• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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]


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?
What is it about this information you think is problematic for AGW proponents?
 

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...

Given that of the 420PPM of CO2 produced annually only some 16 PPM is from human sources coupled to the fact that we do not know the climate sensitivity of CO2 to begin with gives you an insight into how deep this scam runs.

$2.3 Trillion taxpayer dollars worth this year alone is being ploughed into this which is way more than the planets global defence budget so you can understand why the promotion of this narrative is so lucrative for both governments and the big green global multinationals promoting it.

And of course no accountability whatsoever so essentially a license to print money. They dont have to produce a Watt of power to still get paid ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
No, it really doesn't. You should have read the actual papers.
Quote and link the actual papers then. So far youve shown zilch proof.
 

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...
I finally had a chance to read all 3 of these studies(including the one longview cited) and none of them say that humans are not the cause of GW.

The article is either misrepresenting what the studies say or is taking their statements out of context.

This is nothing but more denialist BS.
 
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.
Looks to me like the changes in cloud cover and surface albedo are feedbacks to GHG warming. And if that is the case then this data suggests that there is more warming from the feedbacks than from the warming from the initial forcing. As far as I am concerned this is direct evidence of higher climate sensitivity associated with increasing GHGs.
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!
Actually, it is happening. All three of these studies as well as the one you cited state that OLR would be decreasing if it wasn't for the increasing temperatures.
 
Looks to me like the changes in cloud cover and surface albedo are feedbacks to GHG warming. And if that is the case then this data suggests that there is more warming from the feedbacks than from the warming from the initial forcing. As far as I am concerned this is direct evidence of higher climate sensitivity associated with increasing GHGs.

Actually, it is happening. All three of these studies as well as the one you cited state that OLR would be decreasing if it wasn't for the increasing temperatures.
Unless the decrease in albedo is because of warming from aerosol reductions allowing more energy to reach the ground!
Feedbacks would respond to any warming, not just warming from greenhouse gasses!
If the increase in temperatures from CO2 forcing causes more OLR not less, then CO2 is a cooling agent!
The idea that added CO2 will reduce the OLR is central to the concept of AGW!
 
Unless the decrease in albedo is because of warming from aerosol reductions allowing more energy to reach the ground!
Nope. The brightening that happened was before the time period of these studies. And they even say it was mostly because of snow and ice loss and changes to clouds.
Feedbacks would respond to any warming, not just warming from greenhouse gasses!
What other warm forcing are you talking about? TSI was dropping slightly.
If the increase in temperatures from CO2 forcing causes more OLR not less, then CO2 is a cooling agent!
Cooling agent??

:ROFLMAO:

Rising temps are causing more OLR. while CO2 is causing less. They can both happen at the same time.
The idea that added CO2 will reduce the OLR is central to the concept of AGW!
No duh.
 
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]


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?
While I do not disagree with what you posted, there is some dispute concerning the period covered by the MIS-11 Interglacial, a.k.a. Holsteinian Interglacial. I thought the paper was interesting, and while I don't dispute the data they collected, I do not necessarily agree with their conclusions.

Looking further into that time period I came across this observation from the Center for Geosciences in Germany and the Institute of Geology in Poland: Holsteinian Interglacial = Marine Isotope Stage 11?

If their view point is taken into consideration then the MIS-11 period could encompass more than one interglacial period.
 
Nope. The brightening that happened was before the time period of these studies. And they even say it was mostly because of snow and ice loss and changes to clouds.

What other warm forcing are you talking about? TSI was dropping slightly.

Cooling agent??

:ROFLMAO:

Rising temps are causing more OLR. while CO2 is causing less. They can both happen at the same time.

No duh.
Who says the brightening is not still in process? Are the skies as clear as they were in the early 1700's?

Cooling yes!, If the increase in temperature causes more negative imbalance than positive imbalance form the forcing, then yes
less energy imbalance equals cooling!
 
Who says the brightening is not still in process?
Loeb et al, 2021 says so in figure 3:
Screenshot 2022-03-03 at 08-49-52 Satellite and Ocean Data.png
This is the flux trends in TOA from 2002 to 2020. And you can see that that trend for aerosols is the smallest at only 0.01+-0.04.
Are the skies as clear as they were in the early 1700's?
We don't have data for the 1700s, so it is almost impossible to know.
Cooling yes!, If the increase in temperature causes more negative imbalance than positive imbalance form the forcing, then yes
less energy imbalance equals cooling!
This makes no sense. It is the change in temperature that is changing the imbalance, not the CO2. Sorry, long... increasing CO2 only causes warming. Claiming that CO2 cools the atmosphere is just another lame attempt to distort the science of AGW into saying what you want to believe.
 
Loeb et al, 2021 says so in figure 3:
View attachment 67378011
This is the flux trends in TOA from 2002 to 2020. And you can see that that trend for aerosols is the smallest at only 0.01+-0.04.

We don't have data for the 1700s, so it is almost impossible to know.

This makes no sense. It is the change in temperature that is changing the imbalance, not the CO2. Sorry, long... increasing CO2 only causes warming. Claiming that CO2 cools the atmosphere is just another lame attempt to distort the science of AGW into saying what you want to believe.
But Buzz, Loeb says that aerosols had a positive contribution, how can that be, you said aerosols only can cause cooling?
Actually Loeb does not say that the brightening has stopped!
 

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...
Ofcourse they will. Climate zealots just want everyone to shut up and accept what's politically correct. They are allergic to peer review.
 
But Buzz, Loeb says that aerosols had a positive contribution, how can that be, you said aerosols only can cause cooling?
Oh come on long... why do you insist on this BS. Aerosols are complicated. Now there are some cloud interactions that can cause aerosols to warm but those are relatively small. For the most part, they cause cooling. And a reduction in aerosols will cause less cooling. And in this case that less cooling causes an increase in the flux changes. It isn't like the aerosols are actually causing warming. Why can't you understand this?
Actually Loeb does not say that the brightening has stopped!
O.K. Loed doesn't actually say that brightening has stopped. But the flux change in the time period being studied is almost nothing. Hell... the error range is several times more than the stated flux. So it is significantly less than when brightening was happening in the 80s and 90s. And you certainly can't claim that brightening is any kind of significant factor in the time period being discussed in any of these studies.
 
Oh come on long... why do you insist on this BS. Aerosols are complicated. Now there are some cloud interactions that can cause aerosols to warm but those are relatively small. For the most part, they cause cooling. And a reduction in aerosols will cause less cooling. And in this case that less cooling causes an increase in the flux changes. It isn't like the aerosols are actually causing warming. Why can't you understand this?

O.K. Loed doesn't actually say that brightening has stopped. But the flux change in the time period being studied is almost nothing. Hell... the error range is several times more than the stated flux. So it is significantly less than when brightening was happening in the 80s and 90s. And you certainly can't claim that brightening is any kind of significant factor in the time period being discussed in any of these studies.
I am glad you are admitting that brightening was a factor in the 80's and 90's, but there is little data that it slowed down.
 
I am glad you are admitting that brightening was a factor in the 80's and 90's,
I never claimed that it wasn't.
but there is little data that it slowed down.
That is just more BS!! You have been shown data that it is several times.

Your selective memory is getting very old.
 
I never claimed that it wasn't.

That is just more BS!! You have been shown data that it is several times.

Your selective memory is getting very old.
Look, we agree that adding aerosols reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.
Why is it so difficult to understand that as those 200+ years of added aerosols were reduced that the sunlight
that had been blocked would start reaching the ground once again?
Wild 2021 Show that while the brightening has slowed, we do not know how much dimming occurred before 1947.
1646329349602.png
 

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...
SACRILEGE!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!

All science that doesn't agree with me is Haram and therefore it is product of Satan and cannot be trusted and this is actually how science works and if you argue with me you're denying science.

😆
 
Believe what you want to believe.
And whatever you don't believe label is propaganda by someone you don't like
Koch brothers are great propagandists
Oh wow look at that.
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 government spent vastly more than that to try and promote climate change so they can absorb more tax money and justify corruption. If we're going with incentives it seems like it's a much greater incentive to support the climate change myth.
 
Look, we agree that adding aerosols reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.
Yes, we both agree with this.
Why is it so difficult to understand that as those 200+ years of added aerosols were reduced that the sunlight

that had been blocked would start reaching the ground once again?
It isn't difficult to understand because I agree with this as well. What I disagree with is when you take that reduction of aerosols and mischaracterize it as a warm forcing when it is no such thing. Or, like in this thread, where you are taking a very small aerosol flux of 0.01 and pretending it has some significant effect in this discussion. It doesn't.

