• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solar Global Warming

distraff said:
Can you show that global air pollution has been decreasing since 1970 given that you just admitted that Asian air pollution has been significantly increasing since 1980?
Click to expand...

Overall, it has decreased since the 70's until sometime in the 90's, where now it is greater than before, again.

The latitude makes a difference as well. Depends a lot on if it is under, or between cells. The new soot by China has much of it carried upward since it is largely between the Ferrel and Polar cells. Much of this then gets deposited on the polar ice, causing additional melting.

bc07.gif


I don't recall where such information is at, and I'm not going to search for it. I've been studying this for well over a decade. The site I lifted that nice little image isn't about aerosols, but it shows the air circulation of the three convection cells.

Air Circulation

Our US smog problems were largely because we are mostly under the Ferrel Cell, and the soot stayed in the lower atmosphere, blocking the solar heating, and was more susceptible to being blown to cover the oceans as well.

If you notice, all the equatorial areas have heavy soot except where the land is minimal between oceans. See your post 18 pic. Consider how the convection cells, trade winds and westerlies take an active roll in those soot levels.
 
OrphanSlug said:
More like how does it prove that human produced CO2 all of a sudden is the primary driver of climate change when before there was no direct correlation between the two?
Click to expand...

How does what prove that human produced CO2 is the primary driver of climate change?

It is up to you to prove how human produced CO2 change the nature of a relationship that has not been there consistent enough historically speaking, it is not my job to disprove your assertions when they fly in the face of such a lengthy analysis of how they are not one-to-one relational.
Click to expand...

I was not trying to prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate change in this thread. Again, the main focus of this thread is about the assertion that the sun is the main driver of temperature and showing that CO2 is a better explanation not that CO2 is proven to be the explanation. There are plenty of other threads that discuss whether CO2 is the main driver.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Overall, it has decreased since the 70's until sometime in the 90's, where now it is greater than before, again.

The latitude makes a difference as well. Depends a lot on if it is under, or between cells. The new soot by China has much of it carried upward since it is largely between the Ferrel and Polar cells. Much of this then gets deposited on the polar ice, causing additional melting.

bc07.gif


I don't recall where such information is at, and I'm not going to search for it. I've been studying this for well over a decade. The site I lifted that nice little image isn't about aerosols, but it shows the air circulation of the three convection cells.

Air Circulation

Our US smog problems were largely because we are mostly under the Ferrel Cell, and the soot stayed in the lower atmosphere, blocking the solar heating, and was more susceptible to being blown to cover the oceans as well.

If you notice, all the equatorial areas have heavy soot except where the land is minimal between oceans. See your post 18 pic. Consider how the convection cells, trade winds and westerlies take an active roll in those soot levels.
Click to expand...

I am going to be perfectly honest here LOP, you are the only person on this thread I am actually afraid of because you are the only one who has proposed an alternative which has any potential of being shown to be true.

However when I asked you to show me that global soot has decreased globally since 1970 you didn't show me any evidence that it had. Do you have any data showing that it has? I am a huge numbers guy and like to see some actual data. I personally could not find any data online about changes in global pollution since 1970. Usually I am good at finding that stuff out but this time I couldn't.
 
distraff said:
However when I asked you to show me that global soot has decreased globally since 1970 you didn't show me any evidence that it had. Do you have any data showing that it has? I am a huge numbers guy and like to see some actual data. I personally could not find any data online about changes in global pollution since 1970. Usually I am good at finding that stuff out but this time I couldn't.
Click to expand...

I come to the computer and back doing different things around the house. Sorry, but I'm not going to look for information that I may have seen even before the internet.

You acknowledge that what I say is plausible. I accept your skepticism, and at least you are not denying the scientific method, like so many of the warmers do.

I would have to do multiple searches, which anyone else can do.

I found this on a quick search, but I'm not going to search and search and search until I find what I've read before:


The aerosol influence on the more recent transition
phase from dimming to brightening and the subsequent
brightening is better documented. Wild et al. [2005] examined
SSR at worldwide distributed BSRN stations and
found brightening tendencies during the 1990s not only
under all-sky conditions, but also in cloud-free conditions.
This indicates that aerosol changes may have contributed to
the recent brightening. Streets et al. [2006] noted a qualitative
agreement between changes in the anthropogenic
emissions of sulphur and black carbon and the widespread
transition from dimming to brightening found by Wild et al.
[2005] in various regions around the world. The historic
emission inventories suggest that global sulfur emissions
peaked in late 1980s, and decreased thereafter [Stern, 2006;
Streets et al., 2006]. The decline in the emissions of sulphur
and black carbon was particularly strong in large areas of
the industrialized world over the period 1980–2000, after
increases in previous decades [Streets et al., 2006], in line
with the changes noted in the SSR records. This reversal in
the emission trends is likely related, on one hand, to the air
pollution legislations that have started to become effective
in many developed nations in the 1980s. On the other
hand, economic crises also led to reduced emissions in
eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from the late
1980s onward, and in Asia in the 1990s [Streets et al.,
2009]. These developments may also be the cause of the
reduction of the aerosol optical depth over the world oceans
since 1990 as inferred from satellite data by Mishchenko et
al. [2007]. The early part of this aerosol optical depth
record (1983–1990) rather suggests an increase. This trend
reversal in aerosol optical depth over the oceans, possibly
indicative of changes in the background aerosol levels, fits
the general picture of a widespread transition from dimming
to brightening.​

From:

Global dimming and brightening: A review

Search for papers of a similar nature. I have read several over the years.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I come to the computer and back doing different things around the house. Sorry, but I'm not going to look for information that I may have seen even before the internet.

You acknowledge that what I say is plausible. I accept your skepticism, and at least you are not denying the scientific method, like so many of the warmers do.

I would have to do multiple searches, which anyone else can do.

I found this on a quick search, but I'm not going to search and search and search until I find what I've read before:


The aerosol influence on the more recent transition
phase from dimming to brightening and the subsequent
brightening is better documented. Wild et al. [2005] examined
SSR at worldwide distributed BSRN stations and
found brightening tendencies during the 1990s not only
under all-sky conditions, but also in cloud-free conditions.
This indicates that aerosol changes may have contributed to
the recent brightening. Streets et al. [2006] noted a qualitative
agreement between changes in the anthropogenic
emissions of sulphur and black carbon and the widespread
transition from dimming to brightening found by Wild et al.
[2005] in various regions around the world. The historic
emission inventories suggest that global sulfur emissions
peaked in late 1980s, and decreased thereafter [Stern, 2006;
Streets et al., 2006]. The decline in the emissions of sulphur
and black carbon was particularly strong in large areas of
the industrialized world over the period 1980–2000, after
increases in previous decades [Streets et al., 2006], in line
with the changes noted in the SSR records. This reversal in
the emission trends is likely related, on one hand, to the air
pollution legislations that have started to become effective
in many developed nations in the 1980s. On the other
hand, economic crises also led to reduced emissions in
eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from the late
1980s onward, and in Asia in the 1990s [Streets et al.,
2009]. These developments may also be the cause of the
reduction of the aerosol optical depth over the world oceans
since 1990 as inferred from satellite data by Mishchenko et
al. [2007]. The early part of this aerosol optical depth
record (1983–1990) rather suggests an increase. This trend
reversal in aerosol optical depth over the oceans, possibly
indicative of changes in the background aerosol levels, fits
the general picture of a widespread transition from dimming
to brightening.​

From:

Global dimming and brightening: A review

Search for papers of a similar nature. I have read several over the years.
Click to expand...

Again, I would like numbers.

I found this graph of emissions of Sulfur dioxide which is a pollutant.
7.jpg
Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie: New study: Cooling by aerosols weaker and less uncertain
8.jpg

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=267
So it looks like from 1970 - 1990 we have been emitting fewer pollutants, but not that much fewer. It was really only a small dent.
 
Last edited:
Notice how there is the rise and dip in one of those graphs as I explained? Now Soot will be slightly different than sulfur dioxide, but not much.

Now also consider the long period of equalization of the sun/ocean/atmosphere coupling.

In one of James Hansen's papers, he claims something like 70% equalization of CO2 to ocean warming in 100 years. Now a similar number should be right for the equalization of the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling. This is what that response looks like:

TSI%20Equalization%2060%20pct%20at%2081%20to%20120%20years_zpsdmysznnd.png


Now of course, this is the solar effect without anything else influencing it. With aerosols modulating this, and other climate factors, don't expect a perfect fit to anything.

The TSI data (thin blue) used here is the historical TSI reconstruction accepted by the many alarmists, found at the SORCE satellite site.
 
Found an interesting paper with an interesting graph:

Solar%20forcing%20from%20NatureGeoscience_zpsnrkxdvpf.png


paper:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/full/ngeo2094.html

Please notice in the graph how the temperature follows the solar activity rather well most the time, and the temperature swings three degrees. For some reason, it dropped around 1750, by around three degrees as well. What if this warming we see now is just making up for some other cause that created an unusual cooling?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

P.S. Your nice picture is mostly about ozone. It seems to be drivel but then you have put it totally out of context.
Click to expand...

distraff said:
View attachment 67188932
Click to expand...

Please understand that a diagram about the transport of pollutants about the world does not have a lot to say about the energy budget of the surface of the earth.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Then you will need to explain why it has stopped warming for the last 18 years.
Click to expand...

distraff said:
The purpose of this thread was to show that CO2 explains solar warming since 1960 far better than the sun and that the sun does not explain the global warming we have seen at all.

If you want to discuss the warming since 1998 then post on this thread I started which discusses this topic in detail.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...es/229777-no-global-warming-since-1998-a.html
Click to expand...

So you don't want to answer that. OK. I see. As does the rest of the world.

Any explaination of climate temperatures which excludes all data that does not fit is 100% not science. It's drivel.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Please understand that a diagram about the transport of pollutants about the world does not have a lot to say about the energy budget of the surface of the earth.
Click to expand...

I was simply trying to show that most of the greenhouse gasses are in the troposphere. This has been common knowledge for a very long time.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Notice how there is the rise and dip in one of those graphs as I explained? Now Soot will be slightly different than sulfur dioxide, but not much.

Now also consider the long period of equalization of the sun/ocean/atmosphere coupling.

In one of James Hansen's papers, he claims something like 70% equalization of CO2 to ocean warming in 100 years. Now a similar number should be right for the equalization of the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling. This is what that response looks like:

TSI%20Equalization%2060%20pct%20at%2081%20to%20120%20years_zpsdmysznnd.png


Now of course, this is the solar effect without anything else influencing it. With aerosols modulating this, and other climate factors, don't expect a perfect fit to anything.

The TSI data (thin blue) used here is the historical TSI reconstruction accepted by the many alarmists, found at the SORCE satellite site.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that this warming from 1950 - 2015 is from the equalization of our oceans? How does equalization work? Does the earth warm as quickly during equalization as during the initial warming when the sun was getting hotter? Does the rate of temperature increase drop off slowly over time during equalization?
13.jpg

That is usually how heat equalization works. For example when you turn your stove on with a pot of water, the water is going to warm up pretty quickly as the stove gets hotter and hotter. When the stove reaches its peak heat, the water may not be completely warmed up yet and will continue to warm, but over time the water will reach its equalization at a slowly decreasing rate, like a decreasing curve.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you don't want to answer that. OK. I see. As does the rest of the world.

Any explaination of climate temperatures which excludes all data that does not fit is 100% not science. It's drivel.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about the warming since 1998 the I would prefer that you post in that thread. Do you really want to discuss this topic in this thread? I will if you want me to.
 
distraff said:
If you want to talk about the warming since 1998 the I would prefer that you post in that thread. Do you really want to discuss this topic in this thread? I will if you want me to.
Click to expand...

If you wish to try to present a hypthesis explaining one period of climate behavour you must use the same idea on the other periods and show why it works there. If it does not work there it's no good.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yeah, so what?

As you say we all know that.
Click to expand...

No not everyone does. Most people don't really know what is troposphere is. Some might even guess it is some kind of planetarium or something.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you wish to try to present a hypthesis explaining one period of climate behavour you must use the same idea on the other periods and show why it works there. If it does not work there it's no good.
Click to expand...

The planets has warmed in the past for many reasons. For example orbital shifts, changes in ocean currents, changes in solar irradiance, and volcanic activity are some of the big ones. Usually these warming patterns happen very slowly over thousands of years.

Usually CO2 itself is not the cause of a warming period. Lets say that the sun gets warmer over thousands of years. This melts ice caps which makes the planet darker because the planet is more brown and blue and less white (lower albeto). Darker things tend to soak in more heat and will warm up. So the melting ice caps will spark a bit more warming which might melt a bit more ice. Also a lot of CO2 and methane are trapped in ice caps and oceans and when the planet warms these gasses get released. These gasses warm the planet further, lowering its albeto, melting ice caps, and releasing more greenhouse gasses. This cycle of warming causing more warming can go on and on for thousands of years.

This is how the planet warms and cools itself. Through these patterns and cycles. Today however humans are doing what previous warming events used to do, release CO2. But instead of releasing CO2 over thousands of years we are doing it in decades. This has the potential to spark a natural cycle of warming that can change the planet significantly.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Sorry, the planet has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. Not only is life still around but the direct associations to CO2 are in question.

View attachment 67188933
Click to expand...

That is like saying there have always been forest fires, long before the existence of man there were forest fires, thus its questionable that any current forest fires could be caused by man.

CO2 driven warming would have been a positive feedback in previous climate cycles. For example, orbital variations results in warming climate > oceans warm and thus sequester less carbon > more C02 enters atmosphere and thus climate warms further..... That is why C02 would always lag initial onset of warming in previous climate cycles. This is all climatology 101.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is like saying there have always been forest fires, long before the existence of man there were forest fires, thus its questionable that any current forest fires could be caused by man.

CO2 driven warming would have been a positive feedback in previous climate cycles. For example, orbital variations results in warming climate > oceans warm and thus sequester less carbon > more C02 enters atmosphere and thus climate warms further..... That is why C02 would always lag initial onset of warming in previous climate cycles. This is all climatology 101.
Click to expand...

That does not line up with what I posted, at all.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That does not line up with what I posted, at all.
Click to expand...

Well frankly what you posted is a nonsensical comparison because we don't have ice core data going back hundreds of millions of years. Every temperature construction going back that far is via proxies and all atmospheric concentrations going back that far are as well. In fact, almost all of it is estimated from fossil and geological data. Thus because the margin of error is extremely high going back that far, you can't overlay the two to try to make a point. For example, we may know that 400 million years ago that the global temperatures were somewhere in a range of say 6 degrees and 9 degrees warmer than today. We also know that C02 PPM was say between 400 and 600 PPM. The degree of certainty on the temperature measurement may be a range of 5 million years while on the CO2 estimate it may be 20 million years. We don't know even within a hundred thousand years though what the temperature variation would have been or what C02 PPM would have been. But rather they are taking two reconstructed data sets, smoothing them out between millions of years each, and then trying to compare them to each other... and that doesn't even get into the fact that the position of the continents was entirely different then thus the climate is simply not comparable to anything in the last few million years.

If you look at ice core reconstructions, where we have much more precise numbers, we get a much clearer picture.

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well frankly what you posted is a nonsensical comparison because we don't have ice core data going back hundreds of millions of years. Every temperature construction going back that far is via proxies and all atmospheric concentrations going back that far are as well. In fact, almost all of it is estimated from fossil and geological data. Thus because the margin of error is extremely high going back that far, thus you can't overlay the two to try to make a point. For example, we may know that 400 million years ago that the global temperatures were somewhere in a range of say 6 degrees and 9 degrees warmer than today. We also know that C02 PPM was say between 400 and 600 PPM. The degree of certainty on the temperature measurement may be a range of 5 million years while on the CO2 estimate it may be 20 million years. We don't know even within a hundred thousand years though what the temperature variation would have been or what C02 PPM would have been. But rather they are taking two reconstructed data sets, smoothing them out between millions of years each, and then trying to compare them to each other... and that doesn't even get into the fact that the position of the continents was entirely different then thus the climate is simply not comparable to anything in the last few million years.

If you look at ice core reconstructions, where we have much more precise numbers, we get a much clearer picture.

View attachment 67189156
Click to expand...

Two awesome videos about this "CO2 lag"

 
distraff said:
No not everyone does. Most people don't really know what is troposphere is. Some might even guess it is some kind of planetarium or something.
Click to expand...

If you post a silly diagram which is focused on how pollutants move around the place and then talk about climate temperature changes it is you who look uninformed.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
If you wish to try to present a hypthesis explaining one period of climate behavour you must use the same idea on the other periods and show why it works there. If it does not work there it's no good.
Click to expand...

distraff said:
The planets has warmed in the past for many reasons. For example orbital shifts, changes in ocean currents, changes in solar irradiance, and volcanic activity are some of the big ones. Usually these warming patterns happen very slowly over thousands of years.

Usually CO2 itself is not the cause of a warming period. Lets say that the sun gets warmer over thousands of years. This melts ice caps which makes the planet darker because the planet is more brown and blue and less white (lower albeto). Darker things tend to soak in more heat and will warm up. So the melting ice caps will spark a bit more warming which might melt a bit more ice. Also a lot of CO2 and methane are trapped in ice caps and oceans and when the planet warms these gasses get released. These gasses warm the planet further, lowering its albeto, melting ice caps, and releasing more greenhouse gasses. This cycle of warming causing more warming can go on and on for thousands of years.

This is how the planet warms and cools itself. Through these patterns and cycles. Today however humans are doing what previous warming events used to do, release CO2. But instead of releasing CO2 over thousands of years we are doing it in decades. This has the potential to spark a natural cycle of warming that can change the planet significantly.
Click to expand...

Try, just for once, to actually answer the question. Account for the periods of warmer climate such as the medeval warm period and the bronze age warm period. Otherwise your silly hypothesis is junk.

P.S. Here we are generally fairly well informed about such things and can understand an energy budget. Use numbers.
 
distraff said:
The planets has warmed in the past for many reasons. For example orbital shifts, changes in ocean currents, changes in solar irradiance, and volcanic activity are some of the big ones. Usually these warming patterns happen very slowly over thousands of years.

Usually CO2 itself is not the cause of a warming period. Lets say that the sun gets warmer over thousands of years. This melts ice caps which makes the planet darker because the planet is more brown and blue and less white (lower albeto). Darker things tend to soak in more heat and will warm up. So the melting ice caps will spark a bit more warming which might melt a bit more ice. Also a lot of CO2 and methane are trapped in ice caps and oceans and when the planet warms these gasses get released. These gasses warm the planet further, lowering its albeto, melting ice caps, and releasing more greenhouse gasses. This cycle of warming causing more warming can go on and on for thousands of years.

This is how the planet warms and cools itself. Through these patterns and cycles. Today however humans are doing what previous warming events used to do, release CO2. But instead of releasing CO2 over thousands of years we are doing it in decades. This has the potential to spark a natural cycle of warming that can change the planet significantly.
Click to expand...

Your main paragraph only had a method of how the planet may warm itself. add in the other side of the equation of how it might cool itself,
and then think about how it cycles.
This is actually part of the issue with the entire AGW concept, they mostly considered the positive feedbacks.
The planet clearly has both positive and negative feedbacks.
 
longview said:
Your main paragraph only had a method of how the planet may warm itself. add in the other side of the equation of how it might cool itself,
and then think about how it cycles.
This is actually part of the issue with the entire AGW concept, they mostly considered the positive feedbacks.
The planet clearly has both positive and negative feedbacks.
Click to expand...

Yes it does have negative feedbacks. So which is stronger the positive or the negative feedbacks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom