What has caused our global warming?

[elektra]

No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.

The Sun is right. It is the only source of heat in our Solar System.

 

[Abraham3]

Really? Combustion produces no heat? Nuclear fission produces no heat? I'll try to remember that.

However, your point is moot. We aren't talking about the creation of heat. We're talking about the average temperature of the planet Earth. That value is increasing and it is doing so because of increasing levels of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those levels are increasing because of human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and the loss of sinks from deforestation. The forcing factor due to fluctuations in solar output has been trivial for centuries.

 

[Decus]

Man-made climate change, warming, whatever-you-want-to-call-it has been around for sometime if you believe stories like this:

"By using data from tree rings of Siberian pines, researchers found an unusually warm and wet period between A.D. 1211 and 1225, corresponding with Genghis Khan's horse-driven invasion."

Warm, Wet Climate Likely Helped Genghis Khan Conquer the World | LiveScience

.

 

[Abraham3]

And your point would be...?

 

[elektra]

Man-made climate change, warming, whatever-you-want-to-call-it has been around for sometime if you believe stories like this:

"By using data from tree rings of Siberian pines, researchers found an unusually warm and wet period between A.D. 1211 and 1225, corresponding with Genghis Khan's horse-driven invasion."

Warm, Wet Climate Likely Helped Genghis Khan Conquer the World | LiveScience

.

wow, Scientists destroyed CO2 eating, 2,000 year old trees to invent a theory of how CO2 is causing the earth to warm?

 

[flacaltenn]

No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.

PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.

Those brilliant M'F'ers who are just now discovering thermal equilibrium delays of up to 100 years say that all that additional solar influx can't be SIGNIFICANT??

No -- I'm sure you were mislead by all those FAULTY IPCC gimmicks used to HIDE what TSI from the sun has done to the climate in the past 300 years.. Because you cannot say given the recent "discoveries" about the pause -- that the SUN cannot be a factor.. It is at a relative 200 year HIGH in insolation.. And just because you've been brainwashed to expect that the warming curve and the forcing curve should be IDENTICAL --- There's not a probability of the EVER BEING A REQUIREMENT foir the complex climate system.

Your credibility as an observer is also questionable. Cause it's YOU that can't read graph Chief.. The new baseline is LOWER for the Maunder Min.. But the TOP END is a smidge HIGHER and closer to 1362.0 ---- You're busted again.. And Again.. And Again....

 

[flacaltenn]

You were fooled by a simple change in the vertical scaling of a graph..
No telling how easy it would be for a Professional scientist or engineer to mislead you with their
Authority and status.. Even a former cartoonist with a skepticalscience website could probably own
your mind..

 

[SSDD]

You were fooled by a simple change in the vertical scaling of a graph..
No telling how easy it would be for a Professional scientist or engineer to mislead you with their
Authority and status.. Even a former cartoonist with a skepticalscience website could probably own
your mind..

Probably?

 

[mamooth]

Those brilliant M'F'ers who are just now discovering thermal equilibrium delays of up to 100 years say that all that additional solar influx can't be SIGNIFICANT??

That's your new kook conspiracy theory? Energy magically hiding for 100 years?

But then, given how hard all of your science has failed in the past, I guess you may as well try waving your hands around and invoking magic. You can't do any worse.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The warmers been talking about equilibrium and it will taking time to meet a new balance for decades. Why this is a surprise is anyone's guess.

This is why they predict even if we stopped right now pumping the crap into the atmosphere = another .6-.8 of warming. This is without the effects that they say will become clear later on adding even more to this.

This is what they say.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought the Pacific Ocean ate all the "Global Warming"?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I thought the Pacific Ocean ate all the "Global Warming"?

Some warmers do believe this and some believe the aerosol theory. Me,,,I believe the aerosol theory and the reality that we're in a more negative pdo. More of a short term thing if it has anything to do with the ocean at all.

 

[asterism]

Why doesn't the graph go to 2014?

 

[Mr. H.]

A thread with "Global Warming" in the title, but "Climate Change" in the body.

Which the fuck is it?

Who the fuck cares? I REALLY hope you have more of an argument than that.

Precisely. There is no need to care, as the terminology morphs to reflect the agenda.

 

[Mr. H.]

Coal-fired electric generating plants can be constructed to best-mitigation standards.

What "best mitigation standards"? Show us proof that a coal fired plant can be built with zero GHG output.

Fuck... that... mother... fucker.

Your past comments would indicate that you likely have a poor opinion of President Obama that has nothing to do with his actions or goals if office, his political positions or his record. Your past comments would indicate that ANY criticism you voice towards the president has a great deal more to do with the color of his skin than anything else. If I were you, I'd simply stop making them as everyone here simply assumes they are the product of your bigotry.

And I still want to see the proof.

There are precisely ZERO energy-generation systems that have ZERO GHG output. You know this. Don't be so ignorant.

I'm far from bigoted, yet nearer to the notion of reality than are you or any other of your Liberal ilk.

I'd like proof that so-called "renewable" and "green" energy initiatives have zero GHG output.

Put out, or shut up.

 

[Mr. H.]

PS - you're damned right I hate Obama. For what he is, not for his outward physical appearance.

I was tutored by my father at a very early age as to the judgment of character. He simply pointed to his head and then to his heart, saying "this is where it's at".

 

[Abraham3]

PS - you're damned right I hate Obama. For what he is, not for his outward physical appearance.

I was tutored by my father at a very early age as to the judgment of character. He simply pointed to his head and then to his heart, saying "this is where it's at".

Given your comments about Trayvon Martin, I find it very difficult to believe you listened to your father or that your hostility towards the president has no racial component. What "IS" the president?

Coal-fired electric generating plants can be constructed to best-mitigation standards.

What "best mitigation standards"? Show us proof that a coal fired plant can be built with zero GHG output.

I'm still wondering what "best mitigation standards might be.

Fuck... that... mother... fucker.

Your past comments would indicate that you likely have a poor opinion of President Obama that has nothing to do with his actions or goals in office, his political positions or his record. Your past comments would indicate that ANY criticism you voice towards the president has a great deal more to do with the color of his skin than anything else. If I were you, I'd simply stop making them as everyone here simply assumes they are the product of your bigotry.

And I still want to see the proof.

There are precisely ZERO energy-generation systems that have ZERO GHG output. You know this. Don't be so ignorant.

I'm far from bigoted, yet nearer to the notion of reality than are you or any other of your Liberal ilk.

I'd like proof that so-called "renewable" and "green" energy initiatives have zero GHG output.

Put out, or shut up.

Obviously, the carbon output per kilowatt is orders of magnitude lower for any of the alternative sources that have been discussed here than for any power plant using fossil fuel. I have never explicitly claimed any of them had zero carbon output but your charge that they do is absurd nit-picking. If I build a coal fired plant that does not meet the total demands of the population it's intended to serve, I do not charge that it is responsible for the output of the capacity that must be added to make up the shortfall. Meeting a given energy demand with a system that uses a carbon-free source as a primary and, say, gas as a secondary source, still produces a dramatic reduction in GHG emissions compared to meeting the entire demand with fossil fuels. Given that you reject any value assigned to reducing GHG emissions, your arguments about the cost and value of using alternative fuels build on a foundation we do not share.

 

[Mr. H.]

Give it a break, idiot.

 

[jc456]

Ever looked up to see that big, warm, yellow thingamajig in the daytime sky?

I hear it told that it is 99.5% of the total mass of the entire solar system.

When it changes, we change.

Tell me, do you like displaying your ignorance publically? The TSI has been declining as of late, but we are still warming.

Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23

Abstract
We study the mutual relation of sunspot numbers and several proxies of solar UV/EUV radiation, such as the F10.7 radio flux, the HeI 1083 nm equivalent width and the solar MgII core-to-wing ratio. It has been noted earlier that the relation between these solar activity parameters changed in 2001/2002, during a large enhancement of solar activity in the early declining phase of solar cycle 23. This enhancement (the secondary peak after the Gnevyshev gap) forms the maximum of solar UV/EUV parameters during solar cycle 23. We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time. We have also verified this evolution using the indirect solar UV/EUV proxy given by a globally averaged f0(F2) frequency of the ionospheric F2 layer. We also note of a simultaneous, systematic change in the relation between the sunspot numbers and the total solar irradiance, which follow an exceptionally steep relation leading to a new minimum. Our results suggest that the reduction of sunspot magnetic fields (probably photospheric fields in general), started quite abruptly in 2001/2002. While these changes do not similarly affect the chromospheric UV/EUV emissions, the TSI suffers an even more dramatic reduction, which cannot be understood in terms of the photospheric field reduction only. However, the changes in TSI are seen to be simultaneous to those in sunspots, so most likely being due to the same ultimate cause.

So, while the TSI, total solar irradiance is declining, we get 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. So the sun is not a factor in the increasing heat here on earth. And since that heat is controlled by two factors, how much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy we retain, something has changed in the way we retain heat. And that is the amount of heat retaining gases in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4, and a bunch of industrial gases which have no natural analog. Some of which are thousands of times as effective GHGs as CO2.

Says who? Who says the earth is warming today? It has been on a 15 year haitus. You must have missed that one. that's ok you're forgiven.

 

[PredFan]

Assuming it is happening: "What has caused our global warming?"

The sun.

End of lesson.