Guest Essay by Eric Worrall
A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution.
The Abstract of the Study;
Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings
Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ron L. Miller & Larissa S. Nazarene
Climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a widely used metric for the large-scale response to external forcing. Climate models predict a wide range for two commonly used definitions: the transient climate response (TCR: the warming after 70 years of CO2 concentrations that rise at 1% per year), and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS: the equilibrium temperature change following a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Many observational data sets have been used to constrain these values, including temperature trends over the recent past inferences from palaeoclimate and process-based constraints from the modern satellite era. However, as the IPCC recently reported, different classes of observational constraints produce somewhat incongruent ranges. Here we show that climate sensitivity estimates derived from recent observations must account for the efficacy of each forcing active during the historical period. When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html
Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea – the abstract is essentially arguing that global warming is being suppressed by other forcings.
From the Press Release;
The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
Read more: (e) Science News
The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings. If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out. The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible. The stronger you make the forcings, the more improbable it is, that the terms will exactly balance. Why should CO2 exactly balance pollution? Why shouldn’t one term be much stronger than the other? Out of the near infinity of possible sums, suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility.
To me this is the climate equivalent of the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe is well adjusted for life, because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. But as a scientific theory the anthropic principle is pretty nearly useless, because it shuts down further questions. Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover.
A much simpler theory as to why our climate is so balanced, despite the release of allegedly dangerous amounts of anthropogenic CO2, is that either the various forcings are actually quite small, in which case any imbalances will be barely noticeable, or that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism, such as Willis’ emergent tropical heat pump, is compensating for any imbalance we are causing, and keeping the climate stable.
The choice then is either to believe that our current climate stability is an improbable streak of good luck, or to search for evidence of an emergent dynamic mechanism which is suppressing radical change. NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AGW is:
Abe
Hear, hear.
Why dignify Mr. Schmidt’s junk with anything more?
So now we are hearing from Gavin that air pollution has not been modelled accurately. Yet at the same time we are hearing that the “science is settled”, that “97% agree”.
Well which one is it? Because if Gavin is right then it means that the science is not settled, and that 97% have agreed to an ERROR.
That’s right, Gavin in his round about fashion, has demonstrated that the models are not correct, and thus the 97% of the Climate Scientist that agreed with the previous findings are mistaken.
Yes. In ar4 they said after the forcings were adjusted they had nearly perfectly modeled the natural variability allowing them to conclude that nothing could have caused the warming except co2 from 1979-2000.
[Unfortunately] we went into a haitus which demonstrably proved they did not account for natural variability.
Otherwise they would 1) have told us there would be a pause or 2) at a minimum they could explain why there was a pause and where the heat went. Instead they were baffled. This means the forcing for pollution which they assumed was high to get the cooling from 1945-1975 had to be lowered dramatically if it was not the cause of the cooling.
Now we’re being told that the forcing for pollution is high but then the numbers for 1945-1975 will come out wrong because now they know pdo/amo was responsible. So your point is exactly right. They can’t have it both ways. Whatever they change it affects all the other attributions and there miracle of predicting natural variability is wrong. Since that is wrong that means there is no possible way any prediction of the future can be valid since all the forcings are being juggled. You can see my take on all this at my blog logiclogiclogic at WordPress.
This quote from Gavin is my personal favorite:
“The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission.”
– Gavin Schmidt; Comment nr. 17
@John Mathon
In the fifth assessment report, IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:
“Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing … Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, … are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
(Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC. TS.4.2.)
Full argument here: IPPC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variation!
well they had to come up with something when the oco-2 project did not show what they thought it would. who would have thought the source of catastrophic global warming also cooled the atmosphere as well 🙂
looks to me like we can burn as much fossil fuels as we like now, as the aerosols produced will negate any increased effect from the co2 produced ,would that be right gavin ? lmao.
when the straw clutching gets this stupid you know the writing is on the wall for cagw.
This huge degree of positive feedback leading to very large temperature increases I.mplies
The earths climate which has been stable for the la st 800,000 years ( vary,img no more than 1 degrees C above and below the constantly varying average and oscillating ( hot to cold and viva
Versa) every 30 years has always been governed by natural negative feedback!!!
Where is the evidence that we are about to experience positive feedback ??? Especially when
The models don’t even comprehend low level cloud cover??? From the “bad” CO2 which is only
3 per cent of the total CO2 emitted???r
Good podt!
Yed!
Does everybody have a cold ???
heh — no, judt a dlippery 4th finger on the left hand.
LOL
The problem I have is that they are claiming that there are previously unaccounted for factors that are making things better (less warming), but ultimately it will end up worse. How do they know that the forcings reducing the warming won’t stay in play for much longer than they suggest?
Is nobody out there shaving with Occam’s razor anymore? Is science alchemy once more?
I used it on the Gordian Knot which dulled the edge quite significantly.
No modern alchemy is largely confined to the sort of post modern science espoused by climate scientists and psychologists. You will find a LOT of sceptics in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, geology and of course engineering. The difference being that people in these fields require theories be falsifiable and understand that computer models are NOT data.
Keith Willshaw,
I agree, but I would point out that we apparently don’t have enough skeptics in those fields since many of the various associations fully support the IPCC and its anti-science scam.
Certain “sciences” have become the art of making excuses (with apologies to R. Feynman).
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible»
– Karl Popper ; The logic of scientific discovery
When it comes to THIS science, as in climatology, it appears that you have found the reality of it since just as in alchemy, the purpose appears to be to turn everything into gold – in their pockets, that is.
