Carl Sagan in 1985, addressing the UN on anthropogenic climate change

[ding]

The idea that our emissions will work to warm the planet and to acidify the oceans has not been the subject of any serious debate for 60 years or more.

Did anyone discuss that we are in an interglacial cycle where our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles and explain why this interglacial cycle wouldn't be expected to ultimately reach the same temperatures of previous interglacial cycles?

 

[ding]

The physics of the greenhouse effect and the calibration of its effects on climate by studying other bodies in our solar system was well established.

Can you tell me why the IPCC uses a low solar variability dataset in their models when the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites use a high variability solar dataset?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The basic facts on which ACC Theory is built are:

1) the well understood greenhouse effect
2) the carbolic acidification of a solution created by adding carbon to the solution
3) we are pulling "fixed" carbon out of the ground and adding it to our climate

That's it. That's the simple, factual basis. ACC Theory attempts to use these facts to explain both the observed, rapid warming of our planet and the observed, rapid acidification of our oceans and to predict the effect of these phenomena, moving forward. The outer boundaries or frontiers of the Theory concern themselves with other changes to our climate on smaller and larger scales and its effects on weather events.

Yes, the science of studying these effects is very complicated. But the basic facts on which the theory is built are not.

 

[ding]

The physics of the greenhouse effect and the calibration of its effects on climate by studying other bodies in our solar system was well established.

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II, Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia, Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments, Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an and Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics would disagree with that statement.


Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized."

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.): “During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia: “The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes.

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales.

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The basic facts on which ACC Theory is built are:

1) the well understood greenhouse effect
2) the carbolic acidification of a solution created by adding carbon to the solution
3) we are pulling "fixed" carbon out of the ground and adding it to our climate

That's it. That's the simple, factual basis. ACC Theory attempts to use these facts to explain both the observed, rapid warming of our planet and the observed, rapid acidification of our oceans and to predict the effect of these phenomena, moving forward. The outer boundaries or frontiers of the Theory concern themselves with other changes to our climate on smaller and larger scales and its effects on weather events.

Yes, the science of studying these effects is very complicated. But the basic facts on which the theory is built are not.

Carl Sagan spent quite a bit of his life trying to make people understand that foundational science was not out of reach of their understanding. And that the average person has the ability to be a scientist. He liked pointing it how people will play the stock market or read sports stats and interpret them with all manner of complicated formulas. And that, if they could do this, they were perfectly capable of understanding science and of becoming scientists.

 

[ding]

1) the well understood greenhouse effect

No empirical evidence exists which QUANTIFIES the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. Until there is this will always be a point of contention.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No empirical evidence exists which QUANTIFIES the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. Until there is this will always be a point of contention.

The fact that that it is forcing is not a point of contention. Figuring out how much is part of fleshing out the Theory. I.E., it's not zero. We know this.

 

[ding]

The fact that that it is forcing is not a point of contention. Figuring out how much is part of fleshing out the Theory. I.E., it's not zero. We know this.

It is when the question is how much of the warming trend is due to natural variability. We are in an interglacial cycle that is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles, so continued warming would be expected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is when the question is how much of the warming trend is due to natural variability. We are in an interglacial cycle that is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles, so continued warming would be expected.

Interesting. Though I am pretty sure the scientists that discovered and taught you that... know that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, do we think that, oh just maybe, the people who dedicate their lives to this research thought of this question before ding did?

Spoiler alert: They did. In fact, the answer to this question -- human activity vs. Natural variability -- has been the ultimate focus of IPCC for decades.

What does IPCC say?

"The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Decades of research by the global scientific community, compiled by the foremost experts. But ding thinks he can upend their conclusions by copypasting things he saw in blogs. Absurd.

 

[ding]

Interesting. Though I am pretty sure the scientists that discovered and taught you that... know that.

What? That's there was no testing done to quantify the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm? Or that our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles?

 

[ding]

So, do we think that, oh just maybe, the people who dedicate their lives to this research thought of this question before ding did?

Spoiler alert: They did. In fact, the answer to this question -- human activity vs. Natural variability -- has been the ultimate focus of IPCC for decades.

What does IPCC say?

"The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Decades of research by the global scientific community, compiled by the foremost experts. But ding thinks he can upend their conclusions by copypasting things he saw in blogs. Absurd.

