Global warming and causality.

We are in the Holocene. This is the tenth warming cycle.

The models are all over the place. The range of predictions of some can be forced to match certain decades of past data but not decades.

AGE theory has never been scientifically proven in the real world governed by unsolvable non linear partial differential atmospheric equations.

BTW the natural variability of the climate has never been determined so that statistically significant climate changes cannot be determined.

 

Notice how often Mamooth COMPLETELY ignores the numerous published papers you post in thread after thread, yet the fool keeps calling you a he he... ha ha ha....oh ohhh a denier!

 

Climate change is too fast to be explained by natural factors.

 

What a bare statement that was.

Actually climate change is a badly abused phrase since most areas haven't changed enough to matter such as my region which is the very same climate now as it is in 1964 when I moved there, the Koppen Climate Classification is still the same BSk.

It is currently COOLING and has been for around 8 years now.

 

No, it's too slow to require any other explanation. Ask anyone who actually remembers the 1930s. Just look out your window and compare it to the earliest climate you remember. The anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers are gaslighting you. Lower troposphere temperature peaked in 2016. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012. The 20th century saw the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years, so it's entirely expected that it got warmer than the Little Ice Age. But despite that, it's no warmer now than in the Medieval Warm Period, and it's cooler than in the Holocene Optimum.

 

Global warming and causality​

~ The only causality of the global climate catastrophe nonsense is the push for totalitarian government and those who actually cooperate and pretend to believe it. It certainly is not Mother Nature or Co2 .

 

CO2 is exonerated.
New Study: Atmospheric CO2 Residence Time Is Only 5 Years – Too Short To ‘Affect The Climate’
By Kenneth Richard on 23. March 2023

Share this...
Since the early 1990s the conventional assumption, aligned with modeling, has been that a molecule of human CO2 emission stays in the atmosphere – its residence time – for centuries. This fits the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative. But empirical evidence contradicts these model-based assumptions. Residence time is closer to 5-10 years.
In Table 1 of a new study, Stallinga (2023) compiled a list of 36 published estimates of CO2 residence time spanning the decades 1957-1992. All of these scientists determined CO2’s atmospheric residence time is about 5 to 10 years or less.



Image Source: Stallinga, 2023

. . . .

 

The natural warming cycle ended 8000 years ago. This new warming is entirely separate from it. There's no natural explanation for it, which is one of the reasons we know it's not natural.

Then there's also the stratospheric cooling, the polar amplification and increase in backradiation. Your "it's natural theory" is contradicted by that data, so your theory is wrong. Your feelings getting hurt about that doesn't change the data, or the wrongness of your theory.

 

I understand. You can't debate the science, so you use personal attacks.

Jack relies on the "Gish gallop of crap" technique. If he had even one good argument, he wouldn't have to fling out so many bad ones. But he doesn't, so he does.

His studies?

Some are just sucky science, conspiracy stuff.

Some are good science, but they don't say what he claims.

And some are red herrings, which don't address the topic at all.

No honest person uses a Gish Gallop like that, and nobody is obligated to respond to every Gish Gallopy post. The rational merely need to point out the desperation and dishonesty of the tactic. I've done that.

Here's a challenge. Post what you consider to be your one _best_ study that refutes AGW theory, and we'll discuss it in detail. If I rip it apart, you agree you've been wrong. Deal? What I will _not_ do is waste days ripping apart every bad use of science in your avalanche o' garbage.

 

No. Just wrong. Scientists are very aware of the difference between residence time for individual molecules and adjustment time for the atmosphere as a whole.

This one fails by claiming adjustment time can't be longer than residence time. That's just wrong.

The 5 years residence time for individual molecules is due to the surface of the oceans quickly exchanging CO2 back and forth with the atmosphere. But the surface layer of the ocean is saturated, so that's not taking any net CO2 out of the atmosphere. The bottleneck for net CO2 removal is CO2 being transported into the deep oceans, and that's not affected by the fast residence time.

The problem denier "scientists" face is that their entirely politically-driven way of doing things sort of forbids them from talking with the actual experts in the field. If they did talk with them, they'd have learned the basics. But they don't. They try to recreate climate science from scratch, and they miss the basics.

 

The last warming and the ninth of the Holocene occurred ~ 1000 years ago (Medieval Warm Period). Civilization flourished as it did in the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.

And still no scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are causing the current warm period which started in the 1600’s.

 

Ha ha ha,

All you did was run off at the mouth, you still ignored all those published science papers Jack posted and not a single cogent rebuttal to any of them.

What is stopping you?

 

Flat wrong. There are numerous temperature cycles with different periods, some regular and others chaotic. You are merely repeating Lyin' Michael Mann's absurd, anti-scientific contention that there could never have been any Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, etc. because CO2 did not change.

You mean, aside from the sun being more active in the 20th century than it has been in thousands of years...?

No, I've proved those claims false multiple times. Polar amplification is inherent in the ice-albedo feedback, and stratospheric cooling and increased back radiation do not support the claimed effect of CO2 on global surface temperature.

Your feelings getting hurt about that doesn't change the data, or the wrongness of your theory.

 

Stallinga disagrees with you, and he published his research. I'll take the science over your internet shouting.
Abstract
We study the concepts of residence time vs. adjustment time time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The system is analyzed with a two-box first-order model. Using this model, we reach three important conclusions: (1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and can, thus, not be longer than about 5 years. (2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable. (3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere.

 

You have failed repeatedly in just that situation. Your insults don't change the science.

 

Emissions and CO2 Concentration: An Evidence Based Approach
Posted on March 24, 2023 by curryja | 31 comments
by Joachim Dengler and John Reid

A new way of looking at the the atmospheric carbon budget.

Continue reading →
". . . Concluding, we can expect a maximum CO2 concentration level of approximately 475 ppm in the second half of this century. At this point, the emissions will be fully balanced by the absorptions, which is by definition the “net zero” situation.

Assuming the unlikely worst case that CO2 concentration is fully responsible for all global temperature changes, the maximum expected rise of global temperature caused by the expected CO2 concentration rise is 0.4 _C from now or 1.4°C from the beginning of industrialisation.

Therefore, if we keep living our lives with the current CO2 emissions – and a 3%/decade efficiency improvement, then the Paris climate goals are fulfilled."

 

The hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current global warming (which started in the 17th century) has never been proven.

Also global warming and increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is beneficial. And you are correct, we are enjoying those benefits.

 

The cited research was published in a peer-reviewed journal. I voted for Biden in 2020.
The only "impacts" we are feeling are increases in unfounded climate alarmist hype.


Image Source: Stallinga, 2023

 

This does not support your claim, nor that of the garbage source you got it from. Most of the CO2 ends up in the ocean, but it's not a simple sink. It leads to warming ocean water, and that fuels more atmospheric storms and other changes. The oceans drive most of our weather, hence the increasing frequency and severity of storms, the rising average temperatures all over the world, both oceanic and atmospheric, the rapid acceleration of glacial and polar ice melt and thawing permafrost, and so on.

 

Source?

 

I assume that by "garbage source" you refer to NTZ, which merely serves as an aggregator for peer-reviewed research. The fact that NTZ does not toe the "consensus" line does not make it "garbage" but rather a participant in the marketplace of ideas.
There are no data to support the claim of increasing frequency and severity of storms. Global and glacial ice melt are either not present in the data (the former) or inconsequential (the latter). Global temperature peaked in 2016 and has been falling since then.
As for what the research cited by NTZ does or does not say, I offer the paper's abstract.
Abstract
We study the concepts of residence time vs. adjustment time time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The system is analyzed with a two-box first-order model. Using this model, we reach three important conclusions: (1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and can, thus, not be longer than about 5 years. (2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable. (3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere.

 

Whatever source you quoted that tried to claim that the oceans absorbing CO2 meant that anthropogenic climate change wasn't a reality is garbage. If you relied on science and only science, you would not be sitting there in denial of it.

And you're just wrong about polar and glacial ice melting. It's plainly visible all over the damned place.

Nor have you refuted the simple physics of CO2 causing ocean warming, which in turn warms the atmosphere and leads to both warmer climates on average and more frequent and severe weather events. You've denied that there are data to support that, but NOAA would disagree: Wildfire climate connection | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa.gov)

 

Recent Decades Of Cooling And Sea Ice Expansion Has Led To Declining Elephant Seal Populations

By Kenneth Richard on 21. March 2023

The observed incapacity for southern elephant seals (SES) to withstand late 20th and early 21st century extreme cold and expanding sea ice conditions suggest coastal Antarctica (Victoria Land Coast, VLC) climate is colder and icier today than any time since the last glacial. A new study even suggests the last glacial (CO2 ~190 ppm) may […]

A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet
2018 › 03 › 22 › a-geological-perspective-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet
the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), let's first have a look at the NASA perspective: ... Greenland Ice Loss ... the ice sheet over the last decade ( Velicogna 2009 ). In 2002 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet was losing

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus ...
royalsocietypublishing.org
https://royalsocietypublishing.org › doi › rstb.2015.0345
by SH Doerr · 2016 · Cited by 490 — Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have ...

 

I notice you didn't actually address the results of a dozen published papers showing similar results.

Try again.

 

Wrong twice.

No it doesn't. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on global surface temperature is tiny primarily because there is so much -- ~2% -- H2O in the atmosphere already absorbing almost all the IR emitted from the surface. The amount of H2O in ocean water is, like, 98%, so the IR absorption effect of the <<1% CO2 in seawater is immeasurably small. Hello?

For which there is no credible empirical evidence...

<sigh> Because the sun was more active in the 20th century than it has been for thousands of years. Why refuse to know facts?

None of which is actually happening.