The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is included in the models but not solar activity which is everything else the sun does. TSI also varies but the models consider it negligible so have a fixed input. What the models do not do and cannot do is calculate how cloud formation affects total warming which is highly debated and the models are incapable of the calculation so they use 100km (I think it is km) squares and parameters to 'simulate' clouds.

 

I would note that more insidious is the practice of guessing at temperatures. If you look at the red stained NOAA temp deviation maps, all you'll see in red are temperature estimates driving that warming which then drives the warming of the global values. That doesn't actually mean that those temperatures are accurate, and given the cloud albedo conversation are likely to all be inherently wrong. Which, given the method would indicate that the values being outputted from said models are all very likely generating inappropriately high temp values in the average. The problem we then face is having to repudiate the values that we know are most likely wrong in the first place to folks who insist that only the values matter without the context of how they were derived in the first place.

 

There is not agreement whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback. If you looked at one of the latest global temperature maps they had a red (hotter) area of Africa that has no temperature stations. Makes one wonder.

 

Agreed. Which is the substantive part of the conversation about temp guessing. These are not actually collected temp values, they are derived at by putting inputs into a model that generates an output temp value that is then used as the actual value in other calculations that generate the large averages. This isn't science, it's make believe.

 

No, I don't. However, all we need to falsify AGW's hypothesis that humans are the primary cause for the warming now is to identify just one natural mechanism that explains the 0.15C/decade rate of warming. Scientists have been searching for decades. We'll also need a pretty convincing explanation for why CO2 behaves like a greenhouse gas by physical law, laboratory experiment, and confirmed by computer simulation and yet it somehow fails to do so in the real world.

 

The answer to you CO2 question is fairly straight forward. Concentration doesn't equate to linear warming. We know that, for example, to induce additional warming you have to distribute the concentrations equally across the altitude. I cited the study before. So, the additive concentrations don't drive additional warming in a linear way. It is more a diminishing returns conversation, and as demonstrated by other recent study work, is being now included to preclude very high estimate projections values in future warming.

 

You seem to have the position that a hypotheses is true until proven false. A hypothesis is nothing until all other possible causes have been nullified. The so called scientist that push the AGW hypothesis are doing a great disservice to the very concept of science by putting all their efforts into proving their hypothesis is true. The way science is supposed to work is that they should be actively looking for reasons that it is false. Not only do they not do this but anyone who does is immediate labeled a schill for oil companies, a non scientist, a denier or even a flat earther. You claim scientist have been searching for decades to explain recent climate change but scientist that do so out of the AGW bubble are summarily dismissed. The fact is scientist can't agree on what caused the little ice age and if it's even really over so how can they possibly reach the so called consensus on climate change in the last fifty years.

 

Some models might keep TSI fixed, but certainly not all of them. In fact, most of them vary the TSI with the 11 year cycle. There are many papers on this topic. A quick google search reveals hundreds of publications on the topic.

Models definitely handle cloud formation as well. Similar to how it's unquestionably necessary that models MUST handle solar insolation they also MUST handle cloud formation otherwise simulations show Earth baking like Venus pretty quick. Now, it's definitely debatable on the specifics of how cloud formation should be handled. But, it's not like cloud formation is just omitted from models. Again, a quick google search reveals hundreds of publications on the topic.

 

No, I'm sorry. That position doesn't work well in science. Consider this hypothesis written from the skeptical position.

"All current warming is caused by natural mechanisms"

Remember, you just said a hypothesis is nothing until all other possible causes have been nullified. So how exactly are you going to nullify all non-natural mechanisms especially those you aren't even aware of yet?

This is why science works on the principal of falsification as opposed to trueification like what you're proposing. AGW's hypothesis "the primary cause of the current warming is through anthroprogenic mechanisms" is chosen not because it's hard to falsify, but because it's easy to falsify. Remember, you just have to present a convincing argument for one natural mechanisms to falsify it. It would be really hard to present an infinite number of convincing arguments to trueify "All current warming is caused by natural mechanisms".

 

You just made my point. The AGW crowd does nothing but attempt trueification and anyone who questions any of their data is immediately denounced. That is not science! As for natural causes, the Earths climate has been from natural causes for billions of years so that's the default cause until proven otherwise.

 

Of course they handle cloud formation but not well at all. For one, there is still a huge debate about what affects cloud formation. CERN just verified that cosmic rays help cloud formation, something still not well understood and certainly not in the models. Since the calculations are so intense, it is made easier by using huge swaths of the earth and the clouds are guessed at with what is thought of now about clouds but a lot can happen in a 100km square.

 

First off, "natural" is not a cause. It's a classification of a cause. You have to actually identify a physical process. But, let's role with this anyway. I don't think saying nature is the default until proven otherwise is a bad thing. Actually, the statement "all warming is caused by natural mechanisms" is a really good formalized hypothesis that you are trying justify. That's great. I completely agree. The problem is that your standard is trueification which means you have to make an infinite number of convincing arguments to complete the justification. That's an impossible task. So your assumption or hypothesis that everything is natural is impossible to prove using your standard of trueification. But, you then confuse your own standard by saying "until proven otherwise". That is the falsification principle. It's such an intuitive concept that you understood its value even if it was a Freudian slip. So what you ended up expressing in that paragraph is that the statement "natural causes are the default" is assumed to be true until it's falsified. You falsify that by finding one exception.

The thing is we have a convincing candidate that falsifies "all warming is caused by natural mechanisms". That candidate is net the effect of all anthroprogenic mechanisms (greenhouse gases, aerosols, land use changes, etc.). So now that we have a convincing candidate that falsifies the all-natural hypothesis we reverse the hypothesis such "the primary cause for the present warming is anthroprogenic" and then we try to falsify that. As more and more generalized hypothesis are falsified the get reformulated into ever more specific and narrowly focused hypothesis that survive falsification. That's how theories evolve.

 

I agree. We probably are overestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2. But, it's because of science that I draw that conclusion. Denying science does not help me make that argument.Of course, what if I'm wrong? What if "the pause" was a transient fluctuation that temporarily masked the warming trend? What if "the pause" were the result of an underestimation of anthroprogenic aerosols as opposed to an overestimation of CO2's climate sensitivity? That's something that's being researched right now.

What if we are underestimating CO2's climate sensitivity because of an equal underestimation of aerosols? What then?

 

You are trying to call billions of years of natural causes for climate a hypothesis. That's where your argument falls flat here. Billions of years of natural causes for climate is undisputable fact. AGW is the hypothesis attempting to find a new reason for climate.

 

I think this is an important observation. To date, we still don't have a "what causes natural temp rebounds" model. It would seem to me that we would need to actually know this before we tried to then build a case for additive or anthropogenic causality.

 

Ok, but AGW does not posit "all climate change is anthroprogenic" or "climate did not change in the past". So no, neither I nor any climate scientist are making those hypothesis. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Climate scientists fully acknowledge that there are natural mechanisms for climate change. There's a whole discipline of climate science tasked with identifying all mechanisms that have caused climate to change in the past. And since humans were neither around or were incapable all changes in the past are natural. Duh..that's obvious..I do agree that AGW is a theory that adds anthroprogenic mechanisms to the set of all mechanisms that cause climate change. But, it does not pretend like all the natural mechanisms suddenly disappeared. Humans are a new variable that must be considered. So while climate scientists are exploring all possible mechanisms and variables deniers pretend like the human variable does not exist.

Also, consider that wildfire have been occurring naturally for...well...forever. The things that caused wildfires in the past (before humans) had to be all natural. But, that doesn't mean humans aren't the cause of wildfires today. The argument you're making is that because nature can do it humans can't. Or more precisely if nature can cause the temperature to increase than humans can't. That's a fallacy called affirming a disjunct. And I'm hoping the wildfire example helps clarify the fallacy.

 

Most if not all of the money is going into proving CO2 is a climate control knob. Little goes to proving natural variation.

 

I agree. If we could figure out a natural mechanisms, how it works, and what magnitude of an effect it had to cause temperature rebounds in the past we could then see if it applies to the present warming. It does and if it fully explains the warming without invoking aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc. then that would be a great way to falsify the "A" part of AGW. There are a lot of scientists working on that problem. So far they haven't come up with a convincing argument.

 

We are getting closer. Seems like you now acknowledge natural causes is at least the primary factor in climate. Now add man to the mix with his C02 contribution which only adds 3% to naturally occurring C02. Nobody argues this is 100% irrelevant but many argue that it's not enough to get excited about and drastically change our way of life. Our overall contribution to C02 is infinitesimal in the scheme of things. Another issue is the short shrift the AGW pushers give to the fact that we have destroyed half the world's forest. Think that might contribute to rising C02 levels both natural and man made?

 

I still don't know what this standard means. Your assertion has been that CO2 is something that needs to be repudiated, but until it is, it's the explanation you're willing to accept. I'd suggest that it sophistry at it's worst. If you cannot detail what "natural" effects are, or their dynamics, no additional causality is then demonstrable as either a contributor or enhancer, or primary cause. I'd say that not being able to actually discuss what "natural" determines undercuts the CO2 hypothesis before it ever starts.

 

Let's be precise. I acknowledge that natural mechanisms are the only cause for climate change in the past. As in 100% of the change was attributable to nature. Neither I nor any climate scientist has denied that. That is strawman to do with however you please. Just don't pretend like I'm the one who built it. I also acknowledge that nature is the primary cause of how the climate is now. Again, being precise, I'm saying how it is; not how it is changing. What I and climate scientists claim is that the change we are observing now with respect to the global mean temperature is primarily the result of the humans.

And let's be precise on your second point. Humans are responsible for 3% of the carbon cycle imbalance. That is completely different than saying humans are only responsible for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is what you are implying. And it's completely incorrect. And whoever is saying that on the internet is defrauding you. Let me explain. Prior to human activity the carbon cycle was, conveniently I might add, broken down as 97 ppm/yr of emissions (sources) and 97 ppm/yr of absorptions (sinks). Then humans came along and we are now contributing 3 ppm/yr of emissions for a total of 100 ppm/yr. Notice that we contribute 3% of the yearly emissions. But, through land use changes we have hamstrung natures ability to absorb CO2 so sinks have been reduced by 1 ppm/yr. However, Mother Nature is clever and can accommodate a further 2 ppm/yr additional absorption to help offset the imbalance. The net effect is an imbalance of (97 + 3) - (97 - 1 + 2) = 2 ppm/yr. So we are adding 2 ppm/yr by way of our 3% contribution. Start with 300 ppm (the preindustrial baseline) and consider that our previous contributions to the imbalance has added about 100 ppm for a total 400 ppm of which 300 ppm is natural. At this very moment we are responsible for 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; not 3%! Now do the math. What will our contribution of the total concentration be like in 50 years? 100 years? These aren't trick question. All you need is 5th grade mathematics to do the calculation.

Third, destroying forests is anthroprogenic so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Also, climate scientists fully account for this. It is lumped into "land use changes" in academic jargon. And consider that land use changes account for less than 25%. Remember the +3 - (-1) components in the balance equation above? Those were ballparked to get the numbers rounded. In reality we think land use changes account for less than 10% of the imbalance with the remaining 90% being pinned on fossil fuel burning. But, again, deforestation is anthroprogenic is still anthroprogenic. We did cut them down afterall.

 

Ultimately something is causing the warming. It just so happens that physical law and laboratory experiments predict that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) should cause the Earth to warm by a certain amount. Computer simulations support that prediction. So even though you can craft a hypothesis any way you want (it doesn't have to have a presumption of truth) in reality scientists pick hypothesis that have a ring of truth to them. And the Earth is warming when all other mechanisms suggest it shouldn't so...I don't know...that doesn't seem unreasonable. Do you disagree?

But yeah, science is full of anecdotes where some hypothesis seemed to have a ring of truth to it, but in reality it ended up being falsified. Think about the ether that was predicted to exist to explain the propagation of light and gravity. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but in the end it was proven false. Maybe that'll happen with AGW as well. But history tells us that if a hypothesis survives falsification after extensive study and observation it usually takes a major upheaval to tear it down. We are approaching that point with AGW. There's so much evidence that points to anthroprogenic forces dominating the warming that it would take an extraordinary epiphany to unravel. And like Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". On the flip side, CO2 being a greenhouse gas isn't that extraordinary. A lot of gas species exhibit the greenhouse effect. And we've known CO2 behaves this way for over 150 years. We also know that humans are pumping massive amount of it into the atmosphere so much that nearly 100% of the concentration increase is pinned on humans.

 

We are getting closer. Seems like you now acknowledge natural causes is at least the primary factor in climate. Now add man to the mix with his C02 contribution which only adds 3% to naturally occurring C02. Nobody argues this is 100% irrelevant but many argue that it's not enough to get excited about and drastically change our way of life. Our overall contribution to C02 is infinitesimal in the scheme of things. Another issue is the short shrift the AGW pushers give to the fact that se have destroyed half the world's forest. Think that might contribute to rising C02 levels bot natural and man made?

I believe our 3% per annum contribution to C02 is an estimate of current contribution levels with a heavily industrialized world. You are attempting to say man has been adding 3% per year since the inception of industrialization to arrive at your 25% of total C02 number. The truth is until very recently virtually all the world was not yet industrialized and the few parts that were contributed a fraction of what they do now. This is not fifth grade math it is dishonest math. The truth is if we had not destroyed half the world's forest there's every reason to believe C02 levels would be little if any different than they would be without man's infinitesimal contribution but that gets glossed over in favor of attacking industrialization and that's for political reasons.

As for half our forest being gone being caused by man of course that's true but it's a different subject than our use of fossil fuel so it too is a dishonest argument.

Your previous post on the surface seems well thought out and documented but as usual with anyone pushing AGW it's easy to see your data is manipulated and this is why so many of us remain skeptics.

 

It wasn't a light switch that got turned on. It's more like a dimmer switch. The 3% figure is the estimate of the imbalance now. But, yes, of the 400 ppm we are directly responsible for 100 ppm of that. That is 100 / 400 = 25%.

I'll do the math for you.

400 ppm + (2 ppm/yr * 50 yr) = 500 ppm and it follows that (500 ppm - 300 ppm) / 500 ppm = 40%
400 ppm + (2 ppm/yr * 100 yr) = 600 ppm and it follows that (600 ppm - 300 ppm) / 600 ppm = 50%

Note that the 300 ppm is natural and the 2 ppm/yr figure is your 3% figure (roughly). Notice how the actual concentration is no where close to 3% and that the percentage is increasing.

What part of this is dishonest?

That's a pretty bold statement. Care to back that up with evidence? And how is it glossed over?

I'm not following you. Why would either be dishonest arguments? We cause deforestation therefore it is anthroprogenic. We burn fossil fuels therefore it is anthroprogenic. What am I missing?

And there it is. When facts don't support your worldview just call it all a sham.

But, if it's so "easy" to see that our data is manipulated then you should be able to show exactly how it's manipulated, what the real values should be, and indict a specific person of fraud. Please enlighten us.

 

All your data is manipulated and numbers in it presented as a given are a perfect example of manipulation. You act as if the numbers presented in your math equations are sacrosanct when in reality they are guesses at best and manufactured at worse. As far as 50% of our forest no longer existing and the resulting increase in C02 in the atmosphere goes this is one case where correlation is obviously causation. Forest absorb one third of the C02 in the atmosphere, 50% of the forest are gone and more is going every day. I don't think it's a bold statement at all to say if we had not removed a huge portion of the Earth's lungs C02 levels would not be what they are today. This does indeed get glossed over. The Paris Accord which is 27 pages long has two paragraphs on deforestation. It's obvious that the AGW agenda is political not scientific or deforestation would get the Lion's share of attention instead of a brief mention.