He has not admitted using the app, regardless how you would like to spin his words, and he has denied it (either in this thread or in e-mails–I am not going back to find the denials).
In any event, it really is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to change the discussion topic from that of the OP to where any given poster finds information is nothing more than an ad hominem hijack. If the information is erroneous, dispute the information. If the argument is poorly presented or off-topic, challenge it. Do not derail the thread by playing guessing games about the source of a post.
[ /Moderating ]
BTW RaftPeople, The take home lesson is that I used even a science magazine to report how a team of scientists debunked Shaviv, FX has found a way to not deal with that. This is why his explosion was done, to distract to the fact that he has no good reply to that debunking done by scientists.
Ok, that’s fine I will follow your instructions.
Having said that:
This: “regardless how you would like to spin his words” - is an emotional response.
I’m not spinning anything. If he isn’t using it I already stated then no problem. If he is using it then it absolutely is a problem. And he appeared to admit it.
The reason why it’s a problem is that it’s not truly a response to the post, it doesn’t really address the ideas within the post, it’s just tangentially related. This is why I believed he was using it, because his responses frequently miss the point of the post, they don’t actually address it.
And that is a huge problem in a debate if it’s due to the use of program.
The point wasn’t about Shaviv, it was about whether you use an app in general to find responses.
Shaviv is the point, don’t stall.
It is not an emotional response. It is a specific description of the way that you chose to infer that GIGO was using an app when he not said that he was doing so.
If you have any more issues with this point, take it to ATMB and stop hijacking this thread.
GIGO, that goes for you, as well.
Stick to addressing the OP.
[ /Moderating ]
Cosmic rays effect climate … an experiment is being built to test this hypothesis. If we increase cloud cover, our albedo would increase which puts downward pressure on temperatures. I look forward to seeing CERN’s results. We know temperatures have fallen in the past, perhaps the keys to understanding this current very short term trend can be found by understand how nature removes CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere.
Ok, moving on, and dealing with what the OP claimed:
Well, besides not quoting published science that only shows the opinion of Shaviv and a denier like Inhofe posted it on his site.
The trouble remains that Shaviv is still wrong. As the Eos team showed.
As the CERN people reported, there is not much there on the cosmic rays.
OK now that is funny. Really really funny.
As usual, that only works by ignoring what NASA and GISS reported, the warming is still there, other reasons are there for the “pause” (not cooling) observed in the surface temperatures. The oceans (that last I checked are part of the earth) are warming still. The sun is not the main driver of the current warming now.
And regardless of what Shaviv thinks, he is not convincing other scientists that he is correct. He is only convincing deniers like senator Inhofe.
The global mean is -.14 C
Even a longer trend shows the cooling.
It’s why the solar influence may be a factor.
Solar influence meaning “it’s gotten cold as fuck in the NH winter”.
As even the research you quoted early showed, that only happens in some regions, the warming continues to increase decade by decade, as NASA continues to report. Your cherry picks are now reduced to winter and ignore all the rest of the seasons.
As CERN reported and the team of scientists from EOS reported, your sources are wrong, and you continue to abuse the good data.
You seem to be confused on several different levels. What you quote is first of all a definition of the overall forcing process, not of an individual forcing agent. If you scroll a little further down, you’ll see the IPCC definition of a forcing agent or factor (“Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism.”
You will also see in the radiative forcings chart (and a little further down, in "changes in radiative forcings between 1979 and 2012) that water vapor is nowhere to be found*. Why do you suppose that is?
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Due to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly proportional to temperature, so water vapor is incapable of acting as an independent forcing variable. But it’s OK, FX didn’t understand that either and even doubled down on it and added a further amusing rant over here. Why is it always denialists who don’t understand science?
The difference between a feedback and a forcing is really really basic science. Frankly I don’t blame MrDibble for getting a little impatient and questioning the scientific qualifications of some to discuss this topic at all.
- The IPCC chart actually has a very small component called “stratospheric water vapor” which is a uniquely special case.
As someone already said, this is neither new nor particularly significant in terms of magnitude of potential effects. The CERN CLOUD experiment is only the bare beginning of a better understanding of ionization-induced nucleation. At this point it’s far from clear whether cosmic rays have any influence on climate at all, let alone whether they can trigger cloud formation significant enough to incorporate into climate models – a fact which is clearly stated in CERN’s own research summary. Moreover, the well established physics of GHG’s and observations of past climate changes confirm beyond any doubt that GHG’s are always the primary drivers of sustained globally sychronous warming, which is consistent with a plethora of other studies setting low maxima on the extent to which solar variability can affect climate.
Mainstream scientists like Peirs Forster (one of the lead authors in the IPCC AR4) were already studying the potential effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation, and were very interested in these results while remaining appropriately skeptical about what importance, if any, such results might hold until much, much more evidence is obtained. It was funny when the CERN paper first came out, purveyors of junk science and some of the media were loudly declaring that this had revolutionized climate science, a declaration that they tend to make roughly every couple of months every time another new study comes out that the purveyors exaggerate out of all reason and the media just doesn’t understand.
And after I use the annual global mean, -.01 C, the goal post will not only be moved, they will be “completely changed” to, “the ocean is warming still, we just can’t measure it”.
So, the actual data doesn’t matter. Not to the person who has already made up their mind.
Piffle, you are still using surface temperature data, a short period and we have enough measurements of the warming of the ocean. And still ignoring what the scientists at NASA and GISS are telling us.
Nu-uh. Not going to play this fucking game with you again.
You clearly know nothing about the science, you refuse to be educated about the topic, at this point it begins to seem like more than just ignorance on your part, since I addressed the very questions you’re repeating here, in that linked thread. Seems like I should just refer you to that thread from here on in, I said all I need to about your debate tactics there, and I can’t say anything pertinent in GD.