Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I also! Finally, we're in total agreement.

I have a serious question about vegans and their lifestyle .

Can they drink beer considering it is made by using living organisms and their lifecycle.
Which in the end requires the killing of said living organism ?

Same with most breads .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

This just in its natural not man
Max is responsible for .01℃ of the warming . And its now back to cooling
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...not-supported/

Sorry to disappoint you.

From the Science Daily report referenced paper by your source:

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory.

Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang, Shigehiro Katoh. Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45466-8


The mechanism for GCRs affecting cloud formation has been discounted by the CLOUD experiment at CERN which was established specifically to test Svensmark's hypothesis.

variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Correlation is not causation.

The Finnish paper is not published in any journal and has not undergone any peer-review. It has been debunked already.

DETAILS
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sorry to disappoint you.

From the Science Daily report referenced paper by your source:



Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang, Shigehiro Katoh. Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45466-8


The mechanism for GCRs affecting cloud formation has been discounted by the CLOUD experiment at CERN which was established specifically to test Svensmark's hypothesis.


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Correlation is not causation.

The Finnish paper is not published in any journal and has not undergone any peer-review. It has been debunked already.



https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

Sorry to disappoint you, but most of climate science is itself mostly about correlation and not causation. I'm reading what appears to be legitimate scientific critique of the Finnish paper here, and nothing in the way of the type of proof that would justify the use of the description "debunking," at least by anyone with actual scientific expertise.

debunk | dēˈbəNGk |
verb [with object]
expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief): the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal.

This is obviously research which runs directly contrary to the official AGW position, so we already know there may be valid reasons why it has not been published in journals or peer reviewed. Here's the link to the research paper itself. Given your own level of expertise, maybe you can send in your own critique to climatefeedback.org rather than parroting what other climate scientists have written. Please post a copy of your critique here on CF so we all may benefit.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sorry to disappoint you.

From the Science Daily report referenced paper by your source:



Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang, Shigehiro Katoh. Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45466-8


The mechanism for GCRs affecting cloud formation has been discounted by the CLOUD experiment at CERN which was established specifically to test Svensmark's hypothesis.


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Correlation is not causation.

The Finnish paper is not published in any journal and has not undergone any peer-review. It has been debunked already.



https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

please post the scientific paper that was done that " debunks" this study otherwise all you have is your usual conjecture that it doesn't follow the IPCC's bs therefore it must be wrong mantra.
Provide evidence that it is wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sorry to disappoint you, but most of climate science is itself mostly about correlation and not causation. I'm reading what appears to be legitimate scientific critique of the Finnish paper here, and nothing in the way of the type of proof that would justify the use of the description "debunking," at least by anyone with actual scientific expertise.

debunk | dēˈbəNGk |
verb [with object]
expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief): the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal.

This is obviously research which runs directly contrary to the official AGW position, so we already know there may be valid reasons why it has not been published in journals or peer reviewed. Here's the link to the research paper itself. Given your own level of expertise, maybe you can send in your own critique to climatefeedback.org rather than parroting what other climate scientists have written. Please post a copy of your critique here on CF so we all may benefit.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

The mechanism for CO2 as GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#L000

As I said earlier. I am not claiming an expertise, but I recognize expertise; 8 experts debunked the paper.

I initially refrained from posting a assessment of armstrongeconomics. But ..

Martin Arthur Armstrong (born November 1, 1949) is an American self-taught[1] economic forecaster who uses his own computer model based on pi. He was convicted in 1999 of cheating investors out of seven hundred million dollars and hiding fifteen million dollars in assets from regulators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...nal_conviction

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

please post the scientific paper that was done that " debunks" this study otherwise all you have is your usual conjecture that it doesn't follow the IPCC's bs therefore it must be wrong mantra.
Provide evidence that it is wrong.

8 experts debunked that paper here:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

[GordMay]

Exile’s link to “Which Is Worse for the Planet: Beef or Cars?”
“As you may know, methane is 23 times more potent (than CO2) when it comes to warming the planet ...
... if you could see cow farts, that'd be a different story, as they shouldn't be underestimated in their profound environmental impact ...
... I don't believe that humans will ever stop eating meat. But, it should be a priority to practice moderation with our meat consumption, if not for our collective health, then for the planet's ...”

While methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it only lasts about a decade in the atmosphere (due to hydroxy-oxidation), compared to the centuries CO2 lasts.

Ok, here’s my contribution to reducing our methane output.
Methane from rice contributes around 1.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions (about 50 to 100 million tonnes of methane a year, plus nitrous oxide).

“Wetting and Drying: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Water from Rice Production - Creating a Sustainable Food Future, Installment Eight” ~ by Tim Searchinger et al.
➥ https://www.wri.org/publication/wett...ice-production

“High nitrous oxide fluxes from rice indicate the need to manage water for both long- and short-term climate impacts” ~ Kritee Kritee et al.
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/39/9720

In defense of meat-eating, let me present an interview with Dr. Frank Mitloehner*:
“Frank Mitloehner: Cattle, climate change and the methane myth”
➥ https://www.alltech.com/features-pod...d-methane-myth

* Dr. Mitloehner is a professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, specializing in measurement and mitigation of airborne pollutants from livestock production, including greenhouse gases, VOCs, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

While methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it only lasts about a decade in the atmosphere (due to hydroxy-oxidation), compared to the centuries CO2 lasts.

The hydroxy-oxidation results in methane being converted to CO2; a bit of a double whammy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The mechanism for CO2 as GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#L000

Check. Got it. No dispute. No argument. You must have more expertise than you're letting on. We know CO2 is a GHG, we know it definitely causes warming in an actual enclosed greenhouse, and that it's likely the cause of some level of atmospheric warming. But it only explains the most basic mechanism underlying the science. As you say, it was two centuries ago. Climate science could use some updating when it comes to ways of proving causation as opposed to mere correlation.

As I said earlier. I am not claiming an expertise, but I recognize expertise; 8 experts debunked the paper.

Got it over your polling data. 8 vs. 2. Most impressive. So it's not OK for science to simply rely on polls to reach scientific truths, but it's OK for those who claim no expertise on the internet? Understood.

I initially refrained from posting a assessment of armstrongeconomics. But ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...nal_conviction

The secondary source in which the paper appeared, probably because establishment bias wouldn't allow it to be published (let alone peer reviewed) anywhere else. I see you still haven't learned the basics of the game of squash.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The hydroxy-oxidation results in methane being converted to CO2; a bit of a double whammy.

True but the concentration of methane is about 500 times less than CO2, so it is a much more significant issue in the form of methane than the CO2 it produces when it decomposes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

8 experts debunked that paper here:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

explain how it can be found to have issues before it is even published if as you say it was not under peer review?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The mechanism for CO2 as GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#L000

As I said earlier. I am not claiming an expertise, but I recognize expertise; 8 experts debunked the paper.

I initially refrained from posting a assessment of armstrongeconomics. But ..



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...nal_conviction

considering your constant costs in for Mr Armstrong personally he must have hoodwinked your retirement money from you . Hence the apparent personal bias .

[Exile]

And for those critical thinkers who have made themselves feel better by concluding that anyone who questions or resists the AGW agenda are mere oil co. conspiracists, imbeciles, ignoramuses, Trump-lovers, ignorant of "real" science, or just lazy & incompetent, here's another take (heaven forbid) on the realities of replacing fossil fuel energy with so-called "renewables" which, according to the physicist & engineer who authored the article, are anything but. As usual with the modern, so-called "environmental movement," the unintended consequences of policies are rarely thought through.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-...ig-11565045328

Caution! The author is an energy co. insider, and not a climate scientist. And for those looking for an excuse to dismiss him rather than his opinions, he belongs to the dreaded Manhattan Institute and everyone's all-purpose villain, none other than the hated Heartland Institute. And this article appears in the WSJ, so it MUST be bad. Awww heck, just go here for his entire sordid rap sheet (complete with a mug shot). I'm sure Jack already has.

https://www.desmogblog.com/mark-p-mills

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

8 experts debunked that paper here:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

climatefeedback. Strictly adherent to the IPCC's original terms of reference
Which doesn't allow for natural forcings to be used in calculations for the various climate models.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

And for those critical thinkers who have made themselves feel better by concluding that anyone who questions or resists the AGW agenda are mere oil co. conspiracists, imbeciles, ignoramuses, Trump-lovers, ignorant of "real" science, or just lazy & incompetent, here's another take (heaven forbid) on the realities of replacing fossil fuel energy with so-called "renewables" which, according to the physicist & engineer who authored the article, are anything but. As usual with the modern, so-called "environmental movement," the unintended consequences of policies are rarely thought through.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-...ig-11565045328

Caution! The author is an energy co. insider, and not a climate scientist. And for those looking for an excuse to dismiss him rather than his opinions, he belongs to the dreaded Manhattan Institute and everyone's all-purpose villain, none other than the hated Heartland Institute. And this article appears in the WSJ, so it MUST be bad. Awww heck, just go here for his entire sordid rap sheet (complete with a mug shot). I'm sure Jack already has.

https://www.desmogblog.com/mark-p-mills

not to mention all of the environmental damage caused by the extraction of those raw materials . Or the environmental impact of decommissioning at end of life .