Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh sure....well done.

Human activity (e.g., landfills, agriculture, fossil fuel production) is the primary source for the increased levels of atmospheric methane.

Let us cut to the chase, for your claim to be true that global warming since 1950 is due to humans, it follows logically that the natural causes during this period did not increase, for if they did, humans are not 100% responsible.

So where is your evidence that natural causes remained steady or decreased for this period?

For laughs, here is a graph of temperature changes prior to 1950 when human causes were minimal, note that the changes you see are due to nature...now please answer the question above?

 

[Jose Fly]

How about the fact that they are getting paid gross amounts of money to find just that. Like as in over a hundred BILLION dollars has been spent on finding man's effect. NOT what is causing the warming, but what man has caused.

So rather than substantiate your first accusation, you just add one more (and again, without any evidence whatsoever). Again, exactly like a creationist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let us cut to the chase, for your claim to be true that global warming since 1950 is due to humans, it follows logically that the natural causes during this period did not increase, for if they did, humans are not 100% responsible.

So where is your evidence that natural causes remained steady or decreased for this period?

For solar forcing, we have been monitoring solar energy via satellite since 1978. It shows no increase. And as the data Debatable cited shows, the proxy data also shows no increase after 1950. Further, if the current warming trend were due to increasing solar energy we would expect to see warming in all the atmospheric layers. Instead the upper atmosphere shows cooling even though the surface temperatures are increasing, which is entirely consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect.

The other non-human causes, such as orbital forcing also don't show any changes that would account for the current warming trend. Basically, the current warming trend is only explained when human activities are factored in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For solar forcing, we have been monitoring solar energy via satellite since 1978. It shows no increase. And as the data Debatable cited shows, the proxy data also shows no increase after 1950. Further, if the current warming trend were due to increasing solar energy we would expect to see warming in all the atmospheric layers. Instead the upper atmosphere shows cooling even though the surface temperatures are increasing, which is entirely consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect.

The other non-human causes, such as orbital forcing also don't show any changes that would account for the current warming trend. Basically, the current warming trend is only explained when human activities are factored in.

Haha, you have once again proved you do not understand climate science, the more you open your mouth the deeper the hole you dig.

You did not answer my question and instead rambled on incoherently about stuff you do not understand. Fyi, the satellite UAH and RSS data is not a measure of solar forcing, it is a measure of upper atmosphere temperature, big difference...look it up?

Now I will repeat my question and I request that you address it, and not misdirect as is your recent form.
For your claim to be true that the global warming since 1950 is 100% due to human causes, it follows logically that the natural causes during this period have not increased since that 1950, for if they did, it proves humans are not 100% responsible. Here is a graph of temperature changes prior to 1950 when human causes were minimal, note that the changes you see are practically 100% naturally caused, and you imply these suddenly stopped in 1950, and since then all changes are 100% human caused?

 

[Debateable]

For solar forcing, we have been monitoring solar energy via satellite since 1978. It shows no increase. And as the data Debatable cited shows, the proxy data also shows no increase after 1950. Further, if the current warming trend were due to increasing solar energy we would expect to see warming in all the atmospheric layers. Instead the upper atmosphere shows cooling even though the surface temperatures are increasing, which is entirely consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect.

The other non-human causes, such as orbital forcing also don't show any changes that would account for the current warming trend. Basically, the current warming trend is only explained when human activities are factored in.

Interestingly the article I linked doesn't say exactly when the solar increase stopped. All it says is that it doesn't match the warming trend after 1950. I would have liked to see a plot of some sort.

 

[Jose Fly]

Haha, you have once again proved you do not understand climate science, the more you open your mouth the deeper the hole you dig.

You did not answer my question and instead rambled on incoherently about stuff you do not understand.

??????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense. You asked for data showing that natural causes for global warming haven't increased. I provided the data that shows solar output hasn't increased nor is there any indication of orbital changes that would account for the current warming trend.

How does that not answer your question?

Fyi, the satellite UAH and RSS data is not a measure of solar forcing, it is a measure of upper atmosphere temperature, big difference...look it up?

Again, try and keep up. I posted links to multiple data sets. The first was to the National Solar Radiation Database, which (as I described) is a long term data set of the amount of solar energy coming to the earth from the sun. It shows no increase. I also linked to the satellite data of temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and described how if the current warming trend was due to an increase in solar activity, we would expect to see warming in all atmospheric layers, but instead we actually see cooling in the upper layers while surface temps continue to rise. That's entirely consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect, which when coupled with the data showing how human activity has caused a large increase in greenhouse gasses, is exactly what is expected under human-caused global warming.

Now I will repeat my question and I request that you address it, and not misdirect as is your recent form.

Again, try and keep up.

For your claim to be true that the global warming since 1950 is 100% due to human causes, it follows logically that the natural causes during this period have not increased since that 1950, for if they did, it proves humans are not 100% responsible. Here is a graph of temperature changes prior to 1950 when human causes were minimal, note that the changes you see are practically 100% naturally caused, and you imply these suddenly stopped in 1950, and since then all changes are 100% human caused?

One more time....

The data Debatable posted shows that there was an increase in solar energy reaching the earth prior to 1950, which would explain at least some, maybe all, of the warming that took place during that period. But the same data also shows that this increase in solar output stopped around 1950 and has not increased since. Yet average global temperatures continue to rise. Why? As explained above, it can't be because of the sun or orbital changes. So what's driving it?

We know that the upper atmosphere is cooling while the surface is warming, which is indicative of an increasing greenhouse effect. Now what would drive that? Gosh......do you think that just maybe it has something to do with all the metric tons of greenhouse gasses we've been pumping into the atmosphere?

Come on.....try and keep up this time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interestingly the article I linked doesn't say exactly when the solar increase stopped. All it says is that it doesn't match the warming trend after 1950. I would have liked to see a plot of some sort.

Uh huh. Ever find any actual evidence for your accusations of fraud against the world's climatologists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

??????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense. You asked for data showing that natural causes for global warming haven't increased. I provided the data that shows solar output hasn't increased nor is there any indication of orbital changes that would account for the current warming trend.

How does that not answer your question?



Again, try and keep up. I posted links to multiple data sets. The first was to the National Solar Radiation Database, which (as I described) is a long term data set of the amount of solar energy coming to the earth from the sun. It shows no increase. I also linked to the satellite data of temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and described how if the current warming trend was due to an increase in solar activity, we would expect to see warming in all atmospheric layers, but instead we actually see cooling in the upper layers while surface temps continue to rise. That's entirely consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect, which when coupled with the data showing how human activity has caused a large increase in greenhouse gasses, is exactly what is expected under human-caused global warming.



Again, try and keep up.



One more time....

The data Debatable posted shows that there was an increase in solar energy reaching the earth prior to 1950, which would explain at least some, maybe all, of the warming that took place during that period. But the same data also shows that this increase in solar output stopped around 1950 and has not increased since. Yet average global temperatures continue to rise. Why? As explained above, it can't be because of the sun or orbital changes. So what's driving it?

We know that the upper atmosphere is cooling while the surface is warming, which is indicative of an increasing greenhouse effect. Now what would drive that? Gosh......do you think that just maybe it has something to do with all the metric tons of greenhouse gasses we've been pumping into the atmosphere?

Come on.....try and keep up this time.

No, it does not answer my question, solar forcing is not the same as satellite temperature data, do you understand?

My questioning about your claim that humans caused 100% of the warming since 1950 has not been answered, show me evidence provided by any recognized climate scientist that supports this specific claim. Mere irrelevant verbiage from you, a person who is clueless about it does not cut, so stop it already.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it does not answer my question, solar forcing is not the same as satellite temperature data, do you understand?

My questioning about your claim that humans caused 100% of the warming since 1950 has not been answered, show me evidence provided by any recognized climate scientist that supports this specific claim. Mere irrelevant verbiage from you, a person who is clueless about it does not cut, so stop it already.

Again you're not making any sense at all. You keep asking me to provide evidence that non-human related causes are not responsible for the current warming trend, I keep doing exactly that, and you keep bizarrely saying I didn't answer your question.

I've shown that the sun is not driving the current warming trend, nor are changes in the earth's orbit. Is there some other natural cause for warming that you're thinking of? If so, just say it outright instead of playing childish games. If not then we're done here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again you're not making any sense at all. You keep asking me to provide evidence that non-human related causes are not responsible for the current warming trend, I keep doing exactly that, and you keep bizarrely saying I didn't answer your question.

I've shown that the sun is not driving the current warming trend, nor are changes in the earth's orbit. Is there some other natural cause for warming that you're thinking of? If so, just say it outright instead of playing childish games. If not then we're done here.

Once again. you ignore my questions, I intend to repeat them until you do.

Solar forcing is not the same as satellite temperature data, do you understand?

It is the 100% human cause claimed for the warming that I'm questioning, not that there is not a human contribution factor involved, do you understand?

 

[Jose Fly]

Once again. you ignore my questions, I intend to repeat them until you do.

Now you're just being stupid, or possibly trolling.

Solar forcing is not the same as satellite temperature data, do you understand?

I'll explain this once more, and if you don't get it this time I'm done.

Solar forcing is a term for how much solar energy the earth receives from the sun and how it causes changes in climate. And how do we determine whether or not solar forcing is driving the current warming trend? By monitoring the amount of solar energy that's coming to the earth. And how do we monitor that? Since 1978 it's been via satellite. And as I showed earlier, that data shows no increase in solar energy coming to earth. Thus we can eliminate solar forcing as the cause for the current warming trend.

Likewise there are no changes in orbital forcing that would explain the current warming trend, so we can eliminate that as well.

So it's not the sun and it's not changes in the earth's orbit. So what is it?

 

[siti]

If our great grandparents had decided to sign away our rights to utilize fuel, for the exact same argument, we'd still be living in a pre-industrial age. reversing the technological revolution that gave us > a century of unprecedented growth in standards of living, feeding the world, lifting countless millions out of horrific poverty, handing unprecedented wealth and rights over to politicians...all on the off chance that this will somehow make the climate cooler, and that this will somehow be a good thing?!... it's hardly the 'cautious' option.

Our great-grandparents didn't have genuine alternatives. We can gladly forgive them because they didn't know better and did the best they could. Will our great-grandchildren think the same of us? Or will they read this conversation in the internet archives and think WTF was Grandpa Guy thinking of?

 

[Debateable]

Uh huh. Ever find any actual evidence for your accusations of fraud against the world's climatologists?

Climate Gate

Seriously though, why is it that I link you a page by a Phd and it's waved off as some odd off beat page not worth consideration? There are so many different scientists out there saying similar things, at some point you have to think, where there's smoke...

 

[Jose Fly]

Climate Gate

Simply saying the word "climategate" is not evidence.

Seriously though, why is it that I link you a page by a Phd and it's waved off as some odd off beat page not worth consideration? There are so many different scientists out there saying similar things, at some point you have to think, where there's smoke...

Because it it was a jpeg of a graph with no citation to where the data came from.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now you're just being stupid, or possibly trolling.

I'll explain this once more, and if you don't get it this time I'm done.

Solar forcing is a term for how much solar energy the earth receives from the sun and how it causes changes in climate. And how do we determine whether or not solar forcing is driving the current warming trend? By monitoring the amount of solar energy that's coming to the earth. And how do we monitor that? Since 1978 it's been via satellite. And as I showed earlier, that data shows no increase in solar energy coming to earth. Thus we can eliminate solar forcing as the cause for the current warming trend.

Likewise there are no changes in orbital forcing that would explain the current warming trend, so we can eliminate that as well.

So it's not the sun and it's not changes in the earth's orbit. So what is it?

Please try and be mature, you can not learn by refusing to answer questions about your claims.

The satellites do not measure solar forcing, they measure upper atmospheric temperature. If you think otherwise, show your evidence?

Common sense must tell you that there are many factors and variables affecting global temperature, thus human activity alone is not 100% responsible for the global temperature as you claim.

 

[siti]

The satellites do not measure solar forcing, they measure upper atmospheric temperature. If you think otherwise, show your evidence?

Right - so what is your explanation for the continuing upward trend in temperature? Here is the latest graph of Roy Spencer's satellite data:

Note that more of the blue data points and more of the red trend line are above the 1981-2010 average as you go from left to right. This means the trend is positive and as I have pointed out previously, Dr Spencer's own interpretation is that the climate is currently warming at an average rate of 0.11 degrees Celcius per decade.

