The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jan 1, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv are already doing that.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientific forums tend to be bastions of orthodoxy because professional scientists have typically built their careers on it.
     
  3. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is the supporters of the AGW conjecture responsibility to justify their non falsifiable modeling constructs that the AGW "orthodoxy" depends. Since they rely on climate models as their basis for the AGW conjecture, they have built on a sand based house of cards.

    That is why there are so many climate realists in research and in science forums.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a long link, but worth the time.

    Japanese Climate Scientist Kyoji Kimoto: “Climate Change Governed By The Sun”, CO2 Lesser Role!
    By P Gosselin on 22. January 2021

    Share this...
    Hundreds of publications show how climate in many regions around the world varies in sync with solar activity. More evidence is provided by Japanese climate scientist Kyoji Kimoto.
    =======================================

    Climate Change Governed By The Sun
    By guest author Kyoji Kimoto, kyoji@mirane.co.jp
    January 22, 2021

    I’ve compiled a list of six examples how the sun impacts climate across the globe. . . .
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given their theory has been conclusively proven to be wrong, nobody pays any attention to them.

    They predicted that if glactic cosmic ray (GCR) activity went up, it would increase cloud formation and temperatures would fall, and vica versa. GCR levels have been rising since 1990. The temperature has been going up, not down. The theory is disproved.

    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nah, it was a Gish Gallop of irrelevant nonsense.

    And it didn't explain why a decreasing TSI would lead to increased temperatures. Nobody thinks a decreased TSI would lead to increased temperatures, as that defies common sense. That's why we know the current fast warming isn't due to solar factors.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You need to read more. First, Shaviv.

    Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

    Forbes censored an interview with me

    Then Svensmark.

    Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

     
    Sunsettommy and Ddyad like this.
  8. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I summarized his theory quite well, and then I summarized the debunking.

    If you disgree, then do the same. Summarize his theory in your own words, and show why it's correct. That would demonstrate that you understand the topic. As of now, the best evidence indicates that you don't even know what the cosmic ray theory of climate is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not interested in impressing you. The arguments require more than can be written in a debate forum. It suffices here to note that about half of 20th century warming was solar-driven. The GCR impact on climate (and the mechanism by which it is exercised) was confirmed in 2017 in Nature Communications. What you have summarized is your lack of familiarity with the issues at hand.
    Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ...
    www.nature.com › nature communications › articles


    Dec 19, 2017 — Article; Open Access; Published: 19 December 2017 ... To form a cloud droplet, water vapor needs to condense to aerosols acting as cloud ... steel reaction chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig.
     
    Ddyad and Sunsettommy like this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blatant strawman fallacy. Disgraceful. Insufficient correction for the effect of land use changes and human heat emissions leads to increased temperatures independently of any other factors.
    Blatant non sequitur fallacy. Laughable.
     
    Sunsettommy, Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two more bald falsehoods from you.
    Cet. par. Seems you forgot that part.
    Nope. Instrument temperature data have been going up because of human energy- and land-use activities other than CO2 emissions, and because such data are also altered retroactively to make them agree with CAGW theory.
    Bingo. The experiment is ongoing, and shows that despite near-exponential increase in CO2, actual physical events such as northern hemisphere snow cover show that global temperature has not been increasing. That will continue to be the case. Take it to the bank.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Got it. You don't know what the GCR theory of climate is. It's pretty simple, so there's no excuse for not knowing it. I can explain it in a few sentences. You can't. That's because you don't know what it is.

    Yet I can make such arguments without a problem.

    GCR theory states that in times of lower solar activity, the solar magnetic field weakens and let more cosmic rays pass to earth. This creates more nucleation particles in the atmosphere, which supposedly creates more clouds, which would supposedly cause cooling.

    And as I pointed out, the problem with the theory is that the data shows it isn't true. GCR levels have been increasing, yet the planet has warmed strongly. That disproves the theory.

    The reason the theory fails? There's no shortage of nucleation particles without cosmic rays adding them. Nucleation particles are not the limiting factor for cloud formation.
     
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's like calling the round earth theory a strawman fallacy. Using the actual facts instead of your conspiracy theories is not using a strawman.

    The problem with that crank theory would be how all the data contradicts it. The warming rate in urban areas is less than that of rural areas. The UHI changes happened many years before the recent fast warming started. And unadjusted temps show _less_ warming than adjusted temps .This is basic stuff, and you always fail at it.

    Are you denying that the GCR theory predicts that increasing cosmic rays will cause a decrease in temperatures?

    Are you denying that temperatures have climbed as GCR levels increased, the opposite of what the theory says should happen?

    Reality doesn't like your theory. Don't get upset at me over that. I don't control reality, I just report it.

    Oh, you were doing so well, sort of, then you started spouting weird cult lingo like "CAGW", cratering any credibility you had left.

    Clearly, your conspiracy blogs clearl didn't tell you that AGW theory predicts increased precipitation in most temperate areas. That means in the winter too. Say it along with me "precipitation is not temperature."
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2021
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yours is the simplistic reductionism of the uninformed and incurious.

    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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2021
    Sunsettommy and Ddyad like this.
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have already been proved wrong on that point.
    Then why do you get it wrong?
    Disgraceful.
    Or logic.
    But contrary to your claims, not regardless of all other influences.
    No, that claim is false.
    No, it hasn't for ~20y, as actual physical events confirm.
    If it were a fact it would. It's not a fact, so it doesn't. See how that works?
    There are many limiting factors. Your utter ignorance of atmospheric physics is showing again.
     
    Sunsettommy, Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  16. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And what did the other scientists say in response to them and why aren't you convinced by it?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For the most part they have their heads under the covers, hoping the monsters will go away.
     
    Sunsettommy and Ddyad like this.
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. You just know no logic.
    Claiming people are wrong about claims they didn't make -- which you do, a lot -- is a strawman fallacy.
    That is just another baldly false claim from you.
    No it isn't. Your claims are just false and absurd.
    Nope. You just uttered two falsehoods in one sentence. UHI changes are ongoing, and there is no recent fast warming, as it ended more than 20 years ago.
    Again, that is just a bald falsehood.

    This is basic stuff, and you always fail at it.
    I deny that it claims no other factors could nevertheless cause an increase. That is your fallacy.
    Which temperatures? Actual ones, measured ones, or adjusted ones? Three different things.
    The theory makes no claims about the effects of other factors.

    Reality doesn't like your theory. Don't get upset at me over that. I don't control reality, I just report it.
    Calling CAGW "cult lingo" proves you always have to name-call to deflect from the facts.
    But snow cover is inversely related to temperature. Are you pretending you don't even know that?
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  19. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But what did they say in response and why weren't you convinced by it?
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not convinced because they have largely tried to ignore the argument rather than answer it. Here is Shaviv responding to one particularly meritless criticism.
    Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  21. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What did the ones who answered it say and why aren't you convinced by them?
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AGW orthodoxy requires high climate sensitivity, but the data don't support that.

    Molecular Physicist’s New Publications Add To The List of Over 130 Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity Papers
    By Kenneth Richard on 1. February 2021

    Share this...
    Several more estimates of extremely low CO2 climate sensitivity have been added to the database in the last year.
    The collection of scientific papers that assess a very low (under 1°C for a doubling of CO2) or a non-quantified, but negligible climate sensitivity has swelled to over 130. In 2015, when it was first published, there were only 50 papers on the list.

    Here is the link to the database: 130+ Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity Papers

    Over the years Dr. Boris Smirnov, physicist, has published nearly two dozen books on molecular, atomic, and gas physics. . . .
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Understood. You can't debate anyone, anywhere. You just scream "liar" a lot, all while making crazy assertions you can't back up.

    Cultists are boring, and it's a waste of everyones' time to engage them. Enjoy being totally irrelevent. The world just ignores you now, for good reason.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021

Share This Page