Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[ViaCrucis]

Afraid not. Sun has complicated cycles. We have complex atmosphere & geology. Unequal distribution of heat. There were always greenhouse/icehouse states in Earth's history-take a course in paleogeology or paleoclimatology. In particular, when the planet was in its primordial state, it was very hot & unliveable (Hadean, Archaen Eras). Very hostile conditions. And most of the ingredients derived from volcanic action above ground, magma movement underground, the eventual arrival of rain, & then bacteria. Mankind is unable to appreciate the depth of previous heat or cold in the long past because are lives are rather short relative to time frames used to describe the Earth's historical geology. No one can tell us what the climate was on say March 1, 545MA no more than they can tell us what happened on June 1, 16,000 BCE.

The idea that global temperature increase can be attributed to a solar warming trend is easily dismissed by the fact that there's been a solar cooling trend, not a warming trend. Here is a graph comparing solar output and global temperature increase:

Temperatures have been on the rise even while solar output has been decreasing.

However, if we compare the global temperature increase with global CO2 output it looks like this:

So like I said, not sun related. It's anthropogenic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lordjeff]

Don't rely on graphs. We have learned a lot have been fudged. The sun may be nearing a low solar output period via Milankovitch but it's too early to assess that. In general terms the Sun, largely halfway thru its lifespan now, would be at a peak luminosity for the yellow dwarf category of stars. She has another 5-6 billion years left on the clock. At some point she will migrate off the Main Sequence & begin to enlarge into a red giant. She will spend a good while here & then once out of fuel, collapse into a tiny white dwarf.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Don't rely on graphs. We have learned a lot have been fudged. The sun may be nearing a low solar output period via Milankovitch but it's too early to assess that. In general terms the Sun, largely halfway thru its lifespan now, would be at a peak luminosity for the yellow dwarf category of stars. She has another 5-6 billion years left on the clock. At some point she will migrate off the Main Sequence & begin to enlarge into a red giant. She will spend a good while here & then once out of fuel, collapse into a tiny white dwarf.

We aren't talking massive spans of geological and/or stellar time, in the span of millions or billions of years. We are not talking about paleoclimatological observations that over the earth's 4.5 billion year history it's been much warmer than it is now and much cooler. We are talking about observations of rapid climate change due to global warming--the culprit for this rapid temperature increase and thus the rapidly changing climate can be directly linked to human activity--our industry and agriculture.

If we saw this same temperature change over the course of thousands or millions of years, that'd be one thing. But that's not what it is, it is happening over the course of decades and years. We are observing the net effects of this, rising sea levels, the melting of permafrost, the loss of polar ice, etc.

Pretending like this is "normal" and isn't directly related to human activity is nothing more than obfuscation of the well attested facts and observations made in every relevant field of science. The question isn't "Are humans responsible for global climate change?" The question is "Why are so many opposed to the science and opposed to doing anything about it?" Frankly, the only answer that makes sense to me for that is the political and corporate machinations of those who are profiting from it, and concocting crackpot alternatives for the sole purpose of turning this into a political wedge issue in order to try and stamp out popular support for environmental causes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gene2memE]

Except that CO2 follows warming is indeed true per some Nobel Laureates. You can never decouple the solar properties from warming or cooling. Geologists estimate some 200 Gigatons of CO2 from volcanos.

No, they don't.

According to a 10 year study released in 2019:

Volcanoes and volcanic regions alone outgas an estimated 280–360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) of CO2 per year. This includes the CO2 contribution from active volcanic vents, from the diffuse, widespread release of CO2 through soils, faults, and fractures in volcanic regions, volcanic lakes, and from the mid-ocean ridge system.
​

You're overstating volcanic emissions by somewhere around to 555 to 715 times.

 

[Michael]

Frankly, the only answer that makes sense to me for that is the political and corporate machinations of those who are profiting from it, and concocting crackpot alternatives for the sole purpose of turning this into a political wedge issue in order to try and stamp out popular support for environmental causes.

-CryptoLutheran

I think the best way to deal with that specific type of corrupting influence is to point out the detrimental human health effects of burning fossil fuels. It's not *just* C02 that is released in that process, it's also all the carcinogenic by products that get released at the same time that we need to discuss. China's air quality (or lack thereof) today is a lot like the poor air quality of Pittsburgh in the early 20's century and it's leading to the early death of millions of human beings every single year, year after year.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia

While the vast majority of global warming is man made, it may very well be that the sun does have a significant impact on global warming/cooling trends as well. Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. If you look back at history, say 15,000 years ago, the Earth's climate was *much* colder than it is today, so cold in fact that the New York area was covered in glaciers.

Alley Pond Park Highlights - Glaciers in New York City - Alley Pond Park : NYC Parks

If the Earth does go into another "natural" (not man made) cooling phase, it may actually be helpful to know how to artificially manipulate the C02 levels to offset what might otherwise be a global cooling catastrophe.

My point is that C02 isn't necessarily the only problem that we should be discussing, in fact it's a just a small part of the overall air/water pollution problems that we should be discussing.

Big oil companies don't want us to talk about air pollution and the huge amount of plastics that pollute our rivers and oceans. They'd much rather us argue and fight about whether or not C02 is the only cause of global warming. As long as nobody is discussing the human health costs of burning fossil fuels, the fossil fuel industry is the primary beneficiary. The moment we talk about the human health implications of burning fossil fuels is the moment the fossil fuel industry is forced to address the bigger problem.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The year of 2012 all the warming disappeared and we had global cooling.

 

[Shemjaza]

The year of 2012 all the warming disappeared and we had global cooling.

Except that 7 of the ten hottest years on record have happened since 2012.

So, you're totally wrong.

 

[Strathos]

The year of 2012 all the warming disappeared and we had global cooling.

What imaginary world do you live in?

 

[lordjeff]

The Sun is the culprit behind the modern warming trend. The Sun has been at a high output for a long time and has baked the earth hence the reason for the world wide increase in temperature. We have not increased in temperature sence the year 2000 . The world wide temperature has been a steady two and a half degrees above normal for twenty years.

This modern warming is only the latest in a long series of warming events in history. Before it was the Medival warm period and before that was the Roman warm period and before that was the Holocene maximum. These warming events happen every 1,500 years and are caused by the Sun. The good news is that the warming should stay the same for hundreds of years and nothing mankind does will change that. The Sun warming up two and a half degrees is good news for plants and animals which have a greater range of habitat and growing season.

 

[lordjeff]

No he's right the Sun is the major climate driver. The Sun is 4.5 GA-roughly halfway thru its nuclear engine so it is in general at peak brightness. CO2 like several gases are greenhouse gases that absorb infrared light but at specific frequencies. The Sun puts out at many frequencies, mostly at the GBIV part of the spectrum, the UV. People have let politicians convince them that CO2 as a gas is controlling the entire climate which is false because when CO2 is given off it's too proximal to a source to sit around. It's going to be absorbed by vegetation & oceans primarily. Our atmosphere is an open system, not a closed one. The relative percentage remains at 0.038% of the atmosphere because of our large repositories. Unlike Venus, the Earth will not get a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus. The difference is that Venus lacks oceans & vegetation. It also lacks tectonic activity. People have to learn how to apply the scientific method properly. E.g. on a bright sunny day the ocean is blue so that might cause one to think that the ocean is blue because it reflects the sky or because salt water is blue. Now these are educated guesses but not exactly correct. Water has no color but can be turned color by say a dye or a pollutant or the scattering of light.

 

[lordjeff]

People must remember that all political movements have an agenda-be it light or heavy. I'm currently watching a netflix production by Oliver Stone on the untold history of the US & it is an eye opener; that is what i mean is you must think the answer always stratifies the middle. One example is the military-industrial complex. The same can be said on the climate alarmism. If people are concerned about polllution, then they can start with their own stewardship. Technologies are being invented to clean up the planet & to tame other sources of energy. The marketplace will be the ultimate decider & it will be broad-based. No politician or group should control the entire market grid. Let all come to the market.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No he's right the Sun is the major climate driver. The Sun is 4.5 GA-roughly halfway thru its nuclear engine so it is in general at peak brightness. CO2 like several gases are greenhouse gases that absorb infrared light but at specific frequencies. The Sun puts out at many frequencies, mostly at the GBIV part of the spectrum, the UV. People have let politicians convince them that CO2 as a gas is controlling the entire climate which is false because when CO2 is given off it's too proximal to a source to sit around. It's going to be absorbed by vegetation & oceans primarily. Our atmosphere is an open system, not a closed one. The relative percentage remains at 0.038% of the atmosphere because of our large repositories. Unlike Venus, the Earth will not get a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus. The difference is that Venus lacks oceans & vegetation. It also lacks tectonic activity. People have to learn how to apply the scientific method properly. E.g. on a bright sunny day the ocean is blue so that might cause one to think that the ocean is blue because it reflects the sky or because salt water is blue. Now these are educated guesses but not exactly correct. Water has no color but can be turned color by say a dye or a pollutant or the scattering of light.

This is falsified by the observations of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Not only recently, but also trapped in ice for the last half million years. We can directly measure how much CO2 there is and plot it. Not only that, but we can also tell that the modern increase is from fossil fuels. In photosynthesis C12 is preferred slightly over C13. As a result fossil fuels are enriched in C12 and the isotopic content of the CO2 in our atmosphere presently has a higher percentage of C12 than in the past.

Instead of denying science it is wiser to ask questions on how scientists know what they know. There is nothing wrong with trying to learn. It is foolish to assume that one knows when one cannot support one's claims. And if you need any support for any of my claims, just ask. I will gladly support what I said.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The relative percentage remains at 0.038% of the atmosphere because of our large repositories.

Nope. We have measured its increase over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People must remember that all political movements have an agenda-be it light or heavy. I'm currently watching a netflix production by Oliver Stone on the untold history of the US & it is an eye opener; that is what i mean is you must think the answer always stratifies the middle. One example is the military-industrial complex. The same can be said on the climate alarmism. If people are concerned about polllution, then they can start with their own stewardship. Technologies are being invented to clean up the planet & to tame other sources of energy. The marketplace will be the ultimate decider & it will be broad-based. No politician or group should control the entire market grid. Let all come to the market.

I would avoid conspiracy nuts if you want a straight answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would avoid conspiracy nuts if you want a straight answer.

I always think it's best to bolt from conspiracy nuts, otherwise you might get screwed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always think it's best to bolt from conspiracy nuts, otherwise you might get screwed.

You're nuts

One more:

Keep this up and you are going to get nailed.

 

[lordjeff]

2012, 2014-15 were polar vortex cycles. This disturbed the global warming movie title so it was modified to climate change. The climate changes, period. Too many feedback cycles. The question as to whether other types of energy sources are being cultivated well they are if you watch enough Utube. It's whether they can get on the market & stay there without going belly-up. E.g. we might see in some areas where there is space several hundred acres of solar panels or wind turbines. But it has to be extensive to contribute to the grid-aka 100 is insufficient. You need space & it should be up to the energy companies to do the R&D. Again proximity to source makes the best fit. A 30% occupation of the grid would be considered good progress.

 

[essentialsaltes]

well they are if you watch enough Utube.

I humbly suggest watching less YouTube.

 

[Ophiolite]

I humbly suggest watching less YouTube.

I would encourage him to watch more. Then he might have insufficient time to post groundless, unscientific, ill-informed nonsense.

 

[lordjeff]

Its 1.5 C degrees warming, not 2. I watch Legit Utube docs not the scam/spam/fake news stuff.