I feel I'm being charitable by doing so rather than ignoring you outright. — Xtrix
Why would it ever have entered your mind to ignore me, since I was and am ready for a discussion from the very beginning, and have shown doing so? Besides, you were already involved in the discussion in Global warming discussion -All opinions welcome.
Being charitable should be part of any philosophical discussion, provided it comes from both parties.
But let me say from the beginning: you don't know what you're talking about. — Xtrix
Yes, you're right, I'm ignorant about most of the detailed points on the subject. But surely that should not prevent me from forming my own opinion? I mean, it is part of human nature that opinions or intuitive judgments arise in the mind without the mind being able to fight against this arising. The mind can examine them afterwards, and discard or accept them, but it cannot prevent them from the outset. It is also undeniable that sometimes, in rare cases, an intuitive judgment directly hits the truth.
and you're being deluded by climate denial propaganda. — Xtrix
I had learned about a cosmological alternative model, according to which, as an incidental consequence, man-made climate change makes little sense. I am not saying that this alternative model is absolutely correct, but I had the impression that there might be something to this model. At the very least, it points to something that might be neglected in mainstream cosmology.
So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of.
From the point of view of philosophy of science, it is possible to include all empirical data under an alternative cosmology. Then all the details you provide as an argument would have to be interpreted differently. If this were to happen coherently, which I don't know that it could actually happen that way, then there would indeed be reason to doubt the mainstream model.
Wherever you got these "sources," they're either misleading, half-truths, out of context, cherry-picked, or outright lies. — Xtrix
It was my intention to suggest said alternative picture. I wanted to be one-sided on purpose. You will admit that in a parallel universe such a picture might be true, where the climate on planets is mainly influenced by electromagnetic forces. My quotes, I think, created such an image.
The climate "always changes," yes -- but human's contributions the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, has added trillions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere while also cutting down billions of trees. This added amount, even after the oceans absorb a lot of it, has accelerated the rate of change of the global average temperature. — Xtrix
I agree with you that this is a new, unprecedented situation for the Earth's atmosphere. And very likely, the Earth will become a greenhouse as a result.
But whether the Earth's atmosphere really functions like a built greenhouse in the lab is a question that may be asked, isn't it? And this question is ultimately at issue when an alternative explanation is offered. Because one could say that the other factors about which we do not yet have full knowledge do not occur at all in the laboratory experiment.
Since you are much more knowledgeable than I am, what do you say about these papers? Are their thesis completely ruled out? I have no way of telling. I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"
https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html — spirit-salamander
Abstract from the paper
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist
As an aside, do you think it's possible that the natural climate change you admit could take a course that would effectively counteract the change we're causing?
The "controversy" exists for one reason: there's a massive and powerful industry that benefits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. — Xtrix
That may definitely be the case here and there. But on the other hand, there is also the accusation of ideological and political influence of the so-called alarmists.
Be that as it may, the proponents of the alternative cosmological model I mentioned don't give the impression that the oil industry is behind them. I would consider that highly unlikely.
I myself, for example, cannot drive a car and I would be happy if there were no more noisy, smoking cars on the streets. So I am completely unaffected by the fossil fuel car industry.
Consensus is collusion — Xtrix
Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat?
It's worth at least reading this site for some balance. — Xtrix
I will visit that sometime.
Taylor is not doubting the greenhouse effect. He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. If you read the whole article, you'd see this. — Xtrix
So it can be said that with his statement tending to exaggeration, which I quoted, Taylor is completely misleading and not at all in harmony with that which you further quoted and explained.
He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. — Xtrix
'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth ... It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.' — spirit-salamander
Your description seems to be correct, nevertheless, one cannot miss a contrast in the language.
In this book (The Scientific Exploration of Venus, Fredric W. Taylor · 2014 · Science), Taylor states:
“the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.”
The link you provide didn't work. — Xtrix
From my country, the link works. Maybe you can google it and then come to the site.
But claims about the sun being a main driver of climate change has long been argued, and is a frequent denialist talking point. It has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. — Xtrix
Now we come to a point where you don't fully convince me.
Let's say hypothetically that the previously assumed electromagnetic force of the sun has 1% influence on global warming. Now it turns out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Then it is perhaps not improbable that the influence on earth climate is now 10% percent. And this would not be a small matter?
Bottom line: There’s no evidence that Earth’s climate has been significantly impacted by the last three magnetic field excursions,
No proof of significant impact, or no proof of impact at all? I think that is already an important difference. But they seem to be saying that there is a minimal impact that now, however, has to be thought of as possibly tenfold due to new knowledge.
Here again the title of the article.
New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed
It only says indefinite affect on the earth. But why should the climate be excluded there?
1. Insufficient Energy in Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
Air Isn’t Ferrous
Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.
But isn't that at odds with what I quoted?
The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling
Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF
Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System
Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.
Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity
The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.
Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere
During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.
What do you say to that? You've dodged these quotes so far. Or have I taken something completely out of context?
The next find is interesting. The scientist affirms man-made climate change, and yet he says that climatologies are not aware of certain forces:
The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.
The reality of climate change is finally being acknowledged by world leaders. While of little comfort to those already subjected to disastrous weather conditions, there is optimism that efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions will lead to more stability in the world’s weather system. Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction).
This article outlines a possible scenario in which KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) brought to the earth by cosmic rays, participates in the formation of heat-reflective cloud cover by activating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This process may be rendered less effective if some of the KELEA is removed from cosmic rays by its attachment to fluctuating electrical fields that accompany the increasing electromagnetic radiations present within the earth’s atmosphere. The proposed reduction in cloud formation may potentially be remediated by devising alternative means of delivering KELEA to the atmosphere. Moreover, an understanding of KELEA can immediately lead to significant worldwide reductions in carbon emissions.
We understand a lot, yes. Not everything, and not "almost everything." In the totality of what there is to know, human beings understand a fraction of it. If you added up everything we've written and experienced and were able to download into your brain, it'd still amount to a tiny fraction. — Xtrix
You want to say that we are still going to learn a lot of things. Countless new discoveries. But implicitly, you are saying that all the new discoveries will no longer contribute significantly to our already established picture of climate change. Isn't that scientifically dubious? Cumulatively acquired new knowledge may very well change our picture meaningfully.
It's the same ploy used in Holocaust denial, in creationism, in 9/11 conspiracies, etc. "How can we be SURE?" "There's a lot we don't know!"
They pick on the "gaps" in knowledge, which always exist, or else fall back on skeptical epistemology. — Xtrix
I go with my claim strongly down, and say only that the influence of the sun can be bigger than assumed up to now. Saying that is not scandalous.
The article cited has a paywall, so I can't read all of it. But in any case, they're saying only that it MAY effect WEATHER. Weather is not climate. — Xtrix
Strange. For me it is not behind a paywall. Must be due to the country IP.
This is a trivial objection. Climate is weather only stretched over long time. If it can possibly effect weather, why not for decades, then it also effects the climate.
Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction
Think for a second. Do you really believe climatologists have ignored this possibility (namely, the influence of the sun on climate change)? — Xtrix
If they miss that, then they might miss some other things, too. Whatever that is. Even if they know about it, they can't immediately integrate it into their understanding. Keyword Thomas Kuhn. What cannot be integrated immediately is first pushed aside.
I can well imagine a climatologist answering my question about how far the earth's atmosphere reaches, that it does not go as far as the moon. You overestimate scientists. They are usually too specialized. Too fixated on what they are doing at the moment.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978
I have found this opinion:
Exactly how the sun works is not well understood. Some scientists believe the suns activity is a direct cause similar to a camp fire while other scientists believe the sun's activities are tied to electromagnetic forces that flow throughout the solar system. Some solar researchers reported in 2015 that the sun is entering into a period of very low activity which will result in global cooling around 2030-2040. If these scientists are correct decades from now we may be worrying about global cooling.
In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated.
My point is that the electromagnetic effect of the sun is possibly underestimated, as it is not yet sufficiently researched. So it's not about solar heating alone.and visible solar irradiance. It is mainly about electromagnetic effects that are not easily detectable. That they are explored slowly, some of my quotations have made clear.
It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved. — Xtrix
I have expressed myself badly. I meant that CO2 could only cause warming, but the storms and hurricanes may only be due to the magnetic influence of the sun.
Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander
What would you say he is right about. Or is he always wrong?