Global warming and causality.

No, it's an assumption you made up, which makes it only your problem. That pretty much covers all denier claims. High-five each other in your safespaces all you want, but it has no effect outside of your safespaces.

And that crank theory is debunked by the hard evidence in multiple ways, but you don't care. Your religious beliefs override the facts. Again, no one outside of your safespaces cares.

 

See? There's that absolute garbage math on your part.

I haven't yet found a denier who doesn't faceplant at the scientific method, and I doubt I ever will. People who understand it just don't get sucked into the denier cult.

Sure. You can't discuss the science, so you're deflecting by demonizing a person. Yes, it is that obvious.

 

So he faceplants hard at statistics as well. But then, anyone who doesn't is ceremonially drummed out of the cult.

As far as ocean heating goes, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself by denying reality with such vehemence.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat

 

Irony much?

None of which you have ever been able to identify...

 

As usual you didn't address a single thing, he pointed out which was 100% based on the ARGO data thus you have nothing.

My post was about sampling size which you completely ignored,

No one here disputes that the ocean has been warming on the surface but that is actually sign of it cooling down as that reality is beyond your comprehension.

Your chronic strawman responses are silly and boring.

 

Please enlighten everyone on the proof of human CO2 emissions being the cause of the current warming which started in the 1600’s.

 

The sun heating the Earth is an assumption?

 

Contrary to what you think "Nuh-uh!" does _not_ require a refutation.

And that's basically everything you post. Yes, often it's not you yelling "Nuh-uh!". You just repeat other crazy people doing it.

So where did that crazy come from?

Have fun raging in your safespaces. You're definitely not taking the world of science by storm. No denier is, since all they do is rage in their safespaces. If you need to cheer yourself up, go over to WUWT and censor anyone not parroting the partyline closely enough.

 

Sure.
1. The earth is warming stronglty.
2. There's no natural explanation for it.
3. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, polar amplification and changes in outgoing longwave show that greenhouse gases are causing the warming.

As I tell the others, if you want to replace AGW theory, you can't just nitpick and fling out conspiracy theories. You have to come up with a theory that better explains the observed data. Since the data flatly contradicts all of your side's theories, that's going to be difficult for you.

 

Already done.
The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

 

Ha ha ha you seem unaware that you didn't address a single fact/evidence which makes others wonder if you are afraid to discuss it which is the bedrock of point/counterpoint debates.

Third time you have ignored this:

It appears you can't address it which is a central point of his presentation that showed the rate of sampling is isn't close to being uniform which is why the data isn't complete or accurate representation of the ocean waters profile.

From the link you avoided,



Figure 2. Number of temperature profiles ever taken by Argo floats in various areas of the ocean. Percentages in the second row refer to the percentage of the total ocean area having that number of temperature profiles. Percentages in the third row refer to the percentage of the ocean area from 60°N to 60°S having that number of temperature profiles. Click on image for larger version.

So … what are we looking at in Figure 2? We are seeing which areas of the ocean are better sampled, and which are more poorly sampled.

The red areas are those parts of the ocean which have never been sampled at all by Argo floats. In some cases, such as the area around Indonesia, or the east side of the bottom half of South America, it is because the ocean is shallow there. Up north it’s because of ice. And down south? It seems the currents don’t carry the floats down that far. This makes sense because the cold surface waters are sinking around Antarctica and flowing north in that region, carrying the submerged floats with them away from Antarctica.

In other areas, such as off the westernmost point of South America and the area on the western side of South Africa, the cause for the lack of samples seems to be the local upwelling in the areas. Presumably, since the water is radiating outwards at depth as well as at the surface, the floats are moved away from that area.

The areas in orange, another 10% of the global ocean, have only ever been sampled from just once to eight times. So a quarter of the ocean has either never been sampled, or has been sampled less than eight times per 10,000 sq. km, since the beginning of the Argo program in 2000.

In other words, a quarter of the global ocean has been sampled less than once a year per 10,000 sq. km. by Argo floats … yet they claim an error of only a few thousandths of a degree in the global average."

red bolding mine

======

Your prejudice makes you weak and ignorant.

 

He has to ignore the failure of AGW since the 1) Hot Spot doesn't exist. 2) Positive Feedback Loop doesn't exist.

That is why they ignore the failures.

 

Stating that there is no other explanation proves nothing.

 

Solar heating with all the nuance’s included doe indeed explain the warming and cooling cycles (all ten of them) in the Holocene period.

 

Except that it indisputably isn't, as arctic sea ice extent bottomed in 2012, and lower troposphere temperature peaked in 2016. There is a difference between the earth warming and temperature records being altered to simulate the earth warming.

Other than the fact that it has happened the same way naturally many times before...? Just because we don't know exactly why global surface temperature has changed naturally over millennium-scale periods in the past doesn't mean there is no natural explanation for the most recent such change.

Already disproved many times -- and ignored.

Falsehood after falsehood is not a good look for you. Just sayin'.

 

More evidence that CO2 doesn't matter much.
Abate CO2 emissions to cut global warming? Good luck with that!
Guest Blogger
It is evident that wind and solar on their own are not going to be capable of getting the United States, or the world, to net zero. . . .

 

Do we need to do the escalator graphic again? I hesitate, given the triggering effect it has. I worry for the mental health of some people.

We get it. You don't understand statistics. No need to keep hammering on it.

Anways, that propaganda has a very limited shelf life, given how temps are about to explode. Do you have new propaganda ready?

No, it hasn't. There's never been a natural cycle with the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, the polar amplification, the GHG band emission changes. That's how we know it's not natural.

Natural cycles have causes. You can't name the cause it this time, which means you're just invoking magic by citing natural cycles. That's the opposite of science. That's why you're ignored, and why you have to restrict yourself to SafeSpaces.

That's how you say you've run away weeping many times before, just as you're doing now. Your abject grovelling surrender is accepted.

 

Ah the piece that can't read a graph. The one that shows CO2 increase slowing down during the pandemic.

From the Stevie Wonder routine there, it jumps to the author pulling some numbers out of his nether regions.

Bascially, he uses a pre-existing belief that CO2 has no effect to prove that CO2 has no effect. Yeah, that's good science.

 

I can see why the people who have nothing would say such a thing. However, it's not convincing to the people who have good data.

"Well, we don't have perfect knowledge, so we know nothing" is not science. If that was the case, we'd have to declare that gravity existing was an unsettled issue. Evidence doesn't have to be perfect, just overwhelming, and we've passed that stage with climate science.

 

Thanks for bringing that up again. I read it again and ... dang, I'm good. I took you all to school, then sent you home crying to mama. I'm just wondering why you wanted anyone else to see me talking about the science, while you all contorted and evaded.

A person who knows a topic can debate the topic directly. Someone who doesn't know a topic will spew a Gish gallup of bad links to cover for their lack of knowledge. I debate the topic directly.

If you'd like, I'll be happy to do it again here. Can we discuss how your solar theory is conclusively debunked by the evidence, so all you can do in response is yell "Nuh-uh!" over and over? While it gets kind of old, it's still funny.

 

I've addressed it. It shows he fails hard at statistics.

Not surprising. He's a denier. People who undestand statistics don't fall for denier nonsense in the first place.

Seriously, if you think perfect knowledge is required to get useful statistics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

Sorry, but it seems you're the one who can't read a graph.

 

Actually, all you did was parade your ignorance and embarrass yourself.
Game. Set. Match.
Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Has Not Been Enhanced, But Instead Its Impact Has Declined Since 1983
By Kenneth Richard on 10. April 2023

Share this...
In the satellite era scientists have continued to observe the Earth’s total greenhouse effect (which includes effects from greenhouse gases and clouds) exerting an overall negative impact (cooling) on surface temperatures since the 1980s. This rules out both CO2 and an enhanced greenhouse effect as drivers of global warming.
Earth’s total greenhouse effect impact on climate is realized by the sum of all contributors to it: water vapor, clouds, and the “anthropogenic” greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4.

Given the modern assumption that humans are responsible for global warming due especially to our CO2 and CH4 emissions, it stands to reason that Earth’s downwelling longwave (LWdn) should be increasing and thus the Earth’s greenhouse effect should be enhanced due to the rising greenhouse gases emissions.

But, as Cess and Udelhofen (2003) reported 20 years ago, Earth’s greenhouse effect has not been enhanced in recent decades. Instead, it has been in a state of decline since the 1980s.

“[T]he negative trend in G [greenhouse effect] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.”


Image Source: Cess and Udelhofen, 2003
Song et al. (2016) also reported a flat (declining) greenhouse effect trend (shown in red) from 2002 to 2014 when all greenhouse effect factors (“all-sky”), including clouds and water vapor, are considered. The effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 were “offset” by the effects of clouds in producing the “zero-trend greenhouse effect” over this period.



Image Source: Song et al., 2016
A new study (Zhang and Rossow, 2023) employs another data set (FH) and also shows the total greenhouse effect (expressed as downward longwave, or LWdn) declining from 1983 to 2017 (and 2001 to 2020 in the CERES record) even though the data “account for increasing CO2 and CH4” and this “should produce an increase in LWdn”. It doesn’t, of course, as CO2 and CH4 are not influential enough to compete with the greenhouse effect of clouds.

“The LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)] shows a very large anomaly declining rapidly at the beginning of the record until the late 1990s. … The FH calculations (and previous versions) account for increasing CO2 and CH4 abundances, which should produce an increase in LWdn, all other things being equal; but as Fig 3…shows, the near surface air temperature (Ta) and skin temperatures (Ts) from ISCCP-H used in FH are generally decreasing. … [July 1983 to June 2017] overall downward trend in FH LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)]”


Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
The scientists also point out that trends in global mean albedo correspond to an “increase in surface solar radiation” since the 1980s (which can explain the warming over this period). Also, the W/m² trends in shortwave and longwave top-of-atmosphere fluxes are “dominated” by cloud cover changes or “caused almost entirely by cloud effects.”



Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
In recent years there have been several other studies documenting an observed decreasing greenhouse effect despite the increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 (Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020). All of them note that natural cloud variations, which have a greenhouse effect impact larger than that resulting from a 100-fold increase in CO2 (Ramanathan et al., 1989), are driving the recent greenhouse effect decline, overriding the anthropogenic emissions impact.



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020
The clear implication of these observations is that an enhanced greenhouse effect has not been driving any warming trend since the 1980s.

Further, a decline in the greenhouse effect means the impact of human CO2 emissions on the global climate are too weak to be a driver of total greenhouse effect trends or climate change.

 

There is no data which proves that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current warming period. All you have are manufactured correlations which exist for limited periods of the current warming which started in the mid 1600’s.

 

You didn't do anything to support your assertion, and you ignored the hard evidence of sampling weaknesses that was well presented your fact and evidence free word salad fails totally on arrival.