It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones
Actually I didn't question your credibility but I did say you can damage it by not reading something before you post it.
the link where you question my cred makes a good point in the comments section:
What other reasons?
with all the reasons scientists are using to justify the climate change in othe planets...
No, it's A: Because other factors are considered and there is quite a lot of evidence that human activity is the greatest factor involved.
There are no scientists in the world who can produce such observational data. There is only effect the other way, namely that ocean temperatures control average CO2 levels
t's that it's been accelerated and influenced by the things we do
I hope you take the time to read what the "leaked" document actually says instead of just reading an out of context paragraph.
I hope you take time to read that, and all of the links included. Its far to in depth to put into one
post, and deserves a thread of its own.
The role of GCRs was studied and found to not be a significant factor in warming.
Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.
This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing. [Emphasis in original.]
Then maybe you can direct me to where it is indicated that there is evidence that GCRs have a significant effect on warming. Which reference in the document shows this? They look at the evidence and find it lacking. That's the point.
I read the whole thing.
He seems to be claiming that there is evidence of negative forcing, that there is cooling occurring. Though that's a sort of weird way to express it and I'm not sure that's really what he means to say.
substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance
What this is actually talking about, is a fringe theory that cosmic rays have an important influence on the climate. What neither Mr Rawls, Watts Up With That or the climate sceptic blogger James Delingpole did, was to point out that the paragraphs on the chapter which follow the one which Rawls quotes, go on to explain why these theories were not robust.
Professor Steve Sherwood, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is a lead author on Chapter 7. Commenting on the publicly-quoted paragraph about cosmic rays (the one cited by Delingpole as a "game changer) Professor Sherwood told me:
The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers (note the crucial word "seems") purporting significant cosmic-ray influences on climate. Its existence in the draft is proof that we considered all peer-reviewed literature, including potentially important papers that deviate from the herd. The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect. The absence of evidence for significant cosmic-ray effects is clearly stated in the executive summary. This guy's spin is truly bizarre. Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a "game changer" is obviously not really looking at what is there.
Originally posted by Phage
He seems to be claiming that there is evidence of negative forcing, that there is cooling occurring. Though that's a sort of weird way to express it and I'm not sure that's really what he means to say
Enhanced by GCRs? No. It is not. It says that evidence shows an insignificant effect of GCRs on forcing.
Its an admission of enhanced solar forcing
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
Originally posted by Phage
Then maybe you can direct me to where it is indicated that there is evidence that GCRs have a significant effect on warming. Which reference in the document shows this?
Why are so many false myths about science circulated? What is the agenda of those who continue to maintain that the world is warming at catastrophic levels?
Fred Singer: There are many false myths about science that circulate − usually based on insufficient expertise. I have been one of those who attacks smoking as a member of an anti-smoking organization. Cigarette smoking is definitely unhealthy. There are those who warn of catastrophic events from future warming; their aim appears to be to scare the population. I suspect that many are motivated by monetary considerations.
Daily Bell: Are islands drowning?
Fred Singer: As far as I am aware, islands are not drowning.
Daily Bell: Why have you fought this fight? You've been smeared, derided and even slandered. Has it been worth it? Will the forces of climate change win out?
Fred Singer: I think it is worth fighting for sound science even if one is smeared and slandered. My belief is the global warming scare will be over in the matter of a decade or so.
Ok, yes see my post above this one, I included the Second Order Draft (leak)
As a skeptic I have read it and I think hat cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions.