quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You just don't get it - do you moron.

1. here's another study saying 1/2 of all global warming is due to INCREASES in solar irradiance: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GL03093/full

2. The bondaries between ice ages and wrming periods are, in fact NOT characterized by slow temperature changes "where is takes over a thousand years to see 1 degree Celsius change".
For example: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html.

Let me quote you again - since you ignored it the last time I gave you the exact same information: The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade (Figure 6; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).

3. In FACT the temperature transitions between ice ages and warming periods are almost always abrupt. Pretty Picture to follow.

4. And, in fact, we have often seen temperature changes much greater than the temperature changes (not) seen over the last 50 years. Again, in the transition from they younger drayas, the tempereature change was 18 degrees over 50 years.
So are you willing to concede - not only wrong, but drastically wrong, and DON'T KNOW DICK about climate science?

5. As for clouds being closer to zero than most greenhouse gases - again, you can't possibly know that - since not even nasa knows the net effect of CO2 in the troposhperic column. Which data I also sent to you.

Pay attention to the pretty pictures.

They show - not 1, not 2, not 3 - but no less than 4 massive changes of around 18 degrees, and a lot of changes around 8 degrees. And those huge temperature changes occurred over roughly 3000 years.

For example:
25 degree change 11000 years ago
18 degrees 13000 years ago
18 degrees 14500 years ago
20 degrees 15000 years ago

quote:


Since 1860, about half of the observed 0.55 degrees Celsius of surface warming is attributable to direct solar forcing, according to our simple pre-industrial parameterization. But 0.36 degrees of this warming has occurred since 1970, and solar forcing can account for only 0.11 degrees (less than a third of this). Nor does our reconstruction of solar irradiance explain entirely the high NH temperatures from 1930 to 1950.

quote:


A new reconstruction of annual solar irradiance accounts for 74% of the variance in NH surface temperature anomalies from 1610 to 1800 and 56% of the variance from 1800 to the present.

About half of the observed of the observed 0.55 degrees warming from 1860 to the present may reflect natural variability arising from solar radiative forcing, although since 1970 less than one third of the 0.36 degrees surface warming is attributable to solar variability.

quote:


The Younger Dryas occurred during the transition from the last glacial period into the present interglacial (the Holocene).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


1) nice use of a 10 year old, likely outdated research paper.

quote:


Since 1860, about half of the observed 0.55 degrees Celsius of surface warming is attributable to direct solar forcing, according to our simple pre-industrial parameterization. But 0.36 degrees of this warming has occurred since 1970, and solar forcing can account for only 0.11 degrees (less than a third of this). Nor does our reconstruction of solar irradiance explain entirely the high NH temperatures from 1930 to 1950.

quote:


About half of the observed of the observed 0.55 degrees warming from 1860 to the present may reflect natural variability arising from solar radiative forcing, although since 1970 less than one third of the 0.36 degrees surface warming is attributable to solar variability.

quote:



2) The younger-dryas occurred during the transition from a glacial to interglacial period. NEWS FLASH: We are not in a transition period, we are in the midst of an interglacial period which should be beginning it's descent back into a glacial period sometime soon. We have never seen the kind of warming we are today in a time period like our own, when we are not changing from glacial to interglacial or vice versa.

quote:


]WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

quote:


5) Fair enough, but to claim that because we dont know what the impacts of cloud cover truly are, then you have no integrity if you're willing to use it as an excuse for the effects of climate change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

We get that you argue from a position, not from Science:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GL03093/full

quote:




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm

quote:


Later study, more and better data, MUCH longer period of time studied:

quote:


(volcanic activity and contributed aerosols account well for climate variability up till anthropogenic causes predominated) just one of many just like it, the first one I found with a search without a bias.

quote:


Hugely bigger temp changes for several periods quoted above than in peer reviewed material, typical is suggesting the Younger Dryas LOCAL temp change as global. (See first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas) The more comprehensive studies mention the collapse of a particular Atlantic circulation pattern as an immediate cause of a part of the Earth changing temp dramatically in a short period.

quote:



This isn't spin doctoring for an election, this Is the future of the human race. Grow up, catch up, and maybe contribute. Right now you are just throwing sand in the bearings as thoughtful folks are tying to change the major thrust of civilization in hopes of averting disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


1) nice use of a 10 year old, likely outdated research paper.

Likely outdated? Data gets 'outdata does it?

quote:

quote:

Did you only read the abstract? The sun always has been a driving force for climate change, and in fact you helped teach me just how much it influenced our climate between the 1600s and the 1970s. However, once you get closer to the current modern day, the argument that solar forcing is responsible goes out the window. From your own source:

quote:


Since 1860, about half of the observed 0.55 degrees Celsius of surface warming is attributable to direct solar forcing, according to our simple pre-industrial parameterization. But 0.36 degrees of this warming has occurred since 1970, and solar forcing can account for only 0.11 degrees (less than a third of this). Nor does our reconstruction of solar irradiance explain entirely the high NH temperatures from 1930 to 1950.

