Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[Redfish]

First, as I have had to explain to dozens of AGW-deniers, there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. What we have is evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the primary cause of the observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is human GHG emissions. See the following data:
View attachment 641288

https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__image_gallery/public/images/201003/20100310094520-2.png?itok=eODJcyjW

That you should think science was unable to show that warming was not coincidental indicates you have a very poor grasp or familiarity with the science here.



One of the factors that the historical data show is that increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will lead to increasing temperatures. And an enormous amount of study has gone into the natural cycles that have affected past climate and science has been clearly able to tell whether or not and to what extent similar factors are affecting climate today. You seem to be pleading selective ignorance: that we know enough of the distant past to tell that non-human factors have affected climate but unable to tell whether or not they are affecting the present climate. I'm sorry but that's just irrational ignorance.




The reason you know that temperatures will continue to increase for some time is that you read it in mainstream science sources. You equating science with the left is complimentary but unfounded. The politicization of this topic is one of the stupidest things ever done. The bullshit you've been fed did not originate with conservatives such as yourself. It originated with the fossil fuel industry for whom action to end AGW is an existential threat. This isn't about politics, its about money.

lets just address one of your lies. CO2. the CO2 level today is .039% based on ice core samples and fossil records it was at that same level 500,000 years ago. the acts of humans have NOT increased atmospheric CO2

 

[mamooth]

humans may cause pollution, but there is zero proven connection between human caused pollution and the climate of planet earth.

Just plain wrong.

The stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwarve in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for the human origin of global warming. There are no natural explanations for those directly observed things, therefore your "It's natural!" theory is demonstrably wrong.

the lib media is lying to you, the lib college profs are lying to you. the prophet algore is lying to you, ancient Kerry is lying to you, obozo is lying to you, senile joe is lying to you, cameltoe harris is too stupid to lie so she just parrots other lies.

No, that doesn't make you sound at all like a deranged cultist. Really it doesn't. Normal people are always screaming that the whole world is lying to them.

Earth's climate is controlled by the sun and only the sun.

Solar output has gone _down_ since 1970, but temperature has gone _up_. Given how ignorant of the basics you are, you really shouldn't be bothering the adults.

 

[mamooth]

lets just address one of your lies. CO2. the CO2 level today is .039% based on ice core samples and fossil records it was at that same level 500,000 years ago. the acts of humans have NOT increased atmospheric CO2

If anyone ever said CO2 was the only thing controlling climate, that would matter. But since no one has, you're just babbling nonsense.

 

[Redfish]

Just plain wrong.

The stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwarve in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for the human origin of global warming. There are no natural explanations for those directly observed things, therefore your "It's natural!" theory is demonstrably wrong.


No, that doesn't make you sound at all like a deranged cultist. Really it doesn't. Normal people are always screaming that the whole world is lying to them.


Solar output has gone _down_ since 1970, but temperature has gone _up_. Given how ignorant of the basics you are, you really shouldn't be bothering the adults.

more BS. solar output has not gone down. Where do you get this crap? CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the same today as it was 50,000 years ago. Why can't you lefties fight the real problem--------------pollution? I think I understand why, because only through AGW can you control the lives of the billions of people on earth. " do as we say or you will burn up" Its a cult and you have been brainwashed in its bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

If anyone ever said CO2 was the only thing controlling climate, that would matter. But since no one has, you're just babbling nonsense.

your prophet, the great Algore said exactly that. Was he lying?

 

[Crick]

your prophet, the great Algore said exactly that. Was he lying?

Exactly? Then you have a link to a quote, right? And he's no one's prophet. Just demonstrably smarter than any AGW denier on this board.

 

[Crick]

more BS. solar output has not gone down. Where do you get this crap? CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the same today as it was 50,000 years ago. Why can't you lefties fight the real problem--------------pollution? I think I understand why, because only through AGW can you control the lives of the billions of people on earth. " do as we say or you will burn up" Its a cult and you have been brainwashed in its bullshit.

You've apparently been brainwashed to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of idiot so there's no need for YOU to exercise your truly massive intellect. Solar output has gone down

Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

The Sun's average brightness varies over time, and the changes can affect global surface temperature. But long-term changes over the period of human-caused global warming are minimal.

www.climate.gov

Solar vs Temperature

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

And since no human infrastructure existed 50,000 years ago, a far more important change is seen here

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels - Carbon Brief

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is now reaching levels 50% higher than when humanity began large-scale burning of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[ding]

View attachment 644085

 

[Redfish]

Exactly? Then you have a link to a quote, right? And he's no one's prophet. Just demonstrably smarter than any AGW denier on this board.

LOL Algore said, in his book, that by the year 2010 Florida would be totally under water and the arctic would not have any ice. Did those things happen? or was he lying? or is he just stupid? it has to be one of the 3.

 

[Redfish]

You've apparently been brainwashed to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of idiot so there's no need for YOU to exercise your truly massive intellect. Solar output has gone down
View attachment 644084

Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

The Sun's average brightness varies over time, and the changes can affect global surface temperature. But long-term changes over the period of human-caused global warming are minimal.

www.climate.gov

View attachment 644085

Solar vs Temperature

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

And since no human infrastructure existed 50,000 years ago, a far more important change is seen here
View attachment 644086

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels - Carbon Brief

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is now reaching levels 50% higher than when humanity began large-scale burning of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution.

www.carbonbrief.org

anyone can make charts. figures don't lie, but liars figure. I could make a chart that showed that the earth's average temp had dropped . It would be as valid as the ones you posted. But once again, you are claiming that human pollution caused these changes, post a direct proven link between pollution and climate and we will discuss it. otherwise your charts prove only that someone has chart making software and is inputting their own data to try to convince gullible fools like you. Is Miami under water as Gore said it would be? Is the polar ice gone?

 

[Crick]

anyone can make charts. figures don't lie, but liars figure. I could make a chart that showed that the earth's average temp had dropped . It would be as valid as the ones you posted. But once again, you are claiming that human pollution caused these changes, post a direct proven link between pollution and climate and we will discuss it. otherwise your charts prove only that someone has chart making software and is inputting their own data to try to convince gullible fools like you. Is Miami under water as Gore said it would be? Is the polar ice gone?

God almighty you're stupid. I will simply continue to point to the NOAA data I've posted. That work is completely open to the public and has been peer reviewed. So far all we've gotten from you is your verbal claims. Where is your data? Where are your links? If you want to see evidence supporting the contention that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last century or so, see IPCC Assessment Reports 5 or 6, The Physical Science Basis. If you find something there you think you can challenge, let us know.

 

[Redfish]

God almighty you're stupid. I will simply continue to point to the NOAA data I've posted. That work is completely open to the public and has been peer reviewed. So far all we've gotten from you is your verbal claims. Where is your data? Where are your links? If you want to see evidence supporting the contention that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last century or so, see IPCC Assessment Reports 5 or 6, The Physical Science Basis. If you find something there you think you can challenge, let us know.

Do those chart makers have an agenda? Are they being paid to "prove" AGW? Did the prophet of AGW, the great Algore, not predict that Florida would be under water by now and that all polar ice would be gone? Try to answer honestly, if you cannot do that then we all know that you are totally brainwashed by the cult of man made warming. '

Final question: How did the acts of humans cause the warming trends that happened millions of years ago? or the cooling trends if that's easier for your feeble mind.

In the 1970s your cult said the earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze and die because no crops could be grown in the coming cold. Did that happen? yes or no.

 

[para bellum]

That work is completely open to the public and has been peer reviewed.

This part isn't true. NOAA does not make public their raw data or the model manipulations.

Even the ARGO data is modeled- there aren't nearly enough buoys to cover all the oceans.

There was no warming between 2000 and 2010. This was a big problem because the models do not permit CO2 to go up for 10 years without surface temps following.

NOAA "corrected" the ARGO data by artificially hiking the temperature recorded on every buoy.

The reason they said it was needed, was because the historical data didn't diverge enough from current temps to show the trend the models predict. They had to change the data. The excuse was that the historical data- readings taken from ships at sea- must have been warmer than it really was. Maybe it was taken in the engine room.

They had no empirical data to support the assumption- they just needed to make a correction to the current sea surface temps from ARGO to conform with the models.

Even if you accept that was correct- the proper fix would be to lower the historical averages by an adjustment factor, not increase the current data (which is much higher quality data anyway).

The stratospheric cooling that must accompany surface warming was not reflected in the satellite data- because the warming from 2000-2010 didn't happen.

That alone disproves the models.

The very best supercomputers we have for modeling complex non-linear systems are the hurricane models. They are pretty good in the short term- 24-48 hours. But the further out you try to predict, the larger the margin of error becomes, it's just the nature of chaotic systems.

Predicting the earth's climate is that problem- multiplied by a gazillion times for the added complexity.

CO2 has increased as the temperature warms, that is natural gas law. The oceans warm and dissolved gases escape into the atmosphere as the osmotic pressure increases. Very predictable.

Using 1850 as the "starting point" is disingenuous because that was the end of the LIA, and the temps naturally rebounded from the cool period.

If there is a human signal in the data, it's obscured in the noise of natural variability. Yes, the surface is warming. No, it cannot be attributed to CO2, which I like to call the "magic thermostat".

IOW, the AGW theory is based on the notion that a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere is the control. If we can somehow make that trace gas go down to say 0.038%, we would have our fingers on the earth's thermostat.

It's hubris, and asinine, and non-scientific in the extreme.

Your solar irradiance graph shows two cooling periods- the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum that marks the end of the LIA. The rest of the time (and the current time) it's flat.

Geologically speaking, we are in a cool period. It is called the Holocene Interglacial (meaning we are in between ice ages).

 

[Crick]

lets just address one of your lies. CO2. the CO2 level today is .039% based on ice core samples and fossil records it was at that same level 500,000 years ago. the acts of humans have NOT increased atmospheric CO2

The current CO2 level of the atmosphere is 421.57 ppm (or 0.042157% in your parlance). See: The Keeling Curve. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 had been stable at 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Two analysis methods: simple bookkeeping and isotopic analysis, both show that virtually every molecule above that 280 ppm level was created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

So, you are demonstrably incorrect.

