June 25, 2015

Chart of the Day: “What’s really warming the world?”

.

Perhaps you’ve had one of those conversations about climate change where someone lists all the things — other than us people burning carbon — that could be making the weather go haywire in recent decades. There’s ozone pollution. The Earth’s orbit. The way we keep on cutting down trees and setting them on fire or making stuff out of them. Volcanoes! The relentless heat of that dear ball of incandescent gas that the Earth rotates around! Big hair in general, and old cans of Aqua Net in particular!

Those conversations can cease. Blooomberg Business just put together a graph plotting each of those different hypotheses in an overlay with the culprit scientists favor — greenhouse gases. The result is a thing of beauty, worth clicking through and studying closely.

.

Chart here:

Chart 1

.

Example:

Volcanoes

 .

UPDATE for Thomas:

chart 3

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. From this link above

    “if we look at the evidence we see a different story.

    A range of empirical evidence points to a low climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2), meaning that CO2 has limited effect on warming. In particular, large CO2 variations over geological time scales give rise to no apparent temperature variations and large volcanic eruptions cool the planet by only 0.1°C on average (compared with 0.3-0.5 predicted by models employed by the IPCC).

    And of course there is the “hiatus.” The IPCC concluded in Chapter 9 of its September 2013 Working Group I report that there had been a 15-year hiatus in Global Surface Meant Temperatures (GSMT) that had not been predicted by a single computer model.

    Currently, satellite data show that the hiatus has continued over 18 years, even though carbon dioxide has risen significantly. This implies that Earth’s temperature increases less (from the influence of CO2) than IPCC predictions, because those were based on a high climate sensitivity ascribed to CO2.”

    and further

    “In short, the research work that my colleagues and I carry out shows that the leading mechanism to link solar activity with climate is that of cosmic ray modulation. This is supported by a range of empirical evidence including paleo-climate variations associated with variations in the cosmic ray flux density around the solar system (from spiral arm passages and the motion of the solar system perpendicular to the galactic plane).”

    and he concludes:

    There are many good reasons why we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, BUT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.” (Emphasis mine)

    1. You need to check your sources, Thomas.

      A loosely-framed Financial Post opinion piece criticizing IPCC climate models by Nir Shaviv does not prove the OBSERVED data cited by NASA wrong. Nor does it automatically represent The Truth because it was written by a technically-competent PhD holder.

      The observed NASA readings indicate solar activity trended toward a level line while GHGs climbed. The oceans have absorbed the vast majority of the heat during predominantly La Nina (cooler) Pacific cycles. Meanwhile, during the so-called “climate pause” many historic temperature records were repeatedly broken. We are now entering what appears to be a strong El Nino (warm) cycle, so records may well be broken at a faster pace.

      The FP piece addressed climate science without one iota of peer review by climate scientists. Independent peer review is essential. In fact, according to the scientists and researchers at Skeptical Science, Shaviv has not published even one independently peer reviewed report.

      In addition, Desmog Blog found Shaviv was affiliated with the Heartland Institute, an organization saturated with millions in financial support by Big Oil and which exists large to promote climate change denial to protect their vested interests. Their publications and articles are routinely rebutted and refuted by real climate scientists.

      If the Financial Post had any scruples the editorial board would invite the climate science community to review and correct / comment on the assertions made by Shaviv.

      How ironic it is that both the Bloomberg and FP pages contained major ads for Cadillac, Lincoln and Ford SUVs.

      1. MB, don’t waste your breath – it will only further contribute to the greenhouse effect.

        Thomas is clearly incapable of decalcifying his neurons long enough to allow for even the outside possibility that he knows less then the global community of climate scientists. But no, he found a press article somewhere and that made him feel special. Heaven forbid we should convince him otherwise of that belief. You’re the uniquest of snowflakes, Thomas, on this ever warming world 😉

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,313 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles