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.
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...
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...
1- climate change is an ongoing process. The climate is in a perpetual state of change.
2- the better question - is there any evidence that it isn’t always changing?
3- that is the undefined factor. Climate is affected by multitudes of factors. How much one factor is influencing change at any given time is unknown but widely speculated about.
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...
1- climate change is an ongoing process. The climate is in a perpetual state of change.
2- the better question - is there any evidence that it isn’t always changing?
3- that is the undefined factor. Climate is affected by multitudes of factors. How much one factor is influencing change at any given time is unknown but widely speculated about.
Nice looking Rio Grande in your avatar...what did he weigh? Sorry to be off topic...
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...
1- climate change is an ongoing process. The climate is in a perpetual state of change.
2- the better question - is there any evidence that it isn’t always changing?
3- that is the undefined factor. Climate is affected by multitudes of factors. How much one factor is influencing change at any given time is unknown but widely speculated about.
Nice looking Rio Grande in your avatar...what did he weigh? Sorry to be off topic...
Thank you! Actually it’s not Rio, it’s a Merriam’s. He was a very nice 26 lbs. I got him last spring near our cabin in Colorado.
Correlation does not imply causation.. Where is your proof that what you presented is in fact cause and affect? There is a far better match in Solar Output...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 correlation is that damned water vapor....LOL
Debunked?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.scam artists and liars
I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.
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.
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..
Correlation does not imply causation.. Where is your proof that what you presented is in fact cause and affect? There is a far better match in Solar Output...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 correlation is that damned water vapor....LOL
Temperature does in fact cause CO2 out-gasing. Warm water holds less CO2 and Cold water sucks up CO2. simply warming it will cause out-gasing. Biomass increases with warmth and reduces with cold again showing why CO2 rises and falls with temperature and always FOLLOWS the trend. It never drives it.Correlation does not imply causation.. Where is your proof that what you presented is in fact cause and affect? There is a far better match in Solar Output...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 correlation is that damned water vapor....LOL
Dude, you're claiming that temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, when clearly no scientist is claiming that.I have provided charts that show definite correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which is causing our current warming.
You have provided information that temperature may have rose before CO2 levels after Ice Ages. I correlation that ice core scientists can't explain.
Temperature does in fact cause CO2 out-gasing. Warm water holds less CO2 and Cold water sucks up CO2. simply warming it will cause out-gasing. Biomass increases with warmth and reduces with cold again showing why CO2 rises and falls with temperature and always FOLLOWS the trend. It never drives it.Correlation does not imply causation.. Where is your proof that what you presented is in fact cause and affect? There is a far better match in Solar Output...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 correlation is that damned water vapor....LOL
Dude, you're claiming that temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, when clearly no scientist is claiming that.I have provided charts that show definite correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which is causing our current warming.
You have provided information that temperature may have rose before CO2 levels after Ice Ages. I correlation that ice core scientists can't explain.
Your assertion that no scientist thinks this is dead wrong...
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova
Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures « JoNova
Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
Internal white wash... The same group of gate keepers that kept skeptic views from the mainstream are the same ones clearing those who were doing it. This is like making all of your friends, who were helping you commit the crimes, are now the ones investigating and clearing you... What could go wrong?Debunked?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.scam artists and liars
I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.
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.
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..
Nope, just all the governmental agencies and sceintific review of the data. All conclusions are that while some of the scientists may have been rude, it didn't change the data.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Let me explain something to you... We are overdue for a return to glaciation and there isn't a thing man can do to stop it when it starts. The paleo record shows quite clearly that CO2 levels DO NOT MATTER one iota. When it is time, the earth WILL return to glaciation and nothing man does or can do will stop it..Temperature does in fact cause CO2 out-gasing. Warm water holds less CO2 and Cold water sucks up CO2. simply warming it will cause out-gasing. Biomass increases with warmth and reduces with cold again showing why CO2 rises and falls with temperature and always FOLLOWS the trend. It never drives it.Correlation does not imply causation.. Where is your proof that what you presented is in fact cause and affect? There is a far better match in Solar Output...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 correlation is that damned water vapor....LOL
Dude, you're claiming that temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, when clearly no scientist is claiming that.I have provided charts that show definite correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which is causing our current warming.
You have provided information that temperature may have rose before CO2 levels after Ice Ages. I correlation that ice core scientists can't explain.
Your assertion that no scientist thinks this is dead wrong...
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova
Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures « JoNova
Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
First, this is her conclusion.
Conclusion:
1. Ice cores don’t prove what caused past warming or cooling. The simplest explanation is that when temperatures rise, more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere (because as oceans warm they release more CO2).
2. Something else is causing the warming.
Second, we currently are not coming out of an ice age. Humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 into our atmoshere and the planet is warming. So you're using apple to disprove an orange.
