The zealot climatards will argue that northern hemisphere countries are producing more CO2 than southern ones! Intuitively, I doubt it but is there evidence that CO2 levels differ around the globe and, if so, are they higher in the northern hemisphere?
Though differences in co2 are not responsible for the north heating faster than the south (its the sea or land ice) it does vary in concentration above high emitters and this can measured with satellites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKqiadS3TE
The Northern hemisphere is warmer for reasons including ocean currents. The reason that the north is warming more rapidly than the south is because arctic sea ice is melting faster than antarctic land ice so the north is not reflecting as much heat and is therefore getting hotter faster.
The absurd idea that Milankovitch cycles, which operate over 100,000 years are the cause of recent rapid warming affecting the north more than the south is the real climatard notion. It's the sea ice in the artic melting faster than the antarctic land ice and not reflecting the sun, causing yet more warming.
No one is saying it's the difference in co2 between north and south causing more north warming, although higher concentrations of co2 above high emitters in the north is measurable with satellites.
And of course the melting of the both sea and land ice is caused by increasing co2 which is therefore responsible ultimately for the warming which affects north and south differently.
Actually I do not think that I am clever. I am amazed that "smart" people have not performed this simple analysis already. Perhaps they have and did not like the results. Perhaps it is just infectious stupidity. Who knows?
Empirically changes cannot be orbital as they operate on 1000 year cycles so if it’s not solar radiance nor albedo it must be changes in the greenhouse gas effect which as we know prevents the earth from being -18 degrees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRyURjqoxI&t=20s
I'm glad I asked the question because I honestly thought it would dissipate and equalise very quickly. So, what would you say to someone who offered that as an alternative hypothesis then?
Orbital cycles that take 100,000 years are not a serious hypothesis to explain the faster winter and night warming, a cooling upper atmosphere and patterns of ocean warming that were predicated to happen (and have happened) if climate change was caused by co2 and not about proximity to the sun.
It may well dissipate, but it won't equalise will it, because it is continually and constantly being released, day and night, from the land area concentrated in the North.
Rather than getting hot I'd say it was getting a lot colder, sea ice isn't melting, the sea level hasn't risen, they fabricate the data, look at the 1940s now that was a hot decade & yet the so called scientists have decided to wipe that from the records. You can't talk about it without being imprisoned, your career left in tatters. David Bellamy was completely destroyed after he spoke out about the global warming scam. There's trillions being invested in this lie, carbon tax credits being sold by big oil companies like BP ? Electric cars that create more co2 during production than an ICE vehicle can in ten years of ownership & what about the batteries? the majority of which end up in landfill. Divide & conquer, trans rights, religion, asylum seekers, morals, global warming, proxy wars. The west did this to Germany in the 1929-30s then we blame Hitler for what happened, he was simply trying to bring back morals & a sense of unity to his country men, history books are written by the winners. Did you know that the USA had two more nuclear weapons, one for Germany & one for China & they also had a plan to invade the uk, the reason being was because of our Germany monarchy
Milakovitch cycles explain the current, unprecedentedly rapid warming. Are you mad? Milankovitch cycles change the temperature in 100,000 year cycles. We wouldn't have seen a difference since the 80s.
“Over the frequency range 10^-4 to 10^-6 cycle per year, climatic variance of these records is concentrated in three discrete spectral peaks at the periods of 23,000, 42,000 and approximately 100,000 years. The peaks correspond to the dominant periods of the earth’s solar orbit, and contain respectively about 10, 25, and 50% of the climatic variance.”
Yes -- long-term changes in the Earth's Climate have been proven to be caused by the Milankovitch Cycles using Mud Core DATA; this finding was later confirmed using the Vostok Ice Core Data.
* Warming occurs more rapidly in NH summer than NH winter and this is evidence that it is caused by Milankovitch cycles. There are many Milankovitch cycles. The only one that could affect the relative warming in different seasons would be obliquity. It has a cycle of about 40,000 years! It really cannot have anything to do with warming over the last 200 years.
* Warming occurs faster in higher latitudes. It is a prediction of the greenhouse effect that higher latitudes would warm more quickly. It is not clear why the Milankovitch cycles would cause this and they operate over tens of thousand of years.
Sorry if I misled you. This is a study covering seasonal / monthly warming rates over the last 160 years (1860 to 2020) as this is a key period of CO2 increase. One of the key findings is that in Greenland the contribution of January over this 160 year period if 6.5 times greater than July. We are looking for 0.011C / year which is quite a small. Can this be explained by CO2 warming?
It is my fault for expressing myself unclearly. I will rephrase my point.
You point out that Berkeley data shows that winter tends to warm more quickly than summer and the further North you go the great the speed of warming. This is consistent with what most climate scientists predict will happen with increased GHGs. You suggest that Milankovitch cycles would account for this. Can you explain how, especially given that they change on scales of tens of thousands of years?
Just to clarify the analysis is examing the contribution of each month to the warming seen in various parts of the globe over a 160 year period. In the specific instance of Greenland this difference between January and July is a factor of 6.5. Milankovitch cycles cover the interaction of 3 types of orbital motion. The temperature impact presumably depends on where the earth is in these cycles.
Think of it this way. The shortest of the cycles is axial precession which takes 26,000 years. So from extreme to another is about 13,000 years. If it was responsible for current warming rate (0.15 degree per decade according to UAH) then logically the temperature should vary by nearly 400C between one extreme and the other and the planet would be uninhabitable.
The attempts to spin the facts of anthropogenic climate change are as ridiculous, far fetched and transparent as the attempts to explain the behaviour of the IDF.
Jo I have absolutely no funding. This is a simple analysis performed by downloading data directly from Berkeley Earth. My conclusions based on the massive differences between monthly warming rates during the period 1860 to 2020 point towards orientation of the earth having a predominant impact. I used to be a believer in the accepted climate change narrative. I even wrote into UK Radio 5 stating that we are all doomed. However, on examining established information and my own data analysis I have been unable to find any evidence in support of a significant impact of mankind. You are clearly convinced. Can you please submit empirical evidence for your views?
Yes, solar activity is diverged from global temperature in the 1970s and is down cooling. Global temperature is increasing. So it's not the sun nor our proximity to it then.
The zealot climatards will argue that northern hemisphere countries are producing more CO2 than southern ones! Intuitively, I doubt it but is there evidence that CO2 levels differ around the globe and, if so, are they higher in the northern hemisphere?
Though differences in co2 are not responsible for the north heating faster than the south (its the sea or land ice) it does vary in concentration above high emitters and this can measured with satellites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKqiadS3TE
The Northern hemisphere is warmer for reasons including ocean currents. The reason that the north is warming more rapidly than the south is because arctic sea ice is melting faster than antarctic land ice so the north is not reflecting as much heat and is therefore getting hotter faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn39FX4m7fM
Love, the 'tards
Yes there is lots of evidence and yes they are higher in the industrial north. See. global distribution of co2 from NOAA https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Love, climate retard.
So CO2 STAYS in the north? Where's the giant plexiglass mega dome holding it in place?
The absurd idea that Milankovitch cycles, which operate over 100,000 years are the cause of recent rapid warming affecting the north more than the south is the real climatard notion. It's the sea ice in the artic melting faster than the antarctic land ice and not reflecting the sun, causing yet more warming.
No one is saying it's the difference in co2 between north and south causing more north warming, although higher concentrations of co2 above high emitters in the north is measurable with satellites.
And of course the melting of the both sea and land ice is caused by increasing co2 which is therefore responsible ultimately for the warming which affects north and south differently.
I think you must think this is clever. Co2 of course moves around but is still measurably higher where it is emitted and moves up into the atmosphere in the industrial north than in the global south. If you want to take a look at the evidence rather than making silly comments https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Actually I do not think that I am clever. I am amazed that "smart" people have not performed this simple analysis already. Perhaps they have and did not like the results. Perhaps it is just infectious stupidity. Who knows?
Empirically changes cannot be orbital as they operate on 1000 year cycles so if it’s not solar radiance nor albedo it must be changes in the greenhouse gas effect which as we know prevents the earth from being -18 degrees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRyURjqoxI&t=20s
I'm glad I asked the question because I honestly thought it would dissipate and equalise very quickly. So, what would you say to someone who offered that as an alternative hypothesis then?
Orbital cycles that take 100,000 years are not a serious hypothesis to explain the faster winter and night warming, a cooling upper atmosphere and patterns of ocean warming that were predicated to happen (and have happened) if climate change was caused by co2 and not about proximity to the sun.
I would say that the evidence shows a demonstrable difference between north and south.
and you did ask a scientific question prefaced by zealot climatard.
It may well dissipate, but it won't equalise will it, because it is continually and constantly being released, day and night, from the land area concentrated in the North.
Rather than getting hot I'd say it was getting a lot colder, sea ice isn't melting, the sea level hasn't risen, they fabricate the data, look at the 1940s now that was a hot decade & yet the so called scientists have decided to wipe that from the records. You can't talk about it without being imprisoned, your career left in tatters. David Bellamy was completely destroyed after he spoke out about the global warming scam. There's trillions being invested in this lie, carbon tax credits being sold by big oil companies like BP ? Electric cars that create more co2 during production than an ICE vehicle can in ten years of ownership & what about the batteries? the majority of which end up in landfill. Divide & conquer, trans rights, religion, asylum seekers, morals, global warming, proxy wars. The west did this to Germany in the 1929-30s then we blame Hitler for what happened, he was simply trying to bring back morals & a sense of unity to his country men, history books are written by the winners. Did you know that the USA had two more nuclear weapons, one for Germany & one for China & they also had a plan to invade the uk, the reason being was because of our Germany monarchy
Milakovitch cycles explain the current, unprecedentedly rapid warming. Are you mad? Milankovitch cycles change the temperature in 100,000 year cycles. We wouldn't have seen a difference since the 80s.
This is only a small part of the story.
Below I quote from Hays et al. from their seminal 1976 work published in Science:
Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages (https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf)
“Over the frequency range 10^-4 to 10^-6 cycle per year, climatic variance of these records is concentrated in three discrete spectral peaks at the periods of 23,000, 42,000 and approximately 100,000 years. The peaks correspond to the dominant periods of the earth’s solar orbit, and contain respectively about 10, 25, and 50% of the climatic variance.”
Yes -- long-term changes in the Earth's Climate have been proven to be caused by the Milankovitch Cycles using Mud Core DATA; this finding was later confirmed using the Vostok Ice Core Data.
See: https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-vi-milankovitch
Shorter-term changes are random (see https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-iv) and caused by random changes in the Sun, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-warming-in-a-climate-of-ignorance/
You might like
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Not all Milankovitch cycles work for ice ages, unless you add loess dust from dead grasslands when co2 falls too far.
There are two phenomena discussed in this paper.
* Warming occurs more rapidly in NH summer than NH winter and this is evidence that it is caused by Milankovitch cycles. There are many Milankovitch cycles. The only one that could affect the relative warming in different seasons would be obliquity. It has a cycle of about 40,000 years! It really cannot have anything to do with warming over the last 200 years.
* Warming occurs faster in higher latitudes. It is a prediction of the greenhouse effect that higher latitudes would warm more quickly. It is not clear why the Milankovitch cycles would cause this and they operate over tens of thousand of years.
Sorry if I misled you. This is a study covering seasonal / monthly warming rates over the last 160 years (1860 to 2020) as this is a key period of CO2 increase. One of the key findings is that in Greenland the contribution of January over this 160 year period if 6.5 times greater than July. We are looking for 0.011C / year which is quite a small. Can this be explained by CO2 warming?
It is my fault for expressing myself unclearly. I will rephrase my point.
You point out that Berkeley data shows that winter tends to warm more quickly than summer and the further North you go the great the speed of warming. This is consistent with what most climate scientists predict will happen with increased GHGs. You suggest that Milankovitch cycles would account for this. Can you explain how, especially given that they change on scales of tens of thousands of years?
Just to clarify the analysis is examing the contribution of each month to the warming seen in various parts of the globe over a 160 year period. In the specific instance of Greenland this difference between January and July is a factor of 6.5. Milankovitch cycles cover the interaction of 3 types of orbital motion. The temperature impact presumably depends on where the earth is in these cycles.
Think of it this way. The shortest of the cycles is axial precession which takes 26,000 years. So from extreme to another is about 13,000 years. If it was responsible for current warming rate (0.15 degree per decade according to UAH) then logically the temperature should vary by nearly 400C between one extreme and the other and the planet would be uninhabitable.
Wouldn't reducing CO2 hurt plants and reduce the amount of CO2 they absorb?
Luckily I solved global warming nearly a year ago. https://inumero.substack.com/p/i-think-i-just-solved-global-warming
Wow - thanks for putting in the solid analytical work!
The attempts to spin the facts of anthropogenic climate change are as ridiculous, far fetched and transparent as the attempts to explain the behaviour of the IDF.
If the winter temperatures in the North rise, then we will burn less fuel for space heating, surely? Thus creating a counter-balance.
Where exactly do Milankovitch cycles enter into this analysis? I see latitude, temperature, time of year, and nothing else.
Yet more rubbish. If warming is anthropogenic then it is expected to happen more in the winter and night. Which is what appears to be happening.
Milankovitch cycles have been well understood by scientists for decades and we are in a cooling phase right now.
Just a load more climate denial bollocks fed to the unsuspecting by industry.
Jo I have absolutely no funding. This is a simple analysis performed by downloading data directly from Berkeley Earth. My conclusions based on the massive differences between monthly warming rates during the period 1860 to 2020 point towards orientation of the earth having a predominant impact. I used to be a believer in the accepted climate change narrative. I even wrote into UK Radio 5 stating that we are all doomed. However, on examining established information and my own data analysis I have been unable to find any evidence in support of a significant impact of mankind. You are clearly convinced. Can you please submit empirical evidence for your views?
The orientation of the earth to the sun has changed significantly in the past 160 years? Is it still going on? Will northern winters get even warmer?
Cooling phase? Cool. Nothing to worry about then.
Yes, solar activity is diverged from global temperature in the 1970s and is down cooling. Global temperature is increasing. So it's not the sun nor our proximity to it then.