Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics - how do you explain the warming?
Topic: Research articles on hiv
July 21, 2019 / By Dodi Question:
Here is what the current global warming looks like:
Clearly it's not due to solar irradiance:
or natural cycles:
"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"
If human factors aren't causing it, what is?
Whoops, here was that last link:
Oh, and it's not cosmic rays, either
Tomcat, are you capable of reading your own links?
"Since approximately 1975 the situation is clearly different, however, with solar irradiance showing a comparatively much more modest rise than air temperature. Since 1978 direct
measurements of solar irradiance are available and can be used to test the reconstructions....We speculate that this divergence is a signature of
warming produced by the increasing concentration of manmade greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere"
Best Answers: Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics - how do you explain the warming?
Carlisa | 1 day ago
Or, given figure SPM.2 from:
what other natural forcings can the skeptics come up with that are of equal or greater magnitude than the anthropogenic forcings? Simply put, you cannot explain the observed warming without invoking bizarre nonphysical explanations (e.g., the guy explaining it in terms of internal heating from the mantle) or mechanisms so wildly speculative they belong in the science fiction category.
The rest of this post is just me killing time while something runs in the background.
There was this editorial I read about Pete Duesberg in the early 90's in Nature. Despite the huge body of evidence against him, Duesberg has fought a lonely battle trying to convince the world that AIDS is caused by drug use and anal sex, not the HIV virus. They likened Duesberg to the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who sequentially loses all of his limbs and torso, but is still cursing his foe as a coward as he rides away. The article made the point that Duesberg would be sad and pathetic if he were not so dangerous (at the time he was a serious distraction to meaningful epidemiological responses to AIDS since religious types and homphobes would use Duesberg as evidence for why condoms and needle exchange programs would be ineffective in stopping the spread of HIV). Now, Duesberg is effectively marginalized and even George Bush would agree there is no evidence to the contrary that HIV causes AIDS.
Climate skeptics are like that at this point, devoid of any real substantive counter arguments that have physical significance or plausibility. And, like Duesberg, most are too heavily invested in the counter position to let go. Therefore, no matter how large the assembled body of evidence to the contrary, the cannot accept that humans are affecting climate. But also like Duesberg they would be more pathetic if the problem were not so serious. Everywhere there are subtle signs of climate stress on the industrial nations (e.g., global wheat production over the last few years has not kept up with consumption). Our societies are not so robust as we like to believe, and as Jared Diamond points out in Collapse, globally we are like the Easter Islanders, with nowhere to go should we trash This Island Earth.
Tomcat, Do *you* read the references you cite as supporting your case? The final two lines from Solanki and Fligge, 1998, which you link to say:
For any value of DELTA-S_Mm within the range suggested by combining the solar and stellar observations (2-5 W/m2) Srec and air temperature diverge since roughly 1975. We speculate that this divergence is a signature of warming produced by the increasing concentration of manmade greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, although the natural variability of the Earth's climate cannot be ruled out as a source.
It is not enough to know that the peer-reviewed literature exists. Simply citing things doesn't mean you understand them. Here is a very good review on solar irradiance and climate forcing. I highly suggest you read it.
Tomcat: Sit down and do the math on how much extra water vapor will be added to the troposphere by the 0.4 C increase in temperature over the last 25 years. What you will find is that the increased feedback from water vapor, which is really slight (i.e., at 20 C, a +0.4C increase corresponds to less than 3% increase in concentration), isn't enough to drive the observed warming. There aren't big holes in the science like you suggest. Water vapor feedback is already in the models and without CO2 forcing it isn't enough. (CO2 has increased about 15% over the same period.)
First it was water vapor, now you are back to solar forcing. It isn't either. That Nature review I mentioned above is really good and simply shuts the door on the notion that variations in solar irradiance are the prime driver for global temperature changes over the last few centuries. Water vapor is not the culprit (see above). Why is it so hard to admit the reason the planet is warming is CO2?
👍 170 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics - how do you explain the warming?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Research articles on hiv
Originally Answered: Anthropogenic global warming skeptics - what is your stance?
