Josh writes: Where does one start with a topic like “The Hottest Year Evah”? Probably with a climate expert – happily we have one right here (as well as here, of course).
Not that anyone in Oz is looking. We were in Oz when some arm or leg was found floating in Morton Bay. But this of course wasn’t evidence that someone had died. No, it simply showed that someone had lost a limb. Like the shoes that keep floating up near Vancouver, with the feet still in them. Again, this doesn’t mean someone has died, only that they’ve lost their feet.
@ferdberple –
A while back, a body was found in the local river of a young teenager. He was bound in chains and weighted down with concrete bricks.
Police hadn’t ruled out suicide.
Hivemind,
I am sorry… sorrier … sorriest… sorriester… more sorrierester… as much sorriesterish as possible…by a lot and then some… than anyone about everything… EVAH.
Harry, do you know what raw sunspot data looks like? It is a paper/pencil affair with dots drawn on a circle before we could simply take a photo of the Sun. Do you know what raw temperature data looks like? Again, a paper/pencil affair with readings hand written into time slots before we could simply download the data. That’s raw data. Modern photos of the Sun and modern data dumps from sensors are raw data. NOAA does not produce publicly available raw data sets for downloading into a spreadsheet. For that one would have to go to each individual station to get that data.
I have a problem.
The problem is when LENR comes on line .
That’s probably going to happen over the next five years.
When most if not all carbon burning fuel becomes obsolete.
What happens when the [CO2] levels still keeps increasing?
LENR replaces all fossil fuels in five years! Perfect. Problem solved. Now let’s divert those billions going to global warming research, to curing Cancer and aging.
This is proving to be a very productive day.
All the LENR tech is still unproven. And even if it gets proven, all it does is generate heat. That heat would then have to be transferred into other forms of energy. It’s a heck of a long way from where it is now to making fossil fuels obsolete. A LONG way.
Exactly how does most electricity we use get generated? In steam turbines…. Other than large hydro plants, there isn’t much non-heat engine production.
BTW, news with very few details from Andrea Rossi is at http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/30/overview-of-the-electric-e-cat-x/ which says in part:
Work on the E-Cat X is taking place in a separate lab from the shipping container where the 1 MW plant is located, but it’s close to allow for easy access to both working locations. Immediately on making this discovery, shut off access to this lab to anyone but himself — in fact he says he is the only person who has seen the E-Cat X producing electricity. He has gone to work right away writing a new patent application that covers this discovery which he says he will deposit within days. He says he cannot provide more information at this point on the E-Cat X to avoid pre-disclosure. One thing he does say is that the ratio of heat to electricity can be adjusted, and also Volts and Amps can be adjusted.
This is the “new” politics in Canada under our current crop of warmist scoundrels and imbeciles.
Montreal mayor Denis (“Les Turds”) Coderre just rejected the Energy East pipeline as “a serious environmental threat” while he dumped 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. This followed the Lac Megantic rail disaster of 2013, where 47 people were incinerated when a train carrying oil derailed and caught fire in a Quebec town. Bravo Denis Les Turds!
A few years ago, Brent crude was trading at ~US$100/barrel on the ocean, West Texas Intermediate was ~US$80 at Cushing OK, and Edmonton Light was $60 – all approximately similar crude oil qualities. This huge price differential that cost Canada tens of billions of dollars was due to the absence of adequate export pipeline capacity, which has been blocked on all fronts by green extremists.
Montreal refineries receive foreign crude via oil tankers that travel up the St. Lawrence River, fighting their way against the strong current and the constant bombardment of floating turds, gratuitously supplied (“pas des charges”) by Mayor Denis. Eastern Canadian refineries (and consumer)s pay a huge premium to buy this foreign crude, when they could be buying much cheaper Alberta crude.
Meanwhile, Alberta premier Rachel Notley has instituted a $3 billion carbon tax, which she says will be “revenue neutral” to Alberta. What she means is she will take the money from average Albertans and give it to her best friends. Right-o Rachel!
Meanwhile, Alberta has paid huge equalization payments to support the rest of Canada, equal to about $1 million dollars per Alberta family of four in the last ~50 years, with nominal interest. Much of this money went to Quebec and the Maritimes – note their gratitude!
You could not make up this stuff – it resembles the extremely abusive absurdities of the Former Soviet Union – all over again. But then, these politicians have the same extreme leftist slant!
Quelle surprise! Plus ca change, plus ca change pas.
Regards to all, Allan
A NOTE FROM BRIAN JEAN
Alberta Wildrose Party Leader and MLA Fort McMurray-Conklin
“Today, a bunch of Quebec politicians came out against the Energy East pipeline. This comes despite the fact that Quebec has taken $74 billion in equalization payments since 2007, primarily from energy producing jurisdictions like Alberta.
Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre said “The MMC is against the Energy East pipeline project because it still represents a serious environmental threat” However, in Montreal, not only did they recently dump 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, but they continue to buy their oil at a premium from tankers owned by foreign dictatorships, while western oil sells for a discount.
Energy East is exactly what Canada needs at a time like this. It would grow our national GDP by an estimated $55 billion. Once complete, it will mean Canada can get closer to ending its dependence on foreign oil. In the short term, it would provide high-quality construction jobs right across the country, at a time when they are desperately needed.
It’s very simple – Rachel Notley’s plan is failing. She told us that in order to get the “social license” to build pipelines, Albertans would have to pay for a $3 billion carbon tax. We now have the tax, but still no pipelines in sight and a premier who refuses to stick up for Alberta’s interests.
On top of all this, today Alberta’s credit rating took a hit for the second time in three days. DBRS warned the “future is grim” for Alberta and that the province is taking on too much debt too quickly.”
“This huge price differential that cost Canada tens of billions of dollars was due to the absence of adequate export pipeline capacity, which has been blocked on all fronts by green extremists.”
They’ll be attacked for this in the next election cycle, and they may be defeated because of it.
… Rachel Notley has instituted a $3 billion carbon tax …
It’s not like she had a lot of choice. ie. Rock-Rachel-HardPlace
Because there is no pipeline to tide water, Alberta has to sell its crude into the northern states at as little as $10 per barrel. At one point Notley talked about building a upgrader/refinery; I wish to heck that she’d do that.
If Obama were to approve XL, the USofA would have to pay more for Alberta oil. The outcome seems obvious.
Rachel is not the real enemy; save your invective for someone more worthy.
Why doesn’t Canada create a strategic oil reserve? Tank storage in Eastern Canada would provide an additional outlet for Western Select oil and a little price support while protecting against supply disruption from the middle East. When prices recover, it can be reduced at a profit, probably aided by an increase in the value of the C$. I think about 20 million barrels would be $1B- same as Ottawa found for GM when they couldn’t run their business.
This is why a carbon tax is highly counterproductive and imbecilic:
Regards, Allan http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
Bribery in Montreal, Quebec, Robert?
Incompetence? Deceit? Ingratitude? Hypocrisy?
The City of Falling Overpasses?
The City of Pierre and Justin Trudeau?
The City of Denis “Turd-o” Coderre?
Say it’s not so!
Jean Meeus
January 22, 2016 4:49 am
< What happens when the Co2 levels still keeps increasing?
Co2 should be CO2(one atom of carbon + two atoms of oxygen), not Co2 (two atoms of cobalt)!
So it’s true! Co2 in your breathing is a pollutant for sure.
pat
January 22, 2016 5:46 am
Linda, at the Miami Herald, cites no less than THREE studies – were they all funded under the CAGW umbrella?
21 Jan: Miami Herald: LINDA ROBERTSON: Chilly forecast for Miami Marathon a relief as times rise thanks to global warming
Last year was the hottest on Earth by the widest margin since record-keeping began in 1880 … according to the National Weather Service Forecast Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…
As the world’s best marathoners approach the two-hour barrier, scientists are contemplating when fast times will intersect with temperatures that will diminish pace…
(STUDY 1) “Air temperature is the most important factor influencing marathon running performance for all levels,” concluded a study entitled “Impact of Environmental Parameters on Marathon Running Performance” that compared results of six U.S. and European marathons with a total of 1.8 million participants over the course of nine years.
The correlation between speed and temperature was consistent, said lead author Nour El Helou…
(STUDY 2) Elite marathoners’ times slowed up to 4.5 percent and average marathoners’ times slowed up to 8 percent as temperatures increased from 42 to 77 degrees, according to a study of seven U.S. marathons — including Boston and New York — in the Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise journal by lead author Matthew R. Ely…
(STUDY 3) A Boston University study showed that winning times in the Boston Marathon will slow down if Boston’s climate continues to warm…
But he’s (Frankie Ruiz) confident the Miami Marathon and Half Marathon will continue to attract runners happy to trade cold temperatures for the sight of palm trees and porpoises.
“We start very early, we have lots of shade, and the majority of our entrants come from Florida, the Caribbean or Latin America, so they are acclimatized,” he said. “As it gets hotter, they’ll get more resilient.” http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/other-sports/article55972990.html
thanks Josh for always seeing the humour.
“(STUDY 2) Elite marathoners’ times slowed up to 4.5 percent and average marathoners’ times slowed up to 8 percent as temperatures increased from 42 to 77 degrees…”
So when the temperature goes up 35 degrees F it slows runners. That is approximately a 20 degree C increase, so how does that apply to a 1.5 degree C warming over a century?
Something absurd going on here: if the temp is 20 degrees F and it goes up 35 to 55 degrees F, I’m willing to wager that the runners will be faster at 55.
Further, a rise of 35 degrees from 75 to 110 will most likely show slower times.
Temps have been rising since the 1800s and so will correlate by random chance with anything else that has been rising recently. Such as higher crop yields, lower death rates, greater prosperity, etc.
CAGW could have just as easily have the temps going down. My thought was they must have believed JPL and the projection that the sun would not quite down for at least another 3 or 4 solar cycles. Of course that is the main issue, that increasing levels of co2 are causing temps to go up. I think they’ve crossed into new territory, out right lying.
Josh,
Not bad, not bad at all.
But, it is getting difficult to distinguish between cartoon drawings of the CO2 biased Penn State guy and the CO2 biased NASA GISS guy.
A tattoo is needed on each cartoon character to aid identification; like a “I love Scary Tree Stories” tattoo for one and an “I love tweaking models” for the other?
John
Gunga Din on January 22, 2016 at 2:52 pm
– – – – – – –
Gunga Din,
The CO2 biased Penn State guy could tweak ‘twigs’ (small branches of his scary trees).
John
So this time it’s all “adjustments”. What happened to the GWPF “International Temperature Data Review Project”, trumpeted here? Nine months since announced, over six months since submissions closed and were supposed to be published. Could it be that the adjustments story didn’t stand up to examination?
Could it be that the adjustments story didn’t stand up to examination?
Or, could it be that the ‘people cause global warming’ hoax can’t stand up to examination?
John Whitman, “They have contact info at their website.”
They also have a news page here. Last entry Sept 29, reiterating that the panel wasn’t going to report, but someone might write a paper sometime.
Nick Stokes on January 22, 2016 at 8:21 am
– – – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
Below is the status at the link you posted.
Strategically, I think formal papers would be less prone to un-authorized intellectual ‘borrowing’ of ideas than would any type of report.
http://www.tempdatareview.org/news
International Temperature Data panel: status update / September 29, 2015 by Andrew Montford
A number of parties have inquired about the status of the work of the International Temperature Data Review set up by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Panel chairman Professor Terence Kealey said:
“The panel has decided that its primary output should be in the form of peer-reviewed papers rather than a non-peer reviewed report. Work is ongoing on a number of subprojects, each of which the panel hopes will result in a peer reviewed paper.
One of our projects is an analysis of a subset of the submissions made to the panel by members of the public which have a common theme of the impact of adjustments on individual station histories. The stations histories provided by the public are from many different geographical regions and from several different adjusted data sets.”
Ends
September 29, 2015
The published paper route means results would probably not be seen until well into the future.
John
John, Here is how it was announced in the Telegraph: “Top Scientists Start To Examine Fiddled Global Warming Figures”. There were terms of reference. Submissions were invited, and would be published. All sounds very impressive. The announcement didn’t say that a bunch of retired academics would think about maybe writing a journal paper some day. Not so impressive.
And why the change? If writing papers was the way to go, why announce an inquiry, which will report on terms of reference etc. Or could it be that when faced with the task of reporting a proper scientific analysis of “adjustments”, somehow it all melted away?
{bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
Nick Stokes on January 22, 2016 at 1:07 pm
“. . . . The [GWPF original project] announcement didn’t say that a bunch of retired academics would think about maybe writing a journal paper some day. Not so impressive.
And why the change? If writing papers was the way to go, why announce an inquiry, which will report on terms of reference etc. Or could it be that when faced with the task of reporting a proper scientific analysis of “adjustments”, somehow it all melted away?”
Nick Stokes, Why? Or why not? Lots of possibilities and fertile ground for speculation.
But, I tend to think it likely that when they received some input on ‘tampering/fiddling’ from volunteers, then they saw the nature of it required some prudence legally in how to inform the public on potential science integrity issues. That’s just my thinking/speculation.
We shall see; I am patient. There is all the time in the world.
John
The internet will forever remember all the things we nobly defended. And all the times we looked the other way because it suited us.
Crispin in Waterloo
January 22, 2016 7:16 am
The number of people thinking about global temperatures has been steadily rising. Is there a correlation between the number of adjustments to the temperature record that have the net effect of giving the appearance of a temperature increase and the number of people who are thinking about such a temperature increase? Which comes first: the manufactured appearance of the increase or the number of people thinking about it?
Is there a correlation between the number of times GISS re-jigs the temperature record to pretend there is more global warming and the number of people who falsely believe that the lack of net warming over the past 18 years is caused by the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
What is the correlation coefficient between the rise in CO2 concentration and the number of people who falsely believe that letting GISS get away with the manipulation of the temperature record is good for the green-back economy and humanity in general?
P T Barnum, that inspirer of all things faked, said, “There is a sucker born every minute.” It seems these suckers have been accumulating at an every increasing rate leading to runaway readings on the stooge-o-meter. How many suckers does it take to block a 40″ pipeline operating at a pressure of 80 bars? (Remember that suckers are pliable.) Please show your work.
Karl’s pause busting was all about the small difference between red and green lines in the last decade in the figure above. Short-term trends are highly sensitive, so relatively small changes can have big effects. However, in the long term picture the effect of adjustments post-1940 is pretty small.
As Peter Thorne put it:
“The single biggest effect in the climate record is the change from the buckets to the engine room intakes, and the engine room intakes are of the order of 0.6 degrees Celsius warmer than the buckets. So if we didn’t correct for that effect, we would be saying that global warming was about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century warmer than it has been.
There’s your big dirty secret; the only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the trend.”
ZH, so temps have risen 0.6 degrees since 1940. 75 years = 0.6 degrees. Why the gnashing of teeth? Just eyeballing what the temp on a thermometer gives bigger error bars than that. So all the warming in the last 75 years is within the margin of error? And please do not attempt to say the error bars are small. If you have 3 people reading a thermometer in 1940, you will likely get 3 different temperatures, 20 degrees, 21 degrees and 19 degrees. The margin of error is greater than 0.6. Why are you gnashing your teeth?
There’s your big dirty secret; the only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the trend.”
I see. Yet the title of that paper leaves me with the impression it was all about the hiatus:
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”
Then along with the references to old and new trends from 1998 to 2012, 1998 to 2014, and 2000 to 2014 really gives me the impression that the hiatus was a thorn in the side and had to be gotten rid of.
The cult of CAGW’s manipulation of the surface warming data was done to create media sound bites, it does not however change the fact that almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, not the increase in atmospheric CO2.
A high level check of the basic atmospheric physics supports the assertion that there is not even an AGW problem as opposed to a CAGW problem.
The so called one dimensional greenhouse warming calculations ignored the infrared spectrum absorption overlap of water vapor and CO2 (it is a physical fact that there is a great deal of water in the atmosphere and it is physical fact that the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap) and secondly the one dimensional greenhouse gas calculations ignore that physical fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection (hot air rises which causes cold air to fall which almost completely which is also a physical fact not a theory) which almost completely offsets the greenhouse gas warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics. The overlap of absorption of water vapor and CO2 reduces the forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by roughly a factor of 4, so the warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with no ‘feedbacks’ is less than a watt/m^2 rather than 3.7 watt/m^2 which will result in warming of roughly 0.15C, not including the offsetting increase in convection cooling.
The warming of 0.15C is so small the warming without feedbacks will be the same as with feedbacks.
Check out figure 2 in this paper. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
” Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.”
The IPCC’s general circulation models (GCMs) have more than 100 different parameters that than can and have been adjusted without any physical justification/reason to create model output warming to push the cult of CAGW’s agenda. A key variable that is adjusted is wind speed which is reduce over the oceans which reduces evaporation cooling. The reduction in wind speed accounts more than a 1/3 of the warming in the goofy GCM. The GCMs were created and ‘tuned’ to create CAGW.
The warming in the last 150 years is almost completely due to solar cycle changes not the rise in atmospheric CO2. The same regions that warmed in the last 150 years are the same regions have warmed and cold cyclically in the paleo record correlating with solar cycle changes. If above assertions are correct, global warming is reversible.
Comments:
The solar cycle has been interrupted. The sun spots are shrinking and then disappearing which is different than a reduction in the number of sunspots. The last gasp of warming is due solar wind bursts which are caused by coronal holes. The coronal holes now starting to also disappear.
The paleo record shows that regions of the Atlantic ocean and Pacific ocean were as much as 10C colder than present 150 years ago. The higher latitude 40 degree to 60 degree cooling of the ocean is caused by an increase in cloud cover in that region and an increase in wind speed. The Greenland ice sheet record shows an increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during cooling phases. The dust that deposit during the abrupt cooling phases on the Greenland ice sheet comes from the Gobi desert.
The Increase in wind speed is caused by solar cycle changes.
“…the fact that almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes…”
—————
Really? Bold assertions need strong proof. Where’s the beefproof?
In response to Alan Robertson’s query.
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events which have characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period. The cyclic warming and cooling is observed in both hemispheres and has the same periodicity in both hemispheres. (See: Does Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle?) The super abrupt cooling events the Heinrich events occur roughly every 8000 to 10000 years and fall on the same 1470 year periodicity. Think of the same forcing function that comes in a medium and super large version. The magnitude of the response for the super large version is amplified or inhibited by the orbital position at the time of the solar cycle restart. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle?”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
It is obvious if one understands the mechanisms, how the sun is currently changing, and how the sun is different than that the standard model, that the planet is about to abruptly cool. Abrupt cooling will change the paradigm to a crisis, the entire scientific basis of the IPCC was incorrect. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Current day observations that support the assertion the warming is due to a change in planetary cloud cover, not due to a change in atmospheric CO2 which explains why the warming is regional specific rather than global warming. http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
“As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process. (William: There is a third mechanism.)”
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influence by variations in the solar output (William: The correct mechanism as to how the sun affects North Atlantic climate is not changes in total solar irradiation, the sun does not get significantly hot or colder. The mechanism is changes to low level cloud cover, cirrus cloud cover, and changes to the jet stream). The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium – 10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. (Changes to cosmogenic isotopes occurs when there is a change to solar magnetic cycle and/or a sudden change to the geomagnetic field). A solar forcing mechanism thereby may underlie at least the Holocence segment of the North Atlantic “1500-year” cycle.
Brandon, are you saying the models are trained to reflect the real values?
How can you adjust a model otherwise?
Either the physics in the model are correct, or they are not, in which case they need to be re-written. What is this “adjustment” you speak of?
In reality, global temperature is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2; the global warming crisis exists only in fiction and falsehood.
The current El Nino warming blip is temporary and will disappear in about a year.
Earth temperatures have not warmed significantly in about two decades despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
The warmists “solved” this contradiction in their global warming meme by falsifying (“adjusting”) the surface temperature data record. http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-18-12-36-03.png
Bruce Cobb
January 22, 2016 10:48 am
“Probable cause”. Heh. I guess there will be plenty of that, when the time comes for the Climate Liars to pay the piper.
Janice Moore
January 22, 2016 11:54 am
… it is proof of dishonesty to {make a dispositive issue of}** things like small fluctuations in temperature …
This is for you, Josh, after valiantly sacrificing yourself, staring at that {{shudder}} unsavory face in order to draw your fine cartoon for us….
a little eye-wash: http://quotes.lol-rofl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/happy_boy.jpg Two thumbs up, Josh!
You are a treasure.
Janice
OK – enough!
I’ve had it with you Eastern warmists.
So in February, I’m calling down some brutally frigid winter weather on you.
Mark you calendars and get out your long woollies…
I’m waiting for someone to admit that we don’t really know what the temperature of globe is. Now or then.
We have a lot of guesses. Some educated, some not so much.
If we don’t really know the temps for the then and the now then there is zip, zero, nada, NO justification for the policies to prevent a (theoretical, modeled) future temperature.
Man doesn’t really know squat enough to act upon.
In case you see THIS (hard to “connect” on WUWT), Gunga Din, I saw your comment on some thread (“Failed Math” ?? and wrote to you there in reply) explaining that you did not mean to admonish me for lambasting that THREAD POLLUTER, B.G..
I believe you.
All is well.
Your ally for truth,
Janice
We have a very cold winter in sweden and i need to buy a awd car. But I have trouble finding an affordable 4×4 (sic) because tax is based on CO2 emissions, and awd cars have bigger engines. So I can afford to buy the car but not drive it. I dont want colder climaye, I would rather pay the politicians for making the climate warmer. Instead they say they will make climate colder and charge me extra for heating and gas. I dont like it, voting every 4 years dont seem to make any differense since in sweden all parties have the same agenda, huge carbon tax and endless immigration.
And on Sweden we produce less CO2 per capita than China does, and we are only 10 million. It is only a tax scam. For thousands of years priests have collected offering, taxes, in return for better climate. This is no different, the palaces are banks and priests are politicians. Grim.
[Note: Since awd = All Wheel Drive, a vintage pink Jeep would be an odd old awd. 8<) .mod]
Hocus Locus
January 23, 2016 8:37 am
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/HocusLocus_photos/Cartoon-by-Josh-Dymaxion.png
The Masked Mercator to Dymaxion-izer strikes again! Print, cut out and fold over flaps to create an icosahedron to put on your desk. Unfortunately this Buckminster Fuller ‘interrupted map projection’ is extremely unfriendly to media that are not Mercator maps. Which has now been amply demonstrated by the Masked Mercator to Dymaxion-izer.
lol — btw: LOVED the dymaxion dealie-o of the black magic CO2 “map” the other day. Jeeeehst a leeetle red blob…… ?? ……….. there……… here — look through this magnifying glass. lololol
AHH yes, our time will forever more be remembered as ” The Adjusted Years “
Australia used to have the “stolen generation”, a concept just as fraudulent as “global warming”
We’ve still got it and we still can’t find them, let alone who “stole them”.
But Rudd said otherwise.
Not that anyone in Oz is looking. We were in Oz when some arm or leg was found floating in Morton Bay. But this of course wasn’t evidence that someone had died. No, it simply showed that someone had lost a limb. Like the shoes that keep floating up near Vancouver, with the feet still in them. Again, this doesn’t mean someone has died, only that they’ve lost their feet.
@ferdberple –
A while back, a body was found in the local river of a young teenager. He was bound in chains and weighted down with concrete bricks.
Police hadn’t ruled out suicide.
The whole of the sixties was stolen from some people!
Hivemind,
I am sorry… sorrier … sorriest… sorriester… more sorrierester… as much sorriesterish as possible…by a lot and then some… than anyone about everything… EVAH.
@ferdberple
An overly enthusiastic shoe thief?
Adjustocene?
(Someone had to say it)
Well, the data certainly is like plastacine.
So long as all records begin in 1979, this was when the world was created by the gods.
May I humbly suggest that instead of God, you meant Gore?
What’s a little adjustment between friends. He has to adjust his trousers as the big checks roll in.
Did you mean cheeks below the waist?
Use the raw NOAA data if you like.
NOAA doesn’t start with raw data. They start with cooked data and apply seasoning.
Harry, do you know what raw sunspot data looks like? It is a paper/pencil affair with dots drawn on a circle before we could simply take a photo of the Sun. Do you know what raw temperature data looks like? Again, a paper/pencil affair with readings hand written into time slots before we could simply download the data. That’s raw data. Modern photos of the Sun and modern data dumps from sensors are raw data. NOAA does not produce publicly available raw data sets for downloading into a spreadsheet. For that one would have to go to each individual station to get that data.
See also, today’s Alex cartoon from the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/?cartoon=12114013&cc=12080865
Good one. Thanks.
I have a problem.
The problem is when LENR comes on line .
That’s probably going to happen over the next five years.
When most if not all carbon burning fuel becomes obsolete.
What happens when the [CO2] levels still keeps increasing?
LENR replaces all fossil fuels in five years! Perfect. Problem solved. Now let’s divert those billions going to global warming research, to curing Cancer and aging.
This is proving to be a very productive day.
All the LENR tech is still unproven. And even if it gets proven, all it does is generate heat. That heat would then have to be transferred into other forms of energy. It’s a heck of a long way from where it is now to making fossil fuels obsolete. A LONG way.
Exactly how does most electricity we use get generated? In steam turbines…. Other than large hydro plants, there isn’t much non-heat engine production.
BTW, news with very few details from Andrea Rossi is at http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/30/overview-of-the-electric-e-cat-x/ which says in part:
This sounds to like some MHD effect, but the details are way too sketchy. I’m sure some people will add “Just like Rossi himself!”
See also http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/26/rossi-the-e-cat-x-does-produce-electricity-directly/
Rossi is a fraudster.
What happens when the [CO2] levels still keeps increasing?
I guess they would. Why is this a problem?
Comma between ‘not’ and ‘then’?
Comma needed: That was my reaction to.
Agreed.
Missing an o?
to,o
This is the “new” politics in Canada under our current crop of warmist scoundrels and imbeciles.
Montreal mayor Denis (“Les Turds”) Coderre just rejected the Energy East pipeline as “a serious environmental threat” while he dumped 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. This followed the Lac Megantic rail disaster of 2013, where 47 people were incinerated when a train carrying oil derailed and caught fire in a Quebec town. Bravo Denis Les Turds!
A few years ago, Brent crude was trading at ~US$100/barrel on the ocean, West Texas Intermediate was ~US$80 at Cushing OK, and Edmonton Light was $60 – all approximately similar crude oil qualities. This huge price differential that cost Canada tens of billions of dollars was due to the absence of adequate export pipeline capacity, which has been blocked on all fronts by green extremists.
Montreal refineries receive foreign crude via oil tankers that travel up the St. Lawrence River, fighting their way against the strong current and the constant bombardment of floating turds, gratuitously supplied (“pas des charges”) by Mayor Denis. Eastern Canadian refineries (and consumer)s pay a huge premium to buy this foreign crude, when they could be buying much cheaper Alberta crude.
Meanwhile, Alberta premier Rachel Notley has instituted a $3 billion carbon tax, which she says will be “revenue neutral” to Alberta. What she means is she will take the money from average Albertans and give it to her best friends. Right-o Rachel!
Meanwhile, Alberta has paid huge equalization payments to support the rest of Canada, equal to about $1 million dollars per Alberta family of four in the last ~50 years, with nominal interest. Much of this money went to Quebec and the Maritimes – note their gratitude!
You could not make up this stuff – it resembles the extremely abusive absurdities of the Former Soviet Union – all over again. But then, these politicians have the same extreme leftist slant!
Quelle surprise! Plus ca change, plus ca change pas.
Regards to all, Allan
A NOTE FROM BRIAN JEAN
Alberta Wildrose Party Leader and MLA Fort McMurray-Conklin
“Today, a bunch of Quebec politicians came out against the Energy East pipeline. This comes despite the fact that Quebec has taken $74 billion in equalization payments since 2007, primarily from energy producing jurisdictions like Alberta.
Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre said “The MMC is against the Energy East pipeline project because it still represents a serious environmental threat” However, in Montreal, not only did they recently dump 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, but they continue to buy their oil at a premium from tankers owned by foreign dictatorships, while western oil sells for a discount.
Energy East is exactly what Canada needs at a time like this. It would grow our national GDP by an estimated $55 billion. Once complete, it will mean Canada can get closer to ending its dependence on foreign oil. In the short term, it would provide high-quality construction jobs right across the country, at a time when they are desperately needed.
It’s very simple – Rachel Notley’s plan is failing. She told us that in order to get the “social license” to build pipelines, Albertans would have to pay for a $3 billion carbon tax. We now have the tax, but still no pipelines in sight and a premier who refuses to stick up for Alberta’s interests.
On top of all this, today Alberta’s credit rating took a hit for the second time in three days. DBRS warned the “future is grim” for Alberta and that the province is taking on too much debt too quickly.”
“This huge price differential that cost Canada tens of billions of dollars was due to the absence of adequate export pipeline capacity, which has been blocked on all fronts by green extremists.”
They’ll be attacked for this in the next election cycle, and they may be defeated because of it.
Hi Allan,
A commentary about Montreal rejecting the Energy East pipeline, after Alberta has made all kinds of concessions (Climate change policy, carbon taxes), is here:
Alberta smiles at Canada, Canada snarls back
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/don-braid-alberta-smiles-at-canada-canada-snarls-back
It’s not like she had a lot of choice. ie. Rock-Rachel-HardPlace
Because there is no pipeline to tide water, Alberta has to sell its crude into the northern states at as little as $10 per barrel. At one point Notley talked about building a upgrader/refinery; I wish to heck that she’d do that.
If Obama were to approve XL, the USofA would have to pay more for Alberta oil. The outcome seems obvious.
Rachel is not the real enemy; save your invective for someone more worthy.
Why doesn’t Canada create a strategic oil reserve? Tank storage in Eastern Canada would provide an additional outlet for Western Select oil and a little price support while protecting against supply disruption from the middle East. When prices recover, it can be reduced at a profit, probably aided by an increase in the value of the C$. I think about 20 million barrels would be $1B- same as Ottawa found for GM when they couldn’t run their business.
Rachel Notley appointed Shannon Philips as Alberta Environment Minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Phillips
Environment Minister Shannon Phillips is credited by the author Mike Hudema with writing the introduction to his book “An Action a Day: Keeps Global Capitalism Away”. The title says it all – Hudema is an extreme leftist.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/shannon-phillips-helped-with-some-grammar-on-activist-how-to-book-1.3126875
“An Action a Day: Keeps Global Capitalism Away”
By Mike Hudema
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hudema
Of course Rachel had a choice – her Carbon Tax is highly counterproductive and imbecilic at any time, and especially at this time.
This is why a carbon tax is highly counterproductive and imbecilic:
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
You will understand I share your disgust, Allan. Codere probably received a nice thick brown envelope from someone already shipping oil to Montreal.
Bribery in Montreal, Quebec, Robert?
Incompetence? Deceit? Ingratitude? Hypocrisy?
The City of Falling Overpasses?
The City of Pierre and Justin Trudeau?
The City of Denis “Turd-o” Coderre?
Say it’s not so!
< What happens when the Co2 levels still keeps increasing?
Co2 should be CO2(one atom of carbon + two atoms of oxygen), not Co2 (two atoms of cobalt)!
Is cobalt a greenhouse metal, that’s scary!
Don’t give them ideas.
I find the idea rather magnetic 🙂
Not to worry. In 5 years, LENR will still be 20 years out.
I am will to bet on that .Are you?
I knew that.
But the cat sitting on my lap did not.
If it knew, would it care?
So it’s true! Co2 in your breathing is a pollutant for sure.
Linda, at the Miami Herald, cites no less than THREE studies – were they all funded under the CAGW umbrella?
21 Jan: Miami Herald: LINDA ROBERTSON: Chilly forecast for Miami Marathon a relief as times rise thanks to global warming
Last year was the hottest on Earth by the widest margin since record-keeping began in 1880 … according to the National Weather Service Forecast Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…
As the world’s best marathoners approach the two-hour barrier, scientists are contemplating when fast times will intersect with temperatures that will diminish pace…
(STUDY 1) “Air temperature is the most important factor influencing marathon running performance for all levels,” concluded a study entitled “Impact of Environmental Parameters on Marathon Running Performance” that compared results of six U.S. and European marathons with a total of 1.8 million participants over the course of nine years.
The correlation between speed and temperature was consistent, said lead author Nour El Helou…
(STUDY 2) Elite marathoners’ times slowed up to 4.5 percent and average marathoners’ times slowed up to 8 percent as temperatures increased from 42 to 77 degrees, according to a study of seven U.S. marathons — including Boston and New York — in the Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise journal by lead author Matthew R. Ely…
(STUDY 3) A Boston University study showed that winning times in the Boston Marathon will slow down if Boston’s climate continues to warm…
But he’s (Frankie Ruiz) confident the Miami Marathon and Half Marathon will continue to attract runners happy to trade cold temperatures for the sight of palm trees and porpoises.
“We start very early, we have lots of shade, and the majority of our entrants come from Florida, the Caribbean or Latin America, so they are acclimatized,” he said. “As it gets hotter, they’ll get more resilient.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/other-sports/article55972990.html
thanks Josh for always seeing the humour.
More control of Steroids use.
http://www.boston-discovery-guide.com/boston-marathon-weather.html
“(STUDY 2) Elite marathoners’ times slowed up to 4.5 percent and average marathoners’ times slowed up to 8 percent as temperatures increased from 42 to 77 degrees…”
So when the temperature goes up 35 degrees F it slows runners. That is approximately a 20 degree C increase, so how does that apply to a 1.5 degree C warming over a century?
Something absurd going on here: if the temp is 20 degrees F and it goes up 35 to 55 degrees F, I’m willing to wager that the runners will be faster at 55.
Further, a rise of 35 degrees from 75 to 110 will most likely show slower times.
the skeptics have fallen into the trap of debating temperature when the real issue is the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and temperature
Temps have been rising since the 1800s and so will correlate by random chance with anything else that has been rising recently. Such as higher crop yields, lower death rates, greater prosperity, etc.
And good video by the way!
CAGW could have just as easily have the temps going down. My thought was they must have believed JPL and the projection that the sun would not quite down for at least another 3 or 4 solar cycles. Of course that is the main issue, that increasing levels of co2 are causing temps to go up. I think they’ve crossed into new territory, out right lying.
FOSSIL FUEL USE UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Josh,
Not bad, not bad at all.
But, it is getting difficult to distinguish between cartoon drawings of the CO2 biased Penn State guy and the CO2 biased NASA GISS guy.
A tattoo is needed on each cartoon character to aid identification; like a “I love Scary Tree Stories” tattoo for one and an “I love tweaking models” for the other?
John
But maybe the NASA guy always dreamed of tweaking Twiggy?
Gunga Din on January 22, 2016 at 2:52 pm
– – – – – – –
Gunga Din,
The CO2 biased Penn State guy could tweak ‘twigs’ (small branches of his scary trees).
John
So this time it’s all “adjustments”. What happened to the GWPF “International Temperature Data Review Project”, trumpeted here? Nine months since announced, over six months since submissions closed and were supposed to be published. Could it be that the adjustments story didn’t stand up to examination?
Could it be that the adjustments story didn’t stand up to examination?
Or, could it be that the ‘people cause global warming’ hoax can’t stand up to examination?
Nick Stokes on January 22, 2016 at 6:51 am
– – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
Ask them. They have contact info at their website.
John
John Whitman,
“They have contact info at their website.”
They also have a news page here. Last entry Sept 29, reiterating that the panel wasn’t going to report, but someone might write a paper sometime.
Nick Stokes on January 22, 2016 at 8:21 am
– – – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
Below is the status at the link you posted.
Strategically, I think formal papers would be less prone to un-authorized intellectual ‘borrowing’ of ideas than would any type of report.
The published paper route means results would probably not be seen until well into the future.
John
John,
Here is how it was announced in the Telegraph: “Top Scientists Start To Examine Fiddled Global Warming Figures”. There were terms of reference. Submissions were invited, and would be published. All sounds very impressive. The announcement didn’t say that a bunch of retired academics would think about maybe writing a journal paper some day. Not so impressive.
And why the change? If writing papers was the way to go, why announce an inquiry, which will report on terms of reference etc. Or could it be that when faced with the task of reporting a proper scientific analysis of “adjustments”, somehow it all melted away?
Nick Stokes,
Why? Or why not? Lots of possibilities and fertile ground for speculation.
But, I tend to think it likely that when they received some input on ‘tampering/fiddling’ from volunteers, then they saw the nature of it required some prudence legally in how to inform the public on potential science integrity issues. That’s just my thinking/speculation.
We shall see; I am patient. There is all the time in the world.
John
The internet will forever remember all the things we nobly defended. And all the times we looked the other way because it suited us.
The number of people thinking about global temperatures has been steadily rising. Is there a correlation between the number of adjustments to the temperature record that have the net effect of giving the appearance of a temperature increase and the number of people who are thinking about such a temperature increase? Which comes first: the manufactured appearance of the increase or the number of people thinking about it?
Is there a correlation between the number of times GISS re-jigs the temperature record to pretend there is more global warming and the number of people who falsely believe that the lack of net warming over the past 18 years is caused by the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
What is the correlation coefficient between the rise in CO2 concentration and the number of people who falsely believe that letting GISS get away with the manipulation of the temperature record is good for the green-back economy and humanity in general?
P T Barnum, that inspirer of all things faked, said, “There is a sucker born every minute.” It seems these suckers have been accumulating at an every increasing rate leading to runaway readings on the stooge-o-meter. How many suckers does it take to block a 40″ pipeline operating at a pressure of 80 bars? (Remember that suckers are pliable.) Please show your work.
Don’t like adjustments? Use the raw data, you get nearly the same result globally. In fact, over the longer-term the raw data shows more, rather than less, warming due to ocean adjustments.
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual.png
And yes, Virginia, raw data is readily available for consumption online. Here is all the raw land station data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/beta/ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz
If that is really the case, then why all the fuss about Karl’s pause busting?
Karl’s pause busting was all about the small difference between red and green lines in the last decade in the figure above. Short-term trends are highly sensitive, so relatively small changes can have big effects. However, in the long term picture the effect of adjustments post-1940 is pretty small.
As Peter Thorne put it:
“The single biggest effect in the climate record is the change from the buckets to the engine room intakes, and the engine room intakes are of the order of 0.6 degrees Celsius warmer than the buckets. So if we didn’t correct for that effect, we would be saying that global warming was about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century warmer than it has been.
There’s your big dirty secret; the only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the trend.”
Zeke says:
Karl’s pause busting was…
…a lie.
If you can’t see that, Zeke, you’re not smart enough to be commenting here.
ZH, so temps have risen 0.6 degrees since 1940. 75 years = 0.6 degrees. Why the gnashing of teeth? Just eyeballing what the temp on a thermometer gives bigger error bars than that. So all the warming in the last 75 years is within the margin of error? And please do not attempt to say the error bars are small. If you have 3 people reading a thermometer in 1940, you will likely get 3 different temperatures, 20 degrees, 21 degrees and 19 degrees. The margin of error is greater than 0.6. Why are you gnashing your teeth?
I see. Yet the title of that paper leaves me with the impression it was all about the hiatus:
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”
Then along with the references to old and new trends from 1998 to 2012, 1998 to 2014, and 2000 to 2014 really gives me the impression that the hiatus was a thorn in the side and had to be gotten rid of.
No systematic error bars, Virginia. The graph’s a crock.
Zeke says not to worry, it was only changed a little bit to suit their purpose. LMAO.
Dave (in Canmore) +1
The cult of CAGW’s manipulation of the surface warming data was done to create media sound bites, it does not however change the fact that almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, not the increase in atmospheric CO2.
A high level check of the basic atmospheric physics supports the assertion that there is not even an AGW problem as opposed to a CAGW problem.
The so called one dimensional greenhouse warming calculations ignored the infrared spectrum absorption overlap of water vapor and CO2 (it is a physical fact that there is a great deal of water in the atmosphere and it is physical fact that the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap) and secondly the one dimensional greenhouse gas calculations ignore that physical fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection (hot air rises which causes cold air to fall which almost completely which is also a physical fact not a theory) which almost completely offsets the greenhouse gas warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics. The overlap of absorption of water vapor and CO2 reduces the forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by roughly a factor of 4, so the warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with no ‘feedbacks’ is less than a watt/m^2 rather than 3.7 watt/m^2 which will result in warming of roughly 0.15C, not including the offsetting increase in convection cooling.
The warming of 0.15C is so small the warming without feedbacks will be the same as with feedbacks.
Check out figure 2 in this paper.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
” Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.”
The IPCC’s general circulation models (GCMs) have more than 100 different parameters that than can and have been adjusted without any physical justification/reason to create model output warming to push the cult of CAGW’s agenda. A key variable that is adjusted is wind speed which is reduce over the oceans which reduces evaporation cooling. The reduction in wind speed accounts more than a 1/3 of the warming in the goofy GCM. The GCMs were created and ‘tuned’ to create CAGW.
The warming in the last 150 years is almost completely due to solar cycle changes not the rise in atmospheric CO2. The same regions that warmed in the last 150 years are the same regions have warmed and cold cyclically in the paleo record correlating with solar cycle changes. If above assertions are correct, global warming is reversible.
Comments:
The solar cycle has been interrupted. The sun spots are shrinking and then disappearing which is different than a reduction in the number of sunspots. The last gasp of warming is due solar wind bursts which are caused by coronal holes. The coronal holes now starting to also disappear.
The paleo record shows that regions of the Atlantic ocean and Pacific ocean were as much as 10C colder than present 150 years ago. The higher latitude 40 degree to 60 degree cooling of the ocean is caused by an increase in cloud cover in that region and an increase in wind speed. The Greenland ice sheet record shows an increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during cooling phases. The dust that deposit during the abrupt cooling phases on the Greenland ice sheet comes from the Gobi desert.
The Increase in wind speed is caused by solar cycle changes.
“…the fact that almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes…”
—————
Really? Bold assertions need strong proof. Where’s the
beefproof?Hi, Alan! Fun and apt allusion to (this for non-American pop trivia saavy folks):
“Where’s the beef?” (youtube)
“… I don’t think there’s any {real scientists} back there.” Clara Peller.
In response to Alan Robertson’s query.
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events which have characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period. The cyclic warming and cooling is observed in both hemispheres and has the same periodicity in both hemispheres. (See: Does Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle?) The super abrupt cooling events the Heinrich events occur roughly every 8000 to 10000 years and fall on the same 1470 year periodicity. Think of the same forcing function that comes in a medium and super large version. The magnitude of the response for the super large version is amplified or inhibited by the orbital position at the time of the solar cycle restart.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
It is obvious if one understands the mechanisms, how the sun is currently changing, and how the sun is different than that the standard model, that the planet is about to abruptly cool. Abrupt cooling will change the paradigm to a crisis, the entire scientific basis of the IPCC was incorrect.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Current day observations that support the assertion the warming is due to a change in planetary cloud cover, not due to a change in atmospheric CO2 which explains why the warming is regional specific rather than global warming.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
If you don’t like Global Warming storms, you’ll HATE Global Cooling storms!
What’s wrong with adjustments?
They make the models work.
Look here how Gavin is touting the model accuracy once he adjusts things.
https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/689889733737082880?refsrc=email&s=11
Should be the end of denial, right? And an apology is in order?
Whoa!
He can alter the data enough to make it look like the models!
Who’d a thunk it?
Nope. Updating the models so that they better match the observations.
BTW … isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?
“Updating the models so that they better match the
observationsadjusted data.”Brandon, are you saying the models are trained to reflect the real values?
How can you adjust a model otherwise?
Either the physics in the model are correct, or they are not, in which case they need to be re-written. What is this “adjustment” you speak of?
In reality, global temperature is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2; the global warming crisis exists only in fiction and falsehood.
The current El Nino warming blip is temporary and will disappear in about a year.
Earth temperatures have not warmed significantly in about two decades despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
The warmists “solved” this contradiction in their global warming meme by falsifying (“adjusting”) the surface temperature data record.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-18-12-36-03.png
“Probable cause”. Heh. I guess there will be plenty of that, when the time comes for the Climate Liars to pay the piper.
(Dr. Richard Lindzen, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/20/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-on-hottest-year-claim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/#ixzz3xueX8Qe4 )
**original wording “argue about” — this phrase implies that debate over the data is, per se, not honest, which I do not think Lindzen meant to say or to imply.
This is for you, Josh, after valiantly sacrificing yourself, staring at that {{shudder}} unsavory face in order to draw your fine cartoon for us….
a little eye-wash:
http://quotes.lol-rofl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/happy_boy.jpg
Two thumbs up, Josh!
You are a treasure.
Janice
You are very kind, thank you 😉
🙂
OK – enough!
I’ve had it with you Eastern warmists.
So in February, I’m calling down some brutally frigid winter weather on you.
Mark you calendars and get out your long woollies…
I’m waiting for someone to admit that we don’t really know what the temperature of globe is. Now or then.
We have a lot of guesses. Some educated, some not so much.
If we don’t really know the temps for the then and the now then there is zip, zero, nada, NO justification for the policies to prevent a (theoretical, modeled) future temperature.
Man doesn’t really know squat enough to act upon.
In case you see THIS (hard to “connect” on WUWT), Gunga Din, I saw your comment on some thread (“Failed Math” ?? and wrote to you there in reply) explaining that you did not mean to admonish me for lambasting that THREAD POLLUTER, B.G..
I believe you.
All is well.
Your ally for truth,
Janice
We’re cool.
🙂
Thanks, Josh!
Great caption for a great cartoon.
We have a very cold winter in sweden and i need to buy a awd car. But I have trouble finding an affordable 4×4 (sic) because tax is based on CO2 emissions, and awd cars have bigger engines. So I can afford to buy the car but not drive it. I dont want colder climaye, I would rather pay the politicians for making the climate warmer. Instead they say they will make climate colder and charge me extra for heating and gas. I dont like it, voting every 4 years dont seem to make any differense since in sweden all parties have the same agenda, huge carbon tax and endless immigration.
And on Sweden we produce less CO2 per capita than China does, and we are only 10 million. It is only a tax scam. For thousands of years priests have collected offering, taxes, in return for better climate. This is no different, the palaces are banks and priests are politicians. Grim.
[Note: Since awd = All Wheel Drive, a vintage pink Jeep would be an odd old awd. 8<) .mod]
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/HocusLocus_photos/Cartoon-by-Josh-Dymaxion.png
The Masked Mercator to Dymaxion-izer strikes again! Print, cut out and fold over flaps to create an icosahedron to put on your desk. Unfortunately this Buckminster Fuller ‘interrupted map projection’ is extremely unfriendly to media that are not Mercator maps. Which has now been amply demonstrated by the Masked Mercator to Dymaxion-izer.
lol — btw: LOVED the dymaxion dealie-o of the black magic CO2 “map” the other day. Jeeeehst a leeetle red blob…… ?? ……….. there……… here — look through this magnifying glass. lololol
Sour grapes from Josh.
‘It hasn’t warmed since 2015’,
Consider Josh’s cartoon not as sour grapes, rather consider it as sauce for the goose.
John
Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ScreenHunter_2900-Sep.-04-06.50.gif
CRU Temperature Fraud
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/cru-temperature-fraud/
More at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/