The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

There were no reliable photometer data for quantifying solar irradiance in 1975.That data would not yield anything accurate. The numbers were off by up to an order of magnitude.I mentioned this probably a year ago.I thought we were past this elaborate and more sophistication of a falsehood.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The reason we used CFCs is because they were easy to produce.

https://www.refrigerationandaircon.c...still-uses-r11

"The EIA reveals shocking evidence that the use of CFC11 in the polyurethane foam sector in China is the cause of the recently discovered increases in CFC11 in the atmosphere"

Why are you a communist sympathizer?

Finally had time to read the article.That's good reporting,and I appreciate the link included with your comment.Perhaps Chinese sanctions aren't tough enough.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was looking up the Banqiao dam break in 1975 that killed 230,000 people.
Caused by super typhoon nina.
Then I figured why leave it at that, I looked up typhoon nina started forming July 28, exploded in size august 1st and second, ran out of steam over land a week later.
Then I figure I'll look up solar activity for 1975 since I believe that was a minimum year and there was probably minimal solar activity during that time. The nasa archives show 1975 was a very low activity sun spot period typical of a minimum year until.... late July through August when the sun "got woke". Sun spots, flaring and CME activity picked up that last week of july, then just by coincidence typhoon nina formed then saw explosive growth until it made land fall.

Remember hurricane Katrina in 2005?
All the believers blamed it on man made global warming.
Look up the space weather the week of katrina. Same deal, late in the solar cycle with very low solar activity, the sun wakes up a little, fires off some flares and we're all reminded why living below sea level is a stupid idea.

So how much longer are the believers going to continue blaming all the big bad cyclones on man made global warming?

*Sunspots have nothing to do with irradiance,so that's not the explanation.
*Even if the atmosphere was completely blown way,there still wouldn't be enough difference in solar irradiance to explain warming.
*Solar flares allow no reliable prediction of magnetic storms which might affect cosmic particles,as their intercept orientation with Earth cannot be predicted.
*Alfve'n waves have as much to do with the magnetosphere as the solar wind,and nobody knows anything about them.
*Even during total solar senescence,the heliosphere is still active.Galactic and intergalactic cosmic particles are always repelled to some degree.
*The only cosmic particles which could affect cloud condensation nuclei,that can reach the lower atmosphere are muons.Electrons and protons can't make it through the atmosphere.
*Cosmic secondary particle production peaks at 15-kilometers altitude.
*Only a very small fraction of those survive down to 525-feet above sea level,where the 'cooling; marine layer clouds might form.
*And the issue with cosmic-sourced cloud condensation nuclei,as responsible for cooling,low-level clouds;is that there is no shortage of cloud condensation nuclei to begin with.Once the troposphere is saturated with them,adding more won't produce any additional clouds.
* However,each winter,there's no water vapor for which clouds can supersaturate and condense from,so it's water vapor,not CCNs responsible for clouds.
*Tropical cyclones form from latent heat of warm sea surface water,above 80-F.Greenhouse gases prevent surface heat from escaping into space, and oceans absorb the heat,feeding the storms.
*Earth has warmed while the Moon has not,even at the identical same distance from the Sun.
*Cosmic particles bombard the Moon with impunity and with no effect.
*The Sun bombards the Moon with the same sunlight with no effect.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

news.slashdot.org: Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don't Know Why (bloomberg.com)

Are the models trending hotter or is the actual climate trending colder?

In other news: https://www.bbc.com/news: Milan car ban: Drivers ignore anti-pollution measure
______________

edit:

This guy is a sort of an anti-Trump; he's got orange rings around his eyes. [kidding, I respect his opinions]

The atmosphere is a degree warmer than measured presently.When the coal-fired power plants are finally turned off,and the sulfate aerosols precipitate out of the atmosphere,without their parasol effect,we'll see the warming on thermometers.The models are fine.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

It is a fact that that link is empty.

The facts support your assertion. Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...ima_and_maxima

The last Grand Solar Maxima was in 1914. The next Grand Solar Minimum is undefined but inexorable.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I find its pretty hard to believe it's warming faster than the end of an ice age. If it was warming faster than that the both boles should be nearly ice free.

Even Nigel Calder,Henrik Svensmark,and Eugene Parker agree that,at present temperatures,we've locked in 20-40-meters of sea-level rise.We can't pin down the time-scale,but it's unfolding.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Even Nigel Calder,Henrik Svensmark,and Eugene Parker agree that,at present temperatures,we've locked in 20-40-meters of sea-level rise.We can't pin down the time-scale,but it's unfolding.

