You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you. I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]

And I know you've been repeatedly talking about absolute changes without referring to timescales, which means you're (inadvertently?) ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of our CO2 emissions. Can we agree that adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited? Or, once again, would you like to dispute that proposition for either migration or evolution, or both?

Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodies of water because of the CO2 they emit. I am really surprised that you aren't advocating draining all the lakes. And I repeat, too: beavers probably back up more water than hydroelectric dams do. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2. In fact, that's the position Jane/Lonny keeps citing, and I keep debunking!

Once again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. Once again, that's just silly, Jane. Speaking of "talking to yourself" did you notice that you're the only one talking about CO2 emitted by bodies of water, or anything related to vegetation to begin with? I just explained that I was only referring to the limited extent that any concrete structure like a dam rapidly emits CO2, compared to the huge extent that a coal plant does for the same energy.

... you cherry-picked a quote out of it:

Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).

While completely ignoring the very next sentence:

"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."

If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.

... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:

While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....

Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.

... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.

As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.

I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled all other anthropogenic warming factors aside from CO2. This is evident because the CO2 forcing estimate of ~1.66 W/m^2 is within the error bars of the total anthropogenic forcing estimate.

So the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" applies to our universe because global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975, leaving the total anthropogenic forcing in 2005 very close to the total CO2 forcing. And as I pointed out, that NAS statement turned out to be quite accurate.

But to return to the actual point Jane made:

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" [Dumb Scientist]

So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]

Jane dismissed the NAS because Jane mistakenly thinks the NAS claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. But all they did was refer to perfectly valid evidence that SO2 emissions reflect sunlight, and reasonably say that if the current emissions trends in 1975 continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2.

Once again, those emissions trends didn't continue. So their if statement simply doesn't apply in our universe. The statement they made which does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Needless to say, this isn't a reason to dismiss the NAS. Quite the opposite...

Once again, you dig up old shit as if I were saying it now. That's a really terrible habit, you know. Either you don't learn, or you think I don't. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane hasn't learned about the irony of criticizing my "really terrible habit" after Jane repeatedly digs up reports from 40 years ago. Jane complains about my link to the last time I debunked his talking point just 6 months ago while Jane digs up a NAS report from 40 years ago as though it contradicts a modern NAS report (even though it doesn't).

"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere." Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your way out of that. As far as hydro dams contribute to "ocean acidification", there is zero evidence that they contribute any at all, COMPARED TO natural lakes of the same size. Another point I made which you are trying to weasel out of. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. "Limited extent" isn't overridden by "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere" and these aren't weasel words. Once again, my point is that anything which rapidly increases CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to ocean acidification. Coal plants do this to a huge extent. I've explained that conventional nuclear plants do this to a limited extent because of mining/enrichment/recycling/disposal of fuel, and because of curing the concrete containment domes. Hydro dams typically require pouring lots of concrete, so they're similar to nuclear power in that respect.

I strongly support nuclear power for many reasons, but one is that a lot of electricity in the USA and the world is generated by coal plants, which are responsible to a huge extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that I acknowledge that nuclear power plants (and solar/wind, etc.) are responsible to a limited extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't constitute trying to "weasel" out of anything. So it's not clear why Jane accuses me of doing that with respect to hydro dams, and it's not clear why Jane is ranting at me about them. Again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. That's just silly, Jane.

I specifically stated that I wasn't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period. Did you not see that? I made that statement in so many words. Is there something wrong with you? In fact, I see you quoted my comment about that. Reading comprehension much? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. The fact that you weren't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period is exactly my point. I've been telling you that for months, because for months you've been saying things like ""Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today's CO2."

You've been repeating nonsense like this for months, irrelevantly tweaking the factor to "well over 10" in your most recent regurgitation. For months, you've been comparing absolute CO2 values, which is wrong. Only rapid increases in CO2 concentration cause ocean acidification. After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."

If Jane really doesn't need a lecture, then Jane already sees why his repetitive comparisons of absolute CO2 values are misleading. Jane should be examining the rate of change of CO2 concentration, like Kiessling and Simpson 2010 who concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."