When you can tell me why we shouldn't expect increasing temperatures when our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles, let me know.

When you can show me an experiment that quantified the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, let me know.

When you can tell me why the southern hemisphere has a higher temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does, let me know.

When you can tell me why the warmest global temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine, let me know.

When you can tell me why the coldest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty after it transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world, let me know.

Because until YOU can answer these questions you don't know jack shit about earth's climate. And you will never understand why I question the psuedo-science that is masquerading as science.

I didn't see any of those questions addressed in your link. Did I miss it?

 

[ding]

^That's a climate discussion.

 

[ding]

So, do we think that, oh just maybe, the people who dedicate their lives to this research thought of this question before ding did?

Spoiler alert: They did. In fact, the answer to this question -- human activity vs. Natural variability -- has been the ultimate focus of IPCC for decades.

What does IPCC say?

"The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Decades of research by the global scientific community, compiled by the foremost experts. But ding thinks he can upend their conclusions by copypasting things he saw in blogs. Absurd.

That doesn't discuss why the earth's climate is the way it is. No where in here is an actual discussion on the earth's climate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming

Let's revisit this statement from the IPCC report.

1.1 degC. 0.4 degC over the next 20 years. Say, 1.2 degC more.over the following 60 years.

2.7 degC warming by 2100 if the pace does not increase (as it is expected by scientists to do, given other factors like sea ice melt and tundra melt).

Which is still in close agreement with the initial, rough predictions from 40 years ago.

I stress this to point out that the basis for ACC and the greenhouse effect of our emissions was already well known 40 years ago. For 40 years, we have been collecting data and calculating effects from noisy data over time intervals. The solar scientists have weighed in with their observations and theory. The geologists, the oceanographers, etc. And all in general agreement and all in possession of mountains of mutually supportive evidence from across nearly every field of science. There have been no big surprises (save for how the ocean holds heat, which isn't a saving grace) in any of it.

 

[ding]

Let's revisit this statement from the IPCC report.

1.1 degC. 0.4 degC over the next 20 years. Say, 1.2 degC more.over the following 60 years.

2.7 degC warming by 2100 if the pace does not increase (as it is expected by scientists to do, given other factors like sea ice melt and tundra melt).

Which is still in close agreement with the initial, rough predictions from 40 years ago.

I stress this to point out that the basis for ACC and the greenhouse effect of our emissions was already well known 40 years ago. For 40 years, we have been collecting data and calculating effects from noisy data over time intervals. The solar scientists have weighed in with their observations and theory. The geologists, the oceanographers, etc. And all in general agreement and all in possession of mountains of mutually supportive evidence from across nearly every field of science. There have been no big surprises (save for how the ocean holds heat, which isn't a saving grace) in any of it.

You are discussing computer models that have mistakenly attributed natural variations of a bipolar glaciated world with increases of CO2. There's no science there. That's pseudo-science. The hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world is climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty. We're still 2C below normal interglacial temperatures.

When you can tell me why we shouldn't expect increasing temperatures when our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles, let me know.

When you can show me an experiment that quantified the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, let me know.

When you can tell me why the southern hemisphere has a higher temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does, let me know.

When you can tell me why the warmest global temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine, let me know.

When you can tell me why the coldest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty after it transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world, let me know.

Because until YOU can answer these questions you don't know jack shit about the earth's climate. And you will never understand why I question the psuedo-science that is masquerading as science.

 

[ding]

The sad thing about Fort Fun Indiana is that I gave him the answers to these questions a couple of pages back and he still can't answer them.

Maybe I should do an experiment and ask daveman if he can answer those questions.

 

[daveman]

The sad thing about Fort Fun Indiana is that I gave him the answers to these questions a couple of pages back and he still can't answer them.

Maybe I should do an experiment and ask daveman if he can answer those questions.

You can if you like. Don't expect me to. I'm not interested in doing Indy's homework for him.

 

[ding]

You can if you like. Don't expect me to. I'm not interested in doing Indy's homework for him.

Neither is he. That's what makes this fun.

 

[daveman]

Neither is he. That's what makes this fun.

He's the kind of kid who told his teacher to do his homework for him, then complained to his mom the teachers hated him when he got failed.