So you think a paper that proves 36% of "global warming" is due to solar radiance that it proves CO2 must be therefor increased.

quote:


Lets take this in steps shall we?

One thing the paper shows clearly is, no matter how you look at it - co2 isn't responsible for 36% of the warming. That blows a rather big hole in AGW right there, doesn't it.
The fact that 36% of global warming isn't CO2 - doesn't mean the rest of it .. is CO2 warming. It means other factors unspecified. So rather than 100% of the warming being due to co2 as per ipcc TPR4, you're down to 64%. Which means that your upscale temperature projects are... you guessed it ... WRONG.

What could account for the rest of the warming? How about nonionizing radiation; cloud cover; heat of condensation (fossile fuels release 22 trillion btu at the time/location of condensation.etc.

Thats the thing about you alarmists - regardless of how many studies disprove all or part of your religion .. still you keep on believing.

quote:

quote:


About half of the observed of the observed 0.55 degrees warming from 1860 to the present may reflect natural variability arising from solar radiative forcing, although since 1970 less than one third of the 0.36 degrees surface warming is attributable to solar variability.

So lets look at this... even if you say CO2 is responsible for ALL the remaining global warming (.28 degrees) since 1860.. this means that over 150 years, CO2 global temperature rise per year is... drum roll please... .0018 degrees per year.
And that strikes you as an emergency does it?

Take a look at the temperature profile I uploaded 3 posts back. We've been seeing more temperature change than that for the last 15000 years...

quote:

quote:


2) The younger-dryas occurred during the transition from a glacial to interglacial period. NEWS FLASH: We are not in a transition period, we are in the midst of an interglacial period which should be beginning it's descent back into a glacial period sometime soon. We have never seen the kind of warming we are today in a time period like our own, when we are not changing from glacial to interglacial or vice versa.

And you know we're not in a transition period how? Got a cite for that? (of course not).

I will note, accoring to the geologic record, we actually should be entering one. Graph provided above. So the odds are, of course, that we actually are in a transition period.

quote:

quote:


WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

Keep telling yourself something which you have no factual basis to assert. Sounds like... Gasp ! a religion.

quote:

quote:


5) Fair enough, but to claim that because we dont know what the impacts of cloud cover truly are, then you have no integrity if you're willing to use it as an excuse for the effects of climate change.

Wrong. Not knowing what the extents of cloud cover are (we do by the way) is only a problem for co2 as a theory. To be accepted as "science" Co2 has to show that no other factors are likely to have caused the temperature variation.
If you don't know the temperature variation due to clouds, you can't say that, now can you.

I know.. its science and to quote another moron - science is hard. But do try to keep up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


1) nice use of a 10 year old, likely outdated research paper.

Likely outdated? Data gets 'outdata does it?

Are you really that stupid? Older information is replaced with more current information, it's how science works. We still dont consider the Aether as being in balance with gravity after all.

quote:


So you think a paper that proves 36% of "global warming" is due to solar radiance that it proves CO2 must be therefor increased.

quote:

Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970[/quote

So I'll fix the 3% error that seemed to bother you so much....

quote:


Lets take this in steps shall we?

One thing the paper shows clearly is, no matter how you look at it - co2 isn't responsible for 33% of the warming. That blows a rather big hole in AGW right there, doesn't it.
The fact that 33% of global warming isn't CO2 - doesn't mean the rest of it .. is CO2 warming. It means other factors unspecified. So rather than 100% of the warming being due to co2 as per ipcc TPR4, you're down to 67%. Which means that your upscale temperature projects are... you guessed it ... WRONG.

What could account for the rest of the warming? How about nonionizing radiation; cloud cover; heat of condensation (fossile fuels release 22 trillion btu at the time/location of condensation.etc.

Thats the thing about you alarmists - regardless of how many studies disprove all or part of your religion .. still you keep on believing.

So lets look at this... even if you say CO2 is responsible for ALL the remaining global warming (.28 degrees) since 1860.. this means that over 150 years, CO2 global temperature rise per year is... drum roll please... .0018 degrees per year.
And that strikes you as an emergency does it?

Take a look at the temperature profile I uploaded 3 posts back. We've been seeing more temperature change than that for the last 15000 years...

quote:



Wow. The first concession. Its pretty small.


And yet somehow its a planet wide emergency, going to cause the extinction of the human race.. to quote epiphany. Despite the fact that it is LESS than the average temperature change over the last 15000 years.

quote:


2) The younger-dryas occurred during the transition from a glacial to interglacial period. NEWS FLASH: We are not in a transition period, we are in the midst of an interglacial period which should be beginning it's descent back into a glacial period sometime soon. We have never seen the kind of warming we are today in a time period like our own, when we are not changing from glacial to interglacial or vice versa.

And you know we're not in a transition period how? Got a cite for that? (of course not).