Two possibilities – the temperature is the result of factors you know about and can explain, OR “that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism” is responsible. It is not straightforward to say Occams Razor favors the latter.
Nope; all they’re doing is using “experimental data” to justify their belief systems. Post-modern “reality” is now what anyone wants to believe–or what the press etc. WANT people to believe.
Scientific rigor may be happening someplace, but not in the disciplines of weather or health.
Note their “experimental data” is from more computer models. Not real data. But they have fallen in love with these models so much that they don’t know the difference anymore.
Occams razor? Isn’t that the scientific heuristic that says that complex systems should be simplified down to a single variable?
/sarc
Eric Worrall
Indeed. Thus, a SEVENTH “impossible thing…”
(See Dr. Chris Essex here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/ )
I made it eight when I counted.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast/
I did, too! #(:))
Here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/#comment-1865401
I just sort of short-handed the above comment for brevity.
Thank you for correcting the record to make it more accurate, Richard.
I’m just a nicky picky Practicing Logician who has to get the details right 🙂
And isn’t it surprising. Two lists, same details (I think)!
Why, Richard (smile), not surprising at all — great minds… . 😉
I would say ‘blush’ but that will get me in to trouble. More than one place probably.
And another one for the nick picky debate
“Global Temperature is a 3D Temperature Field.
It is discretely sampled by both point (thermometer) and volume (satellite) instruments with varying methodologies, time windows, area coverage and data sampling lengths.
There exist multiple strategies to go from the sampled data to the actual underlying 3D Temperature Field, all of which will have error bands which are often not stated.”
Oh no, here comes the next ice age and we are the cause — again.
Yup. As Marque2, Menicholas, and Samurai below have also noted (re: 1970’s human-caused ice age AGAIN), here comes Leonard Nimoy (they’ll be hauling him out of the deep freeze to make another video with late model cars and stuff)….
“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.
(youtube)
************************************************
Aphan! #(:))
I enjoyed ALL of your comments, but, there are so many I am just telling you that here! Glad you showed up. Heh, re: teenage son, nice when they grow up and meet a girl they care enough about to wear cologne for (smile). And yet… (sigh)…. the smell of that sweaty, dirty, tousle-haired, head on a worn-out-from-playing-outside little boy was the best “perfume” in the world, huh?
“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.
But we are still concerned that the globe has warmed a bit since then? We want it to be forever as cold as the worst winter in a century? What is up with that?
The UK was very cold too as I recall. Just in time for miner strikes and power black outs. Thank crunchie we had a coal bunker (Who in the UK recalls those these days?) and used it to good effect.
“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.
================
Unfortunately the current generation were not around to witness this time for themselves, so they believe the revisionist nonsense that it never happened.
The cooling that took place in the decades after WWII led to crop failures, food shortages and famines around the world. This is well documented but has largely been adjusted out of the official temperature records by people that were too young to witness it for themselves; because it conflicts with CO2 radiative theory.
The current warming is largely a recovery from the post WWII cooling. Current temperatures are not significantly different than the 1940’s dust bowl era. They are well within the error bars of the surface thermometer readings. Given that global population has tripled in the meanwhile, with significant changes in land use and instrumentation, thermometers are not nearly as reliable as history books for determining climate change.
And when one looks at history, there is nothing abnormal about today’s climate, when one considers that most of us are living in artificial climates created by millions of people and hundreds of square miles of climate and asphalt. Our climate is changing because we living in an artificial environment, removed from nature, and short of bombing everyone back to the stone age and cutting off energy supplies, this will not change regardless of the source of energy.
1963 was worse in UK we were allowed to wear long trousers at boarding school so that tells you how bad it was. No football for weeks because the ground was frozen, just walks in a neat ‘crocodile’ wearing our Gabardine coats.
See ‘Global Dimming’ which was the claimed reason for the cooling in the seventies, and the cure for that was (guess what) a tax on fossil fuels. Strange how a cure for the “most threatening issue of our age” (tm COP21) is always more taxation and control.
Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,”
They just can’t hide fast enough now can they!
Lol, yes. And we say: “Look to the
antostrich, yousluggardclimate clown: you are theman!ostrich!” (Proverbs 6:6 and II Samuel 12:7 (er, sort of))They’d be better off running away…
Then we’d better keep burning those puppies!!! Wait…did they just suggest that aerosols are STRONGER than CO2? And did they just admit that all the models up to now LACKED INFORMATION that affected their results? And does Gavin have the slightest clue that this is EXACTLY why people aren’t ever going listen to scientists who declare something to be true that they haven’t actually proven to be true yet?
Unless you are SCOTUS and decided that the UNCERTAINTY around this whole business is just too much to bare for humankind and thus you, that little agency over there, you better start regulating it.
Problem for them is, that while there may be more particulate matter in China, India, there is almost certainly LOT LESS in most developed countries. New coal fired power stations put out a fraction of old ones.
So cleaning up this particulate and aerosol pollution may actually be a contributing reason for the slight warming during the latter half of last century. 😉
Perhaps Soros funded their research.
He is nibbling at the coal markets.
NOAA, and the rest of the climate clerisy, putting their self serving thumbs on the scales does not equal a slight warming during the latter half of last century.
“Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere,
Yes Kate, except when their not fossil or in the northern hemisphere. Like Peat in Indonesia.
The island arc volcanoes in and around Indonesia have been permanently degassing for thousands of years, thereby contributing significantly to the total emissions of sulfur species in that region. The hot and wet tropical weather conditions with high solar irradiation and regular daily precipitation during the wet season lead to efficient removal of oxidised sulfate by wet deposition. This is accumulated in the Indonesian peat areas, which serve as natural sponges, soaking up rain during the wet season and slowly releasing moisture into the atmosphere during the dry season. When peat forests are drained for land clearing purposes, the peat quickly dries out and becomes extremely flammable. When ignited, the composition of the burning peat mainly determines the fire aerosol chemical composition and microphysical properties. In this paper we investigate the contribution of volcanic sulfur emissions to wet deposition of sulfur in Indonesian peat swamp areas based on numerical simulations carried out with a global atmospheric circulation model including the tropospheric sulfur cycle. Our study suggests that the observed hygroscopicity and elevated sulfur content of the Indonesian peat fire aerosols is due to accumulated volcanic sulfur.
https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_342.pdf
Table 1: Mean fine aerosol (PM2.5) composition in ng/m3 at Palembang and Sriwijaya, Sumatra (November 1997) and in midlatitude industrialized cities (Teplice, Czech Republic, in 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA in 1994). The data is taken from Pinto and Grant, 1999
Palembang .. Sriwijaya .. Teplice.. Philadelphia
11,000…..6,900…….10,000…….3,300….. Sulfur
4,500…….4,600……….410………..26….. Chlorine
1,400…….1,500……….300………..60….. Potassium
Just slightly higher levels Philly
+1!
Great evidence UTTERLY destroying that already laughably weak paper.
Liberal Fairy Dust ? I knew they had a secret weapon !!!
And liberally applied.
I was wondering what that smell was !!
Marcus!!! When a lady wears perfume not to your liking, perhaps, you could just SAY NOTHING. Huh? Oh. It wasn’t me you caught scent of… . Never mind. lololololol
“wasn’t I” — OKAY, BRIAN AAAAYYYYYCH?
. .ROTFLMAO…..stop….it hurts…….
Janice Moore
Or, as the old aboriginal finding his way around English replied on being given a smell of the lady of the house’s new perfume
“Stinks plurry lovely missus”
lol
When my teen son goes “out” and I catch a whiff of his cologne, I always say “You stink nice!” It’s a family joke.
Mr. Schmidt
Experiments??!
Sure! You know…experiments! You just make up a formula, estimate some functions and then punch some numbers into the calculator. You know… Experiments! 🙂
OoooOOOOOoooooh. THOSE kind of experiments. Thanks, Mr. Calley! 🙂
No, silly. This is how it is done.
{Scene: The Chemistry Lab}
Class, Pay attention!
This week we will conduct an experiment Climate Construction. All of you have the test planet you made in last weeks experiment, “Solar System Fabrication”? Good.
Oh, Yes, Gavin. I know you overdid your gravitational constant and your central sun collapsed into a black hole, and then dragged your whole solar system into itself. Do be more careful about that.
{class giggles}
Anyway, Gavin, sit tight and one of the teaching assistants will get you fixed up after the lab lecture.
Now class, for the first phase, you will need ….
… 1. Duct tape
2. A caulking gun and caulk.
3. 2 marbles, a BB, a basketball, and an innertube.
4. String.
5. …. (okay — next!)
#(:))
5. Profit!!!
Outstanding, Janice!
Now, no exposition of Science would be complete without an official Theme Song. I can think of none better than the one by Thomas Dolby.
It came out during my last year teaching Chem Lab. The students instantly adopted it as the official lab music video. Seems they saw a resemblance to their own lab experiences, and the personalities involved.
Tony the Teacher
Very nice. They are (were) lucky to have you.
Hope you tickled a few brains.
This brought back memories of a Chemistry lesson at school when they were allowed to actually do stuff in class, we were heating different chemicals and noting the reactions. One of the chemicals had a fairly violent reaction so the teacher did this one in front of the class. He was gently heating the test tube over a Bunsen burner when ……NOTHING happened not a thing, so he moved onto the next which would not react to heat so he said…..OH what a bang and spots of chemical on the ceiling and the class saying we missed that sir can you show us again!
Happy days.
Janice you missed out the engineers other tool from your list WD40 the rule is
If it moves and shouldn’t Duck tape, if it doesn’t move and should WD40.
James Bull
Dear James Bull,
Just so you know (smile), WD-40 was going to be my second item, but I was thinking of making a model solar system (sort of) and it didn’t seem to fit in.
I LOVE WD-40! Squeeky door hinge? WD-40! Adhesive on your fingers? WD-40! And…. one night my freshman year, when I was distressed by my fast-moving, Indian-accented, professor’s Calculus class…. I spent a good part of my dreaming working out a math problem in my head …. and the answer? WD-40! Really! I woke up and for moment felt so happy about that — then…. oh, brother! lol
Thanks for bringing up WD-40 — great stuff!
And thanks for sharing the chemistry class anecdote — if it hadn’t been for Chemistry, school would have been pretty dull, lol.
And GO, ENGINEERS! 🙂
Janice
I fell out of my chair laughing at that one Tony!
“Single forcing experiments”? Isn’t that how they came up with the idea that ONE SINGLE THING-Co2, controls Earth’s atmosphere? Did they replace that one single thing with a new single thing?
they ignored the humidity thing….cause it didn’t happen
lots of single things in the toolbox
its creative science.
tools in the toolbox.
its like the federal reserve only with climate theory
CO2 quantitative easing is just around the corner
Don’t forget to take the derivatives.
