Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[ding]

So show me from the raw GISP2 data what the most recent datapoint is.

I will remind you that ice core data can only be taken from ICE cores which are formed from the accumulation of SNOW which is then compressed over time into FERN and then ICE.

So just show me in the GISP2 dataset what the last datapoint could be.

Paleo Data Search | Study | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

XXXXXX

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Is this you arguing that the geologic record isn't littered with examples of climate fluctuations that aren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Paleo Data Search | Study | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

XXXXXX

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Interesting. Not sure how a 1997 citation could contain ice core data from 1987. I don't believe ice could form that quickly on a continental glacier. Perhaps you could further expound on this.

Is this you arguing that the geologic record isn't littered with examples of climate fluctuations that aren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing?

I have stated EXPLICITLY that CO2 is not the only temperature driver. Even human activity contains a variety of forcings which I have repeatedly and explicitly stated (when I say "land usage changes" that's a clue that it's not all CO2).

 

[ding]

The LIA was a function of reduced solar output between the 16th and 19th centuries. Unfortunately the solar output signal cannot be correlated to additional warming after 1970.

Meehl et al (2004) states:

"The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing (mainly GHGs), while the early twentieth-century warming is mainly caused by natural forcing in the model (mainly solar). However, the signature of globally averaged temperature at any time in the twentieth century is a direct consequence of the sum of the forcings." (emphasis added)

That's because they are including the urban heat island effect and using the low variability solar output dataset for their history matching.

Scientists reach a different conclusion - that the recent warming trend is being driven by solar irradiance - if they exclude urban temperature stations and use the high variability solar output dataset used by NASA.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's because they are including the urban heat island effect

Which studies have found does NOT impact the overall temperature data set.

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

Abstract All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by...

journals.ametsoc.org

 

[ding]

Unfortuantely that is what is rather the point of the reference. When one relies on a single point source it is impossible to infer the global temperature.



And I actually agreed to that long ago. It is not controversial.

But what I am attempting to show is that the scientists keep telling you that those natural forcings cannot currently account for the last 50 years of warming.



I DO NOT. IN fact I have EXPLICITLY SAID THE OPPOSITE.

Pleas do not misrepresent what I have explicitly stated over and over again.

It's not a single point, dummy. Is this you arguing that the geologic record isn't littered with examples of warming trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing because it seems like you are.

Thousands of accelerator measurements of δ18O from the Greenland GISP2 ice core made by Stuiver and Grootes at the University of Washington can be used to reconstruct temperature fluctuations in Greenland over the past 100,000 years (Stuiver and Grootes, 2000;. Grootes and Stuiver, 1997; Stuiver et al.., 1995; Stuiver, et al., 1993). What makes these measurements so useful is the accuracy of dating of the samples accomplished by counting annual layers of dust that accumulated in the ice during each melt season on the glacier, giving a dating accuracy of a few years over thousands of years. This is not possible in the Antiarctic ice cores.

Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.

 

[ding]

Which studies have found does NOT impact the overall temperature data set.

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

Abstract All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by...

journals.ametsoc.org

How many more time am I going to have to share that study with you before you admit the IPCC is cherry picking the datasets they are using.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Interesting. Not sure how a 1997 citation could contain ice core data from 1987. I don't believe ice could form that quickly on a continental glacier. Perhaps you could further expound on this.

Greenland ice cores are a matter of public record. 1987 is the top of the core.

 

[ding]

I have stated EXPLICITLY that CO2 is not the only temperature driver. Even human activity contains a variety of forcings which I have repeatedly and explicitly stated (when I say "land usage changes" that's a clue that it's not all CO2).

And yet you keep trying to disparage Greenland ice core data which shows how frequently the climate can fluctuate without any CO2 or orbital forcing changes.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's not a single point, dummy.

It is an ice core, correct? Isn't that a single geographic point?

Is this you arguing that the geologic record isn't littered with examples of warming trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing because it seems like you are.

I am growing tired of this continued misrepresentation. I have NEVER ONE said CO2 is the ONLY cause of warming. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

If you can find such a thing please present it as I do not recall ever saying that. Why would I say that when I know it is not true?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet you keep trying to disparage Greenland ice core data

I am NOT disparaging Greenland Ice core data. I'm merely pointing out the limitations of one ice core data set from a very narrow window of time in the earth's history.

 

[ding]

It is an ice core, correct? Isn't that a single geographic point?

Which has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Greenland ice cores are a matter of public record. 1987 is the top of the core.

Can you explain to me how in the space of 10 years snow accumulating in 1987 would become fern and then ice sufficient to be ice in the core itself?

This takes a goodly amount of time. There's a reason why you can ski on mountain glaciers because the snow doesn't immediately turn into ice

 

[ding]

I am NOT disparaging Greenland Ice core data. I'm merely pointing out the limitations of one ice core data set from a very narrow window of time in the earth's history.

So then you don't believe that... GISP2 has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.

 

[ding]

Can you explain to me how in the space of 10 years snow accumulating in 1987 would become fern and then ice sufficient to be ice in the core itself?

This takes a goodly amount of time. There's a reason why you can ski on mountain glaciers because the snow doesn't immediately turn into ice

Is this you disparaging the ice core data?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How many more time am I going to have to share that study with you before you admit the IPCC is cherry picking the datasets they are using.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

May I ask why it is never incumbent upon YOU to explain why YOUR favorite dataset is superior to mine?

You seem to act as if Willie Soon's non-stop flogging of the solar cycles (which virtually no one in the mainstream science agrees with him on) is somehow superior to an actual point-by-point statistical analysis of UHIE?

 

[ding]

I am growing tired of this continued misrepresentation. I have NEVER ONE said CO2 is the ONLY cause of warming. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

If you can find such a thing please present it as I do not recall ever saying that. Why would I say that when I know it is not true?

Great. Then you shouldn't have a problem stating why you think these temperatures fluctuated, right?

 

[ding]

May I ask why it is never incumbent upon YOU to explain why YOUR favorite dataset is superior to mine?

You seem to act as if Willie Soon's non-stop flogging of the solar cycles (which virtually no one in the mainstream science agrees with him on) is somehow superior to an actual point-by-point statistical analysis of UHIE?

You mean besides what has already been explained in the post you are replying to?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Great. Then you shouldn't have a problem stating why you think these temperatures fluctuated, right?

View attachment 630575

From what I understand these changes may have been related to any number of things, including

1. Overall cooling from coming down from the peak of an interglacial
2. Cooling pulses from volcanic events (as noted in the citation I posted earlier)

The key is that the warming since 1970 cannot be explained by natural forcings alone.

The citation I made earlier notes that, indeed, natural forcings alone cannot explain this. But human-forcings make the data make sense.

We KNOW CO2 can and does cause warming. It is not the only reason the planet warms, but it is a positive climate forcing. In fact it is part of the reason why the surface of the earth is as warm as it normally is (even just naturally!)

Greenhouse gases operate by being able to absorb IR photon. The nature of the C=O bonds allows them to be able to do this. While symmetrical molecules like O=O and N=N have limited to no function in this ability.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You mean besides what has already been explained in the post you are replying to?

I will go with the actual direct measurement of UHIE which results in a clear statistical analysis of the data directly and explicit in regards to UHIE.

Why do you doubt Peterson?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Feel free to explain your reasoning there.

Did you ever take Earth science in school?