Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

[CavLancer]

Will you include notable and undeniable worldwide cooling, should it occur, among those counterproofs? Because, let us not forget that while some unscientific blokes on the AGW side consider the debate to be over, the world continues to spin and time and tides move in their motions, with the sun at the center of it all going through its phases, and this does not end but could easily definitively end all debate.

 

[brennan]

0-700m

No upper ocean warming guys. Try again.

Where's the missing heat?

Well that's easy to answer isn't it? This graph is from before the crucial adjustment for areas known to be under-represented by the data set.

So we've reached the point of some people posting flat graphs, others posting rising graphs. Pffft we can all do that. Every time it returns to this point.

So instead of continuing this paradox, we should just all agree to disagree. No one's going to convince anyone on this forum.

Or you could just admit that you are not interested in following the science as it develops. You have to keep re-posting cherry picked material and ignoring all the updates.

@El_Mach, but the missing heat was meant to be found in the deep ocean.

Hmm use of past-tense when referring to an article only a month old. Your timeline is skipping all over the place.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm posting so that anyone else reading the thread is aware that the various "counterproofs" of AGW are nothing of the sort.

Allow me to add that "It's all just the sun" has been debunked and redebunked. On CFC that argument and the sound trashing has featured in the first thread about Global Warming I read many years ago.

All people have to do is look at the graphics that show solar activity and cosmic rays vs the temperature for the last 150 years. That will clearly show it's not the main driver.

People can also look at warming trends of various planets (be mindfull to not cherry pick those planets, which is denier trickery, look at all of them) and they'll see different planets have way different trends, which would be odd if the sun was the main driver of climate change.

 

[CavLancer]

Has anyone informed the sun?

 

[El_Machinae]

People can also look at warming trends of various planets (be mindfull to not cherry pick those planets, which is denier trickery, look at all of them) and they'll see different planets have way different trends, which would be odd if the sun was the main driver of climate change.

That's very correct. Now, any planet with a climate can be in one of two states: their climate is either warming OR it's cooling. In any random scenario, you'd expect half the planets to be in a warming phase due to their unique situation, and half of them to be in a cooling phase.

Finding another planet that's warming shouldn't be surprising, we expect ~half of them to be warming. The trick is to figure out the mechanism by which it is warming.

 

[brennan]

Rofl, have we backtracked to the old 'climate researchers have forgotten to put the Sun in their models' lunacy?

 

[Truronian]

Will you include notable and undeniable worldwide cooling, should it occur, among those counterproofs? Because, let us not forget that while some unscientific blokes on the AGW side consider the debate to be over, the world continues to spin and time and tides move in their motions, with the sun at the center of it all going through its phases, and this does not end but could easily definitively end all debate.

How would hypothetical future worldwide cooling explain the current ongoing climate change (in particular the temperature increase)?

When a hypothetical future event is your only "counter-proof", you might want to revisit the idea that you may be wrong.

 

[CavLancer]

By climate change you mean global warming of course. What the sun giveth the sun can taketh away. Like for instance the Holocene interglacial.

 

[peter grimes]

I think what he means, Cav, is that we have observational evidence that the earth is warming, sea level is rising, and the oceans are becoming more acidic.

How does lower solar output explain these things *while supplanting* the AGW explanation?

 

[CavLancer]

High solar maxes coincided with most of the warming, Peter, and low with the pause. AGW supplanted. Perhaps CO2 did contribute somewhat...but not what its all dressed up to be. If CO2 was what they claim then the pause could not have occurred.

Now this time I'm really done.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

High solar maxes coincided with most of the warming, Peter, and low with the pause.

Actually, they don't.

Can you show me how they coincided the last 100 years? Some sort of graph like this:

If CO2 was what they claim then the pause could not have occurred.

Yes it could. Since the pause does not take into account the heat stored in the upper half of the ocean. As the article you posted told you.

You did read the article you posted, or didn't you?

Could you also explain to Peter how the sun causes the oceans to become more acidic?

Now this time I'm really done.

One can only hope All this scientific information you post really messes with my warmist worldview

 

[brennan]

Note the scale in that graph. While the Sun is the primary source of energy in our climate, variation in solar irradiance is miniscule on these timescales.

 

[warpus]

Why are we analyzing graphs anyway? Are we experts in that sort of thing?

Shouldn't we be letting scientists analyze these things instead? Why not go straight to their conclusions, as opposed to attempting to do their work for them?

We have no idea what we're doing. Or are any of us specialists in the field or something?

 

[Truronian]

Why are we analyzing graphs anyway? Are we experts in that sort of thing?

Shouldn't we be letting scientists analyze these things instead? Why not go straight to their conclusions, as opposed to attempting to do their work for them?

We have no idea what we're doing. Or are any of us specialists in the field or something?

The basics are easily understood, while the more advanced stuff is interesting and somewhat followable. I think that's why so many people feel in a position to challenge it and why amateurs (like myself) try to explain it. In the grand scheme of things does our opinion and endless posting matter? No, not really. The real climate scientists don't spend their days arguing for the existence of AGW, just as modern physicists don't go around trying to convince people that the earth orbits the sun: it's old news.

 

[warpus]

The basics are easily understood, while the more advanced stuff is interesting and somewhat followable.

What I'm seeing though is a bunch of people arguing about what a graph means.

People who aren't trained at reading graphs or the data involved or how it was collected or anything similar. Generally speaking. You can get anything out of a graph that you want, if you don't know what you're doing. Even more if you know what you're doing, I suppose.

It seems simple, but things that seem simple often have complex elements that might not be apparent to us amateurs. So I don't really see any value in trying to have a discussion in this sort of way - why not look at what experts are saying about the graphs instead? Any sort of meaning we get out of them is not really going to be accurate, aside from "the graph is going up! I think! That means stuff"

 

[brennan]

Warpus, graphs are not that hard to read, those above pretty obviously rebut the claim made.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed. A verifiable but unsupported claim was made. I merely gave an illustration how someone could present something to support this claim. It's not definitive. It's rather more like: well, it doesn't look like it to me if I look at this, so maybe you could show me how you got to your conclusion? Then we, as laymen, would have something to discuss.

The claim was: High solar maxes coincided with most of the warming, Peter, and low with the pause. Which can be compared if you draw out those in a graph.

What it actually means in impact with regard to global warming and how it fits in the complex models is indeed outside the scope of my capabilities.

 

[warpus]

Warpus, graphs are not that hard to read, those above pretty obviously rebut the claim made.

Most graphs only show you a small part of the big picture. They show you whatever the person putting the graph together wanted you to see.

I'm not saying we're all idiots who can't look at a graph and draw conclusions from it; I'm saying that the subject matter is complex enough for our observations to not really amount to anything substantial.

 

[El_Machinae]

Note the scale in that graph. While the Sun is the primary source of energy in our climate, variation in solar irradiance is miniscule on these timescales.

Huh. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realise that the variation was wobbling within one watt per square meter. I didn't expect that.

 

[tokala]

Huh. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realise that the variation was wobbling within one watt per square meter. I didn't expect that.

And for good measure, you have to consider that the TSI value of ~1366W/m² is for the top of the atmosphere, at 0° incidence angle.
Solar energy absorbed per m² of Earth' surface is only a fraction (0.7*0.25 due to albedo and geometry) of that value, about 240W/m², with variations of about +/- 0.1W/m² during the solar activity cycle.

Might be useful to know to put into perspective against the "radiative forcing" values usually given averaged over Earth's complete surface in climate science articles.

Visualised against other important climate forcings: