Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

IOW there is no correlation between solar activity and recent increases in global warming. In comparison there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.

 

What's missing here is the response of the entire world of climatology and related fields.

You found a paper. Great.

But, what I want to see is the field of climatology CHANGING because of the advent of better understanding of solar forcing.

Or, the reason that these sciences do not switch their views because of this paper.


In general, single papers are NOT THE WAY to learn about a topic to the extent that one simply throws away all previous work.

 

No. You said:
"Nope.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

And, THAT is YOUR error."

That was about me.

If you have to rely on ad hom, then why should I listen?

 

Repeat it as often as you like. It remains weightless.

 

I'm uninterested in your view of how science should proceed.

 

Once again, the data do not support the alarmist narrative.
New Study Unveils Global Warming’s 65-Year-Old ‘Evaporation Paradox’ Problem
By Kenneth Richard on 18. April 2024

Evaporation is supposed to increase with warming. But, per a new study (Jin et al., 2024), “observation results around the world have shown that evaporation has been steadily declining since the 1950s.” This is referred to as the anthropogenic global warming “evaporation paradox” problem, where models and assumptions are contradicted by observations.
According to the IPCC (AR6) and the most seminal paper on the subject (Trenberth, 2011, with 3800 citations), “anthropogenic forcings will drive an increase in global mean evaporation over most oceanic areas (high confidence),” as “increased heating leads to greater evaporation.”



Image Source: IPCC, 2021 (AR6), Trenberth, 2011
But new paper once again points out that observations conflict with the anthropogenic global warming narrative.

“Paradoxically, against the backdrop of rising global temperatures, terrestrial observation results around the world have shown that Epan has been steadily declining since the 1950s…”

“The ‘evaporation paradox’ phenomenon has been reported in many studies on regional or global scales.”

The authors acknowledge it is “widely proposed” there will be “increased evaporation in open water bodies” with warming. So their results, which show declining evaporation since the 1950s, may “seem surprising.”

“At first glance, these results may seem surprising, since the near-surface air temperature has been rising, and it is widely proposed that warming climate will make the air drier and promote the hydrological cycle, which will lead to increased evaporation in open water bodies, including pan evaporators.”

If it can indeed be established that evaporation increases with warming, and, simultaneously, evaporation trends can be shown to be declining, at what point do we question if there has indeed been sufficiently significant warming in the regions where evaporation is declining? Why is referring to these trends as a surprising “paradox” that can perhaps be explained away with more assumptions the better option?

Image Source: Jin et al., 2024

 

And I wonder how they measured the production of 10Be in 1400, and how they counted the number of sunspots in 1600.

 

IOW there is no correlation between solar activity and recent increases in global warming. In comparison there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.

 

OK, now you are claiming a conspiracy theory. If you have no serious evidence of your conspiracy theory, then I have to see it as false.

Yes, there are ideas of seeding the ocean and the high atmosphere that various studies show might change the rate of warming.

But, those call for decision making processes that Earth does not have. Plus, our ability to assure that such an act would have no problematic side effects is seriously suspect. All such ideas could result in changes in particular regions that would be problematic, as it is well known that climate change does not affect all regions in the same way.

 

The figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland (Beer et al. 1994).

 

So what is the correlation coefficient for your negative correlation between Be-!0 and the number of sunspots observed by Hoyt and Schatten?
And what on Earth has that got to do with the strong positive correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and the increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activity?

 

Still weightless.

 

I know.

But, it IS how science DOES proceed.

Individual papers CAN cause change or it CAN be found that the thesis is limited (or even false).

I know it is your political principle to rely in individual papers you find, but again, that is NOT how science works.

 

Boom! Chukka lukka lukka.

BBC Reporter Gets Schooled for Hypocrisy by President of Guyana
ECONOMICS AND POLICY APRIL 15, 2024

 

You and Einstein are in disagreement.
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”
― Albert Einstein

 

Yes, that reporter was an idiot.

Besides other factors, it's a typical show of western claims of superiority over a country that, unlike the western world, did not cause the problem seen today.

Also, it's an example of the reason that international agreements on this topic are made on the basis of individual countries designing goals for their emissions and then using methods THEY design.

Also, why was that reporter ragging on Guyana when it is the USA who produces the most oil in the world as well as large amounts of LNG?

The reporter took a cheap shot and got a PORTION of what he deserved.

 

This is a majorly nonsensical application of this quote.

Einstein's propositions were studied in great detail by the world of physics of his day. And, that included waiting for a predicted event that could have falsified his work.

Einstein did NOT suggest believing each paper that appears to confirm what you believed in the first place.

 

Yep, your negative "correlation" between Be-10 and the number of sunspots is certainly weightless without quoting a correlation coefficient.

But what on Earth has that got to do with the strong positive correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and the increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activity?

 

From your source Kevin Trenberth ---

https://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

2013
And while these days he's a staunch advocate for the scientific consensus, his first foray into climate science was a cut across the grain.
...
Trenberth readily acknowledges that there are still some gaps in understanding the Earth's overall heat balance. But that doesn't undercut the basic observation that carbon dioxide and other gases from human activity are driving up the Earth's temperature in the long run.

Indeed, the last decade was the warmest on record, even though temperatures didn't keep climbing during that period. The 1990s were warmer than the 1980s. And the 1980s were warmer than the 1970s.

 

All good points. My pleasure!

Bold: yes I think that authority should speak the truth but I'm on the line about allowing general misinformation to grow rampant. Some people call that freedom of speech. I guess as long as it doesn't hurt people... But who gets to decide if it hurts people?

I have found another line of research to pickaxe further away at your excess "deaths due to cold" fortification. But it'll have to wait for a less busy week. Lol

 

We disagree.

 

Trenberth is the one being refuted. Read more carefully.
Jin et al., 2024

 

Who decides if it’s misinformation? We can’t even figure that out. Some here claim science is the arbiter, but then if science conflicts with a preconceived bias it gets thrown out as “misinformation” as well.

I don’t know how we can as a society allow misinformation on one side of any issue, but disallow it from the other side.

When any organization that benefits from misinformation is allowed to dictate what is misinformation to others I think that’s a problem.

I’m interested in any pickaxe that can chip away at the fortress of evidence our planet is cooler than optimal for humans.

 

Once again, the data are on the side of the skeptics.
When Satellites Refute the Climate Crisis Narratives, Trust the Science!
by Jim Steele
If the climate crisis narrative is true, more CO2 would trap more OLR, so less OLR escaping to space should be detected. . . .

. . . The climate crisis narrative pushed by some scientists argues that increasing levels of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels will continue to warm the earth by trapping more (Outgoing Longwave Radiation – OLR) infrared heat. Based on the greenhouse effect, that theory is plausible. But the scientific evidence refutes it.


Satellites can now measure how much OLR is escaping to space. If the climate crisis narrative is true, more CO2 would trap more OLR, so less OLR escaping to space should be detected.

But since 1985, satellites have detected that OLR had increased by about 2 W/m2 by 2018. (Watts per meter squared, W/m2, a Watt is a measure of energy per second ). That observed increasing OLR either means heat is more easily escaping, or the earth is heating via another dynamic. . . .

 

No, that claim is just a bald falsehood, as already proved. The correlation between temperature and CO2 is no greater than the correlation between temperature and production of thermometers; and the only index of solar activity that does not show a substantial correlation with changes in global surface temperature is the one used in all the graphs concocted by those pushing the CO2 climate narrative: TSI.