There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to support the AGW theory. Just because the world's scientists are unable to explain the observed phenomena it does not mean that the most likely conclusion is the right one. That kind of logic has been the result of numerous fallacies throughout history.
There is no consensus on natural climate variability, I do not believe I have heard any explanation of what time period is involved in the oceans heat retention capability and it's distribution cycles, obviously it is very long term and very influential on climate. Nothing else can explain the asymmetric behavior between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
There has been a .05% decade increase in solar output up to 2003 since we have been measuring TSI outside the Earths atmosphere. The effect of this and other feedback mechanism's associated with this have not been fully investigated.
It is beyond the capability of climate simulations to model convection within the atmosphere and it's associated portion of Earths solar energy budget as well convections role in dissipating surface heat, so climate simulations while they are making great progress are still to rudimetary to make long term predictions, in my opinion.
The dependence on fossil fuels creates a security problem for Americans, this simple fact will create a solution with or without the cries from AGW alarmists. There are other problems that need to be resolved other than spending billions on R&D to predict the future climate.
Dana, the atmosphere has been cooling for the last few years, have CO2 levels fallen? or are we at solar minimum.
If you will notice in the above plot that water vapor (GREEN) has risen and fallen right along with air temperature in the troposphere. The link you provided about water vapor is in the stratosphere Dana. We are talking about an enhanced greenhouse effect, that would be the troposphere, let's try to stay on subject, you might learn something. The blue line represents sea surface temperature, you will notice it has fallen for several years as well. Clearly the atmosphere is reacting with solar variability, and not AGW forcing.
There is also a fallacy in your Boolean logic, you do not provide a TSI plot over the time range of your temperature graph. So I will assume that reconstructed TSI puts the increase at about 3 watts (Solanki, Fligge: 1998) since the late 1800's. And the climate correlates very well, up to about 1975. Will a three watt increase in TSI allow the atmosphere to maintain more water? The most basic of atmospheric physics says, absolutely. Is H2O more effective at scattering IR energy? Absolutely.
Does increased solar activity lead to less clouds? yes, I don't know why you keep plastreing that BBC link about neutron output. If you will look at figure 3 in the following link there is a clear link between increased solar variability and cosmic ray flux.
So to Answer your question, it is the SUN, and the world is cooling. Your data has some problems. But that has been the issue with the AGW theory from day one.
DANA, the atmosphere does not show a continued warming, are you capable of looking at a plot? I don't think you are, you are a cultist. I do not care what Solanki's opionion is about the divergence, he is looking at the same stupid summation of the contaminated surface temperature record that you are.
And you cherry picker you left out the last sentence of the paragraph:
"although the natural variability of the Earth's climate cannot be ruled out as a source"
Are you capable of reading the entire paragraph? or is it that you are not an honest person?
The paper I cited about TSI was to put some variable on the observed increase in solar output to account for the climb from the LIA. I get tired of people like you mentioning numbers from AGW forcing in the 1.5 watt range while comparing to the solar forcing of .6 watts. But as usual people like you cannot address the data presented, you just scan over the summary of the paper and repeat the conclusions, it really gets old.
Can you read your own links, it didn't slam the door on anything it merely pointed to the can of worms that has not come close to being shut. The SUN is the reason for the warming, period. There is 78 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 by molecule.
" Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."
To answer you question why is it so hard to admit CO2 is warming the planet, CO2 has a diminishing effect on a logarithmic scale, from the mid 40's to the late 70's CO2 increased by a 40 PPM increase and the planet showed almost no warming. That increase should have had double the effect than the increase that has occured over the last 30 years. CO2 has to have an effect, but it is not the primary cause, I cannot accept a ratio of 70% or higher with the available data, it does not make sense. no matter how elaborate your models are.
👍 70 | 👎 -8
You seem to rather snarky today, so I know you are going to pounce on this like a tiger on a steak.
If the surface temperature data shows a bias that tends towards increasing temperatures, then the warming that is being seen may be an anomaly related to the data itself.
