Cart and Horse – Cause and Effect – Industrial Revolution and Climate Change

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball


Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW) seldom, if ever, consider the null hypothesis. As a result, it is now accepted but still unproven. This parallels the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose work is accepted and applied as an underlying principle of policy and research in all countries even though it is found wanting by failed predictions (projections). You can see the effects of this in the US where the IPCC work is accepted by NOAA as the gold standard, which makes it the basis for all other research in every government department. The people, like Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS, who are telling the politicians the work is valid are bureaucrats, most of them directly connected to the IPCC. In Canada, the Prime Minister used a report prepared for him by Gregory Flato, an Environment Canada employee, and a Lead Author of the 2013 IPCC Report. His Report says in part

The science is conclusive: Warming is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear.

This is false but self-serving; they said it, so it is true. It is the result of the deliberate way the entire global warming deception was designed. However, beyond the science, what most people don’t understand is that it imposes certain philosophical and cultural views and values most of which are contrary to natural law. What they do is take normal events and present them as abnormal, by which they mean caused by humans. This creates a philosophical contradiction between humans being both natural and unnatural.

Some of the bizarre assumptions they create are that

· There are too many people on the planet.

· People are animals in a Darwinian sense, but an aberration not living by the rules of nature. In fact, by Darwin’s measure they are the most successful.

· Human development, especially as industrial societies, is an aberration and unnatural.

· People are using resources at an unsustainable rate, some more than others.

· The worst offenders are the ‘developed’ nations thus making them a bigger aberration.

· Human actions are unnatural and thereby causing irreversible damage.

· The only solution is total government control at all levels.

· This nested control requires a single over-arching world government because the impacts of the aberrant humans are global.

· Evolution does not apply to human social and economic development.

· Darwin’s evolutionary theory, which they believe, says animals and their behavior are a response to the environment. However, they say humans are the creator of the environment through global warming – it is how the Gaia hypothesis became part of their theoretical picture.

In its extreme form, these views of humans were expressed by Ingrid Newkirk of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who said, “Mankind is cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” The sentiment is more moderately expressed but similar in this quote from the preamble to the 1994 world conference on population in Cairo;

There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement of social inequities and of poverty with the above-mentioned consequences for demographic parameters.

All these assumptions are necessary to perpetuate the myth of AGW. A recent article, “New climate reconstruction study claims humans have been causing warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution,” is such a study. It was designed to catch media attention. Most climate articles, especially those published by Nature, only seek a headline. They even set up an offshoot in 2011, Nature Climate Change, to further politicize and propagandize the issue. A headline is the objective of the machinations by NASA GISS to create the “hottest year on record” even by impossible minuscule amounts. The headline is everything, and subsequent refutations receive no attention.

There are warning signs all over the article: including

· the journal in which it is published

· the multitude of authors, 25 in total.

· their evidence for the human causation claim is from model simulations,

· the article assumes evidence for AGW is proven

· even a cursory reading questions whether the article was peer-reviewed

· The article was introduced through a press-release. Why? To get the headline.

· It is impossible to identify the human portion of warming even in the modern instrumental record. The IPCC achieved it by ignoring virtually every variable of the complex system that is the weather. It is a predetermined result that ignores the fact that in every record, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.

Nic Lewis provides a solid deconstruction of the article at Climate Audit. He concludes,

It appears that the claim in Abrams et al. that the diagnosed early onset – about 180 years ago in some regions – of industrial-era warming is of anthropogenic origin is based on inappropriate evidence that does not substantiate that claim, which is very likely incorrect.

The idea that it is only evident in some regions contradicts the constant claim by AGW proponents that events are not significant unless they are global. They made this claim with both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA).

In the press release the Lead researcher (who was lead author?) states

“It was an extraordinary finding,” “It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”

No it didn’t, it started some 330 years ago at the nadir of the LIA. The results were clear but irrelevant because the assumptions are wrong and the evidence used is inadequate and contradicts the total evidence.

The statement is no surprise because it is what they wanted to find. They already believed that the warming since the nadir of the LIA is due to the human activities of the Industrial Revolution (IR). It appears that they knew if they could extend the warming period back it would reinforce the AGW claim. What they forget is that even the IPCC had the decency to say the human signal is not clearly detectable until 1950. In fact, it is exactly the opposite; the IR was triggered by climate change not as the authors claim. There is no evidence that the IR triggered the warming except in the IPCC Reports, and we know they are wrong because every prediction they made since 1990 was wrong. If the prediction is wrong, the science is wrong.

