The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Hypothetical? No, it is a direct factually based question.

[freebeard]

Hypothetical? No, it is a direct factually based question.

That's all you've got? An hypotheses is a direct question based on facts.

Originally Posted by [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis[/URL]]
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

What is your conjecture of the question you raised?

[oil pan 4]

Artic/antarctic climate scientists who aren't drinking the climatetowne flavor-aid have discovered major links between solar forcing and cloud formation over the poles.
The link that has been established in a nut shell, when solar wind drops out, there's more pole cloud cover. High solar wind produces clearer skys.
It's been proven in nature so it's not a hypothesis or a theory it's settled science.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Permalink #8239:

I extracted the transcript for your convenience.

I can't find an hyperlink but Co-Evolution Quarterly published an article by Ed Sanders (founding member of The Fugs) titled something like 'Quotes From the East Texas Oil Fields' that had some of the most down-home wisdom I've ever seen. The pertinent one is

"You buy them books and buy them books and they just chew on the covers."

[Can we still be friends?]

That's not a peer-reviewed source document.I need the actual,original journal citation.No intermediaries allowed.But thanks anyway.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Taking about CPMI5 and CPMI6 with global warming believers literally should be like preaching to the choir.
If you don't know what that is then I can't help you.

I can't find where you explained what CPM is.If we're to have a civil discussion,it will help if we can locate and inspect the source documents under discussion,or know to avoid it,if they've been filtered by a third party.
I'm formally requesting information about the actual scientific research documents submitted for inclusion in whatever the CPM is.
So far,I've only examined the original,peer-reviewed research papers published in either SCIENCE or NATURE.Those I can interpret for myself.I'm not interested in someone else's interpretation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Looks like half of artic warming between 1955 and 2005 was caused by CFCs, not plant food.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/oz...med-the-earth/
It was also published in BBC so it's probably real.

Rumor has it that the communist chinese are back to making construction foam with R-11 for their domestic market.
If the chicoms are blowing off R-11 to make foam then there isn't anything we can do to slow global warming.
Planting trees and making bio char is just busy work.

In addition to CFCs,it was discovered in 1999,that leads (openings in the Arctic sea ice) exposed salt from the snow,which underwent autocatalytic dissociation,releasing Bromine monoxide and Chlorine monoxide,carried,along with water droplets and ice crystals, by the planetary boundary layer and convection,all the way to the tropopause,where it reacted along with sulphate aerosols,recycling itself,destroying all atmospheric ozone during the springtime.
PBS just did a program on the ozone hole.We dodged one in the Arctic stratosphere,and the Antarctic ozone hole is predicted to be 'healed' by 2065.
DuPont had promised that,if their FREON could be scientifically linked to ozone destruction,they'd cease production.Shelley and Molina proved causality,Margaret Thatcher convinced the world community to act,and DuPont made good on their promise.
The bummer is that,the HFCs that replaced CFCs are extremely powerful greenhouse gases,and we're in a Montreal Protocol-II scenario,trying to figure how to abandon the HFCs.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They don't need no advances in technology as its settled science so old instruments and 24 year old sun studies are quite alright.

That may be a stretch.In 1999,it was reported that data from radiometers employed for measuring solar irradiance were off by an order of magnitude and could not be trusted.The authors urged immediate adoption of the new technology.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

ELSE you could just do your own homework and type fer'instance: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=per+cent+of+animals+cattle

That's the first two sources, at your tingerfips. But remember, we're outnumbered by [farting] termites.

They were mentioned in my 1974 college text on air pollution,which addressed the termite's role in global warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Artic/antarctic climate scientists who aren't drinking the climatetowne flavor-aid have discovered major links between solar forcing and cloud formation over the poles.
The link that has been established in a nut shell, when solar wind drops out, there's more pole cloud cover. High solar wind produces clearer skys.
It's been proven in nature so it's not a hypothesis or a theory it's settled science.

I haven't seen peer-reviewed scientific reports which attribute solar forcing to cloud formation.The Danish tried to make a case,but when sulfate aerosols were added to the climate models in the late 1990s,there wasn't any need for a competing theory for global warming.Radiometer data was flawed at the time.The discrepancy between greenhouse gases and global temperatures finally 'fit.' There was no need to look at the stars, or cloud condensation nuclei,or anything else to explain warming.It wasn't clouds.It wasn't solar wind.It wasn't cosmic particles or secondary particles.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

That's not a peer-reviewed source document.I need the actual,original journal citation.No intermediaries allowed.But thanks anyway.

I have the original source document. Let me know if you will be stopping by, it would take half a day to find it.

From memory (again): "Simple words of truth and I do mean simple: 'It'll feel better when it stops hurting'".

Originally Posted by aerohead

I can't find where you explained what CPM is.If we're to have a civil discussion,it will help if we can locate and inspect the source documents under discussion,or know to avoid it,if they've been filtered by a third party.

Permalink #8250. I know I'm not shadow-banned because you thanked me for pointing out the typographical error.
________________

news.slashdot.org/: Underwater Robot Reveals Hidden Base of Antarctica's 'Doomsday' Glacier

Using a robot dropped through a 700-meter hole in the ice, scientists stationed on Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier have captured the first video of the glacier's grounding line, the mysterious boundary where ice meets land and where warm ocean water could be slowly melting the glacier's base -- putting it at risk of collapse (above).
[snip]
Scientists are still sifting through the data. But they fear warm ocean water intruding underneath the glacier could eventually cause it to retreat from the ridge, leading to its ultimate collapse.