Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UN climate report: 'a code red for humanity'


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Which GMCs were those?  There are hundreds of climate models out there and only a half-dozen or so can be used for global modeling.

Solar forcing only accounts for 0.3C degrees - that's the fluctuation in global mean temps that correlates with the sunspot cycle. .  The sun has a small effect on global mean temps, but not much.  We've had this discussion before. 

9%?  That would make the solar contribution to warming about 0.135C (1.5 X 0.09 = 0.135C).  I calculated it to be about 0.3C several years ago.  That was based on direct weather/temperature observations.

I'm glad to see we agree that solar forcing does not contribute very much to global warming

Doug

 

All the articles since 2016 (there has been a huge increase in 2019) have shown that solar forcing contributes to lower atmosphere temperatures among many other things.

The IPCC states that it does not contribute to lower atmosphere temperatures, cloud formation or anything significant.

Yet we see warming on other planets as well as Earth. I'm sure solar forcing only heats Mars and Jupiter, but only heats Earth by .3C......:tu: 

Can you guess why there are far more solar forcing articles now? Because it is a new science and is finally being taken seriously. Solar forcing is the major contributor to GW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

All the articles since 2016 (there has been a huge increase in 2019) have shown that solar forcing contributes to lower atmosphere temperatures among many other things.

The IPCC states that it does not contribute to lower atmosphere temperatures, cloud formation or anything significant.

Yet we see warming on other planets as well as Earth. I'm sure solar forcing only heats Mars and Jupiter, but only heats Earth by .3C......:tu: 

Can you guess why there are far more solar forcing articles now? Because it is a new science and is finally being taken seriously. Solar forcing is the major contributor to GW

Its fantastic that you have so much faith in scientists ability to measure temps on mars (where there is only a few years of data available) but also a total distrust of those same scientists to measure temps on earth. Another meme bites the dust (martian dust).

Br Cornelius

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Br Cornelius said:

Its fantastic that you have so much faith in scientists ability to measure temps on mars (where there is only a few years of data available) but also a total distrust of those same scientists to measure temps on earth. Another meme bites the dust (martian dust).

Br Cornelius

I don't have too much issue with the raw data. The adjusted datasets always seem to be adjusted higher to match the models.

It's the causes of the temperatures which is in dispute. The IPCC has ignored all recent articles to publish a political report in unscientific terms (making it easier for the stupid to "understand") for the purpose of making political activists out of the perpetually scared. 

I wouldn't be surprised if we have far more "eco terrorists" like the Christchurch mad man  thanks to your death cult ideology.

How about you read some of these articles? Which journals are you subscribed too? I can recommend one which you have access to and you might be able to change your perspective on life and understand what is going on around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2021 at 10:18 AM, Doug1066 said:

Tesla had an idea for transmitting electricity through the air in the form of microwaves.  Maybe something could be developed along this line.  Planes would be really quiet.

Doug

Laughing face by HF.  I know it sounds crazy, but crazy things have solved problems and made some folks a lot of money.  The solution(s) to climate change will require new products and new approaches.  There's a lot of money to be made off these crazy ideas.

Doug  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

All the articles since 2016 (there has been a huge increase in 2019) have shown that solar forcing contributes to lower atmosphere temperatures among many other things.

The IPCC states that it does not contribute to lower atmosphere temperatures, cloud formation or anything significant.

Yet we see warming on other planets as well as Earth. I'm sure solar forcing only heats Mars and Jupiter, but only heats Earth by .3C......:tu: 

Can you guess why there are far more solar forcing articles now? Because it is a new science and is finally being taken seriously. Solar forcing is the major contributor to GW

You yourself claim solar forcing is less than half of what I calculate it to be by comparing surface temps with sunspot counts.  We know that solar forcing contributes to a 0.3C fluctuation in temps.  That's no surprise.  My data was from ground-based weather stations.

Does the IPCC state that solar forcing does not contribute to lower atmospheric temps?  I haven't read this most-recent report, so I don't know.  But if you have, could you please show the reference?

Agreed.  Forcing is a new subject.  New journals need articles.  No surprise there, either.

So far, you haven't said anything I disagree with.  Why the antagonistic attitude?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

You yourself claim solar forcing is less than half of what I calculate it to be by comparing surface temps with sunspot counts.  We know that solar forcing contributes to a 0.3C fluctuation in temps.  That's no surprise.  My data was from ground-based weather stations.

Does the IPCC state that solar forcing does not contribute to lower atmospheric temps?  I haven't read this most-recent report, so I don't know.  But if you have, could you please show the reference?

Agreed.  Forcing is a new subject.  New journals need articles.  No surprise there, either.

So far, you haven't said anything I disagree with.  Why the antagonistic attitude?

Doug

Because you have not read any of the solar forcing articles and you have the audacity to try and teach me about the overblown carbon cycle causing AGW.

I said that the IPCC has underrated any solar forcing. I said that solar forcing is THE major contributor to GW and this is evident when you read these articles.

IMO the IPCC has deliberately downplayed (and in some cases, like where Ozone levels are low and allow more solar and magnetic radiation into the poles) have ignored it completely for political motives. You can't tax the sun. You can't control the sun.

You can control fools who believe outsourcing their carbon to China or India will have any effect on GW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Because you have not read any of the solar forcing articles and you have the audacity to try and teach me about the overblown carbon cycle causing AGW.

I said that the IPCC has underrated any solar forcing. I said that solar forcing is THE major contributor to GW and this is evident when you read these articles.

IMO the IPCC has deliberately downplayed (and in some cases, like where Ozone levels are low and allow more solar and magnetic radiation into the poles) have ignored it completely for political motives. You can't tax the sun. You can't control the sun.

You can control fools who believe outsourcing their carbon to China or India will have any effect on GW.

So we agree that solar forcing has an effect.  You say 9%; I say more like 20%.  I still don't see your problem.  The solar cycle is one predictor of temps.  But so is atmospheric CO2 concentration.  It accounts for most of the remaining 80% - methane accounts for about 4% and the other greenhouse gases less than 1%.  You mentioned volcanoes.  They put out about 2% of the world's CO2.  A small amount, but one that's still present.  The methane contribution has been growing of late, driven by melting permafrost and anhydrides (with a contribution from abandoned oil wells.).

Biden's infrastructure plan is mostly a jobs bill.  And while we're giving people money, we might put them to work doing things we need - like capping abandoned gas wells and building windmills.

On the subject of windmills:  I see tower base sections going through town at the rate of 3-5 a day.  And we don't have the infrastructure money yet!

That's another concern:  Biden's hydrogen-powered car may not be very clean, maybe dirtier than coal.  Hydrogen is made from methane and air.  The idea is to capture the CO2 and store it away permanently.  But that could be expensive and some of the methane escapes to become CO2.  OR, we could tap unused power from windmills during non-peak hours and generate hydrogen through electrolysis.

Anyway, it's good to see something being done for a change.

Doug

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

So we agree that solar forcing has an effect.  You say 9%; I say more like 20%.  I still don't see your problem.  The solar cycle is one predictor of temps.  But so is atmospheric CO2 concentration.  It accounts for most of the remaining 80% - methane accounts for about 4% and the other greenhouse gases less than 1%.  You mentioned volcanoes.  They put out about 2% of the world's CO2.  A small amount, but one that's still present.  The methane contribution has been growing of late, driven by melting permafrost and anhydrides (with a contribution from abandoned oil wells.).

Biden's infrastructure plan is mostly a jobs bill.  And while we're giving people money, we might put them to work doing things we need - like capping abandoned gas wells and building windmills.

On the subject of windmills:  I see tower base sections going through town at the rate of 3-5 a day.  And we don't have the infrastructure money yet!

That's another concern:  Biden's hydrogen-powered car may not be very clean, maybe dirtier than coal.  Hydrogen is made from methane and air.  The idea is to capture the CO2 and store it away permanently.  But that could be expensive and some of the methane escapes to become CO2.  OR, we could tap unused power from windmills during non-peak hours and generate hydrogen through electrolysis.

Anyway, it's good to see something being done for a change.

Doug

I say far more than that. IPCC said 9% in the latest report.

 

I haven't read the rest of you post yet, but if you cant get this right what chance do you have counting tree rings

 

Edit: i made no mention of volcanoes, but i believe some of the Articles in various journals do 

Edited by Hugh Mungus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

 

Anyway, it's good to see something being done for a change.

Doug

Doug, you have misrepresenting me in every way in your above post.

Can you please explain to me how transferring all carbon production to China or India will help reduce emissions?  

Can you also explain to me why you discount that 90% of all warming could be from solar forcing and the magnetic particle influence? Do you not find it odd that this current warming is coinciding with our weakest ever recorded magnetic field? 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

The report straight up lies about the science of solar forcing and states that it is only responsible for 9% of recorded warming.

This is false. Here is a list of hundreds of scientific articles published since 2015 showing solar forcing to be the major factor contributing to global warming.

Compiled list of solar forcing climate change

 

For Doug's reference. I know he doesn't like to research while making claims.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Doug, you have misrepresenting me in every way in your above post.

Can you please explain to me how transferring all carbon production to China or India will help reduce emissions?  

