Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. Forgetting any mod 'requirement' a Clever poster can find it.
That was the gist of my first reply.
Gameover.
2. The mod an "esp" addition.
Again, a mod can't know if a post is unsourced/plagiarized without finding the source.
3! So you should have removed all unsourced graphs/graphics/etc if that source is not provided.
I am FOR what you rightly call the "posters job."
And I am FOR doing so WITH LINK, not just something in the graphic itself that is ostensibly the the source but is home made.
`
Go to Google. Do an image search for "radiative forcing factors". You will find many versions of these data. All of them show a very small but distinctly NEGATIVE value for Land Use"got a link to that graph?
Go to Google. Do an image search for "radiative forcing factors". You will find many versions of these data. All of them show a very small but distinctly NEGATIVE value for Land Use"
That almost sounds like you don't believe there is an urban heat island effect.Go to Google. Do an image search for "radiative forcing factors". You will find many versions of these data. All of them show a very small but distinctly NEGATIVE value for Land Use"
Go to Google. Do an image search for "radiative forcing factors". You will find many versions of these data. All of them show a very small but distinctly NEGATIVE value for Land Use"
Where is the link to this graph?Crick , Wouldn't stupid be saying orbital cycles were responsible for the 50 to 60 temperature swings of the past 10,000 years? Orbital cycles have really really long cycle times - 26,000 to 100,000 years. This looks more like 5 to 6 cycles per 1000 years.
View attachment 605840
I already provided it to your superior in intellect, abu afuk. But let me provide it again because I am such a nice guy.Where is the link to this graph?
But not necessarily faster than has previously occurred, right? It's just that you don't know one way or another, right?So, Antarctica's and Greenland's land-based ice sheets are melting faster than previously known. All the models up to now have been underestimating their contribution to sea level rise. That is the topic of this thread.
I'd say there's still a long way to go in proving that. Especially since you have made some lofty projections on how fast the sea will rise. We aren't seeing anything like that yet. And if we did it still isn't clear that man is the cause of that as temperature trends up and down are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world. Something you seem unwilling to acknowledge. So given the fluctuations that we know have occurred before the industrial revolution it's not as cut and dried as you would like to believe. Especially since they are lumping the urban heat island effect into their models for CO2 and using low variability solar output datasets.All the models up to now have been underestimating their contribution to sea level rise. That is the topic of this thread.
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.
View attachment 606323
View attachment 606326
View attachment 606327
View attachment 606329
View attachment 606331
View attachment 606332
View attachment 606333
View attachment 606334
And so forth and so forth and so forth...
Where's your correct answer to the question what caused the warming and cooling trends before the industrial revolution. Your previous answer - Orbital cycles/forcing - was an incorrect.Where is the link to this graph?
It confuses "them" but not you. Again, you're claiming to be smarter than several thousand, published, PhD scientists actively researching in this field. My apologies, but I don't buy it.Clouds, water vapor, urban heat island effect and high variability solar output datasets confuse them, so they just ignore it or add it into CO2.
The whole water vapor / cloud thing is pretty damn complex. Whether it is a positive or negative feedback is complicated because it's probably both. So the question is what's the net and that answer may not always hold true for all landmass configurations throughout geologic time. That's how complicated I think it is. But what I will say is given the wave like function of temperature fluctuations it sure appears that there is a self compensating feature at work that we do not fully understand and if there is it's probably water vapor and clouds.It confuses "them" but not you. Again, you're claiming to be smarter than several thousand, published, PhD scientists actively researching in this field. My apologies, but I don't buy it.
Here is the conclusion to the paper from which your datasets are drawn: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
Then you didn't read the paper....Here is the conclusion to the paper from which your datasets are drawn:
Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies R. Connolly et al.: How Much has the Sun Influenced Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends? 131–59 claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.
No where does this paper even suggest that the primary cause of the observed global warming is due anything other than the greenhouse effect operating on human GHG emissions. No where does this paper even suggest that the primary or even a major cause of the observed warming is changes in TSI. This paper, as it states repeatedly, deals solely with arriving at a better estimate of the input of the TSI changes on solar warming in the Northern Hemisphere. They fully admit in their concluding recommendations that the impact of including or excluding UHI-affected data is under robust debate. And no where in this paper does it suggest that UHI-affected data should be excluded in the calculation of the Earth's actual temperature. You have misunderstood this paper in hopes that it would provide evidence for your flat-Earth level suppositions about global warming. It simply does not.
And, since the topic of this thread is NOT TSI, global warming, UHI or any of the other strawman arguments you've attempted to bring up here, your entire input to this conversation is off topic. If you have no comments to make concerning kinetic heating of meltwater in Greenland and Antarctica, I suggest you find another thread.
It confuses "them" but not you. Again, you're claiming to be smarter than several thousand, published, PhD scientists actively researching in this field. My apologies, but I don't buy it.