Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#21

Post by YarickR2 »

itcrowd wrote: post #16
darawk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is disputing that point. If you want to knock it down, you should be debunking the argument that it makes.

I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure? > Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure…

At this point I'm not sure you're not a troll ; or do you hope noone will actually click your links and check facts stated there ? I will quote here: 'The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.' I'm not sure how this correlates with your 'Hansen has been extremely accurate' claim, but you're clearly not helping with your references

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#23

Post by cwkoss »

itcrowd wrote: post #8
lliamander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. From the book desription[1]: > For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could b…

That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-revi…

Could farmers in cold climate pump CO2 into a greenhouse, raising it to ~1000ppm, to meaningfully reduce the need to heat during the winter? Is the heat trapping effect of CO2 measurable at building scale?

Would double paned windows containing pure CO2 between the panes function as measurably better insulators?

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#24

Post by eesmith »

cwkoss wrote: post #23
itcrowd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-revi…

Could farmers in cold climate pump CO2 into a greenhouse, raising it to ~1000ppm, to meaningfully reduce the need to heat during the winter? Is the heat trapping effect of CO2 measurable at building scale? Would double paned windows containing pure CO2 between the panes function as measurably better insulators?

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect points out:

> The term "greenhouse effect" continues to see use in scientific circles and the media despite being a slight misnomer, as an atmosphere reduces radiative heat loss[8] while a greenhouse blocks convective heat loss.

A simplified model is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model . A quick look suggests ε - the emissivity of the atmosphere - is the key parameter answering your question. The Δε must be high enough to affect the calculation. Simply filling a greenhouse with CO2 isn't enough to get there. (Plus, greenhouses aren't primarily cooled by radiative heat loss.)

FWIW, CO2 was used in double paned windows, going back to at least the 1930s. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1f/67/5c/7a7917d... says:

> Carbon dioxide is found to give good results and, as compared with air, materially increases the effectiveness of the article as a heat insulator.

However, as https://www.rbaofqc.com/windows/argon-as-gas-fill-for-double... points out, under "Early Gas Fills":

> Air as a fill wasn't effective in providing insulation, so some manufacturers started looking for alternatives. The 1970s saw the use of carbon dioxide and Freon. Although they helped increase the insulation value of windows, they were proven to be sensitive to seal failure and cause discoloration.

Argon and krypton are more effective than CO2, but they are not greenhouse gasses because convective heat loss is different from radiative heat loss.

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#25

Post by yongjik »

YarickR2 wrote: post #21
itcrowd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure? > Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure…

At this point I'm not sure you're not a troll ; or do you hope noone will actually click your links and check facts stated there ? I will quote here: 'The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4…

Okay, you made me actually click through the link, and I can find:

> As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ...

Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#26

Post by [deleted] »

YarickR2 wrote: post #14
itcrowd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major drivers of climate change are known. Pretending the "science isn't settled" is sticking your head in the sand. Solar irradiance, CO2 and water vapor are important, but some are more important than others. Educate yourself. Here's a link: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ edit: I meant the "science isn't settled" above edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too…

My God, literally the link you provided states "Solar radiation is a primary driver of climate", and "Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth".

[deleted]

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#27

Post by yokaze »

darawk wrote: post #10
itcrowd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major drivers of climate change are known. Pretending the "science isn't settled" is sticking your head in the sand. Solar irradiance, CO2 and water vapor are important, but some are more important than others. Educate yourself. Here's a link: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ edit: I meant the "science isn't settled" above edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too…

> All the drivers of climate change are known. That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know all the drivers of it.

Knowing everything is religion. There amount of details you know gives you accuracy.

We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that apples don't fall from the tree.

Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too low for the last decade.

Do we know everything? No, but that's hardly an argument to suggest the apple will fall up the tree.

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#28

Post by cwkoss »

eesmith wrote: post #24
cwkoss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could farmers in cold climate pump CO2 into a greenhouse, raising it to ~1000ppm, to meaningfully reduce the need to heat during the winter? Is the heat trapping effect of CO2 measurable at building scale? Would double paned windows containing pure CO2 between the panes function as measurably better insulators?

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect points out: > The term "greenhouse effect" continues to see use in scientific circles and the media despite being a slight misnomer, as an atmosphere reduces radiative heat loss[8] while a greenhouse blocks convective heat loss. A simplified model is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model . A quick look suggests ε - the emissivity of the atmosphe…

Awesome answer, thank you!

Re: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

#29

Post by darawk »

yokaze wrote: post #27
darawk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the drivers of climate change are known. That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know all the drivers of it.

Knowing everything is religion. There amount of details you know gives you accuracy. We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that apples don't fall from the tree. Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too l…

I'm not arguing that climate science is incorrect, just that the commenter I was responding to was making a bad argument.
Post reply on HN