Can you also explain to me why you discount that 90% of all warming could be from solar forcing and the magnetic particle influence? Do you not find it odd that this current warming is coinciding with our weakest ever recorded magnetic field? 

 

China has their own CO2 problem.  They have made great strides in the last decade, but they started in a terrible situation, so they still have a long way to go.

We have transferred our jobs to India and China so our billionaires could get richer.  The result is that many of the products we use, including many that produce CO2 pollution, are made there.  This has more to do with greed among our industrial "leaders" than it does with climate change.  It also gives industrialists a way to evade pollution laws.

I have run a regression model using sunspot count and CO2 concentration to predict temperature.  I did a partial regression on the solar cycle first, then took out CO2.  I don't recall the total amount of variation explained by these two variables, but whether the solar cycle was run first or second, it explained the lesser amount, in this case, 0.3C.  That aligns very well with your 9% figure.  The temperature data I used was obtained from surface stations (oceans from satellite data).  The CO2 data was from the GISP2 ice core.  The solar cycle data was from NOAA.  If you like, I'll try to find the summary of that computer run.  If I can't find it, it's not that hard to re-run.  The explanation is summarized in an ANOVA table, so you'll need to understand those to make sense of it.

That's not exactly the way your sources do it, but my interest is more in surface data, anyway.  One would not expect surface data to exactly match lower atmospheric data.

I doubt that 90% of warming comes from solar forcing because it doesn't correlate with warming.

 

I will not be on line tomorrow.  Making a run to Fort Smith.  Be back on Monday.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

I don't have too much issue with the raw data. The adjusted datasets always seem to be adjusted higher to match the models.

It's the causes of the temperatures which is in dispute. The IPCC has ignored all recent articles to publish a political report in unscientific terms (making it easier for the stupid to "understand") for the purpose of making political activists out of the perpetually scared. 

I wouldn't be surprised if we have far more "eco terrorists" like the Christchurch mad man  thanks to your death cult ideology.

How about you read some of these articles? Which journals are you subscribed too? I can recommend one which you have access to and you might be able to change your perspective on life and understand what is going on around you.

I am a trained environmental scientist so I will do my own research thank you. Judging by the quality of the sources you have used so far I doubt very much you are using peer revised journals for your information so I will take a pass on your offer.

 

Br Cornelius

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

I am a trained environmental scientist so I will do my own research thank you. Judging by the quality of the sources you have used so far I doubt very much you are using peer revised journals for your information so I will take a pass on your offer.

 

Br Cornelius

Every article on the list is published in a peer reviewed journal. 

So keep doubting me. You seem to want to believe we are all going to die soon thanks to carbon induced global warming. I'm sure in 20 years when you're not dead, you will understand what science is saying right now, which you are ignoring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Every article on the list is published in a peer reviewed journal. 

So keep doubting me. You seem to want to believe we are all going to die soon thanks to carbon induced global warming. I'm sure in 20 years when you're not dead, you will understand what science is saying right now, which you are ignoring.

You see your a bit of a sensationalist. Global warming will pan out over hundreds and thousands of years. It will be long slow and painful. 20years is a pure figment of your imagination.

 

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 4:59 PM, Doug1066 said:
On 8/12/2021 at 4:17 PM, Hugh Mungus said:

The idea of providing sources is to help your reader verify what you wrote, not snow him with a list of articles you haven't read yourself.  Doing so just makes you look ignorant and lazy:  "Here's a list I haven't read."  If you want to back up a specific statement, provide a specific reference.

Because doing that is tedious and time-consuming, on UM we don't provide sources unless asked.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

 

At least you're not attributing the IPCCs claim of 9% solar forcing to me anymore. We are making progress, slowly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

At least you're not attributing the IPCCs claim of 9% solar forcing to me anymore. We are making progress, slowly

So who said it?

IPCC doesn't do its own research.  It summarizes other people's.  Out there somewhere is a research paper with that 9% in it.  That's the one you need to cite.

One question we need to ask is what time-scales are we talking about?  My little regression was based on the solar cycle, a decadal oscillation.  But there are other types of solar forcing that occur on millennial scales to, possibly, millions of years.  These long-term forcings aren't going to have much effect on climate during the foreseeable future.  They can be represented in modelling with a straight line, as there is little deflection on century or shorter scales.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

So who said it?

IPCC doesn't do its own research.  It summarizes other people's.  Out there somewhere is a research paper with that 9% in it.  That's the one you need to cite.

Doug

You really can't follow a topic can you. Have you read the IPCC's report? No.

Do you agree with their findings? No. Even you believe that the sun is more of a factor than the IPCC does.