TonyL (at 7:26pm this evening):
1. I stopped at 1:06 — (AHEM!) 🙂
2. You deserve an AWARD FOR BRAVERY (and for patience, too) for teaching Chem Lab. And you still have your sense of humor! And you are not shaking so uncontrollably you cannot type!! When I think of what my chemistry teacher/lab assistants went through…. “Uh…. Mister Boyer?…… Mister Boyer??….. MIIIISSSTEERRR BOYERRRRR!!! The heating is stopping and the cold water is heading back up the tubing toward the sulfuric acid!!!! (or whatever was happening that day — student (private project) apple peelings distillery was on the verge of a nasty explosion one time… ). Seriously, I admire you very much. Both for your knowledge (my freshman year of college, I took one quarter of inorganic and one quarter of organic chem. and decided that medical school was not for me — science is HARD, TEDIOUS, WORK! (when you do it right, heh — unlike SOME Schmidts we know)).
You are too kind.
I did love teaching, and I like to think that the work I did with the students is one of my lifetime achievements.
I might have been called many things, but “nerd” was not one of them, or at least not by anyone who knew me. I was always amused by the general campus population running down the Chem majors as geeks and nerds. Eng majors of all varieties were disparaged as grunts and grinds. Students of both majors too stupid to take easy courses which allowed for maximum party time, apparently.
The truth is, of course, that the chem lab is far and away the most dangerous place on campus. Getting killed was an actual possibility. Things we thought nothing of playing with, would give your campus Tough Guy a real “pee-your-pants” moment.
Memories.
Back in the 60s my college roommate was a stock boy for the Chem labs. One day he wondered what those chunks of metal were doing in a jar of kerosene. He used a metal tong to pull out a small chunk, which then slipped from the grasp of the tong and fell to the rubber mat on the floor which had a small puddle of water from washing glassware. Instant flames and copious amounts of smoke came forth from Na meets H2O on a rubber mat.
Everyone had to evacuate the building as the fire department was called. Fortunately the lab was on the bottom floor of the building with cement under the tile under the rubber mat; and yes, he was ‘fired’ from his job as chem stock boy.
Tony L,
Teaching is the noblest achievement anyone can accomplish. Your impact is exponential. You not only taught important (as in really makes a difference in the world — like engineering knowledge) knowledge, you — changed — lives (oh, sure, not in EVERY student’s case, but there were many …. and they could tell you, if they only took the time).
And you are still teaching and bringing your wit to bear — here.
Gratefully,
Your student (as I am of so MANY here at WUWT),
Janice
P.S. lol, when I first read your comment, I thought “Eng” meant “English.” (raised eyebrows) “Huh? English majors… huh. Yeah, they worked hard, but, I just don’t remember them being noted for it… .” lolol………………………………. “Ooooh!” Yes, indeed. Engineering/Science majors were the brightest in school. We all have gifts, and there were bright kids in every discipline, but, the odds were that those majors were chosen by the best. Today, geeky dressing, etc… isn’t the issue it was (and isn’t that great? — a way the “youth of today” are better than my “generation”). And, yeah, most of the engineering/science majors were not geeky dressers. Just very serious as a rule. There were a higher percentage, though… of who-cares-if-my-socks-match dressers — just that, that there were more as a % must have created the stereotype (that and envy).
Oh, (lololololololololo), can’t — stop — laughing lololooolololol, noaaprogrammer!!! LOL –BIG GUFFAW!!
He — had — a — blast!
(and Tony L DOES deserve a medal for bravery)
***************
Boy, I am just so thankful to Gavin S. for doing such a hocus-pocus clown act — I haven’t had the opportunity for this much fun….. hm. SINCE THE LAST CLIMATE CLOWN OF THE WEEK!! lolol
All right, before they called people geeks, I was a nerd; sort of. Nerd implies someone who studies, I was never strong at rote study.
For TonyL:
Our organic chem lab Doctoral assistant whose fate it was to watch over us, got called away for a few minutes. Before Bernie left, he admonished us, loudly, not to do anything stupid; like start a fire. Bernie had a real fear of fires in the lab.
Our task that day was to boil out a precipitate, drain off the solution and then wash the precipitate with ether, dried under the hood and saved for next week’s fun. Boiling was accomplished over the traditional Bunsen burner.
Those of us with a more mis-spent youth knew that ether is amazingly flammable and like other fuels, e.g. gasoline, a drifting arm of ether vapor ignites rather dramatically when it reaches a flame.
Washing the precipitate was a simple slosh the mixture around and frequently release excess pressure via a vent. Ideally, the ether vapor is released towards or under a hood.
The young lady across the bench from me, running late, was trying to wash her precipitate at the bench. Her Bunsen burner, no longer needed, was lit. Her pressure vent releases ended up aimed at the burner and a magnificent eruption of flame blossomed.
Remembering my Father’s stories about emergencies in the lab requiring urgent action. I took off running; as I passed my lab partner he also started running. When we turned the end of the lab bench, the girl and her lab partner were there. Her partner saw us start running and urged the frightened girl to also move.
Fortunately the young lady had not dropped nor turned her vessel of ether upside down, (think flame thrower). I took the vessel from her and carefully put it into the sink with the vent turned off. After the flame stopped we continued washing her precipitate and vent releases from the sink until the vessel fully cooled down. Her partner went and turned off the burner and she returned to her bench space.
Bernie, the lab teacher returned and our lab continued. I waited until we were leaving the class for our next assignments before I mentioned to Bernie that he missed quite a show with the ether fire.
Bernie scoffed, until a couple of other waiting students verified the fire. We refused to tell Bernie who caused the fire and we pointed out that there were no burns or damage. We didn’t even flood the lab with the deluge wash station!
Bernie knocked my grades down a letter for the rest of the term. Though he did give me a nice compliment at the end of term.