So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.

But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.

That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.

Sure. If we buy your assumptions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, MY assumptions? Jane, I just referenced each "assumption" to the peer-reviewed literature. They're not my assumptions. And again, Diffenbaugh and Field 2013 (PDF) reached the same basic conclusion by noting "potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid."

Note that the PETM happened within the last 65 million years. These aren't my assumptions, Jane.

... You say a lot about "causes", but you don't actually show any causes. We all know the saying about correlations and causations. But there were A LOT of things going on here, and you don't have shit for showing causes. You can ASSUME all you like, but that doesn't make evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. I've already told you that Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes: "The main phase of the PETM was characterized by a 5C global warming driven by the massive release of greenhouse gas..."

Cui et al. 2011 isn't alone. If you don't believe me, look around (not on blogs, but on Web of Science or Google Scholar, etc.) for peer-reviewed papers about the PETM. Papers which address PETM causality will likely note that the PETM was caused/driven/forced by a massive release of greenhouse gas (CO2 or CH4). If you find a peer-reviewed paper disputing this fact which wasn't written by a Sky Dragon Slayer, please let us know.

Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.

Another straw-man. Actually two. Hydro dams have been accused of emitting a "pulse" of CO2 when the plant-covered area behind them is flooded. Perhaps, but no more than if the same area burned in a forest fire. Hardly significant. THEN, the other accusation is that they emit CO2 because organic material falls on them and decomposes at the bottom. Also probably true. BUT... that is no more true of the dam than it is of any other large body of water. Apparently you have something against bodies of water. Do you think we should eliminate lakes because of the CO2 they emit? Because that's basically your argument. And beavers probably flood more total area than hydro dams do. I find that argument truly laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power, while supporting them. I'm not accusing hydro dams of anything. And I certainly don't have something against bodies of water, or think we should eliminate lakes "because of the CO2 they emit"(?!). In fact, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2.

Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change

It wasn't mistaken, it was quite deliberate. Nor was it misleading. I was comparing values from the Cambrian period. It's rather pointless to talk about "rate of change" between Cambrian and now (see chart again), when the time period was > 500 million years ago, and concentrations have had many rises and falls since then. Another straw man. I know your point is partly about rate of change, but it's ALSO about total change. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.

As Jane says, CO2 concentrations have had many rises and falls over the last 500 million years. That's why I've repeatedly showed Jane Kiessling and Simpson 2010, which concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010 isn't misleading because, unlike Jane, they examined CO2's rate of change over the last 500 Myr.

... we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperature rise. ... There are many variables to the PETM situation, not all of which are known. Among them, as I have stated, was whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures or the other way around. What caused the pulse of methane, or whatever it was (still unknown)? There are several theories, none of them strong enough to dominate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. I've told you that glacial transitions are orbitally forced, so ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the glacial cycle. In other words, the warming caused by that outgassed CO2 is necessary to explain the full amplitude of that orbitally forced glacial cycle, regardless of the "lag". Richard Alley made similar remarks on ice core "lags" at 33:51 in his 2009 AGU talk. He calls this topic "the one that I'm supposed to be fired for" because of the charming and familiar email he shared at 3:42.

Ironically, I mentioned the end-Permian extinction and PETM above specifically because both events were forced by rapid CO2 emissions (like modern AGW) rather than orbitally forced like Milankovitch cycles. The end-Permian and PETM weren't orbitally forced, so Jane's tired nonsense about "whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures" is just as irrelevant now as it was when a WUWT commenter tried it out on me.

I've repeatedly noted that in the case of the PETM it's not known if the forcing was CO2 or methane, but methane oxidizes to CO2 within decades anyway.

Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes: "Atmospheric pCO2 increases from 834 ppm to either 1,500 ppm (CH4 scenario) or 4,200 ppm (Corg scenario) during the main phase of the PETM (Fig. 4d). The corresponding global ocean surface temperature increase during the peak PETM is 2.1C (CH4 scenario) and 6.5C (Corg scenario) respectively. (Fig. 4e)."

Like I've told Jane, Henry's Law just won't allow ~6.5C of ocean surface warming to release anywhere near that much CO2 or CH4. I later told Jane that John Nielsen-Gammon dismisses a similar suggestion that modern warming caused the huge modern atmospheric CO2 increase by noting that would imply negative CO2 concentrations during the last glacial maximum. That might be one reason why papers like Cui et al. 2011 are very blunt about the causality: "The main phase of the PETM was characterized by a 5C global warming driven by the massive release of greenhouse gas..."

I did ignore the PETM paper because it's worth ignoring in this context. CO2 levels at the time were already several times what they are now, and according to that paper, they then briefly multiplied by 3 to 4 times that level. So they are referring to a rapid rise to roughly 9 to 12 times current CO2 levels or more. (You can see the blip in the chart I referenced.) We aren't looking at anything like that in the near future. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

No, we're looking at a much faster increase in the near future. Since CO2 warming is roughly logarithmic, multiplying CO2 levels by 3 to 4 times causes roughly the same long-term surface warming regardless of the starting CO2 level. (Some caveats.)

Note that IPCC AR5 scenario RCP 8.5 projects ~900 ppm CO2 by 2100. That's ~3 times higher than its value in 1900, which is the lower bound of Currano et al. 2007's PETM CO2 multiplication factor of 3-4. Currano et al. 2007 also estimated that global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C during the PETM, which is also roughly comparable to the projected RCP 8.5 warming by 2100.

So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.

But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.

That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.

Diffenbaugh and Field 2013 (PDF) reach the same basic conclusion by noting "potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid."

And it's already begun. Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes that during the PETM, "the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.3-1.7 PgC/yr, much slower than the present rate of carbon emissions."

They're right. Current emissions are already ~10 PgC/yr, which is already ~5 times faster than emissions during the PETM, even without projecting into the near future.

So no, we aren't looking at anything like the PETM in the near future. No. We're looking at a change of comparable magnitude, but much faster. And it's already begun.

... Further yet, not just insects but plants and mammals thrived during that period. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Mammals actually shrank during the PETM, and plants got chewed to pieces because "insects thrived" basically means "plague of locusts".

It's bizarre that some people seem to think this wouldn't cause any damage to human agriculture.

If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?

Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again it's meaningless to ask if an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere causes significant ocean acidification. If that 50 ppm increase occurs over centuries or millenia, it's less likely to cause significant ocean acidification than if it occurs over decades because of the higher rate of increase.

... You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

No, I've already told you that your second question is meaningless because paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

There's a difference between "unknown" and "unknown to Jane".

... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change. Once again, if atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification.

... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane's telepathy fails once again, because I'm not asking Jane to join in feelings which he might be projecting. I'm just asking Jane to stop spreading misinformation. For instance, Honisch et al. 2012 "rather vaguely and timidly suggests" that "Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place."

Once again, the rate of pH change is more important than the absolute pH change, because adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited. That's why I suggested these papers the last time Jane drew mistaken conclusions from the absolute change in atmospheric CO2 rather than its rate of increase:

Payne and Clapham 2012: End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?

"The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth's largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010: On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises

"Anthropogenic rise in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads to global warming and acidification of the oceans. Ocean acidification (OA) is harmful to many organisms but especially to those that build massive skeletons of calcium carbonate, such as reef corals. Here, we test the recent suggestion that OA leads not only to declining calcification of reef corals and reduced growth rates of reefs but may also have been a trigger of ancient reef crises and mass extinctions in the sea. We analyse the fossil record of biogenic reefs and marine organisms to (1) assess the timing and intensity of ancient reef crises, (2) check which reef crises were concurrent with inferred pulses of carbon dioxide concentrations and (3) evaluate the correlation between reef crises and mass extinctions and their selectivity in terms of inferred physiological buffering. We conclude that four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA and rapid global warming. However, only two of the big five mass extinctions show geological evidence of OA."

