Global warming is speeding up.

[Crick]

I would likely agree with him on everything but his conclusion of man made climate change. That's a conclusion based upon emotion. The data overwhelmingly shows that the earth has been cooling for over 50 million years and that that cooling took a step change 2.7 million years ago when the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why is it you never want to discuss what the world has been doing for the past 150 years?

 

[Stryder50]

Toddsterpatriot

Global warming, not surprisingly, started with the industrial revolution.

Standard lie and disinformation from Leftist alarmist whom are science ignorant.

 

[Stryder50]

Why is it you never want to discuss what the world has been doing for the past 150 years?

Why is you alarmist and science ignorant types don't want to apply longer timeline perspective and see the situation in real proportion?

What caused the greater warming 15-13,000 years ago which melted the layers of ice during the most recent ice age?

Just one example.

 

[Crick]

1) AGW is theorized to have been taking place since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the period since the Industrial Revolution is one in which we have an interest.
2) The Earth has gone through lots of changes in its 4.5 billion years with a multitude of different causes and different effects. The vast majority of those changes took place on a geological timescale and are irrelevant to the rapid warming taking place now.
3) Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet for the last 200,000 years. Human culture with an infrastructure vulnerable to harm from rapid climate changes has only developed in the last few thousand years. Thus it is deviations from our more recent history with which we need be concerned.
4) The climate processes visible in the geological record were driven by orbital mechanics, changes in solar flux and volcanism. None of those processes are providing sufficient forcing at present to be responsible for the observed warming.

 

[ding]

Why is it you never want to discuss what the world has been doing for the past 150 years?

I am happy to discuss what the world has been doing for the past 150 years. Just don't try to prove that CO2 is responsible while including the urban heat affect and ignoring the effect of the sun's variability by using low variability TSI data sets.

Because.... scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, 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

 

[ding]

1) AGW is theorized to have been taking place since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the period since the Industrial Revolution is one in which we have an interest.
2) The Earth has gone through lots of changes in its 4.5 billion years with a multitude of different causes and different effects. The vast majority of those changes took place on a geological timescale and are irrelevant to the rapid warming taking place now.
3) Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet for the last 200,000 years. Human culture with an infrastructure vulnerable to harm from rapid climate changes has only developed in the last few thousand years. Thus it is deviations from our more recent history with which we need be concerned.
4) The climate processes visible in the geological record were driven by orbital mechanics, changes in solar flux and volcanism. None of those processes are providing sufficient forcing at present to be responsible for the observed warming.

Actually you are neglecting the biggest driver for the earth's climate which led to the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet; the distribution of landmass which led to the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents and led to bi-polar glaciation.

This more than anything else is what has triggered the earth into the rapid cooling of the last 5 million years.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Those aren't opinions. They are graphs of empirical data - the stuff you used to claim was the gold standard of science.

Graphs are not worth the paper they're printed on. Science is "no where" near what you think it is. You need to be aware of the Replication Crisis.



Unless you're willing to open your eyes to the problem of science, you're just part of and adding to this crisis.

So for example, did you repeat the experiments to confirm the findings of the graphs?

 

[Stryder50]

I am happy to discuss what the world has been doing for the past 150 years. Just don't try to prove that CO2 is responsible while including the urban heat affect and ignoring the effect of the sun's variability by using low variability TSI data sets.

Because.... scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, 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

The challenge is you and I are dealing with religious fanatic true believers whom don't respond to reason and logic. They are locked in to their delusions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1) AGW is theorized to have been taking place since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the period since the Industrial Revolution is one in which we have an interest.
2) The Earth has gone through lots of changes in its 4.5 billion years with a multitude of different causes and different effects. The vast majority of those changes took place on a geological timescale and are irrelevant to the rapid warming taking place now.
3) Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet for the last 200,000 years. Human culture with an infrastructure vulnerable to harm from rapid climate changes has only developed in the last few thousand years. Thus it is deviations from our more recent history with which we need be concerned.
4) The climate processes visible in the geological record were driven by orbital mechanics, changes in solar flux and volcanism. None of those processes are providing sufficient forcing at present to be responsible for the observed warming.

"Theorized" - You do know what that means, right?

 

[ding]

Effectively they have ignored the sun's natural variability and piled on the urban heat effect and blamed it on CO2 because they have misunderstood the pre-industrial correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 and confused the increased climate fluctuation and environment uncertainty of a bipolar glaciated planet where the current temperature is close to the threshold for extensive continental glaciation.

I am totally onboard with man influencing (but not driving) earth's climate through urbanization and deforestation. The urban island heat effect has been proven to be real. The impact of a 120 ppm increase in a minor greenhouse gas has not.

Show me an experiment modeling this minor greenhouse gas at the trace concentrations of 300 ppm and 420 ppm. Then let's talk.