Post the entire statement I wrote, not a phrase.........you don’t disagree with me, you disagree with every university and research facility and major corporation and govt. in the entire world. Own it.
Aside from the fact that computer models actually do quite well they aren't the only evidence. In fact, it isn't the primary or even secondary line of evidence. I think this post epitomizes the problem people have with climate science. They are just simply uninformed about what it is, what predictions it makes, and what evidence exists to support it.
What graphs and figures do the people who say there have been no global warming for the past 2 decades use? Are these graphs and figures put together by experts or people who have no experience or expertise in this field? It is a relevant question. Also, given that the earth does and will warm up between ice ages for a warming not to be occuring would be a big anomaly, right? No one who is at least half educated expects stasis, but cycling. The earth seems to be about cycles not stasis. I heard that texan who is running for president say this week, the most absurd thing ever said by a politician. That we need to defeat global warming!! ha ha ha. Even my local village idiot found that absurd and chuckled. I guess some of us believe ourselves to be gods?
The bulk of the evidences comes from nature. Species moving north there never was before. Diseases like Lyme disease aling with the Everglades, the fresh water supply of many communities in Florida being threatened by coastal salt water flooding. Where do you get your info from. Fix News ? Or Trump U ? Where’s your source ? Each of the last three decades have been hotter then the previous one. 13 of 14 hottest years on record have been in the 21 first century.....and we’re only 18 years into it. https://weather.com/science/environ...ars-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324
Well, we reversed the depleted ozone layer which deniers were equally skeptical of. Deniers have whom on their side for evidence ? It can’t be any less university, corporation or govt. in the entire world. Skeptics just make stuff up.
The Earth has it's own regulatory processes. We didn't "fix" the ozone, the ozone is like the tides, it ebbs and flows. Same with the Earth temperatures. The main driver of climate change is the Milankovitch Cycles. The Earth is in an Ice Age that is 2.5 million years old. The Earth is most often covered in glaciers lasting 100 thousand years. Currently, we are in an interglacial warm period that is 11,700 years old. Short term variations are naturally occurring and are subject to other forces such as solar variations. We are currently entering a solar minimum which will likely take us into another mini-ice age.
Your totally wrong. Every university, major corporation, research facilities and govt in the world disagrees. Seriously, where do you get your evidence from ?
Yeah, because it was all just a total coincidence that ozone depletion began at the exact same time and with the expected magnitude of CFC emissions and slowed, stabilized, and even now accumulating with the dramatic cutbacks in emissions. It was all just random dumb luck that it happened that way and the natural ebb and flow of ozone is driven by magic instead of actual physical processes. Got it. You were totally convincing. Can you explain how a cool phase of the composite Milankovitch cycles can cause warming at a rate of 20C per millennium?
Yes, we know. It is fully incorporated in the scientific consensus regarding climate change and does a great job of explaining the radiative forcings that were required to cause the glacial cycles to land on roughly 100,000 year intervals. We just happen to live in an era where anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the Milankovitch forcing. Milankovitch cycles are completely consistent with the scientific consensus regarding climate change both past and present.
Actually it stabilized before the protocols took effect and began to heal sooner than was expected as a result of the CFC bans. "A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that, "since 1991, the linear [downward] trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …" However, the same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing through 1998. This lends credence to the skeptical view, widely derided at the time of the Montreal Protocol, that natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer." https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ozone-the-hole-truth
Yes, it's called natural variations. It's the same reasons we went into the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Climate is always changing mostly due on the short term by solar activity and variability.
Sure. Come back in 10 thousand years and explain to me why New York City is covered in 1000 feet of ice.
That's fake news. Here is where you can get real data. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/ https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html In a nutshell...the Montreal Protocol was ratified in 1987 with total phase out not occurring until 1996. Using various metrics different record minimum occurred between 1993 and 2015. This marks the stabilization period...maybe. It was discovered in 2018 that China is cheating on the treaty and that's what's been causing a delay in ozone repair. Once CFC emissions drop back down to zero it will take another 100 years or so for Earth's natural processes to bring ozone levels back to pre-1970's levels. By the way, be careful with the Heritage Foundation. They are hostile to pretty any legislation or regulation of harmful agents including pesticides, sulfur dioxide, CFCs, greenhouse gases, smoking, etc. One strategy they use is to cast unwarranted doubt on definitive causal links that have been firmly and undeniably confirmed by evidence. It is a essentially a fake-news propaganda lobbying arm of industry.
Natural variation is not a physical process or cause. It is just a classification under which physical processes can be placed depending upon the modulating actor. What I asked for is an explanation for how a cool phase of the composite Milankovitch cycle can cause warming at a rate of 20C per millennium. How is that even possible? Milankovitch cycles did not cause the MWP or LIA. They couldn't have because the composite beat pulse is 100,000 and 400,000 years. There was only a few hundred years separating the MWP and LIA. Yes. The climate is always changing. Guess who figured this out...climate scientists. And no, solar activity cannot, on it's own, explain all climate change events. When viewed over millions of years solar activity or irradiance is horrible match to reality throughout most of the paleoclimate record. In fact, the only two agents you mentioned, Milankovitch cycles and solar activity, both predict that the Earth should be cooling today and yet the Earth continues to warm.
How is the asymmetrical distribution of solar radiation induced by Milankovitch cycles going to overcome the greenhouse gas forcing? Barring a concerted effort to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or a cataclysm it is very unlike that the Earth will descend into a glacial era. It is far more likely that the Earth will tip into hothouse conditions just like it did during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum which was caused by a rapid and sudden pulse of CO2 release.
I checked out both links. Neither refutes my data. I did enjoy the video graphics that show the ebb and flow from month to month and noticed that the one fo the year 2000 was very similar to the one in 2018. In another 50 years when another Ozone hole opens up and there are no CFC's to blame it on they'll know the science was junk science.
It absolutely refutes the Heritage Foundation claim that the ozone began stabilizing prior to the Montreal Protocol. The ozone hole is still "open". It won't return to pre-CFC concentrations for at least one hundred years. So shouldn't we wait until the hole is fully repaired before predicting another cyclic ozone decline? Anyway, what physical process do you think is modulating ozone concentrations? Remember, "natural" is not a physical process. How do you explain the laboratory experiments that clearly show the chemical reactions and dissociation processes that cause ozone to deplete? And why is that even the manufacturers of CFCs overwhelmingly agree that CFCs cause ozone depletion but the Heritage Foundation does not? Let me guess...you also reject that the science that definitively links smoking with cancer and sulfur dioxide with acid rain. Am I right?
Natural variation is simple a cyclical phenomenon. I never said is was a cause. There are of course a multitude of climate variables. I don't know that we are in a cool phase of the Milankovitch Cycles. Pretty sure were still in the interglacial period. As for 20C per millennium, the change in average global temperatures in glacial periods vs interglacial periods is only 5 to 7 degrees Celsius. "From the height of the last glacial period 21,000 years ago to our current interglacial period, the Earth has warmed by an average of 5 degrees Celsius." Of course the Milankovitch Cycles didn't. What caused the MEP & LIA were again, natural variations driven by many variables primarily the solar cycles. Then why are they trying so hard to prove that the current change in climate is due to mankind? We've known all along that the climate will change. Well as far as I know, we have not reach the extremities of procession, axial tilt or eccentricity. As far as the grand solar minimum, we are just entering that, and the effects are expected over decades. It doesn't happen immediately.
You should watch the first video I posted but since it's more than an hour I doubt you will. Let me start off by saying, CO2 is a naturally occurring molecule in our atmosphere without which there would be no life on Earth. Is it a greenhouse gas? Yes, one of several. But it is a minor one. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. The Earth has it's own modulating system which always tends towards equilibrium called the Iris Effect. So no matter what, just as with the earlier example of the Ozone layer, the Earth will basically ebb and flow from a midpoint.
I think they attribute it to a 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, so unless you can refute that source as bogus, don't blame the Heritage Foundation. I dunno, I Googled it earlier and saw a bunch of articles saying the Ozone healed itself. Some may have said something different. That's your assertion to prove. I had a graph in one of the articles, I think it was one I posted. Let me see if I can figure out how to post the screenshot I took. So this is basically how the Ozone self modulates. As the Ozone depletes, more UV radiation gets through which hits the ocean surfaces which caused O3 to form. As the Ozone gets thicker, less UV radiation gets through causing less O3 to form. Well lab experiments are limited in scale and it would be impossible to do an experiment on the scale the size of the Earth so there are some obvious limitations to such experiments. I don't know but I think that this is something that will be figured out over time as it is under constant observation. A lot of things cause cancer and I accept most of the science behind that. But I think saccharin got a raw deal. Acid rain? Man that doomsday theory went out before the Ozone hole scam.
And anthroprogenic variation is simply a behavior phenomenon. But that in no way makes it cause at a fundamental level. Just like natural variation anthroprogenic variation is just a category by which scientists classify modulating actors. Sometimes a climate forcing agent can be classified as both. For example, CO2 is modulated by both natural variation and anthroprogenic variation. The molecules behave exactly the same way. The only difference is how those molecules made it into the atmosphere. We are in a cool phase of the cycle. The orientation of Earth relative to the Sun is causing the asymmetric distribution of solar radiation to creep down the latitudes during the summer months in the northern hemisphere. This is what provides the miniscule but long term nudge that allows more of the Arctic ice to survive the heat of the summer. Right down the composite phase of the Milankovitch cycles is putting a miniscule -0.1 W/m^2 force on the planet. But, this miniscule force has persisted for thousands of years and will persist for thousands more. In lieu of an offsetting force this would eventually cause the descent into a glacial era within the next few thousand years. Exactly. That's a clue that something is definitely not adding up with Milankovitch cycles. Afterall, the Earth has already warmed by 5-7C and now suddenly the warming has kicked into high gear at a phenomenal rate that has never been seen during the late period of an interglacial. You are correct. But let me clarify. It was a grand maximum coincident with quiescent volcanism that caused the MWP. It was a grand minimum coincident with active volcanism and to a lesser extent anthroprogenic effects that caused the LIA. It was a grand maximum that caused about 80% of the warming out of the LIA up to WWII. After WWII solar radiation leveled off and then began declining. This was the period in which global warming accelerated. This marks the general period in which the anthroprogenically modulated processes began dwarfing the naturally modulated processes. Knowing that climate changes tells you nothing about WHY it is changing. It can change for a variety of reasons. We just happen to be living in an era where the dominant cause is anthroprogenic. That's correct. The current composite phase of the Milankovitch cycles hasn't completed. We are still in the descent of the cool phase. It will take thousands of years to complete and switch to the warm phase. We might be entering a grand solar minimum. That has yet to be determined though I personally think there is enough evidence to suggest that is a likely scenario within the next few decades. However, solar activity peaked around 1958 and solar irradiance has been on a significant decline since the 1990's and yet the Earth continues to warm at an ever faster pace. Even if a grand minimum does occur it won't stop the warming. The positive greenhouse gas forcing is much larger the negative grand minimum forcing.
