Global warming and causality.

False.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

". . . So why is this link important for global warming? As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. This can be seen in fig. 5. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data in fig. 6), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period.

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming. . . . "

 

No, extending a tiny microclimate to the whole globe is not valid science.

And the paper -- a graduate thesis and not an actual paper -- never claimed it did. That part was NoTricksZone spin.

 

For the solar theory to be right, the rate of ocean warming would have to have dropped or reversed following the recent solar downturn.

It didn't. Ocean warming is staying just as strong and constant.

Thus, the solar theory is wrong.

Yes, it is that simple.

 

The "Well, we don't know everything about clouds, so it has to be clouds!" argument.

It's another form of the "invoke unknown magic to cast doubt" tactic, and it's not valid.

And then it's topped off with an argument from incredulity fallacy.

 

You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation.
"According to recent field research (Mungai, 2021) conducted in Kenya . . . "

 

Sorry, but you'll need an argument to make a point.

 

Way to tell everyone that you only looked at the NoTricksZone spin, and never looked at the actual paper.

I did. It's a graduate thesis from a chemistry student. It doesn't make any conclusions about how much CO2 affects global climate, and it only mentions CO2 and climate in passing.

 

I just did. As usual, it couldn't be refuted, so the deflections came out.

I get that you like preaching to the choir. However, you have to know that your preaching has no effect on the world of science. The scientists all instantly recognize your BS tactics.

 

So, you concede that your previous claim about diminished solar activity was false. Good so far.
As for ocean warming, that seems to have leveled off with solar activity.
Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly – HadSST2 and HadSST3


climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

 

NTZ makes no claim about global climate; that's your strawman.

 

No. You merely called names and tossed insults. Doesn't work with me. I'm the one citing research results.

 

In the future, please refer to what I actually say, instead to what the voices tell you I'm saying.

Your plot stops at 2012. Huh, I wonder what happens if we get something more recent.


Well look at that. It takes off right after 2012. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you cut off the data right before it went up.

 

"Takes off"? The 2020 anomaly is < 1C from baseline. Maybe + .25C from 2012 to 2020. The horrors!!
I doubt a human could even detect that change.

 

An unsourced/unlinked graph is just a cartoon.

 

Your paper specifically shows that it is a modeling construct the paper you still haven't read which is from YOUR SciFi American link:

Abstract
Theory1 and numerical modelling2 suggest that tropical cyclones (TCs) will strengthen with rising ocean temperatures. Even though models have reached broad agreement on projected TC intensification3,4,5, observed trends in TC intensity remain inconclusive and under active debate6,7,8,9,10 in all ocean basins except the North Atlantic, where aircraft reconnaissance data greatly reduce uncertainties11. The conventional satellite-based estimates are not accurate enough to ascertain the trend in TC intensity6,11, suffering from contamination by heavy rain, clouds, breaking waves and spray12. Here we show that weak TCs (that is, tropical storms to category-1 TCs based on the Saffir–Simpson scale) have intensified in all ocean basins during the period 1991–2020, based on huge amounts of highly accurate ocean current data derived from surface drifters. These drifters have submerged ‘holy sock’ drogues at 15 m depth to reduce biases induced by processes at the air–sea interface and thereby accurately measure near-surface currents, even under the most destructive TCs. The ocean current speeds show a robust upward trend of ~4.0 cm s−1 per decade globally, corresponding to a positive trend of 1.8 m s−1 per decade in the TC intensity. Our analysis further indicates that globally TCs have strengthened across the entirety of the intensity distribution. These results serve as a historical baseline that is crucial for assessing model physics, simulations and projections given the failure of state-of-the-art climate models in fully replicating these trends13.

LINK

===

My use of actual data is vastly superior to contrived modeling exercise claims that you didn't even read HA HA HA, heck I defeated TWO papers with hard evidence of NO increase in storminess and frequency.

Here is the posted the 1987 paper you have ignored that destroys your claim showing that increasing CO2 is predicted to greatly increase storminess in the ocean waters.

Abstract
Tropical cyclones rank with earthquakes as the major geophysical causes of loss of life and property1. It is therefore of practical as well as scientific interest to estimate the changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity that might result from short-term man-induced alterations of the climate2. In this spirit we use a simple Carnot cycle model to estimate the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones under the somewhat warmer conditions expected to result from increased atmospheric CO2 content. Estimates based on August mean conditions over the tropical oceans predicted by a general circulation model with twice the present CO2 content yield a 40–50% increase in the destructive potential of hurricanes.

==========

There was NO 40-50% increase at all in it no increase since the 1990's which is now about 30 years' time despite a significant increase in CO2 level in the atmosphere during that time frame.

The prediction failure of this paper is obvious which is why you chose to ignore it.

Your love of unverified modeling constructs that fails is well known which is why you don't have credibility here.

 

Ha ha ha, he doesn't realize the Marcott et all paper is based on his THESIS paper.

His excuses don't fly here because this is a long thesis papers overseen by THREE professors in the field who ALL signed the Thesis as submitted.

It is clearly a science paper based on field work and in the Lab.

I doubt he even bothered to read the link as his prejudice prevents him.

 

The models are the theory. The actual measurements of the storms are the practice that matches the theory. That's what the paper says. You seem to have trouble understanding what most papers say.

That paper predicted stronger hurricanes, and has been proven to be correct, and thus ... you declare victory for some reason. I can't figure out your thought processes, and I doubt anyone can.

 

Now there's a weird deflection that I don't think anyone expected. I pointed out it was a thesis because a standard thesis is not a peer-reviewed journal paper, as was claimed.

No one is arguing that the paper is wrong.

I'm pointing out that the paper doesn't talk about climate. The climate spin was added by the frauds at NoTricksZone. It wasn't in the paper, yet you pretend it was. Very dishonest.

 

Your side uses imaginative deflections, I'll give you that.

Learn how to use a browser. "Save Link As" would have showed you the source was:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/sea-surface-temp_figure1_2021.png

 

Understood.

I debunked the false claim that oceans aren't warming.

You felt a need to deflect.

 

Roy Spencer has written a book about this.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594036020

 

Oceans are three dimensional. How is it possible to determine with any accuracy how much oceans are warming? Where do you claim they are warming? What is the natural variability of ocean temperature and how is it measured? If the preceding is unknown how can claims of change of ocean temperature driven by human CO2 emissions be proven using the scientific method?

 

"The oceans"! All of them?

 

I am sure that with a little research your questions will be answered.

 

No-one knows the answers.