Thread: Why is it so Hot Everywhere?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Next thing you’ll be asking for serial numbers of equipment used,………then ask for government ID of the people who read the instruments.

You are so, sooooo far gone.

Do a little research and find out about the question/s you ask.

I have only bothered to dig a little and what I find is predictable. Both sides of the argument exaggerate the data to get it to point to the conclusion they would like. The data itself is being questioned as is the models predicting the consequences of said warming being left uncontrolled.

Thats before the question of the cause(s)

It's all too easy to believe manmade co2 emissions due to fossil fuels is the reason. There is little supporting evidence to show this is the main cause. Historical records showing global warming before the industrial revolution have been conveniently omittted. Similarly I don't see that much data on sun activity or sun position within the milky way being taken into account.

There are too many unexplained unknowns and too much simplification. A way to drive an agenda towards the masses.

I am not saying I don't believe there are climate changes. I prefer to call it climate insyability rather than global warming. It better describes the severe wintry conditions as well as the heatwaves many have experienced in recent years.

What I dislike is silly graphs being posted by those that think they know all, when in reality they know, like me, very little.

Call those that question idiots, but it is those that question that keep this world relatively sane.

Troy he's a Trump supporters, you are wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Troy

It's all too easy to believe manmade co2 emissions due to fossil fuels is the reason.

I am not saying I don't believe there are climate changes.

You are a denier. There's no helping you

________

went quickly so......

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Zeke Hausfather - Global temperatures have spiked in recent days, and are now back above 2C in the ERA5 dataset, matching the record reached last November.

So far February is on track to be the warmest since records began, continuing the record-breaking streak of months that started last May. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1758191830406168885

Ah, the attempt to polarise. How utterly predictable you are.

Originally Posted by Troy

It's all too easy to believe manmade co2 emissions due to fossil fuels is the reason.

Looking at the graphs, I wondered why they start at 1850. It seems to be a date many decide to choose. What's the significance?
I see articles stating that co2 started to rise since the industrial revolution and quote these graphs as proof global warming is caused by humans and their use of fossil fuels.

However, 1850 also happens to be the end of a global cooling cycle, well series of cycles starting in around the 16th century.

Prior to this there was a global warming between 900 and 1200, a warming that is on a par with what we see today. There are various reasons given for this, volcanic activity, solar energy levels, ocean current changes etc. All of these reasons are discounted as reasons for the current warming for various reasons. However, the reasoning can't be used to explain one event and discount another.

One could also conclude that the increased human and domestic animal population is the main cause. That Putin is the world's saviour by cutting population figures and war is a necessary evil.

Except the cooling cycles some say caused by the black death didn't occur after ww1.

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle. No clear way forward to stop the cycle.

He’s been told all of this before. Get ready for him to start branding you as a denier. He really is a complete loon.

Oh, I've already been put in his denier list.

He's nothing more than a c&p merchant. Not able to actually think for himself.

I bet he drives an ev and thinks he's being 'green'.
Better way would be to stop exhaling co2.

Originally Posted by Troy

Oh, I've already been put in his denier list.

He's nothing more than a c&p merchant. Not able to actually think for himself.

I bet he drives an ev and thinks he's being 'green'.
Better way would be to stop exhaling co2.

My main point though is not whether global warming is happening or how it can be reversed. It is the exaggeration of data to make a point that ends up having the reverse effect. Brexit is another classic example. Those for staying in the EU exaggerated the consequences of Brexit so much that it wasn't believed. People suffer because facts are not used correctly to support a hypothesis. People are told what to think and forced to believe things that aren't fully proven.

The worst of all are those who support a hypothesis and accuse anyone who thinks differently of being idiots. It's lazy and usually means they believe through gut feeling rather than hard facts.

Originally Posted by Troy

Looking at the graphs, I wondered why they start at 1850. It seems to be a date many decide to choose. What's the significance?

It's when methodical thermometer-based records began.


The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage, largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere, and less standardized instrumentation.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle.

This should be fun.

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle.

Show support with credible links.

As I mentioned earlier, the medieval warm period has been explained mainly by increased sun activity. This has then been discounted as the current reason due to a stable solar energy in recent times.

However, other scientific studies suggest increased solar activity over the last 100 years. There have been a number of large solar flares in recent times.

I still don't undestand why the records since 1650 have not been used in the areas recorded. Previoys studies, using these records, show cyclic fluctuations and weather anomalies lasting up to a decade. These anomalies need to be explained. As previously stated, they show that 1850 was the end of a particularly cold period and it is not the best starting point to use. Unless it's required for dramatic effect.

Carbon 13 is only 1% of the atmospheric carbon, carbon 12 being the remainder with some carbon14 thought to be the result of nuclear weapon activity in the 50's and 60's. How much long term effect did this have on the carbon seasonal distribution. Again, analysis has been done but doesn't tie in with wanted conclusion.

I realise the articles cannot go into full scientific depth but they should not cherry pick to reach a wanted conclusion either.

Your links are nothin more than confirmation bias. It is you who needs to dig deeper.

Originally Posted by Troy

It is you who needs to dig deeper.

You're off to a bad start

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle.

Focus

So, you have no argument, just lols and dodgy data.

Pick it up climate denier

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle.

Where are they?

And remember,…credible links.

Originally Posted by Troy

So, you have no argument, just lols and dodgy data.

He has form for this. Youve just invited him to troll the board twice as hard.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

credible links.

Says the guy linking to X, formerly known as twitter...

You mean Dr. Zeke Hausfather? https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting...Z-20210312.pdf

You want to give it another shot?

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle.

Where are they?

And remember,…credible links.

Let's start with Sun activity and the claim that the current solar radiation has been relatively stable and has not significantly influenced global warming since 1850.

Back in 2004, the Max-Plank institute for Solar System Research publish the following peer reviewed article:

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
...

This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.

...
and in conclusion:

The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years | Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Then there is this article from Space.com from 2006:

Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms

The energy output from the Sun has increased significantly during the 20th century, according to a new study.

Many studies have attempted to determine whether there is an upward trend in the average magnitude of sunspots and solar flares over time, but few firm conclusions have been reached.

Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century.
Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

The average global temperature at Earth's surface has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists debate whether the increase is part of a natural climate cycle or the result of greenhouse gases produced by cars and industrial processes.

The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated. Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects.
The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activ...-confirms.html

Both are more rational in their conclusion that the link between solar activity and global warming is inconclusive. However, this could easily have caused a change in the evaporation/cloud/rain cycle that global weather relies upon. Furthermore, if this is not a factor (main or supporting) for the current warming how could it have been for the Medieval period.

Then we have from NOAA:

Time-lapse of Solar Cycle 25 displays increasing activity on the Sun

In case you missed it, Solar Cycle 25 has ramped up much faster than scientists predicted producing more sunspots and eruptions than experts had forecast. Tracking and predicting the Sun’s solar cycles gives a rough idea of the frequency of space weather storms of all types – from radio blackouts to geomagnetic storms and solar radiation storms – and it’s used by many industries to gauge the potential impact of space weather on Earth. Though we are seeing increased activity on the Sun, we expect this solar cycle to be average compared to solar cycles in the past century.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/tim...tivity-the-sun

and Science Magazine:

Peak solar activity is arriving sooner than expected, reaching levels not seen in 20 years

In 2019, as the Sun approached a minimum in its 11-year cycle of magnetic activity, a dozen scientists assembled for a traditional exercise: forecasting the next peak. Now, a few years into the Sun’s resurgence, it’s becoming clear that the official prediction from the panel, convened by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the International Space Environment Service (ISES), missed the mark. The Sun’s activity has already surpassed the forecast, reaching levels not seen in 20 years, and solar maximum may arrive within the next year, months ahead of its presumed schedule. “Obviously the panel underestimated it,” says Ilya Usoskin, a physicist at the University of Oulu.
...
“Did we get it absolutely right? No,” says Lisa Upton, a physicist at the Southwest Research Institute who co-chaired the panel. “But considering the level of uncertainty that’s associated with what we’re trying to do here, it’s actually a quite good prediction.”

https://www.science.org/content/arti...-seen-20-years

So, an institute that researches and models global warming changes admits to not get its modelling correct in forecasting sunspot activity.

It raises an element of doubt in the models used and an element of doubt in the way data is being used to stimulate that model. The sun activity has been used as a major factor in many of the changes that earth has experienced in the last 100million years or so. CO2 has increased to levels well above current levels without any human interference (e.g. the Cumbrian Period) and experienced far higher global temperatures in its life.

Sure Humans have added to the problem but I don't think stopping the use of fossil fuels will be enough to stop the warming.

going to have to try again. Because,........

Originally Posted by S Landreth

It’s not the sun.

You didn't read any of it did you...relying instead on your one link of information as if it was gospel.

You and your sources are just too superficial.

Climate denier you going to have to find something else. It’s not the sun

Little deeper,......Open Advanced

Same source and still haven't read the contradicting evidence.

Carry on spamming...

Sure I read some of it,..........But it's not the sun climate denier