Three new studies say humans are not the cause of global warming

[longview]

Did they say where the shortwave radiation was coming from?

Let's see,
Loeb's study said,

This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice

Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 says

At the same time, we find, in accordance with the analysis of Loeb et al. [14] and Ollila [18],
that the major changes for the TOA energy budget during this period of time stemmed from the clouds for SW and LW, as well as the ground temperature in the LW.

While the last study, Global Circulation Models (GCMs) Simulate the Current Temperature Only If the Shortwave Radiation Anomaly of the 2000s Has Been Omitted
was more about how the shortwave anomaly was causing an error in the GCM models.

 

[bomberfox]

Talking to reporters vs what he is willing to publish in peer review!
The studies Including Loeb's all show that the energy imbalance is from a decrease in outgoing shortwave radiation.

The concept of AGW says that added CO2 would cause a decrease in the (OLR) Outgoing Longwave Radiation,
but what has been observed in a decrease in outgoing Shortwave radiation!

The actual study has been cited.

 

[longview]

So what has the peer review concluded?

I know
is peer reviewed and says

This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice

I do not think peer review is concluding much at this point, but the data suggests that we do have an energy imbalance, just not much of it is caused by CO2.

 

[longview]

The actual study has been cited.

Correct, but the comments quoted BlueTex, did not come from the actual study that I cited, but from a CNN article.

 

[Glitch]

They are all pointing out something different than what the concept of AGW would suggest.
AGW suggests that the outgoing 15 um will be reduced by CO2 absorption, thus increasing the energy imbalance.
What is observed in all three studies is that the imbalance is increasing because of decrease in short wave light.
From your second cited study,

I found it interesting that the first two studies referred to the changing PDO from positive to negative. I had read this study years earlier:

Influence of climate shifts on decadal variations of surface solar radiation in Alaska - Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 115, Issue D10, (2010) [open access]

It is a similar but unrelated to the first two studies that points to the same energy imbalance in Earth's oceans.

Abstract

From past studies it has been known that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted toward a positive mode in 1976 and a new climate regime occurred that produced a warming of the mean annual and seasonal temperatures and associated increases in cloud cover and precipitation in the North Pacific including Alaska. In this study, this climate shift is examined with regard to the variations in surface solar radiation before and after 1976 during the period 1961–2005. The results show greatest changes occurring in the southeast region in winter with a significant rise of 1.67% yr−1 during 1961–1975 before the shift and a nonsignificant decline of −1.07% yr−1 during 1977–1991 after the shift. In addition to the variations in solar radiation that occurred after 1976, the PDO and the solar radiation time series show common changes around 1989 and 1998. Thus, these two variables are compared to assess the strength of their relationship. The results show a good to moderate correlation with a maximum found in winter in Big Delta (interior region). The Pacific North American (PNA) circulation pattern is also strongly correlated with the solar radiation, with a maximum in winter in Anchorage (south-central region). In addition, a close relationship is found between cloud cover and solar radiation, particularly in the south-central and southwest regions. These results suggest that circulation patterns and associated cloud cover changes may play a large role, especially during wintertime, in the variations in the surface solar radiation in these regions of Alaska.

 

[BlueTex]

I know
is peer reviewed and says

I do not think peer review is concluding much at this point, but the data suggests that we do have an energy imbalance, just not much of it is caused by CO2.

LMAO... Don't know how to look for the "peer review"?

NASA loved this so much they did a press release...

Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled - NASA

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

www.nasa.gov

 

[longview]

Agreed. The proponents of man made global warming have predicted the rise in global temperature, the thawing tundras, the melting glaciers, the rise in sea levels, the changing weather patterns . . . . etc. All of that is happening!

It is more complicated than that, they predict that the warming will happen BECAUSE added CO2 will decrease the outgoing longwave radiation OLR,
but that is not what is happening!

 

[BlueTex]

Correct, but the comments quoted BlueTex, did not come from the actual study that I cited, but from a CNN article.

God forbid you LISTEN to the actual scientist...

 

[EdwinWillers]

From the LINK

According to data from the Cloud and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES),
both clouds and the Earth’s surface are responsible for 89% of global warming...

Not 88 and not 90 but 89% ...

You just have to wonder how they manage to think their methods are that precise.

LOL - you're actually questioning the "precision" of their methods? Well, I'm guessing they're a lot more precise than the methods that presumably show no similar spikes in CO2 over the last 800,000 years to the [roughly] 100 year one we're seeing today.

How "precise" are those measurements?


LOL

 

[longview]

LMAO... Don't know how to look for the "peer review"?

NASA loved this so much they did a press release...

Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled - NASA

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

www.nasa.gov

Asking a different question, I do not know if I have access to the reviewers comments on the studies, I only know that to get
published in Geophysical Research Letters, a study must first pass peer review.
If you have access to the reviewers comments, they would be good to read.

 

[PoS]

Did you actually read the studies or just the article?

Now, now... This EARTH SHATTERING scientific development has just been revealed by OP... I mean, who doesn't think that an article published on Nov 2, 2021 by an obscure blog of "freelance journalists" has kept this EARTH SHATTERING news quiet for over FOUR months but now the big secret is out!

LOL nonstop fallacies. As predicted.

Believe what you want to believe.

Koch brothers are great propagandists

Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.

LOL more fallacies.

Thats nothing compared to the $359 billion that climate alarm cultists are spending to sway public opinion.

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington. Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded...

www.heritage.org

Here is the first study mentioned...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

And here is a REAL analysis with quotes from the ACTUAL researcher who DID the study...

“The two very independent ways of looking at changes in Earth’s energy imbalance are in really, really good agreement, and they’re both showing this very large trend, which gives us a lot of confidence that what we’re seeing is a real phenomenon and not just an instrumental artifact, ” said Norman Loeb, lead author for the study and principal investigator for CERES at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. “The trends we found were quite alarming in a sense.”

...

“It’s likely a mix of anthropogenic forcing and internal variability,” said Loeb. “And over this period they’re both causing warming, which leads to a fairly large change in Earth’s energy imbalance. The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.”

Loeb cautions that the study is only a snapshot relative to long-term climate change, and that it’s not possible to predict with any certainty what the coming decades might look like for the balance of Earth’s energy budget. The study does conclude, however, that unless the rate of heat uptake subsides, greater changes in climate than are already occurring should be expected.

“The lengthening and highly complementary records from Argo and CERES have allowed us both to pin down Earth’s energy imbalance with increasing accuracy, and to study its variations and trends with increasing insight, as time goes on.” said Gregory Johnson, co-author on the study and physical oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington. “Observing the magnitude and variations of this energy imbalance are vital to understanding Earth’s changing climate.”

NASA, NOAA Scientists: Earth’s Energy Imbalance Has Doubled

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019. Earth's climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun's radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and at the surface and how much thermal infrared

scitechdaily.com

LOL your silly little quotes doesnt refute the OP. Well done.

 

[longview]

God forbid you LISTEN to the actual scientist...

Pleas read his study, what has passed peer review, his comments to a reported, do not qualify.
If he wanted his comments to appear in the study, he could have included them!

 

[BlueTex]

LOL nonstop fallacies. As predicted.

LOL more fallacies.

Thats nothing compared to the $359 billion that climate alarm cultists are spending to sway public opinion.

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington. Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded...

www.heritage.org

LOL your silly little quotes doesnt refute the OP. Well done.

LMAO... "New" studies release LAST YEAR....

 

[Steve Case]

Believe what you want to believe.

Koch brothers are great propagandists

Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.

So the Koch brothers are great propagandists. It's good that our left-wing government has some competition.

So they've spent $0.14 Billion. Here's a link and chart from the Government Accountability Office GAO:

Climate Change:
Analysis of Reported Federal Funding

Ad that all up, and it looks like the GAO says the government has spent over 80 Billion 2010-2017.
Extrapolate that out to the period 1990 to 2022 and it looks the government will have probably spent
over $200 Billion on climate research by the end of this year.

That's right taxpayers have probably forked out a fifth of a $Trillion on this shit.

 

[ecofarm]

"Well, if it was just one study, I'd set it aside. But it's three!"

That's how stupid.

 

[PoS]

LMAO... "New" studies release LAST YEAR....

LOL more fallacies! When you cant refute the OP, you go into all sorts of silliness!

 

[BlueTex]

LOL more fallacies! When you cant refute the OP, you go into all sorts of silliness!

We all know bullshit when we see it, some choose to believe it…

 

[Deuce]

Three new studies say humans are not the cause of global warming - The Rio Times

Three studies have found that natural phenomena, not human activity, are responsible for global warming. The published papers show..

www.riotimesonline.com

There you go. More contradictory studies that the climate cult refuses to acknowledge.

I bet the climate nuts are gonna come in here and once again spew out a boatload of fallacies in 3... 2...1...

If I give you ten studies that say humans are the cause, will you acknowledge them?

 

[Deuce]

PoS, this is an example of why it's so ****ing easy to fool you people by citing a scientific source and then wildly misrepresenting it.

PoS, this is from one of the studies your own link is referencing:

Plain Language Summary​

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

"Study says humans are not the cause" is what they fed you, because they knew you were too gullible to check for yourself. This took me less than a minute to discover once I clicked your link.

 

[PoS]

We all know bullshit when we see it, some choose to believe it…

You only believe your silly climate cult propaganda, thats what LOL

PoS, this is an example of why it's so ****ing easy to fool you people by citing a scientific source and then wildly misrepresenting it.

PoS, this is from one of the studies your own link is referencing:



"Study says humans are not the cause" is what they fed you, because they knew you were too gullible to check for yourself. This took me less than a minute to discover once I clicked your link.

Nothing in your quote says humans are causing it. Another epic fail on your part.

 

[Deuce]

You only believe your silly climate cult propaganda, thats what LOL


Nothing in your quote says humans are causing it. Another epic fail on your part.

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. Only fanatics could claim greenhouse gas increases aren't a result of human activity.

 

[PoS]

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. Only fanatics could claim greenhouse gas increases aren't a result of human activity.

LOL the OP article proves otherwise. Thanks for playing.

 

[Deuce]

LOL the OP article proves otherwise. Thanks for playing.

No, it really doesn't. You should have read the actual papers.

 

[Mircea]

Did you actually read the studies or just the article?

Here's two studies you can read, if you dare:

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

The story so far....

Even though EPICA Dome Ice Core data shows the previous 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods had CO2 levels ranging from 260 ppm to 290 ppm, sea levels were still 4 meters to 14 meters higher than present and average global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F higher than present (which is why sea levels were 4-14 meters higher than present.)

Thus, the claim by global warming nutters who want to destroy economies and ruin people's lives that reducing CO2 levels from 400+ ppm to 260-290 ppm will prevent sea level and higher temperatures is a blatant lie and science proves it.

Believe what you want to believe.

Koch brothers are great propagandists

Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.

Do you have proof the Koch Brothers funded the study by the Danish Government?

Why would Nature -- and ardent propaganda supporter of global warming -- publish a study that refutes global warming if it was funded by the Koch Brothers?

 

[rickc]

Here's two studies you can read, if you dare:

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

The story so far....

Even though EPICA Dome Ice Core data shows the previous 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods had CO2 levels ranging from 260 ppm to 290 ppm, sea levels were still 4 meters to 14 meters higher than present and average global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F higher than present (which is why sea levels were 4-14 meters higher than present.)

Thus, the claim by global warming nutters who want to destroy economies and ruin people's lives that reducing CO2 levels from 400+ ppm to 260-290 ppm will prevent sea level and higher temperatures is a blatant lie and science proves it.




Do you have proof the Koch Brothers funded the study by the Danish Government?

Why would Nature -- and ardent propaganda supporter of global warming -- publish a study that refutes global warming if it was funded by the Koch Brothers?

Never said the koch funded a study by the Danish government. That is a figment of your imagination.