6 ms·

> Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. > F

> Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Citation needed. Furthermore, if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics, there's a Nobel waiting for you. > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. > Speculative: Some people believe the data has been manipulated I challenge you to find a single temperature reading, longitude, lattitude, altitude and timestamp, and tell me when it was manipulated.

EdSharkey 7y ago
> > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently > Citation needed. Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"? I think it's interesting that solar energy and magnetic fields and cosmic energy fluctuates from year to year. I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool. This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. I'm happy to see such obvious rigging of the game on display here and that folks are thinking about that.
- Matumio 7y ago
  Solar activity may be rising (but I think it's falling actually?), and yes has had an impact in the past, and yes we don't know how large exactly. Does this mean we cannot make any valid predictions until we know it to the last digit? This of course depends on how large the uncertainty of its effect is, compared to other effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    You cite a lot of uncertainty about Solar activity! Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)
    - Matumio 7y ago
      Surely we have historical data to validate models with?! I'm no expert, but this all sounds very plausible to me. Some parts are even basic physics, like reflection and black-body radiation, which I'm pretty sure we have nailed down exactly by now. Other parts are uncertain: simplifications of topology, chaotic processes, methane content of melting grounds, etc. The model allows to answer "what-if" questions, and the uncertainty of the answer also depends on the question. Would the temperature rise if earth's atmosphere suddenly had the composition on Venus? Hell yes, we can predict that with high confidence, without ever trying it for real. Can we predict the gusts of wind caused by this, the global heat distribution, the exact timing? Probably not, at least it's not plausible to me that we could model every effect that matters for such a detailed prediction. But does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Or would you argue that it is more plausible that most scientists are corrupt and follow someone's agenda, and have discarded the idea of doing honest science which they must have had when starting?
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        > does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Yes, it does sound unbelievable because CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and water vapor is approximately 2.5% of the atmosphere while also being the strong greenhouse gas. It's a giant fraud used a political tool for the brainwashed masses.
      - EdSharkey 7y ago
- breakyerself 7y ago
  The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consistent with greenhouse gasses not allowing heat to escape to the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Solar forcing would warm all levels of the atmosphere not just the bottom. Also night time temps are increasing faster than day time temps. This is the opposite of what you would get with solar forcing. Basically bringing up solar as an alternative hypothesis betrays that you do not have the requisite understanding to attempt overturning an entire field of science. Don't feel bad most of us don't.
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock. I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun. And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.
    - breakyerself 7y ago
      Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. There is no evidence that it is. Literally everything else you said here is just politics.
      - EdSharkey 7y ago
        > isn't driving warming I never said anything about warming, that’s your line. I said, "I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool." Also, we’ve long moved onto “Climate Change”, even though all the models still predict warming. > Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. You seem so sure, and that has me questioning my position. People seem to like to quote Wikipedia here, so I DDG'd for a few seconds with the !wiki thing. Here's what came up. I may need to throw some bucks in the Wikipedia fundraising kettle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate Says here after all of the prehistoric climate change hypothesized to be tied to solar output: > The link between recent solar activity and climate has been quantified and is not a major driver of the warming that has occurred since early in the twentieth century. Maybe you’re right! Let’s keep reading. > Human-induced forcings are needed to reproduce the late-20th century warming. I thought I was busted, except in the very next sentence … > Some studies associate solar cycle-driven irradiation increases with part of twentieth century warming. So solar cycle-driven irradiation CAN correlate with temperature change. And in fact, if you read the whole article you can see regular admissions there’s a lot we don’t understand and the sun is a contributing factor in varying temperatures.
- imtringued 7y ago
  >This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. What? No it makes you feel like the whole thing is pointless because people aren't even willing to take moderate action. If we drop everything and only focus on climate change we won't drop the temperature that much. 25% of the predicted warming has already been locked in. That's a massive loss and it won't be possible to do anything about it.
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    Argh, does this web app really engender such feelings of hopelessness in you or is this an act? I'm sorry either way. Don't believe the hype! The +1C is a lie, propaganda. ;(
linuxftw 7y ago
> The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. This is not a fact, this is a theory. This is common in 'science' that scientists believing something 'should be happening' and then attempt to pencil in details after-the-fact to explain something that doesn't fit their preconceived model. > Citation needed. From [1]: > Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If you heat something, it's going to get gradually hotter. If you increase the amount of energy you use to heat it, it's going to get hotter still. If the average temperature goes about X naturally, which in turn causes increased water vapor, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect, then we have a positive feedback loop that was started by natural forces. > if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics How does one even make such a measurement? Are we talking about just the atmosphere? Or just the ocean? Or the ice masses? Or the land masses? In any case, imagine a space heater in a room. The heater will be hot, the rest of the room relatively cooler. The cooler parts of the room are going to accept the heat faster than the warmer parts of the room. Why should the planet be any different? > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. Show me the historic atmospheric H2O levels. You can't dismiss water vapor without data showing that it was less in the past. You can see NASA wants to talk about water vapor at [2]. Unfortunately, they still make the climate-leap-of-faith that CO2 causes the original warming, rather than the obvious fact that the increase of water vapor itself causes the warming. You can remove CO2 entirely from the equation, increased water vapor will create positive feedback. > I challenge you to find a single temperature reading, longitude, lattitude, altitude and timestamp, and tell me when it was manipulated. See [3]. If agencies are going revising past temperatures in new data sets, one can argue that's manipulation. Some will argue that this 'adjustment' is prudent and necessary. Others argue that it's not. There's an abundance of evidence on both sides of this particular issue. Now, you probably won't like the source of that information, and I'm sure it's all been 'debunked,' but the other side can say the exact same thing. 1: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ 2: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm... 3: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-b...
marcosdumay 7y ago
> > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. The GP is using a non-sequitur, taking a correct fact to support a falsehood. That water vapor comes down as rain does not make it any less important as a greenhouse gas. What the GP does not say is that the amount of water vapor on the atmosphere is roughly proportional to the temperature, so it's only participation is in increasing the effects of the other gasses we emit directly.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > so it's only participation is in increasing the effects of the other gasses we emit directly This is the falsehood perpetuated by the CO2-based warming position. The earth was already warming. The earth has continue to warm since the end of the last ice age. This created increased water vapor, the most impactful greenhouse gas. If there is a positive feedback cycle due to greenhouse gases, it's assuredly due to water vapor.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    The earth has both warmed and cooled since the end of the ice age 10,000 years. You don't give a mechanism for this warming you seem to just chalk it up to the natural cycles that drive ice age related warming and cooling. It's just we know what causes those and we've ruled it out. Milankovitch cycles. The periodic variability in earth's orbit should have us cooling ever so slightly. Instead we are warming rapidly. Your claim that this is the same warming as what brought us out of the ice age is false and has been known to be false for a long time
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      > The earth has both warmed and cooled since the end of the ice age 10,000 years. No, it has only warmed, otherwise we'd be in another ice age. > The periodic variability in earth's orbit should have us cooling ever so slightly That is only a single input. The other input is solar activity, which has increased. Also, if there is indeed a positive feedback loop, after the earth reaches X degrees, then water vapor will continue to increase the earth's temperature absent a reduction in solar input large enough to stop the loop. > same warming as what brought us out of the ice age is false and has been known to be false for a long time It's not known to be false, that's just nonsense. Look how hot it used to be: (from [1]) > Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature. Crocodiles above the Arctic Circle! But keep telling me how CO2 is going to cause the planet to combust. 1: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
efa 7y ago
> Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying water vapor is not a significant greenhouse gas? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes https://climate.nasa.gov/causes lists it as the most abundant greenhouse gas.
- breakyerself 7y ago
  It has a residence time in the atmosphere of 72 hours. Water vapor only works as a feedback. It isn't a prime mover of climate change.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    The sun is the prime mover of climate change, literally everything else is feedback. If increased temperature creates increased water vapor, and increased water vapor causes increased solar radiation retention due to greenhouse effect (resulting in further temperature increases), that's a positive feedback cycle. Water vapor is undisputed as the the #1 greenhouse gas.
    - breakyerself 7y ago
      The sun has been ruled out already.

EdSharkey 7y ago

> > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently > Citation needed. Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"? I think it's interesting that solar energy and magnetic fields and cosmic energy fluctuates from year to year. I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool. This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. I'm happy to see such obvious rigging of the game on display here and that folks are thinking about that.

Matumio 7y ago
Solar activity may be rising (but I think it's falling actually?), and yes has had an impact in the past, and yes we don't know how large exactly. Does this mean we cannot make any valid predictions until we know it to the last digit? This of course depends on how large the uncertainty of its effect is, compared to other effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  You cite a lot of uncertainty about Solar activity! Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)
  - Matumio 7y ago
    Surely we have historical data to validate models with?! I'm no expert, but this all sounds very plausible to me. Some parts are even basic physics, like reflection and black-body radiation, which I'm pretty sure we have nailed down exactly by now. Other parts are uncertain: simplifications of topology, chaotic processes, methane content of melting grounds, etc. The model allows to answer "what-if" questions, and the uncertainty of the answer also depends on the question. Would the temperature rise if earth's atmosphere suddenly had the composition on Venus? Hell yes, we can predict that with high confidence, without ever trying it for real. Can we predict the gusts of wind caused by this, the global heat distribution, the exact timing? Probably not, at least it's not plausible to me that we could model every effect that matters for such a detailed prediction. But does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Or would you argue that it is more plausible that most scientists are corrupt and follow someone's agenda, and have discarded the idea of doing honest science which they must have had when starting?
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      > does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Yes, it does sound unbelievable because CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and water vapor is approximately 2.5% of the atmosphere while also being the strong greenhouse gas. It's a giant fraud used a political tool for the brainwashed masses.
    - EdSharkey 7y ago
breakyerself 7y ago
The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consistent with greenhouse gasses not allowing heat to escape to the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Solar forcing would warm all levels of the atmosphere not just the bottom. Also night time temps are increasing faster than day time temps. This is the opposite of what you would get with solar forcing. Basically bringing up solar as an alternative hypothesis betrays that you do not have the requisite understanding to attempt overturning an entire field of science. Don't feel bad most of us don't.
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock. I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun. And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. There is no evidence that it is. Literally everything else you said here is just politics.
    - EdSharkey 7y ago
      > isn't driving warming I never said anything about warming, that’s your line. I said, "I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool." Also, we’ve long moved onto “Climate Change”, even though all the models still predict warming. > Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. You seem so sure, and that has me questioning my position. People seem to like to quote Wikipedia here, so I DDG'd for a few seconds with the !wiki thing. Here's what came up. I may need to throw some bucks in the Wikipedia fundraising kettle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate Says here after all of the prehistoric climate change hypothesized to be tied to solar output: > The link between recent solar activity and climate has been quantified and is not a major driver of the warming that has occurred since early in the twentieth century. Maybe you’re right! Let’s keep reading. > Human-induced forcings are needed to reproduce the late-20th century warming. I thought I was busted, except in the very next sentence … > Some studies associate solar cycle-driven irradiation increases with part of twentieth century warming. So solar cycle-driven irradiation CAN correlate with temperature change. And in fact, if you read the whole article you can see regular admissions there’s a lot we don’t understand and the sun is a contributing factor in varying temperatures.
imtringued 7y ago
>This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. What? No it makes you feel like the whole thing is pointless because people aren't even willing to take moderate action. If we drop everything and only focus on climate change we won't drop the temperature that much. 25% of the predicted warming has already been locked in. That's a massive loss and it won't be possible to do anything about it.
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  Argh, does this web app really engender such feelings of hopelessness in you or is this an act? I'm sorry either way. Don't believe the hype! The +1C is a lie, propaganda. ;(

linuxftw 7y ago

> The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. This is not a fact, this is a theory. This is common in 'science' that scientists believing something 'should be happening' and then attempt to pencil in details after-the-fact to explain something that doesn't fit their preconceived model. > Citation needed. From [1]: > Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If you heat something, it's going to get gradually hotter. If you increase the amount of energy you use to heat it, it's going to get hotter still. If the average temperature goes about X naturally, which in turn causes increased water vapor, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect, then we have a positive feedback loop that was started by natural forces. > if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics How does one even make such a measurement? Are we talking about just the atmosphere? Or just the ocean? Or the ice masses? Or the land masses? In any case, imagine a space heater in a room. The heater will be hot, the rest of the room relatively cooler. The cooler parts of the room are going to accept the heat faster than the warmer parts of the room. Why should the planet be any different? > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. Show me the historic atmospheric H2O levels. You can't dismiss water vapor without data showing that it was less in the past. You can see NASA wants to talk about water vapor at [2]. Unfortunately, they still make the climate-leap-of-faith that CO2 causes the original warming, rather than the obvious fact that the increase of water vapor itself causes the warming. You can remove CO2 entirely from the equation, increased water vapor will create positive feedback. > I challenge you to find a single temperature reading, longitude, lattitude, altitude and timestamp, and tell me when it was manipulated. See [3]. If agencies are going revising past temperatures in new data sets, one can argue that's manipulation. Some will argue that this 'adjustment' is prudent and necessary. Others argue that it's not. There's an abundance of evidence on both sides of this particular issue. Now, you probably won't like the source of that information, and I'm sure it's all been 'debunked,' but the other side can say the exact same thing. 1: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ 2: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm... 3: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-b...

marcosdumay 7y ago

> > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. The GP is using a non-sequitur, taking a correct fact to support a falsehood. That water vapor comes down as rain does not make it any less important as a greenhouse gas. What the GP does not say is that the amount of water vapor on the atmosphere is roughly proportional to the temperature, so it's only participation is in increasing the effects of the other gasses we emit directly.

linuxftw 7y ago
> so it's only participation is in increasing the effects of the other gasses we emit directly This is the falsehood perpetuated by the CO2-based warming position. The earth was already warming. The earth has continue to warm since the end of the last ice age. This created increased water vapor, the most impactful greenhouse gas. If there is a positive feedback cycle due to greenhouse gases, it's assuredly due to water vapor.
- breakyerself 7y ago
  The earth has both warmed and cooled since the end of the ice age 10,000 years. You don't give a mechanism for this warming you seem to just chalk it up to the natural cycles that drive ice age related warming and cooling. It's just we know what causes those and we've ruled it out. Milankovitch cycles. The periodic variability in earth's orbit should have us cooling ever so slightly. Instead we are warming rapidly. Your claim that this is the same warming as what brought us out of the ice age is false and has been known to be false for a long time
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > The earth has both warmed and cooled since the end of the ice age 10,000 years. No, it has only warmed, otherwise we'd be in another ice age. > The periodic variability in earth's orbit should have us cooling ever so slightly That is only a single input. The other input is solar activity, which has increased. Also, if there is indeed a positive feedback loop, after the earth reaches X degrees, then water vapor will continue to increase the earth's temperature absent a reduction in solar input large enough to stop the loop. > same warming as what brought us out of the ice age is false and has been known to be false for a long time It's not known to be false, that's just nonsense. Look how hot it used to be: (from [1]) > Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature. Crocodiles above the Arctic Circle! But keep telling me how CO2 is going to cause the planet to combust. 1: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...

efa 7y ago

> Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying water vapor is not a significant greenhouse gas? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes https://climate.nasa.gov/causes lists it as the most abundant greenhouse gas.

breakyerself 7y ago
It has a residence time in the atmosphere of 72 hours. Water vapor only works as a feedback. It isn't a prime mover of climate change.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  The sun is the prime mover of climate change, literally everything else is feedback. If increased temperature creates increased water vapor, and increased water vapor causes increased solar radiation retention due to greenhouse effect (resulting in further temperature increases), that's a positive feedback cycle. Water vapor is undisputed as the the #1 greenhouse gas.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    The sun has been ruled out already.