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

[Lord of Planar]

What-ever, dude. Like I have stated before... I'm not following you down these stupid rabbit holes anymore.

True. You have been obsessed with trying to prove me wrong.

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.

What he says is true. How is that being a "denialist?" 20,000 years ago, we had so much ice, it was reflecting enough sun to stay in an ice age, locked in until the proper set of changes occurred. There would also be far less H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the air. More reflected shortwave, less retained longwave...

 

[Buzz]

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.

View attachment 67378067

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.

Of course, you have completely blocked from your memory the peer-reviewed and published study I have shown you numerous times that says that the reflectance of arctic ice has been reduced more due to warming temperatures than soot.

True. You have been obsessed with trying to prove me wrong.

Try?? I don't have to try. I have proven you wrong many times. Remember?

What he says is true. How is that being a "denialist?" 20,000 years ago, we had so much ice, it was reflecting enough sun to stay in an ice age, locked in until the proper set of changes occurred. There would also be far less H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the air. More reflected shortwave, less retained longwave...

Yeah... so what? What happened thousands of years ago during the end of the last ice age has little to do with the point I am making now.

 

[flogger]

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.

OK fine .

Let me run these numbers by you (all freely available online)

The current CO2 level is 420 PPM or around 0.04% of our atmospheric envelope

That represents 210 gigatons produced annually of which some 8 Gigatons are produced by humans

So that represents 0.0016 % of atmospheric content to date

Given that we have no idea what the climate sensitivity (i.e. how much CO2 equates to how much warming) but it obviously must be miniscule given the percentages

Then you have to factor in the fact that $2.3 trillion will be spent on this issue in 2022 and that for comparison $1.8 trillion will be spent on global defence

Yet unlike with defence expenditure there is no accountability whatsoever for such massive expenditures they don't have to produce a dime of power to still get paid

The AGW narrative is basically a license to print money and make all us indoctrinated prolls feel good about doing it

 

[MamboDervish]

The AGW narrative is basically a license to print money and make all us prolls feel good about doing it

The fossil fuel industry has basically had a license to print money for generations, and is so profitable that they can afford to spend billion$ of their profits generating very sophisticated anti-AGM propaganda - which is most of what comes out.

 

[flogger]

The fossil fuel industry has basically had a license to print money for generations, and is so profitable that they can afford to spend billion$ of their profits generating very sophisticated anti-AGM propaganda - which is most of what comes out.

I don't care about their profits if they are actually producing power I can afford to buy

 

[MamboDervish]

I don't care about their profits if they are actually producing power I can afford to buy

That's easy to say when you're not actually paying the true costs. It's breathtakingly naive and myopic to think the only cost to you is the price of gas at the pump, or the price per kW hour on your meter. Once you factor in the true costs of the damage of global climate change, PLUS the true cost of cleaning up all the fossil fuel toxicity, PLUS the cost of the healthcare for having slowly poisoned the planet, including your progeny, then someone might just might realize they've been deluding themselves beyond measure.

 

[Buzz]

OK fine .

Let me run these numbers by you (all freely available online)

The current CO2 level is 420 PPM or around 0.04% of our atmospheric envelope

That represents 210 gigatons produced annually of which some 8 Gigatons are produced by humans

So that represents 0.0016 % of atmospheric content to date

Given that we have no idea what the climate sensitivity (i.e. how much CO2 equates to how much warming) but it obviously must be miniscule given the percentages

Then you have to factor in the fact that $2.3 trillion will be spent on this issue in 2022 and that for comparison $1.8 trillion will be spent on global defence

Yet unlike with defence expenditure there is no accountability whatsoever for such massive expenditures they don't have to produce a dime of power to still get paid

The AGW narrative is basically a license to print money and make all us indoctrinated prolls feel good about doing it

No thanks.

It is clear to me from numerous posts of yours that you have very little knowledge and understanding of AGW and tend to deal in mostly logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, and denialist talking points.

 

[rickc]

That's easy to say when you're not actually paying the true costs. It's breathtakingly naive and myopic to think the only cost to you is the price of gas at the pump, or the price per kW hour on your meter. Once you factor in the true costs of the damage of global climate change, PLUS the true cost of cleaning up all the fossil fuel toxicity, PLUS the cost of the healthcare for having slowly poisoned the planet, including your progeny, then someone might just might realize they've been deluding themselves beyond measure.

Not to mention the military cost in lives and treasure spent protecting the oil industries profits in the middle east.

 

[longview]

What-ever, dude. Like I have stated before... I'm not following you down these stupid rabbit holes anymore.

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.

What, you do not believe that 20,000 years ago, Earth had more reflection from snow and ice?

 

[PoS]

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.

Shoot the messenger fallacy. Noted.

 

[longview]

What-ever, dude. Like I have stated before... I'm not following you down these stupid rabbit holes anymore.

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.

longview said:
The feedbacks from melting snow and ice, are on a an ever decreasing path from maximum reflection some 20,000 years ago.

Earth’s radiative imbalance from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present
What you would have us believe is that the red line on the graph "h" Albedo, has the potential for an upturn
greater that what has been happening over the last 20,000 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course, you have completely blocked from your memory the peer-reviewed and published study I have shown you numerous times that says that the reflectance of arctic ice has been reduced more due to warming temperatures than soot.

I am aware that ice sheets decrease in albedo as they age. This is a process that has not changed significantly over time. Human soot on ice is a significant change as we indistrialized. Your article only proved my wrong in your fantasies.

Try?? I don't have to try. I have proven you wrong many times. Remember?

Buzz, if that is the best you have, you have nothing.

 

[flogger]

That's easy to say when you're not actually paying the true costs. It's breathtakingly naive and myopic to think the only cost to you is the price of gas at the pump, or the price per kW hour on your meter. Once you factor in the true costs of the damage of global climate change, PLUS the true cost of cleaning up all the fossil fuel toxicity, PLUS the cost of the healthcare for having slowly poisoned the planet, including your progeny, then someone might just might realize they've been deluding themselves beyond measure.

The poverty and starvation that would accrue from mass adoption of renewables would vastly trump any of those factors

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

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...

Riottimesonline. Holy this, the source you people put forth just keep getting more and more ridiculous

 

[MamboDervish]

The poverty and starvation that would accrue from mass adoption of renewables would vastly trump any of those factors

Zero evidence of that. Just another deliberately deceptive pile of propaganda, foisted by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Nickyjo]

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...

Fallacy alert!

Not to worry. I am sure that climate scientists will look at and evaluate the new studies, perhaps adjusting their calculations if necessary. That’s what open minded people do. Much as I am sure you took note of the troubling climate report by the UN a few days ago and adjusted your beliefs accordingly.

Meanwhile in the real world, today’s paper says that the US Fish and Wildlife Service are releasing 400k juvenile salmon into the Sacrament River increasing by far the numbers of the previous few years. Little matter of us getting no rain to speak of in February, our wettest month. (Good news that there is more adult chinook elsewhere.) On page two there’s story of Sydney being put on high alert due to flooding from “extraordinarily heavy rains.” Holy Inhofe and a snowball, Batman! Seems to me that the Chinese hoax cultists predicted these sorts of things…

 

[mrjurrs]

Shoot the messenger fallacy. Noted.

Messengers of shitty sources should probably expect retaliation. What message were your sources trying to send?

 

[PoS]

Riottimesonline. Holy this, the source you people put forth just keep getting more and more ridiculous

More shoot the messenger fallacies.

Fallacy alert!

Not to worry. I am sure that climate scientists will look at and evaluate the new studies, perhaps adjusting their calculations if necessary. That’s what open minded people do. Much as I am sure you took note of the troubling climate report by the UN a few days ago and adjusted your beliefs accordingly.

Meanwhile in the real world, today’s paper says that the US Fish and Wildlife Service are releasing 400k juvenile salmon into the Sacrament River increasing by far the numbers of the previous few years. Little matter of us getting no rain to speak of in February, our wettest month. (Good news that there is more adult chinook elsewhere.) On page two there’s story of Sydney being put on high alert due to flooding from “extraordinarily heavy rains.” Holy Inhofe and a snowball, Batman! Seems to me that the Chinese hoax cultists predicted these sorts of things…

LOL deflection fallacy.