As you may recall, there is a rating system for the surface stations across the US, found here:
What is concerning to me is that the stations classified as 3, 4, or 5 may significantly influence the data (upwards) when they are included in an average temperature calculation.
I am waiting to see if anyone is going through the temperature anomaly calculations with class 1 and 2 stations only to see if they show the warming trend that has been reported over the last 100 years, or if the warming trend is present only when class 3, 4, and 5 stations are included in the calculations.
I know, I know, this is the work of Anthony Watts and other such deniers and as such, this work is to be dismissed without consideration.
Let me add this little nugget of joy, just for fun:
In it, the author states:
"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true."
And this is the quote I find to be terribly amusing, yet thought provoking:
"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."
👍 70 | 👎 -17
If co2 is the cause of warming, then please tell us how much warmer it will be if co2 reaches 400ppm, 450ppm, and 500ppm.
Show us the math so we can verify your work. And as co2 increases, we will be able to see if you are correct.
The fact that other factors don't contribute to warming does not prove you are right.
You still have no clue if there will be more or less hurricanes next year, or even if it will be warmer or cooler next year or 5 years from now. No one can predict the future, not even you or your beloved Hansen.
👍 70 | 👎 -26
Most of the climate change is caused by changes in the mantle flux but no one knows anything about this a this time. Some time in the future a better theory will develop about the influence the Earth itself has on the changes that have occured for the past 4 billion years. The mantle generates a lot of energy that science is not aware of and has no clue at this time. Science uses models and tweeks the data to suit this modeling craft.
👍 70 | 👎 -35
Originally Answered: Do anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 'skeptics' have any scientific data to support their skepticism?
The problem is they generally can find one or two papers that will support their position. That there may be half a dozen subsequent papers following up showing there was an error in the original paper (e.g., the MSU2 tropospheric temperature record, corrected by Fu et al., but *still* trotted out as demonstrating a "huge problem") or that the original analysis provided an overly simplistic picture of the problem (e.g., the original studies of Lamb concerning the MWP, originally thought to be a synchronous hemispheric warming yet which subsequent, more detailed analysis has shown to very different than that, with warming in different regions in the hemisphere experiencing warming decades after others). But the skeptics reject any sophistication of the data as "manipulation to obtain a desired result." They similarly reject any advancement in understanding for the same reason.
They are not skeptics, because a true skeptic would accept that science progresses, and that as understanding of a subject increases, the picture can become more certain AND more complex (see note 1). These "skeptics" instead use any uncertainty to throw the doubt on the entire subject.
Anyone wishing to see the relevant scientific literature on what I am talking about above need only read the IPCC AR4 and the NRC tropospheric temperature reconcilliation document. It's all out there in very reliable sources. Objections that the IPCC and NAS are somehow biased are stupid and pure right-wing paranoia. The same people who make those claims probably use loaded terms like feminazis and environazis straight off of right-wing talk radio.
note 1: (A good example of this is hurricane intensity, where the interplay between shear and SST is difficult to predict in terms of cyclogenesis, and intensification is very poorly modeled at present, yet available analysis indicates that warmer water will lead to stronger tropical storms, so a reasonable person ought to be concerned about the subject, despite the uncertainty (a professional guess on my part is that we will see maybe fewer storms on average, but they will do different things like two cat 5's following the same track in the same season and storms rapidly intensifying in unusual situations). But this uncertainty in what will happen to tropical storm intensity and frequency does not imply that people are unable to predict with reasonable accuracy what will happen to climate.)
Edit: Jorge, before you call me a liar, I suggest you read the IPCC reference below. You probably won't, because you don't want to know, but those who do will see I am not lying. I'm repeating something from an authoritative document. This is what I mean about you skeptics not willing to look at the details. You all are getting skewered, and I mean just completely raked, intellectually because you can't understand the science and the progression of understanding. I'm obnoxious but in terms of the science I am rock-solid. A lot of climate science is simply common-sense extrapolation from basic physics, which is why guys like Hansen were convinced 25 years ago.