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

[Lord of Planar]

View attachment 67381720​

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that station reached -12.2 C on 3/19, and the average March high is -48.7 C. This makes it 38.3 C (65.3 F) higher than any March high previously recorded. The record low is -72 C. This is according to Wikipedia.

Now there is a site that you can see the temperatures.

Resumen synop

ogimet.com

Notice this is a short event. Notice also when the winds blow from the between the north and east, the temperture increases. I suggest that maybe it is seeing the heat from the site.

3/15/2022 -51.3
3/16/2022 -49.3
3/17/2022 -27.9
3/18/2022 -18
3/19/2022 -12.2
3/20/2022 -15.9
3/21/2022 -21.9
3/22/2022 -29.5
3/23/2022 -36
3/24/2022 -43.5

Now if you look at the landscape:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

We see it is very dirty in the area. That few days of an anomaly could have been heat that traveled from buildings, construction, etc. The monitoring equipment could have been dusted with dirty particulate matter. There could have been equipment runnunbg nearby and the wind blowing just right. We simply don't know. All we know is the equipment recorded the event.

Consider this:

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change. But if it happens again or repeatedly then it might be something to worry about and part of global warming, they said.​

Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal

Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.

apnews.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are plenty of them. Lewis and Curry 2018 is one. And they even acknowledge and debunk Svensmark's cosmic ray theory.

What exactly do you bean by "cause?" If you mean the primary reason, then yes. Their study suggests we are not the primary cause. They do not deny we have an impact though. Lewis and Curry 2018. Under conclusions :

Using updated and revised data, we have derived​

ECShist and TCR estimates that are much better constrained,​

and slightly lower when using the same surface​

temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), than those in the​

predecessor LC15 study: 1.50-K median (5%–95%​

range: 1.05–2.45 K) for ECShist and 1.20-K median (5%–​

95% range: 0.9–1.7 K) for TCR. Using infilled, globally​

complete temperature data (Had4_krig_v 2) slightly​

increases the new estimates, to a median of 1.66K for​

ECShist (5%–95% range: 1.15–2.7 K) and 1.33K for​

TCR (5%–95% range: 1.0–1.9 K). We have also shown​

that various concerns that have been raised about the​

accuracy of historical period energy budget climate​

sensitivity estimation are misplaced. We assess nil bias​

from either non–unit forcing efficacy or varying SST​

warming patterns, and that any downward estimation​

bias when using blended infilled surface temperature​

data is trivial. We find that high CMIP5 model-based​

estimates of the ratio of ECS to ECShist, the proxy for​

ECS that historical period based studies estimate,​

become far lower when calculated more appropriately.​

By using the ECS-to-ECShist ratios that we calculate for​

CMIP5 models to scale our Had4_krig_v2-based ECShist​

probability distribution, we derive a median estimate for​

ECS of 1.76K (5%–95% range: 1.2–3.1 K).​

​

-----​

​

Moreover, our median ECS and TCR estimates​

using infilled temperature data imply multicentennial or​

multidecadal future warming under increasing forcing​

of only 55%–70% of the mean warming simulated by​

CMIP5 models.​

I see nothing in the study about cosmic rays.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Weather is not climate! 3 days of warmer weather is a weather condition, not necessarily climate change!

The direction of the wind matters too when you have structures warmed for human conditions.

 

[HangLow]

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that station reached -12.2 C on 3/19, and the average March high is -48.7 C. This makes it 38.3 C (65.3 F) higher than any March high previously recorded. The record low is -72 C. This is according to Wikipedia.

Now there is a site that you can see the temperatures.

View attachment 67381754

Resumen synop

ogimet.com

Notice this is a short event. Notice also when the winds blow from the between the north and east, the temperture increases. I suggest that maybe it is seeing the heat from the site.

3/15/2022 -51.3
3/16/2022 -49.3
3/17/2022 -27.9
3/18/2022 -18
3/19/2022 -12.2
3/20/2022 -15.9
3/21/2022 -21.9
3/22/2022 -29.5
3/23/2022 -36
3/24/2022 -43.5

Now if you look at the landscape:

View attachment 67381755

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

We see it is very dirty in the area. That few days of an anomaly could have been heat that traveled from buildings, construction, etc. The monitoring equipment could have been dusted with dirty particulate matter. There could have been equipment runnunbg nearby and the wind blowing just right. We simply don't know. All we know is the equipment recorded the event.