Messengers of shitty sources should probably expect retaliation. What message were your sources trying to send?

Doubling down on the fallacy. This is what happens when one has no counterargument with the facts being presented. Good job!

 

[Buzz]

What, you do not believe that 20,000 years ago, Earth had more reflection from snow and ice?

Of course, it did. 20,000 years ago 32% of the land was permanently covered by ice. But what does that have to do with recent satellite measurements of flux changes in energy imbalance?

Earth’s radiative imbalance from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present
What you would have us believe is that the red line on the graph "h" Albedo, has the potential for an upturn
greater that what has been happening over the last 20,000 years.

Now where in the hell did I say that? I didn't. You are literally making shit up again.



Now I don't know why you feel compelled to make a big deal about the last ice age. Then, there was about 32% of the land was covered in ice. And now it is down to about 10%. So... there is still plenty of snow and ice to melt off. And if you look closely at your study and note that it shows about -4.0W⋅m−2 of forcing from all that ice. But the 4 studies of satellite data, show forcings for albedo change of only 0.14 to 0.2W⋅m−2. So... even if all the remaining ice melted over the entire Earth there still wouldn't be a bigger change than what happened since the last ice age.

Your rabbit hole argument proves nothing.

 

[Buzz]

I am aware that ice sheets decrease in albedo as they age.

It is more than just age. Surface melting will decrease albedo dramatically as well.

This is a process that has not changed significantly over time.

Actually, it has. With all the melting of ice, the albedo has been decreasing dramatically even though all the ice hasn't melted yet.

Human soot on ice is a significant change as we indistrialized.

Do you really think humans were not putting out soot before the industrial revolution? I hate to break it to ya but man has been producing soot for thousands of years. Hell... we have been putting out soot ever since man learned to control fire.

Your article only proved my wrong in your fantasies.

Nope. Wrong again. Here is that article again. I think this is like the 6th time I have shown it to you. Here are a couple of quotes:

It is important to point out that variation in impurity content of snow is not the major cause of surface-albedo variation in the Arctic spring. The major variable affecting snow albedo is the effective grain size (Wiscombe and Warren, 1980), which for a nonspherical snow grain is proportional to the volume-to-area ratio (Grenfell and Warren, 1999). The effective grain radius for new snow is 50–100 μm, and for old melting snow it is ∼ 1000 μm; the corresponding broadband albedo reduction in pure deep snow is ∼ 0.12 (Fig. 1 of Warren and Wiscombe, 1985). This difference is much larger than the albedo difference caused by the typical concentrations of impurities we find in Arctic snow.

and:

The BC content of the Arctic atmosphere has declined markedly since 1989, according to the continuous measurements of near-surface air at Alert (Canada), Barrow (Alaska), and Ny- ̊Alesund (Svalbard). Correspondingly, the new BC concentrations for Arctic snow are somewhat lower than those reported by Clarke and Noone for 1983–1984, but because of methodological differences it is not clear that the differences are significant. Nevertheless, the BC content of Arctic snow appears to be no higher now than in 1984, so it is doubtful that BC in Arctic snow has contributed to the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice in recent years.

Looks to me like you don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

Buzz, if that is the best you have, you have nothing.

It is a hell of a lot more than you have. At least I can cite numerous examples of me proving you wrong. And I could cite plenty more if I wanted to. But you have yet to cite even one single example of you proving me wrong.

Not even once!!

But you go ahead and keep deluding yourself. That seems to be all you are really good at anyway.

 

[Nickyjo]

More shoot the messenger fallacies.




LOL deflection fallacy.



Doubling down on the fallacy. This is what happens when one has no counterargument with the facts being presented. Good job!

The counter arguments are there in abundance. The events I mentioned are not slam dunk evidence if human caused climate change, but coupled with all the other things that have happened, suggest that there might be something to the generally accepted theories.

