Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming

[watsup]

There is. Actually, I looked someplace I didn't before. I had it saved. By my save file date, it was probably 5 years ago we discussed it here. I get pretty board rehashing things that people forget. Had to open several files before finding it though. You can find the study by the title:

View attachment 67332422

There are others, but I had this one handy

While this is a review of a different "paper" by Hermann Harde ("Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere". 2017), it shows his basic lack of understanding as to what is going on in the atmosphere as regards human produced CO2:

"Dr. Harde makes three fundamental errors: Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn't say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection - whatever the source - above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere. Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic. Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.
Besides that, the "temperature fits almost all" solution violates about every single observation in the atmosphere, oceans and vegetation, while the human cause fits them all. Like the mass balance, the decline of δ 13C level (in atmosphere, ocean surface and vegetation), the pre-1950 change in 14C, the changes of pH and DIC in the ocean surface, the change in oxygen balance and last but not least Henry's law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater [11]."

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf

And more:

"I don’t need to say too much about the details of our paper. It essentially highlights that the Harde paper confuses the residence time of an individual molecule (years) with the adjustment time for an enhancement of atmospheric CO2 (centuries). It also points out that you can’t model the evolution of atmospheric CO2 with a single equation. You need to consider at least two reservoirs (atmosphere and surface ocean) and this requires at least two equations that are solved simultaneously.

We also point out that it’s important to consider the Revelle factor, which limits how much of our emissions can be taken up by the oceans (we would expect – depending on how much we emit – that 20-30% of our emissions will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years). Additionally, there were issues with Harde’s application of his model to paleoclimate, and there were a number of papers that he really should have cited (such as citing Essenhigh 2009 paper, while failing to cite Gavin Cawley’s response)."

A Harde response

Earlier this year, I wrote a post about a paper by Hermann Harde that argued that most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was natural. If you want more details of why this suggestion is nonsense, you c…

andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com

Here is a link to Harde's paper that is questioned above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're right about one thing... I did forget about this study. Probably because it isn't even peer-reviewed and gives results that are far outside what the vast majority of the science says it is.

I guess this would explain why you forgot about it too.

See. you deny science. You deny any science that doesn't fit your religious-like faith in the AGW dogma.

It is peer reviewed. Why do you say so many incorrect things here?

Just because it differs from other papers doesn't make it wrong. Other papers may all be using a flawed foundation that hasn't been corrected.

Why do you think science is determined by a vote? Science is not a democracy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

While this is a review of a different "paper" by Hermann Harde ("Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere". 2017), it shows his basic lack of understanding as to what is going on in the atmosphere as regards human produced CO2:

"Dr. Harde makes three fundamental errors: Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn't say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection - whatever the source - above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere. Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic. Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.
Besides that, the "temperature fits almost all" solution violates about every single observation in the atmosphere, oceans and vegetation, while the human cause fits them all. Like the mass balance, the decline of δ 13C level (in atmosphere, ocean surface and vegetation), the pre-1950 change in 14C, the changes of pH and DIC in the ocean surface, the change in oxygen balance and last but not least Henry's law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater [11]."

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf

And more:

"I don’t need to say too much about the details of our paper. It essentially highlights that the Harde paper confuses the residence time of an individual molecule (years) with the adjustment time for an enhancement of atmospheric CO2 (centuries). It also points out that you can’t model the evolution of atmospheric CO2 with a single equation. You need to consider at least two reservoirs (atmosphere and surface ocean) and this requires at least two equations that are solved simultaneously.

We also point out that it’s important to consider the Revelle factor, which limits how much of our emissions can be taken up by the oceans (we would expect – depending on how much we emit – that 20-30% of our emissions will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years). Additionally, there were issues with Harde’s application of his model to paleoclimate, and there were a number of papers that he really should have cited (such as citing Essenhigh 2009 paper, while failing to cite Gavin Cawley’s response)."

A Harde response

Earlier this year, I wrote a post about a paper by Hermann Harde that argued that most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was natural. If you want more details of why this suggestion is nonsense, you c…

andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com

Here is a link to Harde's paper that is questioned above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787

Wow. Really? That response is addressing a different paper, and I don't even know if the response is correct or in error.

Have anything addressing the paper I showed, or are you just going to try to baffle us with BS?

 

[watsup]

Wow. Really? That response is addressing a different paper, and I don't even know if the response is correct or in error.

