Mike ok we agree that levels are now 410ppm. Why do you think there is this increase???
The reason for more CO2 is manmade. There are no questions that I know of about that. As CC posts says the CO2 increases our atmospheric insulation and warms the atmosphere. In the science world it would be the movement of energy. In the public sector it is the weather.
CC stated that “Anthropogenic Global Warming is Driving Climate Change.”
What CC is saying is that driving force of Manmade affects on weather is mankind. Who could disagree with that? I agree when Climate Change is view as the manmake part of weather and Global Warming in Mother Nature. But when Climate Change is view as all the weather, I disagree.
Let’s get from the weather to the energy.
What we are asking and have been asking for decades now is – How much is mankind changing the energy cycles of earth?
The answer we are getting from the Democratic Left is that Anthropogenic is now the driving force of all weather here on earth.
Where I follow and back the pathway that the sun is the driving force of energy on earth. But I agree mankind is adding energy with CO2.
The sun equals 17,000 N-bombs a second of energy and the CO2 adds 3 N-bombs a second.
If that was true, then even measuring the CO2 effects would be hard. And here is where we are at today: Recent international and national assessment reports acknowledge that there is not yet evidence of changes in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires that can be attributed to manmade global warming. Fourth National Climate Assessment, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Now, like the Mueller Rpt, people read into it what they want. Any good publicly debate should stick to real facts. The republicans want the debate or if not a Climate Resolution. The Democrats don’t want debates, they want taxes and regulations. Just look at what is going on in Oregon over Climate Change. That is embarrassing for a country that is supposed to be a leader.
Mike ok we agree that levels are now 410ppm. Why do you think there is this increase???
More CO2 put in the air by mankind. CO2 warms the air. Keeps the air warm. If CO2 is the driving force of the heat, then nothing can stop the CO2 heating from taking place. Is that not the thinking?
Then tell me why the upper atmosphere has had a drastic drop in temperature?
Now don’t confuse that with natural global warming. The natural earth cycle is suppose to be warming the earth right now. Regardless if mankind was here or not. Is that not correct? The natural warming takes place with ups and downs cycles in warming and cooling, sometimes called trends. This is due to the cycles of the earth and sun.
Of the 13 strongest U.S. landfalling hurricanes in the historical record, only three have occurred since 1970 (Andrew, Michael, Charley). Four of these strongest hurricanes occurred in the decade following 1926. So, don’t get hung up on all the hype. Stay with the facts.
Mike. Breaking your response down.
- Yes. The more co2 in atm then the probability rises of a given temp increase.
2 If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heatbeing trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
-
You can’t explain how natural warming has increased the atm concentration of co2 from 280 to 410ppm over last 200 years.
-
Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity andclimate change are linked.
Player, I don’t know where to begin.
2 If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere.
No. You got it wrong. “solar activity” means the energy from the sun varies. The CO2 is at a constant rate of increase. The CO2 is not activity changing. The CO2 is not depleting. The CO2 should keep the atmosphere warm as explained in the greenhouse effect.
The sun’s energy works in cycles. Some cycles take up to 6,000 years. What we are dealing with right now is magnetic field change which affects the activity on the sun’s surface. This cycle has been taking place about 11 years after the last one ends. It takes 5 ½ years to move completely through the cycle.
We can match the sun cycles with the earth’s weather cycles.
We are starting to witness Solar Cycle 25 of a Grand Solar Minimum. It was predicted years ago that the upper atmosphere would cool because of this cycle. It has happened and the Greenhouse effect theory that the CO2 is the driving force is disproven. But this is fact of science. And the Climate Change today is political not scientific.
But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heatbeing trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
Think about what you are saying. The sun energy hits the stratosphere first but will not warm it because of the hot troposphere below it.
Is there more CO2 in the stratosphere or not? It sounds to me like the Climate Change people are programing you to think the CO2 is going to be the cause of Global Cooling.
Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
“Cooling” is not correct. “Massive Cooling” or “Stratosphere shrinking cooling” is more accurate. The new satellites caught the Climate Change people off guard. They had been claiming that the sun’s cycles are small and really don’t have any measurable affects.
What you are claiming seems to be coming from the skepticalscience site and the scienceofdoom is claiming less ozone is causing the cooling. As this cooling is in the center of the Climate Change radar right now there is a lot of noise from all the sites.
This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
If the troposphere is rising, that means the stratosphere is shrinking more than I realized. The CO2 as the driving force of the heat is not working at all. Just step back and follow the energy flow.
3. You can’t explain how natural warming has increased the atm concentration of co2 from 280 to 410ppm over last 200 years.
As the earth warm the CO2 levels follows the warming – Mother Nature, RE: Ice Cores.
As anthropogenic gases increase the system of CO2 following the natural heating no longer applies. The CO2 has risen due to mankind and has cause the blanket affect. There is a Lag period from the increased CO2 to earth’s natural thermostat. That is called the Greenhouse effect. This Lag period does not seem to take long to start cooling. Earth’s thermostat is clouds. The warmer the earth gets the more clouds are formed. The more clouds, the more sunlight is reflected into space. More rain and cooling will take place on the surface. Some scientists are saying that we have 10% more clouds today than we had before the industrial revolution. Climate Change scientists are heavy into cloud research right now. A subject they claimed had zero affect in Climate Change a few years back.
Climate Changers say the CO2 is the earth’s thermostat. The more CO2 the warmer. Our meteorologist has always claimed the clouds were the earth’s thermostat. This way back when CO2 was more about carbon credits and a new carbon stock exchange was going to be built to handle worldwide assignments of carbon credits. The wall street of energy trading that was to locate in Chicago. The meteorologists were not politically friendly.
4. Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past.
That’s good. That verifies the predictions made by Judith Curry and other meteorologists of what to expect when the Grand Solar Minimum starts. They are the only ones that seem to be able to make correct predictions. Just look at who uses their predictions, governments and major companies.
You do have one error. There are less storms, but they are more powerful.
Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.
That is scientific correct. I agree. Give me a number. As I posted earlier. Recent international and national assessment reports acknowledge that there is not yet evidence of changes in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires that can be attributed to manmade global warming.
Storms are hard enough to measure. To separate the manmade from the natural is impossible right now. There are computer models that have claimed to do this. But the people who operate the models have no creditability right now.
no you silly duck that is certainly not scientifically correct.
Your inability to provide any authoritative links to help explain the details is only one GIVE on that score.
Jesus are you ever going to start reading and learning from serious stuff. Madam Curry you love them paranoids don’t you - yeah the entire community is wrong because she was a mediocre scientist that was pissed at being increasingly marginalized and ignored because of substandard work and god awful public pronouncements using the art of Science by Slander along with the GOP Victim Card.
I could put up links to dozens of articles explaining the same conclusions. Guess that where the Yohes can point to the scientific conspiracy. When it’s actually a Consilience of the Evidence - but they’ll never cop to that so long as they have their fertile imaginations, political financial interests and a complete lack of integrity, with a dose of ruthlessness tossed in.
Earth's warming: How scientists know it's not the sunScientists point to compelling evidence that Earth’s atmospheric warming over recent decades cannot be caused primarily by energy coming from the Sun.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/10/earths-warming-how-scientists-know-its-not-the-sun/
If you want science:
Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the worldhttps://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world
Scientists have published more than 230 peer-reviewed studies looking at weather events around the world, from Hurricane Katrina to Russia’s 2010 heatwave. The result is mounting evidence that human activity is raising the risk of some types of extreme weather, especially those linked to heat.
Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests 68% of all extreme weather events studied to date were made more likely or more severe by human-caused climate change. Heatwaves account for 43% such events, droughts make up 17% and heavy rainfall or floods account for 16%.
To track how the evidence on this fast-moving topic is stacking up, Carbon Brief has mapped – to the best of our knowledge – every extreme event attribution study from a peer-reviewed journal.
First published in July 2017, this article is the second iteration of what will become an annual update to incorporate new studies. The aim is that it serves as a tracker for the evolving field of “extreme event attribution”.
Using the map …
Climate Basics » Extreme Weather Extreme Weather and Climate Changehttps://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-weather-and-climate-change/
The Science Connecting Extreme Weather to Climate Change
CC, some of the latest books out on the subject. Interesting.
Reason in a Dark Time
The Great Global Warming Blunder
How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate
Inconvenient Data: Proving the Consensus of Science is Wrong
A Climate of Crisis: America in the Age of Environmentalism
Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our Planetary Future
Behind the Curve: Science and the Politics of Global Warming
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus
The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth’s Climate
Understanding Weather Climate 7th Edition
Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort Through the Noise Around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Mike yohe. You can’t cite one scientific paper to support your claims
You can’t cite any empirical data to falsify the theory such as surface and satellite temperature recordings and solar activity data
You provide your opinion on this subject without any factual rationale - a person with no credentials in climate science research.
Mike Yohe why would anyone care and take notice of your arguments here???
This is typical, especially for far left democrats to go after the person and not stay on the subject.
Are you now implying that the upper atmosphere is not cooling?
The rise of CO2 is anything but smooth, unless you pull back and reduce resolution, though even then if you look you’ll see the trend line doing short deviations here and there, and then if you pull back on the time scale, holly fuk is there a curve, looks like a freaking hockey stick!
Our Suns variations are quite small, sun spot activity has almost impact regarding insolation energy received by Earth - apparent the area around the black spots, is much hotter than the back ground, so it compensates for the dark patches.
Of course in deep time, the sun small insolation fluctuations and (most of which were caused by our Earth’s spin and orbit) does impact Earth on Geologic time scales, absolutely not applicable for the current explosion going within and upon this planets climate system and biosphere. Notice the slow steady rise in out put, that’s been going on since for ever, in fact originally our Sun had an output half of what it is today. {Incidentally, finally found out a question I’ve had since learning about the early Earth and Moon. After the Moon’s formation, tides were as much a 2,000 meters tall - that’s like a mile and a quarter deep. Not to forget, days were much shorter, tides came in every six hours. Can you imagine that ;- ) }
Sun
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-4/
CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UatUDnFmNTY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
It has been said that the gravity pull of the moon in the early stages was strong enough to move rocks on the ground. Waves were small title waves.
CC, the question about the sun has advance a lot in the last decade since we have been debating. Examples of data talk from the internet.
Holocene climate has been affected in different periods by several centennial to millennial solar cycles. The ~ 1000-year Eddy solar cycle seems to have dominated Holocene climate variability between 11,500-4,000 years BP, and in the last two millennia, where it defines the Roman, Medieval, and Modern warm periods. The ~ 208-year de Vries solar cycle displays strong modulation by the ~ 2400-year Bray solar cycle, both in its cosmogenic isotope signature and in its climatic effects. The Centennial, and Pentadecadal solar cycles are observable in the last 400-year sunspot record, and they are responsible for the present extended solar minimum that started in 2008.
The 2400-year Bray climate cycle appears responsible for the main climatic subdivisions of the Holocene, and the climatic pessima that separate them, such as the Little Ice Age. Additional periodic climate variability in the centennial to millennial range is produced by the 1500-year oceanic cycle, and by several solar activity periodicities that, according to numerous authors, correlate well with climate variability.
The study of solar cycles and their climatic effect is hampered by a very short observational record (~ 400 years), an inadequate understanding of the physical causes that might produce centennial to millennial changes in solar activity, and an inadequate knowledge of how such changes produce their climatic effect. Despite this lack of a solid theoretical framework, paleoclimatologists keep publishing article after article where they report correations between solar proxy periodicities and climate proxy periodicities, and the observational evidence is now so abundant as to obviate the lack of a theory or well defined mechanism.
Every frequency analysis of Holocene solar activity reconstructions shows a strong peak at ~ 1000 year (figure 62 A & C, Darby et al., 2012; Kern et al., 2012). Wavelet analysis shows the ~ 1000-year periodicity having a strong signal between 11,500 and 4,000 yr BP, and between 2,000 and 0 yr BP, but a very low signal between 4,000 and 2,000 yr BP (figure 79; Ma 2007; Kern et al., 2012). The average duration of the ~ 1000-year cycle can be calculated from the grand solar minimum at 11,115 yr BP to the one at 1,265 yr BP (dates from Usoskin et al., 2016) for ten periods at 985 years, a span in very good agreement with the calculated 970 years from frequency analysis (Kern et al., 2012) and the calculated 983.4 years from astronomical cycles (Scafetta, 2012).