The general temperature pattern of the earth over the last 1000 years is shown in the diagram of Northern Hemisphere temperatures that became 7 (c) in the 1990 IPCC Report (Figure 1).


Figure 1

It was the graph that the IPCC determined to eliminate through the so-called hockey stick. The Nature article focuses on the extent of the warming period and argues that the human warming covers 180 years of the approximately 330 years since the nadir of the LIA in 1680. They contradict the IPCC claim that the LIA did not occur.

The Industrial Revolution marked the switch from wood to coal as a source of energy in England. Wood was virtually the only source of heat energy at the time. It remains a major source today, but little is known about total amounts. As the temperatures declined from the Medieval Warm Period several factors put increasing pressure on wood sources and triggered innovation and adaptation.


Figure 2

Figure 2 (produced by IPCC member Martin Parry in a 1975 study on the impacts of cooling) shows the changes in land use for the County of Berwickshire on the Scottish border for the period from the MWP to the LIA. The loss of agricultural land put increased pressure on remaining land that triggered forest clearing. It also created invention and innovation with small technologies that triggered the Agricultural Revolution defined as a

…gradual transformation of the traditional agricultural system that began in Britain in the 18th century. Aspects of this complex transformation, which was not completed until the 19th century, included the reallocation of land ownership to make farms more compact and an increased investment in technical improvements, such as new machinery, better drainage, scientific methods of breeding, and experimentation with new crops and systems of crop rotation.

Surplus food is surplus time, and it also allowed people to live and work in cities. As I tell farmers, there are no farms in the cities, but there are no cities without farms.

Other factors that placed pressure on forest resources included

· Colder conditions forced a switch from open single room residences with a hole in the roof for smoke to escape to half-timbered houses with more rooms and often a fireplace in each room.


Claimed to be the oldest house in England

· Conflict over resources pushed for the growth of merchant fleets and navies to protect them and the nation. For example, herring were forced out of the Baltic by cooler water and into the North Sea where a fishing war began between the English and the Dutch. The amount of oak and other woods required for building a single galleon was enormous. Samuel Pepys’ virtually created the Royal Navy and his famous diaries complain constantly about getting adequate timber. Vice Admiral Collingwood (1748-1810) was so concerned about future needs that he carried acorns in his pocket, and when walking in the countryside, he planted one in every suitable site. Admiral Lord Nelson was also concerned.

After visiting the forest in 1803, Nelson asked the Admiralty to ensure more trees were planted, and the so-called Trafalgar Oaks flourished.


· Demand for various forms of metal work, including armaments, farm equipment, and building materials placed greater demand on wood for charcoal.

· A severe frost in 1709 reportedly destroyed 75 % of the walnut trees and damaged many others.

· Pressure for forest resources triggered various legislative changes including freeing up Royal Forests reserved solely for the King, in a process called disafforestation.

The Forest of Dean was subject to disafforestation in 1667. It was a major center of charcoal production with a unique form of licensing called Freemining that soon put pressure on the resource.

The Forest of Dean also has coal and iron ore seams close to the surface.

The existence of coal and iron ore, together with charcoal from the Forest for smelting, stimulated early industrial development in the area.

You can visit the symbol of the Industrial Revolution, the Iron Bridge opened in 1781.


Nearby you can visit the Ironbridge Museums, a remarkable sequence of small towns all displaying and commemorating in living museums where one of the greatest advances in human evolution and development occurred.

The authors of the study claiming AGW began much earlier than previously thought were apparently predisposed to prove what they already believed. They accept that AGW is proved when the only ‘proof’ is in the output of the IPCC computer models that are consistently wrong. The authors, like all AGW proponents, in their determination to “blame humans” for every single change, label each change an aberration. They ignore the time sequences and preponderance of other events and facts that provide a more logical explanation. The false picture they create forces policies and practices that are often more destructive. How else can you consider philosophies that result in bumper stickers that say


[Note: the original featured image, a hand-drawn cartoon of a cart and horse was removed a few minutes after publication and replaced with the current image, due to me realizing there was a copyright restriction on it. The error was mine, not by Dr. Ball. -Anthony]


79 thoughts on “Cart and Horse – Cause and Effect – Industrial Revolution and Climate Change

    • don’t know why. With modern bearing it would have much less rolling resistance than your standard horse buggy. The weight would have been pared right down by removing the entire drive train and front end of the car.

    • I feel sorry for the people in those countries that have accepted false Global Warming alarmism.

      Great article Tim, thank you.

      Regards, Allan

      September 4, 2015
      By Allan MacRae

      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

  1. For gits and shiggles:

    The USAF study on infrared radiation attenuation with altitude was for the purpose of determining if a usable image survived to operational altitudes.

    See, the heat energy from the Candle does keep coming through the tube, its just it gets diffused too. But the tube warms up and if the gas wasn’t sealed inside the tube it would rise to a level where it cooled off more rapidly.

    The imaging study didn’t prove anything about CO2, it only proved that the atmosphere is full of infrared scattering gasses. CO2 doesn’t absorb all of the IR frequency like water vapor does.

    So even the basic premise behind blaming CO2 is ruined because it doesn’t stay where it is put to begin with.

    The next item is the law of thermodynamics. Pressure is controlled by gravity. This means increases in induced energy will cause a decrease in density – atmospheric expansion.

    Uh… yeah.

    So basically “climate science” doesn’t even pass a test of the law of thermodynamics.

    Thermosphere heating and expansion directly related to UV events and solar wind disturbances.

    The changes in the Thermosphere can result in changes to the Ionosphere resulting in increased penetration and heating by electromagnetic radiation.

    These kinds of effects occur all the way down the shells of the atmosphere.

  2. Humans are a product of the same natural process that produced rocks and rock.
    A dichotomy that does not exist cannot be enumerated by science.
    Religion works for that.

    I look forward to more theological papers with graphs and squiggly lines.
    Mathiness is also impressive.

  3. Mann et al and the hockey stick temperature reconstruction was just too convenient to abandon, despite problems with the proxies and the programming. I had a troll on another site refer to a study in Nature with no lead author defending Mann and the hockey stick, another “study” that was a listing of supporters of the accepted wisdom.

    • Today on Fox News Online, Michael Mann was consulted on “post-tropical depression Hermine” (we’re still waiting on this beautiful sparkling sunny day) and he said “one foot sea level rise caused by global warming means an additional 25 square miles may be inundated BEYOND what happened in SuperStorm Sandy.”
      Implying that the sea level has risen a foot since 2012? These people are now SHAMELESS!

  4. With AGW assertion being easily challenged, and since the eco-fright crowd ignores such challenge, isn’t it time to dramatize the damage their ‘fixes’ will do, if they have their way. Their cause is ‘anti-capitalism’ not ant-warming.

    • In my AGW debates, I always try to employ the following as a coup de grace…

      “Even if AGW is on the level, spending more than $13 Trillion dollars and nearly doubling our national debt in the U.S., would, according to the IPCC, only maintain the status quo and not actually improve the current situation. In other words, we would have to virtually ruin our economy before we begin to see even the slightest improvement in the climate model predictions.”

      However, I’ve noticed that AGW proponents are now being programmed to preemptively dismiss this argument by claiming that doing little or nothing (which, so far, has resulting in virtually no increased warming for 18 years) will somehow cost more than the astronomical price tag of doing nothing to eliminate current CO2 emissions.

      As usual, they also fail to account for natural variability in their accounting and thus fail to recognize (or admit?) that most, if not all, of the costs are just as likely to still be incurred regardless of any steps taken to restrict CO2 emissions to current levels. And according to an MIT economics/finance professor who supports AGW theory, the reality is any climate change cost-benefit analysis is doomed to failure because “We don’t really know the costs. We don’t really know the benefits.” But then goes on to say, ya, let’s go ahead and do it anyway…just in case. Sure, ok, even if the risk was evident, that logic makes about as much sense as quitting your job and going homeless just because most highway deaths occur during commutes to and from work.

  5. I recommend a visit to Ironbridge. It’s a fascinating and beautiful place. Great history that changed the world.

    I also recommend a visit to the Forest of Dean. It’s a fascinating and beautiful place. Tolkien holidayed there as a child and it inspired Middle Earth. Also you can spot all the movie locations (they filmed the scene where Rey first uses a light sabre in The Force Awakens in the Forest of Dean). Lot’s of other films too… but strangely not including Harry Potter, despite filming 10 miles away in Gloucester Cathedral.
    Wouldn’t want to live there though. It’s weird.

