Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

So how did they count the number of sunspots over 2000 years ago, and what brand of solar telescope did they use? And did they use the same brand 10,000 years ago? Or is that just mere rectal-gas-lighting?

 

Warmists should burn into their your memory ‘correlation does not prove a cause’, which probably renders the paleo-climate studies whose results are purported to prove AGW complete red-herrings.

 

No. Rectal-gas-lighting appears to be your specialty.

 

At least the overwhelming majority of scientists believe it's better than the rectal gas lighting of counting sunspots 11,000 years ago.

 

And do they use the "No" brand of solar telescope to count sunspots today, or do they use rectal gas lighting?

 

You’re still hung up on sunspots Mitty?

 

Absolutely. There is simply not enough details in such studies to show which came first. In most such cases we are lucky if we can pin the actual data down to ten millennia, let alone a century or a year (and most times for that it is if they were lucky enough to identify a volcanic eruption layer if it was in roughly the last 100 ky). For example, the Kaibab Limestone which is the top layer of the Grand Canyon is between 91 and 150 meters in thickness. And it dates from 250-220 million years. That is 30 million years, in between 91-150 meters of rock. And we do not know what came after that at all, as it is at the bottom of one of many unconformities in the canyon. Because there is nothing above that layer, anything after is simply gone.

And that layer has actually helped us understand the climate conditions during that era (late Permian) due to the fossils inside of it. But anybody that claims they can tell anything much more exact other than generalities is lying. Especially if they try to claim a specific time period even if it is over 25,000 years or more.

Most really have no idea how fragmentary the paleo-climate record is. For example, it is really impossible to tell any climate history of much of Idaho and Washington prior to 10 million years ago. And in much of Idaho-Nevada it is impossible to tell anything beyond around 20 million years. In both cases there are often volcanic deposits miles thick that covers everything older. And ironically, much of the West Coast from Mexico up to Canada can not tell us anything either, as all of that land was not originally part of North America in the first place. Western Washington was once off the coast of Mexico, and after much movement was scraped onto the North American plate as a Exotic Terrane. Scraped off of the Farallon Plate as it was subducted under the North American plate.

Want to get an idea of "deep time"? Everything between the Klamath Mountains to Canada, from the coast inland to the Cascades was at one time an island. And 50 MYA it was roughly at the latitude of Hawaii today. Anybody claiming we can get anything but the barest glimpse of the general climate at that time period is not telling the truth.

 

So what on Earth have paleo-climate studies got to do with the strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and the increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity in my lifetime?

 

I’m not saying they have anything to do with the recent claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature. But correlation is not a cause. And the paleo-climate data does contain some contradictions in respect to the CAGW theory. According to your own paleo-climate studies, CO2 levels have been almost 20 times higher in the past at over 7,000ppmv and the Earth still underwent huge glaciations.

 

So what caused the recent increases in global temperatures during my life-time if it wasn't because of the green-house effect of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity? Or was it from all the guff and bluff from the rectal gas fires

And what actual scientific evidence do you have to support your claim that the atmospheric concentration was 7000 ppm during the ice ages, and how did you measure it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

 

Depends on who you ask. Some say clouds. Some say the Sun. This has all been presented in this thread and you just go round in circles.

Well, you see, I had a time machine with CO2-sensors. Unfortunately, it got stuck in reverse, so I couldn’t bring back the full data. You’ll just have to trust me.

 

To show this again. Delgado-Bonal et al (2020), using NASA data, has estimated that there has been an increase in shortwave solar radiation of 3.5 W/m2 between 1984 to 2014 from changes in clouds:

https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/02...diation-increase-important-to-recent-warming/

 

The Wikipedia page on “paleoclimatology” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png) depicts the Cambrian period as having CO2-levels in the thousands of parts per million (as compared to our current 420ppmv), yet if you turn to the Wikipedia article on the Cambrian period you find that it says some glaciation occurred then. And on the same page just referenced, it gives the following about the Ordovician age when CO2 was also reckoned to have been in the thousands of parts per million:

“…..the early Phanerozoic includes a global ice age during the Ordovician age combined with high atmospheric carbon contents based on the same project. There have been different speculations about the reasons but no acknowledged mechanism so far.”

An ice age when CO2 was in the 1,000s ppmv but the polar ice-caps are melting now because CO2 has reached the unprecedented level of a few 100s ppmv? That doesn’t make sense to me. And if you look at the graphs for the Carboniferous age you can see that CO2 levels went up towards the end of it, but guess what! Glaciation occurred then too!

 

And the overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists agree that the green house effect of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity is causing the increase in global temperatures and climate change, and not small fluctuations in solar intensity, or from the green fairies reducing the number of clouds because of increasing global temperatures from increased atmospheric CO2, so that they can make eggs from chickens.

Either way, the CO2 measurements you took 400 million years or so ago are totally irrelevant to today's climate, apart from the fossil fuels produced then which are now being burnt and increasing global temperatures and subsequent climate change.

 

Your question has already been answered more than once by citing peer-reviewed research.

 

The alarmist campaign is fueled by ignorance.
Climate Ideology Ignores Science, Threatens Humanity
By Lee Gerhard

Climate scientists would be less likely to issue dire warnings of planetary doom if they gave more credence to the geological history of the past several million years. Instead, they rely on computer models that are biased by the preconceptions of their manipulators and incapable of accounting for the myriad factors influencing global temperatures.

