Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're actually denying milankovitch cycles exist?
Really?
Human caused AGW is a reality.It's hilarious that you can't see that climate has been weaponized as a political tool. What's even funnier is that you think the other guys are doing it.
What do you do for a living?
What do you do for a living? Why should I listen to you?Human caused AGW is a reality.
Your denial is political.
Hypercane is coming!!
View attachment 672976
The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.Human caused AGW is a reality.
Your denial is political.
The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.
Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. But other 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
I think deforestation and urban heat island effect are affecting the climate, if that helps. How much? It's hard to say.Why do you think human deforestation is "natural" in the context of climate? ... graph on upper right ... Theory 2 ... rural includes farmland, a most profoundly unnatural environment ... [giggle] ... why would astrophysicists ignore changing albedo? ... why do rhetorical questions need no answer? ...
I agree with the article's conclusions about using more and different datasets ... it's the purpose of science to evaluate the whole, whereas the purpose of politics is to deceive ... as an analogy, compare the size of the IPCC report to the size of the US tax code ... politics at its best ...
First, we need to figure out what's causing the 125,000 year glacial cycles ... only then can we measure man's contribution ... maybe ... and we're at the bottom limit here for accuracy ... we don't measure temperature for climate study, so we only spend the money for thermometers accurate enough for pilots and farmers ... and nearest whole degree is fine for them ... $10 at Walmart ... fuck climate research, it's woman's work ...
I think deforestation and urban heat island effect are affecting the climate, if that helps. How much? It's hard to say.
It's because their case is a computer model.It's the carbon dioxide advocates who haven't made their case ...
It's because their case is a computer model.
The problem is in the feedback/climate sensitivity, not the GHG effect itself. And when they fine tune their model to minimize the effects of natural variations so they can isolate CO2 they in effect create circular logic. They stack the deck at every turn; they use urban temperature stations and a low variability solar output dataset. No one is ever going to convince me that the "climate sensitivity" is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect itself.The model is based on science ... carbon dioxide is well demonstrated to react to IR in the atmosphere ... from this we can build computer simulations, but these simulations take too long so we introduce short-cuts ... still good science if we're clear about the short-cuts ... call it the simple honesty required by reputable science journals ... Moore's Law is still in affect? ... 2.5 exaflop at Oakridge is already obsolete and they haven't even switched it on ...fuckinggovernment project ...
The problem is in the feedback/climate sensitivity, not the GHG effect itself. And when they fine tune their model to minimize the effects of natural variations so they can isolate CO2 they in effect create circular logic. They stack the deck at every turn; they use urban temperature stations and a low variability solar output dataset. No one is ever going to convince me that the "climate sensitivity" is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect itself.
You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.
Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. But other 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
You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.
And once again you have no concept of the internal shift in output. The count of sunspots causes very little change as the fusion reaction is almost constant. But a simple cooling of the ongoing reaction changes the output from one the oceans can absorb to one it cannot.Another Billy faceplant:
Solar Cycle 25 has been much more active than predicted. There is no 'cooling sun'.
Yes, other deniers have faceplanted with that, but Billy has faceplanted the hardest.
The model fails empirical verification every time.. So, their understanding of the process fails.The model is based on science ... carbon dioxide is well demonstrated to react to IR in the atmosphere ... from this we can build computer simulations, but these simulations take too long so we introduce short-cuts ... still good science if we're clear about the short-cuts ... call it the simple honesty required by reputable science journals ... Moore's Law is still in effect? ... 2.5 exaflop at Oakridge is already obsolete and they haven't even switched it on ...fuckinggovernment project ...
Computer simulations produce distribution curves, not discrete answers ... always ask to see that curve before you believe any computer result ...
The Global Warming nut cases assume that the sensitivity number is 3/1 (where 1 is the log of CO2). This assumes that the log value will influence water vapor by a factor of three in warming. Empirically observed behavior of our atmosphere is 0.5/1 (where the log of expected warming alone by CO2 is diminished by water vapor by >0.5. This is one of the many reasons GCM's fail without exception.Sensitivity is assumed to be very large ... but we don't know the value ... seems a simple experiment to shine light on a gas and measure the temperature ...
The IPCC also assumes average cloud cover remains the same ... for the job security ... politics at it's finest ...
So the guy who said the sun was cooling fast and we're all DOOMED because of it, based largely on the sunspot cycle, now says the sunspot cycle doesn't matter.And once again you have no concept of the internal shift in output.
