So you're an instrumentalist, a pragmatist, a non-realist?

I hate to be picky, but there is no demonstration of anything there
— unenlightened

And you are a skeptic? — spirit-salamander

You can call me whatever you like, I am not hot on -ismic identification, I am describing why I think some things are science and others are not. 'Pragmatist' would maybe be a good label for the position I am describing. But I am not a scientist, so I am not talking about myself. If we were talking about values or human society, or psychology, or God, I would be saying very different kinds of things, but if you wonder about the world heating up, you cannot beat a good thermometer.

And until we know a lot in this area, we can't say that CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily responsible for warming. Sorry, you are just wrong and blinded. — spirit-salamander

First: we do understand a great deal about the atmosphere. There’s plenty to learn still — as with all sciences, it’s a continuous journey. Unless the field is dead.

Second, we can and do say that greenhouse gasses are responsible for warming. The evidence for this is overwhelming. I have a sample of the evidence in my post above, which you ignored. That speaks volumes about your willful ignorance.

In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.
Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don’t be surprised if you get no answer!

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence?

If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that my thesis is not absurd. — spirit-salamander

Your thesis is that “since we don’t know everything about the atmosphere, there’s no absolute certainty that humans are contributing to climate change.” That’s the thesis. It is indeed absurd. It’s made because you’re willfully ignorant about the evidence (and science), and continue to demonstrate this.

Do you really think that there is absolutely rigorous methodology and precise science behind these graphs? — spirit-salamander

Which graph?

Yes, measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and measuring temperature are quite rigorous I’d say.

As a philosopher, you should admit that I may be on the right track. — spirit-salamander

I’m not a philosopher.

And you’re not on the right track. Sorry.

Today we have better climate projection models, and longer observations with a much clearer signal of climate change," said Vautard, one of the authors of an upcoming assessment by the United Nations' panel of climate experts.

"It was already clear, but it is even clearer and more indisputable today."

(From one of your sources. Just FYI. Maybe read them next time.)

Isn’t it sad how far one has to go as a climate denier? Literally to the point of arguing that because we don’t understand everything, and can’t be 100% certain, we can’t make statements about global warming.

Funny how this stupidity doesn’t get invoked unless the subject matter has been politicized — or, in the case of creationists, goes against religious belief.

Suddenly they become “skeptics” or, sadder still, argue that they know more than the thousands of people who have studied the issue their entire lives — all because they’ve spent a few minutes reading Bjorn Lomborg.

Nothing else quite exposes one’s ignorance and irrationality like this. In politics and economics there’s always some wiggle room — in science, it’s obvious.

Isn’t it sad how far one has to go as a climate denier? — Xtrix

In sadness, one is reduced to psychology.

It's a matter of identification. Just as folk will die for 'their country', so they will die for their way of life, their car, their tv dinner. In claiming that my way of life is going to destroy us all, you are attacking and insulting me and 'The American Way'. Therefore you must be part of a communist conspiracy.

But but polar bears have tripled since the 60s.

If it is so - then, why isn't there a mass pro-nuclear evangelical proselytising. It seems like the perfect kumbaya alignment for a popular progressive marriage with big energy companies - to save all of life.
A veritable blockbuster script: Humanity dodges the source of its own destruction and big capitalism saves the world.

Yet, no dice.

Instead of any practical commitment to immediately replace the dirty energy with something clean - we instead are trapped in an endless parade of pseudo -religious rituals that merely require us all to affirm our commitment to the climate creed. From the cafe to the parliament, the game is to be the most convincing, the most passionate, set the largest targets, make great proclamations...

It is heresy to just ask how these targets can be met. What technology will be used? When it might be ready? Rational questions are evidence of disbelief. It is merely cloak worn by deceitful deniers.

First: we do understand a great deal about the atmosphere. — Xtrix

But it looks more to me that we have only begun to learn about it. How is it that in 2006 an expert admitted a complete lack of knowledge? If it is so clear that Venus is without doubt a greenhouse case, how could the expert utter such a statement?

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

This does not seem to validate your point either:

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html

Only in 2019, after many years of discussions about how much the sun influences the climate, we found out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Perhaps even stronger, because we are still learning. This puts all previous discussions in a completely different context. This new discovery with a lot of room for improvement can potentially change our previous assumptions. I would say, perhaps completely change.

Surely this is no small matter? The IPCC claims that the sun has only a very minor and negligible influence on global warming. But this thesis seems to me to be potentially faltering. Perhaps CO₂ will remain the main factor as before, but perhaps only with a 60 to 40 superiority. Surely these are questions that can be asked?

You seem to be saying that we already know a lot, or almost everything. And we're just learning a lot of little details, and we're not going to finish finding all the little details. That's at least the impression I have of you. But my quotes seem to create a different impression. At least from my point of view.

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet.

Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/

Again, something scientifically major is taking place very late, long after the experts have already come to terms with the fact that the sun is not contributing much to climate change. From the point of view of the philosophy of science, I think this is problematic. After all, my point was that we don't really know about the interaction of the Earth's atmospheres yet, you denied that. But this quote confirms my point. We have only begun to learn, because how else could it still be an open question in the quote that influences might reach down to the earth's ground?

We know that the earth's atmosphere extends even beyond the moon:

Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond

And we know that the earth still lies in the atmosphere of the sun:

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not

These are amazing facts, which create a whole new picture about the solar system in our minds. This picture alone makes the idea that variations in solar influence on global climate change is insignificant somewhat dubious.

Even part of the earth's atmosphere is hotter than the surface of the sun:

the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma

And these energies are probably getting through to us:

geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193

And:

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

This is done via electromagnetism:

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232

All this is not conveyed to the layman by the media. It is also clear why. Because this picture undermines the thesis of the IPCC, that the sun has little influence on climate change.

Electromagnetism in space is only now being explored. However, it has apparently influence on planetary formations, and thus probably also on the planetary climates.

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

And:

Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

Maybe more CO₂ will make the world warmer, but may have little to do with storms and natural disasters.

Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere

During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142

The connections reach at least to the very bottom.

Climate research depends mainly on modeling. But how can the models be meaningful if many factors cannot yet be properly assessed?

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence? — Xtrix

I offer you a theoretical, speculative, but not outlandish compromise. 50 percent of global warming goes to us, as you put it, and 50 goes to electromagnetic processes triggered by the sun.

(From one of your sources. Just FYI. Maybe read them next time.) — Xtrix

I had even seen that while skimming. I was only interested in giving an impression, so I also cherrypicked, and in this one case omitted important information. But this information is weakened again by the other quotes.

this stupidity — Xtrix

If you want to insult me, please do so directly.

Bjorn Lomborg. — Xtrix

Then forget about Lomberg and co. They could all be idiots, although I don't think they give that impression.

But you will admit that many scientists were alone with their thesis at first. And later the correctness of their idea has been confirmed. This is a triviality in the history of science.

But maybe - who knows? - the German physicist Ralf D. Tscheuschner suffers from a similar situation:

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"

https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html

You can call me whatever you like, I am not hot on -ismic identification, I am describing why I think some things are science and others are not. — unenlightened

I didn't so much want to label as to inquire what your position is more precisely. If I gave the impression of merely labeling you, then I apologize. But knowledge of philosophical positions in philosophical discussions is very important, in my opinion.

but if you wonder about the world heating up, you cannot beat a good thermometer. — unenlightened

Yes, that's right. But even that is not a simple task, especially when it comes to the world's climate. Any physicist would confirm that.

For one can ascribe fundamentality exclusively to the maximally small (microphysics) or to the maximally large (cosmos) or represent an Aristotelian substance priority or just a pure instrumentalism.

These views have influence on which physical theory one comes to.

If we were talking about values or human society, or psychology, or God, I would be saying very different kinds of things, — unenlightened

The important thing is to remain logically consistent overall, otherwise there is nothing wrong with it.

Isn’t it sad how far one has to go as a climate denier? Literally to the point of arguing that because we don’t understand everything, and can’t be 100% certain, we can’t make statements about global warming.

Funny how this stupidity doesn’t get invoked unless the subject matter has been politicized — or, in the case of creationists, goes against religious belief.

Suddenly they become “skeptics” or, sadder still, argue that they know more than the thousands of people who have studied the issue their entire lives — all because they’ve spent a few minutes reading Bjorn Lomborg.

Nothing else quite exposes one’s ignorance and irrationality like this. In politics and economics there’s always some wiggle room — in science, it’s obvious. — Xtrix

Which 'climate' exactly are you suggesting is being denied?

@spirit-salamander

I'll go through some of the claims you make. I feel I'm being charitable by doing so rather than ignoring you outright. But let me say from the beginning: you don't know what you're talking about, and you're being deluded by climate denial propaganda. Wherever you got these "sources," they're either misleading, half-truths, out of context, cherry-picked, or outright lies. I'll demonstrate this below.

The climate is changing at an alarming rate. The climate "always changes," yes -- but human's contributions the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, has added trillions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere while also cutting down billions of trees. This added amount, even after the oceans absorb a lot of it, has accelerated the rate of change of the global average temperature. None of this is controversial in the scientific community, where there's nearly 100% consensus about it. We're seeing the changes all around us.

The "controversy" exists for one reason: there's a massive and powerful industry that benefits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. They have followed a similar playbook as the tobacco industry -- denial, doubt, delay. I suggest you broaden your readings and balance out the fossil fuel-funded propaganda with ANYTHING from the scientific community. If you think you've stumbled on something that challenges the consensus, or if you have questions -- GOOGLE IT. You'll find counter-arguments, rebuttals, answers, or well-needed context from climatologists. If you're not willing to do that, and only want to spread misinformation here instead, I'm not interested.

For future reference, here's a list of usual climate denial talking points and responses by scientists:

Stages of Denial:

There’s nothing happening
Inadequate evidence:
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure

Contradictory evidence:

It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling

"We don’t know why it’s happening" arguments:

There’s no consensus:

Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes

The models don’t work:

We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high

Prediction is impossible:

We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable

"Climate change is natural" arguments:

It happened before:

It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes

It’s part of a natural change:

Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA

It’s not caused by CO2:

Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid

https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/#Levels%20of%20Sophistication

You alone have already fallen into a few of these. "It's the sun," "We can't know for sure," "it's natural," etc. It's worth at least reading this site for some balance.

With that said:

But it looks more to me that we have only begun to learn about it. How is it that in 2006 an expert admitted a complete lack of knowledge? If it is so clear that Venus is without doubt a greenhouse case, how could the expert utter such a statement?

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.' — spirit-salamander

That's because the quote is out of context, like nearly everything else you cite. From the same source and the same person (Fred Taylor):

'We should not be too complacent,' added Taylor. 'As temperatures rise, seas become less and less able to hold on to carbon dioxide. Soon they will absorb less of the gas and may eventually start to give it off. That will have a very serious impact on our planet.'

Taylor is not doubting the greenhouse effect. He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. If you read the whole article, you'd see this.

There's a lot we don't know about the evolution of plants and animals -- tons, in fact. This doesn't mean we throw the fact of evolution into question.

Only in 2019, after many years of discussions about how much the sun influences the climate, we found out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Perhaps even stronger, because we are still learning. This puts all previous discussions in a completely different context. This new discovery with a lot of room for improvement can potentially change our previous assumptions. I would say, perhaps completely change. — spirit-salamander

The link you provide didn't work.

But claims about the sun being a main driver of climate change has long been argued, and is a frequent denialist talking point. It has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

The sun isn't responsible for climate change.

From NASA regarding Earth's magnetic field:

Some people have claimed that variations in Earth’s magnetic field are contributing to current global warming and can cause catastrophic climate change. However, the science doesn’t support that argument. In this blog, we’ll examine a number of proposed hypotheses regarding the effects of changes in Earth’s magnetic field on climate. We’ll also discuss physics-based reasons why changes in the magnetic field can’t impact climate.

Bottom line: There’s no evidence that Earth’s climate has been significantly impacted by the last three magnetic field excursions, nor by any excursion event within at least the last 2.8 million years.

Physical Principles
1. Insufficient Energy in Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Electromagnetic currents exist within Earth’s upper atmosphere. But the energy driving the climate system in the upper atmosphere is, on global average, a minute fraction of the energy that drives the climate system at Earth’s surface. Its magnitude is typically less than one to a few milliwatts per square meter. To put that into context, the energy budget at Earth’s surface is about 250 to 300 watts per square meter. In the long run, the energy that governs Earth’s upper atmosphere is about 100,000 times less than the amount of energy driving the climate system at Earth’s surface. There is simply not enough energy aloft to have an influence on climate down where we live.

2. Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

Ferrous means “containing or consisting of iron.” While iron in volcanic ash is transported in the atmosphere, and small quantities of iron and iron compounds generated by human activities are a source of air pollution in some urban areas, iron isn’t a significant component of Earth’s atmosphere. There’s no known physical mechanism capable of connecting weather conditions at Earth’s surface with electromagnetic currents in space.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

You seem to be saying that we already know a lot, or almost everything. — spirit-salamander

We understand a lot, yes. Not everything, and not "almost everything." In the totality of what there is to know, human beings understand a fraction of it. If you added up everything we've written and experienced and were able to download into your brain, it'd still amount to a tiny fraction.

There's always a lot we don't know, a lot that will change/be adapted, etc. Using this fact as leverage for climate denial is a common ploy. It's the same ploy used in Holocaust denial, in creationism, in 9/11 conspiracies, etc. "How can we be SURE?" "There's a lot we don't know!"

They pick on the "gaps" in knowledge, which always exist, or else fall back on skeptical epistemology. This is usually when you can tell the person has no real understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, or climatology -- and that they're acting out of religious or political motives, not a genuine curiosity or genuine skepticism about an established field.

There's no good reason any longer to doubt that we evolved. There's no good reason to doubt that humans have effected the climate.

Again, something scientifically major is taking place very late, long after the experts have already come to terms with the fact that the sun is not contributing much to climate change. From the point of view of the philosophy of science, I think this is problematic. After all, my point was that we don't really know about the interaction of the Earth's atmospheres yet, you denied that. But this quote confirms my point. We have only begun to learn, because how else could it still be an open question in the quote that influences might reach down to the earth's ground? — spirit-salamander

The article cited has a paywall, so I can't read all of it. But in any case, they're saying only that it MAY effect WEATHER. Weather is not climate. From what I found, it looks like climate change is affecting the various regions of the atmosphere, not vice versa.

This is another "god of the gaps" kind of argument. You don't understand it, neither do I. All we know is that there's an article that says we need to study it more. You choose to latch on to this and pretend like it's evidence of something relevant to climate change. It isn't. All it does is says we should study it, and there's a lot yet to learn. I've already conceded that, and have never denied it.

There's a lot we don't know. There's also a lot we do know. That's true of anything.

These are amazing facts, which create a whole new picture about the solar system in our minds. This picture alone makes the idea that variations in solar influence on global climate change is insignificant somewhat dubious. — spirit-salamander

No, it doesn't.

Think for a second. Do you really believe climatologists have ignored this possibility (namely, the influence of the sun on climate change)?

The answer is: no, they haven't. In fact they've discussed it at length, and it's a few clicks away on the internet. Because you insist of being ignorant and refusing to read anything that doesn't reinforce your denial, you clearly won't be aware of this. So, once again, I'll do it for you:

Turns out it’s more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere — after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun — versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth’s surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution — is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It’s not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

Maybe more CO₂ will make the world warmer — spirit-salamander

It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved.

Climate research depends mainly on modeling. But how can the models be meaningful if many factors cannot yet be properly assessed? — spirit-salamander

It does not depend "mainly on modeling." Another denialist talking point, I'm afraid. And the models that have existed have been remarkably accurate, despite new advances in data and technology:

Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.
Arrhenius overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.
Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence?
— Xtrix

I offer you a theoretical, speculative, but not outlandish compromise. 50 percent of global warming goes to us, as you put it, and 50 goes to electromagnetic processes triggered by the sun. — spirit-salamander

That's not what I asked. You're dodging the question -- as expected.

Try again. What would you consider satisfactory evidence?

I had even seen that while skimming. I was only interested in giving an impression, so I also cherrypicked, and in this one case omitted important information. — spirit-salamander

You have been doing this a lot, as demonstrated above. And that's only a fraction. The stuff you linked to about the atmosphere has little to no relevance to climate change, and if there is you've failed to demonstrate it.

Bjorn Lomborg.
— Xtrix

Then forget about Lomberg and co. They could all be idiots, although I don't think they give that impression. — spirit-salamander

I didn't say he was an idiot. He's not an idiot. But he's also not a climate scientist, and has been shown to be misleading with his interpretations and statistics. There's a reason the Wall Street Journal amplifies his voice on the editorial pages: it serves the fossil fuel industry very well indeed. The fact that you choose to listen to him, and other "skeptics", is telling. It's unbalanced.

I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change.

Which 'climate' exactly are you suggesting is being denied? — Yohan

Are you unfamiliar with the term "climate denial" or is this just disingenuous nonsense? If the latter, I'm not interested.

If the former, you can look it up.

Nicely put.

Are you unfamiliar with the term "climate denial" or is this just disingenuous nonsense? If the latter, I'm not interested.

If the former, you can look it up. — Xtrix

I have looked it up, and I'm not seeing any climate denial here.

I'm not seeing any climate denial here. — Yohan

Cool. I do.

Inside the mind of a sceptic: the ‘mental gymnastics’ of climate change denial

In the end, reality bites. Multi-year droughts and successive never-before-seen floods will struggle to fit a sceptic narrative of yet another “one-in-100-year event”. Even the attitudes of Australian farmers, including some of the most entrenched sceptics, are shifting.

I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change. — Xtrix

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap:

I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change.
— Xtrix

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap: — Tom Storm

Very witty, yes. Does it gain us an ally or make the opponent dig in their heels?

What exactly do you want from the exchange? The gratification of pissing on someone else? Or making your position stronger in numbers?

I don't follow climate change debates. I am simply admiring the succinct and adroit manner of @Xtrix response.

I don't follow climate change debates. — Tom Storm

Why would you?

Nicely put. — EricH

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap: — Tom Storm

succinct and adroit — Tom Storm

I appreciate the kind comments. I wasn't going to bother at first, given I've been over this a hundred times before. But I'm glad I did. It was a kind of test for me.

@Banno

Even the attitudes of Australian farmers, including some of the most entrenched sceptics, are shifting.

By the time everyone comes around, I wonder how many will have died from climate-related catastrophes?

Tens of millions -- maybe more. Sad when you think the sole reason for this is money.

I feel I'm being charitable by doing so rather than ignoring you outright. — Xtrix

Why would it ever have entered your mind to ignore me, since I was and am ready for a discussion from the very beginning, and have shown doing so? Besides, you were already involved in the discussion in Global warming discussion -All opinions welcome. Being charitable should be part of any philosophical discussion, provided it comes from both parties.

But let me say from the beginning: you don't know what you're talking about. — Xtrix

Yes, you're right, I'm ignorant about most of the detailed points on the subject. But surely that should not prevent me from forming my own opinion? I mean, it is part of human nature that opinions or intuitive judgments arise in the mind without the mind being able to fight against this arising. The mind can examine them afterwards, and discard or accept them, but it cannot prevent them from the outset. It is also undeniable that sometimes, in rare cases, an intuitive judgment directly hits the truth.

and you're being deluded by climate denial propaganda. — Xtrix

I had learned about a cosmological alternative model, according to which, as an incidental consequence, man-made climate change makes little sense. I am not saying that this alternative model is absolutely correct, but I had the impression that there might be something to this model. At the very least, it points to something that might be neglected in mainstream cosmology.

