Compiled by Tom Scott
Please note that many of these quotes were taken almost verbatim from various sources, but I have made a effort to verify each before inclusion. (See at end for a partial list of sources)
Before getting to the climate quotes, I offer the following in order to provide a feel for the sociopolitical background in which modern climate science must operate. This article is not meant to impugn all who practice the art of climate science, but to provide the reader with some idea of the historical turmoil in the arena, some of the conclusions drawn by its practitioners, and the continuing pressures to create dire climate prognostication for self-serving and political purposes.
Two quotes from H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
And three more quotes on knowledge and politics:
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.” -Alston Chase
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” -Vladimir Lenin
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.” -Saul Alinsky
And a little something to motivate all climate “heretics”.
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
-CF Kettering, Time Magazine July 11, 1969, pg 54.
Now, lets look into the motivational background of a few typical players in the green climate movement.
On their love for the human race:
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” John Holdren, now President Obama’s science czar made this statement before taking on that role: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Thoughts on cheap power
Cheap power is the ultimate lever for multiplying human effort and productivity. The end of worldwide slavery can be directly tied to the advent of steam power, and the availability of cheap electrical power was a key enabler for the creation of a large middle class and the advancement of women’s rights, among many other profoundly positive sociological changes. What do key green players think about cheap power?
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
-Presidential candidate Barack Obama, January 2008
With that background in mind, here are some quotes from before 1970, the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s. Recognize any of the players? Care to guess if the world has suffered any of the projected climate disasters?
Before 1970
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” –Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age -Time Magazine 9/10/1923
America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” -New York Times – May 30, 1947
Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. -New York Times August 29, 1954
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. -New York Times – January 30, 1961
Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.
-Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962 The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. – Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)
It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by
7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. -Presidential adviser Daniel Moynihan, 1969 (later Sen. [D] from New York 1976-2000)
From the 70s
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air
pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” -Kenneth E.F. Watt in “Earth Day,” 1970.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” -Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes -Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971
Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. -Los Angles Times – May 16, 1972
From the 1980s
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” -James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP – entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect -Associated Press June 30, 1989
New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now -St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989
Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. -Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989
From the 1990s
“(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… “(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands”. -Michael Oppenheimer, “Dead Heat” 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. -5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991
“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” he said. – Dr Russ Schnell, research scientist at Mauna Loa Observatory, BBC November 7, 1997
From the 2000s
“But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” -Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, New York Times – January 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. -Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” -Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia – Mar 20, 2000 Environmental refugees to top 50 million in 5 years –“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena,” -UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi – United Nations University news release – 10/11/2005
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. -National Geographic News June 20, 2008
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap… -Rep.(D) Henry Waxman, chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee, April 2009
Of course there is no land under the ice within 400+ miles of the north pole, and indeed the water there is about 13,000 feet deep. Mr. Waxman would seem frightfully ignorant for a man in his position. This was recorded during an interview with Tavis Smiley on his NPR TV show. Smiley is known to be very willing to assist Democrat causes, so it could be assumed that this quote could have been retracted before airing had Waxman made a timely request, or if Smiley himself had a clue how ignorant these statements were.
Although they would not admit it publicly, by now the IPPC crowd already knew that the climate had stopped warming. This is confirmed by “climategate” emails, made public in 2009.
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, Climategate e-mail, disclosed Oct. 12, 2009
Meanwhile, outsiders were also aware of the “pause” and were seeking information
through the Freedom of Information Act. So the climate science crowd began fighting back against such requests in an attempt to hide embarrassing data:
“…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it…” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008 (AR4 was the 4th Climate Assessment report released by the IPCC in 2007)
Whats more, they were apparently engaged in a process of “hiding” previous warm
periods so as to accentuate the warming of the 1990s. The 1940s were particularly troublesome because the historical record indicated that a few of those years had been warmer than any since. That data has since been “corrected” by adjusting downward the 1940s temperatures. For example:
“…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip…” —Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008
And yet, with record high CO2 levels and well over a decade into the “pause”, the public was stillbeing fed the notion that CO2 was the “control knob” for warming:
“…the global surface albedo [surface whiteness] and greenhouse gas changes account for practically the entire global climate change.” —Dr. James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, 2009
From the 2010s
And so, since about 2010, the global temperature readings have been relentlessly “adjusted”…. almost exclusively downward for data prior to about 1950 and upward thereafter. Meanwhile, much original data have been destroyed or redacted from public view:
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” —Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, declaring that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011
But no worries…. after all they are (climate) SCIENTISTS so we should trust that everything they claim is perfectly accurate. And if we also need to bow down to a world technocracy headed by the U.N., then no worries, because (climate) SCIENTISTS told us that we must do so, or our children will die, and who are we to ignore their predictions? After all, I bet they are almost never wrong!
