CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[otto105]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

Clip: The contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.


https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Clip: The globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Clip: This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.


More where that came from if you care to see more...and those are only from 2018...

Then explain this correllation.

So the no correllation is that damned water vapor....LOL

 

[Confounding]

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Got any links?

And you think that's enough to say climate scientists the world over aren't credible?

You are really unaware of climate gate and climate gate II? Really?

Is this deliberate, or just due to the fact that you can't bear to see what sort of people are really running climate science?

I want you to show me links to what should convince me to not take the scientific community seriously. I've heard all this before, obviously. I simply think your position is preposterous.

 

[Confounding]

Global Warming With the Lid Off

These are the men at the forefront of the fakery!....It's GIGO.

And every scientific institution on Earth has been infiltrated by these fakers, aye?

 

[Oddball]

Global Warming's Latest Enemy: The "Harry Read Me" File | Habledash

 

[Confounding]

This is a waste of energy.

 

[Oddball]

I want you to show me links to what should convince me to not take the scientific community seriously. I've heard all this before, obviously. I simply think your position is preposterous.

I'm convinced that there's no proof you'd accept.....I've already showed you that here are significant and key pieces of scientific method entirely missing from the hypothesis, only to have you completely ignore the fact.

Your mind is made up and you're going to go through every intellectual contortion, and invoke every available logical fallacy, in order to support your cognitive dissonance.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

Where did you get that pile of BS? Dr Roy Spencer worked with both NOAA and NASA scientists to build that graph... Karl Et Al was the result of trying to cover up that massive failure..

 

[otto105]

scam artists and liars

I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.

Apparently, you never saw the East Anglia e-mails, where they openly conspired to blackball skeptics, ignore FOIA requests, and bemoaned that they couldn't account for a lack of warming....You also appear to have missed the "Harry read me" file, where the fudging of the numbers by the warmer "scientists" was laid bare.

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Your lies about the Easy Anglia emails have been debunked long ago. Your lame attempt to cite them for anything is laughable.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a waste of energy.

I see you have chosen to go with the deception and not the facts presented...

Enjoy...

 

[Oddball]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

Clip: The contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.


https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Clip: The globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Clip: This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.


More where that came from if you care to see more...and those are only from 2018...

Then explain this correllation.

View attachment 249345


So the no correllation is that damned water vapor....LOL

Another logical fallacy....Correlation ≠ causation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

scam artists and liars

I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.

Apparently, you never saw the East Anglia e-mails, where they openly conspired to blackball skeptics, ignore FOIA requests, and bemoaned that they couldn't account for a lack of warming....You also appear to have missed the "Harry read me" file, where the fudging of the numbers by the warmer "scientists" was laid bare.

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Your lies about the Easy Anglia emails have been debunked long ago. Your lame attempt to cite them for anything is laughable.

Debunked?



Want to try another one? That one doesn't even merit an honorable mention... Let me guess your and avid reader of SKS.... The Climate Deception site..

 

[Oddball]

Your lies about the Easy Anglia emails have been debunked long ago. Your lame attempt to cite them for anything is laughable.

No, they weren't debunked....They were swept under the rug by the very people supporting the hoaxers.

It was like G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt "investigating" Watergate, and finding Nixon did nothing wrong.

 

[SSDD]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

Clip: The contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.


https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Clip: The globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Clip: This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.


More where that came from if you care to see more...and those are only from 2018...

Then explain this correllation.

View attachment 249345


So the no correllation is that damned water vapor....LOL

Not a terribly detailed graphic...and not from a published paper...you were pretty adamant about peer review.. When you look at the trends more closely, looking for correlation in shorter terms, you see that there is little correlation at all...

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission - IOPscience

Having established that correlational fluctuations between CO2 concentrations and global temperature should be detectable on a decadal scale (presuming that Ricke and Caldeira [2014] are correct), the CO2 and temperature record for the last 165 years can be considered — rooted in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assumption that temperature fluctuations should occur in direct response to CO2 concentration changes.

The IPCC routinely selects starting and ending points from the instrumental record to establish warming and cooling phases in their trend analysis. For example, the years 1998-2012 from IPCC AR5 (2013) are selectively used to analyze the recent “hiatus” in global warming, and the years 1910 to 1940 are selected in AR4 (2007) to denote the early 20th century warming (ETCW). In that same vein, the decadal-scale periods selectively considered for this analysis are:

1. 1850 – 1910
2. 1910 – 1940
3. 1940 – 1977
4. 1977 – 2001
5. 2001 – 2014

1. 1850 – 1910: -0.1°C Cooling with +15 ppm CO2

According to NASA*, between 1850 and 1910, CO2 concentrations rose from 285 ppm to 300 ppm. During this same 60-year period, global temperatures cooled by almost -0.1°C despite the +15 ppm increase in CO2 concentration.


2. 1910 – 1940: +0.45°C Warming with +11 ppm CO2

Between 1910 and 1940, CO2 concentrations rose from 300 ppm to 311 ppm, or by +11 ppm. Interestingly, anthropogenic CO2 emissions did not rise, but remained flat at 1 gigatons of carbon (GtC) per year during this period. Even so, in the 30 years between 1910 and 1940, global temperatures warmed by +0.45°C, or +0.15°C per decade.


3. 1940 – 1977: -0.1°C Cooling with +23 ppm CO2

Between 1940 and 1977, CO2 concentrations rose from 311 ppm to 334 ppm, or +23 ppm. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions dramatically rose from about 1 GtC per year in 1940 to about 5 GtC per year by the mid-1970s. During these 35+ years of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and anthropogenic CO2 emissions, global temperatures nonetheless cooled by almost -0.1°C.


4. 1977 – 2001: +0.35°C Warming with +37 ppm CO2

The first and only period in the last 165 years that there was actually a correlation between rapidly rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rapidly rising temperature was between the years 1977 and 2001. CO2 concentrations rose from 334 ppm to 371 ppm, or +37 ppm during this period. Temperatures rose by +0.35°C, or +0.15°C per decade — a similar warming rate when compared to the 1910 to 1940 trend.


5. 2001 – 2014: -0.04°C Cooling with +27 ppm CO2

Finally, between 2001 and 2014, CO2 concentrations rose from 371 ppm to 398 ppm, or by +27 ppm. During this same period, temperatures remained flat or even slightly cooled by a few hundredths of a degree, which meant that a substantial portion of the latest IPCC report (AR5, 2013) necessarily was devoted to explaining why the 21st century global warming “hiatus” had occurred.


Summarizing Question

Many Holocene temperature reconstructions show significant fluctuation in temperatures during the last 2,000 years (i.e., a Roman Warm Period, a Dark Ages cool period, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Little Ice Age cool period). However, CO2 concentrations remained stable at about 270 to 275 ppm throughout each warming and cooling epoch. For example, during the roughly 600 years between the as-warm or warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period and the beginning of the 20th century (the 1300 to 1900 A.D. Little Ice Age), temperatures plummeted to the coldest centennial-scale phase of the last 10,000 years. Yet CO2 concentrations not only did not decline along with the temperatures, they rose slightly during this period. This record necessarily extends the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature changes well beyond the last 165 years.

The summarizing question, then, is this:

If CO2 is a primary determinant of temperature (as the AGW theory proposes), and if the warming effects of CO2 emission reach their maximum impact within about a decade, why is the correlation between decadal-scale CO2 trends and decadal-scale temperature trends weak to non-existent for most (~85%) of the last 165 years, as well as completely non-existent for nearly all of the last 2,000 years?

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Does he think AGW isn't actually happening?

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate....but he has demonstrated that the climate models upon which almost all of climate science, and any "consensus" that exists at present are terribly flawed...

Feel free to debunk this then...

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Exceprt
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down."

Epic Failure..

CO2 lags temperature by 200-800 years... Its a follower not the cause..

 

[otto105]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

Clip: The contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.


https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Clip: The globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Clip: This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.


More where that came from if you care to see more...and those are only from 2018...

Then explain this correllation.

View attachment 249345


So the no correllation is that damned water vapor....LOL

Another logical fallacy....Correlation ≠ causation.

More of your opinions blown up.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

 

[Oddball]

More of your opinions blown up.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

The Vostok ice cores demonstrated that CO2 concentrations lag behind warming periods, instead of being a precursor or cause.

That's not my opinion.

 

[SSDD]

More of your opinions blown up.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

Interesting...in your first post you state specifically that you are interested in seeing peer reviewed literature, then you present an opinion piece from the new scientist and suggest that it busts gold standard (according to climate science) temperature reconstructions?

 

[otto105]

More of your opinions blown up.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

The Vostok ice cores demonstrated that CO2 concentrations lag behind warming periods, instead of being a precursor or cause.

That's not my opinion.

The ice cores don't prove correlation, so it is just opinion.

Initial warming
This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

 

[SSDD]

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Got any links?

And you think that's enough to say climate scientists the world over aren't credible?

You are really unaware of climate gate and climate gate II? Really?

Is this deliberate, or just due to the fact that you can't bear to see what sort of people are really running climate science?

I want you to show me links to what should convince me to not take the scientific community seriously. I've heard all this before, obviously. I simply think your position is preposterous.

The emails are out there to be read...and a whole new crop was just released from penn state by court order that can be read as well...I doubt that you will, or if you do, you will be an apologist for their behavior...they are, after all, according to you as pure as the wind driven snow, and unerring in their opinions and beliefs...and only have our best interests at heart...tell me, what brand of wax do they use on their halos?

 

[SSDD]

More of your opinions blown up.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

The Vostok ice cores demonstrated that CO2 concentrations lag behind warming periods, instead of being a precursor or cause.

That's not my opinion.

The ice cores don't prove correlation, so it is just opinion.

Initial warming
This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

that's from your opinion piece from the new scientist? Why did you say you wanted to see peer reviewed literature if you are going to rely on this sort of stuff?