Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

[longview]

That link I posted earlier discussed El Nino pretty thoroughly.

Explaining Climate Change and El Nino | Climate Tracker

El Nino events are increasing in both intensity and frequency, resulting in increased extreme weather events. In the recent past, Sri Lanka has experienced very hot weather, with certain regions reaching record temperatures, and we have also had very high precipitation.

These extreme events would cause severe damage to agricultural crops thereby depriving farmers of a stable income. Fishermen would also face a grave situation when heavy precipitation prevents them from going to sea. Natural disasters such as floods and landslides would become more frequent leading to loss of lives and property, as we saw very recently. Other consequences include spread of diseases, road obstructions, hike in food prices and damage to infrastructure.

Climate change cannot be prevented, but its impacts can be reduced. It’s high time we became more environmentally conscious because there may come a day when the climate may change so drastically that this planet would no longer be inhabitable.

El Nino events are cyclic, and we really do not know all the contributing cycles, or we would be better at predicting them.

El Nino's are weather events, not climate.
Climate change regardless of cause is occurring, and is superimposed on top of much larger ENSO cycling.

 

[Media_Truth]

El Nino events are cyclic, and we really do not know all the contributing cycles, or we would be better at predicting them.

El Nino's are weather events, not climate.
Climate change regardless of cause is occurring, and is superimposed on top of much larger ENSO cycling.

NASA, using NOAA studies, probably has the most thorough El Nino explanation available. They are very clear in stating that climate change is not responsible for El Nino. However they also talk about the severity being based on warmer accumulated ocean temperatures, and higher ocean level. Both the warmer ocean temps and higher levels happen naturally in the Pacific. That said, overall ocean temperature is rising, and sea levels are rising. So there is undoubtedly some connection between climate change and El Nino severity, but they have not been able to quantify the extent.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ElNino

 

[longview]

NASA, using NOAA studies, probably has the most thorough El Nino explanation available. They are very clear in stating that climate change is not responsible for El Nino. However they also talk about the severity being based on warmer accumulated ocean temperatures, and higher ocean level. Both the warmer ocean temps and higher levels happen naturally in the Pacific. That said, overall ocean temperature is rising, and sea levels are rising. So there is undoubtedly some connection between climate change and El Nino severity, but they have not been able to quantify the extent.

El Nino: Pacific Wind and Current Changes Bring Warm, Wild Weather

Except that ENSO events are not changing in severity, or frequency.
They look like constructive interference patterns of several dissimilar wavelengths.

 

[Media_Truth]

Except that ENSO events are not changing in severity, or frequency.
They look like constructive interference patterns of several dissimilar wavelengths.

When combined with AGW and Climate Change, the net result is record temperatures and heat waves all around the planet. Sound familiar?

 

[longview]

When combined with AGW and Climate Change, the net result is record temperatures and heat waves all around the planet. Sound familiar?

Not really, ENSO events produce record temperatures and heat waves all around the planet just fine on their own, and have been doing so
for many centuries.

 

[Slavister]

All from your link --->

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.
...
And they go on to cite 18 scientific agencies, who agree with the following --->

"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 the primary driver." (2009)2

I'd call that Concensus!!!

There you go again, adding in things that are not part of the consensus statement!
The statement is simple and straight forward,
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
and does not mention greenhouse gasses.

Please show us say just 3 papers out of many thousands OR any statement from any of the Academy of Sciences of any of the countries in the World that
(1) AGREE with AGW AND
(2) specifically claim that greenhouse gasses are NOT the MAIN / LARGEST reason for the human-caused warming.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please show us say just 3 papers out of many thousands OR any statement from any of the Academy of Sciences of any of the countries in the World that
(1) AGREE with AGW AND
(2) specifically claim that greenhouse gasses are NOT the MAIN / LARGEST reason for the human-caused warming.

[FONT=&quot]. . . However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2, none. Mind you, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5°C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is however evidence to the contrary. 10-fold variations in the CO2 over the past half billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5°C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In 2008 I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans in sync with the 11-year solar cycle is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected from just changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so called radiative forcing on the climate.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling). . . . [/FONT]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

[Threegoofs]

[FONT=&quot]. . . However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2, none. Mind you, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5°C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is however evidence to the contrary. 10-fold variations in the CO2 over the past half billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5°C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In 2008 I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans in sync with the 11-year solar cycle is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected from just changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so called radiative forcing on the climate.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling). . . . [/FONT]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

He asked for papers or a National Academy statement, not a blog.