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” -Saul Alinsky
And finally, to regain some composure after all of that science-ish disinformation, I suggestreading this monologue from the late George Carlin:
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our
prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic… asshole.” -George Carlin
As noted, this article contains a compendium of quotes available online. Some sources include:
Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters -Steve Gorham — June 6, 2013
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
http://www.climatism.net/quotes-on-climate-change-environment-and-energy/
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/global-warming
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
warrenlb December 6, 2014 at 9:10 am
And the increase in ocean heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This fascination with ocean heat content baffles me.
Yes, it seems to be going up. We have crappy measurement of it, so the numbers are highly suspect, but the numbers we do have say yes it is going up.
Which has what to do with CO2?
Well, since IR from CO2 gets absorbed in the skin layer of water, causing it to (for the most part) evaporate, rather than warm, very little (if any) of the increase in OHC can be attributed to CO2 directly. Now to be sure, there are other processes like conduction at work, so a warmer atmosphere would in turn warm the oceans by indirect means.
BUT, since the atmosphere hasn’t warmed for 10 to 20 years depending on which temperature set you want to look at, one cannot attribute any increase in OHC in that time period to warming atmosphere or indirect effects of CO2.
Which leaves what?
The bottom line is that the vast majority of energy entering the oceans comes directly from the Sun. Since variance in TSI is too low to account for the change in OHC, we could assume that cloud cover fluctuations are effecting the amount of energy getting into the oceans. AND/OR we could assume that there are mixing processes below and outside of the minuscule coverage of the ARGO buoys that account for the change in OHC.
So even if we accept that OHC is increasing, I see no evidence to substantiate CO2 as a direct or indirect cause of the increase.
This is WUWT, I’m sure I got something wrong in the above, let the edumacating begin….
Yes, this is what I’m trying to extract from Warren. I want him to explain it – as he sees it.
Yes, let’s get an explanation from Warren!
But my experience is that warmists would prefer to wave their hands and ask wild eyed questions like “what happens to us if the heat stops going into the ocean? The ocean has 1200 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, so the change in termps in the atmosphere would be stupendanormous.
This claim baffles me even more, for two reasons:
1. If the natural processes are driving any additional heat into the oceans, what change would result in that stopping? Do they suppose that one day the wind and rain and ocean currents and evaporative processes all wake up one day and just suddenly stopped doing what he physics has been driving them to do? Really? Can Warren name one physical process that would just suddenly stop? You might as well worry that the earth’s orbital direction will suddenly reverse!
2. EVEN IF some physical process suddenly stopped working and all that energy went into the atmosphere instead, so what? You STILL don’t get a massive increase in temps because P=5.67*T^4, so radiance to space increases with the 4th power of T, PLUS, any energy imbalance that results making the atmosphere even slightly warmer than the oceans has no other choice to CREATE energy input back into the oceans and such it out of the atmosphere. In other words, even if you postulate a complete stop in this process we aren’t sure even exists in the first place, the temp of the atmosphere can only vary by a small amount below or above the ocean temps, and with the heat capacity of the ocean being 1200 times that of the atmosphere, even small changes in atmosphere temps can’t go anywhere because they are, in effect, tethered to the ocean.
The atmosphere is like a small child being dragged kicking and screaming through a busy shopping mall by a large adult. The child draws lots of attention, but there’s no doubt that the child’s over all direction of movement has nothing to do with the screaming and thrashing, they’re going with the adult.
Yes, let’s get an explanation from Warren!
Good luck with that!
I predict no explanation will be forthcoming. As usual.
Ehrlich switched horses from galloping into an Ice Age to galloping into Thermogeddon. And I see other biologists featured prominently in the idiotic prophesies. It seems biology has been badly broken for some time. A complete shutdown, retooling and new dedication to the subject of biology is needed before biology courses should be offered again. The book burning can start with the texts of the “take a rapist to lunch” social sciences (murderers, bank robbers, indolents and gangsters are the victims of well adjusted productive people) to get the fire hot. After all, it was the corrupted social scientists that started all this and it is spreading to the hard sciences.
Fascination with Ocean heat content BAFFLES you? As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%), atmosphere (~3%) and land and rivers (the remainder), But If you don’t accept the Greenhouse Effect, I doubt you would find it interesting.
I do accept the GHE, I’ve explained it in detail to doubters and believers alike over the years. I can go right down to the radiative physics if you want, and explain exactly how it works. Now read my last two comments upthread and respond to the science issues I have raised in them instead of accusing me of not believing in something I have spent countless hours on this blog helping other people understand not only that it exists, but how we know it exists.
Smear me or discuss the science issues I raised. Pick one.
Well he hasn’t responded to my two very simple questions, so I doubt he’ll reply, or he’ll skirt around it like he does above by rejecting metadata, and choosing one set instead.
Warren, either discuss sensibly or give up, mate. You are not looking like you have the talent to discuss the issues.
Hi Ghost,
I note that ‘wlb’ has never responded to any of the many question I’ve asked, nor has he ever commented on the numerous links I’ve posted to help him understand. It’s as if he is blind to all contrary evidence — and there is a lot of that. We’re trying to educate him, but it seems to be impossible.
wlb can’t comment on the links I’ve posted because once he starts discussing those things, he will either have to concede that he’s wrong, or the scales will fall from his eyes and he will see the light: AGW is so trivial at current CO2 concentrations that it does not even matter. It is too small to even measure. CO2 could double from current levels and the net effect would be beneficial. There is no downside to adding more of that harmless trace gas to the environment.
wlb cannot admit that. So his comments are misdirection, deflection, and evasion.
As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%),
Again Warren, please explain it to me. Since IR gets nearly 100% absorbed in the first few microns of water, the bulk of the effect is evaporation into the atmosphere. So, IR cannot directly heat the oceans. That being the case, can you explain how it does heat the oceans indirectly?
@The Ghost of Jim Cooley. I answered you politely. The least you could do is stop the snark.
You claim differently than the IPCC and NOAA? Show us the data sets and substantiate your bizarre claims about temperature flatlining. I’m sure if you showed your selected data sets to the IPCC or NOAA they would recant from their conclusions. Not.
Regarding the other question you asked as to when the oceans started absorbing heat? That’s a non-serious question. Or if you think its serious, then you’re a non-serious thinker.
Ah, so you are being obtuse! But more on that in a moment. I have already given you the graph, at 8.42. Unlike many others, I don’t state that warming stopped 18 (or whatever) years ago. However, using a combined set of data, it is clear that warming DID stop in 2001.
Now, obtuse: you know full well that I wasn’t stating that heat ONLY started going into the oceans after 2001, so don’t be puerile. So let me rephrase it (to stop you wriggling out from answering it):
After 2001 (according to what you evidently believe), CO2 chose to halt its uniform warming of the globe, and instead began to put all its effort into the oceans – hence combined records show a flatline or cooling after 2001, yes? Or are you still leading with the idea that CO2 “varies” the way it heats the atmosphere? Which is it now?
Ghost,
One tenth of a degree per century of beneficial warmth…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
Whenever I hear their predictions, I am always reminded of this scene:
http://youtu.be/a5QBuJla5do
warrenlb
and your proof is? (citation)
@Ghost of Jim Cooley. As a retired Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Engineer, I am somewhat surprised at your questions. Surface measurements do indeed show warming of the climate over the last 3 decades, Each of which averaged higher temperatures than the decade immediately prior. As I posted, 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record, and 2014 is on track to beat those records. NOAA data –also found in the IPCC 5th Assessment.
If you accept that an increasing Greenhouse Effect increasingly restricts the flow of thermal radiation from Earth into space, you understand that the extra thermal radiation returning to Earth adds thermal energy to the Earth’s system –which includes oceans, land, and atmosphere. As a heating engineer, you would expect that the distribution of that extra energy going into Earth’s system among land sea and air would vary rom time to time — in the case of the atmosphere with a low specific heat medium –air — these variations in heat flow distributions can produce large variations in atmospheric temperature — one of two reasons why less than 30 years is inadequate time for a climate trend to emerge. The other reason being the effect of long cycle weather phenomena –eg, ENSO — can mask short term climate trends. You would also expect that it is not the case, as you seemed to imply in your post, that suddenly the oceans were not absorbing heat for extended periods, and then started to do so. I don’t claim that.
If however, you don’t accept that an increasing Greenhouse Effect is causing additional thermal energy to be added to Earths system with time, then a different discussion is required than that above.
Ah, so without actually directly answering the questions succinctly, you think that, despite the fact that CO2 is a massive warming force (apparently), there are periods when it is simply overcome by ‘natural’ forces? You cannot claim that there is ANY variation to the way CO2 warms the atmosphere – the physics of CO2 do not show that, and that is why NO model ever predicted it – the only way was up!
It doesn’t wash, Warren. And if you were an honest man you would admit it. It’s difficult, sometimes, to see what we believe not behaving as we thought. But we should admit it to ourselves when our beliefs don’t tally with observation. If I were reporting to that client, I wouldn’t tell them that their boiler varies in output, I’d tell them that there must be other factors at play.
I still want him to tell us how IR heats the oceans.
davidmhoffer,
You’re asking wlb a question. Good luck getting an answer.
To Warrenlb:
I’ve got to run along now, my real life beckons, I won’t be able to check this blog again until the morning. So, I am going to leave you with a thought. You seem to be of the impression that those asking you questions are of the belief that the GHE doesn’t exist. You’ve made an incorrect assumption. Of course the GHE exists. I would challenge you to go back through the questions being asked of you, and answer them again. Only this time, answer them on the assumption that the person asking assumes that the GHE does exist. I think you may learn something from the experience.
warrenlb says:
As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space…
No wonder he’s confused. CO2 does not “increasingly” restrict the outflow of infrared energy. Rather, most of that effect took place within the first 100 ppm.
If wlb had said that CO2 decreases the obstruction of IR to space as the CO2 concentration rises, then he would be correct. In other words: the more CO2, the less effect it has. At current concentrations, there is almost no effect from adding more CO2.
But if he stated it correctly, he would have to admit that his entire premise is deconstructed.
Since you are picking nits, I will point out to you your big mistake.
..
warrenlb said GHGs not CO2, so why don’t you focus on that instead of CO2 ?
D. Socrates,
It’s not a “big mistake”. It’s not a mistake at all: the issue is carbon dioxide.
Haven’t you ever heard of the ‘carbon’ scare?
Okay, David Socrates,
If you mean water, then say water and I will focus for you. But you need to say it.
warrenlb is talking about GHG’s which include much more than just CO2…
…
You know, like water vapor and methane.
The net effect of water, in all its phases,is cooling of the earth- both surface and atmosphere. Water vapor, the predominant GHG, has the most important role in this cooling process.Repeat, the net effect of water vapor is _cooling_, radiative flux notwithstanding.
I will wager that you are now scratching your poor, benumbed noggin.
D. Socrates says:
warrenlb is talking about GHG’s which include much more than just CO2. You know, like water vapor and methane.
Is he? And are you really that naive? Really??
Taxing methane is a non-starter, and if they could tax water vapor, please explain how that would work…
…oh. I forgot. You guys never explain, you just assert.
The whole ‘global warming’ scare is motivated by governments wanting to pass a carbon tax. Is there any doubt about that? If so, let me explain:
A carbon tax would bring in immense revenues for a start, and those revenues would constantly escalate. There’s your motive. It’s a big one.
