Climate Change - basis for "Deniers" conclusion (long)

Mar 6, 2022, 9:35 PM

Man-made Climate Change - False Conclusion

To the many believers in anthropogenic climate change (i.e., climate change caused by man), here is a concession:

Human activities do indeed contribute to global climate change.

HOWEVER, the human-driven component is insignificant when compared to fluctuations in solar radiation.

WARNING: This is a long post. If you aren’t curious as to basis of the ‘climate change deniers’ obstinacy to accept the ‘climate change believers’ assertions that ‘the science is settled,’ or why the ‘deniers’ believe that the ‘believers’ are ignorant, then don’t waste your time. To those among the ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’ who are curious, then here goes:

The sun is not just a minor driver of global climate; the sun is the dominant factor in climate change.

Careful review of a recent NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) paper - - - Climate Change - Incoming Sunlight (Oct. 7, 2021) - - - provides a highlight (summary) component which is refuted by a data set within the NOAA’s paper itself.

Link to the NOAA paper is below (between the +++++++++ lines)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight#:~:text=A%20comprehensive%20review%20of%20published,0.06%20Watts%20per%20square%20meter

The Sun's average brightness varies over time, and the changes can affect global surface temperature. But long-term changes over the period of human-caused global warming are minimal.

.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The key aspect which refutes the NOAA’s conclusion from the really neat work done in support of the ‘man made climate change’ assertion is found in the section titled “Long-term changes in solar activity” which is found a little less than half-way through the paper.

From ~ 925 AD through ~ 1075 AD, the temperatures in N.America were inexplicably warmer - - - as warm as they are now the 21st century. (***) This is seen in the 3rd graph in the “Long-term changes in solar activity” section.

The fascinating part of this section is the editors’ decision to barely mention the ~ 150 year warm period from ~ 925 AD through ~ 1075 AD, which is revealed by their own data. As such, there is also no attempt to explain that period’s high temperatures; i.e., no one touched the near-certainty that anthropogenic driven increases in CO2 levels did not cause the temperature rise, nor did they assert that their arduously composed ‘proof-of-minimal-impact’ solar-activity model might also be wrong.

A cut-and-paste of the salient part of the NOAA’s “Long-term changes in solar activity” section is below (between the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx lines).

(*) The last sentence in 2nd of the cut-and-pasted paragraphs speciously implies that the recent temperature rise is for reasons other than solar fluctuations - - - which leads the casual reader to conclude that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 is the primary cause of the recent rising temperatures.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In addition, the record shows that there have been periods when sunspots virtually disappear for several decades. (Other features of the 11-year solar cycle continue to occur, however.) These periods are called Grand Solar Minimums. For example, between 1645-1715, the Sun went through a 70-year quiet period known as the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots disappeared almost completely, and the solar wind was maybe half of its modern velocity. The Maunder Minimum partially overlapped a centuries-long cold spell called the Little Ice Age, which was strongest in the Northern Hemisphere between 1450¬-1850.

A 2000-year temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere outside the tropics shows a warm period that peaked around 1,000 A.D. followed by a multi-century period of cooling: the Little Ice Age. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age overlapped the very low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum, but the cold spell began well before. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from Christiansen and Ljungqvist, 2012.
In contrast, the Sun was unusually active in the twentieth century, a period which solar experts call the Modern Maximum. Starting near the turn of the twentieth century, each solar cycle was increasingly active. This build up was tied to the last Gleissberg Cycle, which peaked during solar cycle 19 in 1957. Solar activity then declined in the second half of the 20th-century. The stretch of high activity drew to a definite close in the first decade of the twenty-first century with solar cycle 23, which had an unusually long and low minimum. Solar cycle 24 went on to have one of the lowest maximums of the last 70 years, and solar cycle 25 is expected to be comparable. Meanwhile, Earth's surface temperatures continued to rise rapidly.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Again, notice that the “Long-term changes in solar activity” section focus on the “Little Ice Age” but fastidiously avoids to explain the NOAA’s very own ‘why was it hot from ~ 925 AD through ~ 1075 AD (i.e., 150 year period) data.

Simply saying that ‘stuff happens’ in light of NOAA’s impressive details about various factors which assert the relative constancy of the sun’s role in the earth’s climate change just isn’t good enough.

This failure serves to disprove their work. The ‘conclusion’ is negated by a highly relevant piece of their own data.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

What bothers me is that the NOAA (and all of the other man-made climate change believers) come up with strongly-stated conclusions which are not supported by their very own data.

Even intelligent people struggle to dig through all of the fancy supporting that supports the 'settled science' conclusion, but fail to recognize the bright red glowing nose that says something is badly wrong with the conclusion.

It's as if the NOAA and 'climate change' believers are all Gamecock fans justifying their wanna be conclusions by presenting superfluous data to prove that they beat us in 2021 FB game in Columbia. Here are all the reasons why they won:

Gamecocks - had better crowd than Clemson (home game for them)
Gamecocks - better rested players than Clemson (didn't have to travel)
Gamecocks - play in SEC ('best' conference; therefore better prepared than Clemson to play FB)
Gamecocks - had superstar-in-the-making QB Josh Brown (he beat FL & AUB; Clemson had injured QB)

All of these combined factors meant that they won. Right?

But the one true meaningful (ignored by Gamecocks) data set is: 30 -and- 0.

One meaningful piece of data can negate the conclusion which is drawn from carefully constructed other data sets.

Climate Change - basis for "Deniers" conclusion (long)

2 quotes

Re: 2 quotes

The Earth is a sentient being

The earth didn’t create Covid, the Us government did.***

I knew it was all BS because the typical communist

Re: I knew it was BS - - similar to Gamecocks beat us in FB

Just follow the $$$ ... the most passionate climate change

Re: Just follow the $$$ ... the most passionate climate change

TigerBoard POTD