Poem, as long as you insist on posting misinformat
Post# of 123711
(Total Views: 144)
Posted On: 10/04/2019 3:52:05 PM
Poem, as long as you insist on posting misinformation, straw man arguments and science illiteracy, I'll continue to embarrass you with the facts.
Specifically, NO Dems have to 'admit' anything about the sun because there is no correlation, much less a cause an effect, for solar activity and climate change. Neither is there global cooling.
The term was changed because morons like Jim Inhofe insist, as do you, on confusing weather with climate and illustrate their ignorance by bringing a snowball into the Senate chamber.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-th...te-change/
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. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
As for Co2? Busted on that too.
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced
Poem, there's no science illiterate level, so do the best you can.
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
Climate Myth...
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature ... " (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide)
Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-eviden...vanced.htm
Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.
"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."
A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).
Specifically, NO Dems have to 'admit' anything about the sun because there is no correlation, much less a cause an effect, for solar activity and climate change. Neither is there global cooling.
The term was changed because morons like Jim Inhofe insist, as do you, on confusing weather with climate and illustrate their ignorance by bringing a snowball into the Senate chamber.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-th...te-change/
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. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
As for Co2? Busted on that too.
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced
Poem, there's no science illiterate level, so do the best you can.
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
Climate Myth...
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature ... " (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide)
Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-eviden...vanced.htm
Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.
"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."
A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