- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #941
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #942
Really?Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years. After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken...
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #943
Really? 3Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years. After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken,,,
Who got "afforded the opportunity?"
and 100 more.
`
Last edited:
You are confusing natural variations with CO2. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #945
It's game overYou are confusing natural variations with CO2. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.
View attachment 578116
I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
(and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).
You LOST Dingo.
`
Yes, really. We are 2C below past climates with 120 ppm more CO2. Again... You are confusing natural variations with CO2. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.
Feel free to quit anytime you want.It's game over
I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution.
You LOST Dingo
`
Relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. There is no empirical evidence which quantifies the radiative forcing of CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. CO2 has never been shown to drive climate change in the geologic record. In fact, the geologic record shows that CO2 trails temperature changes. So your implication that CO2 must be responsible for the current warming trend is false. It's more complicated than that.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,556
- 4,859
- 210
You can lead a stubborn jackass to temperatures tracking right along with CO2 changes till the cows come home. Result will still be: deny, deny, deny!It's game over
I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
(and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).
You LOST Dingo.`
- May 20, 2009
- 144,499
- 66,903
- 2,330
1) Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.
2) ALL of the Earth's radiated IR is absorbed by CO2, water vapor, methane and other trace GHGs in the atmosphere long before escaping to space. This is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
3) The Greenhouse Effect HAS been demonstrated in the lab. Ask Google or just search YouTube. That you should think otherwise tells me you've never looked or have chosen to lie.
4) The Earth's temperature has been rising at an unprecedented and accelerating rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That point has been determined by more than half a dozen national and academic science institutions with almost identical results.
5) The rise of sea level due to thermal expansion and ice melt primarily from Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating and is taking place at a rate that has not been seen since well before the rise of homo sapiens
1) Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.
How odd that shutting the economy down for a year and cutting CO2 by greater levels than ever imagined HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON CO2
Science is never settled.You can lead a stubborn jackass to temperatures tracking right along with CO2 changes till the cows come home. Result will still be: deny, deny, deny!
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.
ShieldSquare Captcha
- May 20, 2009
- 144,499
- 66,903
- 2,330
It's game over
I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
(and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).
You LOST Dingo.
`
Is modern CO2 different from the CO2 in the ice cores showing a 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?
- May 20, 2009
- 144,499
- 66,903
- 2,330
^ I have peer reviewed the above post and find it 100% accurateScience is never settled.
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.
ShieldSquare Captcha
We have consensus!
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,556
- 4,859
- 210
Predatory publishing - Wikipedia
Stop Predatory Journals
I've seen people with dementia make more sense than some of your posts.Predatory publishing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Stop Predatory Journals
What is it that you are trying to say here exactly?
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,556
- 4,859
- 210
----------WOOSH!------->
----------WOOSH!------->
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
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
----------WOOSH!------->
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales.”
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
“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."
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
“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."
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy)
“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.”
Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.)
“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."
Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia
“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.”
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.)
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese."
WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK)
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales.”
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
“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."
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
“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."
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy)
“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.”
Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.)
“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."
Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia
“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.”
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.)
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese."
WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK)
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,556
- 4,859
- 210
I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 114
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 636
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 183
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 183
- Views
- 778
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 44
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8084
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-