User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2022-09-03 at 3:24 PM UTCEvidence Shows That Current Global Warming Cannot Be Explained by Solar Irradiance
The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.
The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.
Since 1750, the average amount of energy from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If a more active Sun caused the warming, scientists would expect warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are slowing heat loss from the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases. -
2022-09-03 at 3:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Evidence Shows That Current Global Warming Cannot Be Explained by Solar Irradiance
The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year
OBJECTION; SPECULATION.
theres simply no logical means for "scientists" of today to be able to gather, accurately or otherwise, the total amount of suns energies our planet receive in the 1800s to the 1950s.
NO. FUCKING. WAY.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-09-03 at 3:36 PM UTCThey just make it up as they go along, with their assumptive models and fact-less guesswork.
-
2022-09-03 at 3:36 PM UTCThe Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). -
2022-09-03 at 3:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
scientists tends to discover the evidences for which their grants have granted them to discover
-
2022-09-03 at 3:45 PM UTC
-
2022-09-03 at 3:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny OBJECTION; SPECULATION.
theres simply no logical means for "scientists" of today to be able to gather, accurately or otherwise, the total amount of suns energies our planet receive in the 1800s to the 1950s.
NO. FUCKING. WAY.
The sunspot cycleThe Sun’s brightness changes on multiple time scales, from seconds to centuries to millennia, and these changes can influence climate. The cycle that matters most on human timescales is the 11-year sunspot cycle, which is linked to the reversal of the poles of the Sun’s magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are generated by a dynamo below the Sun’s surface. Astronomers have tracked sunspot cycles since the 1600s by counting sunspots, giant dark splotches that emerge and drift across the surface of the Sun over the span of days or weeks.
Reconstruction of total solar irradiance based on sunspot observations since the 1600s. During strong solar cycles, the Sun's total average brightness varies by up to 1 Watt per square meter. Changes in the Sun's overall brightness since the pre-industrial period have been minimal, making a very small contribution to global-scale warming.
-
2022-09-03 at 3:49 PM UTC
-
2022-09-03 at 3:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The sunspot cycle
where can i find hard copies of these sunspot records from the 1600s. -
2022-09-03 at 3:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny where can i find hard copies of these sunspot records from the 1600s.
Try following the citations, dummy.
Galileo's Sunspot DrawingsThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-09-03 at 4:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Try following the citations, dummy.
Galileo's Sunspot Drawings
i didmt know galileo recorded sunsports from 1600s to 1950. -
2022-09-03 at 4:40 PM UTC
-
2022-09-03 at 9:11 PM UTC
-
2022-09-03 at 9:21 PM UTCFacts are irrelevant in Clown World. Anything can be anything you want it to be.
-
2022-09-04 at 1:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Facts are irrelevant in Clown World. Anything can be anything you want it to be.
no its literally irrelevant.Astronomers have tracked sunspot cycles since the 1600s
Show me where it says 'Galileo recorded sunspots from the 1600's to 1950'
oh yea it doesn't.
Vinny moved the goalpost and you followed.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-09-04 at 3:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Steven no its literally irrelevant.
Show me where it says 'Galileo recorded sunspots from the 1600's to 1950'
oh yea it doesn't.
Vinny moved the goalpost and you followed.
Originally posted by Obbe Try following the citations, dummy.
Galileo's Sunspot Drawings
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny where can i find hard copies of these sunspot records from the 1600s.
-
2022-09-04 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Try following the citations, dummy.
Galileo's Sunspot Drawings
First row (left to right):
02 June 1613
03 June 1613
05 June 1613
06 June 1613
07 June 1613
08 June 1613
Second row:
09 June 1613
10 June 1613
11 June 1613
12 June 1613
13 June 1613
14 June 1613
Third row:
15 June 1613
16 June 1613
17 June 1613
18 June 1613
19 June 1613
20 June 1613
Fourth row:
21 June 1613
22 June 1613
23 June 1613
24 June 1613
25 June 1613
26 June 1613
Fifth row:
27 June 1613
28 June 1613
29 June 1613
01 July 1613
02 July 1613
03 July 1613
Sixth row:
04 July 1613
05 July 1613
06 July 1613
07 July 1613
08 July 1613
sun spot observation for less than 2 months in 1613 is enough for us to conclusively infer sunspot data from 1600 to 1950.
?. -
2022-09-04 at 3:28 PM UTCHuman Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750. This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.
In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded that it is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. -
2022-09-04 at 3:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
All you do is post others thoughts -
2022-09-04 at 3:35 PM UTCWhy do people deny climate change?
Some claim that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.
Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).
All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.
The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics.
One of Britain's leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.
It says it is "open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated". In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.