Or can you not discern the difference?

 

[Jack Hays]

He asked for papers or a National Academy statement, not a blog.

Or can you not discern the difference?

Evidence is evidence. Why do you fear the data?

 

[Slavister]

[FONT="]. . . However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2, none. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Threegoofs, post: 1070669909, member: 21055"]He asked for papers or a National Academy statement, not a blog.

Or can you not discern the difference?

Not only that, I asked for a paper or a National Academy statement which ACCEPTS human-caused global warming but rejects that greenhouse gasses are the main reason. That's what longview was questioning about the consensus and I await for any (3) of the many thousands of peer-reviewed papers or a National Academy statement to support such viewpoint.

@Jack Hays, you are welcome to respond, but only if you understand the question. Your author does NOT accept human-caused global warming and therefore is disqualified from what I asked longview (aside from the reason that Threegoofs pointed out). To answer your follow up question... because it's not one of the peer reviewed papers that consensus studies (under discussion between Media_Truth and longview) were based on.

 

[Threegoofs]

Evidence is evidence. Why do you fear the data?

I see.

You literally don’t comprehend the difference.

 

[longview]

Please show us say just 3 papers out of many thousands OR any statement from any of the Academy of Sciences of any of the countries in the World that
(1) AGREE with AGW AND
(2) specifically claim that greenhouse gasses are NOT the MAIN / LARGEST reason for the human-caused warming.

Your question, indicates that you do not understand where the scientific skepticism originates from.
I agree with the consensus statement, "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.",
but this in no way agrees that CO2 emissions need be anything we should be concerned about.
Simple CO2 forcing would increase the average temperature by ~1.1 C for each doubling.
Based on that curve, roughly .61 C of the observed warming is from increases in the CO2 level,
and most of this has happened since 1950.
The problem with the catastrophic predictions is they throw in ghost forcing, feedback warming several times greater than simple CO2 forcing,
to arrive at an ECS temperature. This all sounds good until you try to work out the math.
The Hadcrut4 dataset put pre 1950 warming at .28 C.
If the feedbacks were high enough to allow the 1.1 C of CO2 forcing to become 3 C of ECS, it would require a feedback factor of 2.72 times the input, with a latency period.
One of the most vocal alarmist Scientist James Hansen, places ECS latency at 37.5 years for 60% of ECS.
Here in 2019, we have total observed warming of .9 C, of that direct CO2 forcing accounts for .61 C.
The pre 1950 .28 C would have become .28 X 2.72 X .6=.46 C by 1988, and be .46 X 2.72 X .6= .75 C by 2025.
If 2XCO2 ECS were really 3C, then the average temperatures would need to be near 1.31 C by 2019, but they are in fact .4 C lower than that.
We also have not taken into account changes in the other greenhouse gasses.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not only that, I asked for a paper or a National Academy statement which ACCEPTS human-caused global warming but rejects that greenhouse gasses are the main reason. That's what longview was questioning about the consensus and I await for any (3) of the many thousands of peer-reviewed papers or a National Academy statement to support such viewpoint.

@Jack Hays, you are welcome to respond, but only if you understand the question. Your author does NOT accept human-caused global warming and therefore is disqualified from what I asked longview (aside from the reason that Threegoofs pointed out). To answer your follow up question... because it's not one of the peer reviewed papers that consensus studies (under discussion between Media_Truth and longview) were based on.

On the contrary, Shaviv estimates that human-caused warming was responsible for about half of 20th century temperature increase, and has published to that effect. [FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: [/FONT]Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

 

[Jack Hays]

I see.

You literally don’t comprehend the difference.

The difference is an artificial construct. I comprehend it; I just don't respect it.

 

[Slavister]

Your question, indicates that you do not understand where the scientific skepticism originates from.
I agree with the consensus statement, "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.",
but this in no way agrees that CO2 emissions need be anything we should be concerned about.
Simple CO2 forcing would increase the average temperature by ~1.1 C for each doubling.
Based on that curve, roughly .61 C of the observed warming is from increases in the CO2 level,
and most of this has happened since 1950.
The problem with the catastrophic predictions is they throw in ghost forcing, feedback warming several times greater than simple CO2 forcing,
to arrive at an ECS temperature. This all sounds good until you try to work out the math.
The Hadcrut4 dataset put pre 1950 warming at .28 C.
If the feedbacks were high enough to allow the 1.1 C of CO2 forcing to become 3 C of ECS, it would require a feedback factor of 2.72 times the input, with a latency period.
One of the most vocal alarmist Scientist James Hansen, places ECS latency at 37.5 years for 60% of ECS.
Here in 2019, we have total observed warming of .9 C, of that direct CO2 forcing accounts for .61 C.
The pre 1950 .28 C would have become .28 X 2.72 X .6=.46 C by 1988, and be .46 X 2.72 X .6= .75 C by 2025.
If 2XCO2 ECS were really 3C, then the average temperatures would need to be near 1.31 C by 2019, but they are in fact .4 C lower than that.
We also have not taken into account changes in the other greenhouse gasses.

I asked for references to papers and any National academy statement stating that human activities cause global warming but mostly NOT through greenhouse gasses but something else. That's what you questioned and you have not provided as single link in your response.

On the contrary, Shaviv estimates that human-caused warming was responsible for about half of 20th century temperature increase, and has published to that effect. [FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: [/FONT]Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

Thank you for interesting article. I did not realize your man (Shivav) believes that 60% of Global warming is human-made. That's right, not 40% as you stated but 60%!

Nominally, we can account for 40% of the 20th century global warming by the sun alone while 60% should be attributed to anthropogenic activity.

In any case, your article still fails the test since he believes greenhouses are the main component of that anthropogenic activity.

 

[Jack Hays]

I asked for references to papers and any National academy statement stating that human activities cause global warming but mostly NOT through greenhouse gasses but something else. That's what you questioned and you have not provided as single link in your response.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.[/FONT][/FONT]
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

 

[Slavister]

one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming

Not what he said in the paper you quoted in last reply. There he was clear that 60% was man-made. and sun was 40%. .... and that's from the most quoted "denier".

 

[Jack Hays]

Not what he said in the paper you quoted in last reply. There he was clear that 60% was man-made. and sun was 40%. .... and that's from the most quoted "denier".

The paper was his research result in 2012. His statement in #241 was his further evolved view in 2018. In any case, your challenge was met.

 

[Slavister]

The paper was his research result in 2012. His statement in #241 was his further evolved view in 2018. In any case, your challenge was met.

Nope, the challenge was not met since Shivav confirmed that greenhouse gases are the main way in which humans contribute their part to global warming.

Further, the challenge was to find a source that AGREES with AGW and sounds like he does not any longer.

So the challenge failed on both of the 2 conditions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Network with more than 7 000 universities and colleges from six continents have declared a climate emergency and also commited to adress the climate crisis.

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

740 jurisdictions and local governments with 136 million citizens have also declared a climate emergency.

Climate emergency declarations in 740 jurisdictions and local governments cover 136 million citizens - Climate Emergency Declaration

So who is the Jerry Falwell of this Climate Change Dogma?

 

[Media_Truth]

So who is the Jerry Falwell of this Climate Change Dogma?

Are you talking about the 7000 Universities that declared a Climate Emergency?

 

[longview]

I asked for references to papers and any National academy statement stating that human activities cause global warming but mostly NOT through greenhouse gasses but something else. That's what you questioned and you have not provided as single link in your response.



Thank you for interesting article. I did not realize your man (Shivav) believes that 60% of Global warming is human-made. That's right, not 40% as you stated but 60%!



In any case, your article still fails the test since he believes greenhouses are the main component of that anthropogenic activity.

I did not question if greenhouse gasses cause warming, I question how sensitivity the climate was to added greenhouse gasses.
The data only supports the low end of the range.

 

[vegas giants]

I did not question if greenhouse gasses cause warming, I question how sensitivity the climate was to added greenhouse gasses.
The data only supports the low end of the range.

That's enough that we should try to reduce it

 

[Slavister]

I did not question if greenhouse gasses cause warming, I question how sensitivity the climate was to added greenhouse gasses.
The data only supports the low end of the range.

Nope. I was responding to this quote which I already quoted earlier:

There you go again, adding in things that are not part of the consensus statement!
The statement is simple and straight forward,
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
and does not mention greenhouse gasses.

You go on and continue to argue with Media_Truth questioning that greenhouses are not an important part of human-caused global warming. Media_Truth and I (and overwhelming majority of scientists) are telling you that they are THE MOST important part of human-caused global warming.

So, again, show us ANY paper (or 3) that believes in AGW but claims that greenhouse gases are NOT the most important component or any statement to that effect from a National Academy of Sciences from any country.

 

[longview]

That's enough that we should try to reduce it

Not really, the low end of the range is almost the same pattern we have all observed over several generations.