Glaring Inconsistency In Estimating CO2 vs. Solar Forcing Suggests CO2 Impacts Are Wildly Exaggerated

[Sunsettommy]

The Sun/Ocean dynamo is the domination factor for on the planets heat budget changes.

NTZ

Glaring Inconsistency In Estimating CO2 vs. Solar Forcing Suggests CO2 Impacts Are Wildly Exaggerated

By Kenneth Richard on 23. June 2022

Excerpt:

From about 11,000 to 9,000 years ago the summer solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth’s surface has been estimated to be 40-60 W/m² greater than today from latitudes 40°N to 70°N (Ullman et al., 2015). These values seriously undermine the claim CO2 is the driver of climate change.​

Image Source: Ullman et al., 2015

Despite these much higher insolation values, surface temperatures have been estimated to be only a few degrees warmer than today at these latitudes during the Early Holocene.

At 77°N in High Arctic Svalbard, for example, summers were estimated to be 7°C warmer than today from 10,000 to 9,000 years ago due to this higher radiative forcing (van der Bilt et al., 2019).

LINK

=====

CO2 was around 260ppm at the time.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Wow, facts like these make me wonder if man made climate change is a straight up grift for easily fooled sheep?
I'd really start to doubt the whole thing if these clowns were admitting that is actually about transforming the economy & faking the science is OK since the ends justify the means.
I'm glad I'm just a low info progbot so I can go on ignoring the facts about this decades long scam & continue to do my part to "save the planet" from cow farts & clouds

 

[Billy_Bob]

Higher temps and lower CO2 levels... Breaks the correlation narrative in half.

Looking Leif Salvagards numbers in some of his recent papers, this pretty much finishes off the CO2 narrative they use.

Changes in angle of incidence and internal fusion reaction changes on the sun can explain all of the warming and cooling on earth. The CAGW narrative is being torn apart at the roots of its design.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Sun is continually disrespected by warmist/alarmists who are in thrall with a Narcotic (CO2) that generates delusions and denial of the Sun dominance to the heat circulation of the planet.

It is truly STUPID actually since it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that is the dominant driver of weather circulations we see every day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Calling for reinforcements from Crick, Old Rocks, mamooth and any and all AGW professional informers. The Sun has no impact on climate, right? I mean really? The Sun? LOL!

Show us again how 120PPM additional CO2 drives the climate of Earth to the global death warming apocalypse

 

[mamooth]

Calling for reinforcements from Crick, Old Rocks, mamooth and any and all AGW professional informers. The Sun has no impact on climate, right? I mean really? The Sun? LOL!

So why do you keep saying that the sun has no impact on climate?

You're the only person here to say such an insane thing, but you never tell us us why. Is it just some sort of weird religious belief that you bitterly cling to?

Oh, none of us are professionals. It doesn't require a professional to refute your cult ramblings. Any informed person can do it. Any grade schooler can do it. Afte all, the grade schoolers know that the sun affects climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So why do you keep saying that the sun has no impact on climate?

You're the only person here to say such an insane thing, but you never tell us us why. Is it just some sort of weird religious belief that you bitterly cling to?

Oh, none of us are professionals. It doesn't require a professional to refute your cult ramblings. Any informed person can do it. Any grade schooler can do it. Afte all, the grade schoolers know that the sun affects climate.

Wait, are you saying you've controlled for variances in solar output in your climate experimen...er, I mean models? Really? Are you sure?

It appears to us laymen that you hold all variables, except CO2, at zero impact on climate. How did your climate experimen....er, models control for solar variances?

 

[mamooth]

Anyways, a standard Tommy thread, where he takes some papers that really say not much about the topic, and makes a hysterical claim that they somehow refute all of AGW theory.

Sure, it fools the denier cultists. Propaganda always does.

And yes, we know Tommy didn't make up the loony claims himself. He's just a brainless cut-and-paste propaganda parrot. His masters told him to spread the stupid, and he obeyed.

Tommy, this is where you jump in and scream in unhinged rage. Please proceed.

 

[mamooth]

Wait, are you saying

I'm saying you're a megatard for saying that the sun has no affect on climate.

What about that statement confoozes you?

Now fuck right off, little troll.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm saying you're a megatard for saying that the sun has no affect on climate.

What about that statement confoozes you?

Now fuck right off, little troll.

Tell us more about your consensus!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyways, a standard Tommy thread, where he takes some papers that really say not much about the topic, and makes a hysterical claim that they somehow refute all of AGW theory.

Sure, it fools the denier cultists. Propaganda always does.

And yes, we know Tommy didn't make up the loony claims himself. He's just a brainless cut-and-paste propaganda parrot. His masters told him to spread the stupid, and he obeyed.

Tommy, this is where you jump in and scream in unhinged rage. Please proceed.

Coming from an ignoramus, such as you, that is a compliment.

Tommy rightly assessed the data from one paper and applied it to observed behavior of the planet. Odd that you are unable to see that. Must be your blinders. Real scientists and people with cognitive thinking skills can make these connections.

When you jump right to calling names because you are incapable of cognitive thought makes you look partisan, ignorant and silly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's where mamooth posts the AGW experiments controlling for solar variance.

Oh wait! Darn it!

Earth is too darn big and has too many variables so they can't ever do a single experiment showing how 120PPM of CO2 is a Earth destroying heat generating death ray!

They have consensus

Science!

 

[mamooth]

Here's where mamooth posts the AGW experiments controlling for solar variance.

So what retard told you that solar variance wasn't in the models, and why did you believe something that stupid?

Oh wait. You've been shown before that it was included. You're just trolling and lying again.

Again, fuck off, little troll.

 

[mamooth]

Tommy rightly assessed the data from one paper and applied it to observed behavior of the planet.

No, Tommy didn't do that. One of his propaganda sources did that. He just parroted it.

Needless to say, it was a garbage assessment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what retard told you that solar variance wasn't in the models, and why did you believe something that stupid?

Oh wait. You've been shown before that it was included. You're just trolling and lying again.

Again, fuck off, little troll.

Solar variance is a 98 pound weakling next to 120PPM of CO2, right? Solar variances can't reach the deep ocean, but CO2 can

 

[ding]

So why do you keep saying that the sun has no impact on climate?

Ummmm... because climate scientists say that? See?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ummmm... because climate scientists say that? See?

View attachment 662838

When you add the impacts of changing solar output and how water vapor in our atmosphere react as dampeners, these numbers become irrelevant very quickly. They try to calculate the positive forcings and then ignore the negative (opposing) forces.

Everything is one sided with alarmists...

 

[ding]

So what retard told you that solar variance wasn't in the models, and why did you believe something that stupid?

The models relied upon by the IPCC use the low variability solar output dataset. To make matters worse the models assume [that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it. The climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.]

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[ding]

When you add the impacts of changing solar output and how water vapor in our atmosphere react as dampeners, these numbers become irrelevant very quickly. They try to calculate the positive forcings and then ignore the negative (opposing) forces.

You'd think that 50 million years worth of data which shows a cooling earth which wasn't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing would give them pause for thought concerning natural processes. The way their models are jacked up they could never explain why the earth cooled for 50 million years with so much CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ummmm... because climate scientists say that? See?

View attachment 662838

...and that, Officer, was the last time mamooth, or any Warmer, was seen in this thread. Do you have any idea where he might be?