The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wasn't looking at photometer data. No not even close.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Wasn't looking at photometer data. No not even close.

'Solar activity' wasn't very specific,and I was trying to tie it to cyclones,which are driven by sea surface temperature,unless ruined by shearing winds.I thought you might be talking about solar brightness,as it's the only thing that might warm the oceans.
If it were about solar magnetic activity,I addressed that.That would imply a weak Heliosphere,allowing more cosmic particles to reach Earth's atmosphere.The cosmic particles would create secondary particles,of which would allegedly create more cloud condensation nuclei.If true,that would only produce more low clouds,which cool.They'd have no linkage to cyclones that I know of.

[hayden55]

So at what point is carbon foot print acceptable? Pretty much just living as a normal human being its impossible to not have a carbon foot print.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

'Solar activity' wasn't very specific,and I was trying to tie it to cyclones,which are driven by sea surface temperature,unless ruined by shearing winds.I thought you might be talking about solar brightness,as it's the only thing that might warm the oceans.
If it were about solar magnetic activity,I addressed that.That would imply a weak Heliosphere,allowing more cosmic particles to reach Earth's atmosphere.The cosmic particles would create secondary particles,of which would allegedly create more cloud condensation nuclei.If true,that would only produce more low clouds,which cool.They'd have no linkage to cyclones that I know of.

Still no. There's like 25-30 solar forcing papers out, not including text books.
It's real and not going away.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by hayden55

So at what point is carbon foot print acceptable? Pretty much just living as a normal human being its impossible to not have a carbon foot print.

That's the point I've been making about trying to moralize the issue. Unless someone maintains that zero environmental impact is the only acceptable moral standard, and then immediately kills themselves, every other standard is arbitrary.

I'll point out that the environment for humans has never been better as a result of all of us modifying it. My evidence is that there have never been more people, in better health, living the longest, with the most per capita wealth, than at any other time in history.

Mother Nature is no Garden of Eden. Just wander around out in it with no technology for a few days and see how you do. She's more of a Motha than a mother. We've leveraged our creativity to create environments more hospitable to well-being. Unfortunately, in the process it seems we've neglected mental well-being.

[freebeard]

Unfortunately, in the process it seems we've neglected mental well-being.

I find solace in this: Meditations by Marcus Aurelius - SUMMARIZED

It's 2000 years past. Surprisingly, there is a popular commentator who recasts this in popular idiom. Can you guess who?

In the comments Yearning TRUTH2 has a helpful text summary.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

That’s unless you’re Michael Mann, the source (godfather) of the whole Global Warming movement. Then it seems that those conditions don’t apply...

https://principia-scientific.org/bre...ey-stick-mann/

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

I prefer to read the materials straight,no chaser.

I’m pretty sure a lot of people would like to see Michael Mann’s materials straight, no chaser also.

But he refuses.


According to your post. “It's some of the most interesting stuff I've ever laid eyes on.They’re required to share their data as a condition of publishing,plus provide all their methods.”

However, in the past you’ve said your fine with Mann keeping his data private.

So which is it ?

Share openly ?

Or

Keep Private ?

The two are mutual exclusive...






>

[oil pan 4]

The believers believe in pay walls and secrets.
Just believe it because we said so.
Which puts it on part with every other religion.

[freebeard]

Oil Pan 4 — open source intelligence is superior to any covert intelligence.

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

You know...

That's equivalent to saying you will look at the data sets from the new satellites and not wait two years for the IPCC to parse it and draw their whatever-it's-worth opinion.

Amirite?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I thought it was settled science?

It is settled science. You seem confused, and seem to think that it means we know everything.

Settled science always leads to more questions.

We know that human activity is causing climate change, at this time. We know this is making rapid changes, all around the world.

Example: stars, planets, moons, and asteroids are settled science - but now we have Brown Dwarfs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRNIcerXzLw