The Past Seven Years Have Been The Hottest In Recorded History, New Data Shows

[Cardinal Carminative]

Solar/Ocean dynamo is what dominates the planets weather.

Then why can't those account for the warming we've seen over the last 60-100 years?

 

[BackAgain]

NEVER on TOPIC. (here or in Science section.)
A Purely personal harassment/grudge Troll.
`

Not true. As you know. In fact, you have done your usual job of trying to talk down to me (and others) when we have discussed the very topic. You are forever doing the very thing you’re now crying about. There’s a word for that: oh yes. You’re a “hypocrite.”

Now, back on topic: since we KNOW that planet Earth has had ice ages come and go and then return and recede again, and since we KNOW this happened before any significant human technology could or did release the so-called “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere, THEREFORE we may conclude that Earth’s climate isn’t static AND THAT climate change must have a cause that is unrelated to human technology driven increases in CO2.

Before you get your tidy whiteys in a knot, the above paragraph is true. However, that doesn’t eliminate the possibility that human caused “extra” amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere couldn’t have an impact. They might. And that should be studied. But the “evidence” that it is the proximate cause of current global climate fluctuations Isn’t as clear as your kind claims.

 

[abu afak]

Not true. As you know. In fact, you have done your usual job of trying to talk down to me (and others) when we have discussed the very topic. You are forever doing the very thing you’re now crying about. There’s a word for that: oh yes. You’re a “hypocrite.”
Now, back on topic: since we KNOW that planet Earth has had ice ages come and go and then return and recede again, and since we KNOW this happened before any significant human technology could or did release the so-called “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere, THEREFORE we may conclude that Earth’s climate isn’t static AND THAT climate change must have a cause that is unrelated to human technology driven increases in CO2.

Before you get your tidy whiteys in a knot, the above paragraph is true. However, that doesn’t eliminate the possibility that human caused “extra” amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere couldn’t have an impact. They might. And that should be studied. But the “evidence” that it is the proximate cause of current global climate fluctuations Isn’t as clear as your kind claims.

That is THE question, HARK!
and why I started a string Directly addressing it. HARK!
Welcome to the section as you've Finally even asked the basic question in it/posted On Topic!
LOL

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

Again MY OP:

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]​

`

 

[abu afak]

Not true. As you know. In fact, you have done your usual job of trying to talk down to me (and others) when we have discussed the very topic. You are forever doing the very thing you’re now crying about. There’s a word for that: oh yes. You’re a “hypocrite.”
Now, back on topic: since we KNOW that planet Earth has had ice ages come and go and then return and recede again, and since we KNOW this happened before any significant human technology could or did release the so-called “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere, THEREFORE we may conclude that Earth’s climate isn’t static AND THAT climate change must have a cause that is unrelated to human technology driven increases in CO2.

Before you get your tidy whiteys in a knot, the above paragraph is true. However, that doesn’t eliminate the possibility that human caused “extra” amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere couldn’t have an impact. They might. And that should be studied. But the “evidence” that it is the proximate cause of current global climate fluctuations Isn’t as clear as your kind claims.

And another post I've made scores of times in my own words.

"""Here's the Short version in my own words posted many times in the last few days/years.​

​

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.​

CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.​

NOT the case now.​

They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.​

​

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.​

Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.​

Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.​

​

That's about the best, but Not Only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.""​

​

If you read it and can understand it, I saved you FIVE YEARS here.
but you aren't even conversant, just hostile.
But at least it was ON topic.
I AM here to post ON TOPIC in ALL sections. (barbs are allowed WITH topical content only. My M-O))
NOT YOU. You just bash my posts.
`
`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

since we KNOW that planet Earth has had ice ages come and go and then return and recede again, and since we KNOW this happened before any significant human technology could or did release the so-called “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere, THEREFORE we may conclude that Earth’s climate isn’t static AND THAT climate change must have a cause that is unrelated to human technology driven increases in CO2.

THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO TELL YOU ABOUT THE PAST EARTH CLIMATE CHANGES THAT OCCURED QUITE NATURALLY ARE THE EXACT SAME FOLKS WHO ARE TELLING YOU THAT TODAY'S WARMING CANNOT BE FULLY EXPLAINED BY THOSE NATURAL PROCESSES.

The ONLY reason YOU know anything about the past climate changes is due to the research that helps us understand that today's warming cannot be explained by those natural forcings alone.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then why can't those account for the warming we've seen over the last 60-100 years?

It is part of the 1,000-year cycle that warmist/alarmists ignores because they are in love with a trace gas with a trace IR absorption range.

Most of the warming since 1979 are from El-Nino's spiking effect on temperature data then none to a cooling trend after it fades away.

Old but illustrative on the power of the ocean warming the atmosphere:

Bob Tisdale

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”​

Excerpt:

In a recent interview, Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, from NCAR said the upcoming 2014/15 El Niño might shift global surface temperatures upwards by 0.2 to 0.3 deg C to further the series of upward steps. Curiously, Trenberth is continuing to suggest that the warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s resulted from naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled El Niño events and that we might get to experience yet another of those El Niño-caused warming steps as a result of the 2014/15 El Niño. So let’s take a look at what he’s suggesting and what the future MAY POSSIBLY hold in store…if Trenberth’s dreams come true.

LINK

=====

The Sun/Ocean dynamo variances is what generates El-Nino's in the first place and a sign of a long term cooling trend.

CO2 increases in the atmosphere has negligible effect on Ocean heat content.

DUH!

 

[BackAgain]

That is THE question, HARK!
and why I started a string Directly address it. HARK!

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

Again MY OP:

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

Right. And then when any part of your orthodox religious beliefs are challenged, you go off the rails and resort to ad hominems and the like. You do know what I mean, too. Like referring to your doubters as “clowns.”

Don’t misunderstand. I’ve never been overly reluctant to employ that rhetorical fallacy. It’s all fun until someone loses an eye, I suppose. But I just don’t want you to let your arrogance get in the way of understanding the point:

Your resort to a fallacy isn’t an actual argument. And in a thread about science, it does provide fodder for humor (at your expense).

 

[abu afak]

I put him on ignore a year ago, he will never be reasonable or rational I have had numerous posts of his removed for trashing my threads up with blatant trolling attacks.

He isn't worth it.

You put me on Ignore (Not) because I beat you in every debate we had.
Most tellingly...
You also could not (CAN'T NOW!) even answer what your position was on the issue at hand!!!
And it's apparent from your posts in "The Skeptics are Winning" and elsewhere you not only don't believe in AGW, you don't believe in GW/it IS warming, even naturally!!
Half you posts are "It's cold in Portland today, so it can't be warming," and "it stopped" (in year/s.... 1998 or 2008 or 2016, etc.)

`

 

[ReinyDays]

Should the temperature be higher be lower with more CO2 and other GHGs?

I have always agreed with global warming ... the NOAA data is plain ... we are experiencing rising temperatures ... it is climate change I disagree with ... unless you can point to a place and say how climate has changed ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have always agreed with global warming ... the NOAA data is plain ... we are experiencing rising temperatures ... it is climate change I disagree with ... unless you can point to a place and say how climate has changed ...

The Climate in my area is still the same as it was in 1964 when I moved there still hot and dry with cold cloudy winters with very little snow the growing season length is about the same too.

 

[BackAgain]

THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO TELL YOU ABOUT THE PAST EARTH CLIMATE CHANGES THAT OCCURED QUITE NATURALLY ARE THE EXACT SAME FOLKS WHO ARE TELLING YOU THAT TODAY'S WARMING CANNOT BE FULLY EXPLAINED BY THOSE NATURAL PROCESSES.

The ONLY reason YOU know anything about the past climate changes is due to the research that helps us understand that today's warming cannot be explained by those natural forcings alone.

EDIT. I MISTAKENLY thought this reply was to abu. It should be read in that light as if I’m addressing Abu. No dis to PV intended.​

That is the actual point of the discussion. And I believe you have been studious about not getting the points of disagreement. You firmly accept your view but you appear totally unable or unwilling to give honest scientific thought to those who dispute you.

Now, I am not a scientist. I lay no claims to it (although I love science to the extent I am able to understand it absent formal study over the years). I am a layman in science. And laymen in science often get taught by the scientists (especially professors). The best educators in science (and actually in all academic disciplines) are the ones who can take the more difficult concepts and EXPLAIN them to a layman in clear language.

So, you get some initial props from me. You at least have tried. You may have started off that way. But as your frustration grew, you lost the ability to clearly explain (in layman’s terms) the things you tried to share. Instead, you make much of it personal and derogatory.

I’m in need of a break right about now. But if you’re willing to contemplate what I just said, maybe we can start fresh. I do have questions. Not just to ask you, but to ask anyone more well versed in this area of science.

 

[BackAgain]

And another post I've made scores of times in my own words.

"""Here's the Short version in my own words posted many times in the last few days/years.​

​

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.​

CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.​

NOT the case now.​

They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.​

​

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.​

Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.​

Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.​

​

That's about the best, but Not Only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.""​

​

If you read it and can understand it, I saved you FIVE YEARS here.
but you aren't even conversant, just hostile.
But at least it was ON topic.
I AM here to post ON TOPIC in ALL sections. (barbs are allowed WITH topical content only. My M-O))
NOT YOU. You just bash my posts.
`
`

Once again. Not agreeing with you isn’t hostility. Responding in like manner to your egotistical arrogance certainly seems to upset you. So, if you were wise, you might learn a lesson such as: if you don’t like what’s done to you, maybe don’t do it to others.

I have seen other people (whom I believe are more scientifically informed than I am) also take issue with you. And you are usually a prick to them, too. Maybe it’s just you.

And, of course, your particularized complaint about me is just a lie. Lying is not considered a good thing in science. Maybe consider giving honesty a try. Also, stop doing the very things you’re now busy whining about. You may be a pussy; but you can change. You really ought to try.

 

[ReinyDays]

And my point still stands. The REASON the current surface temperature is NOT that low is due primarily to the presence of greenhouse gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.

O2 and N2 do not have the ability to absorb significant amounts of IR.

I thought your point was that this process takes decades if not centuries to occur ... we disagree, these processes take only seconds to occur ... the carbon dioxide we emit now is effecting temperature now ... as per SB ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I thought your point was that this process takes decades if not centuries to occur ... we disagree, these processes take only seconds to occur ... the carbon dioxide we emit now is effecting temperature now ... as per SB ...

I wonder of he forgets that IR moves at nearly the speed of light in the atmosphere?

 

[ReinyDays]

I wonder of he forgets that IR moves at nearly the speed of light in the atmosphere?

There's a half second delay in the carbon dioxide molecule before the energy is sent back down to Earth ... but yeah, seven orbits around the Earth per second ... screaming fast ...

 

[BackAgain]

He is entitled to his opinions/beliefs, but he delivers it so stupidly and trolls a lot as his replies.

I agree. He is entitled to his own opinions. But as the late Sen. Moynihan once noted, he isn’t entitled to his own facts. Hell. He could even be correct. But if one has to wade through piles of his abundant ego to finally reach is “conclusions,” most people will never see his conclusion. He is a piss poor excuse for a teacher. His own trolling undercuts much of what he has to say.

In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It is part of the 1,000-year cycle that warmist/alarmists ignores because they are in love with a trace gas with a trace IR absorption range.

Nope. (You COULD cite your source but I doubt you will)

CO2 increases in the atmosphere has negligible effect on Ocean heat content.

Wrong again. You should look at the actual literature on the topic. There's a reason they call it an Atmosphere-ocean coupled model.

Ocean heat content is integral in this entire discussion.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I thought your point was that this process takes decades if not centuries to occur

Ocean heat transfer is not instantaneous. It is a major buffer for additional heat and it takes time to redistribute it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The Climate in my area is still the same as it was in 1964 when I moved there still hot and dry with cold cloudy winters with very little snow the growing season length is about the same too.

Which is effectively meaningless.

The key to AGW is global average temperature (more accurately a temperature anomaly which is the temperature relative to a baseline temperature). One single point on the globe is NOT going to show you the overall trend. It isn't nearly that simple.

The global temperature is also NOT going to increase uniformly everywhere. Not even close.

So your local climate is not something you are going to be able to tell if it has increased by 1degC over 50 years. That isn't how any of this works.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.

This worth repeating over and over: what you know about earth's climate in the past is due to the same research that tells us that current warming is NOT simply a natural process but requires the input of human activities.

Yes, in the past the atmospheric CO2 has been higher and lower and the temperatures have been higher and lower...but those were due to NATURAL FORCINGS, natural factors.

The field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY exists to explain how the earth's climate has changed and what drives it. Right now we can't point to natural forcings as the cause of this precisely because we've studied how those factors lined up to cause warming in the past.

Right now you can't make sense of the data if you simply rely on the natural forcings. You HAVE to include human activities (greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, etc.)

We even have a really handy way to track how much excess CO2 WE'VE been responsible for: 13-C/12-C isotope ratios. Plants tend to fix "lighter" 12-C isotopes so when you burn them or you burn vegetal based fuels (like coal) you would expect to see the CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing in 12-C isotope. Which is exactly what is happening and it started in the mid-19th century...almost exactly at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Prior to that the ratio had been relatively stable for thousands upon thousands of years)

Science really DOES work. We KNOW we are largely responsible for the extra CO2 we are seeing in the atmosphere and it is leading (along with other things we do) to increased warming.