The problem is that every dollar forcibly extracted from the productive sector via a carbon tax is a dollar wasted. It would seriously lower the standard of living, and it would not do one damn thing about “carbon” — by which they mean CO2, specifically. Read Bastiat’s ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ to understand the economics. China, Russia, India, and a hundred smaller countries would still emit all the CO2 they wanted, and those emissions will rise no matter what taxes are passed.
The U.S. is already curtailing CO2 emissions, without any government taxes or regulations. But not China and the others; they are all increasing their emissions. So the whole premise is highly suspect. Furthermore, CO2 has not been shown anywhere by anyone to cause any global harm. Thus, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
CO2 is also beneficial to the biosphere. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of the added CO2. So now what are you left with? What is your objection? Or, are you just a mindless media follower who can’t think for himself, but only parrots what he hears? Is that it? That would explain everything.
To summarize: the central issue is CO2, which is very easy to tax. And CO2 is emitted by just about everything and everyone. But methane is not easy at all to tax, and water vapor is impossible to tax.
Now do you understand why CO2 is the target?
Yes warrenlb is posting about GHGs
He posted ” As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface”
…
Even YOU copy and pasted his comment.
Funny then you ask “Is he?
…
Well, it’s in black and white. He’s talking about GHGs and you are talking about CO2.
…
Then you AGAIN change the subject and start talking about taxes.
..
Please show me where in warren’s post he talks about taxes.
.
David Socrates says:
He’s talking about GHGs and you are talking about CO2.
CO2 is a GHG. It is the only GHG that matters, because without it the alarmist cult would have nothing to complain about.
And without me you would have nothing to complain about. It’s amusing how fixated you are, like a chihuahua nipping at my heels. ☺
“CO2 is a GHG. It is the only GHG that matters”
..
H2O is a GHG. Are you saying that H2O does not matter?
..
PS…you didn’t show us where warrren mentioned your tax starwman.
dbstealey;
In other words: the more CO2, the less effect it has.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to re-word that. The more CO2, the less additional effect additional CO2 has.
davidhoffer,
Correctomundo. Thanks for that.
Sometimes I know exactly what I’m saying, so I presume everyone else does, too.☺
Anyway, I trust the chart makes it all very clear.
I recall Carl Sagan was a believer in the coming ice age back in the late 60s but I’ve not found any quotes. If a Carl quote could be located it would add gravitas.
Personal recollection: I recall him speaking about Nuclear Winter, many times… but don’t actually recall any proclamations about natural events. Then again, a lot of the hippy-generation “science” popularists seem to believe that nothing natural happens on Earth anymore.
Howard G I don’t know about Carl Sagan but I recall Isaac Asimov wrote about it and seemed to to think it was possible at the time. And yes I take Isaac more serious then Carl. Isaac wrote better sifi.
smile
michael
Carl Sagan was a believer in the destruction of nations and the one Planet Earth governance. So the Cannabis Generation is getting its way in Australia.
“Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980
Now you can see what the Cannabis Generation’s rhetoric looks like in reality, in Australia. And I do not think there is anything colder than a heart that knows no gratitude, loyalty, natural affection, or limits to its treachery to foreign interests. So yes, he talked about the coming cold!
No we’re not! Cannabis is still illegal despite mountains of evidence that it’s a great pain reliever and anti-inflammatory. It’s legal to consume highly addictive opiates (Tramidol for example that makes me anxious) or Viox that gave my best friend 5 heart attacks in a few weeks, but something shown effective and relatively free of side effects? Naah! Better break the law and buy dubious dope on the street along with the compulsory foil of ice!
In his 1980 book, Cosmos, he was evenly divided about the prospects of coolong and warming:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://io9.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135&sa=U&ei=9dKDVIzLGNXaoASG4YLADw&ved=0CBQQFjAA&sig2=NbJnTwUFsSKQUT6sNofovA&usg=AFQjCNGnvjwWmVW5Fcryv4VVbdVn4u0TiA
Here’s what Sagan wrote:
Git,
Where have you been? Good to see you back.
@ur momisugly dbstealey
Lurking and learning to cope with an intensification of my lower back pain. Wondering how it’s possible to be as deluded as the warmunists are. I found myself amused by your attempts to educate the trolls above. Not sure how much time I’m willing to devote to such myself these days. I prefer my garden and the company of the little birds that share its bounty with me.
Yes, it is getting more difficult to work up enthusiasm to deal with their increasingly unhinged grasping at straws. Nature is giving them a good spanking. Let her do her job.
There is an eight letter word in the dictionary that describes most of these proclaimations and proclaimers very well:
clueless.
davidmhoffer December 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I still want him to tell us how IR heats the oceans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I am back. Still no answers to my questions. Hey, why not ask some more? Maybe if I ask enough, he’ll find one he can answer?
Warrenlb,
Do you know what the effective black body temperature of earth is? Of course you do. It is the temperature of earth as seen from space, of course you knew that.
Do you know what the effective black body temperature of earth is? Of course you do, it is 255K.
Now, assuming CO2 doubles, and sensitivity in terms of the direct effects of CO2 is assumed to be 1.1 degrees per doubling, once the system settles out to a new equilibrium state, what would the new effective black body temperature of earth be?
Warrenlb?
No answer? Pretty simple question, a man of your knowledge on the subject ought to be able to rattle off the answer with little effort.
He probably had to trot back to SkS for some new talking points…
How these “climate scientist” can justify “global warming” is beyond a joke when considering the statements they have made. These “climate scientist” statements which they made were totally convinced of their truth but with the passage of time how wrong could they be.
I also would like Warren to explain how 90% of the energy from additional CO2 induced LWIR back radiation goes into heating the oceans, instead of mostly into the latent heat of evaporation, and thus to the atmosphere. (It is irritating when folk get in long arguments about LWIR can, or cannot, heat the oceans. The scientific question is how much.) Warren says 90% of the energy goes there. ( …”IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%), atmosphere (~3%) and land and rivers (the remainder”),
If Warren wants to give a real answer he will tell us the residence time of the LWIR entering the oceans, as said residence time correlates to the potential warming affect.
===========================================================================
I would like to ask a general question. Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation? (GHL = Green house liquid.)
If they are, what SW insolation WL has the longest residence time in the oceans, and how much does the WL vary with solar cycles?
I would like to ask a general question. Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation?
No.
david, you say no, but perhaps elaborate. Without expressing details considering exact amounts, GHG lengthens the residence time of LWIR within the atmosphere, while input of course remains constant, thus some warming until equalization.
The oceans increase the residence time of SW radiation entering the oceans, relative to if said insolation simply struck the land and emitted LWIR back into the atmosphere? An assertion with a ? mark. Therefore there is ore total energy in the system, due to how the oceans absorb SW radiation.
I look forward to your clarity on this.
You have a bunch of misunderstandings balled up into a couple of paragraphs. Do oceans absorb across a 100m to 300m span while land absorbs right at surface? Sure. Does that mean things would be different if we replaced oceans with land? Sure. Does that make oceans a “GHL”? No, it makes them an ocean. The GHE operates in the atmosphere because gasses are wavelength selective while liquids and solids are not, and so do not support a compararble process to the GHE. I suggest you start with these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
I am not certain of what I am misunderstanding. Perhaps you misread my analogy. The label greenhouse gas is of course an analogy in itself, as GHGs do not work on the same principle as physical greenhouses.
I am speaking in a general sense for a reason. “There are only two things that can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system.” (This is a pretty solid statement accepted by RGB and others)
I am not looking to explain the details of the GHE. (And I am not misunderstanding) At its most basic a GHG increases the residence time of some LWIR energy within the system. (It redirects some escaping LWIR of a certain w/l back towards the earth. Input remains the same, residence time of LWIR increases, = more total energy in system.) This is not controversial. There are other detailed processes, changes in different levels of the atmosphere, etc, but all those processes either increase or decrease the residence time of exiting LWIR.
My question was…Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation?
The oceans are a three dimensional SW absorbing surface. Just as different GHG absorb different spectrum of LWIR from the surface, the oceans absorb solar insolation (of different W/L) to different depths. In general the deeper the energy penetrates into the oceans (Up to 800′ the disphotic zone) the longer the residence time of the affected energy.
This is logically consistent and breaks no laws. A pot of water when covered with a lid, increases the residence time of the energy entering the pot, although input may remain the same. In the oceans disparate W/L of solar insolation changes over the solar cycle. Even excluding cloud cover, this will affect the amount of energy going into the oceans, not just on a W/M Sq basis, but due to the different residence time of the energies involved, the affect can be far greater then the W/M Sq change. The residence time of energy entering the oceans, is far greater then the residence time increase of energy within the atmosphere due to GHGs. Also, some GHGs like water vapor dramatically, (even in clear skies) reduce insolation into the oceans.
Science doe not describe the residence time of energy entering the oceans in any exact method, or by it relative W/L, or by its change over solar cycles. We do however know that the time can vary from very short, LWIR energy absorbed mostly, if not entirely, in evaporation, to centuries for any energy which gets absorbed into the entire ever turning process of ocean waters.
However, in general it is fair to state that such long term residence times, can increase or decrease the energy within the oceans for as long as said change in insolation occurs, possibly for decades energy can decrease, or increase, due to long term changes in insolation of a W/L which penetrates deeply into the oceans. (Just as a very thick pot and lid, even over a very small flame, may, over time, reach a very high temperature.)
[GHL = ??
L/W = Long wave ,
W/L = Wavelength ? .mod]
However, in general it is fair to state that such long term residence times, can increase or decrease the energy within the oceans for as long as said change in insolation occurs,
You are talking two different things. The GHE results in a different surface temperature with the exact same insolation due to a variation in GHG concentration. You’re trying to vary the insolation instead and get a “greenhouse liquid” out of it. Its the insolation you changed, not the liquid.
You are correct, and the analogy was not meant to be exact, but to point out that the oceans, are a three dimensional surface sensitive to S/W insolation, just as GHGs are sensitive to certain bands of LWIR. The law; “There are only two things that can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system.” always applies. The system we are interested in is the earth, land, ocean and atmosphere.
Please note that changing the W/M sq insolation is not necessary to affect the amount of energy the oceans absorb. A simple change in the solar spectrum, even if W/M sq. remains the same, can increase or decrease the oceans total energy content. In this sense, just like with GHGs, it is the residence time of the energies involved that matters. Always the law applies,
By observing, we can see that a change in the residence time of energy in the atmosphere, say an increase in W/V, can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which responds far faster then the oceans to such changes. However, although the atmosphere may gain energy, the oceans may, and do lose energy.
The total loss to the combined system may be cooling, yet due to the residence time, or heat capacity of the oceans being far greater, It just may not manifest in the atmosphere for a much longer time.
Annually we see this in the seasons, when, despite an increase of 90 W/M sq, the earth’s atmosphere cools, despite this far greater insolation. Yes, the NH albedo increases (decreasing the residence time of some energy within the atmosphere) but also the vast SH oceans receive much of this insolation, thus this increase in energy is for a time, also lost to the atmosphere. (Did the earth gain or lose energy during this time?) A fair question to which most state that the earth gained energy despite the atmosphere cooling.
This leads one to realize that the earths oceans likely drive the climate, and the energy into and out of the oceans not only greatly moderates the climate, but likely, due to flux in SW energy W/L, and insolation changes (cloud cover percentage flux and location changes due to jet stream flux) is the primary source of climate changes, overwhelming the very small changes in earth’s energy budget due to a slight increase in atmospheric residence time due to additional CO2.
[GHL = ??
L/W = Long wave ,
W/L = Wavelength ? .mod]
To mod, yes and GHL (green house liquid) is used to reference that, just as GHGs increase the residence time of certain W/L upwelling LWIR, the oceans increase or decrease the residence time of disparate W/L SW insolation, depending on the wave length of said insolation.
Only with the oceans the residence time is far greater, and therefore, even if the energy affected is small, over the far greater residence time, the total energy increase or decrease could be large.