As a matter of fact, you are just sending this discussion down another of your lame rabbit holes of obfuscation.
Wild 2021 Show that while the brightening has slowed, we do not know how much dimming occurred before 1947.

View attachment 67378040
So what?? This debate also isn't about what aerosols were like before 1947. This is about the Earth's current energy imbalance and what is causing it. And the fact of the matter is that it looks like, according to several recent studies, that the feedbacks may be causing more warming than the forcings that caused them in the first place. And if this is the case then the possibility of GHGs having high sensitivities to a doubling becomes more likely.

You keep asking me why I think that CO2 is likely to have a sensitivity of 3.0 like the IPCC estimates... well, here it is. And it is just like I, and climate scientists, have been describing for years now. Ever-increasing feedbacks from things like melting snow and ice.
 
Yes, we both agree with this.

It isn't difficult to understand because I agree with this as well. What I disagree with is when you take that reduction of aerosols and mischaracterize it as a warm forcing when it is no such thing. Or, like in this thread, where you are taking a very small aerosol flux of 0.01 and pretending it has some significant effect in this discussion. It doesn't.

As a matter of fact, you are just sending this discussion down another of your lame rabbit holes of obfuscation.

So what?? This debate also isn't about what aerosols were like before 1947. This is about the Earth's current energy imbalance and what is causing it. And the fact of the matter is that it looks like, according to several recent studies, that the feedbacks may be causing more warming than the forcings that caused them in the first place. And if this is the case then the possibility of GHGs having high sensitivities to a doubling becomes more likely.

You keep asking me why I think that CO2 is likely to have a sensitivity of 3.0 like the IPCC estimates... well, here it is. And it is just like I, and climate scientists, have been describing for years now. Ever-increasing feedbacks from things like melting snow and ice.
Let me give you an example, say the 1700 percentage of sunlight reaching the ground was 100%.
By 1950 the percentage was say 80%, and it further dropped to 75% by 1985.
between 1985 and now, reducing aerosols increase the amount of sunlight reaching the ground back to the 80% or about the 1950 level.
Relative to 1985 the amount of sunlight reaching the ground increased!

The feedbacks from melting snow and ice, are on a an ever decreasing path from maximum reflection some 20,000 years ago.
 
You have to have some sort of agenda to deny the effects of human activity on our warming climate.
 

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...
Here's a quote from one of the studies...
"The scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement is faulty for the same reason."
https://www.riotimesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Ollila-GCMsimulationerror.pdf

Another comes from notrickszone.com and I see no place where it indicates how many others have cited the results of this study.

Fringe science should debate other fringe science, not rail against mainstream science until they actually have something.
 
Let me give you an example, say the 1700 percentage of sunlight reaching the ground was 100%.
By 1950 the percentage was say 80%, and it further dropped to 75% by 1985.
between 1985 and now, reducing aerosols increase the amount of sunlight reaching the ground back to the 80% or about the 1950 level.
Relative to 1985 the amount of sunlight reaching the ground increased!
What-ever, dude. Like I have stated before... I'm not following you down these stupid rabbit holes anymore.
The feedbacks from melting snow and ice, are on a an ever decreasing path from maximum reflection some 20,000 years ago.
Unfortunately for you, you can't back this up with anything other than your denialist opinion. I have actual peer-reviewed and published studies that support what I believe.
 
Did they say where the shortwave radiation was coming from?
The only significant shortwave radiation comes from the sun. If you look at the figures in the study, it is clear that clouds are reflecting less, so the surface is absorbing more.

1646342163555.png

Notice that the clear sky down flux, which has no clouds to reflect shortwave, has effectively a zero rennd. However, the cloudy skies has less clouds and the earth is absorbing more solar radiation. This is why I often speak of insolation when referring to the sun rather than TSI. Now what is less obvious is why does the surface reflect less sun upward? Two significantfactors of that will be less ice cover to reflect sunligh and carbon on ice absorbing more sunlight. Part will likely be due to more solar energy absorbed in photosynthesis, but this is probably a small amount.
 
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!
Yes. I can know that a particular factor, like soot will melt the permafrost and ice. But since I know it, and other people are oblivious to it, I can claim that Sea Lions are doing it. Then when it melts 30 years later for no other apparent reason, people will believe my lie is wrong, that the Sea Lions are melting the ice.
 
Back
Top Bottom