More Empirical Evidence That Recent Climate Change Warming Is Not A Threat

[Billy_Bob]

What data?

It's been almost ten years now and Crick, even after being told multiple times and shown what that graph is, refuses to understand it.

 

[otto105]

Still yet to be presented is any scientific organization which backs post one...

Or that CO2 is mutually exclusive from Temperature.


When will this be presented?

 

[ding]

It seems that CO2 and Temperature are highly correlated.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. The phenomenon was the solubility of CO2 in water (oceans) versus temperature.

After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken.

 

[ding]

We have scientific consensus.


You have breitless and lord muckington.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[otto105]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. The phenomenon was the solubility of CO2 in water (oceans) versus temperature.

After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken.

View attachment 660427

No, no it hasn't.

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels

 

[ding]

When has 98% scientific consensus been wrong before?

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019). Many researchers have noted that the drive to speak with one voice has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

 

[otto105]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

No, just stop.

 

[otto105]

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019). Many researchers have noted that the drive to speak with one voice has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

Just more lies and oil funded "research" which isn't peer reviewed.

 

[ding]

No, no it hasn't.

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels

You can see it with your own eyes. The planet was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

No, just stop.

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

 

[otto105]

Still searching for first AGW denier who can present an actual scientific organization which backs their views.

 

[otto105]

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

Reviews and articles?

Seriously.

 

[ding]

Just more lies and oil funded "research" which isn't peer reviewed.

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism​

 

[otto105]

You can see it with your own eyes. The planet was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

View attachment 660430

Dude, you graph measures temp in thousands of years.

Just stop posting bullshit.

 

[ding]

Still searching for first AGW denier who can present an actual scientific organization which backs their views.

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

 

[otto105]

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism​

Yeah, because their wrong and they risk looking stupid.

 

[ding]

Dude, you graph measures temp in thousands of years.

Just stop posting bullshit.

The correlation between CO2 and temperature which existed before the industrial revolution is broken. You can literally see it in the data regardless what the time scale is.

Temperatures were 2C warmer and sea levels were 26 ft higher with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2.

 

[otto105]

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

Sun spots?

Dude, hard pass

 

[ding]

Yeah, because their wrong and they risk looking stupid.

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who believes in AGW would disagree with you.

"many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions" Claire Parkinson

 

[otto105]

The correlation between CO2 and temperature which existed before the industrial revolution is broken. You can literally see it in the data regardless what the time scale is.

Temperatures were 2C warmer and sea levels were 26 ft higher with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2.

View attachment 660432

Is John Enlander a climate scientist?