 

[PoS]

The counter arguments are there in abundance. The events I mentioned are not slam dunk evidence if human caused climate change, but coupled with all the other things that have happened, suggest that there might be something to the generally accepted theories.

"Suggests" means nothing in the end, but I do appreciate your honesty and openmindedness with regards to the issue. Youre better off compared to your peers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is more than just age. Surface melting will decrease albedo dramatically as well.

Actually, it has. With all the melting of ice, the albedo has been decreasing dramatically even though all the ice hasn't melted yet.

Do you really think humans were not putting out soot before the industrial revolution? I hate to break it to ya but man has been producing soot for thousands of years. Hell... we have been putting out soot ever since man learned to control fire.

Nope. Wrong again. Here is that article again. I think this is like the 6th time I have shown it to you. Here are a couple of quotes:

and:

Looks to me like you don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

It is a hell of a lot more than you have. At least I can cite numerous examples of me proving you wrong. And I could cite plenty more if I wanted to. But you have yet to cite even one single example of you proving me wrong.

Not even once!!

But you go ahead and keep deluding yourself. That seems to be all you are really good at anyway.

Your article support the soot on ice.

The soot amounts inferred by CN85 were mostly in the​

range 5–50 nanograms of carbon per gram of snow (ng g−1,​

or ppb by mass), which could reduce the broadband (0.3–​

2.8 μm) albedo of snow by as much as 0.04, depending on​

snow grain size (Warren and Wiscombe, 1985). CN85 suggested​

a mean value of 25 ng g−1 for the Arctic, and a corresponding​

albedo reduction of 0.02 (CN85; Warren and​

Clarke, 1986). An albedo reduction of this magnitude is​

not detectable by eye and is below the accuracy of satellite​

observations, but it is significant for climate (Hansen and​

Nazarenko, 2004; Jacobson et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 2005;​

Flanner et al., 2007).​

​

---​

​

There are several possible reasons: (1) the​

peak of soot fallout in the Arctic occurs in spring, coinciding​

with the onset of snowmelt; (2) melting (coarse-grained)​

snow has lower albedo than cold (fine-grained) snow; (3) earlier​

melt exposes a dark underlying surface; and (4) the stable​

atmospheric boundary layer over snow prevents rapid heat​

exchange with the free troposphere, concentrating the warming​

at the surface. For a specified radiative forcing, sootin-​

snow had 1.8 times the climatic warming effect of anthropogenic​

CO2, giving soot-in-snow an “efficacy” of 1.8​

(Hansen et al., 2005). Subsequent climate modeling by Flanner​

et al. (2007), incorporating snow processes into a GCM,​

found an even higher efficacy of 3.2, because of several additional​

considerations: (5) an initial albedo reduction causes​

a temperature increase and therefore growth of snow grain​

size, even before the onset of melting (LaChapelle, 1969;​

Flanner and Zender, 2006) and further reducing albedo;​

(6) soot causes greater albedo reduction in coarse-grained​

snow than in fine-grained snow (Fig. 7 of Warren and Wiscombe,​

1980); and (7) it has been hypothesized that melting​

may tend to concentrate soot at the top surface (e.g. in the​

modeling study of Flanner al., 2007), where it is exposed to​

more sunlight. The radiative effects of BC in snow are now​

the subject of several additional modeling efforts (Jacobson,​

2004; Koch and Hansen, 2005; Koch et al., 2009) and summary​

assessments (Quinn et al., 2008).​

OK, the first passage says the average 25 nanogram/gram corresponds to an albedo decrease of 2%. The second passage gives possible reasons, which are now have greater evidence of being true. It suggests that soot increases this snow melt which farther decreases abedo even more. It also says the effect is greater than antropogenic CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Like it or not Buzz, soot has a significant effect of the arctic ice melt rate. This article supports that. Did you read part 9, conclusions?

 

[mrjurrs]

More shoot the messenger fallacies.




LOL deflection fallacy.



Doubling down on the fallacy. This is what happens when one has no counterargument with the facts being presented. Good job!

Pot calling the kettle black. You still haven't provided a source that would pass high school muster.