Yet you want me to spoon feed you who the IPCC has sourced for their 9% figure. Is this how you got your science degree? Just keep asking people to spoon feed you their research and sit back and criticize? 

The 9% isn't my figure. It is cited in the IPCC report. I disagree with it. There are hundreds of articles published in 2019 with evidence against this figure. 

Don't ask me to defend the 9% figure. Don't ask me to do your research for you in regards to the "consensus" in the IPCC. I have hundreds of references to the contrary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

You really can't follow a topic can you. Have you read the IPCC's report? No.

Do you agree with their findings? No. Even you believe that the sun is more of a factor than the IPCC does.

Yet you want me to spoon feed you who the IPCC has sourced for their 9% figure. Is this how you got your science degree? Just keep asking people to spoon feed you their research and sit back and criticize? 

The 9% isn't my figure. It is cited in the IPCC report. I disagree with it. There are hundreds of articles published in 2019 with evidence against this figure. 

Don't ask me to defend the 9% figure. Don't ask me to do your research for you in regards to the "consensus" in the IPCC. I have hundreds of references to the contrary.

 

This is the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2021.  Here is the link:  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

When you're done reading it, I think you'll know why just saying "It's in the IPCC report" is not an adequate reference.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

This is the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2021.  Here is the link:  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

When you're done reading it, I think you'll know why just saying "It's in the IPCC report" is not an adequate reference.

Doug

Chapter 6 is the only one relevant to solar forcing. They reference Matthes et al 2017 (which shows particle forcing should be considered in climate change, it's a very interesting paper) yet there is no data set to show that particle forcing has been measured and added to the models. Basically, they referenced a paper they then ignored. There is no reference to any data sheets for particle forcing. This strongly suggests that they didn't consider it at all despite the reference to the paper. Otherwise the data would be included in the appendices.

To reinforce this further, all discussions in the report are around irradiance, not joule heating as per Matthes 2017. 

Click the link. Read the paper and then show me where the IPCC report considered the joule heating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something troubled me about what was said before. I never have talked to my two children about climate change, I trust that they are intelligent enough to inform themselves about such an important question and draw their own conclusions. It would be to depressing to discuss such a depressing subject and I see no reason to try to indoctrinate my children with my own beliefs - unless they specifically ask for my opinion and knowledge.

Anyone who feels the need to lecture their children/grandchildren about climate change is not really interested in informing them about the truth.

 

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Chapter 6 is the only one relevant to solar forcing. They reference Matthes et al 2017 (which shows particle forcing should be considered in climate change, it's a very interesting paper) yet there is no data set to show that particle forcing has been measured and added to the models. Basically, they referenced a paper they then ignored. There is no reference to any data sheets for particle forcing. This strongly suggests that they didn't consider it at all despite the reference to the paper. Otherwise the data would be included in the appendices.

To reinforce this further, all discussions in the report are around irradiance, not joule heating as per Matthes 2017. 

Click the link. Read the paper and then show me where the IPCC report considered the joule heating.

 

"The solar forcing datasets are provided at daily and monthly resolution separately for the CMIP6 preindustrial control, historical (1850–2014), and future (2015–2300) simulations."

That's from the Abstract.  I haven't found the datasets yet, but I'll keep looking.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

Something troubled me about what was said before. I never have talked to my two children about climate change, I trust that they are intelligent enough to inform themselves about such an important question and draw their own conclusions. It would be to depressing to discuss such a depressing subject and I see no reason to try to indoctrinate my children with my own beliefs - unless they specifically ask for my opinion and knowledge.

Anyone who feels the need to lecture their children/grandchildren about climate change is not really interested in informing them about the truth.

 

Br Cornelius

I have two daughters.  One is an oil-company geologist and very concerned about cliamte change.  She calculates that we will pretty-much ween ourselves off oil over the next 20 years and she is looking for a different job right now.

I have no grandchildren, and probably never will.  This is not about me or my family..  It's about the future of this planet.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

"The solar forcing datasets are provided at daily and monthly resolution separately for the CMIP6 preindustrial control, historical (1850–2014), and future (2015–2300) simulations."

That's from the Abstract.  I haven't found the datasets yet, but I'll keep looking.

Doug

The abstract makes no suggestion that there is any trend in any of the solar forcing data, they are all periodic and cyclic. If they believed there was a trend then they would have said so, and this is undoubtedly why the IPCC only make passing reference to the fact that they are attempting to improve the models.
It is also telling that the Maunder Minima like event is now well underway and it has shown no sign of precipitating the "mini ice age" which the skeptics were crowing about over a decade ago (and evidently still are). If anything the recent flattening of the upward trend could be attributed to the slacking of the solar forcing hiding the underlying Carbon forcing which we are still experiencing.

 

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.