Communicating the consensus on climate change

Communicating the consensus on climate change
The PLOS Responding to Climate Change Collection, updated for ESA 100.

Consider a medical analogy… If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away.

Climate Change is happening, is real, our planet is changing irrevocably, and it is almost entirely our fault. This is not an or a ; this is scientific fact, agreed upon by approximately 97 % of climate scientists. If you don't believe me, then look at this study, or this one, or even this one.

But then there's this equally unavoidable fact. According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, in 2014, only 44% of Americans said they thought global warming is both happening and human caused. Without the public accepting the seriousness of and their own culpability in causing it, they are far less likely to want to accept climate change mitigation policies, such as the recent Obama Clean Power Plan.

So why is there such a big gap between what scientists say and what the rest of the population think? Two 2015 papers from the PLOS research collection "Responding to Climate Change," discuss this disconnect, and present some straightforward, yet effective solutions.

In "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence", Dr van der Linden and his colleagues find that an increased public perception in the consensus of climate scientists acts as a gateway, leading to an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. These changes in belief were then found to lead to an increase in support for public action. In other words, the more that the general public believe that scientists agree that climate change is a real, human-caused problem, the more they believe in it, and the more that they are willing to accept policies that combat it.

Communicating the consensus on climate change

The problem however, is that the general public still don't appear to believe that there is , with only 12% of Americans correctly estimating scientific agreement as 90 % or higher. Part of the reason for this public misunderstanding is the strategic spread of misinformation by the organised opponents of climate change. This very vocal minority works hard to give the impression that there is not a consensus, which can therefore ultimately have a very damming effect on the uptake of climate policy by the general populous. This spread of information, combined with a "false balance" in news coverage (in which journalists have traditionally followed a pattern of finding representatives on either side of the debate), gives the impression that there is far less scientific consensus than there is in reality. However, as the study concludes:

"Repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a strategy that is likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public."

In "Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments," Dr Teresa Myers and colleagues discuss the effectiveness of different approaches to communicating the consensus of climate scientists. They conduct two large-scale studies in which they find that simple, clear messages can be used to improve the general public's perception of the scientific consensus.

One of the key findings of the study was that members of the general public were more likely to correctly estimate scientific agreement when presented with quantitative rather than qualitative statements, for example "97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening" was found to be more effective than "An overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening", both in terms of what the participants estimated the scientific agreement to be, and their confidence in that estimation. The other major finding of the study was that these estimations were found to be higher if an "estimation and reveal" technique (in which the participants were first asked to guess what they thought the consensus was, before being shown a statement outlining the consensus, and then being asked to guess again) was used.

What works to change minds?

Whilst the findings of the study are encouraging, and offer practical advice to climate scientists wishing to communicate the consensus of their opinions (i.e. use numerical descriptions of scientific agreement, and try to incorporate the "estimation and reveal" method), it is still somewhat surprising that even the most effective messages still only led to a public perception of 89% scientific consensus, i.e. 8% lower than the true value of 97%. However, as the authors themselves note:

"It is unlikely that a single exposure to a scientific agreement message will result in complete belief updating; however, … simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted sources is an effective framework for public communication."

Both of these studies also clearly demonstrate that these methods are effective independent of political ideologies. However, as they also demonstrate, the acceptance of any climate change mitigation policies can only be brought about by effectively communicating the true scientific consensus on climate change.

As climate scientists, one of the most important steps that we can take is in accurately portraying our unanimity on the subject, and making sure that it is heard above the sometimes deafening dim of the climate sceptics and their strategic spread of misinformation.


Explore further

The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs

More information: Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0120985. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120985

"Climate Change in the American Mind." environment.yale.edu/climate-c … -Mind-April-2014.pdf

Journal information: PLoS ONE

This story is republished courtesy of PLOS Blogs: blogs.plos.org.

Citation: Communicating the consensus on climate change (2015, August 10) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-consensus-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
71 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 10, 2015
Re: "Dr van der Linden and his colleagues find that an increased public perception in the consensus of climate scientists acts as a gateway, leading to an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and that it is a problem that needs to be addressed."

There is an inherent irony in the papers on this subject: In order to get people to believe in manmade climate change, scientists must convince the public to stop trying to engage the subject on their own, and instead just place FAITH in scientific consensus.

This is science for the sake of belief, which contrasts with science as a tool for thinking. It's THINKING WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK rather than THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST (in the manner of a scientist).

Joseph Novak, the creator of concept maps, positioned this philosophical debate as that between positivism and constructivism.

Aug 10, 2015
Also, on this ...

Re: "Consider a medical analogy… If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away."

You'd do something about it because there is little controversy over what a dangerous mole looks like.

That is not at all like the situation of climate change, nor any other scientific controversy where many billions of dollars are at stake, and this article actually exemplifies the problem of these advocacy pieces on physorg:

Physorg and the universities are extending a very long academic tradition of dismissing the legitimacy of scientific controversies. This will seem like a good idea up until somebody creates a proper interface to scientific controversies, and nobody will look to physorg as an expert on controversial subjects anymore.

Aug 10, 2015
It is difficult to debate an issue which has been politicized. The purveyors of Filthy Fuels have emotionally tied clean air and water to Communism or some other SCARY thing.

These folk are suckers for emotional manipulation, even getting scared when two draft-dodgers hiding in their Undisclosed Locations started screaming "WMD!", and "Bring 'em on!".

You cannot discuss things rationally with folk like that.

Aug 10, 2015
I would disagree that scientific controversies are inherently difficult to debate. The problem is that academia has not informed the public of both sides to the debate, and this has led to distrust. Fact of the matter is that academics are loathe to talk about the models themselves, because of all of the parameterizations (jargon for guessing), the intractability of modeling natural processes like clouds, the failure of the models to speak to anything at all other than CO2's potential effect, the failure of GCM's and CCM's to address the polar stratospheric winds, the failure to include any heating from solar plasma (which TSI does not capture, and which cannot be captured by 200 x 200 mile cells or 20-30 minute timesteps), the failure to accurately model the Hadley cells, etc.

When a person actually learns how the models work, the arguments that we can actually predict the future with these models becomes harder to believe. This is why these advocates talk about everything but.

Aug 10, 2015
Any scientist that would even suggest that consensus is reason or grounds for anything is a FRAUD!
We invented science so we wouldn't have to rely on opinion and consensus. The very fact that they are touting consensus, the antithesis of science, means that their theories are bogus and they have no clue but the gullible public should just do what ever they say, just because they say so. Apparently these scientists think they are Popes.

Aug 10, 2015
rodkeh, I would tend to agree with your statement. The public has been left with an impression that the consensus can be blindly trusted. But, of course every scientist already understands that EVERY theory in science, by definition, is initially pitted against scientific consensus.

And that approach quite nearly wiped out Western civilization as we know it, because in the lead-up to WWII, the overwhelming scientific consensus was that space-borne rockets were just completely absurd. That consensus was believed pretty much right up to the point that rockets started raining down on London.

That story, by itself, should be enough to remind people of the danger of what the IPCC is trying to do here with its overwhelming marketing efforts -- for this conversation is funded at the cost of others. And those who advocate for this risk do not know what those other risks they are trying so hard to ignore actually are.

Aug 10, 2015
rodkeh, please grow up. There is no such thing as Absolute Proof, . . until you are looking at consequences.

We have most of the professionals in their field telling us about this, and have data to back it up. On the other side, we have those who react because of political prejudice, the issue having been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels to save themselves and their profits.

Aug 10, 2015
it's important to distinguish between the ideal of science (accepting things based on observations), and the reality of science (multiple explanations may exist for any given observation; humans are not fundamentally rational beings)

Consensus is an important *tool* in *finding* the best scientific explanation for an observation. Consensus is not, itself, proof, but a means of finding enough observations that support one main "story" rather than requiring multiple "stories" for each separate observation or smaller group of observations.

Aug 10, 2015
shavera, you have no idea of what science is about! gkam, I hope you are one day able to overcome your reading disability.
Hannes, you are so right! No one it seems, ever learns from history. The consensus on just about everything, is eventually proved wrong, usually by scientific data and fact. The reason that consensus fails so often is because consensus is based on opinion, not fact!
Consensus is useless and meaningless, beyond being a piece of useless trivia.
In anything to do with science, consensus should be held with contempt. Anything else is unscientific.

Aug 10, 2015
What a sad, sad article.

This article has absolutely no meat. "It is because we say it is".

Science by populism, in a world of liberal media that feeds misinformation to the uneducated masses. If someone is going to go by the populist argument, they may already be lost.

This crap doesn't even warrant the time it takes to dredge up the data proving falsified theories and proof of earthly cycles.

Participating in this thread will be like wrestling with a pig. You get muddy, and the pig likes it.

Aug 10, 2015
If Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren said that your stomach ulcer was caused by bacteria (h. pylori) and could be cured with an antibiotic while the consensus of other doctors was that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods, who would you believe?

The two named doctors are Nobel Laureates because they are right.

Aug 10, 2015
Surprising things might be discovered if you have engineering science skill and don't start with an agenda.

Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveile...spot.com (new update with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), results in a near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).

Aug 10, 2015
If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it


The problem is that none of those doctors actually offer you any treatment or perscription of medicine. They just offer you increasingly pessimistic predictions about how short your life will be.

So, alarmed by the doctors' prognosis, you go to the local witch doctor who is even more hysterical about the ailment and offers you leeches, mercury and self-flagellation, and when you question his methods he calls you a denier and a fool.

Aug 10, 2015
Re: "We have most of the professionals in their field telling us about this, and have data to back it up. On the other side, we have those who react because of political prejudice, the issue having been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels to save themselves and their profits."

That's what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls a "believable narrative" -- the technical term being "associative coherence." Believable narratives are enormously powerful because they speak to our systems for subconscious pattern-matching -- the same system we all have, because it keeps us alive.

Kahneman specifically advises against using this system to engage complex subjects like scientific controversies.

See https://plus.goog...tWErjFBW

The reason being is that the real world is of course usually more complex than simple patterns.

Aug 10, 2015
One of the issues I've encountered in discussions regarding AGW here and on other sites, is that the two sides of the coin operate from the presumption that to acknowledge a point from the other is to lose the entire argument. I've had many rational people avoid discussing the numerous uncertainties surrounding modelling... everything from choosing values for unknowns to acknowledging the fact that there are an incredible number of variables for which we make NO attempt to account because we don't know they exist. They believe that to acknowledge this very rational point is to accept that we shouldn't take action as a society to curb our energy consumption. I believe nothing of the sort. I think it's crucial for the survival of the species that we learn to make do with less. We just don't need pseudo-scientsista suggesting that curbing CO2 emissions is going to somehow preserve/create "favorable" climate conditions. We don't have control of it and hopefully never will.

Aug 10, 2015
Re: "everything from choosing values for unknowns to acknowledging the fact that there are an incredible number of variables for which we make NO attempt to account because we don't know they exist."

But, I think you're under-stating the degree of parameterization here. If scientists were being honest with the sheer amount of guessing that is happening with the GCM's, they would admit that it is up around 80% of the surface and 90% of the atmosphere.

Re: "They believe that to acknowledge this very rational point is to accept that we shouldn't take action as a society to curb our energy consumption."

Well, yes, because there are excellent arguments that the Sun's energy input to the Earth is not fully captured by TSI -- which is what these GCM's assume. The solar physicists have complained from the beginning that there is likely also energy in the solar wind which is being dumped into the Earth's atmosphere THROUGH THE POLES.

Aug 10, 2015
Quote from Manic Sun: Weather Theories Confounded ...

"The solar physicists cared just as much as the official climatologists, about keeping the world safe for their grandchildren. They said it was rash to suppose that every possible variation in the Sun's output of light had been seen by the satellites in the course of a single solar cycle. The solar-terrestrial physicists, for their part, pleaded for consideration of other ways in which the Sun might affect the Earth via the solar wind -- auroras, that sort of thing. They were awfully vague, though, about how it could happen."

Note the confusion even with this author that the solar wind is a form of "light." It's a plasma -- a word which most AGW advocates have yet to actually learn, even though we've known since 1958 that it's the universe's preferred state for matter.

Aug 10, 2015
I agree with everybody.

This is why you all got PhDs in climatology and have now spent 20 years in the field and so are qualifiied to put your google search of crap denier blogs over the experts who've actually devoted their lives to studying this stuff.

