Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[Sunsettommy]

Burning fossil fuels huh?

What evidence you got?

He still doesn't know how little CO2 we have added into the atmosphere and how much of it has been sequestered into the biota of the planet and into the waters.

 

[abu afak]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

You don't understand how Stupid you are... or even how to find out. Nor anyone here.

global warming vs climate change - Google Search

www.google.com

ie First entry of many: USGS.Gov

“Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Climate change” refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time – including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns.​

​

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change#:~:text=“Global warming” refers to the,, temperature, and wind patterns.​

​

What is the difference between global warming and climate change...​

.

 

[Crick]

Let's see your math ... you claim the first derivative is positive ... let's see how, and what, function you're using ... d/dt (climate) = what? ...

HA HA HA HA HA ... start by defining "change" stupid motherfucker ...

I'm not the one that will or should be embarrassed by your comments.

 

[Crick]

LOL, another red herring constructs since no one here disputes that it has been warming for around 320 years now, the dispute is over the AGW conjecture claims which has long failed since CO2 by itself hardly adds any more postulated warm forcing increase from 28 ppm to about 435 ppm of today.

It is the failure of the Positive Feedback Loop that has failed to show up is why the conjecture is failed.

Then what do you believe has caused the warming?

 

[jc456]

He still doesn't know how little CO2 we have added into the atmosphere and how much of it has been sequestered into the biota of the planet and into the waters.

Exactly, he doesn’t know shit

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm not the one that will or should be embarrassed by your comments.

Many here wonder why you lie so much why you ignored many posts that fully addressed your claims.

You have been caught lying many times and corrected on them with hard evidence you post charts that are long discredited and continue to use them anyway.

You are a rotten warmist/alarmists and a great boon for the climate realists camp who wants your dumb replies to continue.

 

[jc456]

Then what do you believe has caused the warming?

What warming? Where? I supposed if 27 degrees is hot, you would think we’re warming

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then what do you believe has caused the warming?

The current warming trend started around 320 years ago, LONG before CO2 was going up thus something else was causing the change from a cooling of previous centuries to warming for the next few centuries.

That was too easy.

 

[jc456]

What warming? Where? I supposed if 27 degrees is hot, you would think we’re warming

abu afak , you gonna let crick answer for you, or tell me if 27 degrees is hot? I noticed you laughing

 

[Kilroy2]

Another warmist/alarmist who fails to understand the difference between Positive Feedback Loop (AGW conjecture) and Positive Feedback (Basic science understanding)



Try again

Sorry it seems you do not understand the two. You want to use the one that supports your motives. Where as you want to talk about positive feedback which can mean anything which makes it vague. Like I can say I like your hiar style when I really don't.

Where as Positive feedback loop specifically in this example is for global warming. Despite your denial you can deny that you can test for CO2 levels in water.

Ocean acidification

In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. This might not sound like much, but the pH scale is...

www.noaa.gov

I would say Try again but it would be useless for you to understand.

 

[Kilroy2]

Burning fossil fuels huh?

What evidence you got?

Sources and Solutions: Fossil Fuels | US EPA

Fossil fuel use in power generation, transportation and energy emits nitrogen pollution to the air that gets in the water through air deposition.

www.epa.gov

Now what evidence do you have that burning fossil fuel does not release CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Markle]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

Dozens of them!

 

[jc456]

Sources and Solutions: Fossil Fuels | US EPA

Fossil fuel use in power generation, transportation and energy emits nitrogen pollution to the air that gets in the water through air deposition.

www.epa.gov

Now what evidence do you have that burning fossil fuel does not release CO2 in the atmosphere.

I never said it didn’t. I responded that it was the source of increase. We aren’t discussing pollution either.

So still waiting on your evidence

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

There are five major points to the hypothesis.

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

 

[Kilroy2]

I never said it didn’t. I responded that it was the source of increase. We aren’t discussing pollution either.

So still waiting on your evidence

You just confirmed it. Burning of fossil fuels contributed to higher levels of CO2.

Causes - NASA Science

Takeaways Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Life on...

climate.nasa.gov

C02 is a greenhouse gas

 

[Billy_Bob]

You just confirmed it. Burning of fossil fuels contributed to higher levels of CO2.

Causes - NASA Science

Takeaways Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Life on...

climate.nasa.gov

C02 is a greenhouse gas

And it means exactly nothing... 0.024 deg C of potential when we were expecting 2.1 deg C. This means man's contribution after all other natural factors are removed, is not detectable or cannot be discerned from noise in the system.

 

[jc456]

You just confirmed it. Burning of fossil fuels contributed to higher levels of CO2.

Causes - NASA Science

Takeaways Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Life on...

climate.nasa.gov

C02 is a greenhouse gas

Where? Man’s been burning fossil fuel for thousands of years!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sorry it seems you do not understand the two. You want to use the one that supports your motives. Where as you want to talk about positive feedback which can mean anything which makes it vague. Like I can say I like your hiar style when I really don't.

Where as Positive feedback loop specifically in this example is for global warming. Despite your denial you can deny that you can test for CO2 levels in water.

Ocean acidification

In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. This might not sound like much, but the pH scale is...

www.noaa.gov

I would say Try again but it would be useless for you to understand.

Ha ha, now you are deflecting from my post to something else, it is clear you are just bouncing around on this stuff and you still don't know the difference your cluelessness makes it clear you have no idea what it is.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then what do you believe has caused the warming?

Holocene CO2 Variability and Underlying Trends​

LINK

Shows by several published data studies that CO2 range up to year 1880 was between 260-280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years.

Since warming started around 190 years BEFORE CO2 started going up after 1880 which is shown by the GISP2 Ice Core Data and plotted on this familiar chart you have seen many times:

Temperature swings are all over the place for 10,000 years while CO2 was sipping martinis on some far away beach holding around the 280-ppm line the entire time.

LINK

Then we have this melting back of Glacier Bay Alaska that started at least 125 years BEFORE CO2 started going up by then in 1880 Glacier Bay was already melted out:

LINK

Here is that famous USGS chart:

Figure 1. Location map of Glacier Bay National Park showing terminus positions and dates of retreat of the Little Ice Age glacier that completely filled the bay somewhat more than 200 yrs ago. The 1794 terminous line near the mouth of the bay is where Capt. George Vancouver and crew observed the massive glacier face during their hunt for the Northwest Passage. The 1879 glacier terminous position was mapped by John Muir during his first of several visits to Glacier Bay. Trapezoid outlines the Whidbey Passage study area. Modified from Seramur et al. (1996).​

LINK

It was warming long before CO2 started going up At least 130 years) which means something else melted out all that ice and generated large temperature swings during the 10,000 years of the Holocene.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There are five major points to the hypothesis.

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

From the link is this reality warmist/alarmists ignores all the time:

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

bolding mine

===

The Satellite data versus the models:

Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:

Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as "predicted" by 11 climate models (the other graphs).17 Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in figure 1 does not exist.

LINK