Consider this:

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change. But if it happens again or repeatedly then it might be something to worry about and part of global warming, they said.​

Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal

Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.

apnews.com

Per your request M'Lord...
OUTSTANDING POST... Thank you...
-peace

'Unthinkable':​

Scientists Shocked as Polar Temperatures​

Soar 50 to 90 Degrees Above Normal​

'Unthinkable': Scientists Shocked as Polar Temperatures Soar 50 to 90 Degrees Above Normal

"With everything going on in the world right now, the dual polar climate disasters of 2022 should be the top story," says Eliot Jacobson.

www.commondreams.org

​

Scientists expressed alarm as temperatures near both poles soared to 50°-90°F above normal in recent days. (Image: Climate Reanalyz
https://commons.commondreams.org/t/...res-soar-50-to-90-degrees-above-normal/136777

 

[Lord of Planar]

Per your request M'Lord...
OUTSTANDING POST... Thank you...
-peace

'Unthinkable':​

Scientists Shocked as Polar Temperatures​

Soar 50 to 90 Degrees Above Normal​

'Unthinkable': Scientists Shocked as Polar Temperatures Soar 50 to 90 Degrees Above Normal

"With everything going on in the world right now, the dual polar climate disasters of 2022 should be the top story," says Eliot Jacobson.

www.commondreams.org

View attachment 67381759​

Scientists expressed alarm as temperatures near both poles soared to 50°-90°F above normal in recent days. (Image: Climate Reanalyz
https://commons.commondreams.org/t/...res-soar-50-to-90-degrees-above-normal/136777

I'm sorry, but a twit on twitter saying it was 90 degrees above normal isn't supported. The station with the most change was only 65 F above normal for March.

 

[Buzz]

Such a closed mind you have... Such incorrect assumption, like normal... I never claimed any consistency, not did I?

TOA measuremnts have no consistency as these satellites only measure a relatively narrow width with an approximate 2 hour orbit, and clouds change. They overlay and it takes days to complete a scan of the globe, and day/night is inconsistent too.

Measuring the clouds is not measuring the TOA. They change. Even the surface changes, but its easier to correct for the hour of day.

This all sounds like a bunch of made-up BS you just pulled out of your back side that I know you can't back up.

You need to stop trying to correct me when you don't understand these things.

I clearly understand these things far better than you do.

Why do you constantly read things into my words that I never say? You have D-K far worse then I though, with you think you knowing my mind.


I never specifies annual, seasonal, etc. I believe the annual average is 8.5% to 9%, but I'm not sure. Naturally, the norther hemisphere grow and shrink with the seasons in opposition, but not equally opposite.

Why do you constantly make such silly assumptions, or are you just trying to win against something not claimed?

The Earth is covered by about 10% of permanent(for the most part) ice. So your 8.5% to 9% annual average is clearly something you just made up.

Talk about D-K. You clearly excel in that department.

Why must the obvious be backed up?

Do I need to back up 5 + 5 = 10 for you as well?

Because the numbers you cite are no where close to obvious. And comparing them to 5 + 5 = 10 is just idiotic. The fact of the matter is that you can't back it up what you claim.

The total downward forcing to the surface is around 500 W/m^2. Just look at any earth energy balance figure. For CO2 forcing changes to reach 1%, it would have to be a 5 W/m^2 change.

Not necessarily. Not all changes are happening on the surface. You should know this if you really understood the science.

Are you going to deny this fact of science like you constantly deny other science facts?

You call me a denier, but it is you who denies scientific reality, in favor of an agenda.

Why don't you start backing yourself up more than every once in a while and maybe you can prove you are not a denier.

I said that albedo was not a feedback when the context was soot on ice. I corrected your misstatement. My god man, You are rationalizing your mistake instead of acknowledging it. Had you agreed you misstated it then, that would be the end of it. Instead, all you do is prove to us all once again, you don';t know squat about these sciences. You have no class what so ever. When I acknowledged I made a misstatement, you wouldn't let it go.

I know what you said. And I never claimed that the change in albedo due to soot was a feedback. I was talking about the change due to warming temperatures. And that is clearly, by definition, a feedback.

Serious. I have shown before how you and others would claim a study said something that it didn't. Please quote the part of the study you are claiming. I am all but certain you are misreading it, and will not find what you are claiming because it doesn't exist!