ADDITIONALLY:

From the same page as the Keeling Curve CO2 data were acquired we have this:

Which makes it extremely obvious that CO2 levels since the latter half of the 20th century have exceeded anything seen in the last 800,000 years. So, where did you get the idea that it had not changed? Do you have some links?

 

[Redfish]

The current CO2 level of the atmosphere is 421.57 ppm (or 0.042157% in your parlance). See: The Keeling Curve. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 had been stable at 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Two analysis methods: simple bookkeeping and isotopic analysis, both show that virtually every molecule above that 280 ppm level was created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

So, you are demonstrably incorrect.

ADDITIONALLY:

From the same page as the Keeling Curve CO2 data were acquired we have this:

View attachment 644441

Which makes it extremely obvious that CO2 levels since the latter half of the 20th century have exceeded anything seen in the last 800,000 years. So, where did you get the idea that it had not changed? Do you have some links?

so those peaks 800,000 years ago, what caused them, dinosaur farts, or soccer moms driving suvs? did the flintstones have a gas guzzling suv? even if the chart is correct, which I doubt, CO2 is not poison, no life on earth would exist without it. How about posting a chart from the 1970s when the same "experts" said the earth was in a cooling cycle and we were all going to freeze and die because it would be too cold to grow anything. The point is this: pay me to create a data stream, convert it to a chart and I will reach whatever conclusion you pay me to reach. its all propaganda, deal with reality. Earth's climate is controlled by the sun, earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean current fluctuations. Man has never had anything to do with it, and short of all out nuclear war never will. Even if a nuclear war wiped out all humanity, the earth would recover in 10,000 years or so. We are a spec on a flea on the ass of an elephant when it comes to the climate of planet earth.

 

[ding]

God almighty you're stupid.

That would be an example of the dunning effect.

 

[ding]

I will simply continue to point to the NOAA data I've posted.

You mean the one that includes the urban heat island effect and hides the natural variation in the rural dataset?

 

[ding]

If you want to see evidence supporting the contention that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last century or so, see IPCC Assessment Reports 5 or 6, The Physical Science Basis. If you find something there you think you can challenge, let us know.

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

 

[Crick]

so those peaks 800,000 years ago, what caused them, dinosaur farts, or soccer moms driving suvs?

The peaks are caused by interglacial warm periods. Increased temperature reduces the ability of liquids (in this case, the Earth's oceans) to dissolve gases (CO2). There is a very strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature throughout those ice records.

did the flintstones have a gas guzzling suv? even if the chart is correct, which I doubt, CO2 is not poison, no life on earth would exist without it.

I hate to be the bearer of such embarassing news, but CO2 IS poisonous. From The Wisconsin Department of Health Services at https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

• 400 ppm: average outdoor air level.
• 400–1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
• 1,000–2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
• 2,000–5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
• 5,000 ppm: this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
• 40,000 ppm: this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

How about posting a chart from the 1970s when the same "experts" said the earth was in a cooling cycle and we were all going to freeze and die because it would be too cold to grow anything.

That isn't possible because the same experts did NOT believe the Earth was in a cooling cycle. The belief in an imminent ice age was more a product of magazines, newspapers and a few amateur and off-topic researchers than that of any number of climate scientists. Scientists have been concerned about CO2 causing excess warming since late in the 19th century.

The point is this: pay me to create a data stream, convert it to a chart and I will reach whatever conclusion you pay me to reach. its all propaganda, deal with reality.

How about you make the effort and expense of obtaining a doctorate in a climate research field and folks can pay you to ACTUALLY conduct research on this topic and ACTUALLY come to some conclusions and ACTUALLY write a report on your findings and ACTUALLY submit them for peer review and (assuming you did all your work right and aren't trying to bullshit anyone) ACTUALLY get them published in a refereed science journal. You have a sixth grader's understanding as to how science actually works. You need to correct that. Science is not manufactured bullshit, it is the best information we have on how the natural world works.

Earth's climate is controlled by the sun, earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean current fluctuations. Man has never had anything to do with it, and short of all out nuclear war never will. Even if a nuclear war wiped out all humanity, the earth would recover in 10,000 years or so. We are a spec on a flea on the ass of an elephant when it comes to the climate of planet earth.

Well, you are certainly not the first person to believe such things but I'm afraid we are. For instance, many people with views like yours assume that the volume of gases from volcanoes must absolutely dwarf those produced by humans. But it turns out that volcanoes produce less than one-sixtieth the carbon dioxide as humans. See Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov or Even volcanos do not surpass the human contribution to CO2 emissions or Volcanoes Emit more CO2 than Mankind — OSS Foundation

 

[ding]

That isn't possible because the same experts did NOT believe the Earth was in a cooling cycle. The belief in an imminent ice age was more a product of magazines, newspapers and a few amateur and off-topic researchers than that of any number of climate scientists. Scientists have been concerned about CO2 causing excess warming since late in the 19th century.

Didn't you once argue that the planet was cooling during the little ice age and that it was CO2 that caused the planet to reverse course?