How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Offset by converting solar radiation into electricity. The net effect is cooling.

Offset?
The heat island effect showed it absolutely wasn't offset.
If it was neutral, it would be cooler at the array and warmer where the electricity was used.

 

[ding]

I just expalined why you Trolling POS
Here's a more official version

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting. In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12%20Mid-Holocene%20Warm%20Period%20%26%20Penultimate%20Interglacial%20Period%20%26%20Early%20Eocene%20Period%20-FINAL%20OCT%202021.pdf

None of that disputes anything I just wrote, dummy.

 

[ding]

Offset?
The heat island effect showed it absolutely wasn't offset.
If it was neutral, it would be cooler at the array and warmer where the electricity was used.

Entirely different thing. That's the concrete jungle. Not your silly belief that electricity usage is warming the planet. Electricity usage is the same in both cases; electricity generated from non-solar sources and electricity generated from solar sources. So whatever heat you think is being returned to the planet from using electricity is in both cases. But only one case reduces the solar radiation that strikes the surface of the planet. So incrementally the widespread use of solar power will have a cooling effect on the planet because the decreased albedo of the panel itself is more than offset by the solar radiation converted to radiation.

 

[abu afak]

ding said:
And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

 

[ding]

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

Still not seeing anything that disputes what I said....

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

Orbital forcing coupled with increased albedo with the northern hemisphere at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation is what triggers the glacial cycle. Solar variability coupled with decreased albedo and orbital forcing is what slowly brings us out of glacial cycles.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions depending upon which data sets they use. You have mistakenly attributed the recent warming trend with CO2 when it is entirely a product of natural causes; specifically the sun.

 

[ding]

Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated planet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Primarily the sun, urban heat island effect and the reduced albedo of an interglacial cycle.

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

One would think the planet being on the precipice of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation would be the starting point of every climate discussion. We can see signs of it every winter.

Here you go from Watts Up With That? 2012 post,

LINK

Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.

Excerpt from Bond: “Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.”

Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.

Finding from Neff: Correlation coefficients of .55 and .60.

Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.

Excerpt from Usoskin: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.”

Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today.

Excerpt from Shaviv: “We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.” [Not strictly due to solar activity, but implicating the GCR, or CRF, that solar activity modulates.]

Plenty of anti-CO2 alarmists know about this stuff. Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, for instance, in their 2007 paper: “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” (Proc. R. Soc. A), began by documenting how “[a] number of studies have indicated that solar variations had an effect on preindustrial climate throughout the Holocene.” In support, they cited 17 papers, the Bond and Neff articles from above, plus:

Davis & Shafer 1992; Jirikowic et al. 1993; Davis 1994; vanGeel et al. 1998; Yu&Ito 1999; Hu et al. 2003; Sarnthein et al. 2003; Christla et al. 2004; Prasad et al. 2004; Wei & Wang 2004; Maasch et al. 2005; Mayewski et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005a; Bard & Frank 2006; and Polissar et al. 2006.

The correlations in most of these papers are not directly to temperature. They are to temperature proxies, some of which have a complex relationship with temperature, like Neff 2001, which found a correlation between solar activity and rainfall. Even so, the correlations tend to be strong, as if the whole gyre is somehow moving in broad synchrony with solar activity.

Some studies do examine correlations between solar activity proxies and direct temperature proxies, like the ratio of Oxygen18 to Oxygen16 in geologic samples. One such study (highlighted in Kirkby 2007) is Mangini et. al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.”

Excerpt from Mangini: “… a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300). This correlation indicates that the variability of δ18O is driven by solar changes, in agreement with previous results on Holocene stalagmites from Oman, and from Central Germany.”

And that’s just old stuff. Here are four random recent papers.

Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.

Excerpt from Ogurtsov: “Statistical analysis of the carbon and oxygen stable isotope records reveals variations in the periods around 100, 11 and 3 years. A century scale connection between the 13C/12C record and solar activity is most evident.”

Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.

Excerpt from Di Rita: “The chronological correspondence between the ages of saltmarsh vegetation reductions and the minimum concentration values of 10Be in the GISP2 ice core supports the hypothesis that important fluctuations in the extent of the salt-marsh in the coastal Tavoliere plain are related to variations of solar activity.”

Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.

Excerpt from Raspopov: “Our analysis of 200-year climatic oscillations in modern times and also data of other researchers referred to above suggest that these climatic oscillations can be attributed to solar forcing. The results obtained in our study for climatic variations millions of years ago indicate, in our opinion, that the 200- year solar cycle exerted a strong influence on climate parameters at those time intervals as well.”

Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.

Excerpt from Tan: “Solar activity may be the dominant force that drove the same-phase variations of the temperature and precipitation in north central China.”

Saltmarshes, precipitation, “oscillations.” It’s all so science-fair. How about something just plain scary?

Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” submitted astro-ph.

Excerpt from Solheim: “We find that for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 30-90% of the temperature increase in this period may be attributed to the Sun. For the average of 60 European stations we find ≈ 60% and globally (HadCRUT3) ≈ 50%. The same relations predict a temperature decrease of ≈ 0.9°C globally and 1.1−1.7°C for the Norwegian stations investigated from solar cycle 23 to 24.”

Those two dozen there are just the start. Scafetta hasn’t even been mentioned. (Sorry Nicola.) But there is a lot in those 24.

 

[ding]

Let's ham and egg them!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Entirely different thing.

Nope.
Your claim is that the energy converted into electricity isn't available to heat the Earth.
But the area around the solar array is hotter, not cooler. When you add that to the heat given off when the electricity is used, it's net warming, not net cooling.

Not your silly belief that electricity usage is warming the planet.

I never claimed that. Not even once.

But only one case reduces the solar radiation that strikes the surface of the planet.

You mean the case where the albedo of the solar panel is lower than the albedo of the planet?
Tell me again how that cools anything.

the decreased albedo of the panel itself

Glad you finally figured that one out.

is more than offset by the solar radiation converted to radiation.

Tell me the efficiency of your theoretical "cooling panel" and I'll be glad to show you your error.

 

[task0778]

IMHO, the question should be how much do we know about climate change and how much change is due to anthropogenic causes. Currently, we do not know how, much warming is due to humanity and we also do not know how much effect any of the solutions pushed by the GWers would have. IOW, would we be wasting our money on projects and program that will have a miniscule effect AND what would the effect be on our society and that of the rest of the world. IMHO, anybody who says they know the answers to these questions is lying.

 

[Crick]

IMHO, the question should be how much do we know about climate change and how much change is due to anthropogenic causes. Currently, we do not know how, much warming is due to humanity and we also do not know how much effect any of the solutions pushed by the GWers would have. IOW, would we be wasting our money on projects and program that will have a miniscule effect AND what would the effect be on our society and that of the rest of the world. IMHO, anybody who says they know the answers to these questions is lying.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about

www.ipcc.ch

 

[abu afak]

Here you go from Watts Up With That? 2012 post,

LINK

Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.



Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.



Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.



Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today
Plenty of anti-CO2 alarmists know about this stuff. Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, for instance, in their 2007 paper: “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” (Proc. R. Soc. A), began by documenting how “[a] number of studies have indicated that solar variations had an effect on preindustrial climate throughout the Holocene.” In support, they cited 17 papers, the Bond and Neff articles from above, plus:



The correlations in most of these papers are not directly to temperature. They are to temperature proxies, some of which have a complex relationship with temperature, like Neff 2001, which found a correlation between solar activity and rainfall. Even so, the correlations tend to be strong, as if the whole gyre is somehow moving in broad synchrony with solar activity.

Some studies do examine correlations between solar activity proxies and direct temperature proxies, like the ratio of Oxygen18 to Oxygen16 in geologic samples. One such study (highlighted in Kirkby 2007) is Mangini et. al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.”


And that’s just old stuff. Here are four random recent papers.

Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.



Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.



Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.



Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.



Saltmarshes, precipitation, “oscillations.” It’s all so science-fair. How about something just plain scary?

Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” submitted astro-ph.



Those two dozen there are just the start. Scafetta hasn’t even been mentioned. (Sorry Nicola.) But there is a lot in those 24.

And how does this post (WTFUWT copy/paste) contradict mine in any way?
The steady increase in GHG warming doesn't preclude cycles within the longer term warming trend.

In fact, YOU count on them for you 'cooling' and "pause' claims.
ie, 2017's Solar minimum was the basis for what you called 'cooling,' but in fact the temp recovered and ascended again. 18, 19 with 2020 app tied with 2016 for highest.
Thus "Going down the up escalator." Mini-cycles within steady AGW uptrend.
`


`

 

[ding]

Nope.
Your claim is that the energy converted into electricity isn't available to heat the Earth.
But the area around the solar array is hotter, not cooler. When you add that to the heat given off when the electricity is used, it's net warming, not net cooling.

Not your silly belief that electricity usage is warming the planet.

I never claimed that. Not even once.

But only one case reduces the solar radiation that strikes the surface of the planet.

You mean the case where the albedo of the solar panel is lower than the albedo of the planet?
Tell me again how that cools anything.

the decreased albedo of the panel itself

Glad you finally figured that one out.

is more than offset by the solar radiation converted to radiation.

Tell me the efficiency of your theoretical "cooling panel" and I'll be glad to show you your error.

Actually that wasn't my claim, dummy. Try reading it again and see if you can state it properly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually that wasn't my claim, dummy. Try reading it again and see if you can state it properly.

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

 

[ding]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

Now you are getting it. Good boy.

Just don't screw up the next part and everything will be fine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you are getting it. Good boy.

Just don't screw up the next part and everything will be fine.

I've gotten your error since you first posted it.

If all those panels are cooling the vicinity, why is the vicinity warmer?

 

[ding]

I've gotten your error since you first posted it.

If all those panels are cooling the vicinity, why is the vicinity warmer?

The modeling from the paper I linked showed a regional cooling of 2C.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The modeling from the paper I linked showed a regional cooling of 2C.

Actual measurements show actual heating.

As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.

The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...

www.nature.com

Check out the lower albedo.

 

[ding]

Actual measurements show actual heating.

As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.

The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...

www.nature.com

Check out the lower albedo.

And like I said before there's been contradicting studies and I choose to believe the one that results in something which makes sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And like I said before there's been contradicting studies and I choose to believe the one that results in something which makes sense.

Right. Your study was theoretical, the one I posted took actual measurements.

If your study was correct, ignoring lower panel albedo, total warming should be the same, some shifted away from the panels and to the point of usage.

In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, in which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up.

See?

In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels.

Essentially compensated. LOL!

Now show me you understand what the lower panel albedo does.
In a way that makes sense.