Look, LoP... I am out of town right now dealing with a death in the family and don't have the time right now to find where I read that. But, you know, I do have a pretty good track record of being able to back up what I say no matter what you erroneously think. Maybe I will find it when I get home.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Earth is covered by about 10% of permanent(for the most part) ice. So your 8.5% to 9% annual average is clearly something you just made up.

Another misunderstanding of science of your part. Permafrost is just land areas that remain under freezing year round, That doesn't mean the area is ice or snow covered year round. It can be soil or vegetation.

Please stop correcting me with your lies. You are totally out of your league. Why don't you ever fact check before making your erroneous statement? It's pathetic that you think you win an argument making statements you don't understand.

Because the numbers you cite are no where close to obvious. And comparing them to 5 + 5 = 10 is just idiotic. The fact of the matter is that you can't back it up what you claim.

The numbers I cite are completely obvious to people who know the topic.

Not necessarily. Not all changes are happening on the surface. You should know this if you really understood the science.

So please do elaborate. Do you disagree with my 500 W/m^2 figure, or something else? Please tell us how I am wrong instead of saying it without supporting your invalid claim.

I know what you said. And I never claimed that the change in albedo due to soot was a feedback.

So why didn't you say that then? The discussion was ice albedo. Soot is the anthropogenic change that decreases albedo on ice outside of natural variations.

I was talking about the change due to warming temperatures. And that is clearly, by definition, a feedback.

How is the albedo change of ice warming, which warms mostly by soot anyway, be any greater than the albedo change due to natural sublimation and deposition smoothing the ice out?

Please do explain.

Look, LoP... I am out of town right now dealing with a death in the family and don't have the time right now to find where I read that. But, you know, I do have a pretty good track record of being able to back up what I say no matter what you erroneously think. Maybe I will find it when I get home.

You have a zero track record, as you constantly misread these things with your confirmation bias.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Earth is covered by about 10% of permanent(for the most part) ice. So your 8.5% to 9% annual average is clearly something you just made up.

Your 10% is the approximate annual average value for the permanent ice on land. I stated a global value of 8.5% to 9% which I have recently read. Are you claiming that the oceans also have a 10% annual ice over them?

The "global" value of 8.5% to 9% would mean the oceans are covered by about 7.8% to 8.6% ice.

Why are you disagreeing with this?

Why don't you learn from your mistakes? I constantly call you out for making arguments against things I didn't say, yet you keep doing it.

 

[Buzz]

Your opinion that you win these arguments is not fact.

I just caught you outright lying and you think that is just my opinion??

Damn... talk about D-K.

LOL...

OK.

Clear skies, you see the land.

Cloudy skies, you see the clouds.

Why are you saying this cannot be distinguished?

For the same reason longview knows that satellites alone can't tell the difference. Other data from other sources have to be used to help make the determination. Shouldn't you know this if you are so much more well informed on the subject than I am?

Citation needed for simple math?

It is NOT simple math. I know you denialists (especially long) like to claim it just simple math but no serious climate scientists are using simple math. I wish you guys would quit pushing that BS.

I said i never saw a study that claims you conclusion, and you change the topic... OK...

Again, I think you read things that are not there. You have a pretty active imagination!

Care to show me the study I never seen that supports your conclusion, or explain how in your own words?

Look, I have explained it. If you are unable to understand what I am saying then maybe you need to prove me wrong or go learn so more science so you can.

And while there may not be any studies saying exactly what I am saying, I'll bet there will be soon.

Blocked? No. Maybe forgotten. If such a study exists with that conclusion, I most certainly don't remember it.

I think you're just blowing more smoke.

I would like to see that study again, please.

Seriously?? Damn, LoP... how many times do I have to show you this? 100 Times before you learn what is says??

I have already cited it for you in this thread!!!!

My GOD man!!

 

[Buzz]

Is this an admission that you don't know how?

Yes. I don't know the complex math needed to do the current state of the art climate science. Just like you and most every one else here debating the subject on this forum.

LOL... I responded to this before, but this is so funny that you can be so wrong about what I said. This is why you will never. I repeat never get the better of me. Your comprehension is lacking.

How in hell, do you take my statement that "soot is almost constantly being replenished from the atmosphere," as me meaning that it is created in the atmosphere? You do this day after day, constantly. You argue against something not said. Are you really so shallow of a thinker, that you cannot see that extra step that the power plants, transportation, etc. are putting the soot in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere just moves it? Must every step of a process be explained to you? Would you like me do a setp by step as to how to source 5 + 5 = 10?

