Nature's sharp corrections: Global Warming

[klutedavid]

We treat the ocean and most of our fresh waterways as open sewers.

We are more creative over here. We dumped our industrial waste into the rivers which run into the sea. We also dumped industrial waste into the harbors, you can fish but you can't eat what you catch. We clever monkeys.

 

[klutedavid]

Most studies of climate history show a planetary history of cyclical rises and falls of temperature. There have been some very rapid falls in temperature after sharp rises. Given that industrialisation has clearly made a contribution to the present global warming and rise in CO2 levels can we expect a sharp natural correction to this and the advent of an ice age?

Or has the growth of mankind's dominance reached a point where natural correctives have been neutralised or rendered ineffective e.g. reduction in forests, acidity in oceans, concrete instead of plants. Of course a nuclear winter, asteroid strike or major volcanic eruption could massively reduce global temperatures overnight. We always assume that things will carry on pretty much as they have but catastrophies pock mark the planets history so I wonder where this certainty about global warming being an inevitable trend comes from.

Can the planet or extra terrestrial sources still correct global warming with a new ice age or has that possibility already passed, so it is entirely up to us to make that correction?

China, India, and the USA, produce 50% of the total CO2 emissions. The rest of the world produces the other 50% of the emissions. So while we point the finger at the three largest emitters, the rest of us can keep emitting more CO2 every year.

We need to put more and more pressure on those three largest emitters!

 

[sjastro]

Sorry but to suggest Duncan Steel is not aware of stratospheric cooling is absurd - you clearly don't know him.

I suggest you go back and read your previous posts.
You presented a link as evidence of Steel being aware of stratospheric cooling, yet the link and Steel’s expanded version which I supplied doesn’t even refer to the word stratosphere let alone the subject of stratospheric cooling.

You have been caught out making up stories.

'Not even a climate scientist' suggest some irrelevant intellectual class - this is also absurd and irrelevant to the discussion. Climate scientists are not astrophysicists and vice versa. Climate scientists need to listen to scientists in disciplines that touch on their traditional intellectual landscape and not have tunnel vision. It is not a matter of protecting your intellectual patch but rather to be widely aware of what the whole scientific community has to offer.

This piece of codswallop is nothing more than a tired old attack on expertise by equating it with elitism.
If you think astrophysicists and climate scientists can play interchangeable roles then you clearly come from some alternate Universe.
The Steel links are a perfect example of an astrophysicist (if that is what he actually is) being clearly out of his depth when it comes to climate science matters.

Not one scientist has been able to formally flaw his maths and his arguments since he made the findings public.

But hey it is not about personalities, it is about science.

By all means critique his work if you can - otherwise it is little else than a misinformed put down.

You don’t know what you are talking about there is not a shred of maths in either paper.
I’ve already pointed out a serious flaw in both papers, failure to consider stratospheric cooling.
No expert or someone even reasonably familiar with climate change science would make such a glaring omission.

In case you didn’t know according to your link Steel’s paper comes from the “The Global Warning Policy Forum” which according to The Independent in 2014 is "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".
It's not surprising in an echo chamber no one has picked up any flaws in Steel's paper; in a recognized peer reviewed science journal it would not be good enough to publish.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Sorry but to suggest Duncan Steel is not aware of stratospheric cooling is absurd - you clearly don't know him.

'Not even a climate scientist' suggest some irrelevant intellectual class - this is also absurd and irrelevant to the discussion. Climate scientists are not astrophysicists and vice versa. Climate scientists need to listen to scientists in disciplines that touch on their traditional intellectual landscape and not have tunnel vision. It is not a matter of protecting your intellectual patch but rather to be widely aware of what the whole scientific community has to offer.

Not one scientist has been able to formally flaw his maths and his arguments since he made the findings public.

But hey it is not about personalities, it is about science.

By all means critique his work if you can - otherwise it is little else than a misinformed put down.

'Climate science' is a broad umbrella. It covers many disciplines, with scientists from many different backgrounds and skill sets. Here are some notable ones.

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia

This list of climate scientists contains famous or otherwise notable persons who have contributed to the study of climate science. The list is compiled manually, so will not be complete, up to date, or comprehensive.

Sallie Baliunas, American, astrophysicist, solar variation.

Nicola Scafetta (1975-) Italian astronomer and climate scientist

Nir Shaviv (1972-), Israeli‐American astrophysicist and climate scientist

Willie Soon (1966-), Malaysian-born American astrophysicist and climate scientist

 

[Carl Emerson]

You presented a link as evidence of Steel being aware of stratospheric cooling

Nonsense I did no such thing... there must have been some misunderstanding.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you think astrophysicists and climate scientists can play interchangeable roles then you clearly come from some alternate Universe

That is exactly what I am not saying.

I find your accusative attitude disturbing.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's not surprising in an echo chamber no one has picked up any flaws in Steel's paper; in a recognized peer reviewed science journal it would not be good enough to publish.

Well I will leave you to insult Duncan Steel - that is a lot easier than respond to what he has presented.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes I note how opinions are being sited as 'socially dangerous' as freedom of speech is being challenged.
There used to be robust debate - now we close down who dares to disagree...

Have I, or anyone else, prevented you from expressing your views? No. So please don't cry wolf when there isn't even a poodle in the vicinity.
If you wish a more robust debate you might finally address my request to provide a link to the paper. Had you taken care of that we could be discussing the paper instead of your attempt to deflect the discussion to freedom of speech.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Have I, or anyone else, prevented you from expressing your views? No. So please don't cry wolf when there isn't even a poodle in the vicinity.
If you wish a more robust debate you might finally address my request to provide a link to the paper. Had you taken care of that we could be discussing the paper instead of your attempt to deflect the discussion to freedom of speech.

Of course not... I was talking about social decay not our interaction.

I posted a link to the paper (unless I unwhitingly made a mistake) no one complained that they couldn't read it but I will recheck thanks...

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course not... I was talking about social decay not our interaction.

I posted a link to the paper (unless I unwhitingly made a mistake) no one complained that they couldn't read it but I will recheck thanks...

Point me to the post number if possible.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In case you didn’t know according to your link Steel’s paper comes from the “The Global Warning Policy Forum” which according to The Independent in 2014 is "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

While they may have grabbed onto it - Prof. Steel does not deny global warming is occurring.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Point me to the post number if possible.

Here we go...

Duncan Steel: Climate Change And Natural Variations In The Solar Influx - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

 

[Carl Emerson]

My apologies...

Here is a better link to the full paper...

http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EOaCCC.pdf

 

[dlamberth]

“This star, our own good earth, made many a successful journey around the heavens ere human being were made, and whole realms of creatures enjoyed existence and returned to dust ere humans appeared to claim them.
After human beings have played their part in creation’s plan, they may also disappear without any general burning or extraordinary commotion whatever.”
-- John Muir, 1916

As I look around at how badly we have desecrated this planet, I don't have to jump far to wonder if we are some of the last generations.

 

[sjastro]

Nonsense I did no such thing... there must have been some misunderstanding.

As much as this thread has gone pair shaped you need to held be accountable for your posts.
This is what you stated.

Sorry but to suggest Duncan Steel is not aware of stratospheric cooling is absurd - you clearly don't know him.

If I didn’t know better the implication behind this remark is you know Duncan Steel and have first hand knowledge he is aware of stratosphere cooling.
Since this is clearly 100% baloney and your link contradicts Steel having any knowledge of stratospheric cooling the question arises how do you know Steel is aware of stratospheric cooling?

There is only one possible conclusion; you don’t know whether Steel is aware or not while Steel himself is clearly oblivious of stratospheric cooling as it destroys his argument in downplaying the effects of AGW.
Making things up to make a point is an exercise in dishonesty.
Q.E.D.

I find your accusative attitude disturbing.


Well I will leave you to insult Duncan Steel - that is a lot easier than respond to what he has presented.

Victim role playing and falsely accusing me of insulting Duncan Steel is not only dishonest but an ad hom attack.
A reviewer wouldn’t even bother to read either of Steel’s papers as it fails to meet the basic standards of supplying references, test results etc.
My response to his presentations were clearly made in post#33 including the link which is an update on the 1967 paper and in subsequent posts.
Clearly all of this has gone way over your head and thinking I’m insulting Steel instead is so ridiculously absurd.

