Arctic Sea Ice Stabilizes, No Trend Reduction In More Than 10 Years As Solar Cycle Starts Off Weakly

[ding]

I'll keep looking but the first dozen or more scholarly articles returned for "solar dimming" got me studies on geoengineering proposals. I did find, that the sun's normal 11-year cycle began its minimum back in December 2019 and is expected to continue till 2030. Nothing new there. So, what is different about this minimum than any other minimum; numerous of which global warming has already passed through?

I believe we will all find out soon enough.

 

[Crick]

I'll keep looking but the first dozen or more scholarly articles returned for "solar dimming" got me studies on geoengineering proposals. I did find, that the sun's normal 11-year cycle began its minimum back in December 2019 and is expected to continue till 2030. Nothing new there. So, what is different about this minimum than any other minimum; numerous of which global warming has already passed through?

The spectral shift is simply the normal change of blackbody radiation with temperature. It has been no different through any other solar cycle. You've been acting as if this were something special; as if the sun had been doing something unusual that had warmed the planet for the past 150 years and had suddenly quite 8 years ago. But that is just simply not the case. It is, in fact, blatant nonsense.

 

[ding]

The spectral shift is simply the normal change of blackbody radiation with temperature. It has been no different through any other solar cycle. You've been acting as if this were something special; as if the sun had been doing something unusual that had warmed the planet for the past 150 years and had suddenly quite 8 years ago. But that is just simply not the case. It is, in fact, blatant nonsense.

This is pretty simple...

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

I think I'm just going to keep repeating this until you go away.

 

[Crick]

This is pretty simple...

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

I think I'm just going to keep repeating this until you go away.

The scientists that have been looking at this for decades and decades now HAVE considered natural climate variation as the potential cause BUT IT FAILS.

As, for the rest, your belief that you have refuted the greenhouse effect of CO2 with your astounding and utterly unique and incredibly insightful historical observations is, really, what's holding you back from a normal life. Set it aside. Obsess on something else. Women, for instance. Or men, if you prefer. Just stop repeating that pretentious claim as if it had any value to ANYONE else because it does not.

 

[ding]

The scientists that have been looking at this for decades and decades now HAVE considered natural climate variation as the potential cause BUT IT FAILS.

As, for the rest, your belief that you have refuted the greenhouse effect of CO2 with your astounding and utterly unique and incredibly insightful historical observations is, really, what's holding you back from a normal life. Set it aside. Obsess on something else. Women, for instance. Or men, if you prefer. Just stop repeating that pretentious claim as if it had any value to ANYONE else because it does not.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[Crick]

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

For god's sake, say something ELSE.

 

[ding]

For god's sake, say something ELSE.

Something ELSE.

Empirical climate data doesn't lie. It actually makes a lot of sense if you study it. Do you know what the equilibrium temperature is for an ice free planet? Did you know one existed?

 

[Crick]

The only thing I get from your little snippets and attempted gotchas is that you don't have the wherewithal, either within yourself or within the data you're trying to use, to actually state a working case to support whatever the fuck it is you're trying to push.

 

[ding]

The only thing I get from your little snippets and attempted gotchas is that you don't have the wherewithal, either within yourself or within the data you're trying to use, to actually state a working case to support whatever the fuck it is you're trying to push.

You mean it isn't obvious to you what I am trying to push?

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[Crick]

You mean it isn't obvious to you what I am trying to push?

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

You're a freaking Chatty Kathy doll.

 

[ding]

You're a freaking Chatty Kathy doll.

Again... If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[ding]

Wow, Crick, I just wish he was listening to you.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

There was a paper by Scarlett and West, maybe 2 decades ago or more that said The Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has almost no effect on Earth changing climate.

They just made up numbers with no scientific basis for any of it, but were quoted as knowledgeable

That was the exact day I knew AGW was a fraud

 

[Crick]

.

Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice - Nature Communications

The disintegration of cryosphere elements such as the Arctic summer sea ice, mountain glaciers, Greenland and West Antarctica is associated with temperature and radiative feedbacks. In this work, the authors quantify these feedbacks and find an additional global warming of 0.43°C.

www.nature.com

Antarctic Sea Ice Hit a Record Low; Now Scientists Think They Know Why

In February sea ice dropped below two million square kilometers for the first time on record

www.scientificamerican.com