6 ms·

There has been a correlation over the past ~10k years between solar activity and global temperatures. This non peer-reviewed book seems to spread the (false) me

There has been a correlation over the past ~10k years between solar activity and global temperatures. This non peer-reviewed book seems to spread the (false) message that this correlation still holds. However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. For the past ~10k years before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been almost constant at ~290 ppm. Therefore, the other drivers of climate change dominated. Now that CO2 is rising at unprecedented levels (see e.g. [1]), the other influencers of climatic change are no longer the driving forces. CO2 is the world's thermostat knob [2]. It is undeniable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

lliamander 7y ago
> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. From the book desription[1]: > For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models? It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...
- itcrowd 7y ago
  That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them. [1] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
  - darawk 7y ago
    The book is disputing that point. If you want to knock it down, you should be debunking the argument that it makes.
    - thaumaturgy 7y ago
      Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can do at home: https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr... There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can do at home: https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr.. https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr.... I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the point that needs debunking, if it isn't.
    - itcrowd 7y ago
      I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure? > Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2]. > No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015. Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again. > NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records. Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated. > Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable. I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real. > The past is the key to the future. ok? > Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes. Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804588600001X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm [3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
- jbay808 7y ago
  So why is Venus so warm?
austincheney 7y ago
Just to play devil's advocate, and I do agree with the climate research, the primary mechanism for global temperature is heat. There is one thing that I think could muddy the waters of historic variability: the history of geologic trends in correlation to expended heat versus CO2 emission. I think it does the challenges of climate science a disservice to use CO2 concentration as a simplified blank check. Before the industrial revolution the largest non-cyclical emission of CO2 was geological events. That is primarily volcanic eruptions, but not limited to that. Large geologic events expend a large amount of CO2 and heat in different ratios. For example an earthquake will expend more heat than CO2, especially compared to a volcano, and an underwater volcano will expend less CO2 into the atmosphere than a surface volcano. This is more complicated than it sounds because CO2 emission into the atmosphere isn't uniform due to sequestration factors by geography and chemical reactions from ocean chemistry. This is also complicated in that greater than 2/3s of the planet surface are oceans and water is the fastest and most efficient natural conductor of heat. I believe the current climate science indicates that mean ocean temperature is rising faster than mean atmospheric temperature, which could be due to a combination of various considerations. This by no means suggests that human activity isn't responsible for temperature rise in part or whole, but it could mean there are additional natural factors that human activity is exacerbating beyond CO2 concentration.

lliamander 7y ago

> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. From the book desription[1]: > For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models? It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...

itcrowd 7y ago
That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them. [1] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
- darawk 7y ago
  The book is disputing that point. If you want to knock it down, you should be debunking the argument that it makes.
  - thaumaturgy 7y ago
    Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can do at home: https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr... There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can do at home: https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr.. https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr.... I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the point that needs debunking, if it isn't.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure? > Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2]. > No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015. Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again. > NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records. Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated. > Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable. I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real. > The past is the key to the future. ok? > Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes. Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804588600001X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm [3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
jbay808 7y ago
So why is Venus so warm?

austincheney 7y ago

Just to play devil's advocate, and I do agree with the climate research, the primary mechanism for global temperature is heat. There is one thing that I think could muddy the waters of historic variability: the history of geologic trends in correlation to expended heat versus CO2 emission. I think it does the challenges of climate science a disservice to use CO2 concentration as a simplified blank check. Before the industrial revolution the largest non-cyclical emission of CO2 was geological events. That is primarily volcanic eruptions, but not limited to that. Large geologic events expend a large amount of CO2 and heat in different ratios. For example an earthquake will expend more heat than CO2, especially compared to a volcano, and an underwater volcano will expend less CO2 into the atmosphere than a surface volcano. This is more complicated than it sounds because CO2 emission into the atmosphere isn't uniform due to sequestration factors by geography and chemical reactions from ocean chemistry. This is also complicated in that greater than 2/3s of the planet surface are oceans and water is the fastest and most efficient natural conductor of heat. I believe the current climate science indicates that mean ocean temperature is rising faster than mean atmospheric temperature, which could be due to a combination of various considerations. This by no means suggests that human activity isn't responsible for temperature rise in part or whole, but it could mean there are additional natural factors that human activity is exacerbating beyond CO2 concentration.