Get used to it.

None of those periods involved modern human society. And the Earth has seen massive climate change as a result of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Earth's climate is an energy balance. When something moves too far in one direction, basic chemistry and physics take over to try and correct it. The last time there was this much carbon running around, there were trees using it up at the south pole. That correction led to CO2 falling. And eventually the planet cooled and those trees died as ice returned. We rely on the current climate to provide for our food production. Our energy production. And our drinking water. Without it, we will pay more for all those things. How will that help anybody? Nature has it's own answers and we have no choice but to go along with them. We don't have the ability to avoid the consequences of climate change regardless if we contribute or cause it or not. Notice how nature didn't care that all those bonus trees at the south pole died? The reality is we won't be able to sustain our current way of life and economic choices if the climate continues to warm. We will spend resources to adapt, resources we are spending as a result of our contributions to this change. So we'll be throwing good money after bad. Doesn't sound very economically smart or conservative to me.

 

Because of deforestation the Amazon rainforest is getting to a point where it no longer has a positive effect by virtue of its consumption of CO2. Another significant development in the battle we are losing to climate change deniers.

 

You stated, "observable effects of climate change are usually answered with emotional denials...." I asked, "....can you point to any observable effect from climate change other than a small seemingly increase in global temperature?" I don't have an answer to this "softball" question. To repeat, do you???

 

You mean "deniers" like Professor Nir Shaviv, the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study?
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

You must have missed this the first time.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/...ojects that climate,more at 2 degrees warming

 

Deniers come in all shapes and sizes. Credentialed ones with unproven theories contradicted by actual climate scientists usually not having a degree in climate science, like Nir.

 

He has no credibility on the subject. This is rather common among scientists who are religious. They cling to their beliefs rather than follow the science. He insists that cosmic and solar radiation drive global temperatures, making the very novice mistake thinking that it is the sun light that determines the temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere. When in fact, as many experiments have shown, it is the energy of the particles in the atmosphere that determines temperature. Solar radiation is more like hit and be gone, taking its energy with it. What warms the atmosphere is particles capturing the radiation and becoming energetic. It is why the hottest part of the day is at four or five rather than at noon. Why it does not become freezing cold every night.

 

And yet, Shaviv has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on climate science.

 

Shaviv has dozens of publications in the peer-reviewed climate science literature. And he's not notably religious. As for a "novice mistake," I'm afraid you have to own that. Here's a chance to educate yourself.
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

". . . Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase. . . . "

 

You are making the rather novice mistake assuming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the only force from the sun that affects Earth.

 

In German politics, this could get very ugly.
Germany’s “Katrina”: Officials Left Dams Full For Weeks Even With Heavy Rains In The Forecast
By P Gosselin on 18. July 2021

Share this...
Officials left dams full to the brim at least 3 weeks long during a rainy period and then failed to undertake a controlled release even when 150 mm of rain were forecast 4 days before the floods.

Now they want to hide their gross incompetence and blame climate change.

Yesterday I posted how Germany’s flood disaster could have been prevented in large part, especially in terms of lives lost. The latest death toll has risen to over 150.

Although the heavy rains had been forecast days in advance, nothing was done to avert the inevitable destruction. Instead of taking responsibility, politicians are blaming climate change in a bid to shift attention away from their incompetence and gross negligence. . . .

 

The problem with using proxy data for historic CO2 estimation is you cannot be precise enough to make any sort of determination with the accuracy that correlates with graphs of temperature, if the proxy data is even valid. The criticism of the medieval warming period is that it can't be known to be global. Duh. They weren't collecting the data globally then.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/07/co2-record-in-ice-cores-unreliable-a-note-from-paul-williams/

 

CO2 has caused significant greening around the globe.

 

Brings back great memories.

 

He is known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. Having peer reviewed publications is moot. It's the magnitude of the effect that's important.

Claim that cosmic rays are a crucial player for current climate change is unsupported

The 2013 IPCC report summarized research on this topic when it stated, “Cosmic rays enhance new particle formation in the free troposphere, but the effect on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century.”4

The scientists’ comments below explain that besides this cosmic ray hypothesis, the solar radiative forcing fluctuations are also insufficient to explain climate changes over the past decades—in contrast to the radiative forcing due to the increased greenhouse gases released by human activities, which matches the magnitude of the observed warming.

• 1- Pierce and Adams (2009) Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?, Geophysical Research Letters
• 2- Agee et al (2011) Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective, Journal of Climate
• 3- Dunne et al (2016) Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, Science
• 4- IPCC (2013) Chapter 7, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

________________________________________

Debunked some time ago

 

Correct, he's a physicist with an esoteric theory. Nothing more.

 

All long since rendered obsolete.
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

 

You apparently are not aware since then that it has been proven at CERN that cosmic rays do contribute to cloud formation.

 

Not to mention:
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into ... - Nature
https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article

by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 66 — Clouds are a fundamental part of the terrestrial energy budget, ... chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig.

 

This is some chaps blog. How does it render the conclusions of the articles I referenced obsolete?

This paper discusses the results of a laboratory experiment.

It doesn't explain the magnitude of climate change that we are experiencing, but might be of relevance if we have a supernova occurring near the earth that drastically increases levels of cosmic rays.

Have you read the article? Happy to go through it with you step by step.

 

The "some chap" is Shaviv himself.
The paper Svensmark et al 2017 was the experimental confirmation of the hypothesized cloud formation mechanism at the heart of Svensmark's (and Shaviv's) solar/cosmic rays theory of climate. It was a landmark paper.
The articles you referenced have been superseded by subsequent research. The current state of the question is well reviewed here.
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

I've read it before and we've been through this before. Nothing wrong with their controlled experiments or theories. However, in the light of better evidence from elsewhere and in the light of inadequate data the mechanisms that they postulate have been rejected as a major driver for climate change.

This is why their complaints are not getting beyond blogospheres and personal publications. They appear to be willfully ignorant of all the other scientific research related to climate change. At this point they stopped being scientists and became enlightened authors of fiction.

 

The great work continues.

• Stochastic effects in H2SO4-H2O cluster growth
  Köhn, C., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In: Aerosol Science and Technology. 54, 9, p. 1007-1018
  Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
  • 
    
• The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: a numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols
  Svensmark, J., Shaviv, N. J., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 7, 9, 22 p., e2020EA001142.

 

Ok, you're just ignoring everything that I'm saying. Our conversation stops here.

 

Actually, I'm refuting you, and you're running away. Peer reviewed journal publications are certainly "beyond blogospheres and personal publications."