Internal white wash... The same group of gate keepers that kept skeptic views from the mainstream are the same ones clearing those who were doing it. This is like making all of your friends, who were helping you commit the crimes, are now the ones investigating and clearing you... What could go wrong?Debunked?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.I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.
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.
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..
Nope, just all the governmental agencies and sceintific review of the data. All conclusions are that while some of the scientists may have been rude, it didn't change the data.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Nope...Internal white wash... The same group of gate keepers that kept skeptic views from the mainstream are the same ones clearing those who were doing it. This is like making all of your friends, who were helping you commit the crimes, are now the ones investigating and clearing you... What could go wrong?Debunked?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.
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..
Nope, just all the governmental agencies and sceintific review of the data. All conclusions are that while some of the scientists may have been rude, it didn't change the data.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
The list is hardly a list of "friends" of AGW.
You sound like a parent who complains that all the refs hate his team.
Nope...Internal white wash... The same group of gate keepers that kept skeptic views from the mainstream are the same ones clearing those who were doing it. This is like making all of your friends, who were helping you commit the crimes, are now the ones investigating and clearing you... What could go wrong?Debunked?Your lies about the Easy Anglia emails have been debunked long ago. Your lame attempt to cite them for anything is laughable.
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..
Nope, just all the governmental agencies and sceintific review of the data. All conclusions are that while some of the scientists may have been rude, it didn't change the data.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
The list is hardly a list of "friends" of AGW.
You sound like a parent who complains that all the refs hate his team.
That's the sound of someone who see's ignorance and treats it like it needs to be treated..
The scientific consensus happened because individual scientists all came to a similar conclusion. You are very confused.
Dude, you're claiming that temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, when clearly no scientist is claiming that.I have provided charts that show definite correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which is causing our current warming.
Second, we currently are not coming out of an ice age. Humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 into our atmoshere and the planet is warming. So you're using apple to disprove an orange.
Internal white wash... The same group of gate keepers that kept skeptic views from the mainstream are the same ones clearing those who were doing it. This is like making all of your friends, who were helping you commit the crimes, are now the ones investigating and clearing you... What could go wrong?Debunked?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.
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..
Nope, just all the governmental agencies and sceintific review of the data. All conclusions are that while some of the scientists may have been rude, it didn't change the data.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
- A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
- Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
- A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
- The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
- The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
- Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
- Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
- An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
The list is hardly a list of "friends" of AGW.
You sound like a parent who complains that all the refs hate his team.
Dude, you're claiming that temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, when clearly no scientist is claiming that.I have provided charts that show definite correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which is causing our current warming.
Once more, you asked for peer reviewed rebuttals of your "correlation" chart, that isn't part of any peer reviewed work. That chart is from a blog and doesn't have any peer reviewed explanation attached.
If you are going to insist that the rebuttals to your claims be peer reviewed, you really should be presenting peer reviewed materials. I already provided some peer reviewed work which looked more closely at the data your chart supposedly demonstrated and found that the correlation simply was not there...no doubt there is the appearance of correlation, but upon close inspection, it just doesn't bear out. And even if it did, correlation does not equal causation...
Here is some peer reviewed science regarding the lag between temperature and CO2 increases...
From the AGUY
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053018
Clips: "During the last glacial period atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in Antarctica varied in a similar fashion on millennial time scales, but previous work indicates that these changes were gradual. In a detailed analysis of one event we now find that approximately half of the CO2increase that occurred during the 1500‐year cold period between Dansgaard‐Oeschger (DO) events 8 and 9 happened rapidly, over less than two centuries. This rise in CO2 was synchronous with, or slightly later than, a rapid increase of Antarctic temperature inferred from stable isotopes.”
"In a detailed analysis of one event we now find that approximately half of the CO2 increase that occurred during the 1500-year cold period between Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events 8 and 9 happened rapidly, over less than two centuries.”
The fact is that the research shows CO2 rising as a result of increased temperature. It is well known that cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans. When temperatures increase, the oceans warm and start to lose CO2. You can do a very easy experiment in your home right now with items that most of us have on hand to demonstrate this physical reality.
Grab yourself a couple of unopened sodas, open them and set one in your refrigerator and the other out on the counter. Have a taste of them tomorrow morning. The one sitting on the counter will be dead flat....having out gassed all of its CO2 as it warmed...the one in the refrigerator, will still have some fizz...not as much as when it was first opened, but because it hasn't warmed as much as the one on the counter, it will not have outgassed all of its CO2. The same principle works in the oceans which hold a great deal of CO2 during cold glacial periods...they release a great deal of that CO2 during warm interglacial periods.
Here is some more peer reviewed research on the lag..
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000094
Clip: CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.
› View larger
› View larger
