The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Nothing as I have long agreed it has been warming since the late 1970's.

The current warming trend started in the 1690's.

My issue is with the AGW conjecture of which 50% of it will never happen.

 

That is handwaving response, you don't know what it is since you didn't read it.

There is ALWAYS someone in the world who will disagree on something a reality we know from personal experience, thus your useless statement was dead on arrival.

 

I asked you this question TWO times now:

Do YOU know what the AGW hypothesis IS?

You reply yes and that is all, now 17 days later you fail to expand on it this you apparently do NOT know the answer after all and your reply to bringiton (LINK) makes that clear that you don't know.

I already know from studying the AGW conjecture over the years that 50% of the conjecture already exist and in basic agreement with most scientists around the world who spend time on this stuff and that the always small warm forcing effect has greatly diminished by this time. I posted this chart several times now.

===

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.


The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

===

The other 50% of the AGW conjecture is abject nonsense and hasn't showed up at all, which is the main sticking point of which you are completely unaware of which is WHY skeptics are convinced that CO2 isn't a climate driver or able to generate a run away warming trend.

 

Really….the surface of the earth warming is not the issue. It’s the rate at which it’s warming. Absolutely every chart where the temps are plotted, shows a steeper slope of increase during the industrial revolution then at anytime in the history of mankind. If the rate of change remained constant over time. All contiguous species could adapt. It isn’t. That means that normal “ adjacent “ species are becoming extinct at a more alarming rate and alien species are more likely to take over……that includes diseases as well.

 

It’s difficult to assume the present warming trend started in the 1690s. Just like all temps over a 50 to 100 year period, it’s just as likely it could have continued to go downward over a larger scale.

It’s just as likely that the larger long term trend was completely altered by man’s sudden large scale use of fossil fuels. Bottom line, even that may not be as important as the rate at which this change is occurring. What has happened since 1970 is only important when compared over a much greater scale

 

Wrong…it’s a theory according to the scientific community of every climate research facility and IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. It’s not a conjecture. There are no major related corporations or gov in the world that disagrees with AGW.

none, nada, nix….

 

Yawn !

 

Now we are getting multiple lines of research to demonstrate that the Sun, not human activity, has driven recent warming.
2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
By Kenneth Richard on 18. October 2021

Share this...
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”

CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period. . . .
Other scientists (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021) have also concluded that the positive TOA net flux (+1.42 W/m²) from increasing downwelling shortwave (SW) facilitated by a drop in cloudiness has been the “major driving effect,” “dominating influence,” and “major heating cause” explaining the 2001-2019 ocean heat content increase (240 ZJ). . . .
The summarizing text from another new study (Ollila, 2021) bluntly asserts the substantial increase in downwelling SW radiation from 2000-2019 demonstrates “there are natural climate drivers that have rapid and significant temperature impacts exceeding the anthropogenic drivers,” and that any temperature increase since 2015-’16 “cannot be due to anthropogenic reasons.” . . .

 

It seems the IPCC may have arrived at their conclusions in part by ignoring data that didn't fit their narrative. That's another indication that AR6 is a political, not scientific document.

Two Dozen Top Scientists: IPCC “Premature” Blaming CO2 Emissions…Warming Mostly From Natural Cycles
By P Gosselin on 18. August 2021

Share this...
How much is the Sun’s influence? An ongoing debate
Center for Environmental Research & Earth Sciences


Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. This new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they assessed the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.
A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.

The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. . . .

 

I know you want to make a point by copy and pasting…..can’t figure what it is.
Clouds may hold heat in, but it seems they reflect visible light back away from earth too. So sayin* it cast doubt on CC is wrong. nope.
Another solo blogger spouting BS.

 

That’s hilarious. Did you actually read it. Of course most of the energy comes from the sun……dah. But how much is totally dependent on our absorption and reflection of the suns radiation.

really,
This slipped by NASA ? And everyother research( facility in the world ? But leave it to the right to make something up about it.
P Gosslin ? Another joker from space.

 

In #608 and #609 that's four peer-reviewed, published research papers arguing that the Sun, not AGW, has driven recent warming.

 

No it isn’t. It’s two studies blogged out by two phonies and miss interpreted. The idea for example that the earth is heated and warmed by the sun is no big revelation. But two desk jockeys with no degrees in science try to evaluate the study and come to really idiotic conclusions. It’s really stunningly ludacris.

the two jokers did not do any study…..the made up sht about two studies.

 

This is really hilarious. All energy including radiant heat ( and fossil fuels):comes from the sun…dah. We miss manage the radiant energy from the sun by burning fossil fuels, also derived from the sun. That’s what AGW is all about. But keep using silly contrived posts.

 

One full citation is:

R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/21/6/131.


And:
Loeb et al., 2021
Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021
Ollila, 2021

 

That's just false.

Which blogs often reference.

We're not doing science here, we are having a discussion.

<yawn>

cya

 

No it isn't. There is a millennium-scale temperature oscillation involved, and the 1690s is in any case near the trough.

No it isn't. There is nothing in temperature records that looks like a random walk.

No it isn't, as Angstrom showed.

There's nothing particularly notable about the rate, which is similar to warming and cooling rates of the past.

 

That's just false.

That is outrageous commingling of proxy and instrumental data.

 

Marcott himself admitted it isn't statically robust.

Helpful background to this garbage paper:

Where's the hockey stick? The 'Marcott 9' show no warming past 1950

Marcott's hockey stick uptick mystery – it didn't used to be there

Marcott’s Zonal Reconstructions

Best of all is the walkback from Marcott himself:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

LINK

and this reply from Marcott:

Marcott issues a FAQ on their paper

One more

The Marcott Filibuster

=====

Ooop's!

I remember the beating Marcott got and it was from several BLOGS who tore his stupid attempt apart.

LOL

 

Of course you have no rebutted chart from NASA, NOAA or any other science institution with real data do you ?

Just a “ that’s false” doesn’t cut it in the real world. Say that to a pilot who just got the weather forecast from a reliable agency that services an airport.
The NWS.

 

Of course I have a chart from the UN climate report, you have.....hmmm, nothing.
How far back would you like ? Give us some numbers.

 

Maybe you need some help how science uses fossil remains to collect data on temperatures from long ago. Temps that are used to compare the climate of today.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blog...-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/

 

Oh, the national weather service also has a climate change educational agency to help deniers. Check their website. It will help you.

Btw, if you don’t trust the NWS, I wouldn’t fly ever again if I were you..and thankfully not. I plan on flying.

 

No thanks. That is YOU handwaving.

First of all, I HAVE read stuff from Shaviv.

Second of all, he's one guy. And, the world wide community of scientists who are involved in the fields related to climatology DON'T agree with him.

 

Hmmm. These guys do.

R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/21/6/131.