I can't wait to see the extensive counter evidence you've all published in peer-reviewed journals over an illustrious career of "working this stuff out for yourself". I assume you also don't go to doctors, dentists, hospitals, mechanics, or take commercial flights but get qualifications in all those things as well. And build the cars and planes too. What polymaths. And you still have time to write really really dumb comments on website articles too. I don't know how you all do it.

Bravo. Really.

Aug 10, 2015
Re: "This is why you all got PhDs in climatology and have now spent 20 years in the field and so are qualifiied to put your google search of crap denier blogs over the experts who've actually devoted their lives to studying this stuff."

Can you explain to me why anybody would even expect a climate scientist to take into account the heating that occurs from electrical currents over the solar wind into the poles, given that they have never been trained in electrodynamics or plasma physics?

This is why NASA is creating new climate models right now through Professor -- and plasma physicist -- Yue Deng with the University of Texas. They've already given her $1 million to take into account the electric currents which flow into the poles.

For more information, see press releases at:

http://www.uta.ed...rant.php
http://www.uta.ed...rant.php

Aug 10, 2015
A very important UCLA announcement spills the beans on the failure of the TSI to take into account this solar wind energy input.

See http://newsroom.u...n-101025

---

UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

---

cont'd

Aug 10, 2015
cont'd ...

The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun's magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.

Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere.

[...]

The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.

"We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise,"

[...]

Aug 10, 2015
What the climate scientists do not understand is that there has been a debate over how to model cosmic plasmas for more than half a century now between The Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. Hannes Alfven was in 1970 given the Nobel for his creation of the cosmic plasma models (MHD), which are used by astrophysicists to this day. What is not taught to graduate students -- neither physicists nor climate scientists -- is that Alfven used the occasion of his Nobel acceptance speech to distance himself from the way in which the universe's most common state of matter (plasma) was being modeled.

Climate scientists accept the conclusions of astrophysicists without ever realizing that there was a debate on this subject. This controversial belief that energy cannot be electrically transferred over the solar wind is what has led climate scientists to believe that the TSI fully captures the Earth's energy input.

It does not.

Aug 10, 2015
For a full review of original source documents related to this debate, see

https://social-sc...0#claims

Science is NOT a religion that we should place faith in. It's just a tool for understanding nature. You can either choose to use that tool, or place faith in others who do. If you choose the former, then do not follow the lead of climate scientists:

Learn what a plasma is, and why it matters. And it will become clear where this climate debate is going.

Aug 10, 2015
Hannes again embarassed himself by his own posts:
Re:
This is why NASA is creating new climate models right now through Professor -- and plasma physicist -- Yue Deng with the University of Texas. They've already given her $1 million to take into account the electric currents which flow into the poles.

For more information, see press releases at:

http://www.uta.ed...rant.php


If you read the URL that Hannes cited you will find that he completely misread the grant announcements as well as the following UCLA quote in that he thinks these are climate models when they are, actually, models of the upper atmosphere (ionosphere and magnetosphere) and are plasma interaction models. The goal of these models has nothing to do with climate and is to help us better understand energitic events like the Carrington event:

https://en.wikipe..._of_1859

How can someone confuse this with a climate model?

Aug 10, 2015
Professor Deng at http://nldr.libra...001.pdf:

"Joule heating has been consistently underestimated because it is frequently assumed in general circulation models (GCMs) that the electric field is relatively smooth both in space and time. Codrescu et al [1995] showed that the polar region electric field is variable and that the variability can significantly increase the amount of Joule heating ...

The averaged and smoothed CLIMATOLOGIES can only give poor spatial variability, since averaging massive amounts of data smears out extremes, which may, in fact, contribute significant amounts to the local, and possibly global, Joule heating."

Deng is not even the only group pursuing this line of investigation. There is also a group of researchers who study infrasound data from the CTBTO, which is the network of 300 sensors across the globe used to monitor nuclear explosions. They are significantly more ambitious than Deng ...

Aug 10, 2015
From https://www.ctbto...meteors/

---

Elisabeth Blanc, Research Director at France's Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission, heads a European project to improve long-term weather forecasting models based on temperature and wind changes in the stratosphere, using some of the CTBTO's infrasound data.

"Two weeks after major stratospheric warming was detected at the end of 2012, the weather in Europe changed dramatically," says Blanc. "We think this was related to stratospheric warming.

"If our research confirms the effects of these kinds of changes, weather models could forecast ahead BY SEVERAL WEEKS OR EVEN A SEASON. That would be very important, but we are not there yet."

---

Is it that I am just ignorant? Or, do these researchers simply believe that this energy input can actually DO STUFF?

Aug 10, 2015
The issue boils down to this: What is the Polar Vortex?

Many climate scientists will try to answer that question without any mention of the Earth's larger electromagnetic plasma / solar wind environment. That is why when they see the VERTICAL sustained, polar thermospheric winds correlating with solar wind intensity, they nevertheless fail to connect the dots that the solar wind is being funneled into the poles because that is where the magnetic field directs it, and those charged particles will then drag with them the neutral particles.

From http://adsabs.har...11..651H

"Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century ...

Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor."

Aug 10, 2015
Wow Hannes, I thought you might read one of your URLs before posting them. Once again the new paper shows:
It is important to understand Joule heating because it can significantly change the temperature structure, atmosphere composition, and electron density and hence influences satellite drag. It is thought that many coupled ionosphere-thermosphere models underestimate Joule heating because the spatial and temporal variability of the ionospheric electric field is not totally captured within global models. Using the Global Ionosphere Thermosphere Model (GITM), we explore the effect of the electric field temporal variability, model resolution, and vertical velocity differences between ion and neutral flows on Joule heating in a self-consistent thermosphere/ionosphere system.


This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate.

Aug 10, 2015
Piers Corbyn on the sudden stratospheric warming events:

"We've also done predictions of sudden warmings of the stratosphere, known in the trade as sudden stratospheric warmings (SSW's). And these were known about to astrophysicists years ago, in the 60's. And they noticed that the jet stream actually started waving more a week or so after these things. But they didn't tell the meteorologists, and the meteorologists wouldn't have been interested anyways. It's only recently that this has come to light, and we've made successful predictions of them ... When they wave around in the winter, you get big waves in the jet stream, and then you might get shunting out of cold air and snow."

That's from https://www.youtu...p;t=1007

Aug 10, 2015
More from Corbyn, same video ...

