Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (20999)	8/9/2019 10:35:18 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24225

"In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius" He needs to check his math; it's already changed that much. == Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate We here present a critical appraisal of the methods and conclusions of [Shaviv and Article published on 27 January 2004 in Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2003]. pik-potsdam.de = Svensmark has also been proven wrong, on numerous occasions. Sun sets on sceptics' case against climate change \| The Independent independent.co.uk Dec 14, 2009 - Climate sceptics who dispute the link between global warming and carbon ... No, the theory of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark re

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (20999)	8/10/2019 12:02:13 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24225

Why Solar Activity And Cosmic Rays Can’t Explain Global Warming Marshall ShepherdSenior Contributor As a climate scientist, I hear my share of myths about what is causing climate change or why it is a "hoax." I call them "zombie theories" because they just will not die. They persist in blogs, certain networks, and social media like zombies long after scientists have killed them off. I debunked 20 of them in a previous article in Forbes. The "sun and its variability" is one that makes the rounds. I am pretty sure I've had to spray "climate science repellent" on that nagging "mosquito" numerous times. This week I heard of a variation of this myth involving cosmic rays. Here is a science-based debunking of the solar-cosmic ray myth. I won't spend time highlighting any particular zombie theory about the Sun or cosmic rays. It is more useful to "cut to the chase" on why the Sun doesn't explain climate warming. The graphic below from a NASA climate website is the basis for the discussion. Solar energy is a very important part of our weather-climate system, but I find that some people don't have a clear understanding of its role. There is misconception that because we feel heat from the Sun and see it in the sky it represents how Earth's surface is warmed at all times. It is actually far more complicated. The Earth has an atmosphere with relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. However, don't be filled by "relatively small" because they are important. Colorado State University professor Scott Denning often says, "We survive every night because of the Greenhouse Effect." His point is that without the system of gases absorbing and re-emitting longwave radiation (heat) it would be too cold to survive. The shortwave radiation from the Sun is just part of the story ( read more at this link at Forbes on how the Greenhouse Effect actually works). Temperature vs solar activity NASA The energy from the Sun varies, and the 11-year sunspot cycle is a primary driver. According to a NASA website, The total solar irradiance (TSI), improperly called “solar constant” until a few years ago, has been found to change about 0.1% in an 11-year solar sunspot activity. The current most accurate TSI values from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment ( SORCE ) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 Watts per meter squared during the 2008 solar minimum as compared to previous estimates of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W/m2 established in the 1990s. NASA Science and Research Portal This variation in solar energy is well known but doesn't explain global temperature trends. NASA's Global Climate Change website points out two smoking guns that debunk the overused "it's the sun" myth: 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. NASA Global Climate Change website The other smoking gun is related to where the warming is taking place. The NASA website makes the point that "if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere)." In reality, warming is being observed at the surface, but there is cooling in the stratospheric region. To anyone that has studied climatology and not astrophysics, this is a "clear as a bell" signal that warming is related to greenhouse gases in the troposphere rather than the sun getting "hotter" or other hypotheses. Dr. Jeff Masters does a "masterful" job explaining why this happens at Weather Underground. The galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) myth is our next "debunk" target. It argues that GCRSs "seed" clouds so if there are fewer cosmic rays then there will be less global cloud cover to reflect the Sun's energy. The Skeptical Science website, an excellent scientist-run effort, debunks climate myths. Here's what it says about the cosmic ray theory: 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. Skeptical Science Even in a 2017 article on this topic, scientists admitted that there was quite a bit of speculation in this GCR theory. I often use an the analogy of an apple pie. Apples are the most important ingredient in the pie though some random person might argue for cinnamon or sugar. In the climate system, this well-understood climate graphic illustrates that greenhouse gases are the most important ingredient in the climate radiative pie. Bon Appetit The factors that warm or cool the climate system. EPA WEBSITE forbes.com