3 ms·

the Earth Is Warming, but Is CO2 the Cause?

4 points by lxm 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
I had to check the date in case this was from a decade or two ago, but no, this member of the WSJ editorial board continues their immensley damaging campaign of climate denial right up to today. As to the BS published by a retired researcher, there's been coverage here of the many flaws in this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966089
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
CO2 is obviously the easiest cause with the largest effect that humans directly control.
wrycoder 3y ago
It may be a heat pulse from the core - which is related to the recent rotational speedup. This can release large quantities of heat into the ocean. https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/ https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/ Excerpt: Observation 7 (Deductive-Falsifying-Consilient) – El Cuervo Blanco – Spring 2023 Global and North Atlantic Heat Plume – 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023, far too fast for the atmosphere or man to serve as the cause. A record level Antarctic ice melt-off occurred simultaneously to this and during a record cold winter The abrupt ocean heating is also reflected in the recent spike in satellite tropospheric temperature measurements. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-...
- defrost 3y ago
  > It may be a heat pulse from the core It isn't. > 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023 Holy shit .. and this has been hidden from us by big government who have been faking 60 years of ocean temp data !!! https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... You might want to avoid the random climate skeptic sites and perhaps study some geophysics and related fields.
  - wrycoder 3y ago
    You might want to read the link. There's plenty of data there.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Poorly analyzed it seems. The person is comparing real-time, yearly jitter to a line of the 1982-2011 mean. And for some non-obvious reason is also drawing the area between two curves of the 2022 jitter and the 2023 jitter (separated in time by literally 365 days), and then saying that this differential between the two curves compared to the 1982-2011 mean is an energy jump over 3 weeks. If this says anything, it's only saying that the 2022 jitter and the 2023 jitter do not precisely go up and down at the exact same dates a year apart! Nothing more. The graphic I'm looking at from your link: https://theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/July-2023-SST-Warming-Global.png https://theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jul... Edit to add: sorry, 4 weeks, not 3 weeks.
      - wrycoder 3y ago
        The recent rise in ocean temperatures appears to be outside normal variance and has been widely discussed. It can’t be caused by short term atmospheric temperature changes or gradual CO2 rise. Oceanic vulcanism is a reasonable hypothesis that needs further investigation. Stay tuned.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Maybe it's a reasonable hypothesis. Another reasonable hypothesis would be a slowdown in ocean convection. Another would be cloud cover changes. These are all surface ocean measurements, yes? Do we even have seafloor temperature monitoring stations? I know there are mobile bouys that circulate underwater, but these aren't the temperatures in these graphs, yes? What do temperature changes look like around known submarine volcanoes?
    - defrost 3y ago
      I've read it - it's a potpourri kitchen sink of work poorly understood by the website author and tied together with a bow of "and so too, my whacky theory must be true!!". Have you read any Geophysical journals, ever? The USGA, AGSO, and other countries publish in fairly accessible ways, measure ocean tempretures, magnetic fields, map earths geoid gravity, compute the heat from residual radioactives in the crust and core, and many other things. Why aren't they endorsing this theory that recent climate change is caused by recent heat increases from the core?
elmerfud 3y ago
Maybe it should say is CO2 the only cause. Because there is data that shows other planets are warming as well, and there's data that supports other sources as factors too. Of all the things that can contribute to climate alterations, human produced CO2 is easiest to control which is why it gets the attention. Also just because it's the easiest to control doesn't automatically make it the greatest contributor.
- WantonQuantum 3y ago
  Thanks for the FUD, Elmer.
WantonQuantum 3y ago
I.e., "We haven't ruled out all possible externalities so, while we're pretty sure it is, we can't actually say for 100% sure it's CO2 and other greenhouse gases." If that makes you breathe a sigh of relief then you might like to think about that for a second. If it's not CO2 et al then we don't know what it is and therefore we might not be able to stop it and also it might get much much worse.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Even if it wasn't known greenhouses gases, moderating known greenhouse gas levels would still have a cooling effect. E.g. When filling up a tub of water, to get it cooler you can turn the cold water up, or turn the hot water down.
  - WantonQuantum 3y ago
    Good point!

