Tuesday, December 19, 2017

No Shit, Sherlock?

A new study has found (drum roll) that solar activity has seven times more effect on the earth's climate than is accounted for in climate 'models.'

How could anybody have possibly guessed?

I'm surprised the media has even printed this story.

Researchers have claimed a breakthrough in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovas react with the sun to form clouds, which impact the climate on Earth.
The findings have been described as the “missing link” to help resolve a decades long controversy that has big implications for climate science.
Lead author, Henrik Svensmark, from The Technical University of Denmark has long held that climate models had greatly underestimated the impact of solar activity.
He says the new research identified the feedback mechanism through which the sun’s impact on climate was varied.
Professor Svensmark’s theories on solar impact have caused a great deal of controversy within the climate science community and the latest findings are sure to provoke new outrage.
He does not dispute that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a warming impact on the climate.
But his findings present a challenge to estimates of how sensitive the climate is to changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Professor Svensmark says his latest findings were consistent both with the strong rise in the rate of global temperature change late last century and a slowdown in the rate of increase over the past 20 years.
(Paywalled article)

The bunkum, baloney and bullshit that is 'climate science' continues to unravel.




22 comments:

Anonymous said...

... the climate science community ...

I can see them in my mind's eye. They wandering about are next to any number of other cults preaching the end of the world.

3:16

Snowflake said...

Yeah, that guy’s a kook. Sad if that’s all you’ve got to support your desperate wish for the laws of physics to be a communist plot. Can you explain where the energy goes if it’s not trapped as heat, Einstein? No?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Waikikuamukau News said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Johno said...

"Not surprising that Adolf would go to a physicist for advice on climate"

Of course. The problem with climatologists as ooposed to physicists is that they base everything on models which are subject to being fiddled with adjustments. That's not science, it's curve fitting by twiddling numbers.

Physicists use science. You come up with a hypothesis, then design experiments to validate it. Then you publish and allow your peers to try and pick it apart. No arbitrary magic numbers allowed!

David said...

WOW! Johnno, such erudition.

As WaiNews pointed out, it was Adolf's new hero who fiddled the data. that was pointed out by other physicists.

Climate science, like all science, is subject to review and correction as knowledge expands. The fact that the science doesn't fit a particular religious or economic belief does not invalidate the science.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

They don't like it up 'em, do they?

Johno said...

Yep. David's not getting it, is he? Looks like he has no scientific training and doesn't understand the concept of "scientific method".

Paranormal said...

Interesting the left rave on about "the laws of physics" but when a physicist points out the obvious flaw in their religion, they're straight into the "play the man not the ball" playbook of the left. Well done Snowflake.

WN have you considered that there is more correlation between solar output and global temperatures and CO2 and warmening? Particularly when you consider the over decade long 'pause' or plateau whilst C02 levels continue to rise.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Amazing the number of dumb bastards on the left who ignore the fact they have been banned. They continue to come here as though they have some 'entitlement' to comment. They don't.

They were banned for bad behaviour not because of their ideas as they try to assert. They don't have any.

Snowflake said...

Still want to know where the energy’s gone. Don’t know do you? Perhaps it’s hiding up Subnormal’s bottom. There’s plenty of hot air coming out of there.

Paranormal said...

Thanks for proving my point Snowflake.

Johno said...

Snowflake seems a bit strange.

To answer its question the energy would be either absorbed in the atmosphere, absorbed in the sea, absorbed by the land, a combination of the above, or importantly, re-radiated back out to space.

None of which proves anything unless you can mathematically prove how much of the incoming energy ends up in each of the above channels. And the AGW climatologists can't prove anything. They can make models, based on many assumptions, using many data sets, witm many adjustments of which they are cagey. And even then their models don't line up - in particular the last two decade's hiatus is still making them come up with ideas.

There is probably a warming effect from CO2 and other gasses being added to the atmosphere but we don't really know how much. The science sure as hell ain't settled.

Snowflake said...

I don’t think your “point’ is proved, Subnormal. You have to have one for that.

Johno, physics is obviously something you’ve taught yourself from reading the Bible. Thanks for the laugh! Absorbed into the air is it? Go look up the laws of thermodynamics and come back and try again, Newton. You guys are hilarious. No wonder Trump conned you so effortlessly.

Johno said...

Snowflake, my undergraduate degree is from University of Auckland with major in Physics and Computer Science and there's not much in the bible I would believe in.

Of course energy can be absorbed by air. What else would you think happens when air temperature increases? Do you not realise that a breeze is energy stored in the air? Do you not realise that compressed air is energy stored in the air? But do tell, which law of thermodynamics is at odds with this?

This should be entertaining.

Once you have done prattling your nonsense you should try reading this, from our own Kevin Trenberth:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/qj.04.83/pdf

I think you'll struggle to grasp the big words, but I would draw your attention to the picture at p2679 and the bit where it says "absorbed by the atmosphere".

Snowflake said...

So when energy is absorbed in the atmosphere the temperature increases! Well done. You got there all by yourself.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Johno said...

Snowflake said...
"So when energy is absorbed in the atmosphere the temperature increases! Well done. You got there all by yourself."

And wrong again, Snowflake. I did not get there all by myself; I got there with the help of my 5th form physics teacher some 30 years ago.

But I'm so glad that with my help you finally got there, a big move forward from your slack-jawed bewilderment only a day ago at the idea of energy being stored in the air.

But from your wittering I see you are still a bit clueless with your obsession with energy absorbed in the atmosphere. You see the role of the atmosphere in *storing* energy is rather insignificant in the scheme of things. The heat storage in the oceans and land surface is orders of magnitude greater. The real significance of the atmosphere is it's ability transfer energy and to reflect radiated heat from the earth's surface back to the surface rather than allowing it to radiate back to space. In other words, stop concerning yourself with energy absorbed by the atmosphere and focus on the exact opposite: energy *reflected* by the atmosphere. But it gets much more complex and unpredictable than that with feedback effects, and the natural chaos in the atmosphere. These are reasons why climatologists have so far failed to model it accurately.

Go read Trenberth again. It's quite good and able to be grasped even by the relatively uneducated.

David said...

Other researcher's have pointed out the holes in Svensmak's hypothesis.

Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it.

More recently, Laken et al. (2012) found that new high quality satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover.

Lockwood (2012) conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated. Lockwood's review also highlighted the strength of evidence in favor of the solar influence on regional climates.

Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) demonstrated that while temperature models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims, "no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."

And thtas's the thing with Right Wing cranks, they'll pick one tiny subset of data and attempt top extrapolate it to the whole, cherry picking.

Johnno There is probably a warming effect from CO2 and other gasses being added to the atmosphere but we don't really know how much. The science sure as hell ain't settled.

True dat, but then science is never "settled". Even the theories of gravity, of heleocentricism, of lack of efficacy of homeopathy, are open to revision in the light of new knowledge. But at this moment, they, along with the climate change models, are the best theories we have.


Snowflake said...

Christ on a bike, Johno, you should just take your pwning and move on. You’re the one making the claim that energy gets somehow miraculously absorbed without consequence into the atmosphere, land and the sea (and then suggesting laughably that you have a degree in physics). Magical thinking that is. You’ve subsequently admitted you were utterly wrong and that the energy is converted into heat, which leads to the earth warming (well duh). You even site a renowned climate researcher to support this assertion. As I say you got there, and then you lost the plot again sadly. Trenberth would be a bit annoyed at you trying to use his work as evidence that there’s no problem though, as that’s a complete misrepresentation of his work. Typical of the duplicity of right-wing fuck-witted shills.