Antarctica gains ice for first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss, study finds (1 Viewer)

[rahl]

No, the empirical data does not show that CO2 is the main cause of warming since 1978 (recent)
and the scientific consensus is that Human activity is changing the climate.

Of course it does. It’s why the entire scientific community agrees that it’s the main cause.

 

[rahl]

You never have. In another thread, a poster tried to claim the 99%+, but the story he referred to has the paper linked, and only has an enforcement of 0.6% for what you claim.

this is another case where someone writes a story that is a lie, based on a paper. They lie about the papers content, and people like you believe the lie.

Read this post:

All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

No they don's and a blog is not a peer reviewed source! My source linked to peer reviewed studies. Also the evidence for manmade global warming is overwhelming. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

debatepolitics.com

 

[longview]

Of course it does. It’s why the entire scientific community agrees that it’s the main cause.

So cite and quote a peer reviewed study that shows with observed data that added CO2 causes warming? Good luck finding it!

 

[rahl]

So cite and quote a peer reviewed study that shows with observed data that added CO2 causes warming? Good luck finding it!

Already have, numerous times. As has numerous other posters. In this and dozens of other threads.

 

[noonereal]

So cite and quote a peer reviewed study that shows with observed data that added CO2 causes warming? Good luck finding it!

 

[George50]

Of course that is what is happening.

First off the oil companies do not care one way or the other about CO2's climate sensitivity, as there is no
alternative to their product, and they can produce carbon neutral fuels sustainably.

Fossil fuel companies want to sell fossil fuels. They have a huge investment in their current infrastructure and reserves. Of course they want to continue to leverage it.

Trump is only a mouth piece, but he does have advisors

, and the CO2 driven climate concept is all but dead.

I haven’t seen a source that says that.

As for as the media reporting the science accurately, we need look no further than the nasa article of the
graph you posted without citation.
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
Vs the actual study,
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
Now the study is quite clear that they used simulations of TCR,

Now the study mentions TCR 30 times,
but the nasa media article, does not even mention TCR one time, why would they omit such a central fact?

Why? Because the NASA article is not trying to replicate the study which is written for a technical audience. The NASA article is written for consumption by laymen who wouldn’t know the difference between TCR and a VCR. The NASA article is trying to convey the results of the study, not the methodology.

According to the IPCC TCR has a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.65C while TCR has a climate sensitivity of 3C,

Since you have TCR twice I don’t think you mean what you wrote here, but I get it.

by not mentioning TCR, they leave the reader to imply the accurate models are simulations of the higher sensitivity ECS!

As I said above the intended reader is not going to imply that. The reader you describe is going to read the original study.

 

[George50]

I bolded the passage, their method still assumes that added greenhouse gases increase radiative forcing,
which we can now measure, and did not happen.
And Yes Nature allowed a correlation study, because this is still a correlation study!

Why would anyone use ECS for anything, it is a simulation of a condition that cannot exists, yet that is what
is used in most predictions of future warming.
But let's check just for fun.
IPCC AR6 SPM
Panel (a) Global surface temperature changes in °C relative to 1850–1900. These changes were obtained by combining Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) model simulations with observational constraints based on past simulated warming,
as well as an updated assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (see Box SPM.1).
Yep the IPCC is using ECS, but the analysis shows TCR matches observations better.

There were a few studies of what happens when CO2 increases are small (Like Human emission) and for small emission steps
the same models show very low climate sensitivity, ( But they still start with the assumption that added CO2 causes positive longwave forcing).
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

So for small size emissions the lag between emission and maximum warming is very short. In this case
the 100 GtC is a pulse of 47 ppm added to 389 ppm.
What is more interesting is the graph of the data.
View attachment 67569632
Now the climate sensitivity recorded for the 100 GtC pulse is 0.2C, so the formula to
extract the multiplier would be 0.2C/ln( 436/389) = 1.75, 1.75 X ln(2) = 1.21C for a doubling of the CO2 level.

I bolded the passage, their method still assumes that added greenhouse gases increase radiative forcing,
which we can now measure, and did not happen.
And Yes Nature allowed a correlation study, because this is still a correlation study!

Sorry. It’s not a correlation study. Their results are based on information flow, not correlation. That’s the whole point of the study.

Why would anyone use ECS for anything, it is a simulation of a condition that cannot exists, yet that is what
is used in most predictions of future warming.

The study is not trying to predict future warming. The study is deriving information from time series. It uses a new mathematical method of analyzing time series.

But let's check just for fun.
IPCC AR6 SPM
Panel (a) Global surface temperature changes in °C relative to 1850–1900. These changes were obtained by combining Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) model simulations with observational constraints based on past simulated warming,
as well as an updated assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (see Box SPM.1).
Yep the IPCC is using ECS, but the analysis shows TCR matches observations better.

There were a few studies of what happens when CO2 increases are small (Like Human emission) and for small emission steps
the same models show very low climate sensitivity, ( But they still start with the assumption that added CO2 causes positive longwave forcing).
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

So for small size emissions the lag between emission and maximum warming is very short. In this case
the 100 GtC is a pulse of 47 ppm added to 389 ppm.
What is more interesting is the graph of the data.
View attachment 67569632
Now the climate sensitivity recorded for the 100 GtC pulse is 0.2C, so the formula to
extract the multiplier would be 0.2C/ln( 436/389) = 1.75, 1.75 X ln(2) = 1.21C for a doubling of the CO2 level.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[longview]

Already have, numerous times. As has numerous other posters. In this and dozens of other threads.