I thought it was settled science?
But that is the best way to avoid another failed prediction. Be as vague as possible, such as by replacing your entire x or y plot with an abstract.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*Sunspots have nothing to do with irradiance,so that's not the explanation.
*Even if the atmosphere was completely blown way,there still wouldn't be enough difference in solar irradiance to explain warming.
*Solar flares allow no reliable prediction of magnetic storms which might affect cosmic particles,as their intercept orientation with Earth cannot be predicted.
*Alfve'n waves have as much to do with the magnetosphere as the solar wind,and nobody knows anything about them.
*Even during total solar senescence,the heliosphere is still active.Galactic and intergalactic cosmic particles are always repelled to some degree.
*The only cosmic particles which could affect cloud condensation nuclei,that can reach the lower atmosphere are muons.Electrons and protons can't make it through the atmosphere.
*Cosmic secondary particle production peaks at 15-kilometers altitude.
*Only a very small fraction of those survive down to 525-feet above sea level,where the 'cooling; marine layer clouds might form.
*And the issue with cosmic-sourced cloud condensation nuclei,as responsible for cooling,low-level clouds;is that there is no shortage of cloud condensation nuclei to begin with.Once the troposphere is saturated with them,adding more won't produce any additional clouds.
* However,each winter,there's no water vapor for which clouds can supersaturate and condense from,so it's water vapor,not CCNs responsible for clouds.
*Tropical cyclones form from latent heat of warm sea surface water,above 80-F.Greenhouse gases prevent surface heat from escaping into space, and oceans absorb the heat,feeding the storms.
*Earth has warmed while the Moon has not,even at the identical same distance from the Sun.
*Cosmic particles bombard the Moon with impunity and with no effect.
*The Sun bombards the Moon with the same sunlight with no effect.

Was just an observation. Wasn't trying to solve it.
I have looked up a dozen more storms during minimum years, every single one came to life or grew explosively during a flare session.
I have yet to find one come up and do anything impressive with out solar flaring.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I thought it was settled science?
But that is the best way to avoid another failed prediction. Be as vague as possible, such as by replacing your entire x or y plot with an abstract.

It's a good point to make,and when I think about it,I have to assign conditions/context for differing views.
I believe that some researchers get a hold of some idea and won't let go,even if it doesn't ultimately pan out.People do that.
Some are financed by the fossil-fuel industry,via institutes,some universities, foundations,and fake,non-juried,non-peer-reviewed,science journals,lending their academic credentials,to 'dignify' what otherwise would pass as pseudo-science.There are probably more fake journals now than real ones.
And then you have the 'consensus.' National laboratory folks,university Ph.D.s and their graduate students,maybe even undergrads now,scrapping for funding,just driven by curiosity,and a sense of urgency to solve problems a lot of people don't know they even have.
Reading the actual research papers gives insight into the depths these people will go to,to ferret out some formerly,unknown aspect of Earth science.It's very multidisciplinary in nature,with a lot of cross-pollination of ideas and networking.It's some of the most interesting stuff I've ever laid eyes on.And they're required to share their data as a condition of publishing,plus provide all their methods.It's open,transparent.Referees may require many modifications of a submission before they'll accept it for publication,as the audience could be anyone,and the language needs to be gauged accordingly.
I won't read the IPCC stuff.It's at least one-degree removed from the actual research.I prefer to read the materials straight,no chaser.
Science is probably never 'settled',but I think they achieve a degree of probability which gives them enough confidence to go before Congress and make policy recommendations.
I feel like their sentries,or sentinels,watching my back,doing all the intel,warning about enemies at our gate.I'm really glad they're out there.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Was just an observation. Wasn't trying to solve it.
I have looked up a dozen more storms during minimum years, every single one came to life or grew explosively during a flare session.
I have yet to find one come up and do anything impressive with out solar flaring.

Yeah,the solar/cosmic,anti-greenhouse gas explanation crowd observed all sorts of activity which they believed could prove causation,but it's like they were so focused on a very narrow line of investigation,they never had time to read the journals and realize other things were also happening,which would ultimately prove causality.
You can't fault them for trying.At the time they got into solar explanations,observed warming was coming up short with respect to climate models.There wasn't anything wrong with the greenhouse forcing,it's just that they hadn't included the parasol effect due to sulfate aerosol from coal.As soon as this was added to the global circulation models,they got a 'fit,' for the first time.That was about 1999.Also,even satellite data at the time was trash.Ever since,equipment,procedures,computers,and models have done nothing but improve.
Best I can tell,it's sea-surface temperature that's driving cyclo-genesis.Equatorial warm waters are breeding these cyclones.They're not any more frequent (maybe),but they're rapidly intensifying,and slowing,with these enormous rain events.I think the pre-Super-Bowl events were impacted by this sort of thing.And we can see the atmospheric rivers spanning the entire continent regularly.