Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You have tried to use this as a claim that this disproves the Sun's activity is changing, when it only proves that the changes occurring to Earth are affecting some regions of Earth more than others.

Please show where I have made such claims. Either that solar activity has not changed or that other thing, which I'm not really sure you are saying.

The regions warming are also far away from big cities which are the origin of anthropogenic CO2.

You think CO2 stays in one place?

originally posted by: Phage
Please show where I have made such claims. Either that solar activity has not changed or that other thing, which I'm not really sure you are saying.

Now you are going to sit there and claim you haven't?...

You also forget, despite the AGW crowd claiming the contrary, that during times of quiet sunspot activity the irradiance of our Sun has been increasing around 0.5% per decade.

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

That research only covered 24 years, but previous research covered much longer than that and showed the Sun's activity had been increasing.

Sunspot activity hits 1,000-year high

Jul 12, 2004 - 13:59

The Sun is burning brighter than at any time over the past 1,150 years, according to a study by a professor at a Swiss university.

Professor Sami Solanki said this could be compounding the effects of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming.

“We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.
...

www.swissinfo.ch...

originally posted by: Phage
You think CO2 stays in one place?

No, but if CO2 is the cause of the warming, which it isn't, then it should be warmer in areas that continuously emit anthropogenic CO2, yet this is not the case.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Now you are going to sit there and claim you haven't?...

Are you going to stand there show me where I have?
Saying solar activity doesn't change would be like saying there is no such thing as tides.

You also forget, despite the AGW crowd claiming the contrary, that during times of quiet sunspot activity the irradiance of our Sun has been increasing around 0.5% per decade.

I think you mean 0.05% (is that exponentially lower than your claim?) Who has denied that increase? Is it still occuring, btw?

No, but if CO2 is the cause of the warming, which it isn't, then it should be warmer in areas that continuously emit anthropogenic CO2

Perhaps, if the concentration of CO2 were significantly higher there. Is it?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The two researchers, that work for the USGS, provide that information... Yet again you keep on trying to do nothing but derail evidence that you disagree with.

Yes. I know. And they looked at a very limited dataset. The full data set shows no increase in earthquakes of 7 or greater, exponential or otherwise.

For anyone genuinely interested, based on the results of Ryan Eastman and Stephen Warren 2012, I calculated a conservative increase of 1.1 W/m2, assuming a general decrease in cloudiness from 1979 to 2009, and the supposed forcing from CO2 over that time was about 0.8 W/m2. Some studies compiled by Kenneth Richard here (see comment-section) also suggest that clouds could have a larger role on the temperature of the climate than assumed by the IPCC et al.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I was just being sarcastic, that's their best explanation for the lag they blame the oceans. I read this a while ago that it had something to do with the bufferlag in the oceans. I might be wrong, have to check up on that paper if i find it again.
There are several papers confirming the co2 lag but none of them gives a valid explanation for it.

I'm on the same page that there was no significant temperature increase in the last decenia.

a reply to: Astyanax

My mind is firmly open about the denial of climate change. I personally believe that the bizzare weather can be blamed on weather modification experimentation & proxy weather warfare.

Remember when India was having monsoons whilst Russia was having wildfires? It was a couple of years ago, can't really remember the details, but it was all the fault of the jetstream having been shifted to the north by some unknowable force. In my mind, there is a very strong link between weather modification strategies, and the weird weather we are experiencing throughout the world. It's gotten to the stage where I think the experiments are being carried out in large part to create the conditions of apparent 'climate change'. There's a multi-spectral agenda, and the climate change narrative is conducive to greater international bureacracy moving us towards a one world government.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

But you see that is a huge problem with the AGW theory.

In all of history, CO2 has lagged temperature rises by hundreds of years.

But AGW would have us believe that now temperature rises in lock step with CO2 increases. But as recently as the 1945 to 1979 period, CO2 rose and temperature dropped. And from 1998 to 2015, CO2 rose while temperature stayed pretty stagnant (or at least of the "rate" of warming stagnated).

The real world facts simply do NOT match the AGW theory.

in fact, since oceans comprise 78 % of the earth and absorb heat from the sun for several meters below the surface, I have come to believe that atmospheric temperature is really irrelevant. We should be watching ocean temperatures more closely.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We should be watching ocean temperatures more closely.

Oceans are being watched. Along with a lot of other things.


www.nodc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Simply invalid reasoning, nice try at mental gymnastics. Seriously, quit trying to spread B$.

We know with a great deal of statistical certainty that the excess CO2 is coming from human activity, mostly burning fuel for energy. We also know because of radiative forcing that the excess CO2 is causing a warming effect.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: intergalactic fire

But you see that is a huge problem with the AGW theory.

In all of history, CO2 has lagged temperature rises by hundreds of years.

Until humans started mining underground fossil fuel sources and burning them.

Humans doing something different that has never happened in geological history == response that has never happened in geological history because of causation from laws of physics.

The link from CO2 and other gases to warming comes from physics and direct, extensive, in-place observations. This is a scientific fact, confirmed decades ago.

But AGW would have us believe that now temperature rises in lock step with CO2 increases.

No, that's not what scientists believe. They believe that the increase in CO2 and other gases will result in a net increase in forcing ("global warming") which will have complex and varying effects on the planet ("climate change"), one of those effects is generalized temperature increases.

But as recently as the 1945 to 1979 period, CO2 rose and temperature dropped.

Because human pollution (aerosols) resulted in dimming.

And from 1998 to 2015, CO2 rose while temperature stayed pretty stagnant (or at least of the "rate" of warming stagnated).

1998 was an anomalously hot year due to El Nino. The overall trend is clear and didn't stop: up. And now 2015/16, another El Nino and smashing far far past the 1998. Why? Global warming & climate change on top of natural cycles.

The real world facts simply do NOT match the AGW theory.

Only your highly oversimplified and non-scientific view.

in fact, since oceans comprise 78 % of the earth and absorb heat from the sun for several meters below the surface, I have come to believe that atmospheric temperature is really irrelevant. We should be watching ocean temperatures more closely.

Now we're getting somewhere. Fortunately, actual scientists have been on this for a few decades now.

a reply to: jrod

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...
myweb.wwu.edu...
icecap.us...
www.lavoisier.com.au...
myweb.wwu.edu...
cses.washington.edu...
sciencespeak.com...
felj.org...
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is far more likely and logical that global warming causes a rise in co2, that is well understood.

originally posted by: Phage
Are you going to stand there show me where I have?
Saying solar activity doesn't change would be like saying there is no such thing as tides.

I am not going to waste time looking for what you have written in the past. You don't remember, that's fine, but you better go see a doctor to check out what is going on with your mind that is affecting your memory, because you keep forgetting things you have written...

originally posted by: Phage
I think you mean 0.05% (is that exponentially lower than your claim?) Who has denied that increase? Is it still occuring, btw?

Yes, 0.05%. I did make a mistake in placing the decimal point.

But what I am wondering is how you keep ignoring the fact that both the EArth's magnetic field changes seem to coincide with the increases in Earthquakes. They both changed in the 90s, and the latest change was in 2014. These changes are pointing to the fact that Earth on overall is undergoing major changes.

It's ironic how you want to dismiss what USGS scientists found, not to mention your claim that what these scientists are saying is false, and they are not using the best records... Really?... How about you prove that claim about these USGS scientists not using the best records?

I also find it amusing how you ignored the statements from scientists like Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:

...
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

Hans von Storch(1), Armineh Barkhordarian(1), Klaus Hasselmann(2) and Eduardo Zorita(1)
(1) Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
...

www.academia.edu...

originally posted by: Phage
Perhaps, if the concentration of CO2 were significantly higher there. Is it?

So I guess CO2 stops warming so much when it is being constantly released in cities, and suddenly, by magic it starts warming the atmosphere only when it goes into areas far away from major cities?... Hummm...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

how much of a rise and is it significant? We all know that AGW can only account for about a quarter of the atmospheric temperature change. What caused the rest?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

Interesting that you post SST temperatures to 2010 - that was six years ago and there is data showing that the ocean is considerably cooler now. I posted it earlier. Why are you cherry picking your data to make your point?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

Interesting that you post SST temperatures to 2010 - that was six years ago and there is data showing that the ocean is considerably cooler now. I posted it earlier. Why are you cherry picking your data to make your point?

Tired of Control Freaks

1) Those are not sea surface temperatures.
2) The chart runs through 2014.
3) The link provides current data.

a reply to: Phage

I find it telling that you went to the trouble to post a chart showing increasing ocean temperatures, that you had more recent data on hand and failed to post the fact that ocean temperatures have fallen significantly at the end of El Nino in the spring of 2016.

If you had the most recent data, why did you not post it? Who are you trying to confuse?

I know that ocean temperatures have fallen and I know that atmospheric temperatures will follow shortly.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Once again, the chart does not show ocean temperatures. Please read the legend. Please see the link.

But yes, you are probably correct that atmospheric temperatures will fall with the fading of El Nino. How far they will fall remains to be seen as the current strong El Nino, like the strong El Nino of 1998, is a spike in a trend.

Desalination could also play a part in regional ocean temps. If too much icemelt occurs, it could effect the ocean currents. Surface temps may play a part, I agree. But the currents effect a large body of water too.