Gavin: “All right forcing, we are giving one chance and one chance only.” “Do the forcing the way we insist or we’ll demote you to a secondary forcing.”
forcing: “I can’t!” “Seriously, you don’t expect me, a minor particle only temporarily aloft, to truly offset carbon dioxide!”
forcing: “especially not with all the mighty godlike powers you attribute to a few molecules of CO2!”
lol
The absolutely amazing thing about the miraculous particulates which come to the rescue of climatology when it gets all stuck,
is that in this day and age when you can detect even a few molecules of something,
far away from cities nobody could measure any….
Gavin wants us to believe we are on mountain ridge, fixing to fall off with one errant step, while we prefer to believe we are in a sheltered valley bottom. I personally think we’re in a valley bottom, but one which might well suffer flash floods. The universe truly doesn’t give a flying fart whether we live or die. It hasn’t noticed we’re here and wouldn’t notice if we were wiped out tomorrow.
+ 1.25
Redux of 1990’s Hansenian meme is this new paper by Marvel/ Schmidt/ Miller/ Nazarene
Redux all over again.
John
Is that Redux.2 or Redux Squared?
Apha,
Good terms.
Or recursive redux to th ‘n’th.
Where ‘n’ is determined by, just one of many factors, alarmist desperation.
John
Aphan,
Oops, sorry I misspelt your screen name.
John
“.. is that either the various forcings are actually quite small,…” I vote for this one. 2 W/m^2 cumulative between 1750 and 2011 compared to 340 W/m^2 every day. Plus clouds evap/cond eats 2 W for lunch.
IPCC contains the seeds of its own destruction.
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
………………………………PgC/y……ppmv/y
FF & Land Use Source…….8.9……….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9……… 2.32
Net Source.……………….…..4.0……….1.90
If the anthro 8.9 Pg C/y (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web they wove!
The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.
Yeah, it’s a repeat. So refute my speculation & I’ll revise.
Still getting the “red web site unsafe” alarm banner and only on WUWT.
Re: red alarm banner — me, too (for about one week — see Josh 2016 calendar thread for others — DonM, Paul, zemlik, and ??). “static.reelfeed.tv” is always on the banner, too and something about “reported to Microsoft” and the shield symbol of McAfee-the-marketing-bully (uses pseudo-scare tactics with me all the time to try to get me to sign up — I HAVE malware protection, McA).
Dear Janice, use Adblock Plus…it’s free at Cnet and you will have no more advertising…Also check your add ons for unscrupulously sneaky plug ins and extensions….
Thanks, Marcus. I appreciate your advice. I’ll keep it in mind. Still wondering, though… .
http://download.cnet.com/windows/adblock-plus/3260-20_4-6290751-1.html
‘Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.’
Much of environmentalism is the deification of Man.
or the defecation of man depending which way you look at it.
“If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.” -Hockey Schtick
Let’s see. At last count, they had more than 63 explanations.
Each is uncertain. It follows that there can be more than 63 causes.
And the public is being fleeced to address how many?
Does that mean it’s settled 63 times ????
They get 97 tries.
Johnny Cochran? Is that you?
Exactly correct.
The problem is that it is not useful. There are two big problems extant for ClimateScience! today. The first is that the models are running way to hot, even without the Pause. The second is the Pause itself. These problems must really come to the fore, post COP21. Something useful is needed.
The Cavalry rides to the rescue:
China has been developing rapidly over the last two decades, and getting a huge amount of publicity for enormous pollution problems. It is only a matter of time before Chinese particulates are invoked to explain away the pause. Done carefully, an increased particulate loading in the model allows for a larger ECS. All this is a natural for these people, as this is how the models are tuned to hindcast (or train) the models in the first place.
Now what happens if the new particulate/ECS values explain the pause and the recent past, but hindcast poorly for the more distant past. Can we then expect more rounds of corrections and adjustments to the historical temperature record? What if the answer is to remove some of the past corrections in the earlier part of the record?
It was all just a matter of time.
I need a new scorecard. Those players explaining, and even using the Pause, we put on Team Schmidt. Those players erasing the pause, we put on Team Karl.
Then we can keep score.
Pretty simple (from the simpletons with an agenda) gameplan, really: “If you can’t {prove your case}, baffle ’em with bull.”
Razzle Dazzle Em from the musical Chicago came immediately to mind.
thanks for the memory trigger Janice. my father’s voice ringing in my mind: “son if you can’t blind them with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit!”
seems all the CAGW alarm team has is the BS option.
Cheers,
Joe
Good old dad… . Thanks for sharing, Joe. Merry Christmas to you!
This is what I learned in science in 5th grade in 1978. All the particles and soot from coal plants and diesel engines/plants were causing the earth to cool, and it would continue cooling forever until it got too cold to grow food and we would all die, unless we got rid of the evil fossil fuels.
Sometime in the early 80’s it was the evil fossil fuels going to burn us to death. Now they are back to the fossil fuels freezing us again.
I get the feeling that greens have some bizarre hatred of fossil fuels. I kind of understand in the 1970’s because the engines spewed a lot of garbage, sulfates, nitrates, lead, into the environment, but today, gasoline, and even diesel is almost perfectly clean, and all the coal plants, in the first world anyway, have scrubbers, and release nothing but steam. So what we really need to do, is figure out this bizarre irrational hatred, re-educate the folks and all will be well again.
In the past, the longest lasting empires were based on control of water. In a technological society control of energy would serve the same function. Justify controling energy and you justify controling everything. The CAGW enthusiasts are just the useful idiots helping to justify control.
It is actually Humans that they hate…..except for themselves of course !!!
Greens have a hatred of all technology EXCEPT that which they as self appointed Guardians of the Earth (as if a ball of rock cared) will reluctantly force themselves to use. Their ideal society is a new feudalism where some Green Seneschal in his centrally heated electric tower rules over the people shivering in mud huts below where they dutifully worship at the altar of sustainability so that he may use his SUV and Learjet to Save the Planet.
To them, it’s all about the “renewables”, those magical perpetual energy machines that will save the planet from the evils of fossil fuels. They’re delusional.
Dear Flock
I don’t understand why you don’t just accept the fact that I know more than I think I know. Follow my vision because greenliness is next to godliness. Millions of scientists around the world are waiting on my intuitive sense of where the global population needs to venture. I have heuristic knowledge in such matters and don’t expect you to keep up, but you have a loving heart and will follow my good intentions.
I let loose a dove in the plaza and he came back dirty, dusty, full of the devil’s grime and I had a vision. I immediately called NASA and let the researchers know what I had discovered. Please temporarily suspend your skeptical manner and rejoice with me for the greater good of man.
I promise that it will all make sense when proper tithing is conducted.
You Humble Pope
Was the dove covered in white smoke or black smoke?
Yes, because the Pope believes it is his God given right to determine good and evil on earth. Yet Jesus taught that it is God in one’s heart that separates Good from Evil, and no Pope is required or desired as an intermediary between God and Man.
Since that time, Organized Religion has sought to establish itself between God and Man, to control Man’s access to God, with the Priest hierarchy as the intermediary. The resultant monetary profit to the Church has made the Catholic Church one of the richest organizations on earth.
As has been noted, the Church came to do good, and it did very well indeed. Organized Crime has largely copied the Church’s very successful model. Give us money every week, or your soul will burn in hell. Give us money each week, or your business will burn to the ground.
So, this is a regional effect and thus should be discarded, kind of like the Medieval Warming Period?
A. It is a ZERO effect (so far, no evidence at all — not one quantitative measurement proving Mr. Schmidt’s conjecture re: aerosol forcing).
B. The Medieval Warming Period was world wide (Oh, for Pete’s sake, you sure are a one-note-Willy, Justin — over and over and over…):
Here is Justin’s homework (which he refuses to do) for those who genuinely want to learn:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/#comment-1462683
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
You are so organized.
Your house must be covered in yellow sticky notes.
Thanks Mame
Knutesea…..probably the dog’s house too !!!
You’re welcome. And, no. I do have a dry erase board and a note pad, though (ran out of post-its, lol).
“Mame” — oh, Knute, I think that was Freudian!
I AM a lot like she (in some ways, I mean…).
“Auntie Mame” (trailer)
(youtube)
#(:))
*************************
Mr. Schmidt’s article is, as you can see, getting all the serious attention it deserves.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa!
The original Auntie Mame if you follow that sort of thing …..
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/31/nyregion/marion-tanner-known-as-model-for-mame.html
Marcus: The dogs do not have a “house.” They are my babies and live inside with me (they do sleep on the floor, however… 2 German Shepherds are TOO much!).
🙂
Oh, Knute. That was touching. What a BUM of a nephew, too — here he made a pile of dough off her “story,” then, lets her get re-possessed… . She deserved a different nephew! What a fine lady. Now that I have read Marion Tanner’s story, I can confirm that I am a lot like her (in some ways), but, even more, that I can say that I wish very much that I were more like her (in many ways — not the vegetarian thing, though — I love meat (if it is raised in humane conditions and killed humanely)).
Thanks for sharing that.
My apologies, Janice, I was being sarcastic!
However, thank you kindly for the links! I will check them out.
Well, … hm. Now, I am not sure. Perhaps…. I mistook you for “Jason?” (a troll) If so, I beg YOUR pardon!
I suppose the existence of mature forests only 1000 years ago which lasted for hundreds of years where there are now receding glaciers in Alaska and the Alps – can be discarded as “brief and regional”. Kind of like Arctic sea ice…
So, this is a regional effect
===================
When you warm up one region, the global average temperature also goes up. A grade 2 math concept that Climate Science is still struggling with:
(1+1+1)/3 = 1
(1+1+2)/3 = 1.3 therefore regional warming causes global warming.
I read it here and understood nothing!
21 Dec: UK Express: Jon Austin: Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.
A NASA spokesman said: “To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth…
The spokesman said it was “well known” that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet…
Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the “complexity” of estimating future global temperatures.
She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling…
Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: “The assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS…
“This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study.”…READ ON
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
“The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings.”
Where? It doesn’t postulate any exact balance at all. You’re just trying to fit it into your narrative of a supposed period of time in which the temperature of the troposphere didn’t rise. There is no indication that he’s talking about that at all.
But there’s no exact balance in your narrative of a pause somewhere up there either. Here is a plot of back trends for UAH V6, RSS and GISS and HADCRUT. It is a plot of trends starting at the x-axis date and finishing now. The red circle marks the trumpeted RSS pause date. But it is just a zero trend from that particular date. Start at most times and it’s a positive trend. In some years it is negative. But there is no exact balance. Just a varying curve which occasionally crosses the x-axis.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/pause.png
Gavin’s point is inontrovertible. Observed trend is due to the sum of all foircings. If you want sensitivity to CO2, you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.
LOL, I think the balancing act went over your head !!!
Nick Stokes:
Aaaaand when you have finished genuinely calculating that (using data and real physics equations (some of which have not yet been solved, but you’ll figure them all out…), Mr. Stokes, come back and tell us about it. Dr. Chris Essex will throw you a party (I have no doubt that he really would!).
Hahahahahah — (iow — we will never hear from him again…. he will still be calculating and doing “experiments” when God whispers in his ear, “Time’s up.”)
People claim that they can calculate CO2 sensitivity from the trend of surface temperature (and CO2). Gavin (and Dr Marvel) are simply pointing out that to do that, you have to separate the actual effect of CO2 from others. Not a hard concept. If it’s a hard calc, well, it’s what they have to do. Some people can do math.
Nick Stokes,
We need math, sure. But it is not conclusive, because it can be manipulated by clever folks.
What we need are empirical, testable, verifiable measurements quantifying AGW: what fraction of global warming is attributable to human CO2 emissions?
No winging it, Nick: either post verifiable, replicable measurements that are acceptable across the board by scientists on all sides of the debate, or all you’re doing is asserting that most global warming is due to human CO2 emissions.
Take out all the assertions, and what have you got left? Without measurements, you’ve got nothin’. Well, I suppose you have your opinion, for what that’s worth.
Nick, have a look at Willis’ work on emergent behaviour, which I linked.
Here on the edge of the tropics you see Willis’ heat pump in action all the time, during the rainy season.
Hot weather rapidly causes the formation of a thunderstorm, a heat pump which punches a hole through much of the greenhouse blanket, and radiates the excess heat into space. If the net effect of our forcing is that the thunderstorm starts a few minutes earlier, the climate “emergency” is nonsense.
Eric,
“Nick, have a look at Willis’ work on emergent behaviour,”
There’s no logic here. I ask where is Gavin’s “magic climate balance”? So I get pointed to Willis’ magic climate balance.
Nick writes
You know better than that Nick, even if the calc were correct, its invalid because all climatic factors influence on another and hence the climate’s evolution.
You may as well simply say 3.7W forcing and do an energy accumulation based on that if you think you can separate out the effects. And that would be wrong.
TTTM,
“You may as well simply say 3.7W forcing and do an energy accumulation based on that if you think you can separate out the effects. And that would be wrong.”
Again, you’re just getting the logic of this backward. I’m sure that Gavin would prefer using GCMs for CO2 sensitivity to using temperature time series and heat budgets. That’s the province of papers like Lewis and Curry. People here seem to like it when they do it. And they separate out forcings – but just some.
What Gavin and colleagues are saying is if you want to use that approach, you have to allow for all the forcings. And if you allow for aerosols, the result is more in line with other methods.
If CO2 causes warming, then we have an renewable energy source – no ?
“Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 at 7:39 pm
People claim that they can calculate CO2 sensitivity from the trend of surface temperature (and CO2).”
People can calculate anything, it means nothing. Climate scientists claim they can measure, and have done since 1880, a global average temperature (Piffle), after all, the science is settled aye Nick? Can a temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration actually be measured, globally? Actual evidence suggests not! But I am not on a climate scientist’s payroll.
Not a hard concept.
==============
wrong. It is an extremely hard concept, because no one can accurately model natural climate change. To this date no one knows what causes the routine 1-2 thousand year warming cooling cycle that dominates the Holocene. No one even knows where we are in the current cycle, so they can’t tell you if you should be adding or subtracting,
Nick writes
But we dont know what those forcings are, except in the context of the feedbacks. So you cant extract them in any meaningful way. The assumptions involved make the calculation meaningless.
Just because some people think they can estimate TCS from the temperature data doesn’t mean Gavin needs to try too using a method that must give a more alarming value (ie it’d be damned hot if it weren’t for all the cooling)
“Not a hard concept. If it’s a hard calc, well, it’s what they have to do.”
But…I thought that the science on this was settled. Here you are saying that there’s more important work to be done before it’s right.
If it’s wrong and settled, where does that put the consensus?
+1
nice gymnastics
“you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.” So you need to know the sensitivity of non-CO2 forcings. Do we know it, have we measured it?
You don’t actually need the sensitivities. But you need to estimate the effects due to other forcing. It’s really simple. If you know the rise in CO2, and the warming it caused, you can estimate sensitivity. People have tried that. But you can’t just use the warming that everything caused. You have to try to estimate other warming or cooling effects and subtract them. If you can’t do that, then you can’t get CO2 sensitivity that way.
You do need to show them. Otherwise the theory you support is…well…rubbish!
You don’t actually need the sensitivities. But you need to estimate the effects due to other forcing. It’s really simple.
===================
Wrong. If you are estimating the other forcings, then you might as well simply estimate the CO2 forcing directly. What you are proposing is
observed – estimate – estimate – estimate – estimate = actual CO2
You are fooling yourself into believing the estimates on the left make the calculation on the right more accurate.
what Nick has ignored is that the actual calculation is:
observed – estimate – UNKNOWN – ERROR = actual CO2
While some estimate of error can be made, the estimate for unknown is unknown. historically scientists at the start of their careers judge it to be small, and they will be the one to nail it. as they progress in their careers their estimate of unknown grows in size until they realize they will never nail it down. then they retire.
” What you are proposing is
observed – estimate – estimate – estimate – estimate = actual CO2
You are fooling yourself into believing the estimates on the left make the calculation on the right more accurate.”
I’m not proposing it. It’s what people like Lewis and Curry do. I’m sure Gavin thinks better of just estimating the CO2 effect directly with GCM. All he’s saying is that if your going to do it, you need all the estimates, and including aerosols makes it better.
Nick, please list ALL those forcings.. in order from largest to smallest..
OR STOP JABBERING !!!
+1
Nick: “… If you want sensitivity to CO2, you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.”
Oh!? You mean all of the forcing caused by the notorious elephant in the atmosphere, H2O? Was H2O actually accounted for first?
People here just don’t seem to grapple with the logic of this. Gavin et al aren’t recommending using trend of measured temp vs CO2 as a way of determining sensitivity. It’s folk like Nic Lewis who do that. All he’s saying is that if you do want to do that, you have to deduct the effect of other forcings, as best you can. If you can’t, you won’t get a good estimate of CO2 response. And, they, if you do, you’ll get answers consistent with other methods.
And yes, if water were a forcing, it should be deducted. But it isn’t. We’ve been through that endlessly. Forcings are an external influence. Nothing external is forcing wv. It responds to temperature and so is a feedback.
That is more than the elephant in the room. It is the invalidation of the entire trillion dollar boondoggle.
Theory: GHGs make the surface 33C warmer
Fact: Surface is 70% water
Fact: water is the primary GHG
Fact: water enters the atmosphere by evaporation, cooling the water left behind
Question: how does this powerful GHG lose energy by evaporation and then rewarm the water it left behind by 33C?
As hockey stick and others have noted, it is atmospheric density that determines surface temp. GHGs have little to no effect on surface temp.
I see. I have a name for Gavin’s approach, it is called ‘the God of the gaps’. I think it is improvement over Mannian ‘settled science’. Now I don’t take a strong position on this, but I do appreciate you explained Schmidt’s position.
Aerosols are there, but claiming they hide real and bigger warming trend is using the God of a gap.
Nick: “…you have to deduct the effect of other forcings, as best you can. If you can’t, you won’t get a good estimate of CO2 response…”
Seriously Nick, a true science approach is not to keep guessing at forcing effects, but to develop a structured double blind series of repeatable experiments that test and explicitly verify and quantify forcings. Not just a forcing for one portion of a condition, but for all possible variations of those conditions.
The article above that has Gavin involved is just the latest attempt at explaining why their ‘climate models’ fail.
Not that climate model failures have slowed that group one bit.
In any other world of science, averaging failures, then claiming that the failure average is useful, is recognized as utter bull***t.
Then again, in any other world of science, more than a Trillion dollars would have brought genuine verifiable results. What does climate science have to offer for spending over a Trillion dollars? Gavin’s sophistry that simple calculations in bad climate models are wrong and what is needed is complex calculations in those same bad models?
Do the double blind physical experiments! Prove the forcings! Prove exactly how CO2 functions under all atmospheric surface conditions from desert to alpine to oceanic. Don’t assume! Prove them!
Of course if you WANT CO2 Sensitivity to CO2 you can always come up with some wild theory to explain why its not working and if that one doesn’t work out well there is always another one to be found. I think we are up to about 57 by now.
Both Gavin and you should be aware that this strategy didn’t work too well for the defenders of the ‘consensus’ theory of Phlogiston when it was opposed by that well know ‘Denier’ Antoine Lavoisier and his wild notions about reproducible experiments. Willam of Ocham was a very wise man who’s basic idea was nicely put by Isaac Newton
“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
What forcings Nick? Put up or shut up!
Cute. Please behave. Nick is not evil, stupid nor rude.
It doesn’t postulate any exact balance at all.
=================================
not correct. the theory postulates that climate was in balance at the beginning of the model calibration period.
For example, consider the warming from the LIA. The models assume that this warming had ended around 1850, the same time we started collecting thermometer data. But there is no proof that this is correct, because no one knows what caused the LIA. This assumption is simply a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess).
However, what if there was still 150 years of post LIA warming in the pipeline in 1850? then everything we have seen since 1850 is nothing more than a continued recovery from the LIA. In this case, model calibration would be based on 150 year of net zero warming (aerosols, CO2, and land use equals net zero) once you subtract post LIA warming.
In that case, it the models were calibrated to net zero human effect over the past 150 years, then the would be projecting no acceleration in warming today, and any warming we did see would simply be a continuation of post 1850 LIA recovery warming.
So, it really is a big deal that the models assume that everything was in balance in 1850, because if the climate was not in balance, then the models are dead wrong. Which is what the current slowdown in warming is demonstrating. That climate was not in balance in 1850, which has invalidated the training and thrown them so far out of whack with reality.
In other words, burn that coal and oil! If we don’t then the seas will rise, the poles will melt, dogs and cats, living together. But burning coal and oil is bad and we must decarbonise the world except the pollution and particulate matter are protecting us from global warming yet scientists in the 70’s told us that the pollution and particulate matter will cause an ice age. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
OK, a picture is worth a thousand words, but that picture is priceless on any scale. Bravo!
“A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution. ‘
Why am I surprised they dusted off this old chestnut and trotted it out?
Has he no shame?
Kind of shocking unless I missed something.
Really brazen.
Whats all this talk about our “remarkably stable climate”?
The preceding article here on WUWT brought up the change in the Sahel, which was fairly recent and rapid in a geological time frame, but I don’t think the desert encroached so fast that the inhabitants of the time didn’t perceive their climate as anything other than remarkably stable.
Various regional climates around the world are currently in the process of changing to another state. (Ask Otzi. He was probably mighty glad to finally get out of that cold glacier and into some nice warm sunshine.) In general, no one lives long enough to experience a complete change of climate, so the climate only appears to be stable to us short-lived humans.
Climate changes. Its what climate does.
+ 2,145.1
Ok, so CO2 and fossil fuels cause Global Cooling AND Global Warming at the same time so the end result is…NO CHANGE ! Got it !!
+1
Hey, it’s Christmas…don’t be so stingy, give me two at least !! Sheesh …
Here’s a BIG SISTERLY ((HUG))! Merry Christmas, Marcus. Nope. That’s it.
Awwwwww !! pinch, pinch !!! tee he he…..