Have anything addressing the paper I showed, or are you just going to try to baffle us with BS?

What exactly was the point that you were trying to make with the other paper? That solar energy was the primary cause of the present global warming rather than CO2?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What exactly was the point that you were trying to make with the other paper? That solar energy was the primary cause of the present global warming rather than CO2?

I was asked to produce a paper that shows that.

Didn't you ask me to?

 

[Buzz]

See. you deny science. You deny any science that doesn't fit your religious-like faith in the AGW dogma.

It is peer reviewed. Why do you say so many incorrect things here?

Just because it differs from other papers doesn't make it wrong. Other papers may all be using a flawed foundation that hasn't been corrected.

Why do you think science is determined by a vote? Science is not a democracy.

Oh... so, you think this one study that is contrary to the vast majority of climate science and that is published in an open journal without any information whatsoever indicating that it is even peer-reviewed should be believed over everything else? This isn't about any kind of vote. Nope... it is about you believing one(or two) outlier(or denialist) studies over dozens of others that give dramatically different results because you like those results. Even the deniers Lindzen, Choi, Lewis, etc... don't push CO2 climate sensitivities that are that low.

 

[watsup]

I was asked to produce a paper that shows that.

Didn't you ask me to?

The point is this. Harde wrote a follow-on paper in which he claimed that CO2 was NOT the prime factor in the present global warming and it had basic scientific errors as uncovered by other scientists as shown in post #25, So he was wrong in stating that CO2 is not the primary cause, which means that his previous paper citing solar energy as the primary cause is also wrong. He is simply not respected in climate scientist circles.

 

[longview]

The point is this. Harde wrote a follow-on paper in which he claimed that CO2 was NOT the prime factor in the present global warming and it had basic scientific errors as uncovered by other scientists as shown in post #25, So he was wrong in stating that CO2 is not the primary cause, which means that his previous paper citing solar energy as the primary cause is also wrong. He is simply not respected in climate scientist circles.

I think one of the things that is lost in these arguments, is that it really does not matter much if CO2 warming is a majority contributor
to the observed recent warming, as the total observed warming is too low to support the idea of strong positive feedbacks.
Without strong positive feedbacks, the entire concept of AGW is just an interesting science footnote.
For a second, let us consider what AGW would look like with zero net feedbacks.
The basic idea is that doubling the CO2 level would force 3.71 W m-2 of energy imbalance, and ~ 1.1C of warming.
From 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we would warm ~1.1C.
From 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, we would warm ~ 1.1C
Current emissions place the first doubling about year 2060, without any changes, or technology improvements.
If for example, we replace coal and oil with nuclear, wind and solar energy, making carbon neutral fuels,
we could cut emissions from the current 9 GtC per year to perhaps 4.5 GtC per year.
If the environment is absorbing ~ 5 GtC per year, CO2 levels could start to fall.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh... so, you think this one study that is contrary to the vast majority of climate science and that is published in an open journal without any information whatsoever indicating that it is even peer-reviewed should be believed over everything else? This isn't about any kind of vote. Nope... it is about you believing one(or two) outlier(or denialist) studies over dozens of others that give dramatically different results because you like those results. Even the deniers Lindzen, Choi, Lewis, etc... don't push CO2 climate sensitivities that are that low.

It includes what others do not.

The indirect effects from the surface insolation. Maybe you should try to read a paper some day instead of outright denying the science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The point is this. Harde wrote a follow-on paper in which he claimed that CO2 was NOT the prime factor in the present global warming and it had basic scientific errors as uncovered by other scientists as shown in post #25, So he was wrong in stating that CO2 is not the primary cause, which means that his previous paper citing solar energy as the primary cause is also wrong. He is simply not respected in climate scientist circles.

My God Man!

There are no prime factors in the climate sciences. That's algebra!

How many times must we correct you on things? Respect is earned, and you are not close to earning it at all.

He is correct from everything I have read that CO2 is not the primary factor. If the scientists in your post was could prove that contention, the paper would have been retracted.

Was the paper retracted? No. You have a difference of opinions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think one of the things that is lost in these arguments, is that it really does not matter much if CO2 warming is a majority contributor
to the observed recent warming, as the total observed warming is too low to support the idea of strong positive feedbacks.
Without strong positive feedbacks, the entire concept of AGW is just an interesting science footnote.
For a second, let us consider what AGW would look like with zero net feedbacks.
The basic idea is that doubling the CO2 level would force 3.71 W m-2 of energy imbalance, and ~ 1.1C of warming.
From 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we would warm ~1.1C.
From 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, we would warm ~ 1.1C
Current emissions place the first doubling about year 2060, without any changes, or technology improvements.
If for example, we replace coal and oil with nuclear, wind and solar energy, making carbon neutral fuels,
we could cut emissions from the current 9 GtC per year to perhaps 4.5 GtC per year.
If the environment is absorbing ~ 5 GtC per year, CO2 levels could start to fall.

You and I just love being heretics to their religion...

 

[watsup]

It includes what others do not.

The indirect effects from the surface insolation. Maybe you should try to read a paper some day instead of outright denying the science.

I’ve looked over the paper. Exactly where does it say that solar energy is the prime factor in the present global warming and that CO2 is not?

 

[watsup]

My God Man!

There are no prime factors in the climate sciences. That's algebra!

How many times must we correct you on things? Respect is earned, and you are not close to earning it at all.

He is correct from everything I have read that CO2 is not the primary factor. If the scientists in your post was could prove that contention, the paper would have been retracted.

Was the paper retracted? No. You have a difference of opinions.

Actually, the journal in which it was published publicly apologized for doing so because they realized that they did not have it “vetted” properly. It appears that you ate the one who is not reading the rebuttals and the links to them that I posted, but are just once again ranting blindly instead.

 

[watsup]

You and I just love being heretics to their religion...

Talking point. Neither of you have come anywhere close to showing that human-produced CO2 is not the prime factor in the present global warming,

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’ve looked over the paper. Exactly where does it say that solar energy is the prime factor in the present global warming and that CO2 is not?

It doesn't do algebra prime factoring. You should have noticed that if you read it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, the journal in which it was published publicly apologized for doing so because they realized that they did not have it “vetted” properly. It appears that you ate the one who is not reading the rebuttals and the links to them that I posted, but are just once again ranting blindly instead.

No link?

 

[watsup]

No link?

Links: post #26. You really need to pay closer attention.

 

[Buzz]

It includes what others do not.

The indirect effects from the surface insolation. Maybe you should try to read a paper some day instead of outright denying the science.

What are you talking about? Your cited study doesn't cover anything that most of the other studies cover.

Why can't you face the facts? You are cherry-picking an outlier study that is contrary to the vast majority of the science.

If you really are such an expert on the subject of climate change then why do you ignore most of it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Links: post #26. You really need to pay closer attention.

That again, was a different paper. Not the one I presented.

Please pay attention.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What are you talking about? Your cited study doesn't cover anything that most of the other studies cover.

Why can't you face the facts? You are cherry-picking an outlier study that is contrary to the vast majority of the science.

If you really are such an expert on the subject of climate change then why do you ignore most of it?

Does it also have to state 2+2=4?

The paper points out that the changes in the surface insolation changes the temperature of the surface which changes the upward IR. They do acknowledge this. The greenhouse effect is driven by upward IR. This is obvious.

Why do you make climes that are false?

You either didn't read it or didn't understand it, and you think you understand science enough to debate me? OK...

 

[watsup]

That again, was a different paper. Not the one I presented.

Please pay attention.

Where specifically in the paper that you describe does he say that solar energy is the primary cause of today’s global warming. I couldn’t find it
And in his other paper, he claimed that human-produced CO2 is NOT the primary cause, but other scientists point out that he made basic scientific errors which makes his paper basically null and void in its “conclusion”.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Where specifically in the paper that you describe does he say that solar energy is the primary cause of today’s global warming. I couldn’t find it
And in his other paper, he claimed that human-produced CO2 is NOT the primary cause, but other scientists point out that he made basic scientific errors which makes his paper basically null and void in its “conclusion”.

Its in the numbers in the abstract.

 

[watsup]

Its in the numbers in the abstract.

.
Show me the paper again so that I don’t have to go back searching through posts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

.
Show me the paper again so that I don’t have to go back searching through posts.

I'm not looking for it again either.

I'm sorry you never read it the first time. But its not my problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

.
Show me the paper again so that I don’t have to go back searching through posts.

LOL...

This thread isn't very long yet. It's post 24.

LOL

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of 0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
​

Like ikt or not, it is a peer reviewed paper that disagrees with what the activists say.