Carlin’s answer, in retrospect, seems the most sage (sagest?… sagiest?) Not because he predicts the true evolution of climate, or even attempts to, but because he sees the pointlessness of the endeavor and hedges his predictions for the human race with the smartest algorithm of all: humor.
Bart,
The first derivative is the slope of a line tangent to some curve at a given point. It represents the instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x. Applied to a timeseries, dy/dt represents acceleration in the change of y with respect to t. Same for dy/dx since t is just a particular kind of x. Amirite? I’m right.
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To) works over short intervals of time because the natural fast response of CO2 to T lends itself to linear approximation. It breaks down over longer periods of time because:
1) ∆CO2 is an equilibrium response, so over longer periods of time, all else being equal, the rate of CO2 change will decay as a non-linear function over time as the system approaches the new equilibrium.
2) All else is not equal. At present the best medium term predictor of equilibrium CO2 concentration is the rate we desequester it above or below the system’s ability to reabsorb it.
dbstealey,
So do I. I repeat: I don’t disagree with them.
Ok, here’s a chart I bet you agree with: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/clip_image0021.png
Hands down a dead flat temperature trend for 18 years and 2 months. No dispute here, that’s what it shows. According to your argument “∆CO2 follows ∆T on all time scales”, CO2 should have also remained dead flat. What does Wood for Trees have to say about ∆CO2 over those 18 years and 2 months?
Brandon,
That chart does not show cause and effect between T and CO2, like this one does. The one I posted shows 18 years, 2 months — plus some. I can also post many more that you probably haven’t seen. I have them from months, to almost a million years back. They all show that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. No exceptions.
Show me a comparable chart, which shows that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T, and I will sit up straight and pay attention. If I can’t find any way to falsify it, I will concede the point to you.
I’ve looked high and low for such a chart, to no avail. Maybe you can find one.
dbstealey,
Then how could CO2 have risen over the past 18 years when temperatures have remained flat?
Brandon,
There are two interrelated things you may not have considered, but I have little doubt you will see what’s going on once it’s explained.
First, there is the 800 ±200 year lag effect. The MWP was warmer than now, so we are seeing the effect. Riding on that is the anomaly, which is not the same thing as a trend. Once you think about it, I’m sure you will see how T can remain flat while CO2 rises.
I would still like to see a chart like one I asked for above, if you can find one. Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no evidence for the contrary [although as I’ve said repeatedly, I think AGW exists. It is just to tiny to measure].
dbstealey,
Yup.
Between now and the MWP was the LIA …. ?
True.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSYVkyelIyekdnQm8
Top graph: rate of temperature change (deg/decade) and CO2 (ppmv/year) 1-2014 CE.
Bottom graph: rate of temperature change (deg/century) and CO2 (ppmv/year) 1600-2014 CE. [1]
Temperature Data:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imoberg2005.dat
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3v-gl.dat
CO2 Data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ico2_annual.dat
———————————————
[1] Change in units from top graph for scaling purposes.
Awesome! Among your very best.
Brandon,
Once again: that chart is an overlay.
It does not show cause and effect.
Use the WoodForTrees database. Produce a chart like this one, but showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. That should be very easy to do — if there are supporting measurements.
To be convincing you need to work off of the same page. Use the same WFT databases that I used, then make your case.
dbstealey,
Same data as last graph, different presentation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSSm00aTdsQTRWaFU
Top plot is your WFT plot laid over a graph I generated. They match. Bottom plot goes all the way back to 1300. I do a 60 year sampled rate of change (blue and magenta curves) and a 60 year isolate with a 12 year centered moving average (yellow and green curves). The lead lag relationships are clearly visible in both methods and line up with each other.
The isolate function detrends because it works on centered moving averages subtracted from the current period’s value. Which means that not only does it take out the relative difference between two data series with secular trends, it looks into the future to do its calculations.
You’ve got plots going back hundreds of thousands of years, yes? Are those data in the WFT database?
I didn’t think so. Let’s not unilaterally declare by fiat what data are or are not convincing. I’ve given you the links to the raw data. If you don’t wish to accept them, that’s your choice.
“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” -Dr David Viner
This is a fake quote. Viner did not say “within a few years”.