Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[Crick]

A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}

 

[EMH]

Perhaps you should try talking to poster EMH. That's who I was addressing and he claims there's no warming going on from any cause.

There is warming... from the growth of urban areas known as

URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT

That is the only warming in any of the raw data.

Hilariously enough, even with increasing UHSE heat, the atmosphere is not warming. Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not.

It is that UHSE heat that is the genesis of the Co2 fraud.

The fraud of global warming - co2 based climate change - is the deliberate misinterpretation of the UHSE on the surface ground temp series, the only series showing warming in the raw data.

 

[EMH]

33.8 degrees f? Bull

You are debating their fudge.

Debating their fudge is pointless.

Stick to raw data.

 

[Stryder50]

There are more factors involved than just CO2.

Ever heard of ocean currents and mountains?
100,000,000 years ago the Indian plate had not collided with the Asian plate thereby creating the Himalayan mountains. Comparing climates over periods of tens of millions of years when differently shaped land masses forced changes in currents of fluid makes no sense.

Yes I have.
And I've tried to show how those play out and affect several times here, and on other threads.
My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.
BTW, how many know what the CO2 percent/content was about 4 billion years ago?
And what the O2 content was back then?

 

[jc456]

A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}

Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD

premium.weatherweb.net

 

[Stryder50]

Planned obsolescence and ignoring the depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik has not been expensive?

There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994.
Where are those cars? What did the depreciation amount to?
How many of those changes occurred faster than 1 degree per 1000 years? Changes in the planet's orbit are slow. Big volcanic eruptions me cause sudden changes but the don't last more than 10 years. So where in the record is there fast lasting change?

The Younger Dryas might qualify but how fast was that?

Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.

 

[jc456]

Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.

Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD

premium.weatherweb.net

 

[Stryder50]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]

All satisfying the requirements to get funding and grants.

 

[Stryder50]

The radiative forcing diagram from AR6's Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" indicates that the CO2 added since 1750 - by itself - has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of warming. See my last post in the radiative physics thread.

Happy?

Now what will you do? I think you should spend a lot more time playing with your grandchildren.

Which is a qualitative factor not a quantitative.
I think you should walk the walk that matches your talk and reduce your personal CO2 emissions to ZERO!

 

[psikeyhackr]

The point is, if you don’t know the temperature of the amount of CO2 being added, how do you know it affects temperature?

That’s no science

Temperature of the CO2!?

You are right, "that's no science"!

ROFL

 

[Crick]

Which is a qualitative factor not a quantitative.
I think you should walk the walk that matches your talk and reduce your personal CO2 emissions to ZERO!

I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage. It's a great deal more beneficial to get an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg. The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.

 

[jc456]

Temperature of the CO2!?

You are right, "that's no science"!

ROFL

So no need to worry adding CO2 to the atmosphere

 

[jc456]

I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage. It's a great deal more beneficial to an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg. The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.

You’re still breathing

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes I have.
And I've tried to show how those play out and affect several times here, and on other threads.
My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.
BTW, how many know what the CO2 percent/content was about 4 billion years ago?
And what the O2 content was back then?

No! The world was so different Milankovitch cycles were irrelevant and human beings could not survive under those conditions anyway. What matters is deviating out of relatively comfortable conditions that we had from the 60s through the 80s.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.

Water evaporates and precipitates and creates clouds that reflect energy. Well, well, it's complicated. But the CO2 remains and builds up and gets pretty evenly distributed from the sources over time. But the sources put up more.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So no need to worry adding CO2 to the atmosphere

Ever heard that song by the Doobie Brothers:

"What a Fool Believes" ?

 

[jc456]

A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}

And yet

Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD

premium.weatherweb.net

 

[Crick]

My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.

There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions. Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels. Both these relationships are directly observed physical phenomena. Your claim that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on global climate is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[jc456]

There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions. Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels.

Except

Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD

premium.weatherweb.net

 

[Crick]

Except

Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD

premium.weatherweb.net

I've got some way better exceptions than that.
Here's the temperature and CO2 data from the Vostok ice cores.

The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag

A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciat…

euanmearns.com

There are MASSIVE deviations here. One will lead the other by thousands of years. One will go up while the other is going down. One will be steady while the other is all over the place. It's INSANITY.

It's also an extremely robust correlation. Your "except" isn't shite.