• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's called the Sun...and it affects our climate

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PeshakJang said:
This is how I've seen the MMCC argument going for about 5 years:


"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."

"Here's another study suggesting that the consensus is inaccurate..."

"That's one fringe study, look at the consensus..."
Click to expand...

I tried to click your links but they didnt work...
 
manimal said:
OK DSF interesting article. Yes some of the findings do need peer review. But reread your first paragraph and get back to us..hint its the part about limited data range..


Now look at the THOUSANDS of peer reviewed documents that have been discussed and reviewed by THOUSANDS of independent scientists and the general consensus of the current MMCC model and get back to us...
Click to expand...
It is an interesting article and...as I previously noted...I understand that a limited data range is a limited data range and that this study is by no means conclusive. This study was recently published in Nature and is being taken quite seriously by the climate community despite the limited data range.

You seem to want to reduce this issue into something it isn't....as if the "truth" has already been decided by your twisted view of consensus. Eventually this study will be proven either wrong or right...and if it's right...it represents a fundamental change to our understanding of how our climate works. The scientific consensus is that there is a large amount of uncertainy in this particular area and our current level of understanding is quite poor. I suggest that you might want to actually read the IPCC report sometime and get back to me and tell me about consensus.

manimal said:
BTW do you believe in creationism, darwin, or ZENU of the sky people?
Click to expand...
You're quite the mental giant...aren't you? I figured as much...and an asshole to boot.
 
PeshakJang said:
No, the difference is that I can see how politics has influenced the "consensus", and you pretend to be oblivious to that fact.

Why is it that you are the one who came into this thread and started trying to discredit the OP, instead of discussing the merits of the article? I can't even count the number of posts when I search for "climate change" and your name in which you continually claim that all opposing science is trash, MMCC is all by proven, and any scientist with a dissenting opinion is a "fringe whack job".

Seriously, drop the charade kiddo.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the OP used a single, cherry-picked study to essentially claim that there's no settled consensus on MMCC. I accurately pointed out that what the OP was doing was intellectually dishonest.

Tell you what: When the MMCC-deniers are willing to post synopses of EVERY climate-related study for the previous year in a single thread - so that the overwhelming abundance of evidence supporting MMCC is clear and no cherry-picked anti-MMCC study takes on distorted significance - THEN I'll be willing to let the chips fall where they may. But it's clear you right-wing hacks have no interest in objective knowledge; you're too blinded by ideology for that.
 
shira said:
Sorry, but the OP used a single, cherry-picked study to essentially claim that there's no settled consensus on MMCC. I accurately pointed out that what the OP was doing was intellectually dishonest.

Tell you what: When the MMCC-deniers are willing to post synopses of EVERY climate-related study for the previous year in a single thread - so that the overwhelming abundance of evidence supporting MMCC is clear and no cherry-picked anti-MMCC study takes on distorted significance - THEN I'll be willing to let the chips fall where they may. But it's clear you right-wing hacks have no interest in objective knowledge; you're too blinded by ideology for that.
Click to expand...
There is no settled consensus in this particular area...in fact there is a large degree of uncertainty as well as in the area of cloud formation...both of which are significant climate forcing factors. Please admit this or deny it...I'd like to see just how intellectually honest or dishonest you are.
 
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/15/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-ii-2/

You can read about the make up of the panel at the link/links

My bet is that the next session of the House will be more critical of MMCC then this one is.
 
monovillage said:
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/15/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-ii-2/

You can read about the make up of the panel at the link/links

My bet is that the next session of the House will be more critical of MMCC then this one is.
Click to expand...

lol, ya, no shit.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
What did I miss?
Click to expand...

Have a look at the article again-

Radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths dissociates atmospheric molecules, initiating chains of chemical reactions—specifically those producing stratospheric ozone—and providing the major source of heating for the middle atmosphere
Click to expand...
Ultraviolet is responsible for heating.

there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding
Click to expand...
A larger decline means less ultraviolet, not more.

But you commented-

Six times more warming caused by UV would mean that CO2 forcing isn't quite as bad as originally thought. This is potentially a huge paradigm shift in climate science.
Click to expand...
My brain is a bit addled (insomnia sucks) so perhaps it's me, but here's how it reads to me.

Ultraviolet warms and there was a four to six times greater lessening of UV than expected. Lessening means, well, less and therefore there's not as much to heat the atmosphere.

My interpretation is the opposite of what you say. There isn't more heating due to UV, but less.



Someone check my reasoning, because I'm stupid right now.
 
All this proves is that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON and we shouldn't say OMFG THIS IS THIS when it obviously isn't because we don't know everything yet.
 
Here's an article by Roger Pielke Jr. about how the reinsurance business made a cool $82,000,000,000.00 on faulty science by climate scientists using GCMs (Global Climate Models)

"The rock star in the room was Kerry Emanuel, the oracle of climate change from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Just two weeks before Katrina, one of the world's leading scientific journals had published Emanuel's concise but frightening paper claiming humanity had changed the weather and doubled the damage potential of cyclones worldwide."

"At the same time that RMS was rolling out its new model in 2006, an RMS scientist was serving as a lead author for the IPCC AR4. He inserted a graph (below) into the report suggesting a relationship between the costs of disasters and rising temperatures, when in fact the peer-reviewed literature said the opposite."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/82-billion-prediction.html

Sloppy science. Alarmism is big bucks.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Have a look at the article again-

Ultraviolet is responsible for heating.

A larger decline means less ultraviolet, not more.

But you commented-

My brain is a bit addled (insomnia sucks) so perhaps it's me, but here's how it reads to me.

Ultraviolet warms and there was a four to six times greater lessening of UV than expected. Lessening means, well, less and therefore there's not as much to heat the atmosphere.

My interpretation is the opposite of what you say. There isn't more heating due to UV, but less.



Someone check my reasoning, because I'm stupid right now.
Click to expand...

The article reads: UV determines temperature of the upper atmosphere while visible light determines the surface temperature. Less UV rays were observed, which was balanced by an increase of visible light rays.
 
Hacp said:
The article reads: UV determines temperature of the upper atmosphere while visible light determines the surface temperature. Less UV rays were observed, which was balanced by an increase of visible light rays.
Click to expand...

Not completely balanced, but yes that's right. In other words there is less overall effect from the Sun than first thought in terms of net heat gain. There isn't a warming effect from the UV contribution.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Not completely balanced, but yes that's right. In other words there is less overall effect from the Sun than first thought in terms of net heat gain. There isn't a warming effect from the UV contribution.
Click to expand...

All it says is that temperature readings taken at the surface may be artificially high.
 
manimal said:
I was on a ice breaker near Antarctica with a group of people listening to a lecture from a well known scientist. He showed us pictures of the shelf and the major Ice flows and how they have changed in the last 100 years... We were literally looking at the evidence..literally...
Guess what... about 4 morons kept insisting it was the volcanic activity...
Click to expand...
From the list,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm


A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 122-125, January 2008)
- Hugh F. J. Corr, David G. Vaughan

Active volcanism beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet and implications for ice-sheet stability
(Nature, Volume 361, Number 6412, p. 526-529, February 1993)
- Donald D. Blankenship et al.

Here we present aerogeophysical evidence for active volcanism and associated elevated heat flow beneath the WAIS [West Antarctic ice sheet] near the critical region where ice streaming begins.
Click to expand...

Aeromagnetic evidence for a volcanic caldera(?) Complex beneath the divide of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 23, pp. 4385-4388, December 1998)
- John C. Behrendt et al.

Ice-dynamical constraints on the existence and impact of subglacial volcanism on West Antarctic ice sheet stability
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 23, December 2006)
- Stefan W. Vogel et al.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top