So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of.

From the point of view of philosophy of science, it is possible to include all empirical data under an alternative cosmology. Then all the details you provide as an argument would have to be interpreted differently. If this were to happen coherently, which I don't know that it could actually happen that way, then there would indeed be reason to doubt the mainstream model.

Wherever you got these "sources," they're either misleading, half-truths, out of context, cherry-picked, or outright lies. — Xtrix

It was my intention to suggest said alternative picture. I wanted to be one-sided on purpose. You will admit that in a parallel universe such a picture might be true, where the climate on planets is mainly influenced by electromagnetic forces. My quotes, I think, created such an image.

The climate "always changes," yes -- but human's contributions the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, has added trillions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere while also cutting down billions of trees. This added amount, even after the oceans absorb a lot of it, has accelerated the rate of change of the global average temperature. — Xtrix

I agree with you that this is a new, unprecedented situation for the Earth's atmosphere. And very likely, the Earth will become a greenhouse as a result.
But whether the Earth's atmosphere really functions like a built greenhouse in the lab is a question that may be asked, isn't it? And this question is ultimately at issue when an alternative explanation is offered. Because one could say that the other factors about which we do not yet have full knowledge do not occur at all in the laboratory experiment.

Since you are much more knowledgeable than I am, what do you say about these papers? Are their thesis completely ruled out? I have no way of telling. I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"

https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html — spirit-salamander

Abstract from the paper
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

As an aside, do you think it's possible that the natural climate change you admit could take a course that would effectively counteract the change we're causing?

The "controversy" exists for one reason: there's a massive and powerful industry that benefits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. — Xtrix

That may definitely be the case here and there. But on the other hand, there is also the accusation of ideological and political influence of the so-called alarmists.

Be that as it may, the proponents of the alternative cosmological model I mentioned don't give the impression that the oil industry is behind them. I would consider that highly unlikely.

I myself, for example, cannot drive a car and I would be happy if there were no more noisy, smoking cars on the streets. So I am completely unaffected by the fossil fuel car industry.

Consensus is collusion — Xtrix

Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat?

It's worth at least reading this site for some balance. — Xtrix

I will visit that sometime.

Taylor is not doubting the greenhouse effect. He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. If you read the whole article, you'd see this. — Xtrix

So it can be said that with his statement tending to exaggeration, which I quoted, Taylor is completely misleading and not at all in harmony with that which you further quoted and explained.

You say:

He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. — Xtrix

Taylor says:

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth ... It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.' — spirit-salamander

Your description seems to be correct, nevertheless, one cannot miss a contrast in the language.

In this book (The Scientific Exploration of Venus, Fredric W. Taylor · 2014 · ‎Science), Taylor states:

“the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.”

The link you provide didn't work. — Xtrix

From my country, the link works. Maybe you can google it and then come to the site.

But claims about the sun being a main driver of climate change has long been argued, and is a frequent denialist talking point. It has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. — Xtrix

Now we come to a point where you don't fully convince me.

Let's say hypothetically that the previously assumed electromagnetic force of the sun has 1% influence on global warming. Now it turns out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Then it is perhaps not improbable that the influence on earth climate is now 10% percent. And this would not be a small matter?

Bottom line: There’s no evidence that Earth’s climate has been significantly impacted by the last three magnetic field excursions,

No proof of significant impact, or no proof of impact at all? I think that is already an important difference. But they seem to be saying that there is a minimal impact that now, however, has to be thought of as possibly tenfold due to new knowledge.

Here again the title of the article.

New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

It only says indefinite affect on the earth. But why should the climate be excluded there?

You quote:

Physical Principles
1. Insufficient Energy in Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

But isn't that at odds with what I quoted?

The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

And:

Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System

Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193

And maybe:

Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity

And:

Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere

During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142

What do you say to that? You've dodged these quotes so far. Or have I taken something completely out of context?

The next find is interesting. The scientist affirms man-made climate change, and yet he says that climatologies are not aware of certain forces:

The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.

The reality of climate change is finally being acknowledged by world leaders. While of little comfort to those already subjected to disastrous weather conditions, there is optimism that efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions will lead to more stability in the world’s weather system. Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction).

This article outlines a possible scenario in which KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) brought to the earth by cosmic rays, participates in the formation of heat-reflective cloud cover by activating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This process may be rendered less effective if some of the KELEA is removed from cosmic rays by its attachment to fluctuating electrical fields that accompany the increasing electromagnetic radiations present within the earth’s atmosphere. The proposed reduction in cloud formation may potentially be remediated by devising alternative means of delivering KELEA to the atmosphere. Moreover, an understanding of KELEA can immediately lead to significant worldwide reductions in carbon emissions.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=64084

We understand a lot, yes. Not everything, and not "almost everything." In the totality of what there is to know, human beings understand a fraction of it. If you added up everything we've written and experienced and were able to download into your brain, it'd still amount to a tiny fraction. — Xtrix

You want to say that we are still going to learn a lot of things. Countless new discoveries. But implicitly, you are saying that all the new discoveries will no longer contribute significantly to our already established picture of climate change. Isn't that scientifically dubious? Cumulatively acquired new knowledge may very well change our picture meaningfully.

It's the same ploy used in Holocaust denial, in creationism, in 9/11 conspiracies, etc. "How can we be SURE?" "There's a lot we don't know!"

They pick on the "gaps" in knowledge, which always exist, or else fall back on skeptical epistemology. — Xtrix

I go with my claim strongly down, and say only that the influence of the sun can be bigger than assumed up to now. Saying that is not scandalous.

The article cited has a paywall, so I can't read all of it. But in any case, they're saying only that it MAY effect WEATHER. Weather is not climate. — Xtrix

Strange. For me it is not behind a paywall. Must be due to the country IP.

This is a trivial objection. Climate is weather only stretched over long time. If it can possibly effect weather, why not for decades, then it also effects the climate.

Think for a second. Do you really believe climatologists have ignored this possibility (namely, the influence of the sun on climate change)? — Xtrix

Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction

If they miss that, then they might miss some other things, too. Whatever that is. Even if they know about it, they can't immediately integrate it into their understanding. Keyword Thomas Kuhn. What cannot be integrated immediately is first pushed aside.

I can well imagine a climatologist answering my question about how far the earth's atmosphere reaches, that it does not go as far as the moon. You overestimate scientists. They are usually too specialized. Too fixated on what they are doing at the moment.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978

I have found this opinion:

Exactly how the sun works is not well understood. Some scientists believe the suns activity is a direct cause similar to a camp fire while other scientists believe the sun's activities are tied to electromagnetic forces that flow throughout the solar system. Some solar researchers reported in 2015 that the sun is entering into a period of very low activity which will result in global cooling around 2030-2040. If these scientists are correct decades from now we may be worrying about global cooling.

https://eu.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/10/14/my-turn-natural-causes-of-climate-change/18293386007/

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated.

My point is that the electromagnetic effect of the sun is possibly underestimated, as it is not yet sufficiently researched. So it's not about solar heating alone.and visible solar irradiance. It is mainly about electromagnetic effects that are not easily detectable. That they are explored slowly, some of my quotations have made clear.

It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved. — Xtrix

I have expressed myself badly. I meant that CO2 could only cause warming, but the storms and hurricanes may only be due to the magnetic influence of the sun.

Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander

What would you say he is right about. Or is he always wrong?

@spirit-salamander

Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

This isn't true. Here.

All should be aware that pointing to today's weather as a sign of climate change is a mistake. We're always one volcano away from a cooling event, so if the public thinks we can determine climate change from the weather, they'll be led astray.

This isn't true. — Tate

It is true. Air isn't ferrous and rarely does the magnetic field have an impact on the troposphere. If it does, it's an indirect one -- but that's fairly controversial and not much is known about it. The direct impact remains confined mainly to the ionosphere.

Solar storms and their electromagnetic interactions only impact Earth’s ionosphere, which extends from the lowest edge of the mesosphere (about 31 miles or 50 kilometers above Earth’s surface) to space, around 600 miles (965 kilometers) above the surface. They have no impact on Earth’s troposphere or lower stratosphere, where Earth’s surface weather, and subsequently its climate, originate.

Here. From NASA.

From your cited article:

Although these strands of evidence are intriguing, they remain very controversial, while there is no clear mechanism to explain the relationship between magnetic field variations and climate variability.

It is true. Air isn't ferrous and rarely does the magnetic field have an impact on the troposphere. If it does, it's an indirect one -- but that's fairly controversial and not much is known about it. — Xtrix

We know that variability in the electromagnetic field affects the whole atmosphere. It has an impact on weather, so the statement you posted,

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

is just wrong. It does affect the weather.

Although these strands of evidence are intriguing, they remain very controversial, while there is no clear mechanism to explain the relationship between magnetic field variations and climate variability.

So we know there's a relationship. We don't know the mechanism. This has been echoed in other articles.

It has an impact on weather, so the statement you posted,

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

is just wrong. It does affect the weather. — Tate

Again, that’s fairly controversial. But if it does, it’s indirect. In any case— take it up with NASA. The statement was theirs, not mine. But I’ll go with NASA over you and one article.

The jury is still out, but the verdict is likely to be that there is no causal link between Earth’s magnetic field and our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25433882-200-does-earths-magnetic-field-affect-the-weather/

But if it does, it’s indirect — Xtrix

It sounds like you have a theory about the mechanism. Since holes open up in the field during a shift, we'd get a little more radiation than we normally get. Is that how you explain the historic correlation?

take it up with NASA. The statement was theirs, not mine. — Xtrix

Yes. I'm familiar with the source of that statement. That the atmosphere isn't ferrous is true. Unfortunately, the rest of the statement conflicts with high quality research.

But I’ll go with NASA over you and one article. — Xtrix

Yes. We're on the same side here. Neither of us wins anything for being right about whether a shift in the electromagnetic field would do much to the weather.

Yes, you're right, I'm ignorant about most of the detailed points on the subject. But surely that should not prevent me from forming my own opinion? — spirit-salamander

An opinion shaped by sources like Lomborg and Alex Epstein and Koonin. All variations of climate denial.

So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of. — spirit-salamander

No it’s precisely the kind I’m thinking about. “It’s mostly natural” is a very common line of denial. You happen to like the one about the sun. Others say clouds. Still others say volcanoes. It’s all the same to me: nonsense.

But whether the Earth's atmosphere really functions like a built greenhouse in the lab is a question that may be asked, isn't it? — spirit-salamander

Do me a favor and take CO2, fill a class container with it, and fill the other with ambient air. Put both under a heat lamp and see which one is warmer (and for longer).

It’s really that simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s not opinion, it’s physics.

I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much. — spirit-salamander

That’s because you’re ignorant. You’re ignorant regarding the overwhelming evidence for global warming and the impact of humans on it. This is why there’s a consensus to begin with. There’s consensus about evolution, too — but it’s not necessarily the consensus we’re exclusively interested in — although that matters — it’s the evidence. If you’re ignorant about the evidence, then you really shouldn’t just engage in armchair speculation about it.

Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat? — spirit-salamander

The problem is that they aren’t alarmist enough.

You never answered my question about what evidence you would consider satisfactory.

I’ll skip the rest.

We might eventually set up mines on the moon for He-3, a potential fuel source for fusion power. Here

Very sci fi.