Is climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by stan1990, Jan 21, 2020.

?

Do you believe that climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Poll closed Feb 20, 2020.
  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Not sure

    100.0%
  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The answer that I find most persuasive is that about half of 20th century warming was man-made (anthropogenic) and half was solar-generated. This is the explanation offered by Professor Nir Shaviv, as presented in the link below.

    My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

    ". . . it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling).

    You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. . . ."

     
    AFM and bringiton like this.
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if the sensitivity is 1 degree C and using the middle of the range A1B CO2 atmospheric CO2 concentration increase forecast it will be ~ 300 years before the cost-benefit curve goes negative according to the consensus of economic analyses shown in Dr. Richard Tol’s college textbook “Climate Economics” - second edition.
     
    Sunsettommy, drluggit and Jack Hays like this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bingo. And we achieve the Paris temperature target for 2100 without changing anything.
     
    AFM likes this.
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a growing body of data that is demonstrating that additional CO2 forcing is plateauing. Even at higher potential CO2 concentrations, heat forcing is leveling off, with no additional forcing being demonstrated. This has been adequately studied, it seems, and replication of the real world experience is aligning with this development.
     
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you'll find this link interesting. Energy budget analysis results in climate sensitivity outcomes at the bottom of or even below the IPCC "official range." I believe climate sensitivity is the hill on which orthodox anthropogenic theory will die.
    New Study Effectively Eliminates Confidence In Human Attribution For Modern Global Warming
    By Kenneth Richard on 5. November 2020

    Share this...
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    The forcing uncertainties and lack of observational measurements in the top-to-bottom global ocean preclude an assessment that modern warmth is due to anthropogenic activities.
    Key points from a new paper (Gebbie, 2021):

    • 93% of the changes to the Earth’s energy budget, manifested as warming of the Earth system, are expressed in the global ocean. Just 1% of global warming is atmospheric.

    • Even with the advent of “quasi-global” temperature sampling of the ocean since 2005 (ARGO), these floats “do not measure below 2,000-m depth.” This means that temperature changes in “approximately half the ocean’s volume” are still not being measured today.

    • To detect the effects of anthropogenic forcing, it would require energy budget imbalance measurement precision of 0.1 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Uncertainty in the forcing changes affecting climate are ±4 W/m², meaning that uncertainty is about 80 times greater than an anthropogenic signal detection.

    • Past changes in global ocean heat content, such as the last deglaciation, have been 20 times larger than modern changes.

    • Ocean heat storage during the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Anomaly, or MCA) was much greater than modern. Modern global ocean heat uptake is “just one-third” of what is required to reach the levels attained during Medieval times. . . .
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.

Share This Page