"So, the key question is: What causes weather extremes and climate change? And the answer to that is -- and all the standard meteorologists say -- yeesss, jet stream ... the position of the jet stream is fundamental. And I was at a meeting in the Royal Society recently where the other side said ... oh, we're doing this loads of fantastic work on CO2, but unfortunately, we've put lots of CO2 into the models, and the jet stream just does what it always did. It doesn't wave around wildly like it is now. And I stood up and said, well, I'm not surprised. We predicted that it would wave around wildly now because of solar activity. Then, they sort of look a bit bemused, and said ... well, well, we could consider some of your inputs into our models, perhaps. Perhaps, Mr. Corbyn. Then, I thought that's insane: You cannot put sensible stuff into a model of madness."

Aug 10, 2015
Re: "This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate."

We discovered when we sent the first rockets into space that space is a plasma. It's charged particles creating and carrying magnetic fields and electric currents. The atmosphere is a very thin sliver where plasma is NOT the dominant state of matter. This atmosphere is only half the thickness at the poles, because that is where the magnetic field frequently funnels these charged particles. That is why you see the aurora at the poles.

People who want us to believe that this larger plasma environment which our atmosphere is fully immersed within cannot ELECTRICALLY influence the climate within our atmosphere are really quite bonkers.

ALL OF SPACE IS PLASMA.

As far as you go, to the nearest rock. It stands to reason that all of that activity can indeed do stuff of importance to our climate.

I trust that NASA and Deng will figure it out.

Aug 10, 2015
"If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away."

What if over half the doctors told you it was benign, until they were fired from their jobs, had their funding eliminated, and were subjected to interminable and outrageous personal attacks? What if the operation cost you your home and all hope of future employment? There is a legitimate analogy.

Aug 11, 2015
Want to communicate your consensus, then get your 97% to debate the other 3%.
Yes, I know it can never happen since the 97% is a lie.

Aug 11, 2015
Part of the problem with the conversation over climate change is that our platforms for communication do not reward the clarification or teaching of largely unknown concepts. Notice what happens, in practice, in even this thread:

I'm introducing a wide array of materials and a half-century debate between two well-respected journals which most people here have never heard of, and showing how they can be demonstrated to be pointing into a single direction, and yet people rate this activity at the lowest rating they can offer because it does not conform to their pre-existing worldview.

These online rating systems are part of the problem of this conversation, because they were never designed to reward intelligent discourse. They were never intended to actually facilitate the elicitation of wisdom from the crowd; what they do is they give disagreeable readers a place to vent, where their comments can be easily buried in the noise of the mob.

Aug 11, 2015
By the way, I'm listening, in the event that somebody wants to explain why energetic electrical events at the periphery of the Earth's climate system -- and especially at the poles, where the solar wind is directed by the Earth's magnetic field -- cannot have any effect of any importance upon the Earth's climate system.

Is there an actual physical basis for this assumption that we are being invited to accept? What actually happens to these electrical fluxes when they enter into the ionosphere? Please point to the data which has led to the acceptance of this assumption that these two adjacent systems definitively do not interact with one another.

Aug 11, 2015
There's no uncertainty in this rebuttal ...

Re: "This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate."

... So, this should be a very easy question to answer.

I'm listening.

Aug 11, 2015
There's no uncertainty in this rebuttal ...

Re: "This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate."

... So, this should be a very easy question to answer.

I'm listening.


Hannes: The upper atmosphere is at low pressure. Because of the low density, heat transfer or even convection are suppressed (bulk convection is replaced by ballistic motion of particles with relatively longer distances between collisions);

https://en.wikipe...nosphere

The low density means that it cannot interact strongly with the lower atmosphere (troposphere). No one is trying to say that it is not an important part of the atmosphere and that we need to understand it but it is a small part of the atmospheric mass and, therefor, cannot contain a significant part of the enthalpy of the atmosphere. Please explain to me why you think otherwise so we can discuss it.


Aug 11, 2015
Re: "The upper atmosphere is at low pressure. Because of the low density, heat transfer or even convection are suppressed (bulk convection is replaced by ballistic motion of particles with relatively longer distances between collisions)"

Please explain what a sudden stratospheric warming event is, and what you believe causes it.

Aug 11, 2015
Re: "The upper atmosphere is at low pressure. Because of the low density, heat transfer or even convection are suppressed (bulk convection is replaced by ballistic motion of particles with relatively longer distances between collisions)"

Please explain what a sudden stratospheric warming event is, and what you believe causes it.


Why do you care how it is heated?

What I am saying is that it does not matter how it is heated because the pressure is low enough that it does not carry much in the way of heat. It also cannot exchange either much heat or much mass because it is too tenuous. Are you saying you think it is dense enough to be important in mass or energy transport?

As for my understand of how - there are a number of components to the heating including changes in UV, solar wind, and Joule heating. A CME is one mechanism that can produce short-term changes in the temperature.

Aug 11, 2015
Re: "Are you saying you think it is dense enough to be important in mass or energy transport?"

I think Bob Johnson might be one of the few people who is asking the right questions on this topic. See timestamped video at https://youtu.be/...?t=2285, where he points out the following:

The jet streams are assumed to be the result of fluid motions driven by pressure changes in the atmosphere related to Hadley Cell circulation and modified by the Coriolis effect. However, it's not known why the jet stream jets are concentrated in such narrow bands. He asks: Are the jet streams primarily plasma effects whose locations are determined partly by their interactions with the ionospheric current systems above?

At https://youtu.be/...?t=2397, he asks: Do ionospheric changes cause the climate cycles by altering the Global Electric Circuit?

cont'd ...

Aug 11, 2015
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2397, he asks: Can ionospheric current changes induce changes in ocean circulation? Can this be the cause of the 20-to-30-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation?

At https://youtu.be/...?t=2228: Are cyclones and tornados partly driven by electromagnetic forces acting on the charged water droplets?

At https://youtu.be/...?t=2228, he asks: Are winds partly driven by electromagnetic forces acting on the charged particles in the air?

What I believe that both Bob and Deng are thinking -- and which I'm trying to closely follow -- is that the SSW's are simply an indication of a large influx of charged particles into the poles, and that that increased charge density then essentially alters various parameters for the climate.

Aug 11, 2015
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2397, he asks: Are winds partly driven by electromagnetic forces acting on the charged particles in the air?

What I believe that both Bob and Deng are thinking -- and which I'm trying to closely follow -- is that the SSW's are simply an indication of a large influx of charged particles into the poles, and that that increased charge density then essentially alters various parameters for the climate.


Hannes: As you can see from what you are saying is that this is at the point of conjecture (not a theory) and that it has not been investigated enough. That is fine, but from a fluid dynamics perspective it won't work. If there is a study that shows how it might work with the density differences, I would like to see that. However, there is no causal mathematical analysis that shows why the density difference is not important. If you have something that addresses that I would like to see it.

Aug 11, 2015
Hannes: Let me give you one more example. What is the temperature of the sun?

When I ask that question, it reflects on the energy reaching the earth.

It is one of the lower solar atmosphere layers (photosphere) that we get most of our energy from even though it is only at about 5800K. However, the Corona is at about 3,000,000K. The Corona does not contribute much to the solar flux because its density is so low that even the high temperature does not produce enough energy to change the effective temperature of the sun seen from Earth. This the same principle as the effect from the ionosphere. The ionosphere is too tenuous to contribute much energy or mass to the Troposphere.

Aug 11, 2015
See blue text at https://www.thund...apter-5/

Note: one must be cautious about the conversion between electron volts and thermal temperatures in plasma. Plasmas can become ordered so that charged particles follow paths that are aligned with the local direction of the accompanying magnetic field. Such current flows are termed field-aligned currents. Under this condition, charged particles are moving approximately parallel to one another, and, partly due to the low density of particles, collisions of the thermal variety can become very rare.

cont'd ...

Aug 11, 2015
cont'd ...

The high temperature alleged for the solar corona is based on spectroscopic observations of the light (electromagnetic radiation including frequencies outside visible light) which indicate how much ionization of atoms has occurred. The ionization energy in eV is inferred from the wavelengths of light emitted, and converted by the formula above to equivalent temperature. The thermal aspect of temperature which is caused by large numbers of random collisions is not necessarily present, however, even if there has been sufficient energy input to strip electrons away from their nuclei. The electrons can be fast (energetic) while their (thermal) collision rates are low.

---

I suspect that this little-acknowledged fact is causing a great amount of confusion throughout the planetary sciences.

Aug 11, 2015
Hannes: Let me give you one more example. What is the temperature of the sun?

When I ask that question, it reflects on the energy reaching the earth.

It is one of the lower solar atmosphere layers (photosphere) that we get most of our energy from even though it is only at about 5800K. However, the Corona is at about 3,000,000K. The Corona does not contribute much to the solar flux because its density is so low that even the high temperature does not produce enough energy to change the effective temperature of the sun seen from Earth. This the same principle as the effect from the ionosphere. The ionosphere is too tenuous to contribute much energy or mass to the Troposphere.


Sorry, I forgot to add a link to some of this information:

http://www.space....ere.html

Aug 11, 2015
cont'd ...

The high temperature alleged for the solar corona is based on spectroscopic observations of the light (electromagnetic radiation including frequencies outside visible light) which indicate how much ionization of atoms has occurred. The ionization energy in eV is inferred from the wavelengths of light emitted, and converted by the formula above to equivalent temperature. The thermal aspect of temperature which is caused by large numbers of random collisions is not necessarily present, however, even if there has been sufficient energy input to strip electrons away from their nuclei. The electrons can be fast (energetic) while their (thermal) collision rates are low.

---

I suspect that this little-acknowledged fact is causing a great amount of confusion throughout the planetary sciences.


Hannes: Why do you think this is "little-acknowledged?"

What do you think this is saying?

Aug 11, 2015
Re: "What do you think this is saying?"

(1) That temperature is not a reliable measure of the energy present when electric currents over plasma are involved, but also (2) the inferred temperature of the corona is not the straightforward assessment it is advertised to be. Solar temperature inferences rely heavily upon the chosen solar model.

Similarly, when atmospheric scientists observe electric joule heating in the Earth's atmosphere, they should not simplistically assume that this temperature is a straightforward reflection of the energy that is being dumped into the atmosphere.

On the Sun, it's also worth mentioning that plasma-based models can invoke additional phenomena to explain such things (double layers, in-falling electron drift, etc).

Aug 11, 2015
Re: "What do you think this is saying?"

(1) That temperature is not a reliable measure of the energy present when electric currents over plasma are involved, but also (2) the inferred temperature of the corona is not the straightforward assessment it is advertised to be. Solar temperature inferences rely heavily upon the chosen solar model.

Similarly, when atmospheric scientists observe electric joule heating in the Earth's atmosphere, they should not simplistically assume that this temperature is a straightforward reflection of the energy that is being dumped into the atmosphere.

On the Sun, it's also worth mentioning that plasma-based models can invoke additional phenomena to explain such things (double layers, in-falling electron drift, etc).


Hannes: This will take a few rounds of editing to reply to. Please be patient while I try to go over this. Note that I have referred to density as bening low. Let me try to explain why.

Aug 11, 2015
Hannes said:
(1) That temperature is not a reliable measure of the energy present when electric currents over plasma are involved, but also (2) the inferred temperature of the corona is not the straightforward assessment it is advertised to be. Solar temperature inferences rely heavily upon the chosen solar model.


First, lets get "temperature" out of the way. What we measure as temperature is, actually, a measure of the motion of atoms or molecules (when I mention atoms or molecules please take both into consideration if I only use one for brevity). That is why it is always difficult to determine temperatures because they depend on an average motion.

You are absolutely right about a distribution of velocities of atoms and electrons being difficult to pin down. In plasmas that becomes even more difficult to define because you can have a "two fluid" temperature where electrons and atoms/molecules have different velocities (and velocity distributions). Cont

Aug 11, 2015
Hannes said:
Similarly, when atmospheric scientists observe electric joule heating in the Earth's atmosphere, they should not simplistically assume that this temperature is a straightforward reflection of the energy that is being dumped into the atmosphere.


Let me go back to the idea that we are dealing with a very thin atmosphere at the heights you are talking about. Since the atoms are far apart, they do not collide as frequently as at lower altitudes. Because of that the velocities do not "thermalize" as rapidly and you can have temperature differences that are not being averaged. Because of that all of the measurements of temperatures become difficult to define.

However, that does not mean that energy is not balanced. For instance, when a particle from the solar wind deposits its energy in the upper atmosphere it might not be in a molecule that then reflects an average. Instead, it could go quite a way before colliding. Cont

Aug 11, 2015
Cont for Hannes: That molecule would then be at a velocity that might not reflect an average temperature at all. However, that does not mean that the kinetic energy is not accounted for.

It is that same property (low pressure) that prevents effective transfer of either kinetic energy or mass from the ionosphere to the Troposphere.

Can you give me any example where the transfer of energy into the ionosphere is not taken into account in a calculation of the energy transferred to the ionosphere by an atmospheric physicist?

The reason I ask that is because it seems you have been sold a bill of goods by someone who is trying to make their work look more important. If you can show me a few peer reviewed studies showing your assumption is correct I would appreciate it.

Back to my view (which is reflected in the link I gave you to an article on the ionosphere) that the ionosphere is at low pressure. Cont

Aug 11, 2015
Cont for Hannes: Because of the low pressure there are a number of things that just do not work. For instance, convection is very different at these pressures because the mean free path is too long for immediate thermalization. Likewise, there can be a multi-temperature fluid because of the long mean free path. The mechanism for transfer of momentum (as implied in your articles) becomes difficult.

The models you have pointed to of the upper atmosphere are not GCMs, in fact, they are models used to calculate drag on satellites not weather or climate.

The author of the youtube video does no calculations to show how momentum is transferred to the jet stream. Instead, he just conjectures that it can happen. Talk is cheap and calculations are expensive. If you can show how they calculate the changes in the jet stream due to solar interaction with the upper atmosphere I would appreciate it. Until then, that is just conjecture.

Aug 11, 2015
Also, @thermodynamics, before you let him get you too bogged down in irrelevancies - his point was that "scientists are ignoring this", which he proved by linking to NASA studies into it. Which contradicts his point completely.

Deniers like this try to get you to disprove minute irrelevancies to bog you down so it looks like the science has complexities that aren't being dealt with properly. You're better off not engaging

Aug 11, 2015
Also, @thermodynamics, before you let him get you too bogged down in irrelevancies - his point was that "scientists are ignoring this", which he proved by linking to NASA studies into it. Which contradicts his point completely.

Deniers like this try to get you to disprove minute irrelevancies to bog you down so it looks like the science has complexities that aren't being dealt with properly. You're better off not engaging


Lee: Thank you. Good advice.

Aug 12, 2015
Re: "Also, @thermodynamics, before you let him get you too bogged down in irrelevancies - his point was that "scientists are ignoring this", which he proved by linking to NASA studies into it. Which contradicts his point completely."

Okay, you've lost my point in the act of your 'summary'. My point is clearly more detailed than this:

(1) Climate scientists do not take into account either electrodynamics or plasma physics in their GCM's.

(2) Neither physicists nor climate scientist graduate students are taught the longstanding debate over cosmic plasmas, or that one has even happened.

(3) We should not simply assume that space 'weather' is not coupled to Earth weather and climate, & we should look for ways in which they electrically interact.

Re: "Deniers like this ..."

... & people who ask such questions should NEVER be compared to holocaust deniers. Science has its own terminology for questioning assumptions, & faith in consensus not 'thinking like a scientist'.

Aug 12, 2015
I'll take a look at the technical comments here and get back to you.

Aug 12, 2015
Re: "The general public cannot take a position in this debate, since it is not scientifically trained."

Please note that taking this stance alters the very function of science in society from a tool for thinking to a system for belief which will be prone to manipulation. With this view, the public is then forced to place FAITH in science -- the very act which scientists claim is the problem with religion.

We look to the university system to teach the public science. If the universities refuse to teach the public what they need to know in order to evaluate scientific controversies, then that is not a commentary on the public's INABILITY to UNDERSTAND. That is a function of the university's refusal to teach the subject such that the public can evaluate the debate.

Just because a subject is complex does not mean that the public should avoid engaging that complexity. What it means is that we should build systems which facilitate that engagement.

Aug 12, 2015
What academics do not apparently understand is that they are taking enormous risk with their DECISION to refuse to teach the controversy, because that refusal will not stop outsiders from creating those very systems.

Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it requires access to expert and specialist opinions. But, a proper survey of a controversy also involves running claims between theorists and their critics. It also requires simply informing graduate students of the existence of a debate, and even teaching them the most critical questions and concepts involved in that debate.

Where we see academia refusing to do these things, the public should actually be very concerned. There is simply too much on the line with some of these debates.

Faith in science is what led to the public's blind acceptance of the scientific consensus that rocketry was just nonsense in the leadup to WWII. That faith led to an existential threat for London, and more broadly, the world.

Aug 12, 2015
LOL, call me! The moment. The second. The very minute. Any alarmist starts riding a bicycle. Starts chopping wood. Starts walking the walk.

Aug 12, 2015
There are two debates that are connected. Debate 1 is the scientific debate on GW. Most scientist agree that GW has a human cause. The general public cannot take a position in this debate, since it is not scientifically trained. Debate 2 is the political debate: should we do anything. This debate should focus on risk and science should estimate the risk of an event. Risk times damage is the budget at stake. Debate 2 is in the end determined by this budget, NOT by scientific certainty.

Oh, the rant of the ignoramus.
So, the general public should just have faith that AGW "science" would do the right thing. Like:
- biodiesel from food crops that emits more CO2 than it saves, is more toxic to the environment and leaves the poorest to starve.

Aug 12, 2015
Deniers like this try to get you to disprove minute irrelevancies to bog you down so it looks like the science has complexities that aren't being dealt with properly. You're better off not engaging

The use of pejoratives not withstanding, this is false.

In the AR4 report, the IPCC says very clearly that there are many complexities that are not understood, hence they are not being dealt with properly.

On an almost daily basis, there are new revelations that show the complexities are not fully understood, thus preceding efforts did not deal with them properly.

Making policy decisions that affect major economies, and encouraging morally corrupt science and group-think is not justified by the dearth of evidence that climate change is largely (if at all) anthropogenically influenced.


Aug 12, 2015
End of debate, get cracking.


Have you been sufficiently convinced to the point that you will give up 50% of your petroleum usage?

Google California Senate Bill 350.


Aug 12, 2015
Re: "In the AR4 report, the IPCC says very clearly that there are many complexities that are not understood, hence they are not being dealt with properly."

Exactly. In fact, for those that are not fluent in how this all works, the IPCC's scientific assessments contain a barrage of scientific caveats. These scientific assessments are usually NOT read by the public, science journalists nor policymakers.

They instead read the Summary for Policymakers. The SPM, in turn, tends to not be read by scientists, and two leading climate economists who by no stretch of the imagination can be called "denialists" have emphatically critiqued the manner in which these SPM reports are created.

Those critiques are here:

http://richardtol...ain.html
http://www.robert...roken-2/

Aug 12, 2015
"Another caveat is that none of the problems I describe in this letter apply to either the Technical Summary nor the underlying Chapter 13. Indeed, because of the problems with Section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation in the SPM, it is important that interested parties refer instead to the Technical Summary, or better yet, the original Chapter 13."
http://www.robert...roken-2/

@Hannes

Stavina isn't critical of the science, rather he is critical of the process of writing the Summery for Policy Makers.

Aug 12, 2015
@Hannes

Stavina isn't critical of the science, rather he is critical of the process of writing the Summery for Policy Makers.

Sorry to jump in Vet, but that is exactly the point.

As a policy maker, one needs to know that there are huge caveats to the predictions being made. This should influence a competent policy maker, which given the crippling economic mandates, and lack of world-wide consensus amongst governmental leaders, it doesn't.

Aug 12, 2015
"According to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small".[5] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming""

https://en.wikipe...hard_Tol

Tol is a frigging economist, not a scientist.

Aug 12, 2015
Keep going Vet. The next few lines are crucial to my beliefs:

...the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits.


Aug 12, 2015
Here's a sumamry for Policy makers from another viewpoint:

http://www.nipccr...kers.pdf

Aug 12, 2015
Here's a sumamry for Policy makers from another viewpoint:

http://www.nipccr...kers.pdf


WOT (WEB of Trust) gives your link a dangerously unsafe warning.

Aug 13, 2015
Did he just use the NIPCC??

Climate Change Reconsidered

By

A Bunch of Geologists We Paid Using Fossil Fuel Money

Totally hilarious. Note that Soon (!) is listed as an author as is:
Roy Spencer (a METEOROLOGIST who actually claims it's *cooling*),
Idso and Idso who haven't published peer-reviewed research on the subject since the early 1980s,
William Kininmonth,a RETIRED meteorologist who's never published,
and Fred Singer (at least an atmospheric physicist) who has never researched or published on the topic and, among other things, was paid by the tobacco companies to come out against second-hand smoke causing lung cancer.

In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like - an entire book of climate science by people who aren't climate scientists and who were paid for their opinions.

Don't even get me started on Carter whose opinion on climate mysteriously coincided with the $1600/mth paid to him by Heartland

Aug 13, 2015
Re: "In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like - an entire book of climate science by people who aren't climate scientists and who were paid for their opinions."

Fortunately, the public does not think much of these sorts of appeals any longer, as the scientific conclusions of the climate researchers that you apparently hold in such high regard does not actually reflect the uncertainties observable by even non-specialists within the data set.

Increasingly, what it means to be a climate scientist is defined by an ability to find a technical reason why CO2 MIGHT still be the cause of the warming which MIGHT still be happening.

The discipline with which the "right" scientists ask the "right" questions is not a feature when it comes to using ad hoc models to forecast doom; it's a bug.

Aug 13, 2015
In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like

Please pull a passage from what I linked and show where the logic fails.


Aug 13, 2015
I'm on the side of the consilience of evidence, dude. I don't have to prove anything. That entire document is bought-and-paid-for denial by people who aren't climate scientists. You want to prove the entire body of science built up over the last 200 yrs by actual climate scientists is wrong? You need to produce a body of conclusive evidence, reproducible and confirmed by peer review. You haven't. The end. See ya!

Aug 14, 2015
You were unable to point out any logical fallacies in the NIPCC paper I presented.

I'm on the side of the consilience of evidence, dude.

Excellent!

CMIP5 Model falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

No Global warming for the past 18 years. 7 months:
https://wattsupwi...0023.jpg

For anyone that may be interested in more detail re: lack of consensus in the AGW debate, the rest of NIPCC inputs can be found here:
http://www.co2sci...ndex.php

Aug 14, 2015
Still waiting for the decadal analysis of air temps ...

*crickets*

Meanwhile, you've just sent through two blogs and the aforementioned hilariously expensive piece of crap we were talking about before.

Not going to continue to argue with someone so determined to remain ignorant of reality that they trawl the internet desperately looking for anything - however ridiculous - to reenforce their prejudices.

Meanwhile the permafrost is melting. I guess that's just cause it's bored or something.

Aug 14, 2015
Sorry that should have read "thawing". The permafrost is "thawing". To be completely accurate.

Aug 14, 2015
Still waiting for the decadal analysis of air temps ...

Have you tried googling it? I just did, and there's a ton of stuff that you should be able to make a point with.

Not going to continue to argue with someone so determined

I'm sorry that the consilience of evidence didn't go your way.

Ah yes, permafrost now! So, tell us more about the permafrost that's been thawing for 7,000 years.

Aug 14, 2015
Jeez leetennant, I gotta say, I feel bad for ya. You just don't seem to get any breaks!

Countering a widely-held view that thawing permafrost accelerates atmospheric warming, a study published this week in the scientific journal Nature suggests arctic thermokarst lakes are 'net climate coolers' when observed over longer, millennial, time scales.

"It is true that they do warm climate by strong methane emissions when they first form, but on a longer-term scale, they switch to become climate coolers because they ultimately soak up more carbon from the atmosphere than they ever release."

"So mosses and other plants flourish in these lakes, leading to carbon uptake rates that are among the highest in the world, even compared to carbon-rich peatlands."

So for humans, it seems like a big deal, but in the millennia time frame, once again nothing to see here.

Aug 14, 2015
The study also revealed another major factor of this process: Researchers found that when the lakes drain, previously thawed organic-rich lake sediments refreeze. The new permafrost formation then stores a large amount of carbon processed in and under thermokarst lakes, as well as the peat that formed after lake drainage. Researchers note that the new carbon storage is not forever, since future warming will likely start rethawing some of the permafrost and release some of the carbon in it via microbial decomposition.