4 points by lxm 3y ago

I had to check the date in case this was from a decade or two ago, but no, this member of the WSJ editorial board continues their immensley damaging campaign of climate denial right up to today. As to the BS published by a retired researcher, there's been coverage here of the many flaws in this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966089

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

CO2 is obviously the easiest cause with the largest effect that humans directly control.

wrycoder 3y ago

It may be a heat pulse from the core - which is related to the recent rotational speedup. This can release large quantities of heat into the ocean. https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/ https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/ Excerpt: Observation 7 (Deductive-Falsifying-Consilient) – El Cuervo Blanco – Spring 2023 Global and North Atlantic Heat Plume – 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023, far too fast for the atmosphere or man to serve as the cause. A record level Antarctic ice melt-off occurred simultaneously to this and during a record cold winter The abrupt ocean heating is also reflected in the recent spike in satellite tropospheric temperature measurements. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-...

defrost 3y ago
> It may be a heat pulse from the core It isn't. > 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023 Holy shit .. and this has been hidden from us by big government who have been faking 60 years of ocean temp data !!! https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... You might want to avoid the random climate skeptic sites and perhaps study some geophysics and related fields.
- wrycoder 3y ago
  You might want to read the link. There's plenty of data there.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Poorly analyzed it seems. The person is comparing real-time, yearly jitter to a line of the 1982-2011 mean. And for some non-obvious reason is also drawing the area between two curves of the 2022 jitter and the 2023 jitter (separated in time by literally 365 days), and then saying that this differential between the two curves compared to the 1982-2011 mean is an energy jump over 3 weeks. If this says anything, it's only saying that the 2022 jitter and the 2023 jitter do not precisely go up and down at the exact same dates a year apart! Nothing more. The graphic I'm looking at from your link: https://theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/July-2023-SST-Warming-Global.png https://theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jul... Edit to add: sorry, 4 weeks, not 3 weeks.
    - wrycoder 3y ago
      The recent rise in ocean temperatures appears to be outside normal variance and has been widely discussed. It can’t be caused by short term atmospheric temperature changes or gradual CO2 rise. Oceanic vulcanism is a reasonable hypothesis that needs further investigation. Stay tuned.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Maybe it's a reasonable hypothesis. Another reasonable hypothesis would be a slowdown in ocean convection. Another would be cloud cover changes. These are all surface ocean measurements, yes? Do we even have seafloor temperature monitoring stations? I know there are mobile bouys that circulate underwater, but these aren't the temperatures in these graphs, yes? What do temperature changes look like around known submarine volcanoes?
  - defrost 3y ago
    I've read it - it's a potpourri kitchen sink of work poorly understood by the website author and tied together with a bow of "and so too, my whacky theory must be true!!". Have you read any Geophysical journals, ever? The USGA, AGSO, and other countries publish in fairly accessible ways, measure ocean tempretures, magnetic fields, map earths geoid gravity, compute the heat from residual radioactives in the crust and core, and many other things. Why aren't they endorsing this theory that recent climate change is caused by recent heat increases from the core?

elmerfud 3y ago

Maybe it should say is CO2 the only cause. Because there is data that shows other planets are warming as well, and there's data that supports other sources as factors too. Of all the things that can contribute to climate alterations, human produced CO2 is easiest to control which is why it gets the attention. Also just because it's the easiest to control doesn't automatically make it the greatest contributor.

WantonQuantum 3y ago
Thanks for the FUD, Elmer.

WantonQuantum 3y ago

I.e., "We haven't ruled out all possible externalities so, while we're pretty sure it is, we can't actually say for 100% sure it's CO2 and other greenhouse gases." If that makes you breathe a sigh of relief then you might like to think about that for a second. If it's not CO2 et al then we don't know what it is and therefore we might not be able to stop it and also it might get much much worse.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Even if it wasn't known greenhouses gases, moderating known greenhouse gas levels would still have a cooling effect. E.g. When filling up a tub of water, to get it cooler you can turn the cold water up, or turn the hot water down.
- WantonQuantum 3y ago
  Good point!