seem to think that hyperbole is a valid communication device. I suspect that these brazen fools do more harm to the science than even the most ardent luddite could.  Personally, I worry often about rampant willful ignorance

 

It was good of you to include examples of hyperbole in your post, lest some readers were unfamiliar with the meaning of the word.

 

 

meanwhile, I have Tchaikovsky's 6th on----a tad heavy on the strings for my tastes, but i really do like it.

Billy Connoly defined an intellectual as someone who could hear the William Tell overture and not think of the Lone Ranger.

 

 

 

The CO2 levels ain't "unprecedented". Many times in the past we have had much higher global average temperatures and much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

 

It has been pointed out at least once above that it is the rate of increase that is concerning.

 

Only a very small percentage of climate scientists think AGW will lead to destruciton of the biosphere. But, curiously, as humans we are concerned about the impact upon our immediate society and that will be dramatic. We are likely to adjust as a species, but it may take centureis to fully recover form the impact. You seem quite happy to disregard this because you doubt the odds of it happening.

 

[sculptor]

as/re rate of change of CO2

We really do not have any firm data on rates of change going back beyond the limits of the ice cores which have not been garbled by drift.(If you have data I've missed, Please share.)

 

Claiming rates of change before the limits of the data is speculation and conjecture.

Speculation is essential for the advancement of science. We should always recognize it when we use it or see it.

 

When i last was at university, it was still conjectured and being taught that paleotemperature changes in and out of glaciations, and within glaciations happened at a glacial pace. The same was claimed for sea level rise and fall. These has since been proven false.

When it happens, it happens damned fast. Changing much much faster than it has over the last century. Moving ten degrees C within a few(4) decades. All that we can really do is to watch for subtle changes that might swing the balance, much like watching nature's trim tab. For growing glaciers, we most likely need warm water and cold atmosphere for snow growth rates exceeding 5 ft/yr. 

...............................

as/re the solar cycles

Is it unusual for us to go from a grand solar maximum into a grand solar minimum without a pause in the middle? Do we have the data necessary to determine usual and unusual?

.........................

I'm beginning to doubt that the current usage/assumptions of the milankovitch cycles is firmly grounded in reality.

The expected results in the ice cores do not quite line up with the supposed influence of the cycles. One core showed an approximate 38600 year cycle where a 41,000yr cycle was expected. Perhaps, the periodicity of the cycles are altered by the magnetic and gravitational influences of the other bodies within this solar system? Within our travels through the galaxy?

 

..............

Have you seen any papers delineating percentage of the last centuries heat gains between solar and anthropogenic? Aside from the US army's prognosticator on the subject---69% solar, I've not found any claimed numbers. 

Please share if you have.

 

......................

Buffy, I was listening to Tchaikovsky, while reading you. We change the meanings of the language by our usage. The language evolves through our influence.

(Part of me is just crazy enough to long for what Confucius called "true speaking" wherein each word had only one meaning-----------------forever.

I suspect that that is the definition of a "dead language": Saved from extinction by like minded loonies.? )

Edited May 20, 2014 by sculptor

[sculptor]

as/re schism:

The game ain't worth the candle

 

I'd rather discuss the science.

 

grand maxima

grand minima

milankovitch

 

....anyone?

Edited May 20, 2014 by sculptor

[Buffy]

Dr. Svensmark is not being dismissed out of hand by "haters." People have checked his work and found it wanting (this link includes data relevant to your question above about relative impacts, so read the whole thing):

 

In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.  In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years, especially over the past 50 years when global warming was strongest.  Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) found that the contribution of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays (combined) to global warming is "less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."

 

Source: "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?" SkepticalScience.com (Nov 13, 2013)

 

Another summary take down can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/ 

 

No one says there are no well-qualified deniers out there, just that these deniers for some reason simply don't deal with the quite justifiable objections thrown at their theories in peer-review, descending into  being "stunned" and "shocked" and calling all objections merely saying "what I was doing was terrible."

 

If you're gonna do science, do science fergawdsakes.

 

I prefer Bach to tell you the truth. (mostly JS, although I like CPE too). But when dealing with tiresome trollishness I put on Mahler and Black Flag (honest, they go better together than you might think).

 

 

America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

Sculptor, I - and Buffy - asked for a citation. You know, to a peer reviewed piece of research that supported your assertion that there was a schism in the scientific community over AGW. Note that, a schism. Not a disagreement, not a difference of opinion, not alternate views over details, or arguments about relative weights of this , or that, but a full blown, tecnicoloured, in your face schism.

 

What do we get instead? A transcript of an interview with a disenchanted researcher. One swallow doesn't make a spring, and one dissenter does not make a schism. If such a schism exists there should be analyses and studies in abundance. Their is a schism between Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists and there are textbooks and television programs and research papers devoted to exploring the schism. And yet for this mighty schism splitting asunder the scientific community all we have, thus far, is one interview. <Insert bewildered emoticon of your choice>.

 

There are nutters who come on to forums declaring that there are a host of scientists who do not accept the reality of the Big Bang. By implication these nutters think there is a schism splitting the astrophysicists and cosmologists. And, sure enough, they can find a researcher here and there who disputes the current consensus. Yet thus far their work has been found wanting. Still the nutters grasp as these straws. Please give me some assurance you are not like them.