/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15196011
Not relevant. By analogy, the temperature varies widely with the seasons yet this has absolutely nothing to do with annual variation in temperatures. In other words, variation on one timescale doesn't imply a trend exists in another. Solar variation over the relevant timescale of global warming is essentially 0.

>>15094349
>How?
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>Solar energy powers literally every solar effect
Nice irrelevant tautology. Current warming is not a solar effect. Changes in solar forcing, both via insolation and cloud seeding, have actually caused the temperature to increase less than it would have.

>A change in the Sun can change the size of the Ionosphere of the Earth, and that trickles down and causes other effects.
You're missing both the sign and the magnitude of this effect. Why do you make vague statements without connecting them to an actual argument?

>>15027482
Here you go, radiative forcing from the last AR report. I wonder what your excuse for ignoring this will be.

>>15014798
>There hasn't been a singular study or verifiable outline on how CO2 increases global temperature.
Why are you lying? There are many many many studies on the greenhouse effect, including one in the post you're replying to which gives observational evidence for CO2 being the cause of warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Only someone completely ignorant of climate science could make such a claim honestly.

>There are vague theories at best.
No, there are very specific models based on over a hundred years of studying the climate. We can directly observe via spectroscopy the heat being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere.

>And the last time co2 was rich in the atmosphere we had the largest fauna and flora to date.
The issue is not simply the level of CO2, it's the rate of change. We are releasing CO2 that took millions of years to accumulate in only a few hundred years. Such rapid changes are associated with mass extinctions in the past, not flourishing. Species that flourished in high CO2 environments had millions of years to evolve for that climate. We are not evolved for that climate.

>>14949449
>They don't even factor cloud cover albedo into their models.
Why are you lying?

>I think they're retarded and they have no idea how the climate works, so they can't determine anything like that.
Nice projection.

>>14864502
>human activity changing Albedo.
The net affect of albedo changes is a slight cooling.

>Where are those measurements from?
Thermometer stations.

>Is it the same measurement stations throughout the period?
No, but the highest quality, longest lasting stations show the same trend.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Have they changed some measurements retroactively to better fit their model?
No.

>>14718266
>Interesting, this rise in temperature trend you speak of, it seems to align with the solar cycles, how bout that?
How so? Do you know what actually aligns with the warming? Greenhouse gas emissions.

>See the increase in activity since the little ice age ended?
I see an increase in activity and then a decrease. Solar activity has had very little radiative forcing over that entire time frame. You're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest.

>>14698742
>Its real, the climate is changing, but not because of humans.
Wrong.

>The earth goes through climate cycles whether we like it or not.
Which cycle is causing current warming?

>>14673100
>It's part of earths natural cycle.
Which cycle? None of them predict such rapid warming right now.

>There is no proof of mankind having a causal influence on this.
There's mountains of evidence. Why are you lying?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/11/IPCCWG1ar6slides_SBSTA_MASTER.pdf

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Correlation is not causation.
Who said correlation is causation?

>Without a second planet and a non arbitrary ruleset it is impossible to solve for multiple unknown variables
What rulesest? We don't need a second planet to determine things about this one. You're just setting up arbitrary rules of evidence in order to avoid facts you don't like.

>>14669611
Wrong.

>>14642837
>energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general
CO2 emissions increased exponentially, so what is your point?

>There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming
Already has. Pic related.

>>14580077
>That isn't forcings you retard that is temperature "contributions".
Same thing, different units.

>The IPCC uses the 0.1 W/m2 propaganda number for solar irradiance (the absolute lowest cherry picked number among all calculations)
Source?

>but the paper says the uncertainty goes up to 6 W/m2
You're incredibly confused. That paper didn't calculate the forcing from 1750 to the present. It calculated the difference in total solar irradiance between the Maunder minimum and the present. TSI is much larger than solar forcing because it doesn't take into account the curve of the Earth and albedo. And TSI in 1750 was much closer to today's the Maunder minimum's. Further, it calculated the TSI difference in the range 3.7 and 4.5 W/m^2, not 0.1 to 6. So basically everything you said is wrong.