While they may have grabbed onto it - Prof. Steel does not deny global warming is occurring.

Isn’t ironical Steel’s paper turns up climate change denial website.

 

[Carl Emerson]

As much as this thread has gone pair shaped you need to held be accountable for your posts.
This is what you stated.


If I didn’t know better the implication behind this remark is you know Duncan Steel and have first hand knowledge he is aware of stratosphere cooling.
Since this is clearly 100% baloney and your link contradicts Steel having any knowledge of stratospheric cooling the question arises how do you know Steel is aware of stratospheric cooling?

There is only one possible conclusion; you don’t know whether Steel is aware or not while Steel himself is clearly oblivious of stratospheric cooling as it destroys his argument in downplaying the effects of AGW.
Making things up to make a point is an exercise in dishonesty.
Q.E.D.



Victim role playing and falsely accusing me of insulting Duncan Steel is not only dishonest but an ad hom attack.
A reviewer wouldn’t even bother to read either of Steel’s papers as it fails to meet the basic standards of supplying references, test results etc.
My response to his presentations were clearly made in post#33 including the link which is an update on the 1967 paper and in subsequent posts.
Clearly all of this has gone way over your head and thinking I’m insulting Steel instead is so ridiculously absurd.



Isn’t ironical Steel’s paper turns up climate change denial website.

Wrong again...

You said "Steel himself is clearly oblivious of stratospheric cooling as it destroys his argument in downplaying the effects of AGW."

Read the paper - Steel does not downplay AGW, He just presents other effects that are a more prime driver...

 

[sjastro]

Wrong again...

You said "Steel himself is clearly oblivious of stratospheric cooling as it destroys his argument in downplaying the effects of AGW."

Read the paper - Steel does not downplay AGW, He just presents other effects that are a more prime driver...

Amuse me.
Give me a step by step argument how downplaying AGW leads to the conclusion of an awareness of stratospheric cooling.
The use of flowcharts and/or truth tables are acceptable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, but I have read multiple papers on the Milankovitch cycles over the years. The knowledge acquired thererby underpinned my comments in my original post in the thread. The potential for cycles of ice ages has existed for eons. The initiating of the current suite of cycles was a response to the chance positioning of the continents through plate tectonics and the related alterations of ocean currents. IIRC the connection of the Americas in the vicinity of Panama may have been the final trigger.

I would love to read the paper, but I have to say that I tend to suspect a paper published seven or eight years ago that has only garnered three citations. I would urge the same caution on you. Since you have, seemingly, read it can you direct me to a link. All I can find is the abstract in ADS.

I do recommend giving more weight to the conclusions of hundreds of experts rather than questionable papers published in journals with a questionable reputation in regard to peer review. If you have a degree in climatology or related discipline, then by all means tell we what you find so suggestive and solid about Steel's work. Otherwise, well . . . . I'll listen, but it will need to be good.

Here is the journal copy:

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf

This is in Wickramasinghe's "Journal of Cosmology"

Climate science isn't Cosmology.
Orbital motions and dynamics (the purported driver mentioned in the earlier post) isn't cosmology.

This is frankly a questionable journal and ADS no longer indexes it. (It also has the worst Journal website I've ever seen, not just current websites old ones too.)

 

[sjastro]

Here is the journal copy:

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf

This is in Wickramasinghe's "Journal of Cosmology"

Climate science isn't Cosmology.
Orbital motions and dynamics (the purported driver mentioned in the earlier post) isn't cosmology.

This is frankly a questionable journal and ADS no longer indexes it. (It also has the worst Journal website I've ever seen, not just current websites old ones too.)

Thanks for link.
Maybe the journal should be renamed "Journal of Cosmology and the Kitchen Sink" given the relevance the paper has in cosmology.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is the journal copy:

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf

This is in Wickramasinghe's "Journal of Cosmology"

Thanks Hans. The Search Force is weak in me this week.