Get used to it.

No, you're just blocking discussion by cutting and pasting articles. I'm not disputing the articles so you're not refuting anything. You clearly have no interest in what actually drives climate change.

Again, I'm happy to go through the details of any of these articles. Pick one and we'll go through it.

 

Bring up a publication, one that we can read together and I'll go through it with you.

 

Peer reviewed journal publications are certainly "beyond blogospheres and personal publications," so it seems to me you're the one who has no interest in the question.
Thanks, but I need no help to understand the papers.
I'm comfortable with my understanding of "what actually drives climate change."

 

No no, I won't be trying to teaching you anything. I'll be very well behaved, I promise.

We'll just chat about it together and go through the method and statistical analysis, the discussion, some of the background literature in the introduction. We can also talk about the history of the journals their publication company(s) and the journal's peer weighting. We can even talk about some of the politics that surrounds some of the authors, including those refute it. I.e both sides.

To add full breadth to the conversation we would naturally discuss the context within which the theories fit. Are there any other theories that support or refute the data and/or the inferences made by the authors. I.e. how does the article inform the science of climate change? I think it would be an extremely interesting process for both of us.

 

There’s a point when people who claim they follow the science surrounding climate change can still manage to sound dogmatic.
I think carbon is most likely the cause of climate change, but I don’t act like it’s set in stone, because that is the farthest you can get from the scientific method, which is the foundation of science.

There’s no room for debate, that’s blasphemy!!!!
Any scientist who disagrees with climate change consensus is a heretic, burn him/her at the stake!!!!!!!!

 

Put your scientific credentials on the table. How many times has your work been published, and peer-reviewed?

He’s JUST a Physicist, and nothing more!!
Take a step back, and look at what you’re saying.

 

This is because we DO "do something". Do you WANT to see rivers boiling or what?

The 'deadline' just means we will get to the point where it will be very difficult to reverse or even mitigate a little the changes that are coming..

 

And your degree in climatology is from.....

 

“The scientists’ comments below explain that besides this cosmic ray hypothesis, the solar radiative forcing fluctuations are also insufficient to explain climate changes over the past decades—in contrast to the radiative forcing due to the increased greenhouse gases released by human activities, which matches the magnitude of the observed warming.”

Pierce and Adams (2009) Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?, Geophysical Research Letters

Based on the results of these simulations, we conclude that – barring any strong biases due to model uncertainties – the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism is too weak to explain putative correlations between cloud cover and the solar cycle. This does not rule out the potential legitimacy of the connection between cosmic rays and clouds by other physical mechanisms. Further work needs to be done with detailed cloud models to determine the strength of other potential mechanisms.

 

more non specifics. What a surprise

 

He's a physicist, not a climate change scientist

I have enough publications to know how to critically review a paper and enough to be qualified to comment amongst my peers on PF. Need a necessary to be able to understand how scientific discourse works.

 

The indigenous people to our continent (the darlings of the American left) even they knew how to manage forests with fire!

 

*Publications are not necessary (just a correction, I was dictating to my phone)

That's also my take from reading the Shaviv and Svensmark papers that Jack Hayes puts forward. (My emphasis in bold). Of course, on their blog they sing a different tune.

 

Three Mile Island was clean, safe nuclear power?

Chernobyl was clean, safe nuclear power?

Fukushima was clean, safe nuclear power?

250,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel is clean, safe nuclear power?

It will take THOUSANDS of YEARS for that nuclear WASTE to become "safe".

Is that what YOU have "consistently advocated" for?

 

i have actually heard similar arguments. it is more likely that alien invaders prefer a warmer planet with higher atmospheric co2 and have promised the oil companies that they can provide the invaders with a food supply.

"to serve man" alien best selling book

 

Don't forget about cow farts.

 

The view I find persuasive is that of Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

 

That's 2009. Long since superseded by subsequent research, especially:
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into ... - Nature
https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article

by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 66 — Clouds are a fundamental part of the terrestrial energy budget, ... chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig.

 

No, I did not miss your reference. The question is, "can you point to any observable effect from climate change other than a small seemingly increase in global temperature?" Observable does not cover conjecture, predictions, or opinions.

 

Let's take the most important first.
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into ... - Nature
https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article

by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 66 — Clouds are a fundamental part of the terrestrial energy budget, ... chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig.

 

Reviewed by his peers who are physicists?

 

Reviewed by the reviewers selected by the climate science journals in which they were published.

 

You do realize these are things you can look up for yourself, right?

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

Sounds like a fun bunch. Never the less, his theory is not accepted as credible by the vast majority of actual climate scientists.

 

As Albert Einstein noted, one is all it takes.