Really now... How can you make such silly statements. And you do this over and over and over.

This is why I say what you claim from a paper is likely invalid, and ask you to quote the specify material you think says it. Because from my experience of you, you make claims that are not stated! Yopu constantly get what is said, wrong!

My God man. I shouldn't have to state the obvious. It's absolutely ridiculous that you think you are smarter than myself, or others here.

What a bunch of denialist rationalizations for your sloppy use of the English language. And I ignore the vast majority of your misspellings and bad word usage. Just be glad I don't point out them all because it would be obvious you couldn't pass a high school level English writing class.

 

[Buzz]

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that station reached -12.2 C on 3/19, and the average March high is -48.7 C. This makes it 38.3 C (65.3 F) higher than any March high previously recorded. The record low is -72 C. This is according to Wikipedia.

Now there is a site that you can see the temperatures.

View attachment 67381754

Resumen synop

ogimet.com

Notice this is a short event. Notice also when the winds blow from the between the north and east, the temperture increases. I suggest that maybe it is seeing the heat from the site.

3/15/2022 -51.3
3/16/2022 -49.3
3/17/2022 -27.9
3/18/2022 -18
3/19/2022 -12.2
3/20/2022 -15.9
3/21/2022 -21.9
3/22/2022 -29.5
3/23/2022 -36
3/24/2022 -43.5

Now if you look at the landscape:

View attachment 67381755

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

We see it is very dirty in the area. That few days of an anomaly could have been heat that traveled from buildings, construction, etc. The monitoring equipment could have been dusted with dirty particulate matter. There could have been equipment runnunbg nearby and the wind blowing just right. We simply don't know. All we know is the equipment recorded the event.

Consider this:

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change. But if it happens again or repeatedly then it might be something to worry about and part of global warming, they said.​

Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal

Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.

apnews.com

Are you sure it wasn't Michael Mann blowing on the sensor??

 

[Buzz]

What exactly do you bean by "cause?" If you mean the primary reason, then yes. Their study suggests we are not the primary cause. They do not deny we have an impact though. Lewis and Curry 2018. Under conclusions :

Using updated and revised data, we have derived​

ECShist and TCR estimates that are much better constrained,​

and slightly lower when using the same surface​

temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), than those in the​

predecessor LC15 study: 1.50-K median (5%–95%​

range: 1.05–2.45 K) for ECShist and 1.20-K median (5%–​

95% range: 0.9–1.7 K) for TCR. Using infilled, globally​

complete temperature data (Had4_krig_v 2) slightly​

increases the new estimates, to a median of 1.66K for​

ECShist (5%–95% range: 1.15–2.7 K) and 1.33K for​

TCR (5%–95% range: 1.0–1.9 K). We have also shown​

that various concerns that have been raised about the​

accuracy of historical period energy budget climate​

sensitivity estimation are misplaced. We assess nil bias​

from either non–unit forcing efficacy or varying SST​

warming patterns, and that any downward estimation​

bias when using blended infilled surface temperature​

data is trivial. We find that high CMIP5 model-based​

estimates of the ratio of ECS to ECShist, the proxy for​

ECS that historical period based studies estimate,​

become far lower when calculated more appropriately.​

By using the ECS-to-ECShist ratios that we calculate for​

CMIP5 models to scale our Had4_krig_v2-based ECShist​

probability distribution, we derive a median estimate for​

ECS of 1.76K (5%–95% range: 1.2–3.1 K).​

​

-----​

​

Moreover, our median ECS and TCR estimates​

using infilled temperature data imply multicentennial or​

multidecadal future warming under increasing forcing​

of only 55%–70% of the mean warming simulated by​

CMIP5 models.​

I see nothing in the study about cosmic rays.

I am talking about what was covered in the IPCC. And both are there. So... Pos was wrong when he claimed the IPCC ignores them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have already cited it for you in this thread!!!!

My GOD man!!

LOL...

What I get from your link:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are you sure it wasn't Michael Mann blowing on the sensor??

LOL...

I don't think the whining woosie would go there to create some mann made warning scares.

I do think it is likely the wind was blowing right to contribute, moving heat from the heated buildings. It seldom blows from a NE direction, and the previous record high was only a few decrees cooler.

 

[Buzz]

Another misunderstanding of science of your part. Permafrost is just land areas that remain under freezing year round, That doesn't mean the area is ice or snow covered year round. It can be soil or vegetation.

