US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 is a very well-mixed gas and does cover the entire planet.

https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04

Look carefully at the legend. It varies 18 ppm, less than 5%.

See above Jack

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Hansen's prediction from 1988 with observed data.

Profound! Another graph that proves nothing. So what if it shows a bit of warming. It does not tell the reason for it. You never consider that cause has to be established for such observations to be used in a discussion. And cause in this case is variation of solar activity. In addition to a smoking gun, a shooter must be found, and his motive must be determined. The graph by itself means nothing. So please give it up with the pointless graphs from the Graphs R Us shop.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually it can vary as much as 60ppm across the planet.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...52.032,-25.845

The second is close to you isn't it ?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...115.087,53.162

OK maybe a 15% variation, at any given moment. It still cover the entire plant.

The second point would be the oil sands. Go figure. Anthropogenic CO2 from petroleum production. Alberta is the number one emitter in Canada. Canada is among the world's top ten.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Profound! Another graph that proves nothing. So what if it shows a bit of warming. It does not tell the reason for it. You never consider that cause has to be established for such observations to be used in a discussion. And cause in this case is variation of solar activity. In addition to a smoking gun, a shooter must be found, and his motive must be determined. The graph by itself means nothing. So please give it up with the pointless graphs from the Graphs R Us shop.

From BEST

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.

The historic temperature pattern we observe has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface for a few years. There are small rapid variations attributable to El Nino and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream. The gradual but systematic rise of 1.5 degrees C is best explained by the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.



Solar activity does not correlate to current temperature.


Speaking of guns

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

\ And cause in this case is variation of solar activity.

If the sun was a factor the troposphere and the stratosphere would be warming in unison. They are going opposite directions as the CO2 traps heat.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Profound! Another graph that proves nothing.

It proves Hansen got it right.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK maybe a 15% variation, at any given moment. It still cover the entire plant.

The second point would be the oil sands. Go figure. Anthropogenic CO2 from petroleum production. Alberta is the number one emitter in Canada. Canada is among the world's top ten.

We can produce our own fuel and benefit from the economics and have a secure ethical source. Our present trend of purchasing it from dodgy places around the world is a recipe for shortages and disaster. The present situation with Russia is increasing prices and threatening supplies. There is absolutely no reason why Canada should have be subject to international supply interruption. We should have pipe lines to supply ourselves across the entire country. In reality, Canada is a relatively small emitter. Our production is dwarfed by China, Europe, India, and the US. But this does not matter because natural solar variation causes climate variation. It has little to do with burning oil.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

But this does not matter because natural solar variation causes climate variation.

Profoundly wrong. You have presented nothing that supports this assertion. I have presented mounds of evidence to refute it.\

From the Stanford Solar Center

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It proves Hansen got it right.

Provide actual source for the graph please

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Three authors with no expertise in climate science publish in a pay-to-publish predatory journal. Yep, that is credible.

Pay?

You can down load it for free.

C02 is a bit player. H20 is the big dog.

Abstract:

It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength
incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for
warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature
of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H2O and CO2.
What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO2, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change.

Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a
plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results.

The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and
N2O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in
the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of
greenhouse gas concentrations.

The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.

Keywords: Carbon Dioxide, Climate Sensitivity, Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Provide actual source for the graph please

The original graph is from

Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model
J. Hansen,I. Fung,A. Lacis,D. Rind,S. Lebedeff,R. Ruedy,G. Russell,P. Stone
First published: 20 August 1988 https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Pay?

I have read it.

You pay to have your article published.

Science Publishing Group
Let me describe one particularly egregious predatory publisher to illustrate why predatory journals present such a serious threat. The publisher is Science Publishing Group [9] and it publishes, by my most recent count, 476 scholarly journals. It claims to be based on Fashion Avenue in New York City, but it is really based in Pakistan [10]. The publisher may make this false claim because potential customers may be more likely to assume a New York-based publisher is more legitimate than a Pakistan-based one. Looking at this publisher’s articles and journals, it's easy to confidently classify it as a predatory publisher (at least it is for me). I have been monitoring this publisher for several years and remember when it first launched in late 2012 with 52 new journals. Yet the publisher is growing and thriving.

Obviously, it's not so easily identified as a predatory publisher by everyone. Its hundreds of journals have thousands of published articles, and it continues to expand and launch new journals. People are being fooled into believing SPG is a legitimate publisher or they are exploiting its automatic article acceptance to get easy academic credit, or both. Many of the articles it publishes are nonsense. For many years, I’ve used the article “Mathematical proof of the law of karma” [11] as an example in lectures I’ve given, an article that always draws laughter from the audience. It’s published in SPG’s American Journal of Applied Mathematics, a journal with an intentionally misleading title, as Pakistan is nowhere near America.

The publisher Science Publishing Group seems to have absolutely no morals or integrity and is a counterfeit scholarly publisher, designed to trick or serve the needs of scholarly authors around the world, and there are many like it — it is not an exception or an isolated case [10].

https://www.4open-sciences.org/artic...en180001s.html

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The original graph is from

Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model
J. Hansen,I. Fung,A. Lacis,D. Rind,S. Lebedeff,R. Ruedy,G. Russell,P. Stone
First published: 20 August 1988 https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341

That explains why I couldn't find it pay wall

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Pay?

You can down load it for free.

C02 is a bit player. H20 is the big dog.

Abstract:

It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength
incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for
warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature
of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H2O and CO2.
What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO2, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change.

Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a
plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results.

The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and
N2O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in
the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of
greenhouse gas concentrations.

The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.

Keywords: Carbon Dioxide, Climate Sensitivity, Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change

Wow! A sensible posting on here for a change! It has been an exercise weeding through the bogus climate cult propaganda. Honest commentary In a world in which lies are the norm, good people fall for the lies and a truth speaker is despised.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Pay?

You can down load it for free.

C02 is a bit player. H20 is the big dog.

Abstract:

It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength
incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for
warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature
of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H2O and CO2.
What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO2, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change.

Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a
plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results.

The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and
N2O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in
the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of
greenhouse gas concentrations.

The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.

Keywords: Carbon Dioxide, Climate Sensitivity, Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change

Math is right but Jack discounts anything if he finds the source site not to his liking . Regardless of the validity of the specific items