Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
For the past ~10k years before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been almost constant at ~290 ppm. Therefore, the other drivers of climate change dominated. Now that CO2 is rising at unprecedented levels (see e.g. [1]), the other influencers of climatic change are no longer the driving forces. CO2 is the world's thermostat knob [2]. It is undeniable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
From the book desription[1]:
> For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models?
It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade.
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...
Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real.
If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them.
[1] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.
I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the point that needs debunking, if it isn't.
> The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts.
Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure?
> Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure
No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2].
> No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015.
Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again.
> NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records.
Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated.
> Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable.
I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real.
> The past is the key to the future.
ok?
> Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes.
Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804...
[2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
[3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
> As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ...
Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.
Would double paned windows containing pure CO2 between the panes function as measurably better insulators?
> The term "greenhouse effect" continues to see use in scientific circles and the media despite being a slight misnomer, as an atmosphere reduces radiative heat loss[8] while a greenhouse blocks convective heat loss.
A simplified model is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model . A quick look suggests ε - the emissivity of the atmosphere - is the key parameter answering your question. The Δε must be high enough to affect the calculation. Simply filling a greenhouse with CO2 isn't enough to get there. (Plus, greenhouses aren't primarily cooled by radiative heat loss.)
FWIW, CO2 was used in double paned windows, going back to at least the 1930s. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1f/67/5c/7a7917d... says:
> Carbon dioxide is found to give good results and, as compared with air, materially increases the effectiveness of the article as a heat insulator.
However, as https://www.rbaofqc.com/windows/argon-as-gas-fill-for-double... points out, under "Early Gas Fills":
> Air as a fill wasn't effective in providing insulation, so some manufacturers started looking for alternatives. The 1970s saw the use of carbon dioxide and Freon. Although they helped increase the insulation value of windows, they were proven to be sensitive to seal failure and cause discoloration.
Argon and krypton are more effective than CO2, but they are not greenhouse gasses because convective heat loss is different from radiative heat loss.
Before the industrial revolution the largest non-cyclical emission of CO2 was geological events. That is primarily volcanic eruptions, but not limited to that. Large geologic events expend a large amount of CO2 and heat in different ratios. For example an earthquake will expend more heat than CO2, especially compared to a volcano, and an underwater volcano will expend less CO2 into the atmosphere than a surface volcano.
This is more complicated than it sounds because CO2 emission into the atmosphere isn't uniform due to sequestration factors by geography and chemical reactions from ocean chemistry. This is also complicated in that greater than 2/3s of the planet surface are oceans and water is the fastest and most efficient natural conductor of heat.
I believe the current climate science indicates that mean ocean temperature is rising faster than mean atmospheric temperature, which could be due to a combination of various considerations. This by no means suggests that human activity isn't responsible for temperature rise in part or whole, but it could mean there are additional natural factors that human activity is exacerbating beyond CO2 concentration.
Relies on - "Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since 1700 from simulated magnetograms"
This doesn't mean that we haven't been making things worse, or that there's nothing we can do. But it's crucial for us to understand everything that's impacting the climate, so we can make good decisions.
Educate yourself. Here's a link: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
edit: I meant the "science isn't settled" above
edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too presumptuous
That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know all the drivers of it.
We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that apples don't fall from the tree.
Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too low for the last decade.
Do we know everything? No, but that's hardly an argument to suggest the apple will fall up the tree.
See: http://www.profrichmuller.com/uploads/8/3/3/9/83399742/histo...
The sun is responsible because it's gravity well gave a system where the planet could accrete.
The sun is responsible because it give energy to the earth, thus energizing chemicals and likely causing life to emerge, panspermia excepted.
The sun is responsible because it heats up carbon dioxide which keeps heat like a greenhouse.
One of these things have value in action-ability as it relates to climate change.