13 Misconceptions about Global Warming

Why would their far out of bound solar forcing be correct and the consensus solar forcing be incorrect?

I am not saying that their estimate of solar forcing is correct, just offering a different view to the IPCC, and according to the two scientists quoted above, there is no consensus on the magnitute of solar forcing in the scientific literature, assuming they are to be believed.

Increased solar forcing would furthermore cause different warming patterns than what is observed from increased greenhouse concentrations, and even furthermore, the increase in greenhouse gases is an observed fact, not a conjecture, and so the greenhouse radiative forcing would have to be included on top of that.

I accept that greenhouse gases have exerted a warming influence on the planet. However, it is a question of degree and the possible duration of the effect. To the best of my knowledge there is no empirical proof that the human contribution to the atmospheric greenhouse has achieved any significant warming at the surface.

The increase in water vapor is consistent with a warming atmosphere, since vapor/ocean mixing time is a few weeks and there is a large sink of liquid water, the vapor is a response.

Water vapour is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes, including solar forcing, not just by the radiance from greenhouse gases. It seems possible to me that the increase in water vapour could be partly due to the increase in solar forcing. After all, they do appear to at least correlate, as shown by the graph above.

originally posted by: Nathan-D
Water vapour is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes, including solar forcing, not just by the radiance from greenhouse gases. It seems possible to me that the increase in water vapour could be partly due to the increase in solar forcing. After all, they do appear to at least correlate, as shown by the graph above.

If extra solar forcing were occurring, we would be measuring it. WHy doesn't the consensus view show it?

In any case, the prospect of increased solar forcing from astrophysical events would not stop in any way the forcing from greenhouse forcing, but be further additive and make the reduction of human-caused climate damage even more urgent.

a reply to: jrod



14 . Global Warming is REAL , but it is Not Directly Caused by Mankind .

We think we know our climate.

We also think we know nature.

Wolves In Yellowstone is a good example of us not knowing what we are doing.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Cool. Remain ignorant. Refuse to understand or accept the information in front of you.

This is is not a debate...

Human activity is clearly causing a warning effect. If you do not understand this, that's fine...but do not pretend you are know better.

originally posted by: Dalamax

#3 The ice age isn’t coming back. The last one was the LAST one

We are still coming out of the last mini one that ended about 1850, so what is normal?

originally posted by: jrod

Human activity is clearly causing a warning effect. If you do not understand this, that's fine...but do not pretend you are know better.

But how much 5% 30% 50% 90%?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Cool.

You can quote me on a typo within a half hour.

Do you really think you know more than the folks who study this?

originally posted by: jrod

Cool.

You can quote me on a typo within a half hour.

Do you really think you know more than the folks who study this?

I didn't ask you about a typo, I asked how much do humans influence the total CO2 produced every year?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Enough to create a surplus.

Sources - Sinks....

A well balanced formula is weighted towards extra man made sources.

originally posted by: jrod

Enough to create a surplus.

Sources - Sinks....

A well balanced formula is weighted towards extra man made sources.

So that is the question... Man adds about 5% and is that enough to unbalance it all, or are we just on the train heading in a direction it will go with little influence from us. The earth has been much warmer and colder if we look back 50k years.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Why would their far out of bound solar forcing be correct and the consensus solar forcing be incorrect?

I am not saying that their estimate of solar forcing is correct, just offering a different view to the IPCC, and according to the two scientists quoted above, there is no consensus on the magnitute of solar forcing in the scientific literature, assuming they are to be believed.

Increased solar forcing would furthermore cause different warming patterns than what is observed from increased greenhouse concentrations, and even furthermore, the increase in greenhouse gases is an observed fact, not a conjecture, and so the greenhouse radiative forcing would have to be included on top of that.

I accept that greenhouse gases have exerted a warming influence on the planet. However, it is a question of degree and the possible duration of the effect. To the best of my knowledge there is no empirical proof that the human contribution to the atmospheric greenhouse has achieved any significant warming at the surface.

Dude, CO2 went from 270 to 415 ppm from human influences almost exclusively (we know this from isotopic analysis), and we know the warming pattern is consistent with increased greenhouse forcing and not increased solar forcing, which has not been directly observed recently.

Water vapour is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes, including solar forcing, not just by the radiance from greenhouse gases. It seems possible to me that the increase in water vapour could be partly due to the increase in solar forcing. After all, they do appear to at least correlate, as shown by the graph above.

Water vapor in atmosphere is really very well correlated with its temperature and that is due to solar forcing (which doesn't have any recent secular change) and greenhouse forcing (which does).

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: jrod

Cool.

You can quote me on a typo within a half hour.

Do you really think you know more than the folks who study this?

I didn't ask you about a typo, I asked how much do humans influence the total CO2 produced every year?

keelingcurve.ucsd.edu...

All of the trend since industrial times is from human activities. There is a yearly fluctuation due to seasonal effects and differences in plant growth cycles in northern vs southern hemisphere.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: jrod

Human activity is clearly causing a warning effect. If you do not understand this, that's fine...but do not pretend you are know better.

But how much 5% 30% 50% 90%?

How much of recent warming (since maybe 1950) is from humans? All of it.

www.carbonbrief.org...

This has of course been a major issue of study quantitatively and physically for decades. This question is now settled: no significant non-human contributions have been found despite large scale global investigations. Any natural source of warming would be physically observable and have a specific mechanistic cause as well. You can't say "it's unknown" without giving a mechanism backed by strong observational evidence.

originally posted by: mbkennel

How much of recent warming (since maybe 1950) is from humans? All of it.

So coming out of the mini ice age around 1850 and also the big ice age still, does that play into any of it? We been in a cold period for so long we really do not know what a warm period looks like.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Dalamax

#3 The ice age isn’t coming back. The last one was the LAST one

We are still coming out of the last mini one that ended about 1850, so what is normal?

There planet was generally cooling slightly from about 6000 BC until the industrial period because of slow orbital changes.

Since humans added lots of greenhouse gases, it has gotten very much warmer.

Any effect like "coming out of an ice age" also has a specific physical cause which should be identifiable and measurable. If you can't find it after lots of work, it isn't there.

Dude, CO2 went from 270 to 415 ppm from human influences almost exclusively (we know this from isotopic analysis), and we know the warming pattern is consistent with increased greenhouse forcing and not increased solar forcing, which has not been directly observed recently.

I think there are many other possibilities for the observed CO2 increase and the isotopic data is not conclusive. The isotopic data supports a natural increase, as I explain in my article below.

chipstero7.wordpress.com...