Climate change causes and impacts are accelerating, experts warn - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15036224
0.2 degrees warming in 5 years makes 4 degrees in 100 years, probably more because emissions are still increasing and feedback loops haven't been factored in. That is > 5.1 degrees compared to pre-industrial times.

Increasing frequency of extreme weather events will probably shut up the last deniers in the foreseeable future. But, unless drastic actions are taken now, it will become impossible to contain climate change within manageable limits.

While much attention is being given to the direct effects of climate change, we haven't even started to discuss the social and political consequences. Will democracy survive or are we heading towards police states? Is today's right-wing populism a harbinger of tomorrow's totalitarian dictatorship?


Climate change causes and impacts are accelerating, experts warn


Climate change is accelerating, with carbon dioxide levels increasing, sea levels rising and ice sheets melting faster than ever, experts have warned.

The warning from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) forms part of a “united in science” review for a UN climate action summit at which countries are being urged to increase their ambition to tackle emissions.

The WMO has published a report showing climate change and its impacts over the past five years between 2015 and 2019, which shows it was the hottest five-year period on record.

The world has warmed by 1.1 degree since pre-industrial times, and by 0.2 degrees just compared to the previous five year period 2011-2015, the report showed.

And with levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rising more quickly than before, to new highs in the atmosphere, further warming is already locked in, the WMO warned.

Record

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased at a higher rate between 2015-2019 than in the previous five years, and are on track to reach a record 410 parts per million in 2019, data indicate.

Deadly heatwaves, bearing the hallmark of climate change and causing record high temperatures, devastating hurricanes and cyclones and severe wildfires which release more carbon have all gripped the planet in the past five years.

Sea levels have been rising by an average of 5mm a year in the past five years, compared to 3.2mm a year on average since 1993, with much of the rise coming from glaciers and ice sheets that are melting ever more quickly.

The Greenland ice sheet has witnessed a considerable acceleration in ice loss since the turn of the millennium, while the amount of ice being lost annually from Antarctica in the last decade has increased by at least six fold compared the 1980s.

Arctic sea ice has seen record low coverage in winter between 2015 and 2018, the WMO said.

The organisation’s secretary-general Petteri Taalas, who is co-chair of the science advisory group of the UN climate summit, said: “Climate change causes and impacts are increasing rather than slowing down.

“Sea level rise has accelerated and we are concerned that an abrupt decline in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which will exacerbate future rise.

Bahamas and Mozambique

“As we have seen this year with tragic effect in the Bahamas and Mozambique, sea level rise and intense tropical storms led to humanitarian and economic catastrophes.”

The challenges “are immense” he said, and warned that there was a growing need to adapt to the changing climate as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from energy production, industry and transport.

The report has been released to inform the climate action summit convened by UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, and to urge countries to up their climate efforts.

Under the international Paris Agreement, countries committed to curbing temperature rises to “well below” 2 degrees and pursuing efforts to limit increases to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst impacts.

But current commitments put the world on track for around 3 degrees of warming.

Mr Taalas warned: “To stop a global temperature increase of more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the level of ambition needs to be tripled, and to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees, it needs to be multiplied by five.”


Ecological footprint by country:

Image

It is clear why the worst polluter is in denial mode.
#15037061
Atlantis wrote:0.2 degrees warming in 5 years makes 4 degrees in 100 years, probably more because emissions are still increasing and feedback loops haven't been factored in. That is > 5.1 degrees compared to pre-industrial times.

What nonsense. The earth has been cooling for the last three years. The temperature increases are all in the fake data, not actual warming.
Increasing frequency of extreme weather events will probably shut up the last deniers in the foreseeable future.

More nonsense. Extreme weather events are no more common now than 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.
But, unless drastic actions are taken now, it will become impossible to contain climate change within manageable limits.

No, it has always been impossible. We can't control the sun, sorry.
While much attention is being given to the direct effects of climate change, we haven't even started to discuss the social and political consequences.

Warmer climate will be generally better climate. Unfortunately, global climate is cooling and likely to get cooler.
#15037068
The most interesting tipping point won't be frozen methane freed from the tundra or whatever. It will be when rich people start losing big time in coastal and southwest US real estate holdings.
#15041922
Truth To Power wrote:What nonsense. The earth has been cooling for the last three years. The temperature increases are all in the fake data, not actual warming.

Incomplete information.
The global temp fell from a record high in 2016 due to a switch from el niño to la niña conditions, this has now moved back to neutral and temperatures have been rising for the last 18 months.

More nonsense. Extreme weather events are no more common now than 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.

This could be semantics, there is no evidence of an increase in hurricanes for example, but there is evidence that they are intensifying faster and becoming stronger due to warmer sea surface temperatures.

No, it has always been impossible. We can't control the sun, sorry.

The sun has varied by 0.01% in recent history and it's output has been lower than average over the last 2-3 cycles. Quite simply the solar output does not match the global temperature trend and so cannot be held as the key driver for warming.
Warmer climate will be generally better climate. Unfortunately, global climate is cooling and likely to get cooler.


This just isn't true. Better for who?
Those billions living in coastal regions flooded by sea level rise, the hundreds of millions reliant on glacial melt for water that will no longer be replenished in the winter, the millions living in the area stretching across the tropic of Cancer where temperatures will regularly exceed 50C for prolonged periods making farming and life for humans almost impossible.

The global climate is not cooling unless you believe denial sites like electroverse, whose claims fall apart with the barest touch. Their constant reporting of cold weather and ignoring warm weather anomalies is getting more and more desperate by the year.

As at today Arctic ice is lowest on record and the temperature in the Arctic is 3C higher than average, this is not caused by cooling.
#15042293
BeesKnee5 wrote:Incomplete information.

Better than fake information.
The global temp fell from a record high in 2016 due to a switch from el niño to la niña conditions, this has now moved back to neutral and temperatures have been rising for the last 18 months.

Fake data. Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s, and they'll tell you: it was warmer then.
This could be semantics, there is no evidence of an increase in hurricanes for example, but there is evidence that they are intensifying faster and becoming stronger due to warmer sea surface temperatures.

There is no credible evidence that extreme weather events have become more frequent or more severe.
The sun has varied by 0.01% in recent history

Wrong. That's just TSI, the variable that anti-CO2 scaremongers chose to represent solar activity because out of all the possible indices of solar activity, it exhibits the least correlation with global temperature.
and it's output has been lower than average over the last 2-3 cycles. Quite simply the solar output does not match the global temperature trend and so cannot be held as the key driver for warming.

But solar output (TSI) is not the only variable. Solar magnetic activity -- sunspots -- were at a sustained multimillennial high for most of the 20th century, a high that only abated with the most recent sunspot cycle, cycle 24. It is sunspot activity that has correlated with the Little Ice Age and modern warming, not TSI.
This just isn't true. Better for who?

People. Periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.
Those billions living in coastal regions flooded by sea level rise,

Huh?? Where? When? Who? You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
the hundreds of millions reliant on glacial melt for water that will no longer be replenished in the winter,

You made that up, too.
the millions living in the area stretching across the tropic of Cancer where temperatures will regularly exceed 50C for prolonged periods making farming and life for humans almost impossible.

You made that up, too. Human beings evolved in the tropics. To survive outside the tropics we need clothing and shelter.
The global climate is not cooling unless you believe denial sites like electroverse, whose claims fall apart with the barest touch.

False. It has been cooling for at least three years.
Their constant reporting of cold weather and ignoring warm weather anomalies is getting more and more desperate by the year.

GARBAGE. In the city where I have lived almost my whole life -- a long time -- the last three winters have been the coldest ever recorded. I can't check NASA's or NOAA's global temperature data for myself. But I can check the temperature where I live. And it is cold.
As at today Arctic ice is lowest on record

What "average"? Calculated on the basis of what? Evidence?
#15042302
Truth To Power wrote:Better than fake information.

Nothing of note to respond to. You are yet to offer evidence of note and the last link you provided was shown to be misrepresenting the research.
Fake data. Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s, and they'll tell you: it was warmer then.

Not sure asking someone in their mid nineties if they have any accurate measurement of temperatures when they were less than 10 years old is really going to stand up in court.

The shipping records I've been converting from paper to digital do and so do the ground based measurements from the stations at the time .

Beyond that your point is irrelevant to what you quoted.
There is no credible evidence that extreme weather events have become more frequent or more severe.

You are repeating yourself.
There is plenty of evidence of a direct correllation between storm intensification and sea surface temperatures.

If you are looking for a papers that confirm the relationship then
Emanuel 2005 showed that total power of tropical storm activity in North Atlantic is highly correlated with August - October sea surface temp
Hoyos 2006 showed tropical storm activity closely tied to sea surface temperatures in their corridor of travel
Swanson 2008 confirmed this.
Then we have evidence that the average storm has become more powerful in recent years
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... /1844.full
Wrong. That's just TSI, the variable that anti-CO2 scaremongers chose to represent solar activity because out of all the possible indices of solar activity, it exhibits the least correlation with global temperature.


TSI is a measure of solar power across all wavelengths, seems like a fair measure to me.

What extra power would you like to take into account?
But solar output (TSI) is not the only variable. Solar magnetic activity -- sunspots -- were at a sustained multimillennial high for most of the 20th century, a high that only abated with the most recent sunspot cycle, cycle 24. It is sunspot activity that has correlated with the Little Ice Age and modern warming, not TSI.

Low sun spot activity ties in with less energy received from the sun, including electromagnetic.

I'd like to see your evidence for multimillenial high, because cycle 19 is the only one higher than cycle 3 and we do only have 24 cycles (270 years ) worth of measurements since the maunder minimum.
People. Periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

That means very little in context of the effect. We have never had 10 billion people living on this planet or the environment under this level of stress.
Huh?? Where? When? Who? You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

The majority of the world's population live in coastal regions that sea level rise will directly impact.
You made that up, too.

Perhaps you need to understand what keeps the rivers in Pakistan and Northern India flowing.
You made that up, too. Human beings evolved in the tropics. To survive outside the tropics we need clothing and shelter.

They evolved in a very different tropics to today. It's actually a fascinating sphere of research, particularly how the middle East became hotter and drier, leading to a switch in diet from pork to chicken.

The optimum temperature for a human is 18C-24C. Over 50C and it is simply too hot for the human body to cope with more than short periods.

False. It has been cooling for at least three years.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Let's add to this, my guess is this is your source
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/29/ ... mpossible/

But look what happens if I look at the UAH it references as at today

Image

It's not falling, it's rising.
Not only that, we know why it fell and why it's rising.
Image

It is still short term variation on a longer term trend.

GARBAGE. In the city where I have lived almost my whole life -- a long time -- the last three winters have been the coldest ever recorded. I can't check NASA's or NOAA's global temperature data for myself. But I can check the temperature where I live. And it is cold.

It's called global for a reason.

What "average"? Calculated on the basis of what? Evidence?


a demand for evidence when you supply none yourself.

As a start I will offer the Japanese (JAXA). Sea ice extent data
Image
#15042527
BeesKnee5 wrote:Nothing of note to respond to. You are yet to offer evidence of note and the last link you provided was shown to be misrepresenting the research.

False. You CLAIMED it misrepresented the research, but I showed it was you who was misrepresenting it.
Not sure asking someone in their mid nineties if they have any accurate measurement of temperatures when they were less than 10 years old is really going to stand up in court.

The relentless falsification of temperature data leaves us little choice.
The shipping records I've been converting from paper to digital do and so do the ground based measurements from the stations at the time .

You claim.
There is plenty of evidence of a direct correllation between storm intensification and sea surface temperatures.

But not CO2.
Then we have evidence that the average storm has become more powerful in recent years
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... /1844.full

Science has been captured by anti-CO2 propagandists.
TSI is a measure of solar power across all wavelengths, seems like a fair measure to me.

But it's not a fair measure of the sun's effect on global temperatures, because it doesn't correlate well with global temperatures.
What extra power would you like to take into account?

I don't assume such effects must necessarily be recorded in some power output.
Low sun spot activity ties in with less energy received from the sun, including electromagnetic.

But sunspot activity varies much more than TSI, and is more strongly correlated with global temperature than TSI. We just don't understand why.
I'd like to see your evidence for multimillenial high, because cycle 19 is the only one higher than cycle 3 and we do only have 24 cycles (270 years ) worth of measurements since the maunder minimum.

"The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

See the Solanki and Usoskin papers from 2003, 2004 and 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
That means very little in context of the effect. We have never had 10 billion people living on this planet or the environment under this level of stress.

You mean such a low level of stress?
The majority of the world's population live in coastal regions that sea level rise will directly impact.

Insignificantly, as it has up to now.
Perhaps you need to understand what keeps the rivers in Pakistan and Northern India flowing.

<yawn> Absence of factual and logical content noted.
They evolved in a very different tropics to today.

Wrong.
The optimum temperature for a human is 18C-24C. Over 50C and it is simply too hot for the human body to cope with more than short periods.

The claims of temperatures over 50C are absurd scaremongering.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
Let's add to this, my guess is this is your source
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/29/ ... mpossible/

Wrong. There are many sources. I hadn't seen that one before.
But look what happens if I look at the UAH it references as at today

Image

It's not falling, it's rising.
Not only that, we know why it fell and why it's rising.
Image

OK, so you can see it is a cycle, not a long-term trend.
It is still short term variation on a longer term trend.

No, it is just a shorter cycle superimposed on a longer one.
It's called global for a reason.

It's controlled by one authority for a reason, too.
As a start I will offer the Japanese (JAXA). Sea ice extent data
Image

That's just the record low for that date. As there are 365 dates in a year, the chance of finding one that is a record low is pretty good. Arctic sea ice extent was quite a bit lower seven years ago, in early September 2012, which is the real record low. In reality, arctic sea ice extent hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, and it won't be disappearing any time soon. It has been lower in the past, such as during the Medieval Warm Period.
#15042547
@Truth To Power


See the Solanki and Usoskin papers from 2003, 2004 and 2007.



Solanki 2003:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 02JA009753


    Abstract
    [1] The magnitude of the Sun's influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun‐climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

So that directly contradicts the claim that the sun is the cause of the recorded warming.

Solanki 2004:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02995

    Abstract
    Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

That also contradicts the claim that the sun is responsible for global warming.
#15042580
Truth To Power wrote:False. You CLAIMED it misrepresented the research, but I showed it was you who was misrepresenting it.

Poppycock,
I claimed nothing, I quoted the research directly and you invented your own interpretation that was inspired by it.


The relentless falsification of temperature data leaves us little choice.

The modifications to the HADCrut records have been minor, look for yourself, all the actual measurements are available online and can be overlaid into Google earth if you are actually interested.
Image

'The shipping records I've been helping convert from paper to digital do and so do the ground based measurements from the stations at the time .'
You claim.

It's more than just a claim
http://www.met-acre.net/

But not CO2.

Evidence that CO2 absorbs energy and emmits it in the infra red is proven way beyond doubt.

Science has been captured by anti-CO2 propagandists.

Science is what it is, science.
But it's not a fair measure of the sun's effect on global temperatures, because it doesn't correlate well with global temperatures.
I don't assume such effects must necessarily be recorded in some power output.
But sunspot activity varies much more than TSI, and is more strongly correlated with global temperature than TSI. We just don't understand why.

Untrue,. TSI drops during the period of low sunspot activity and varied depending on how active the area of the sun facing the earth.
"The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

See the Solanki and Usoskin papers from 2003, 2004 and 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Only cycle 19 (ie 1940s) is higher than cycle 3

However you do like to shoot yourself in the foot when referring to research without reading it.

'We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970'

'Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades.

Your linked research agrees that global warming previously had close correlation to the solar output but this is no longer the case. Whoops!!!

You really haven't a clue.
Having traveled to Nepal and Northern India I have seen first hand the shrinking of glaciers there and how it is the melting of glaciers in the summer months that keep the rivers flowing, previously this melt was replaced in winter/ wetter periods. It's no longer enough.

I visit Jostedalsbreen regularly and it is heartbreaking watching the retreat accelerate over the last 20 years, once it was measured in centimetres now it's tens of metres each year.

The first evolution of the species homo (hablis) appeared 2 million years ago, a time when global temperatures are estimated to have been 2-3c cooler than the average of the last 10,000 years ( the period modern man has formed civilisations and developed farming). So yes the climate was different to today

It's not claims that places are reaching 50C more often and for longer periods, it's in the temperature records for these areas.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather- ... t/70008441

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_he ... d_Pakistan

In the past year there have been some notable countries reaching 50C. Spain, South Africa, Australia.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 19EF001189

This has to be the dumbest post yet.
You seriously think it was sheer luck that today was the lowest ice extent on record?
2019 has had more days lower than any other year and it's average to date is lower than any other year. Add to that the point that 9 out of the 10 lowest are in the last decade and you have a pretty convincing picture.

Most of 2012 had more ice than this year but was hit by a large storm late in the melt season that broke up the thin ice pack by disrupting the halocline.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A ... ne_of_2012

In many ways it signalled a change in the Arctic as open water is being exposed for longer and longer in the summer months and the change in albedo has led to much more absorbed heat that is slowing the refreeze in the autumn.

You claimed it was lower in the MWP before and failed to prove it. As I pointed out last time, the site you linked to tried to claim evidence of warming in a paper that clearly showed the permafrost remained in place and has only started to melt in the last 100-150 years. I'm sure it won't stop you retaining your delusion though.
#15042882
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
Solanki 2003:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 02JA009753


    Abstract
    [1] The magnitude of the Sun's influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun‐climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.
So that directly contradicts the claim that the sun is the cause of the recorded warming.

No, your claim is false. I have proved you wrong on this point many times before. You just always forget that you have been proved wrong, and post the same proved-wrong crap over and over again. Solar variation couldn't have been the dominant cause of the ~30-year temperature increase that began around 1970 because that was the up-phase of the trendless ~60-year cycle, which was the dominant influence. By your bonehead "logic," the earth's axial tilt can't be the cause of increasing temperature between January and July because it cannot explain the rapid temperature increase between 6 a.m. and noon.
Solanki 2004:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02995

    Abstract
    Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

That also contradicts the claim that the sun is responsible for global warming.

No, that's false, as proved above. The fact that the earth's axial tilt can't explain the rapid increase in temperature between 6 a.m. and noon does NOT IN ANY WAY argue that it cannot be the dominant cause of the increase in temperature between January and July.

GET IT????
#15043095
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Either sunspot activity is correlated with the recent warming or it is not. Which is it?

It definitely is. As the Solanki papers show, the 20th century warming was also the period of highest sustained solar activity in millennia. The fact that the last 30 years of it coincided with the up-phase of the trendless 60-year temperature cycle that overshadowed solar forcing during those 30 years does not alter that fact. Why do you refuse to know the fact that the tilt of the earth's axis explains why July is so much warmer than January, even though it can't explain why noon is so much warmer than 6 a.m.?
#15043117
BeesKnee5 wrote:Are you seriously now arguing with the research papers you put forward to support your claim and who clearly state in their research that variation of the sun is not the key driver for recent warming.

That is not what it said. It clearly stated that solar variation could not have been the principal cause of the ~30-year warming cycle that began in the early 1970s.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that your false analogy disproves this?

My analogy is perfectly true and valid, and does disprove it. Here, let me hold your hand through the logic using round numbers that show the relationships without being precisely accurate:

If we look at the warming of the last 120 years, that is two complete 60-year cycles, so there is no net cyclical contribution. Say the cycle goes up and down by 0.5C: up 0.5C over 30 years, and then down 0.5C over the next 30 years. The most recent up-phase was 1970-2000, and the previous one was 1910-1940. These 30-year up-phases are visually obvious in the temperature record, but the down-phases are obscured by warming due to the sustained high in solar activity. Let's say the solar activity maximum has caused 1.2C of warming over the full 120-year warming period, or 0.01C per year. For the 1970-2000 period, then, temperature increased by 0.8C: only 0.3C of it contributed by solar activity, but 0.5C contributed by the up-phase of the 60-year cycle. The solar contribution is therefore not the dominant warming factor in that 30-year period but IS the dominant factor -- indeed the ONLY factor -- in the 1.2C warming over the last 120 years. The broadly -- but not constantly -- increasing temperature profile of the last 120 years is thus fully explained by the solar maximum and the 60-year cycle, with NO contribution by CO2 AT ALL (I'm not actually saying CO2 has no effect, just that it has not been as strong as the solar activity high).

