Climate Change? What Climate Change?

[longview]

Climate change is a fact.

The effects are undeniable.

If you mean Human caused climate change, perhaps you should state that.
Human activity does contribute to climate change! The open question is how much,
and also what would we change if we can?
The brightening observed from cutting aerosol emissions, has caused some warming, but
going back to high aerosol emission technology is not the answer.
Land Use changes also can cause warming, and we should be better Stewart's of the Earth.
CO2 emissions can also cause warming, and the warming caused needs to be evaluated against the benefits
to society from the emission sources.

 

[NolanVoyd]

So if you read your link you could of gave me a simple answer of say:

Man contributes 65% and natural variation of say 35%.

You should read the article, and also learn how to evaluate sources.

Favourite climate myths by Judith Curry​

Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Curry	What the Science Says	Usage
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	1
"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	1
"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If you mean Human caused climate change, perhaps you should state that.
Human activity does contribute to climate change! The open question is how much,
and also what would we change if we can?
The brightening observed from cutting aerosol emissions, has caused some warming, but
going back to high aerosol emission technology is not the answer.
Land Use changes also can cause warming, and we should be better Stewart's of the Earth.
CO2 emissions can also cause warming, and the warming caused needs to be evaluated against the benefits
to society from the emission sources.

Read the article.

 

[longview]

Read the article.

I am familiar with the NASA blog, but what it does not cover is things like the outgoing infrared radiation has been
increasing when it should have been decreasing, (Forcing would be from a decrease in outgoing infrared radiation,
causing a positive energy imbalance.)
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

Over the period covered so far by BSRN(1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth
reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)

The NASA blog says

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

But I could not help noticing they did not mention the fact that reducing the aerosol level,
cause a greater percentage of available sunlight to reach the ground.
It should be pointed out that while the available sunlight reaching the ground increased by ~6W m-2,
the imbalance added by extra CO2 over the same period is thought to be 5.35 X ln(371.32/356.54) =0.217 W m-2.
So the sun's output may not have changed, but how much of the energy that reached the ground sure did!

 

[NolanVoyd]

I am familiar with the NASA blog, but what it does not cover is things like the outgoing infrared radiation has been
increasing when it should have been decreasing, (Forcing would be from a decrease in outgoing infrared radiation,
causing a positive energy imbalance.)
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

The NASA blog says

But I could not help noticing they did not mention the fact that reducing the aerosol level,
cause a greater percentage of available sunlight to reach the ground.
It should be pointed out that while the available sunlight reaching the ground increased by ~6W m-2,
the imbalance added by extra CO2 over the same period is thought to be 5.35 X ln(371.32/356.54) =0.217 W m-2.
So the sun's output may not have changed, but how much of the energy that reached the ground sure did!

Yeah NASA scientists are so stupid!

Thank God we have random internet scientists with no credentials to set them straight.

 

[longview]

Yeah NASA scientists are so stupid!

Thank God we have random internet scientists with no credentials to set them straight.

That blog is not written by NASA scientist, but by the Earth Science Communications Team.

 

[NolanVoyd]

That blog is not written by NASA scientist, but by the Earth Science Communications Team.

They are so stupid!

Thank God we have random internet scientists with no credentials to set them straight.

 

[longview]

They are so stupid!

Thank God we have random internet scientists with no credentials to set them straight.

You are free to look up the authors of the article listed on the bottom of the page.
Were they PhD's they would likely attach Dr. to their names.
Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Managing Editor: Susan Callery
Senior Producer: Randal Jackson
Senior Science Editor: Daniel Bailey
Science Editor: Susan Callery

 

[NolanVoyd]

You are free to look up the authors of the article listed on the bottom of the page.
Were they PhD's they would likely attach Dr. to their names.
Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Managing Editor: Susan Callery
Senior Producer: Randal Jackson
Senior Science Editor: Daniel Bailey
Science Editor: Susan Callery

So you don't think the people that compiled the NASA site did their homework and cited only experts?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Just so we’re clear on what we’re supposed to be talking about in this thread - we’re talking about man-made reservoirs that were built so people could plant non-deciduous faunas that are gluttons for water in the middle of a natural desert. And the expectation is what? That we shed tears and run around with our hair on fire over the disappearance of something that never would have existed naturally in the first place?

Zooming in on the wasting away of artificial environments as though it’s reflective of the severity of what climate change would do to natural environments isn’t a very honest way of looking at the issue.

LOL. But, but, but, .

 

[longview]

So you don't think the people that compiled the NASA site did their homework and cited only experts?

They presented their opinions of the science, but when science is politized, it looses it's integrity.
You can see some of this in the scientific consensus statement in the same site.
NASA scientific Consensus

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

What do the worlds scientists agree with?
The average temperatures have increased over the last century,
AND human activity is likely involved.
Notice that they do not even mention CO2, or any level of CO2 sensitivity!
Consensus building is tough, and to get 97% you have to be vague.
(I actually agree with the consensus, but it does not concern me much.)

 

[Bear5131]

You should read the article, and also learn how to evaluate sources.

Favourite climate myths by Judith Curry​

Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Curry	What the Science Says	Usage
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	1
"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	1
"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Lmfao

You do know who the idiot kid who came up with the debunked 97% consensus is right?






