Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,454
Confirmed by Nature. When the Magnetic Poles flip, the Earth becomes more suceptible to solar weather. The changes in the susceptability show a dramatic change in the weather of the Earth, thus giving you a very solid picture of just how much of an influence space weather is on cloud formation on Earth, which in turn is a much greater driver of climate than carbon dioxide.

The fact of the matter is that this aspect of how the environment affects our weather has never properly been looked at before, because no one knew how to do it. In the arxiv paper which you trashed simply because it comes from arxiv, you have 6 relatively concise pages that calculates how much of an effect cloud formation has had on the average weather temperatures. Lo and behold, they found that this new way of looking at the situation shows that amost all of the climate variance is driven by average cloud cover levels, leaving very little room for the CO2 to play a role.

Now, unless you want to argue that space weather doesn't have a big effect on cloud formation, I don't really see why you're raising a stink.


Ostrich head, meet sand.
The theory that cosmic rays influence the weather has been around for decades. It has neither been proven nor disproven.

Whether it is true or not is entirely irrelevant, since it operates on different time-scales and different mechanisms.

Even if one theory is true, that does not automatically mean competing theories are not also true. Such a false-dichotomy is typical of denialist rhetoric.

P.S. It's not about being a grammar nazi when you point out loose vocabulary and faulty logic.
 

flippakitten

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
2,032
No one claimed it was.


So now if Science journalists report on peer-reviewed papers fron Nature and what the implications of the findings are, they're now "dodgy sources". Gotcha.
Where is the comprehensive study "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" and don't point me to the 3 page pdf that cites mostly it's own authors.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,454
No one claimed it was.


So now if Science journalists report on peer-reviewed papers fron Nature and what the implications of the findings are, they're now "dodgy sources". Gotcha.
No, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

This kind of circular argument reminds me of a Werner Heisenberg quotation: "What's new isn't interesting, and what's interesting isn't new".

Just because some vaguely plausible story popped up in your news feed, doesn't mean you can throw out years of knowledge and experience.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
The theory that cosmic rays influence the weather has been around for decades. It has neither been proven nor disproven.
The peer reviewed Nature article says otherwise.

From Science Daily, explaining the findings:

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.


The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.


In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers -- sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt -- that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.


In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth's magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal -- evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay -- this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.
Whether it is true or not is entirely irrelevant, since it operates on different time-scales and different mechanisms.
That it operates at all means its effects have to be accounted for, which previous models have failed to do.

Even if one theory is true, that does not automatically mean competing theories are not also true. Such a false-dichotomy is typical of denialist rhetoric.
If you know a theory is true, and you calculate how much of an impact that true theory has, that weakens the impact the other theories could potentially have.

P.S. It's not about being a grammar nazi when you point out loose vocabulary and faulty logic.
I didn't call you a grammar nazi. But you are wasting your time attacking low hanging fruit.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
21,677
Where is the comprehensive study "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" and don't point me to the 3 page pdf that cites mostly it's own authors.
Actually it is 6 pages. Basically right at the top of the article and it does have all the reference there for you.

If you have ever bother to read any academic literacy, you would know that is wat it normally looks like.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
Yeah, nope, the link takes me to "Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal", which nowhere mentions man made. The the https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf pdf nowhere mentions that study.

I don't see who corroborated anything except the article author.

Maybe you should try reading:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Where is the comprehensive study "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" and don't point me to the 3 page pdf that cites mostly it's own authors.
So just wondering, if you find a natural mechanism that is basically predictive of temperature changes, you should rather conclude that something anthropogenic is causing it? :ROFL:
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
21,677
So just wondering, if you find a natural mechanism that is basically predictive of temperature changes, you should rather conclude that something anthropogenic is causing it? :ROFL:
The didn't Google anthropogenic yet and are looking for the words "Man made"
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,454
The peer reviewed Nature article says otherwise.

From Science Daily, explaining the findings:




That it operates at all means its effects have to be accounted for, which previous models have failed to do.


If you know a theory is true, and you calculate how much of an impact that true theory has, that weakens the impact the other theories could potentially have.


I didn't call you a grammar nazi. But you are wasting your time attacking low hanging fruit.
We are not in the middle of a geomagnetic reversal, so even if everything you stated is true, it has nothing to do with recent climate change.

Edit: Polar wandering has been going on for at least 150 years. It is not evidence of geomagnetic reversal.
 
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,454
I don't see an actual comprehensive scientific study that has been peer reviewed so it is all BS.

Why are posting the opinion of journalists.
1. Because it links to a list of peer reviewed articles.
2. Because it explains the motive of countries such as Saudi Arabia (and South Africa) to deny climate science.
3. Because sources such as Zero Hedge are keen to underplay #1 and support #2.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
We are not in the middle of a geomagnetic reversal, so even if everything you stated is true, it has nothing to do with recent climate change.
During the geomagnetic reversal, the bombardment increases, but outside of those periods, the bombardment does not cease, it merely decreases.

So we have a level of bombardment present right now that is affecting the atmosphere to some degree. We know that this bombardment affects cloud formation.

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature
The paper you don't want to look at shows how the low cloud cover impacts changes to the average temperature, which we now know materially affects the global climate.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,454
You might want to rethink that. And we have no idea what it would look like in real time.
Um, your comment makes no sense.

There are hundreds of terrestrial geomagnetic observation stations (including one near Hermanus), and dozens of orbiting satellite instruments. This is one of the most closely studied fields in the history of science.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
1. Because it links to a list of peer reviewed articles.
2. Because it explains the motive of countries such as Saudi Arabia (and South Africa) to deny climate science.
3. Because sources such as Zero Hedge are keen to underplay #1 and support #2.
Face it, your entire argument against this new development amounts to character assassination and nothing more.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
21,677
1. Because it links to a list of peer reviewed articles.
2. Because it explains the motive of countries such as Saudi Arabia (and South Africa) to deny climate science.
3. Because sources such as Zero Hedge are keen to underplay #1 and support #2.
3 doesn't make any sense.
How does ZH underplay that the dailymavric links to anything?

And if I wanted to play your game. That BS article doesn't link to scientific studies.
 
Last edited:
Top