Global Warming

[TGM]

CO2 does not warm the climate? Well that's not news, what CO2 does is to trap the warmth from elsewhere (ie: the Sun). Without the CO2 to trap the warmth the Earth would be too cold to inhabit. But, if we increase the concentration of CO2 it traps more heat and the planet warms. Quite simple for most of us.

Now, I am truly impressed by the above exchange from the dinosaurs amongst us, on the one hand we have frickenal stating:



But on the other hand we have TGM stating:



So which is the correct line from the denialsphere these days? I don't know, I don't take much notice of their rubbish.

The reality is that the Sun is not warming and here's a little demonstration of the problem with the arguments put forward to claim that the Sun is the cause of observed warming:

Aah, but now we have a claim that there is no warming, geez, I thought we left that crap behind years ago, here's the actual observations:

Here's temperature compared to solar activity:

Here's what it looks like for planet Earth:

It often isn't referred to as Global Warming any more, it is referred to as Global Heating. Extremes such as a temperature of 40C in the UK, floods in Pakistan, etc are now being shown to be more common and more extreme as a result of Global Heating.

Stick your heads in the sand if you like and go play on the denial sites, but the reality is that the science is conclusive - observed changes in the climate are being caused by human activity, specifically human activity which is altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere in particular the burning of fossil fuels.

Personally I'll trust the scientists on this, you know, the folk who have been researching these things for decades.

DS

You do realise that the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is .04%? It must be mighty powerful... How do you explain the earth being 2 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs were around?

 

[larabee]

You do realise that the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is .04%? It must be mighty powerful... How do you explain the earth being 2 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs were around?

I’ll have a guess. Humans?

 

[TGM]

I’ll have a guess. Humans?

Yes there were a lot of cars and planes around 200 million years ago

 

[larabee]

Yes there were a lot of cars and planes around 200 million years ago

Sorry, I misread your post and was being a bit flippant.

Was it space aliens?

 

[RoarEmotion]

You do realise that the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is .04%? It must be mighty powerful... How do you explain the earth being 2 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs were around?

I’m not a climate scientist and I’m sure there a myriad of things different about the earth including the location of the continents that long ago.

But it seems to correlate with 5-10 times higher levels of co2 in the atmosphere than now.

CO2 Dip May Have Helped Dinosaurs Walk From South America to Greenland

A new study identifies a climate phenomenon that may have helped sauropodomorphs spread northward across the Pangea supercontinent.

news.climate.columbia.edu

 

[DavidSSS]

You do realise that the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is .04%? It must be mighty powerful... How do you explain the earth being 2 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs were around?

You do realise that the lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the less we need to pump into the atmosphere to make a difference?

Geez, talk about make my argument for me. If CO2 was 20% of the atmosphere we would need half a dozen planets worth of fossil fuel belching cars, power stations, planes etc to make a difference. But at 0.04% we can screw up the atmosphere without breaking a sweat.

Yes, it was warmer when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was also a lot higher (see the connection there, or do I have to spell it out?). Before you suggest that the current rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not caused by humans, go and check the research on the isotopes found in the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, we know the extra CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels.

The whole idea that we can pump billions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without it having any impact is the height of hubris, the Earth's atmosphere is not our dumping ground.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Angry Ant, that comment isn't so easy to laugh at, and far harder to just explain away.

The sun is the sole source of energy on earth other than the miniscule amount of energy that is derived from heat inside the core of the earth. How it gets pushed aside as a key driver of climate is really something i find personally staggering.

Here is something to consider when you look up at the sun.

It contributes 1,367 watts per square metre continuously on the upper atmosphere. That figure is taken from satellite measurements.

CO2 on the other hand has contributed 2 watts per sq metre in total, not continuously, but in the history of the earth.


We know that solar output has increased over the 20th century, but for whatever reason, there is disagreement as to how much, if any effect there is on the earth's climate. These disagreements mainly stem from the fact that the data is coming from proxy records.

To solve this, they turned their attention to satellite records. We had precise measurements from TSI records from 1978 from satellites carrying the ACRIM system, so it was possible to try to establish some sort of correlation or otherwise. The problem is that there is a gap in the records caused by the halt in the space program from the space shuttle disaster. These satellites need to be periodically replaced, with an overlap of date and cross calibration, if that makes any sense. By the time the new ACRIM system was launched, the old one had been offline from 1989 to 1991.

The only way to fill this data gap was to use a different monitor called ERB, which wasn't really designed for this purpose. Regardless of this, at least it was something they could work with. Richard Wilson of Columbia University used this data along with other sources to reconstruct the missing period. The thing about ERB was that, like ACRIM it was also launched in 1978 so it was possible to align the two data sets from both systems and work into the gap period.

The complete data from 1980 along with the reconstructed data filling the gap showed an increase in solar output through the 80's and tailing off at the end of the decade, which corresponds perfectly with the increase in earth temperature.

The alarmists didn't like this result at all, so a different team led by Claus Frolich and Judith Lean produced a new reconstruction from the same data, which hey presto, showed a steady decline from 1980. Interestingly, when interviewed in later years, these same authors mentioned their motivation to disprove the earlier re-modeling as they were concerned it would be used by 'sceptics' to disprove the whole CO2 theory. (so much for just letting the data lead the theory instead of vice versa).

So the pertinent question is, how did the second group led by Claus Frolich and Judith Lean come up with such a different result. Well according to them, one of the sensors on the ERB system had become faulty and had become more sensitive and was giving incorrect readings. So they obviously made corrections to this data to cancel out the incorrect data coming from ERB.

But was their a fault from the sensor?

In 2008, Nicola Scaffeta, a co author of the first study by Richard Wilson wrote directly to the scientist Dr Douglas Hoyt who was in charge of the ERB satellite mission and got this response by email.

Quote:
Dear Dr. Scafetta:

Concerning the supposed increase in Nimbus7 sensitivity at the end of September 1989 and other matters as proposed by Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite:

1. There is no known physical change in the electrically calibrated Nimbus7 radiometer or its electronics that could have caused it to become more sensitive. At least neither Lee Kyle nor I could never imagine how such a thing could happen and no one else has ever come up with a physical theory for the instrument that could cause it to become more sensitive.

2. The Nimbus7 radiometer was calibrated electrically every 12 days. The calibrations before and after the September shutdown gave no indication of any change in the sensitivity of the radiometer. Thus, when Bob Lee of the ERBS team originally claimed there was a change in Nimbus7 sensitivity, we examined the issue and concluded there was no internal evidence in the Nimbus7 records to warrant the correction that he was proposing. Since the result was a null one, no publication was thought necessary.

3. Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer.

4. The correction of the Nimbus7 TSI values for 1979-1980 proposed by Frohlich is also puzzling. The raw data was run through the same algorithm for these early years and the subsequent years and there is no justification for Frohlich’s adjustment in my opinion.

Sincerely,

Douglas Hoyt

End Quote

And this is the whole problem with "Climate Science"!

As soon as the dollars run up the stairs, the science jumps out the window unfortunately.

One thing that really gets up my geezer with the EU, which basically operates out of Brussells is the lectures we get fro mthem, but the manner in which they manipulate their data.

Germany's emissions have gone up since the green transition, yet they are praised as a model of green energy efficiency.

A German delegation laughed at Trump when he warned them of their reliance on Russian energy. Now the last people laughing is the German population as they try to find wood to heat their homes. Heading into winter, Germany along with much of Europe is in dire straits finding enough energy to keep the lights on, and to keep heavy industry running. The German GDP is predicted to contract by as much as 10% in the next few months as heavy industry is forced to run on far reduced capacity. I won't even get into what that is likely to do for our inflation numbers, bearingin mind that the EUD will decrease as a result so any imports will cost more, thats if they can even supply them.

This is forcing Germany to burn even more coal, and the coal they use is called lignite which is 20% water by weight, so it is way worse than our coal and very inefficient.

But the damning thing from Germany, this country who is lecturing us, is the sleight of hand they use with their co2 emission figures. When the sun is shining, and the wind blowing, they unplug the energy being produced by these coal fired plants, and then don't count the co2 even though the plants are still running. They then start counting the co2 when the sun goes down and they plug the coal energy back in.

We have our energy future playing out in Europe right in front of us, yet like lemmings, we bowl along on this green trajectory with no real plan as to how we will keep our own lights on in 8 years.

So you are saying heat and light comes from the sun?

 

[frickenel]

So you are saying heat and light comes from the sun?

Yes apparently it does, unless that's now against the narrative as well?

 

[Willo]

So you are saying heat and light comes from the sun?

Preposterous idea. Next you’ll be trying to convince people the world is a sphere.
Ya mad bastard

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes apparently it does, unless that's now against the narrative as well?

Thank Dog we got that sorted out first

 

[AngryAnt]

Preposterous idea. Next you’ll be trying to convince people the world is a sphere.
Ya mad bastard

Frickenel is the astrophysicist here, direct any questions on your so-called "globes" to him if you don't mind.

 

[frickenel]

Frickenel is the astrophysicist here, direct any questions on your so-called "globes" to him if you

Frickenel is the astrophysicist here, direct any questions on your so-called "globes" to him if you don't mind.

Well you certainly ain't.

I present facts and read your responses. But I guess that's the way the left rolls.

I guess I shouldn't be having intellectual jousts with someone who for all.intense purposes is un-armed.

 

[AngryAnt]

CO2 on the other hand has contributed 2 watts per sq metre in total, not continuously, but in the history of the earth.

All due respect Frickers but as soon as I read this I nearly wet my pants with hysterical laughter.

 

[TGM]

All due respect Frickers but as soon as I read this I nearly wet my pants with hysterical laughter.

Classic left response mate ridicule rather than present facts to back up your argument

 

[TGM]

You do realise that the lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the less we need to pump into the atmosphere to make a difference?

Geez, talk about make my argument for me. If CO2 was 20% of the atmosphere we would need half a dozen planets worth of fossil fuel belching cars, power stations, planes etc to make a difference. But at 0.04% we can screw up the atmosphere without breaking a sweat.

Yes, it was warmer when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was also a lot higher (see the connection there, or do I have to spell it out?). Before you suggest that the current rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not caused by humans, go and check the research on the isotopes found in the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, we know the extra CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels.

The whole idea that we can pump billions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without it having any impact is the height of hubris, the Earth's atmosphere is not our dumping ground.

DS

Very simplistic view mate. My thinking is that how can co2 in such a small percentage of the atmosphere have such a big impact on climate?
It doesn't make much sense to me that the rest of the 99.96% has less impact on climate than the .04%. Then there is the sun, clouds and sea currents as well.
If you actually read real science on climate change you will find that higher co2 follows higher temperatures not the other way around. Ie. Temperature warms over decades, co2 rises after that. Temps fall over decades, co2 falls etc
Look up Dr Patrick Moore, he was one of the founders of Greenpeace or Dr William Happer from Princeton to see what actual experts think.

 

[DavidSSS]

I'll rely on current scientists thanks, emeritus prof means retired.

Plus, we all know he was exposed by Greenpeace as a mouth for hire and was a Trump aid. Oh, and he also argued CFCs weren't causing a hole in the ozone layer.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a major effect, it isn't some impression, it is what the scientists have found. You can't deny the Greenhouse effect, we know it exists and we know that life on this planet would not be possible without it. Try living on Mars and see how you go, or maybe Venus with its atmosphere locking in massive heat. If you mess with the concentrations of different gasses in the atmosphere it does have an impact. Small concentrations can have big impacts, 1.5 milligrammes of cyanide per Kg is enough to kill a human, gee, how can that be the case, such a small concentration (0.00015% if you want to know).

Your thinking is based on nothing, just supposition. You need to actually look at the science from credible sources, I'd suggest start with NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/ After all, they concluded that global warming is happening, predicted what the likely change in temperature would be and were within 1/20 of a degree, see https://www.universetoday.com/14232...y-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/ You really don't want to look at how the deniers' predictions have worked out, woeful.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

Very simplistic view mate. My thinking is that how can co2 in such a small percentage of the atmosphere have such a big impact on climate?

It looks like you work for a natural products company. How can a small percentage of heavy metals (Hg, Pb etc) or other toxins in your blood have such an effect on your health?

It’s not always size that matters and more what the system does with it.

The logic line you are running is meaningless. Sometimes very small things can have very big effects and sometimes they don’t.

 

[Redford]

Tell you what, I dunno much about climate change, but one thing I do know is that I am sick to the back teeth of all this **** rain in Melbourne. Hasn’t stopped for 5 months. Doing my head in. Will rain flat out again later today and then continue the entire weekend ….again.

For the experts, what the hell is causing this ongoing drenching ? And what’s this I hear about Spring and Summer being a continuation of all this rain ? Will it bring **** hailstones with it over the warmer months ? Great.

Really starting to do some damage. Parks, gardens, roads, footy fields, golf courses, housing damage etc.

I need answers from all you Jane Bun’s dammit !!

 

[frickenel]

All due respect Frickers but as soon as I read this I nearly wet my pants with hysterical laughter

Putting your laundry issue aside, which is a problem all of it's own, its a fact.
The doomsdayers rely on a whole lot of feedback mechanisms to predict all of their disasters that never happen. Yet they say that the difference in solar feedback during high activity isn't enough to make a difference ie they don't talk about feedback mechanisms in this case, only the Co2 case which as pointed out in the previos post, is so rediculously negligable that it's a joke.

You also have to bear in mind that man's contribution to Co2 is absolutely sweet FA on thescheme of things, it's just that somehow our Co2 makes all the difference.

Did you know that termites alone contribute more Co2 to the atmosphere than every other creature on the planet combined, including man.
Hell, your tag "AngrAny" even promotes these climate wreckers. If you wantto do something about the climate, maybe you should head up into the NT and kick kick over all he termite mounds. You could leave at least one standing to drape your wet undies over to dry if you like, but it might doom the planet.

 

[DavidSSS]

Tell you what, I dunno much about climate change, but one thing I do know is that I am sick to the back teeth of all this **** rain in Melbourne. Hasn’t stopped for 5 months. Doing my head in. Will rain flat out again later today and then continue the entire weekend ….again.

For the experts, what the hell is causing this ongoing drenching ? And what’s this I hear about Spring and Summer being a continuation of all this rain ? Will it bring **** hailstones with it over the warmer months ? Great.

Really starting to do some damage. Parks, gardens, roads, footy fields, golf courses, housing damage etc.

I need answers from all you Jane Bun’s dammit !!

The higher rainfall is La Nina, although you likely know this already.

Of course, it is often a matter of perception too. With climate change we have got used to higher temperatures and rainfall has been lower than average for a lot of years so we don't expect so much rain.

In Melbourne we've seen:
January well above average.
February virtually no rain, way below average.
March well above average
April double the usual average
May just below the average
June well above average
July just above the average
August well above average
September we are only about a quarter of the way through but so far looking drier than usual.

2022 looks like it will be an above average year for rainfall.

Temperature is not dissimilar, only Feb and April have been below the long term average for max temp, the rest of the months have been above average, in a La Nina year. Minimum temperatures have been above average for every month of 2022. The temperature data is also based on a long term average, much of which comes from the old weather station in the city. Since the urban heat island effect is well known, the weather station was relocated to Olympic Park a few years ago and we would expect that the temperature observations at Olympic Park would be slightly lower than for the old station in the city, so higher temperatures recorded now for Melbourne are a real indication that the impact of global warming in Melbourne has been to raise temperatures.

DS