In 2017 there were 7 new papers on the forecast of Global Cooling and anther Little Ice Age due to De Vries and Suess cycle. If the funding for the sun was like the carbon funding we would have thousands of papers.
Seven, hmmm, list them (and where they’ve been published and who’s debating those papers).
When you got nothing else, invoke the grand conspiracy.
What did I say here that is not true??
Mike yohe. You can’t cite one scientific paper to support your claims
You can’t cite any empirical data to falsify the theory such as surface and satellite temperature recordings and solar activity data
You provide your opinion on this subject without any factual rationale – a person with no credentials in climate science research.
Player, are you now trying to claim the upper atmosphere is not cooling?
CC, I will just save myself the time and assume that you will bad mouth 5 of the 7 papers. Let’s just stay on subject for the next decade as the political agenda your pushing plays out.
source NOAA
Are the models missing a key aspect of stratospheric climate change? Or is there an error in the newly processed NOAA data? Which SSU data set is correct? Or are both in error? If the NOAA SSU data are correct, then both the CCMVal2 and CMIP5 models are presumably missing key changes in stratospheric composition. The methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing remain unknown. For this reason, the NOAA STAR recently reprocessed the SSU temperatures and published the full processing methodology and the resulting data in the peer-reviewed literature. The new data raise more questions than they answer, because they provide a strikingly different view of recent stratospheric temperature trends.
New data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question the understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.
The models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. They haven’t shown what they say they showed. In particular they have not identified a unique anthropogenic fingerprint or provided a credible control for natural variability over the sample period.
So, what is this credible control for natural variability and why is it so important? They are now finally admitting that they need a datum line to work to. Without a datum line their anthropogenic fingerprint is just the same as the last 40 years of data. No good. They have been making the models match what was thought to be correct data. When the new satellites show differently what was going on in the stratosphere, they need to answer why the models were matching what they thought was the correct answers.
Player, what we must buy into is that increased CO2 warms the troposphere. OK, I’m in. And increased CO2 causes stratospheric cooling. No, I’m not buying. Just doesn’t sound right.
If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That’s because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
OK, the CO2 traps the heat in the lower atmosphere. Why would the upper atmosphere not stay the same or warm slightly with more CO2? Why does it have to cool? What is making it cool? That is why the scientists were caught off guard, because they were not expecting it to be cooling as much as it was. They never agreed to what was causing the cooling they were aware of.
The effect from the Sun on Earth is mediated by radiation, particles, and fields. Only the first one is usually considered for climate. Sun’s variability comes from long term changes and transient events. Solar particles and magnetic field arrive carried by the solar wind. Several pathways have been described for solar effects on climate.
The most studied is an atmospheric that is quite complex and relies on the structure and ozone content of the stratosphere. It is mediated by solar UV activity. The energy and momentum provider for this pathway is not the Sun, but the gravity waves originated from the interaction between the tropospheric wind and pressure changes with northern hemisphere mid-latitude mountain ranges.
Under certain conditions these waves more frequently get deflected by the stratosphere and impact the stratospheric polar vortex disorganizing it. When this happens the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations tend to become more negative and this pressure changes alter the average winter weather in the northern hemisphere. When the effect is prolonged the climate is altered. Volcanic eruptions interfere with this pathway big time, and their winter warming effect is due to it.
Another pathway is the by irradiation. Consisting of the oceans and cloud coverage working with humidity. Altering circulation changes with the troposphere to the stratosphere on a seasonal trend. This pathway is not yet understood.
Another pathway is even less studied and understood is the energetic particle rain where HOx and NOx are created and transported from the thermosphere to the stratosphere where they destroy the ozone.
Another pathway is the solar magnetic field impacting the Earth causing changes in surface pressure. This is known as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect.
If the pathways are not in the models, then they are said not to have much effect. Yet, the models are not working.
The most fraudulent argument is that solar activity has been declining for decades while temperatures have been increasing. It is fraudulent because it is based on the assumption that solar effect on climate is linear and proportional to solar activity. We do not know that. The evidence shows a disproportionate effect during prolonged periods of very low solar activity, like the one we have entered.
Mike is this all opinion from.you?