[M.T. Cranium]

I think what's perhaps most worrying about the situation is that there could be a long-term significant warming trend that is perhaps 75% or more natural variability, and the AGW crowd may have mistaken the trend lines around the 1980s and 1990s which made it look as though this warming was largely human caused.

Getting near the end of a long analysis of temperature records for several long-term locations that I don't believe have changed their site characteristics, and seeing considerable evidence that a warming trend that was already unfolding in the time frame of 1910 to 1970 then stalled out and reversed for a while, hitting a minimum in the late 1970s and early 1980s (more like mid 1980s for Europe) then resumed back to former trend lines around 1988 to 1991. This is about when the AGW movement really began to take off.

The danger there would be (a) the warming is real but (b) the cause is natural and not human-induced, therefore the policies suggested by climate science will have almost no effect on it. This will have harmful economic consequences but will do next to nothing to resolve the problem.

We may have caught a break with the solar downturn if it digs in and becomes at least similar to the Dalton. I think getting it to go full Maunder is perhaps too unlikely, but even a Dalton style series of weak peaks and long pauses would perhaps slow down the natural warming.

One of the bigger pieces of evidence I've found for this alternative viewpoint is that warming seems to have locked into synchronized timing in different parts of the world. If there was a human signal, I don't see why that would necessarily be the case. I am also suspicious of the conventional theory because of the continued large natural variance of climate. If human warming was the main actor, wouldn't the variability be decreasing?

Is it therefore more of a crisis? Well that depends on what you think a natural warming cycle could eventually end up doing. We have had them going on ever since the end of the last glacial period -- sharp variations that have led to rises and falls in sea level much larger than what we saw in the past 120 years. We certainly need to be mindful that if the causes of warming were largely natural in the past century, then everything we are talking about and planning is irrelevant. The climate could continue to warm up anyway. Or it could reverse course.

I think it calls for an entirely different strategy, certainly careful monitoring and more research into predictable cause and effect, so we can have some clue what is coming at us, but also a shift away from prevention to mitigation. Prevention is only sensible if there is a good chance that it will prevent something. Mitigation is the more sensible choice if the outcome is inevitable. Looking at the resumed natural warming signals, I think the chances are fairly high that we'll continue to see warmer temperatures for several decades, although there's no telling when the natural signals will reverse.

Here are some interesting facts from a study of temperature records at Toronto, where the downtown station essentially hasn't changed its location or characteristics for many decades. There was an obvious warming trend there in the 1890s and a peak of warmth from 1911 to about 1960, followed by a more variable period, some slight cooling around 1980, then a steady warming but mainly due to the increased urban heat island as it's only overnight temperatures that have come up relative to 1931-60. In fact, 15 of the 20 warmest days observed at that location were in the interval from 1900 to 1970, and only four in the last half century (one other was in 1854). Throughout the year, the modern period has not produced any more records per annum than the years from 1911 to 1960 produced. 1931 and 1936 have more surviving record max values than any year since 2000 although some of the top ten years are recent. They have not eclipsed the pace set in other years, just returned to it. The "global warming" we have seen since 1990 would look exactly the same if time was reversed, to an observer who began looking in 1975. If the years came in reverse order, that observer going backwards would have already had seen nine of the twenty warmest days, going forward he has only seen four. Going backwards, he would have seen the two warmest Octobers, the second warmest July (and the warmest one would still lie ahead), and two of the three warmest Marches.

It is not scientifically possible to distinguish the warming observable in either direction from a mid-point such as 1975. Therefore I can't accept that the warming is a human caused phenomenon. We may be topping it up, but if you remove the urban heat island from the Toronto signal I can't even see that being valid.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Here's the location of the station

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PyT2P1TAiRwnVSoB6

Italian Met Society's website on that station.

http://www.nimbus.it/moncalieri/clima.htm

Mean annual temperature, with the following note underneath.

The temperature is increasing: from the end of the 1800s to today, the average annual temperature has undergone an increase of more than 3 degrees, partly due to the urban heat island effect. The climatic signal can still be evaluated to the nearest degree and the most recent years are the warmest of the series.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Harry Palmr

Why the variations? ocean currents (El Nina/El Nino in the Pacific being the obvious example) but many others more subtle in nature and cause

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../currents.html

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the fundamental assumption that disturbances in the Earth’s energy budget – driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 — are what cause climate change. The graph you posted and the ocean currents change don't support AGW. Put simply, it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate and the whole thing rests on assumptions.

[Pa ElGrande]

If anyone is up for it this is a lecture hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation titled energy utopias and engineering reality. It is an hour long and the essential claim is that the thinking behind de-carbonisation defies both engineering and economic reality.

[SaintLeibowitz]

Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande

If anyone is up for it this is a lecture hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation titled energy utopias and engineering reality. It is an hour long and the essential claim is that the thinking behind de-carbonisation defies both engineering and economic reality.

Another think tank you've link that's funded by fossil fuel companies.

[Harry Palmr]

Amazing how the weather forum is packed with flat earthers

[Hooter23]

Originally Posted by Harry Palmr

Amazing how the weather forum is packed with flat earthers

Amazing how everyone in the past used to be "flat earthers" until they were shown a picture/video of a round ball...

[Drumpot]

I find this debate very interesting. Been trying to find credible, layman explanations of how some people deny mans impact on our climate. I enjoyed listening to this man who died shortly after filming this Q&A. Quite often people talk about motives for grants , I don’t believe this guy was worried about grants.



But that aside, is it that the message from this side of the debate is understandable even to people who don’t understand climate? His bath explanation was brilliant and way to grasp. Even if humans are only contributing 3% extra carbon a year, the balance of natural filter is being pushed by that compounded figure annually, surely something has got to give because we are upsetting the natural order.

Saying for hundreds of thousands of years the earth has heated and cooled and most of this is solar related doesn’t explain the potential consequences of man changing the dynamics of this cycle. So are people here saying the data is inconclusive or that the data proves that CO2 from man made ventures is having negligible impact on the environment?

Isn’t more CO2 making the sea more acidic, which in turn kills fish? Isn’t this having an affect on plangkton that actually provides us with the majority of oxigen in the world? Isnt there multiple knock on effects of more CO2 that Indirectly effect our climate? Does more CO2 not potentially effect our air quality? Are people here suggesting CO2 is not a problem just for our climate or not a problem on any level to any parts of our environment?

Admittedly I’m not an expert in climate but I can’t work out how we can poison our planet so much without any meaningful ramifications, particularly when you factor all the other things we do as we rape it if all resources (trees etc). And I’m not being snotty to the more educated in here, I’m genuinely curious and open minded on this but find it hard to find even a YouTube clip of somebody with an alternative narrative that’s clear , trustworthy and understandable.