Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[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?

Yes:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

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



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

Slope in the first plot is the OBSERVED reaction. The following models all shown to aggressive in predicting energy/heat retention which is not replicated in the atmosphere. The mid-tropospheric hot spot does not exist, any 'expected' amplification from it will not materialize.

When you look at the empirically observed evidence, as compared to climate modeling, you quickly see why the "hot spot' never materializes. The input vs output is linier. There is no retention. The energy 'in' is being equaled in energy 'out' almost instantaneously.

The difference it makes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

`

WOW.. the ignorance is astounding. You haven't even looked at natural cycles to rule them out... Yet here you are...

 

[abu afak]

WOW.. the ignorance is astounding. You haven't even looked at natural cycles to rule them out... Yet here you are...

Hey Mr KWAZY, you make so many LOONY Posts with so many MeaningLess wackadoodle graphs for effect, not credibility.
I've destroyed so many of unKwacked nut OPs.

My Solar Panels work great at over 85 degrees despite you claiming they were Useless over that temp you Unbelievably STOOOPID Turd.

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

WOW.. the ignorance is astounding. You haven't even looked at natural cycles to rule them out... Yet here you are...

He and other warmist/alarmists are showing their growing dislike of Satellite data because it is wrecking their climate crisis delusions.

The Hot Spot still doesn't show up after several decades of searching.

 

[abu afak]

He and other warmist/alarmists are showing their growing dislike of Satellite data because it is wrecking their climate crisis delusions.

The Hot Spot still doesn't show up after several decades of searching.

You lying Chicken shlt.
Tommy can't even post his own position on::
1. Warming: yes or no?
2. Man Made warming to good extent? Yes or No?

3. Or anything else. You just spam up WUWT garbage (articles/phony graphs) because you're a mod there but you are NONCONVERSANT on the AGW Topic.
4. You are not within 100 miles (or 100 IQ points) of debating me and you Know it. Thus only 3rd party cheap shots.

Your turn!

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

You lying Chicken shlt.
Tommy can't even post his own position on::
1. Warming: yes or no?
2. Man Made warming to good extent? Yes or No?

3. Or anything else. You just spam up WUWT garbage (articles/phony graphs) because you're a mod there but you are NONCONVERSANT on the AGW Topic.
4. You are not within 100 miles (or 100 IQ points) of debating me and you Know it. Thus only 3rd party cheap shots.

Your turn!

`

I peeked to see that you already forgot this post 148 I made 8 hours ago:

"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."

You gave it a thumbs down.....





===
Now go look at post 159

Look at Post 134 which you gave me a thumbs down despite that I stated this:

10:37 am which is 11 hours ago.

"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 280 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."

======

Back to ignore you go.....

 

[abu afak]

I peeked to see that you already forgot this post 148 I made 8 hours ago:

"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."

You gave it a thumbs down.....





===
Now go look at post 159

Look at Post 134 which you gave me a thumbs down despite that I stated this:

10:37 am which is 11 hours ago.

"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 280 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."

======

Back to ignore you go.....

Wrong again with your Bogus graphs.
Warming didn't start in earnest until app 170 yrs ago and has picked up steam /SPIKED along with CO2

Again WITH CO2
Picking up steam as it/BOTH spiked

`

And of course you LIED, as you see all my posts, just can't answer them.
You were defeated many times before you threw in the towel you FRAUD.
you just thought you had something this time.. but ooops/No.

Further, this makes a LIE out of [many] Hundreds of your Cooling/Cold posts such as those in the first "the Skeptics are winning thread" where you went with the "cold-morning-on-my-porch (in the NW) means-it-ISN'T-warming [at all] boys."
They were inconsistent with your Natural warming too.

That's why you could Never go on the record when I asked 6 times.
You would have lost some friends.
Then you had to Ignore.

`

 

[psikeyhackr]

THE DISCOVERY OF GLOBAL WARMING by Spencer R. Weart

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Causes

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 yet CO2 has gone through the roof, but temperatures aren't higher than they were the last times we had a huge increase in temperatures (every 100,000 years or so).

Why?

Also, temperatures and CO2 rose in the past, then they hit a peak. If CO2 always makes temperatures go higher, then temperatures would have kept rising, but they didn't CO2 hit a point and then temperature plummeted.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Well let's see, we have this planet 8000 miles in diameter with about 200,000,000 square miles of surface area of which about 70% is water. Of course this means that the bottom 5 miles of the atmosphere is A BILLION CUBIC MILES!

How fast can the average temperature change considering all of that mass? The top 10 meters of all of the oceans would be how much?

Going from 180 ppm to 280 ppm Of CO2 took 10,000 YEARS! The temperature of the mass could keep up at that rate. Life on the surface could adjust at that rate.

We have now gone up 100 ppm in less than 100 years and now doing about 2 more ppm per year. 500 ppm is due in 45 years and that hasn't been seen on the planet in 13 MILLION YEARS. Of course back then CO2 was coming down really really slow and there was no ice.

Scientists are trying to analyze events that have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

Duh, this is what happened 10,000 years ago.

Jeez, how do some people persuade themselves that they are intelligent? Hey, let's just ignore data that we don't like. Great Idea!

 

[Kruska]

Well let's see, we have this planet 8000 miles in diameter with about 200,000,000 square miles of surface area of which about 70% is water. Of course this means that the bottom 5 miles of the atmosphere is A BILLION CUBIC MILES!

How fast can the average temperature change considering all of that mass? The top 10 meters of all of the oceans would be how much?

Going from 180 ppm to 280 ppm Of CO2 took 10,000 YEARS! The temperature of the mass could keep up at that rate. Life on the surface could adjust at that rate.

We have now gone up 100 ppm in less than 100 years and now doing about 2 more ppm per year. 500 ppm is due in 45 years and that hasn't been seen on the planet in 13 MILLION YEARS. Of course back then CO2 was coming down really really slow and there was no ice.

Scientists are trying to analyze events that have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

Duh, this is what happened 10,000 years ago.

Jeez, how do some people persuade themselves that they are intelligent? Hey, let's just ignore data that we don't like. Great Idea!

Also we know that all catastrophic climate changes (species going extinct) was due to continental drifting e.g. disruption of major climate currents - resulting in drastic climate changes.
It is also known that our continents are drifting - especially Africa - supposed to split in half in the next couple of thousand years.
Is there any reliable data on the position change of e.g. South and North America in the past 200 years - disrupting e.g. the Gulf-stream and impacting e.g. El Niño and La Niña.
Subsequent plate movements averaging about 2 cm (0.8 inch) per year have taken the continents to their present position. Any noticeable or drastic increase increase in regards to movements in the past 1000 years? or sea-bottom elevations?

 

[jc456]

I peeked to see that you already forgot this post 148 I made 8 hours ago:

"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."

You gave it a thumbs down.....





===
Now go look at post 159

Look at Post 134 which you gave me a thumbs down despite that I stated this:

10:37 am which is 11 hours ago.

"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 280 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."

======

Back to ignore you go.....

well just know that 27 degrees F is hot in abu's mind. There's that. So he can't even set a benchmark for his selective outrage.

 

[Redfish]

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?

History supports climate change, the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and man has never had anything to do with it, and never will unless there is all out nuclear war, and if so its effects will only be temporary in the life of our planet.

 

[jc456]

History supports climate change, the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and man has never had anything to do with it, and never will unless there is all out nuclear war, and if so its effects will only be temporary in the life of our planet.

What I still laugh at toward the smartest stupid people is this fact, we can't even blow up an asteroid coming at us, but we can blow up planet Earth? haaahhahahhahahah

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong again with your Bogus graphs.
Warming didn't start in earnest until app 170 yrs ago and has picked up steam /SPIKED along with CO2

Again WITH CO2
Picking up steam as it/BOTH spiked

`

And of course you LIED, as you see all my posts, just can't answer them.
You were defeated many times before you threw in the towel you FRAUD.
you just thought you had something this time.. but ooops/No.

Further, this makes a LIE out of [many] Hundreds of your Cooling/Cold posts such as those in the first "the Skeptics are winning thread" where you went with the "cold-morning-on-my-porch (in the NW) means-it-ISN'T-warming [at all] boys."
They were inconsistent with your Natural warming too.

That's why you could Never go on the record when I asked 6 times.
You would have lost some friends.
Then you had to Ignore.

`

Funny that you would use two totally discredited charts. I don't take you seriously because you use falsified data and charts even when you have been shown over and over again that it was discredited. Repeating a falsehood over and over again does not make it true. BEST even withdrew these charts and yet you and SKS use them... ODD...

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet CO2 has gone through the roof, but temperatures aren't higher than they were the last times we had a huge increase in temperatures (every 100,000 years or so).

Why?

Also, temperatures and CO2 rose in the past, then they hit a peak. If CO2 always makes temperatures go higher, then temperatures would have kept rising, but they didn't CO2 hit a point and then temperature plummeted.

Stomata proxies are much better in short term durations. The chart above (yours) is in 500-year plot points with the 10 year plot points added on the end in CO2 graphing. This chart is a deception and when the spatial resolution of the 500 years is applied correctly, the spike vanishes.

This is the Michael Mann school of graphing and lying. IT looks scary but is it?

When we look at the proxies we find that it is not unusual or out of the ordinary. Thus it is not scary and of no reason to be alarmed. Alarmist fear porn just like the hokey schtick by Mann, a deception by graphing and out of context.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well let's see, we have this planet 8000 miles in diameter with about 200,000,000 square miles of surface area of which about 70% is water. Of course this means that the bottom 5 miles of the atmosphere is A BILLION CUBIC MILES!

How fast can the average temperature change considering all of that mass? The top 10 meters of all of the oceans would be how much?

Going from 180 ppm to 280 ppm Of CO2 took 10,000 YEARS! The temperature of the mass could keep up at that rate. Life on the surface could adjust at that rate.

We have now gone up 100 ppm in less than 100 years and now doing about 2 more ppm per year. 500 ppm is due in 45 years and that hasn't been seen on the planet in 13 MILLION YEARS. Of course back then CO2 was coming down really really slow and there was no ice.

Scientists are trying to analyze events that have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

Duh, this is what happened 10,000 years ago.

Jeez, how do some people persuade themselves that they are intelligent? Hey, let's just ignore data that we don't like. Great Idea!

The Paleo record shows a warmup unlike no other every 110,000 years. Not once was man responsible for it. Yet here they are worrying about 1.5 deg C when 3-5 deg C is commonly seen in just the Holocene we are in today. Using even basic common sense should make you laugh at the claims being made.

Firdgwierdo posted the 450,000 years of 110,000 year cycles here: Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

When we look at just the current Holocene, you can see the rapid swings of temperature far exceeding the laughable BS of the IPCC.

 

[jc456]

And yet CO2 has gone through the roof, but temperatures aren't higher than they were the last times we had a huge increase in temperatures (every 100,000 years or so).

Why?

Also, temperatures and CO2 rose in the past, then they hit a peak. If CO2 always makes temperatures go higher, then temperatures would have kept rising, but they didn't CO2 hit a point and then temperature plummeted.

WTF are you talking about. Through the roof? So you know what the CO2 level is supposed to be? post that information for all to read.

 

[jc456]

The Paleo record shows a warmup unlike no other every 110,000 years. Not once was man responsible for it. Yet here they are worrying about 1.5 deg C when 3-5 deg C is commonly seen in just the Holocene we are in today. Using even basic common sense should make you laugh at the claims being made.

Firdgwierdo posted the 450,000 years of 110,000 year cycles here: Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

When we look at just the current Holocene, you can see the rapid swings of temperature far exceeding the laughable BS of the IPCC.

View attachment 767878

What's interesting video I watched was a science guy talking about those ice cores. They don't show the high temps and low temps over the course of the average temperature derived. So some years may have been hot and some extremely cold. It's actually a useless interpretation of the past.