That PETM paper is also worth reading, even if you just skip to the pictures of fossilized leaves with insect teeth marks. Again, it has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum

"The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 55.8 Ma), an abrupt global warming event linked to a transient increase in pCO2, was comparable in rate and magnitude to modern anthropogenic climate change. Here we use plant fossils from the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming to document the combined effects of temperature and pCO2 on insect herbivory. We examined 5,062 fossil leaves from five sites positioned before, during, and after the PETM (59–55.2 Ma). The amount and diversity of insect damage on angiosperm leaves, as well as the relative abundance of specialized damage, correlate with rising and falling temperature. All reach distinct maxima during the PETM, and every PETM plant species is extensively damaged and colonized by specialized herbivores. Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures."

Since human agriculture competes with insects and roughly a billion humans depend on seafood, this suggests our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are causing more than zero damage. And it seems like over a dozen national science academies agree that our rapid CO2 emissions are causing more than zero damage, because they've said with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable".

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact"

So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]

Go ahead.

I'm sorry for still being alive. Think carefully about context, and you'll realize your accusations of dishonesty are baseless. Once again.

As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.

Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

Yes, what you're saying matches my conclusions.

Of course, the link between clouds and temperature is even less straightforward. As I recall the research suggests there is only a very small effect on average temperatures, though there is a dramatic effect on the diurnal variation - cloud cover tends to stabilize temperatures, causing slower heating during the day, but also slower cooling at night.

Yes. Another complication is that high, thin clouds warm the surface while "low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth."

Hold on there mister, the Laschamp event only lasted less than 500 years, and occurred in the middle of an ice age, over 41,000 years ago. I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of unknowns that make it very difficult to conclude that "the climate didn't change". ... I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event.

So your preferences are different than Richard Alley's. He concluded at 43:01 that "We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it's just about that simple. These cosmic rays didn't do enough that you can see it."

Maybe this is because Richard Alley's estimate that the Laschamp anomaly lasted "for a millenium or so" matches other estimates that are longer than 500 years.

We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.

I've explained that the maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there’s no long term trend in Svensmark’s data, which would be necessary to explain the long term warming trend that’s been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of this textbook.

Update: Other relevant papers include Kristjansson 2002 and Laut 2003, followed by Svensmark’s response and Laut’s rebuttal. More recently, Erlykin et al. suggest that the apparent correlation is due to direct solar activity, while Pierce and Adams state: “In our simulations, changes in CCN [cloud condensation nuclei concentrations] from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”

Another update: Snow-Kropla et al. 2011 makes similar points.

There is no scenario in which the problems of solar outweigh the problems of nuclear enough to sway the pendulum into nuclear's favor.

Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.

Monocultures are vulnerable. A diverse energy portfolio is more resilient, and nuclear power has a low carbon footprint. That might be why the national academies of 13 nations called for the "development of nuclear power plants that are safe and secure, and ensure the secure long-term management and disposal of waste. International collaboration in development of the next generation of nuclear reactors and in reducing the risk of proliferation is essential."

... high sunspot activity generally means fewer clouds, which in turn means it gets hotter. When "solar storm" activity is low, more cosmic rays leak in, forming more clouds, cooling the weather.

When more cosmic rays leaked in, the climate didn't change. Richard Alley mentioned (at 42:00 in his 2009 AGU talk) that beryllium proxy data reveal a spike in cosmic ray intensity during the "Laschamp anomaly" ~40,000 years ago, but the corresponding oxygen isotope proxy for temperature didn't change unusually during that time period.

Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year.

Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't. They don't take up ecologically sensitive landscapes when they're mounted on roofs, and that distributed nature can be more resilient than putting all our eggs in a large centralized power plant. We need to build more nuclear power plants, but we also need more renewables like solar, wind/wave, tidal, geothermal, and maybe even osmotic power.

In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.

Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?

You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.

Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface? You've been vigorously disputing these fundamental physics for years. Can you finally admit that mainstream scientists know how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?