Man made global warming is a hoax

[longview]

In the popular press is hardly the bar. In fact AGW has a history as a hypothesis of more than a century. During which time we've seen that, indeed, exactly as expected more greenhouse gas emissions has lead to more warming. More CO2 emissions has led to more ocean acidification. Basically the science is lining up exactly as it should.

The Science is lining up with only the forcing portion of the concept of AGW.
The amplified feedback portion of the concept is minimal at best, and how sensitive the climate is to added CO2
is still very much an open question.

 

[istodolez]

The Science is lining up with only the forcing portion of the concept of AGW.
The amplified feedback portion of the concept is minimal at best, and how sensitive the climate is to added CO2
is still very much an open question.

So you keep saying. I'm still waiting for the experts to chime in. Publish. Or at least try.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In the popular press is hardly the bar. In fact AGW has a history as a hypothesis of more than a century. During which time we've seen that, indeed, exactly as expected more greenhouse gas emissions has lead to more warming.

Yes, temperature has increased with CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the temperature increase also follows the lagged response from the sun. Both variables likely have a significant effect, and I would claim that the solar lag changes are much greater than the CO2 changes.

More CO2 emissions has led to more ocean acidification. Basically the science is lining up exactly as it should.

Has it? We really don't know for certain. I doubt it has as much of an effect as you believe, since the total dissolved carbons in the ocean maintain an equilibrium based on temperature and salinity. I will contend that the drop in pH we see is primarily due to SST increases. I'm not discounting CO2, but don't discount the buffering.

I wish I know the paper title. Long ago, I came across a paper probably about 40 years old. It had graphs on the ocean pH, by year. The pH of the ocean was it's lowest. Even lower than today, about 1958. The same year that we had peak solar radiance.

Remember, when it comes to SST, the solar radiance of the sun is almost fully absorbed at spectra shorter than 1 micron, at depths deeper than longwave. The longwave from CO2 is mostly absorbed in the first micron of the surface, and the evaporation process in enhanced by this. This depth is evaporated rapidly, and even takes heat from the water just below it. I will contend that CO2 causes insignificant ocean warming in any areas that matter for coral, because these already warmer waters evaporate at a rate faster than the CO2 spectra heats what remains.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you keep saying. I'm still waiting for the experts to chime in. Publish. Or at least try.

The experts are not certain, and suggest both a cooling and warming from the indirect responses to CO2, depending on the papers you read.

 

[longview]

So you keep saying. I'm still waiting for the experts to chime in. Publish. Or at least try.

Please show which portion of the observed instrument warming is from amplified feedbacks?

 

[watsup]

Yes, temperature has increased with CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the temperature increase also follows the lagged response from the sun. Both variables likely have a significant effect, and I would claim that the solar lag changes are much greater than the CO2 changes.


Has it? We really don't know for certain. I doubt it has as much of an effect as you believe, since the total dissolved carbons in the ocean maintain an equilibrium based on temperature and salinity. I will contend that the drop in pH we see is primarily due to SST increases. I'm not discounting CO2, but don't discount the buffering.

I wish I know the paper title. Long ago, I came across a paper probably about 40 years old. It had graphs on the ocean pH, by year. The pH of the ocean was it's lowest. Even lower than today, about 1958. The same year that we had peak solar radiance.

Remember, when it comes to SST, the solar radiance of the sun is almost fully absorbed at spectra shorter than 1 micron, at depths deeper than longwave. The longwave from CO2 is mostly absorbed in the first micron of the surface, and the evaporation process in enhanced by this. This depth is evaporated rapidly, and even takes heat from the water just below it. I will contend that CO2 causes insignificant ocean warming in any areas that matter for coral, because these already warmer waters evaporate at a rate faster than the CO2 spectra heats what remains.

Climate scientists have shown that it is CO2 and not "the sun" that is the prime culprit in the present global warming.

 

[watsup]

The experts are not certain, and suggest both a cooling and warming from the indirect responses to CO2, depending on the papers you read.

Show us papers that say otherwise. You won't. You can't. You never have. All hat and no cattle.

 

[istodolez]

Has it? We really don't know for certain. I doubt it has as much of an effect as you believe, since the total dissolved carbons in the ocean maintain an equilibrium based on temperature and salinity. I will contend that the drop in pH we see is primarily due to SST increases. I'm not discounting CO2, but don't discount the buffering.

Yes, you are obliquely meandering around the Revelle Factor here. However we DO know that increased atmospheric CO2 has lead to an acification of surface water.

Here's a nice resource for you: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

 

[istodolez]

Please show which portion of the observed instrument warming is from amplified feedbacks?

Maybe you could try your hand at publishing. Or not. (We both know exactly which one it will be, though, don't we?)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, you are obliquely meandering around the Revelle Factor here. However we DO know that increased atmospheric CO2 has lead to an acification of surface water.

Here's a nice resource for you: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

Do you deny that temperature also plays a factor of the equalization of dissolved carbons, which affects the pH?

 

[istodolez]

Do you deny that temperature also plays a factor of the equalization of dissolved carbons, which affects the pH?

It is a bit more complex than just that. But, no, generally speaking, I understand that temperature plays a role in the solubilty of CO2. With increasing temperature generally CO2 has less solubility in water.

However temperature and salinity also affect the Revelle factor which impacts the species of carbonate. So it's not a simple relationship.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is a bit more complex than just that. But, no, generally speaking, I understand that temperature plays a role in the solubilty of CO2. With increasing temperature generally CO2 has less solubility in water.

However temperature and salinity also affect the Revelle factor which impacts the species of carbonate. So it's not a simple relationship.

Correct. It isn't simple, and when you imply CO2 is the only variable that affects pH. The scientist in me takes issue with that.

Here is a graph out of a paper. They show a 20 degree change affecting the pH by about 0.3. Salinity makes a much larger difference, but I don't think it changes much in the regions where the pH is a concern.

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

 

[Lord of Planar]

Correct. It isn't simple, and when you imply CO2 is the only variable that affects pH. The scientist in me takes issue with that. As absorbing less CO2, that is correct. However, we are not losing CO2 from the ocean from temperture changes, because the imbalance of mans added CO2 is greater than the CO2 the ocean would lose.

Here is a graph out of a paper. They show a 20 degree change affecting the pH by about 0.3. Salinity makes a much larger difference, but I don't think it changes much in the regions where the pH is a concern.


View attachment 67326203

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

 

[longview]

Climate scientists have shown that it is CO2 and not "the sun" that is the prime culprit in the present global warming.

Actually of the observed warming of about 1.0 C, as much as 3 C is thought to be from the increases in solar activity.
The Sun and Global Warming
"Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth
century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). "
In addition, top of the atmosphere solar measurements, do not account for changes in the atmospheric aerosols that
have changed the amounts of available sunlight reaching the ground.

 

[watsup]

Actually of the observed warming of about 1.0 C, as much as 3 C is thought to be from the increases in solar activity.
The Sun and Global Warming
"Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth
century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). "
In addition, top of the atmosphere solar measurements, do not account for changes in the atmospheric aerosols that
have changed the amounts of available sunlight reaching the ground.

My post was in reponse to the claim by Lord Planar that "and I would claim that the solar lag changes are much greater than the CO2 changes". Even if the "half" is correct, that does not translate to "much greater".

 

[watsup]

Actually of the observed warming of about 1.0 C, as much as 3 C is thought to be from the increases in solar activity.
The Sun and Global Warming
"Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth
century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). "
In addition, top of the atmosphere solar measurements, do not account for changes in the atmospheric aerosols that
have changed the amounts of available sunlight reaching the ground.

That was from 2003. Update: "
If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era. However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming."

Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming?

Observations of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity indicate no changes that could have caused global warming over the past half century.

www.climate.gov

 

[longview]

That was from 2003. Update: "
If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era. However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming."

Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming?

Observations of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity indicate no changes that could have caused global warming over the past half century.

www.climate.gov

Again TSI is not the only factor in how much sunlight reaches the ground!

 

[istodolez]

Again TSI is not the only factor in how much sunlight reaches the ground!

OF COURSE NOAA is probably unaware of all the details you can provide them. Perhaps you could help them out by working for them. Or at the very least publishing your findings.

It could be that NOAA is part of the grand conspiracy but it is far more likely that they are just really, really bad at their jobs.

 

[longview]

OF COURSE NOAA is probably unaware of all the details you can provide them. Perhaps you could help them out by working for them. Or at the very least publishing your findings.

It could be that NOAA is part of the grand conspiracy but it is far more likely that they are just really, really bad at their jobs.

So please presents the studies that show how insolation has changed over the last few decades!

 

[istodolez]

So please presents the studies that show how insolation has changed over the last few decades!

When someone shows you something from NOAA that basically says solar variation does not account for the majority of the warming we are seeing now why do you feel the need for ME to show you something else?

I mean, I get it, you desperately want the sun to be the answer and you clearly don't believe the scientists know what they are talking about. But it really gets to the point of absurdity.

 

[longview]

When someone shows you something from NOAA that basically says solar variation does not account for the majority of the warming we are seeing now why do you feel the need for ME to show you something else?

I mean, I get it, you desperately want the sun to be the answer and you clearly don't believe the scientists know what they are talking about. But it really gets to the point of absurdity.

No! The sun is not what has caused most of the warming, but even accounting for 25%, would completely upset the high end ECS predictions.
So the insolation numbers would be important!

 

[The AntiDonald]

While there maybe and increase in CO2, blame mother nature, not man.

Mother nature is not burning fossil fuels, man is. Imagine the earth being around for millions of years, yet only about 120 years ago we started burning fossil fuels and have used more and more ever since.

It's not so much how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, but what it does. It acts like a blanket not letting the heat out in the night cycles. It allows the sunlight through in the daytime, but limits the amount of heat that can radiate back into space. So the balance has been off since we started burning all this coal, oil and gas.

Mother nature is not to blame. Try reading up on the science and quit being so negative about climate change. It's no different than mask and vaccine deniers. Why is it always conservatives that dispute climate change? Could it be the Koch Bros or the oil companies filling the pockets of republicans? Think about that real hard.

Another real good reason to pass HR-1 and HR-4. Get the big dark money out of politics and it eliminates the reason for republicans to be in fake denial.

 

[istodolez]

No! The sun is not what has caused most of the warming, but even accounting for 25%, would completely upset the high end ECS predictions.
So the insolation numbers would be important!

I don't care to try to figure out what aspects of AGW you agree with or disagree with.

 

[longview]

I don't care to try to figure out what aspects of AGW you agree with or disagree with.

The all important aspect of AGW, is and always has been our climate’s sensitivity to added CO2.
If the fully equalized warming from 2XCO2, is 2C or less, then Concerns about emissions are of little concern. On the other hand, if the fully equalized warming from 2XCO2 is say, 4C, then high emission levels could be of concern.
The question is which is closer to the truth?

 

[istodolez]

The all important aspect of AGW, is and always has been our climate’s sensitivity to added CO2.

Why are we switching back over to this discussion point? I thought we were talking about solar.

The question is which is closer to the truth?

I'm still sticking with what the vast majority of the professionals who specialize in this and have investigated it over the past several decades say.

Sorry.