I will note, accoring to the geologic record, we actually should be entering one. Graph provided above. So the odds are, of course, that we actually are in a transition period.

quote:



Funny thing about that - nasa says Greenland and Antartica added more than 86 billion tonnes of ice per year.

quote:

quote:


WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

WE ARE NOT IN A TRANSITION

Keep telling yourself something which you have no factual basis to assert. Sounds like... Gasp ! a religion.

quote:

quote:


5) Fair enough, but to claim that because we dont know what the impacts of cloud cover truly are, then you have no integrity if you're willing to use it as an excuse for the effects of climate change.

Wrong. Not knowing what the extents of cloud cover are (we do by the way) is only a problem for co2 as a theory. To be accepted as "science" Co2 has to show that no other factors are likely to have caused the temperature variation.
If you don't know the temperature variation due to clouds, you can't say that, now can you.

I know.. its science and to quote another moron - science is hard. But do try to keep up.

Are you a fucking idiot? Of course other forces provide impacts to temperature variation. BUT, no other variable has changed significantly enough in the past 400 years to account for the massive increases in temperature we have seen over that time. I only accepted what you said about the clouds because I have spent enough time dealing with this shit. If you want, google it, I can guarantee you will find your answer about the forcing of clouds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Well according to Phydeax up there it has nothing to do with the millions to billions of tons of heat trapping gas we've been emitting for the past 400 years [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Well according to Phydeax up there it has nothing to do with the millions to billions of tons of heat trapping gas we've been emitting for the past 400 years [:D]

TKman likes to throw around the accusation that I am anti-science; that I ignore science; that I'm a moron etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

You can go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want, but the rest of society will continue on without you regardless of your bitching and whining.

You can go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want, but the rest of society will continue on without you regardless of your bitching and whining.

[image]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/trends-in-enviro-opinion.png[/image]

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

You can go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want, but the rest of society will continue on without you regardless of your bitching and whining.

You can go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want, but the rest of society will continue on without you regardless of your bitching and whining.

[image]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/trends-in-enviro-opinion.png[/image]

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
...let alone understand the implications of climate change over the next 100 years. Oh, and Americans are hardly representative of the entire world, despite what your arrogant ass might believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

News flash K, appealing to popularity is an argument fallacy.

quote:

Not to mention when one considers the poor state of America education.

quote:


He who lives by the crystal ball must expect occasional bits of ground glass in his pudding, and the false prophets of global warming and their cheerleaders in the media are learning that lesson the hard way. After years of predicting that man-made global warming would melt the planet’s glaciers and drown coastal towns beneath rising oceans, the threat itself is melting like ice in April. That’s cause for both celebration and a little humility in the face of the many mysteries of nature still to be unraveled.

Data from two NASA satellites, employed in the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment between 2002 and 2014, enabled researchers to analyze the effects of glacier loss. They found to their surprise that trillions of tons of water wound up not in the sea but spread across the planet’s land mass. In fact, 3.2 trillion tons of water, equal to the volume of Lake Huron, soaked into thirsty soil or were collected in lakes and underground aquifers.

“We always assumed that people’s increased reliance on groundwater for irrigation and consumption was resulting in a net transfer of water from the land to the ocean,” says the lead author, J.T. Reager. “What we didn’t realize until now is that over the past decade, changes in the global water cycle more than offset the losses that occurred from groundwater pumping — causing the land to act like a sponge, at least temporarily.” So dry land soaks up water. Who knew? It’s always reassuring when science comports with common sense.

As a result of this discovery, the space agency concludes that the rate of sea-level rise has diminished by 22 percent. Residents of oceanside cities, such as Venice, which has been battling flood damage to irreplaceable historic buildings, can drink a toast to terra firma.

Not all seaside dwellers are feeling the love. Some residents say they have been harmed more by bogus climate change predictions than by changes in the weather. In Wales, the village of Fairbourne is determined to sue the government over its fear-mongering Shoreline Management Plan 2.

Intimidated weather bureaucrats had forecast that the scenic village would be swept away by the rising ocean, and recommended that the village be “decommissioned.” Village dwellers argued that projections of sea-level increases had depressed nearby real estate values. Outlandish claims of inundation whet the prospects of only the fish.


Fears of catastrophic ice melt may be further eased by evidence that human-caused greenhouse gases have not prevented the Arctic ice sheet from expanding. The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that freezing seawater has iced over the widest northern covering in 10 years, reaching some 6.2 million square miles. Environmentalists who have fretted for years that polar bears would drown in the ice melt must search for a new object of compassionate conservationism.

The 21st century is an age for people in a hurry and everyone wants to get there, wherever “there” is, before anyone else. That’s why long-term climate predictions take on the immediacy of weather forecasts, and include some of the inaccuracies. Nature doesn’t follow earthly whims on Facebook nor monitor the traffic on Twitter, but operates on its own cycles of change. Some cycles are lengthier than others. Crunching data to discern past climate trends is solid science. Predictions, not so much. Venturing onto thin ice with a crystal ball is risky. No one should be surprised when the ice cracks, and scientists, pundits, ball and all, fall in.