So there is no argument that the climate is not warming. So what are the key drivers? Solar activity? Here is a graph of sunspots (indicator of solar activity) from 1900-2012:

Note the clear upward trend over the first half of the 20th century. Some climate skeptics have claimed that this increase is the real cause of global warming. But note also that the trend has been slightly negative from mid-century onwards so that can't account for the continuing increase in global temperature as measured by satellite in the first graph.

Now here's a plot of volcanic eruptions over the last half century or so:

No discernible trend for the most part but an increase in volcanic activity, which may actually produce a negative (cooling) effect (I explained that somewhere earlier) in the first decade of the 21st century.

And here's a plot of the AMO and PDO (sea surface temperature oscillations):

Again, no apparent correlation with satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature.

Finally, here's a plot of measured CO2 levels between 1979 and 2008:

Obviously none of these by themselves explain the shape of the first graph, but altogether what you get are oscillations with a generally upward trend - the natural short-term solar and ocean current oscillations superimposed on the CO2 curve would give a remarkably similar graph to Dr Spencer's observed temperature data.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please try and be mature, you can not learn by refusing to answer questions about your claims.

Oh dear.....

The satellites do not measure solar forcing, they measure upper atmospheric temperature. If you think otherwise, show your evidence?

Yes, there are satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. But....and apparently this is a news flash to you....there are more than one type of satellite. Had you bothered to read the material I linked for you when I first answered your question, you would have seen that there are also satellites that measure the amount of solar energy coming to the earth. That's the source of the data I referenced when I said that solar forcing is not responsible for the current warming trend.

I'll say it again......try and keep up.

Common sense must tell you that there are many factors and variables affecting global temperature, thus human activity alone is not 100% responsible for the global temperature as you claim.

Science is not based on appeals to "common sense". It is based on data, and in the case we're discussing the data shows that human activity is responsible for the current warming trend.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Right - so what is your explanation for the continuing upward trend in temperature? Here is the latest graph of Roy Spencer's satellite data:

Note that more of the blue data points and more of the red trend line are above the 1981-2010 average as you go from left to right. This means the trend is positive and as I have pointed out previously, Dr Spencer's own interpretation is that the climate is currently warming at an average rate of 0.11 degrees Celcius per decade.

So there is no argument that the climate is not warming. So what are the key drivers? Solar activity? Here is a graph of sunspots (indicator of solar activity) from 1900-2012:

The warming is due to climate change, such change is due to all the variables that caused it, natural and human.

 

[siti]

The warming is due to climate change, such change is due to all the variables that caused it, natural and human.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh dear.....


Yes, there are satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. But....and apparently this is a news flash to you....there are more than one type of satellite. Had you bothered to read the material I linked for you when I first answered your question, you would have seen that there are also satellites that measure the amount of solar energy coming to the earth. That's the source of the data I referenced when I said that solar forcing is not responsible for the current warming trend.

I'll say it again......try and keep up.

Science is not based on appeals to "common sense". It is based on data, and in the case we're discussing the data shows that human activity is responsible for the current warming trend.

Ok, my bad, when you specified 1978 as the year in which solar forcing satellites began, i presumed you were referring to UAH data which records began in 1979. Incidentally, I know about satellites, I worked on satellite tracking stations most of my working life, from com sats, tracking and command, remote sensing, data acquisition, etc.. However to the subject of TSI, Total Solar Irradiance changes from 1978 to present do not translate into significant temperature changes to the planetary system, according to most solar scientist's present understanding, though there are some who disagree. In any event, this does not negate the fact that there are other natural causes affecting the planet's temperature, many btw that can not be quantified, so to claim humans are 100% responsible for any warming since 1950 is absurd

Here is a graph of the TSI record til now....

Ok, so where is the scientific methodology that proves that all warming since 1950 is purely a result of human activity? By scientific methodology, I mean the accounting of all factors associated with climate change, such as solar variations, volcanic eruptions, changes in atmospheric composition such as an increase in carbon dioxide. methane, water vapor, ElNiño/La Niña effects, ocean heat circulation, etc.

I await the details...