Are there other variables that control climate change?

[bhobba]

Well, the paper you choose to publish here is controversial.

That's why I chose it. Its to break down the idea that all scientists agree on the details of climate change - all sorts of factors influence it.

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Genava]

That's why I chose it. Its to break down the idea that all scientists agree on the details of climate change - all sorts of factors influence it.

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Sure, I agree with the need to put different papers with different conclusions here. Especially because you choose a good skeptical paper. I only highlight the fact that this paper is not convincing others climate scientists, it is something important to say for amateurs that aren't aware of the whole literature on the subject. By cherry-picking papers, you can influence how someone will make his opinion on the subject. Moreover when there are controversies about how peer-review failed to stop fallacious papers, like the paper of Hermann Harde (2017) who has chosen the reviewers himself...

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Actually the question of the OP is about magnetosphere and ionosphere link with climate change. Previous posts have diverged a lot from this. But anyway, if the thread continues the need to be aware of the whole literature will be more and more important. Svensmark is an example of a prolific controversial author on the subject but he is often unable to explain why the CERN CLOUD experiment is contradicting his hypothesis.

 

[CWatters]

Oceans absorb 60% more heat than previously thought.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067

This is bad news.

 

[bhobba]

Actually the question of the OP is about magnetosphere and ionosphere link with climate change. Previous posts have diverged a lot from this. But anyway, if the thread continues the need to be aware of the whole literature will be more and more important. Svensmark is an example of a prolific controversial author on the subject but he is often unable to explain why the CERN CLOUD experiment is contradicting his hypothesis.

Sure. I answered the question asked, but it became clearer later his issue was a bit more specific. That was answered as well, but the more general nature of what was asked has morphed a bit. Don't worry, as a mentor I am keeping an eye on it. Like your posts though - this is good scientific debate - I give such a bit more 'leeway' as far as being exactly on topic is concerned.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Actually, while vitally important and a major issue I have with grey literature used by the intergovernmental committee, peer review actually isn't that big a hurdle. Obviously you shouldn't select the reviewers of your own paper, but we get a number of peer reviewed papers here in various areas that would not have passed the scrutiny of a number of the experts that post here. The area I am most familiar with is papers making claims somewhat at odds with well know principles of Quantum Mechanics - its usually a misunderstanding of so called weak measurements. A good book on errors getting through peer review is Einsteins Mistakes:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337685/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill

 

[ZMacZ]

In two words (or rather three) inverted "chaos theory"..

Basicaly everything influences everything else, the only thing that makes one rhing more important,
is the amount of effect it has..So yeah, theoretically there's a near infinite things that have an effect
on climate change (like the number of particles in the universe, whether we know about them or not..)

But, I think major contributors should be at the center of attention..
(That should start at the ppm level...)
Even when people think that a mere 0.0001% change isn't much, but when it cumulates over time,
it can still be a major effect.
(in the universe for instance, a planet can be in a very big range of temperature, and yet only when we talk
about 1K difference in mean temp, it means 1K in the range of 293K, which is 20 degrees C.
1/293 is but 0.3% roughly, and yet it's big for the human habitablility range..
Specially when a 'mere' 1K is done in yet less than 50 years..
When that is an actual trend the Earth's temp would raise by 4K in 200 years, or go down by that much..
This may appear far off future, and yet, it's very impacting, so yes, when I say ppm, I do mean that ppm is
the starting range for major players in the global climate change..

if this makes no sense, well, I'm sorry for seeing things my own way...

(0.02 Kelvin /293 Kelvin / year = 68 ppm delta / year...)

 

[klimatos]

Hello again

Nobody answered my primary question dose ionosphere or magnetosphere have any effect what's so ever on climate change ?

Best
B.H.

It would appear that there exists insufficient scientific evidence that could be used to support a reasoned conclusion. Not all questions have satisfying answers!

 

[klimatos]

Pretty much not a major player. The consensus (meaning virtually all of the climate scientists) is that human activity is the driver for climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Please read the article carefully before you decide, without much scientific support, something else like major changes in the sun are the major cause.

Jim,

You might want to qualify that rather bald statement ("human activity is the driver for climate change") somewhat! Most paleo-climatologists might take exception to it. There is good scientific evidence for climate change throughout the Earth's history. Global warming itself has been occurring since the last Ice Age. Man's activities have been accelerating that warming over the past two centuries or so, but they didn't cause it. The couple of degrees that the IPCC attributes to CO₂ forcing are small compared to natural warming over that same sixteen-thousand years. Man's affects are real and growing; but let's not give him all the credit!

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The consensus (meaning virtually all of the climate scientists) is that human activity is the driver for climate change.

You might want to qualify that rather bald statement ("human activity is the driver for climate change") somewhat! Most paleo-climatologists might take exception to it. There is good scientific evidence for climate change throughout the Earth's history.

Hi klimatos:

I believe that your comment regarding jim mcnamara's quote is based on a misunderstanding. Your are correct that humans had no significant influence on climate change before about 1850, but the consensus mentioned in klimatos's quote relates to what has been happening since about 1950. I came across these dates in a authoritative article I was reading recently, but unfortunately it will take me a while to find it again so I can cite it.

ADDED
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)⁵
[5] https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future missions will influence the climate system for millennia.

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)¹²
[12] https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf (pg 13)

Regards,
Buzz

 

[jim mcnamara]

I second @Buzz Bloom point of view. @klimatos if you want to express an opinion that flies in the face of a consensus among mainstream research:
vast datasets and analysis from thousands of papers
that is fine.

However. PF is not the place for that. PF is meant for established, i.e., consensus, science. Not personal theory.

Repeating the point - human activity is the THE primary driver of climate change for the recent past. Per IPCC. Not me. Not you.

 

[olivermsun]

klimatos can speak for himself, but I think you may be misreading what he said. As Buzz Bloom noted, humans are not the driver of climate change, but they are a primary driver of recent climate change. These things can both be true at the same time.

Also, consensus, is a tenuous way to "establish" science. It's really the weight of evidence that we should put our faith in, so to speak.

By the way, @BuzzBloom I am not so sure that 1850 is such a clear cutoff for natural variation vs. anthropogenic forcing. There are some plausible arguments that humans may have had a significant impact well before 1850.

 

[russ_watters]

klimatos can speak for himself, but I think you may be misreading what he said. As Buzz Bloom noted, humans are not the driver of climate change, but they are a primary driver of recent climate change. These things can both be true at the same time.

I also agree that people are reading past what @klimatos said. The latest IPCC report states that the current consensus is that humans have caused about a 1.0C rise over the average from 1850-1900:
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

But over the past 500,000 years, the Earth's climate has varied by about +-5C, and notably tending to be on the low end prior to the establishment of human civilization (in ice ages):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ate_history#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

@jim mcnamara, saying human activity is "the direct driver for climate change" needs the obvious qualifier that humans can only have caused recent climate change due to human industrial activity... which you added in your follow-up post. Pointing this out should not trigger castigation.

 

[Genava]

An important driver of the temperature of past climates is the greenhouse effect. Especially the feedback effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases on the water vapor. It doesn't mean that this is always the primary cause of any temperature change in the climate system but it is always a very important parameter that explain a lot the resulting change. A lot of people think that the Milanković parameters explain alone the rate of variations during the Pleistocene but it isn't true. To explain the rate of variation in temperature, we need to take in account the greenhouse gases variations. A variation in the Milanković parameters can trigger an increase in greenhouse gases and the full reaction continue with feedback mechanisms, therefore the greenhouse gases are an important parameter to explain the variation from an energy balance view. Same thing for albedo and ice sheet. For the current global warming, we are simply messing with an important parameter that always existed.

Edit by moderator: Links to unapproved sources removed

 

[klimatos]

I seem to have inadvertently pushed several posters’ “hot buttons”. That wasn’t my intent.

I am retired now, but when I taught undergraduate courses in the atmospheric sciences I utilized the current consensus of informed scientific opinion. However, when I taught graduate courses I encouraged my students to challenge those same scientific opinions.

Unlike Law, Science does not give expert opinion the status of evidence. It is merely opinion—no matter how prestigious the holder of that opinion might be. It is the evidence itself that counts, not the opinions based on it.

After all, science progresses through time by proving experts wrong. Every textbook, every scientific article written today contains statements that the weight of future evidence will continue to support, and it also contains statements that the weight of future evidence will show to be false. We just don’t know yet which is which. Scientific reputations will be made by the young scholars who discover the differences first.

The refusal to accept expert opinion is the very essence of science. England’s Royal Society is the oldest scientific organization on Earth (1660). The Royal Society has a Latin motto: “Nullius in Verba”. The accepted translation is: “Don’t take anyone’s word for it”. That motto still guides science today.

Having got that off my chest, let me state that I fully understand that PF has chosen to champion the consensus of current scientific opinion in its pages. This is both its right and its privilege. I just don’t see where my comment challenged that position in any meaningful way.

 

[Genava]

I just don’t see where my comment challenged that position in any meaningful way.

You said: "Man's activities have been accelerating that warming over the past two centuries or so, but they didn't cause it."

Your statement is against the current consensus.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

We just don’t know yet which is which. Scientific reputations will be made by the young scholars who discover the differences first.

From your opinion, it could make this forum a place where everybody will start to discuss and criticize polemical subjects like evolution, gravity, vaccine and of course climate change. I highly doubt that anybody here wants this.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

I am not so sure that 1850 is such a clear cutoff for natural variation vs. anthropogenic forcing. There are some plausible arguments that humans may have had a significant impact well before 1850.

Hi @olivermsun:

I would be very interested in seeing a reference that explained the scientific rationale for estimating a very much earlier date than 1850 for human activities to have exceeded natural phenomena in importance as the dominant cause of global warming. Can you cite one? Or perhaps you intended a different meaning for "significant impact" than the one that I am assuming. If you intended the meaning "measurable impact", than I would be curious about the criterion used to define "measurable".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/

The following has a chart of total atmospheric CO2 levels.
https://www.co2levels.org/

Regards,
Buzz

 

[bhobba]

Unlike Law, Science does not give expert opinion the status of evidence. It is merely opinion—no matter how prestigious the holder of that opinion might be. It is the evidence itself that counts, not the opinions based on it.

We are veering far from the original question which turned out to be about the ionosphere and magnetic core. We do not have sufficient evidence, to the best of my knowledge, to answer the question. It would seem to have some effect, but we do not know the extent. Then we started discussing a peer reviewed paper posted by me to answer the title of thread. It was by a legit scientist. Another poster pointed to another peer reviewed paper that was critical and there seemed to be a view between me and the other person we should be discussing peer reviewed papers. I thought that was and should be the end of it. You can discuss any view you like if you have a proper source supporting it. That is science.

Consensus is not a peer reviewed paper. We do not champion the consensus - we champion the scientific method which is done by the proper literature, that is peer reviewed literature, standard textbooks, lectures from reputable institutions and other sources that may be approved by mentors.

After all, science progresses through time by proving experts wrong. Every textbook, every scientific article written today contains statements that the weight of future evidence will continue to support, and it also contains statements that the weight of future evidence will show to be false. We just don’t know yet which is which. Scientific reputations will be made by the young scholars who discover the differences first.

Science progresses by the scientific method that is done mostly by peer reviewed literature these days

.That's the way Einstein did it. He only convinced a very small number at first and his papers had a number of errors, but gradually his view won out by discussing his papers.

Having got that off my chest, let me state that I fully understand that PF has chosen to champion the consensus of current scientific opinion in its pages. This is both its right and its privilege. I just don’t see where my comment challenged that position in any meaningful way.

PF champions science, not the 'consensus'. We hold no view on global warming. We point out the consensus is man made global warming is real - but if anyone has legit sources presenting another view by all means post it and we can discuss it.

Due to the political hot potato climate change is we must impose strict adherence to our rules on acceptable sources. If you want to discuss it please use peer reviewed papers etc.

The question of the OP has been answered and those that want to discuss climate change please stick to acceptable sources as per our rules and start another thread.

Consequently this thread is now shut. If anyone wants to discuss any aspect of climate change please use the proper literature as per forum rules.

Thanks
Bill