Minuscule recent warming, whatever the cause, is inconsequential in light of the long record of data found in Antarctica ice cores that go back 800,000 years. The bottom line is that Earth is colder by nearly 3 degrees Celsius than it was 3,000 years ago and is just now climbing out of its longest cold spell of the last 10,000 years. Blaring headlines about record heat waves of the past 100 years are meaningless, hysterical blather.

A deeper dive into geologic history — based partly on the record stored over millions of years in deep-ocean sediments — shows that today’s carbon dioxide concentrations of 420 parts per million are a fraction of past levels that reached 5,000 ppm and more. Carbon dioxide is nearly at its lowest level ever since plant life began so many millions of years ago and well below the optimum amount for the health of most vegetation.

In fact, the 280-ppm concentration of the mid-19th century is uncomfortably close to the point at which plant life dies — below 150 ppm. Given that all life depends on adequate amounts of this gas, proposals to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide are nothing less than reckless. . . . .

Lee Gerhard is a senior scientist emeritus at the University of Kansas, past director of the Kansas Geological Survey, member of the CO2 Coalition, retired Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, and co-author of “Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change.” He has a doctorate in geology.

 

Let's have no more nonsense about quackery and consensus. Advocacy has corrupted science journalism.
Unscientific American

James Meigs, City Journal

Michael Shermer got his first clue that things were changing at Scientific American in late 2018. The author had been writing his “Skeptic” column for the magazine since 2001. His monthly essays, aimed at an audience of both scientists and laymen, championed the scientific method, defended the need for evidence-based debate, and explored how cognitive and ideological biases can derail the search for truth. Shermer’s role models included two twentieth-century thinkers who, like him, relished explaining science to the public: Carl Sagan, the ebullient astronomer and TV commentator; and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote a popular monthly column in Natural History magazine for 25 years. Shermer hoped someday to match Gould’s record of producing 300 consecutive columns. That goal would elude him.

In continuous publication since 1845, Scientific American is the country’s leading mainstream science magazine. Authors published in its pages have included Albert Einstein, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and J. Robert Oppenheimer—some 200 Nobel Prize winners in all. SciAm, as many readers call it, had long encouraged its authors to challenge established viewpoints. In the mid-twentieth century, for example, the magazine published a series of articles building the case for the then-radical concept of plate tectonics. In the twenty-first century, however, American scientific media, including Scientific American, began to slip into lockstep with progressive beliefs. Suddenly, certain orthodoxies—especially concerning race, gender, or climate—couldn’t be questioned. . . .

 

They refuse to consider anything past a few thousand years old, which is why they are constantly fighting with the geology community. Most recently failing when they tried to force a new geologic age onto them, and it failed spectacularly.

They only want us to look at the past 150 years and nothing else.

 

They demonstrate why people who have no science education beyond high school (and did not do well in that) are liable to mistake correlation for causation.

 

That's easy: solar activity being at the highest sustained level in thousands of years has restored the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- which was accompanied by the lowest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years. The tortured nonscience those who push the CO2 climate narrative have had to concoct to evade that obvious relationship is astonishing.

You would seem to be intimately acquainted with those.

 

So I beat him by more than 20 years....

It became clear that SciAm had turned its back on science in favor of woke nonscience when it chose to publish some outlandish and unfounded hatchet jobs on "The Bell Curve" in the mid 90s and did not permit any response from the authors.

 

Such consensus claims have been aggressively pushed by political means, but have been conclusively debunked.

I have explained to you multiple times, in clear, simple, grammatical English, why solar intensity -- TSI -- is not a relevant measure of how solar activity affects climate. Why do you continue to disingenuously pretend that it is? Is it because you know you have been proved wrong, and must contrive some means to evade that knowledge?

What a fatuous, anti-rational, anti-scientific, despicable and disgraceful attempt to evade the facts. That must be why you constantly resort to it.

I see. So, the fact that in all previous years, May has been reliably hotter than January is totally irrelevant to understanding why this May is also hotter than this January...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

And the bluff and guff and rectal-gas-lighting continues, with no evidence to support their irrelevant hypotheses that the number of sunspots is higher than 10,000 years ago, or that the global temperatures are three degrees colder than 3000 years ago.

 

That should read: "The overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists agree that the greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity is causing some of the increase in global temperatures".

The changes in TSI are not trival. It is enough alone to explain the warming. But the IPCC use different proxies than other scientists. According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2. But there are various reconstructions showing a large increase in TSI since pre-industrial times. Quote from Egorova et al 2018: “There is no consensus on the amplitude of the historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between the Maunder Minimum and present time ranges from 0.1 W/m2 to 6 W/m2 making uncertain the simulation of the past and future climate”. Quote from Scafetta et al 2018: “The solar radiative forcing is quite uncertain because from 1700 to 2000 the proposed historical TSI reconstructions vary greatly from a minimum of 0.5 W/m2 to a maximum of about 6 W/m2”. To put that into prespective, the IPCC claim that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppmv (its level in 1750) to 560ppmv will produce 3.7 W/m2 of forcing. Also, how do you know the clouds-changes due to the warming or the warming from CO2?

 

That should read: "But the IPCC use different reconstructions than other scientists".

So as much as 6 W/m2 between 1750 to today might be attributed to the Sun. CO2 was 280ppmv in 1750 and has risen since today to 420ppmv. That is a forcing of about 2 W/m2 (according to the IPCC's logarithmic equation). So, possibly only 1/3rd of the solar forcing.