Why lie? Such a study does not exist, and the fact that you do not know that tells your level of expertise or lack thereof!

 

[longview]

Fossil fuel companies want to sell fossil fuels. They have a huge investment in their current infrastructure and reserves. Of course they want to continue to leverage it.






I haven’t seen a source that says that.



Why? Because the NASA article is not trying to replicate the study which is written for a technical audience. The NASA article is written for consumption by laymen who wouldn’t know the difference between TCR and a VCR. The NASA article is trying to convey the results of the study, not the methodology.


Since you have TCR twice I don’t think you mean what you wrote here, but I get it.

As I said above the intended reader is not going to imply that. The reader you describe is going to read the original study.

The nasa article was intentionally misleading!

 

[longview]

Sorry. It’s not a correlation study. Their results are based on information flow, not correlation. That’s the whole point of the study.

The study is not trying to predict future warming. The study is deriving information from time series. It uses a new mathematical method of analyzing time series.

Which is a correlation!

 

[George50]

Why do you post nonsense like this? Nowhere in the video does CBS news or anyone else say:

25% of Florida will soon be underwater.

 

[George50]

The nasa article was intentionally misleading!

How is the article misleading? It simply restates the conclusions of the study.

 

[George50]

Which is a correlation!

Wrong. Perhaps you would understand the study if you read it a few more times.

For someone who claims to be an expert it seems odd that you still can’t seem to understand that the author is saying correlation does not prove causation. However, there is a new time series mathematical technique called information flow that can prove causation and that is the technique that the author has used.

 

[longview]

How is the article misleading? It simply restates the conclusions of the study.

A lie of omission is still a lie!
They chose not to mention that the accurate simulation was TCR, instead of ECS!

 

[longview]

Wrong. Perhaps you would understand the study if you read it a few more times.

For someone who claims to be an expert it seems odd that you still can’t seem to understand that the author is saying correlation does not prove causation. However, there is a new time series mathematical technique called information flow that can prove causation and that is the technique that the author has used.

When one is curve matching, each successive approximation is a closer and closer correlation to the actual curve. Each approximation is still a type of correlation!

 

[George50]

A lie of omission is still a lie!
They chose not to mention that the accurate simulation was TCR, instead of ECS!

Your argument is just plain silly. I already told you that the article was written for the lay person who would have no idea whatsoever what the difference between TCR and ECS is. Maintaining that writing an article for a layperson is lying if it does not have all the details of a technical study is absurd.

 

[George50]

When one is curve matching, each successive approximation is a closer and closer correlation to the actual curve. Each approximation is still a type of correlation!

You obviously don’t understand what the study is saying.

 

[Ikari]

Why do you post nonsense like this? Nowhere in the video does CBS news or anyone else say:

25% of Florida will soon be underwater.

Nola likes to lie about things.

 

[longview]

You obviously don’t understand what the study is saying.

I do, and just stated it.
Better curve fitting is still a correlation!

 

[rahl]

Why lie?

The one I quoted

Such a study does not exist, and the fact that you do not know that tells your level of expertise or lack thereof!

This would be the lie.

 

[longview]

The one I quoted

This would be the lie.

See here is the problem, You have not cited and quoted anything in this thread!

 

[snakestretcher]

I am not sure why you will not support you claim,
that the "entire scientific Community" thinks that added CO2 will cause warming.

The vast majority not only "think", they know that increases in greenhouse gases cause accelerated global warming. Only a fringe minority of sceptics disagrees.

 

[longview]

The vast majority not only "think", they know that increases in greenhouse gases cause accelerated global warming. Only a fringe minority of sceptics disagrees.

How do they "know"? I am serious, there is no empirical evidence that links added CO2 to observed warming.
It does sound plausible, but the atmosphere is complex, and the observational data we have is that The outgoing
longwave radiation (OLR) has been increasing for as long as we could measure it.
The hypothesis that added CO2 is driving the climate, is that ANY added CO2 would decrease the OLR.
We see this in the IPCC's forcing formula 5.35 X ln(CO2_new/CO2_old) = radiative forcing in W m-2.
Anytime CO2_new is larger than CO2_old, it produces a positive number.
Yet with the observed data, the CO2 level between 2000 and 2024 did increase, but our actual planet produced
a negative longwave forcing number, by increasing the OLR!

 

[snakestretcher]

How do they "know"? I am serious, there is no empirical evidence that links added CO2 to observed warming.
It does sound plausible, but the atmosphere is complex, and the observational data we have is that The outgoing
longwave radiation (OLR) has been increasing for as long as we could measure it.
The hypothesis that added CO2 is driving the climate, is that ANY added CO2 would decrease the OLR.
We see this in the IPCC's forcing formula 5.35 X ln(CO2_new/CO2_old) = radiative forcing in W m-2.
Anytime CO2_new is larger than CO2_old, it produces a positive number.
Yet with the observed data, the CO2 level between 2000 and 2024 did increase, but our actual planet produced
a negative longwave forcing number, by increasing the OLR!

There have been hundreds of detailed studies done-including of ice cores (up to 800,000 years of locked-in climate records in Antarctica), which give absolutely unambiguous results. Of course the atmosphere is complex, and that's why highly qualified and experienced climatologists and other disciplines have been doing this for decades. Why else would they be wasting time and resources? The following is an easy to understand explanation of how results are analysed and conclusions are reached:

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk