Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the folks who actually attempt to understand things.
Since 1900 (118 years), the planet has experienced an unusual 1C temperature rise. I dont think there is any question about this and we are also experiencing what 1C means now. In places in this discussion, there are doubts that this is human caused so I had somewhat looked at natural causes (speaking of gods) and once again to point out that Im not an expert. A bunch of natural climate drivers are below. My conclusion is that none of these describe what actually is happening now and I also could not find any reference convincing otherwise.
Milankovitch cycle This describes varations in the earth cyclical variations in the earths circumnavigation of the sun and according to this link Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation are responsible for the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods
What I will note is the rate that the Milankovitch cycles change. One cycle repeats in 100,000 years, another 41,000 years and the fastest is 23,000 years. Even considering the fastest cycle of 23,000 years, our time from of 118 years is just a blip in time. Our 118 years compared to 23,000 years is the same as comparing 45 hours to our one year cycle around the sun. Sort of like saying there is a major seasonal change that happens in just 45 hours. Our time frame is way too short to be significant.
Galactic cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year This cycle takes 225 million to 250 million years. Our 118 year time span is equilvanent to 0.275 seconds out of one year.
Sunspot activity https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...53924c38098c6a Sunspot activity apparently has an 11 year cycle time and there is something called the network. The text from the link is below. What I see in the earths temperature plot is a steady rise in temp especially after 1970 and if there is a periodic 11 year ripple in the measured data, its in the noise compared to whatever is causing the temperture rise.
Quote:
And then Natalie Krivova has yet another faint hope: in addition to the sunspots and the faculae, there is a third structure on the Sun's surface that influences solar brightness. A fine network of even smaller bright spots that astronomers refer to simply as the network. "We know little about the network," says Krivova. "We suspect that it likewise has a cycle, which is, however, weaker and extended in time compared with the sunspot cycle." Krivova and also other researchers believe that this network contributes to the gradual long-term changes in solar irradiance characterized by extended periods during which there are especially many or few sunspots, such as the Little Ice Age. "Secular change" is the term experts use for this longterm trend – "slow, systematic change."
"The role the network plays in this is still poorly understood – so we hope that, in the calcium II images, we will also be able to recognize and analyze the network." As far as the long-term change in the solar activity is concerned, the Sun is evidently currently in what, from the perspective of Earth's inhabitants, is a very interesting phase. Sunspot counts in the past years indicate that solar activity is on the decline again after 60 very active years. For the coming decades, the researchers expect a decrease in solar activity. Climate change skeptics now claim that this cooling could counterbalance the global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. But Krivova dismisses this: "Current scientific work and the reports of the IPCC clearly show that greenhouse gases have contributed many times more than the Sun to the change in the Earth's heat balance in the past decades."
Ocean out gassing of CO2 (green house gas). Cold Facts on Global Warming This link (from a skeptic) is a little out of date (the temperarure rise is now more than .6C) and there is a discussion in the section " Does global warming raise CO2 levels?" The conclusion is that warming of the ocean water does not account for what is happening now. Quote from the link above
Quote:
When all these equations are put together, we can calculate that an increase of 0.6°C would increase atmospheric CO2 from 288 to 292.4 ppmv, an increase of about 4.4 ppm, far short of the 80.4 needed to produce today's levels.
This means that outgassing from the ocean surface caused by the small increases in ocean temperature that we have seen during the 20th century is not sufficient to account for the increase in CO2 that occurred during the same period
One more source is an outgassing of CO2 from land. I only saw this discussed as something that might happen after we have some significant temperature rise from what we have now. This was just mentioned as some future possibility, I could not find any reference saying it is happening now.
Volcanoes and Ozone increase.. these would both act to cool the planet so I think can be ruled out as causing our current rise.
It's a little more complicated than you think, Einstein.
co2 only directly adds 0.9 -3.3 degK to Earth's 288degK atm temp.
However, it has an indirect effect on water vapor levels-- without any co2, the level of atm h2o, the most important ghg, would fall (due to cooling) and the net result would be a temp of ~ 273degK (the freezing point of water).
OTOH-- rising co2 would lead to higher h20 (ie-more warming) BUT- also more clouds & rain (ie- even more cooling) Negative Feedback. That's why the planet manages to stay in the Goldilocks Zone.
We've been over this before here. Please try to pay attention.
You missed the point. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases do produce a minor amount of warming compared to naturally occurring greenhouse gases, but most of the increase over the last 100 years is caused by man.
The Paris climate agreement — the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 — hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by some miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world’s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.
I guess that you must be impressed with any conclave fueled by the music of Elton John and Bon Jovi. I personally resent paying for any conference paid for by taxpayers, whose organizers have a predetermined agenda.
For the folks who actually attempt to understand things.
Since 1900 (118 years), the planet has experienced an unusual 1C temperature rise. I dont think there is any question about this and we are also experiencing what 1C means now. In places in this discussion, there are doubts that this is human caused so I had somewhat looked at natural causes (speaking of gods) and once again to point out that Im not an expert. A bunch of natural climate drivers are below. My conclusion is that none of these describe what actually is happening now and I also could not find any reference convincing otherwise.
Milankovitch cycle This describes varations in the earth cyclical variations in the earths circumnavigation of the sun and according to this link Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation are responsible for the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods
What I will note is the rate that the Milankovitch cycles change. One cycle repeats in 100,000 years, another 41,000 years and the fastest is 23,000 years. Even considering the fastest cycle of 23,000 years, our time from of 118 years is just a blip in time. Our 118 years compared to 23,000 years is the same as comparing 45 hours to our one year cycle around the sun. Sort of like saying there is a major seasonal change that happens in just 45 hours. Our time frame is way too short to be significant.
Galactic cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year This cycle takes 225 million to 250 million years. Our 118 year time span is equilvanent to 0.275 seconds out of one year.
Sunspot activity https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...53924c38098c6a Sunspot activity apparently has an 11 year cycle time and there is something called the network. The text from the link is below. What I see in the earths temperature plot is a steady rise in temp especially after 1970 and if there is a periodic 11 year ripple in the measured data, its in the noise compared to whatever is causing the temperture rise.
Ocean out gassing of CO2 (green house gas). Cold Facts on Global Warming This link (from a skeptic) is a little out of date (the temperarure rise is now more than .6C) and there is a discussion in the section " Does global warming raise CO2 levels?" The conclusion is that warming of the ocean water does not account for what is happening now. Quote from the link above
One more source is an outgassing of CO2 from land. I only saw this discussed as something that might happen after we have some significant temperature rise from what we have now. This was just mentioned as some future possibility, I could not find any reference saying it is happening now.
Volcanoes and Ozone increase.. these would both act to cool the planet so I think can be ruled out as causing our current rise.
Thanks for this. According to several of the articles I linked, what makes the very short time period significant are the major (compared to other, much longer time periods) temp increases from the start of the industrial age til now.
What I see in the earths temperature plot is a steady rise in temp especially after 1970 and if there is a periodic 11 year ripple in the measured data, its in the noise compared to whatever is causing the temperture rise.
.
Look again. What you see is a very erratic month to month record that has a general drift upward (BTW-- in all those yrs of warming, if you subtract out the 1 or 2 outlier months, you get no warming at all in the averages.) Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD Cf- suppose a guy is a Punch& Judy hitter who averages 4 HR a season for 12 seasons, then for three yrs in a row, he miraculously has a single game each season where he hits 2 HRs in addition to his yearly 4-- has he suddenly become a better HR hitter, or is it just chance?)
The rapid warming we see over the 1980-2000 is not at all unprecedented . The 1910-1935 warming was even more extreme- but with less change in co2. Similar extremes are seen throughout the record when anthropogenic co2 was not an issue.
By coincidence, this article just appeared. It points out the basic error in math/physics that led to the erroneous UN-IPCC predictions of 6deg of warming, and accurately calculates the ~0.5deg actually seen since 1980. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...s-to-comments/
By coincidence, this article just appeared. It points out the basic error in math/physics that led to the erroneous UN-IPCC predictions of 6deg of warming, and accurately calculates the ~0.5deg actually seen since 1980. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...s-to-comments/
Two parts in your post but first to address the one referenced above.
Well..feedback is something I know about (my carreer was an analog EE) and this guy (a conservative blogger) is just laughable for credibility.
Quote:
Our discovery the climatology forgot the Sun is shining brings the global-warming scare to an unlamented end.
But you’re not a scientist.
Im still studying things from Dr. Roy Spencer and have noticed something interesting.. Anyone who wants to down play the planets temperature rise always use Satellite data of the troposphere. You have to interpret the satellite data and its done two ways RSS and UAH(Dr Roy Spencers program).
Most web sites use land based actual temperature measurements Hardcrut4 such as done here http://clivebest.com/blog/ . The land based measurements show a clearer warming trend than the satellite based measurements. Interesting and something to look into (which is my plan).
I have to note that the plot from the conservative blogger in the top quote who is not a scientist yet debunked 122 years of climatology in just 350 words (LOL) has a plot that neither looks like its land based or satellite based???
In regards Spencer & the satellite data: the satellite is calibrated to give temp data much more accurately than land based thermometers.- Land based are manually read and only accurate to +/- 0.5 deg-- inadequate when we're trying to make potentially world-changing decisions based on 0.1 deg differences in averages. Satellite readings also give us a constant spatial grid of data points over time.
Land based stations are notoriously poorly located (next to air conditioners, at the end of jet runways where they receive jet exhaust blasts, on roofs, on asphalt pads, etc etc They are also predominately located in the US & west Europe, with Africa poorly covered, the oceans barely covered at all and virtually none in the arctic/Antarctic regions.
We might get by with those land based stations if they were a constant factor, but they are frequently moved, added or eliminated, so there's no consistency of this far from perfect "world grid." As I mentioned earlier, 1800 Siberian stations were eliminated for fiscal reasons after the USSR fell. Those were stations in colder areas and one has to wonder how their absence from the calculations affected the average world temps. It was, after all, coincidental with the sudden rise on warming in the mid 80s. ???
Is it just chance that the satellite record shows less warming than the land based data??
In regard the conservative blogger, Lord Mockton-- he's been studying this stuff for 30 yrs and his latest effort there is the result of works by the roster of prominent scientists emeritus listed. As he said, now that they a e retired, they are free to pursue truth, no longer restrained by the need to please those doing the peer (ie- pal) reviewing.
Is your area of expertise involved with feedback system analysis? Can you give us a review of their position?
It could be their results are just coincidently correct while their method of calculation is actually wrong, but the method used by the UN-IPCC warmists is obviously wrong-- their predictions are way off.
edited to add: Mockton told us which data set he used: HadCRUT because others are so doctored & unreliable, as we've mentioned previously.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-16-2018 at 06:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