There is no consensus none

 

[Bear5131]

They presented their opinions of the science, but when science is politized, it looses it's integrity.
You can see some of this in the scientific consensus statement in the same site.
NASA scientific Consensus

What do the worlds scientists agree with?
The average temperatures have increased over the last century,
AND human activity is likely involved.
Notice that they do not even mention CO2, or any level of CO2 sensitivity!
Consensus building is tough, and to get 97% you have to be vague.
(I actually agree with the consensus, but it does not concern me much.)

It's debunked Cook didn't ask any scientist he checked peer reviewed papers for key words

 

[longview]

It's debunked Cook didn't ask any scientist he checked peer reviewed papers for key words

Correct, but he used the same basic criteria,
Cook's paper

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

A: The average temperatures have increased over the last century, is implied by saying something cause the observed global warming,
and B: Human caused some of the observed warming.
It is also 97% of the 33.6% who expressed a position in their abstract.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They presented their opinions of the science, but when science is politized, it looses it's integrity.
You can see some of this in the scientific consensus statement in the same site.
NASA scientific Consensus

What do the worlds scientists agree with?
The average temperatures have increased over the last century,
AND human activity is likely involved.
Notice that they do not even mention CO2, or any level of CO2 sensitivity!
Consensus building is tough, and to get 97% you have to be vague.
(I actually agree with the consensus, but it does not concern me much.)

Nasa didn't politicize the data.

You are trying to politicize the data.

Just stop with the nonsense.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Lmfao

You do know who the idiot kid who came up with the debunked 97% consensus is right?

View attachment 67391354




There is no consensus none

Yes there is . 97% consensus.

Read this.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES​

---

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations​

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4
• 
  
  

 

[NolanVoyd]

• American Geophysical Union
  "Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

 

[NolanVoyd]

• American Physical Society
  "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES​

---

International Academies: Joint Statement​

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

 

[NolanVoyd]

Etc

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Partial list of leading scientific organizations endorsing human-induced climate change, along with a selection of related resources.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[longview]

Nasa didn't politicize the data.

You are trying to politicize the data.

Just stop with the nonsense.

The data is the data, I am not the one implying there is more in the scientific consensus than the words include.
The IPCC says that global average temperatures have increased by 1.07C above the pre 1900 average,
but then hedge their bets by saying,

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C

This is strangely a change from earlier reports that said the pre 1950 warming was mostly natural.
One thing that is odd about the statement is that the supposed contribution to forcing from CO2 is
5.35 X ln(416/280) =2.11 W m-2, while the swing from changes in aerosols is much greater in a much shorter period.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

These studies report a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces on the order
of 6 to 9 W m-2 from the beginning of the measurements in about 1960 until 1990,
corresponding to a decline of 4% to 6% over 30 years.

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001),
the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).

So while between 1880 and 2022 CO2 may have caused an increase of 2.11 W m-2 in the energy imbalance,
changes in aerosols cause first a decrease of from 6 to 9 W m-2 up to 1992, and then an increase of 6 W m-2
between 1992 and 2001.

 

[longview]

• American Physical Society
  "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES​

---

International Academies: Joint Statement​

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

Well there are groups who support their memberships ability to receive more grants, but
I agree that Human caused climate change is real, CO2 in theory accounts for more than half of the observed warming,
but that fact alone does not support the catastrophic predictions that doubling the CO2 level will produce warming of 3C or greater.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Well there are groups who support their memberships ability to receive more grants, but
I agree that Human caused climate change is real, CO2 in theory accounts for more than half of the observed warming,
but that fact alone does not support the catastrophic predictions that doubling the CO2 level will produce warming of 3C or greater.

Typical conservative......it's a conspiracy......they are all hiding the truth.....they are biased against us!

Isn't it embarrassing?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nature was in balanced?

By in balance, before we started to source CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would sink a near equal amount that it sourced. The CO2 would vary slowly over time. A warmer earth like out interglacial periods fluctuated, probably between 260 to 290 ppm. During the ice ages, there were around 160 ppm give or take a bit.

Without our interference, the CO2 varies with the earth heat. It has to do with the variable solubility of gasses in fluids dictated by temperature. This is known chemistry, and you won't find any scientists that dispute this.

We simply source extra CO2 in the air faster than the earth can consume it.

Holy shit , so humans got lucky by evolving at just the right time before ice ages and you call it balanced?

Yes. The earths natural state is around 280 ppm during the Holocene. Again, more as the earth warms, less as it cools. It takes a very long time for the levels to change naturally, without our help.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You should read the article, and also learn how to evaluate sources.

Favourite climate myths by Judith Curry​

Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Curry	What the Science Says	Usage
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	1
"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	1
"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Funny thing is, only fools disagree with Judith Curry.

She is right on board claiming we have a large impact. Just because she doesn't tow the AGW fear agenda, makes her an outcast, but she is brilliant and spot on.

You can find all the material you like trying to discredit her. That doesn't make it real.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah NASA scientists are so stupid!

Thank God we have random internet scientists with no credentials to set them straight.

The subsection of NASA that is climate dot nasa, is nothing more than a blog run by non-scientists who are activists.

Have you ever looked at the credentials that write there?

They are not scientists.