The Earth is 5% greener now than it was 20 years ago

[Borchester]

So you're another who has a salary that depends on there being a problem, I'm sorry to tell you that the gravy train is pulling in soon.

A lot of the spade work on Climate Change is done at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, with the chap in charge being a Dr Zhengyu Liu. His department used two models and Dr liu noted that one model showed that the world was being burned to a cinder and the other that it was turning into an ice cube.

Climate Change is not one of the more fun filled disciplines, but the good doctor clearly likes a joke and published both sets of results.

Strangely, the results are no longer on the University website, but Dr Liu is now a professor, which is as it should be

https://aos.wisc.edu/~zliu/

[Nick]

A lot of the spade work on Climate Change is done at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, with the chap in charge being a Dr Zhengyu Liu. His department used two models and Dr liu noted that one model showed that the world was being burned to a cinder and the other that it was turning into an ice cube.

Climate Change is not one of the more fun filled disciplines, but the good doctor clearly likes a joke and published both sets of results.

Strangely, the results are no longer on the University website, but Dr Liu is now a professor, which is as it should be

https://aos.wisc.edu/~zliu/

Climate models are built on the premise that raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature. It must have come as a big shock when they input more CO2 and the temperature rose!! 

[Borchester]

So you're another who has a salary that depends on there being a problem, I'm sorry to tell you that the gravy train is pulling in soon.

A lot of the spade work on Climate Change is done at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, with the chap in charge being a Dr Zhengyu Liu. His department used two models and Dr liu noted that one model showed that the world was being burned to a cinder and the other that it was turning into an ice cube.

Climate Change is not one of the more fun filled disciplines, but the good doctor clearly likes a joke and published both sets of results.

Strangely, the results are no longer on the University website, but Dr Liu is now a professor, which is as it should be

https://aos.wisc.edu/~zliu/

[Nick]

Pipe down mate, grown ups are talking.

(And the answer is a fair bit, although my role was more integrating what the guys who did the modeling did as, if I'm honest, the maths of nuclear physics and materials science is a little beyond me)

So you're another who has a salary that depends on there being a problem, I'm sorry to tell you that the gravy train is pulling in soon. 

[Nick]

Good we're getting somewhere.

So your explanation for why the climate isn changing, specifically the globe is heating (I assume you aren't arguing the planet is cooling) is orbital cycles that occur with a period of roughly 100,000 years? 

Note that your argument implicitly acknowledges that we can know the global mean temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. It avoids the "we can't know what the temperature was 1,000 years ago because nobody had thermometers!" argument.

Your graph shows the maximum rate of change is roughly 7C over somwhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years. If we take the fastest rate that's about 0.07C rise per century.  We are looking at a rate of rise that is 1.5 C in a century (quicker if you agree most of the change has happened since the mid C20th). That's 20x greater than your orbital theory produces.

Measurements indicate actuall indicate solar irradiation has fallen slightly over the last few decades, even as temperature has been rising.

But don't take my word for it, listen to people whose day job is studying space, the sun and the earth's orbit.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/


So if it's not orbital cycles, because ir's way too fast to be orbital cycles, and solar irradiation has been flat/falling over the period when the temperature has been rising fastest.... What is it?

Do you acknowledge that we have changed the way we measure the temperature? For 800,000 years we have had to rely on isotopes from ice cores, now we have uber accurate electronic measuring kit. The error between the 2 systems is unknown

No, we can't rule out Mikankovitch cycles, your NASA article is useless. It contradicts its self. 

So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren't to blame?

Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present.

We have in the past had over 1000 PPM CO2 and it has ALWAYS lagged temperature by 800 years. Mr Gore got it wrong!! 

Another piece of the jigsaw is that we have already gone passed the saturation point for CO2, it's at its maximum bend already. When you shine a laser through a glass of water and start adding black paint, once the laser doesn't pass through the liquid it doesn't matter how much paint you add it makes no difference. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Ok so just out of interest how much mathematical modelling have you done in support of grant funded scientific research paid for by a UK government research council ?

Because the fact is you CAN do EXACTLY that if the theory behind the changes relies on a mathematical model as flawed as the one that T@@@ Hamilton used to terrify the people about the chinese pox while breaking the rules in pursuit of a decent shag whime showing signs of infection.

Pipe down mate, grown ups are talking.

(And the answer is a fair bit, although my role was more integrating what the guys who did the modeling did as, if I'm honest, the maths of nuclear physics and materials science is a little beyond me)

[BeElBeeBub]

The Earth has a wobble, and within the wobble is another wobble. The Earths orbit around the sun changes, our solar system orbits around the centre of the Milky Way. There is a 25,000 year cycle and within it planets align on on various sides of the Sun, and if they align with us the Suns gravity has less effect and we move further from the Sun: we go into an Ice age. If they oppose us we move closer to the sun.

Sun spot activity generally controls weather not climate, unless it is a prolonged spell.

As you can see in the below diagram, we are almost at the top of the curve.

Good we're getting somewhere.

So your explanation for why the climate isn changing, specifically the globe is heating (I assume you aren't arguing the planet is cooling) is orbital cycles that occur with a period of roughly 100,000 years?  

Note that your argument implicitly acknowledges that we can know the global mean temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. It avoids the "we can't know what the temperature was 1,000 years ago because nobody had thermometers!" argument.

Your graph shows the maximum rate of change is roughly 7C over somwhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years. If we take the fastest rate that's about 0.07C rise per century.  We are looking at a rate of rise that is 1.5 C in a century (quicker if you agree most of the change has happened since the mid C20th). That's 20x greater than your orbital theory produces.

Measurements indicate actuall indicate solar irradiation has fallen slightly over the last few decades, even as temperature has been rising.

But don't take my word for it, listen to people whose day job is studying space, the sun and the earth's orbit.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/


So if it's not orbital cycles, because ir's way too fast to be orbital cycles, and solar irradiation has been flat/falling over the period when the temperature has been rising fastest.... What is it?

[johnofgwent]

That's true, so I can take it you accept it is changing *now*

You can't dismiss a theory about what is causing the change .....

Ok so just out of interest how much mathematical modelling have you done in support of grant funded scientific research paid for by a UK government research council ?

Because the fact is you CAN do EXACTLY that if the theory behind the changes relies on a mathematical model as flawed as the one that T@@@ Hamilton used to terrify the people about the chinese pox while breaking the rules in pursuit of a decent shag whime showing signs of infection.

[johnofgwent]

Still waiting for the science to prove AGW.

The problem i have with that site is it does have rather too much emphasis on the sort of crap that saddo khan't is currently losing labour elections with.

however, this story seems fairly solid. It states pretty categorically that areas not exactly renowned for kissing thunberg's arse are out there planting what seems to be the equivalent of an amazon rainforest.

next time some swampy clone has a go at the world for logging, someone should print this off on chlorinated a3 cartridge paper and give them the option of eating it, or having their colon obstructed by it.

[Nick]

That's true, so I can take it you accept it is changing *now*

The next question is:

What is the cause of the change now?

Edit: i'm taking it slowly because climate deniers always throw so much shit in the air "sunspots!", "It's always changed!", "No correlation", "scientists are making it up!", "Heat islands!" Etc. That it's hard to argue.

So far you've just chucked up "AGW is a myth" - ok, so what is happening?

You've agreed the climate changing, somewhat is causing it?  You can't dismiss a theory about what is causing the change without bringing forward and alternative and then showing the alternative is more supported than the mainstream theory.

The Earth has a wobble, and within the wobble is another wobble. The Earths orbit around the sun changes, our solar system orbits around the centre of the Milky Way. There is a 25,000 year cycle and within it planets align on on various sides of the Sun, and if they align with us the Suns gravity has less effect and we move further from the Sun: we go into an Ice age. If they oppose us we move closer to the sun. 

Sun spot activity generally controls weather not climate, unless it is a prolonged spell. 

As you can see in the below diagram, we are almost at the top of the curve. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes. It is called weather

Weather isn't climate

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

If all you've got is that or maybe "if there's globalmwarmijg why is so wet and rainy right now", then you are either being disingenuous or you're not mentally equipped for this debate.

[Borchester]

Do you accept that (regardless of the cause) the earth's climate is changing?

Yes. It is called weather

[BeElBeeBub]

The earths climate is always changing.

That's true, so I can take it you accept it is changing *now*

The next question is:

What is the cause of the change now?

Edit: i'm taking it slowly because climate deniers always throw so much shit in the air "sunspots!", "It's always changed!", "No correlation", "scientists are making it up!", "Heat islands!" Etc. That it's hard to argue.

So far you've just chucked up "AGW is a myth" - ok, so what is happening?

You've agreed the climate changing, somewhat is causing it?  You can't dismiss a theory about what is causing the change without bringing forward and alternative and then showing the alternative is more supported than the mainstream theory.

[Nick]

Ok which bits don't you believe?

Let's start at the most base level and work up.....

Do you accept that (regardless of the cause) the earth's climate is changing?

Let me explain the very basics to you seeing as we are being condescending, the earths climate is always changing.

[BeElBeeBub]

Still waiting for the science to prove AGW.

Ok which bits don't you believe?

Let's start at the most base level and work up.....

Do you accept that (regardless of the cause) the earth's climate is changing?