As roughly 30 percent of global permafrost carbon is concentrated within 7 percent of the permafrost region in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia, this study's findings also renew scientific interest in how carbon uptake by thermokarst lakes offsets greenhouse gas emissions. Through its data collection, the study expanded the circumpolar peat carbon pool estimate for permafrost regions by more than 50 percent.

Aug 14, 2015
The truth can not be determined by consensus.

Aug 15, 2015
Gigantic jets observed connecting extreme hurricane to ionosphere, from spaceweather.com ...

---

Think of them as sprites on steroids: Gigantic jets are lightning-like discharges that spring from the tops of thunderstorms, reaching all the way from the thunderhead to the ionosphere more than 50 miles overhead. They're enormous and powerful.

"Gigantic jets are much more rare than sprites," says Oscar van der Velde, a member of the Lightning Research Group at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. "While sprites were discovered in 1989 and have since been photographed by the thousands, it was not until 2001-2002 that gigantic jets were first recorded from Puerto Rico and Taiwan." Only a few dozen gigantic jets have ever been seen, mostly over open ocean.

[...]

Gigantic jets, and their cousins the sprites, reach all the way up to the edge of space alongside meteors, noctilucent clouds, and some auroras. This means they are a true space weather phenomenon.

Aug 15, 2015
Video of sparks coming out of the top of a hurricane at https://vimeo.com/136192846 ...

So, if it turns out that thermodynamics does not permit such a connection, then what is the mistake in logic that led to the belief that such electrical connections between terrestrial weather events and space weather do not occur?

After all, plasmas exist in various modes of illumination, and if you are seeing the jets in this instance, that clearly suggests that for lesser hurricanes, the connection is still there, but simply not visible.

Aug 15, 2015
Oh great, another Water Prophet. Forget everything we know about climate science - I've developed a pet theory based on very little but my own imagination and will now twist every thing I ever read to support it. This should be fun.

Aug 16, 2015
Re: "Oh great, another Water Prophet. Forget everything we know about climate science - I've developed a pet theory based on very little but my own imagination and will now twist every thing I ever read to support it. This should be fun."

This is what I would expect of somebody who has not taken the time to observe the significant changes to our conception of space which has occurred since we sent the first rockets there. Do not forget that ALL of our climate and space theories originated in the years BEFORE we came to realize that space is fundamentally a plasma. To simply assume that this massive shift in our perception of the universe's dominant state of matter would have no consequences for our textbook theories is a very problematic worldview. It should never be considered a pet theory to seek out explanations in such momentous discoveries.

Aug 16, 2015
Forget everything we know about climate science

We probably should. Its been falsified.
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Aug 16, 2015
Space is not physical but geometric consept. Vacuum of space is physical object which have structure and certain phisical propertais that control energetic interactions of constituent particles of matter. Whether is plasma or something else is not very clear yet, but we have clear directions in the research. More interesting property of it is that allow reprogramming of the matter particles behavior in certain zones of this phisical medium. We have local physycal laws which can be changed and global physical laws which are unchangeаble.

Aug 16, 2015
Re: "Whether is plasma or something else is not very clear yet, but we have clear directions in the research."

This is not for you to decide, and you should not let yourself be confused by by the failure of modern science journalism to mention that space is today accepted to be a plasma ...

References at http://www.plasma...5_plasma

"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]

"It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]

"..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]

"plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]

"It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]

Aug 16, 2015
"Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]

"The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]

"It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]

"It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]

"about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]

Aug 16, 2015
"How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]

"It has often been said that 99% of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state.[16]

"And yet these radio-frequency links must survive the complexities of the plasma which comprises well over 99.9 percent of the universe".[17]

"This fourth state of matter probably comprises more than 99.9 per cent of the matter in our Universe."[18]

---

Plasmas are observed in the laboratory to transfer energies in filaments; an empirical approach would involve checking to see if the cosmic plasmas do the same, and the implications for our weather and climate models is enormous.

Aug 16, 2015
Delusional deniers on this site must be some of the trolls who work for the misinforming polluters. Since the capacity for self delusion requires some level of psychosis, the delusional will NEVER recognize their delusional state. Part of their delusion is that they have interest in scientific subjects, and that they actually have some scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Psychotic delusionists only motivation is to vigorously defend and bolster their delusion, since without it they dissolve into an obvious psychotic state. I have engaged in the dismantling of delusion in the past - religious belief. I have been amazed at how a functioning human being can go completely unhinged, and begin to display overtly obvious signs of psychosis when their delusion is destroyed. The defence of personal delusion is truly a life or death struggle for the delusional.

Aug 17, 2015
Delusional ... delusion ... psychosis, the delusional ... delusional... Part of their delusion .... Psychotic delusionists .. delusion, ... psychotic ...delusion ... unhinged,... psychosis ...delusion ... delusion ... delusional.

Nurse...NURSE!!
IT'S OUT AGAIN!!

Aug 17, 2015
The observable problem with the climate change debate is that these sites, and many participants actually, focus foremost upon the conclusions of the commenters. If their conclusions are aligned with their own (typically mainstream) worldview, then they rate this content as high.

By contrast, comments which do not agree with the 'mainstream' view, but nevertheless seek to stimulate people to think critically about the subject, are rated low.

The site supports this behavior by giving people a very ambiguous metric to gauge each other's remarks -- stars.

What is a star?

It's completely meaningless, and this is actually the point. If there were real metrics here which actually reflected upon specific aspects of the QUALITY of discourse, then that would risk elevating the act of questioning scientific authority.

Academia and sites like this plainly fear an intelligent public who can question their theories.

Aug 17, 2015
Rating system works on the principle sheep (the man who does not waste time in thinking) in the flock (the majority). Rating system science has no place in the true objective science because it relies on facts but they do not depend on majority opinion. This gives me reason to doubt about the the scientific focus of the site.

Aug 17, 2015
Delusional deniers on this site must be some of the trolls who work for the misinforming polluters.

*This* is what we are supposed to join up to in order to be part of the consensus.

No thanks.

I can't believe this roach of a thread is still going. "You are wrong because you are not one of us!" This is a shockingly immature world-view when a topic as important as climate change is at hand.

I have been amazed at how a functioning human being can go completely unhinged

Oh, sweet irony.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more