The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Which part of that quote are you responding to?


There is a continual daily stream of papers. IDK how to identify the ones that have passed review. Here's are today's:


That's only four, could you take a look?

What's more important, 'past performance does not guarantee future results'. The only thing I see increasing is Chaos. Snowing in Bagdad?

The first paper had nothing to do with climate.
The second paper wasn't there anymore.
The third paper was all in Norwegian and of no value.
The fourth paper from the European Space Agency was just a home page with no data.
How about something from Caltech or GISS.
Better yet,how about you explain the link between cosmic 'Rays' and climate.In your own words.

[freebeard]

I have no direct knowledge (I might be a brain in a jar). But following the story as evolves is only a few minutes out of your day.

03:04 ...and last
03:07 but not least an early look at a paper
03:09 that will head to the earth and space
03:11 science publication and taking what we
03:14 know about cosmic ray climate forcing to
03:16 another level but here it is more than
03:19 just the anti correlation with
03:20 temperature which is the number one
03:21 thing most know due to particle
03:23 interactions and increased cloud opacity
03:26 leading to lower sunlight and which is
03:28 shown here but more importantly the
03:31 atmospheric pressure this is the new
03:34 player in town of terms of cosmic ray
03:36 bombardment in the peer-reviewed
03:37 literature and it perfectly matches the
03:39 anti correlation with the temperatures -
03:41 while the Svensmark cloud cooling has
03:44 long been known the high cosmic rays low
03:47 atmospheric pressure leading to cloud
03:50 formation and enhancement is a last 10
03:52 years discovery which helps to
03:54 understand the storm forcing scene with
03:56 space weather energies as well an
03:58 outstanding epic visualization of the
04:01 literature confirmation on the heels of
04:04 a reminder of how this planets version
04:06 of a sense of humor will be to pull
04:07 another Ice Age on a world worried about
04:10 warming...

[The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.] Grrrr

edit:
As above, so below

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

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I have no direct knowledge (I might be a brain in a jar). But following the story as evolves is only a few minutes out of your day.


[The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.] Grrrr

edit:
As above, so below

I just read his book,'The Chilling Stars.'It's all bunk.He made the fatal mistake of not watching the other science,and went on his merry way,attempting to solve a problem that never existed.Had he kept abreast of the literature,he would have known in 1999,that he was urinating in the ocean,expecting to see the level rise.The parasol effect of coal-fired power-plant sulfate emissions were responsible for the 'missing temperature' in the General Circulation Models.It's greenhouse gases.It's always been greenhouse gases.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It's a data point, that is a RECORD HIGH; among all the other records.

To a real climate scientist a new record high is just another data point, after its been double checked for error.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The only scientific explanation for global warming,outside of natural variability,is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
If you'll resolve the volume of ocean water into pounds,and then calculate the amount of Btu's necessary to increase its temperature 1-C,you'll have an idea of the thermal inertia we're talking about.If you worked at a power plant,this would be a routine calculation.
There's no scientific connection between the Dalton Minimum and global climate.

Yeah it was just a coincidence, that keeps happening over and over.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

So far,none of you guys have produced any peer-reviewed,scientific research paper,which establishes any causal relationship to climate change outside of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Oilpan-4 said there were 25-30 of them,then refuses to provide any of them,when directly asked to do so.It's hard to have a conversation about something when there's a unilateral flow of information.

I provide, you ignore.
You talk about my sources more when I don't provide them.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

New record high temperature in the hottest place on earth:

80.83C (177.49F)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8966471

The previous record was set in 2005 70.7C (159.26F)

From the link.

Abstract:
Understanding land-atmosphere interactions in extremely hot environment offers insights on how such interactions will change in a warmer world. For this reason, scientists from a wide range of fields, including hydrology, meteorology, ecology and geology, have been interested in identifying the hottest places on Earth. A study back in 2006 based on the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) land surface temperature (LST) data identified the Lut Desert in Iran as the ``thermal pole of the Earth.'' Since then, Lut Desert has been regarded as the hottest place on Earth with the record temperature of 70.7 °C observed in 2005. Using the latest MODIS-derived LST collection 6 which offers an improved LST estimates with a high spatial resolution (1 km), we investigate the hottest temperatures, as well as its diurnal variability in Lut Desert. The results show that Lut Desert is much hotter than previously thought with a record LST of 80.83 °C in 2018 (approximately 10 °C higher than previously reported LST) mainly due to improvements in the new LST estimations from space, and use of higher spatial resolution of the data. Further, our results show that Lut Desert has an incredible diurnal variability range, up to around 71 °C depending on the season.

Apple’s to oranges.

Sorta like using a 100x microscope to look at a slide of pond water and it’s inhabitants. Then using a 1000x microscope and claiming that you found many more unknown inhabitants when they were there all along.

Not only that, but they’re estimates to boot. Not long ago they needed to redact and adjust temperatures from the LST satellites because the algorithm used was incorrect. (and still may be)

What’s needed is a verification from a terrestrial station in the same location.

But that’s not happening and probably won’t happen. That way there’s no conflicting data...

What’s needed is long term study.

Long term...





>

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I just read his book,'The Chilling Stars.'It's all bunk.He made the fatal mistake of not watching the other science,and went on his merry way,attempting to solve a problem that never existed.

Made me look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chilling_Stars No opinion since I'd never heard of the guy. Is that all you took from my post?

The only scientific explanation for global warming,outside of natural variability,is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

See, that isn't so hard.

Universe is alive with electricity, magnetism and plasma structures. Is there some sort of crystal sphere that keeps it all at bay?

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...es/cryssph.gif

[oil pan 4]

We don't have time for long term anything have to do something about it now.
Real science is reproducible. If it's something only seen every 10 to 15 years and it's gone before it can be studied then it's boarder line paranormal, then falls into the category of religion.

[freebeard]

We don't have time for long term anything have to do something about it now.

What would you suggest? It would have to come down hard on China and India.

In the West the problems come from marketing and consumerism. Well, excepting the sanctuary cities. I learnt last night about the Bell Riots in San Francisco in 2024. It's Star Trek canon.