Please stop correcting me with your lies. You are totally out of your league. Why don't you ever fact check before making your erroneous statement? It's pathetic that you think you win an argument making statements you don't understand.

The numbers I cite are completely obvious to people who know the topic.

So please do elaborate. Do you disagree with my 500 W/m^2 figure, or something else? Please tell us how I am wrong instead of saying it without supporting your invalid claim.

So why didn't you say that then? The discussion was ice albedo. Soot is the anthropogenic change that decreases albedo on ice outside of natural variations.

How is the albedo change of ice warming, which warms mostly by soot anyway, be any greater than the albedo change due to natural sublimation and deposition smoothing the ice out?

Please do explain.

You have a zero track record, as you constantly misread these things with your confirmation bias.

Damn, LoP... I just pointed out that I am not in a possition to do a bunch of research to back up every thing you want me to back up while you prove absolutely nothing. Why don't you quit being so lazy for once and do some research yourself. And you are probably right on a few of these points but you doing nothing but pulling stuff out of your back side doesn't prove anything.

 

[Buzz]

LOL...

Whgat i get from your link:

View attachment 67381779

Damn... too lazy to even go back through a few pages to find it. I guess this means you are completely helpless and have to be hand fed constantly.

Here it is... it was post #95.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Damn, LoP... I just pointed out that I am not in a possition to do a bunch of research to back up every thing you want me to back up while you prove absolutely nothing. Why don't you quit being so lazy for once and do some research yourself. And you are probably right on a few of these points but you doing nothing but pulling stuff out of your back side doesn't prove anything.

Then stop making your incorrect statements. Wait till you have your google access, and validate you silly statements before coninuing to make a fool of yourself.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am talking about what was covered in the IPCC. And both are there. So... Pos was wrong when he claimed the IPCC ignores them.

Bullshit. I responded to this from you:

There are plenty of them. Lewis and Curry 2018 is one. And they even acknowledge and debunk Svensmark's cosmic ray theory. ​

​

So, I read Lewis and Curry 2018, and quoted from it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Damn... too lazy to even go back through a few pages to find it. I guess this means you are completely helpless and have to be hand fed constantly.

Here it is... it was post #95.

Yawn. I explained that already.

 

[Buzz]

Then stop making your incorrect statements. Wait till you have your google access, and validate you silly statements before coninuing to make a fool of yourself.

Damn... there you go again demanding that I do all the proving all while you don't prove a single thing.

I think i will wait for you to start contributing to this debate with some evidence before devoting any more time to you.

 

[Buzz]

Yawn. I explained that already.

No, you didn't. All you did cherry pick some the text in order to ignore the very pertinent point you want to forget.

And why did you ask me to cite it again? It is because you block inconvenient science from your mind.

Here is that point AGAIN:

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.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Damn... there you go again demanding that I do all the proving all while you don't prove a single thing.

I think i will wait for you to start contributing to this debate with some evidence before devoting any more time to you.

I have proven plenty. You claimed Lewis and Curry 2018 made statements it didn't for example. I quoted some material from it, showing it didn't claim what you said it did. I linked the Concordia station data. I quoted some material from the AP article.

You still only have you own invalid opinions.

 

[Buzz]

Bullshit. I responded to this from you:

There are plenty of them. Lewis and Curry 2018 is one. And they even acknowledge and debunk Svensmark's cosmic ray theory. ​

​

So, I read Lewis and Curry 2018, and quoted from it.

You claimed Lewis and Curry 2018 made statements it didn't for example. I quoted some material from it, showing it didn't claim what you said it did.

I never said that Svensmark was discussed in Lewis and Curry. You obviously don't understand what I was talking about.

Go back and read what I was responding to instead of just making a fool of yourself.

I linked the Concordia station data.

What did this have to do with what we are debating? It doesn't.

I quoted some material from the AP article.

Also irrelevant to our debate.

You still only have you own invalid opinions.

Only in your opinion.

 

[Buzz]

Cite the study showing both the increasing and decreasing absorption in the Antarctic?

Figure 5 in this study shows this.

Also how can a satellite tell if the decreasing SW is from ground absorption or something else?

By only using data from clear sky periods.

 

[PoS]

There are plenty of them. Lewis and Curry 2018 is one. And they even acknowledge and debunk Svensmark's cosmic ray theory.

Svennsmark's theory doesnt claim its humans causing climate change, but the sun is, so how does that support your claim that they are supporting alternate theories when all they do is attempt to refute them?