Then you simply aren't paying attention. I supplied several options as to why the data suggests that there is warming as that is how it is being "observed". Clearly, you didn't like that answer because you cannot refute it, so instead, you wax poetic about how the question wasn't answered, but that only indicts you for your inability to either understand the answer or otherwise respond to it. I have said, and continue to say that what we are experiencing is an ever changing natural variation in our climate and is a natural response to the end of the last little ice age where we saw gelation extent growth. The natural assumption is that not only should it warm up, but it should become more pleasant globally which it is. As to the specific question, the reason that folks are inventing more warming is by using carefully curated data that induces additional warming which indicates an unnatural aspect to the warming which is then also being used to accomplish the multi trillion dollar wealth transfer heist. I infer that you don't understand it, or if you did, are unwilling to accept the facts that are so obviously out there for you to see. And for the record, this isn't "conspiracy theory". Lots of folks have pointed this out. And while it might make you feel better to be able to ignore it by coding it as "conspiracy", the actual strategy is well documented by the UN commission, as well as the IPCC who are their marketing wing. I cannot make this more plain, and I doubt that you'll find it consumable or that you'll either be willing, or able to digest it. But continuing to write posts where you double down on ignorant isn't finding you more credibility here.
The Sun does have a direct impact on the Earth's climate. Duh. Everybody knows that. The question is then...why hasn't the Earth been cooling in recent decades? Remember, solar radiation has flat from about 1960 to 1990 and declining from 1990 to present. And yes, you are correct. There are many other factors. These include but are not limited to aerosols, albedo, continental positioning, ocean currents, greenhouse gases, etc. It is the net effect of all climate forcing agents that drive climate change. We just happen to be living in an era where the agents that are modulated by humans are dwarfing the agents modulated by nature. That's why the Earth is warming today. Aside from the fact that this isn't necessarily true most of us aren't rooting for an increase in Venus fly traps, poison ivy, kudzu, etc. We are rooting for an increase in crop yields which is modulated by soil chemistry, moisture, temperature, sunlight, and many other properties besides just CO2. And some crops like corn which use C4 carbon fixation don't benefit from increased CO2 at all. So I don't really care if there is more biomass in general. I care about increasing Earth's carrying capacity for humans and GDP growth rates.
You didn't explain why the Earth was warming. You denied that it even was. Then show me one dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature or oceanic heat content which refutes the claims of dozens of datasets that it is, in fact, warming. Just one...
And yet I didn't. I actually have said that natural warming bouncing off of the relative cold of the Little Ice Age has happened. So, haven't "denied" anything. So, the expectation is that given the relaxation of the the LIA, natural warming would occur. And guess what? It has. Sweet huh. If you read what I wrote, the "additional" warming currently being used to justify additional social/econ policy is being driven by what we know are shoddy models and statistical guessing. Simple stuff here.
You are talking gibberish, you obviously do not know the first thing about the solar cycle, are just trying to make crap up. Please do not respond to any more of my posts.
Now is your chance to educate me. How can the entire geosphere warm during a period when total solar irradiance has declined?
What caused the cooling on the leadin to the LIA and warming on the leadout? "natural" is not a cause any more than "anthroprogenic" is cause. They are just classification by which we categorize the actor of a physical process. And what does YOUR theory of climate change predict for the future of global mean surface temperatures and oceanic heat contents? And you are in complete denial here. There is no "additional" warming that isn't real. If you disagree then all you need to do is present a couple of dozen dataset that publish a global mean surface temperature or oceanic content heat that refutes the couple of dozen that say it's real. Hell, just present one...just one. And for the record, I don't have any of my own personal theories of climate change like you do. I only advocate the scientific consensus which is compiled from scientists that are way smarter than you or I. What makes you think you're so much smarter than all of the worlds leading experts? Why haven't you presented your theory to the scientific community so that it can be critically reviewed?
where he says "You're talking gibberish" ...interrupt that to mean "quit using science talk waaay over my head"
lol, here we go again....you'll ask the same question a dozen times and they'll dance around it and never answer...it is slightly entertaining to see if the newcomer deniers come up with a new tact we haven't seen before...
lol...never trust spellcheck or your own brain when proof reading "interrupt" ..make that **interpret**
Just one of the problems with your ideas about the LIA is that scientists point to evidence that suggests the LIA was a regional event, not a global event. Thus, that period could have had to do with various factors affecting that region - such as changes in heat transport. Plus, deniers who point to the LIA as a Maunder Minimum event ignore that the minimum would have been responsible for about a half a degree, not the difference witnessed in that one particular region. OK, the thing I don't understand about you deniers is how you can select scientific results you believe confirm your personal belief and then reject scientific results that you believe DON'T confirm your personal belief. How can you possible consider that to be a legitimate process? Also, how can you choose to believe that YOU are more correct than the vast majority of those who have been studying the numerous elements of climatology throughout their entire professional careers, working in every industrialized country on earth? I mean, that's quite a claim!
Hmmm... Of course the LIA wasn't a regional event, and as more research has been done, more data collected, your assertion has been more fully debunked. What is funny though is your assertion of an actual limit that you think means that then translates somehow into some credibility or authority here. The interesting thing is that you won't agree that solar centric cycles do in fact impact the climate, and yet you cite that you can produce a limit for it... truly fun.
One, just one subglacial volcano in Iceland produces the CO2 load of several EU countries combined. The output of which had been grossly underreported historically, and recent study now shows has been such. I know, you weren't aware. Thanks for your opinion though. I bet that alone keeps you warm at night...
Just to add comment to this thread , if the earth is not heating up then why on earth is the ice melting in the freezer ? I can inform you it can't be CO2 emissions because the physics does not allow for it to be that . CO2 will cause chitty air quality but not global warming .
And I'm still waiting for an answer regarding how the geosphere was able to warm during a period in which solar radiation declined. While we're at take a stab at answering why the troposphere and hydrosphere warmed at the same time the stratosphere cooled.
we have science supported by mountains of documented and researched facts from literally millions of scientists from all scientific disciplines, confirmed by every scientific organization on the planet... deniers have conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims you make up supported by untrained right wing bloggers with no science backgrounds...can't help but notice deniers never present any documented/supported science to back up their made up fantasy's..
Do tell... when did this happen? Also, it might be helpful for you to disclose what the purpose of the conversation is for. Term paper due soon? I'd ask this question. Should solar output be immediately represented in the data? If not, how much time might be appropriate for the change to be represented in the data? Also, for a kicker, if the data is being arbitrarily manipulated to express increasing temperatures, wouldn't the change always be masked by the data process? Also, can you answer whether there was in increase in global cloud cover at the same time as the undefined period you're claiming interest occurred?
I think you put entirely too much stock in and clearly don't understand the information you claim you represent. Sorry. You know what deniers are? Folks who insist that climate shouldn't change. Call you guys the modern day version of flat earthers. Why do you deny that climate should change? Do you have, for example, a target temp for every location during every day of the year? And if not, why should anyone care about what you post?
Easy Peasy "MAN MADE" don'chyaknow? I believe in Man Made Global Warming I refuse to feel so insignificant not to take responsibility for all mankind.Amen
You should know that "literally millions of scientists" literally sounds like a duck call for Fake Science. "This was a year for splashy headlines about retractions, after some much-ballyhooed findings were pulled. Some prominent scientists each retracted multiple papers in 2015. And, of course, the last 12 months saw more and more cases of faked peer review. Here, in no particular order, are our picks for the top 10 retraction stories of 2015." THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/
Solar radiation flat lined beginning around 1960 and has declined since 1990 (or even 1980 according to some scientists). The purpose of this line of conversation is related jdog's claim that the Sun is causing the Earth to warm. I'm not sure what term papers have to do with anything here. Yes. Satellites measure incoming solar radiation in real-time. The lag is about 8 minutes since that is the time for light to travel from the Sun to the satellites. For the geosphere as a whole the response will be nearly instant as well. The heat flux processes between the various heat storage mediums in the geosphere do cause some lag. For example, there is a couple hour lag between peak solar irradiance and lower troposphere response due to the daily solar cycle. There is a couple week lag between peak solar irradiance and lower troposphere response due to the seasonal solar cycle. For the longer cycles like the 11yr cycle or the grand cycles the lag is on the order of a few years to a few decades before equilibrium is reestablished between the hydrosphere and troposphere. Nobody has "arbitrarily manipulated to express increasing temperatures". In fact, I'm not aware of even a single substantiated claim in which a widely used global mean surface temperature, oceanic heat content, or solar radiation dataset had been fraudulently manipulated. And yes, I'm well aware of all of the fake news reports none of which were ever substantiated and, in fact, many (maybe even most) of these accusations were determined to be fraudulent themselves. I believe total cloud cover has decreased overall. And the specific arrangement of the cloud changes at different levels during this period has put a negative radiative forcing on the planet. So like solar radiation changes cloud cover changes have been working to try and cool the planet.
Dang, where to start... So, the same sun that shines last week and produced 70F is shining just as brightly today and produces 34F. Clearly, the magic of instant heating doesn't happen. Same observation, sun shines at same level, (actually much greater output at higher elevations) and still magic warming doesn't happen... I suppose that as you've estimated, in "several weeks" I'll see some warmth... (except that given the current wind pattern, I won't, but that's a different story. I would point out your observation about clouds is..well, inaccurate. More heat, more water vapor, more clouds. More heat, more water, more water vapor, more clouds. And of course, clouds server two purposes, they both act as a thermal blanket, but also shield from heat where present. More cloud coverage, less surface heat, even though we have both the same irradiation level, as well as same CO2 levels. I bet you can't wait for hydrogen cars... all that new water vapor... And when that coincides with climate change, whatever will you do? Ban water?
Banning water would be a twofer. It would stop manmade Global Warming and facilitate high speed rail to Europe and Hawaii. Call AOC.
