Global warming isn't doing too well these days

Anti-Earther wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Sorry pro-earth crowd?? Very odd choice of words. What group are you in, "the anti-earth crowd"?

That sentence speaks volumes.

Yes and I can't wait to get off this planet.

I know why you want to leave, the rate this planet has been heating up scares you.

You seem to be pretty convinced of this. I am skeptical but if you make a link to legitimate scientific research, I, and maybe others, will look at it to see if there is any validity to it.

If there is, I will acknowledge it.

This has nothing to do about global warming or climate change. It has to do with companies wanting to do what they want to maximize profit.

You all haven’t read the Lorax as a kid? Too young to watch the 2008 Beijing olympics to notice their was not one day of blue sky due to the air quality?

You don’t like clean air or water? Should companies just be allowed to dump all their pollutants into the ground?

I’m confused as to why people don’t support environmental protection

You dont like clean drinking water? wrote:

I’m confused as to why people don’t support environmental protection

Not supporting some fake theory of global warming has nothing to do with supporting environmental protections. Obviously nobody wants companies dumping toxins in the rivers. Nobody wants plastic in the ocean. I waste my time recycling even though I know recycling is worthless. I organically grow my own food. I drive a Hybrid. I don't believe in global warming. People are complex creatures.

Perfect case in point. The fix is indeed on.

Agree and whatever you do don't bring up gun control.......it will never work. Countdown till the next one happens. VA Beach just a memory. I am worried that the next one will be terribly horrific. Thoughts and prayers will not save the next victims.

Sure. I noticed the trend many years ago. It's more visible on some charts than others. I'll see if I can find an article/paper that describes it. Meanwhile, here's a chart. Note the sine wave pattern. Up from 1850 to 1880, down to 1910, up to ~1945, down to 1975, up to 2005, a slight pause and then continuing up. Other charts show the "pause" from about 1998 to mid-2010s as being greater.

The down from 1945 to 1975 should create some skepticism because CO2 levels began to really ramp up after WWII, yet the global temps moved in the opposite direction for 30 years.

Longer term charts show roughly a 1,000 year pattern of 650 years down followed by 350 years up. The articles I've read attribute this to variations in solar magnetism and solar irradiance outside the visible spectrum (which has more impact on ocean temps).

As a followup to my previous post, Henrik Svensmark proposes an alternate theory to Climate Change (CC). Although I haven't read his most recent paper (linked to below), I've followed his work for over a decade. The paper is 42 pages. Here is the Cliff's Notes version.

- Svensmark's theory is that changes in solar activity cause CC.

-IPCC/NOAA et al discount solar activity because 1) changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) are too small to account for CC and more importantly 2) The solar cycle is 11 years and there is no 11-year cycle in CC.

- However, Svensmark shows that cosmic rays cause cloud formation, which generally causes cooling.

- During long periods when the sun is active (1950-2000), solar winds block cosmic rays, creating fewer clouds, and creating warming, especially in the oceans where far more heat can be stored than land or the atmosphere.

-During long periods of solar inactivity, more cosmic rays get into the atmosphere, creating more clouds, and cooling the land and sea. (The Little Ice Age (1500-1600) correlates to such a prolonged period of low solar activity.

Ironically, IPCC/NOAA et al discount TSI to be a factor in CC because its variability is too small. Then, they turn around and admit that increasing CO2 by itself is too small to have any significant effect on CC. Instead, it's the positive feedback loop created by rising CO2 levels.

Svensmark readily agrees that TSI variability is too small by itself to cause CC. Instead, his premise is that changes in solar activity affect cosmic rays, cloud formation, and ultimately, Climate Change.

Svensmark's charts showing changes in solar activity have a higher correlation to Climate Change than the CO2 theory.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf

fisky wrote:

. . .

Ironically, IPCC/NOAA et al discount TSI to be a factor in CC because its variability is too small. Then, they turn around and admit that increasing CO2 by itself is too small to have any significant effect on CC. Instead, it's the positive feedback loop created by rising CO2 levels.

. . .

Please back that statement up or retract it.

Thanks.

Smug CO2 alarmists go home devestated.

Here's a link to a recent review article "The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes, and consequences".

It's a long difficult read, but the relevance in this context is that quantitative attribution analysis to date suggests that warming during that period is roughly half anthropogenic and half "natural variability" (fig 5b) with the most significant natural event being a prolonged period of high volcanic activity which depressed temperatures in the late 19th through early 20th century. Additional natural factors include an increase in solar output (increased sunspot activity) and the multi-decadal ocean effects Fisky references (fig 4b).

One important point made by the article is that the increasing sparsity, uncertainty, and spacial bias of data going back in time increases the uncertainty of attribution. This, of course, applies whether one might be inclined to favor natural or anthropogenic causality explanations. The article also notes that there is some debate about whether the observed ocean variation is cause or effect, which is to say that it isn't a certainty that these are truly periodic processes or whether they simply appear to be due to the length and quality of the data available.

Oops! I guess I spoke too soon.

My apologies for being so wrong.

Further, in support of Svensmark's theory, the IPCC admits that they don't fully understand the formation of clouds.

IPCC AR5, Pg 56.

"Confidence in the representation of processes involving clouds and aerosols remains low."

fisky wrote:

Further, in support of Svensmark's theory, the IPCC admits that they don't fully understand the formation of clouds.

IPCC AR5, Pg 56.

"Confidence in the representation of processes involving clouds and aerosols remains low."

This is illustrated in the figure up thread. In this the greenhouse gas bar (GHG) and the organic aerosol bar (OA) have higher uncertainty windows than the combined anthropogenic bar (ANT). That is to say it's entirely plausible that contribution of greenhouse gas warming has been considerably more than that observed and is being suppressed by the (relatively short lived) effect of anthropogenic aerosols.

It's a bit strange that climate contrarians invariably presume uncertainty in the science bolsters the case for postponing risk mitigation via a ramp down of fossil fuel use.

Citizen Runner wrote:It's a bit strange that climate contrarians invariably presume uncertainty in the science bolsters the case for postponing risk mitigation via a ramp down of fossil fuel use.

Let me ask this question again, this time specifically of you... do you own a car?

Also, I'm keen to know whether you agree with the IPCC attribution statement roughly along the lines of: "95% confidence of mainly human causation"

the shill wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:It's a bit strange that climate contrarians invariably presume uncertainty in the science bolsters the case for postponing risk mitigation via a ramp down of fossil fuel use.

Let me ask this question again, this time specifically of you... do you own a car?

Also, I'm keen to know whether you agree with the IPCC attribution statement roughly along the lines of: "95% confidence of mainly human causation"

Irrelevant and inappropriate.

Try to keep your posts appropriate.

You're gonna need backup wrote:

fisky wrote:

. . .

Ironically, IPCC/NOAA et al discount TSI to be a factor in CC because its variability is too small. Then, they turn around and admit that increasing CO2 by itself is too small to have any significant effect on CC. Instead, it's the positive feedback loop created by rising CO2 levels.

. . .

Please back that statement up or retract it.

Thanks.

Sure. This is what could find on short notice. It's from Skeptical Science, an international website that specifically refutes skeptical arguments, so it meets the "et al" source in my previous statement. Here is the quote, followed by a link to the webpage.

"How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C."

So it's as I stated... CO2 by itself is too small to have a significant effect. It's the "assumed" positive feedback loops that triple the effects of CO2 itself.

I don't claim to be qualified to analyze climate data either way, but based on the character of the global warming movement—shaming anyone who questions it as being "anti-science" or for not falling in line with the "scientific consensus," everyone from politicians to religious leaders and hollywood celebrities jockeying for fortune and fame as leaders of the climate change movement—I am no longer am even willing to listen to their arguments. Global warming is a religion.

I have a question for the people who strongly believe in global warming (specifically the kind caused by CO2 that we will never recover from). What would need to happen in the next 10 years for you to say you were wrong about it?