GET IT???
#15043121
Truth To Power wrote:It definitely is. As the Solanki papers show, the 20th century warming was also the period of highest sustained solar activity in millennia. The fact that the last 30 years of it coincided with the up-phase of the trendless 60-year temperature cycle that overshadowed solar forcing during those 30 years does not alter that fact.


Solanki directly and openly disagrees with the claim that solar activity is responsible for recent global warming.

What is this “trendless 60 year cycle”?
#15043137
Pants-of-dog wrote:Solanki directly and openly disagrees with the claim that solar activity is responsible for recent global warming.

No, your claim is just baldly false. He said it couldn't have been the PRINCIPAL cause of the rapid warming during the 30-year period beginning around 1970. That in no way argues that it could not be the dominant cause of warming over the last ~120 years, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.
What is this “trendless 60 year cycle”?

<sigh> We have been over this many times. You just pretend not to remember it, in order to waste my time. Decomposition of temperature data into cyclical components shows the main cycle is ~60 years long. It is also VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the data. The up-phases occurred roughly 1910-1940 and 1979-2000. This cycle is so strong YOU CAN SEE IT. WHY DO YOU PRETEND YOU CANNOT?
#15043168
Truth To Power wrote:That is not what it said. It clearly stated that solar variation could not have been the principal cause of the ~30-year warming cycle that began in the early 1970s.

My analogy is perfectly true and valid, and does disprove it. Here, let me hold your hand through the logic using round numbers that show the relationships without being precisely accurate:

If we look at the warming of the last 120 years, that is two complete 60-year cycles, so there is no net cyclical contribution. Say the cycle goes up and down by 0.5C: up 0.5C over 30 years, and then down 0.5C over the next 30 years. The most recent up-phase was 1970-2000, and the previous one was 1910-1940. These 30-year up-phases are visually obvious in the temperature record, but the down-phases are obscured by warming due to the sustained high in solar activity. Let's say the solar activity maximum has caused 1.2C of warming over the full 120-year warming period, or 0.01C per year. For the 1970-2000 period, then, temperature increased by 0.8C: only 0.3C of it contributed by solar activity, but 0.5C contributed by the up-phase of the 60-year cycle. The solar contribution is therefore not the dominant warming factor in that 30-year period but IS the dominant factor -- indeed the ONLY factor -- in the 1.2C warming over the last 120 years. The broadly -- but not constantly -- increasing temperature profile of the last 120 years is thus fully explained by the solar maximum and the 60-year cycle, with NO contribution by CO2 AT ALL (I'm not actually saying CO2 has no effect, just that it has not been as strong as the solar activity high).

GET IT???


I get that again you are creating a theory unsupported by the research you quote whilst at the same time admitting you don't understand what you are seeing.

What you are describing is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/pdo
We have measured it, we know it's effects.
Again this cannot be used to attribute warming over the last 50!years.

As has already been said, there is no evidence to support solar being the key driver of recent warming. PDO overturning every 20-30 years isn't the driver of recent warming although it was a contributor to the strong el niño in 1997/98 that have us an exceptionally warm year.

I know it's hard for you to accept, but the change in atmospheric composition is a driver. Things like sulphur and particulates cool. Methane, CO2 and water vapour warm. These things have positive feedbacks, an increase in CO2 does increase temperature , this increases evaporation and that boosts the effect, which melts ice in Siberia, Canada and Alaska that allows the release of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and more CO2. One big volcanic eruption can provide short term negatives through dust and sulphur even though it adds to the CO2.

One factor we are starting to see is the reduction of coal burning and this will reduce the short term cooling effect that it's emissions produce. So more warming is already baked in and the transition away from fossil fuels will have a short term additional effect on warming in the lower atmosphere.
#15043882
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, Solanski says that even if with the most liberal assumptions, it is responsible for a maximum of 30%,

30% of WHAT??? You aren't thinking.
which means that in reality, it is less than that.

You are not paying attention.
And since you have not provided evidence for this trendless cycle, I am going to ignore it.

Look at a graph of global temperature over the last 120 years. The ~60-year cycle is VISUALLY OBVIOUS.

You forgot Venezuela. Yes, thank you. And come t[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Can't answer that one. I am not close enough to t[…]

Ukrainegate

:lol: :lol: :lol: Well when a guy gets a phon[…]

Not sure how you made my question about concentra[…]