    • I can visit it anytime I want to – I have a reproduction of the William Williams painting of it on my wall, courtesy of my dad, who was an afficionado of bridges, and of all things iron, steel, and especially stainless steel.

  6. [Note: the original featured image, a hand-drawn cartoon of a cart and horse was removed a few minutes after publication and replaced with the current image, due to me realizing there was a copyright restriction on it. The error was mine, not by Dr. Ball. -Anthony]

    I didn’t see the original image but your replacement is more to the point.
    It depicts that once we had progress but the “CAGW” myth is taking back to the stables.

    PS My latest utility bill indicates that the supply cost for my electric has doubled.
    It would appear that “The War on Coal” is being waged against us.

  7. A piece of news. Angela Merkel’s party has been thumped by the AfD party. It won’t put Merkel out of power but it is a sign that she’ll have continuing problems.

    The AfD party does not support unilateral European action on climate change.

    “Scientific research on the long-term development of the climate because of man-made CO2 emissions is fraught with uncertainty. On top of that, a global problem can be solved only by a coordinated initiative of all the big economic nations. For that reason, the AfD rejects all national and European unilateral action.” link

    I don’t know enough about German politics to have an opinion. It does seem to indicate that people are fed on both sides of the Atlantic and part of that is due to governments pushing CAGW.

    The other day I heard a piece on the CBC (Canadian public radio) about energy poverty. I was astounded. The CBC is a dedicated pusher of CAGW (and other kinds of) propaganda. Maybe someone didn’t realize the implications. Fighting CAGW has caused the price of electricity to soar in the Canadian province of Ontario and is the cause of energy poverty. I look as this as more light at the end of the tunnel because more and more people are realizing the falsity of CAGW and the enormous and unnecessary cost of fighting it.

    The picture at the top of this article is a car pulled by a horse. During the great depression, such vehicles were called Bennett Buggies in Canada, named for the prime minister. In America they were called Hoover Carts. The names were a real symbol of people’s disgust. Everytime you saw one it reminded you of how much you hated the politicians, bankers, wealthy industrialists, etc.

    • Actually, Germany is the poster child for energy poverty. Their energy prices have more than doubled in the last few years due to the subsidies they have given renewables, price relief to industry that they do not want to leave the country and shutting down the nuclear plants. Many households simply cannot afford to heat their homes.

    • AGW aficionados with socialistic tendencies may tell us that there are simple solutions to any energy poverty caused by adoption of green technologies: Give people more money. Problem solved.

    • Four per cent of Ontario homes are in default on their hydro bill, and eight per cent are behind on payments. That is the scale of poverty being imposed on an unwilling population by the CAGW government.

      The leader assured us the price will double again in the coming years. It doubled over the last ten.

  8. Yes, great image at the top. I remember seeing Germans plowing/ploughing with horses in the 60s. My father told us that in some of the really remote areas they went to on army exercises people were pulling the plows/ploughs themselves. They would still be doing that if they hadn’t burned some fuel.

  9. All this Anthropogenic Global Warming debate is significantly funded by Big Oil.

    What an incredible thing to say right? But it is true. Would the owners of EXXON qualify for the “Big Oil” label.

    When ever we are accused of being “bought” by Big Oil one can laugh and then got ot this site and see who significantly funds – The UN,, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and just about every other “Green” initiative that exists.

    The link is

    Conversely, one may trace finance from the donee organisations. Most “green” initiatives/foundations or what have you have a finance page which lists their supporters. Almost invariably you will find big oil there, although there may be more than one tier of finance to trace through.

    Dont forget ICLEI and the “100 Resilient Cities”

    Another interesting link is



  10. “It was the graph that the IPCC determined to eliminate through the so-called hockey stick.”

    It is a hand-drawn graph from (Lamb 1965) and stems from a time when no large-scale temperature reconstructions were available yet. To give an indication of past climate variability, the report showed Lamb’s Central England estimate.

    It was simply a quickly drawn (not even a temp scale) schematic graph drawn up for a book by Lamb based on very simplistic evidence ….. and as you would expect – science has simply advanced to come up with more in depth studies (many) that now show that the MWP (globally, not just in England) was a not as pronounced, and also of course, current temps are now also more advanced.

    This gives an account of it’s history….

    • It may well be “simply a quickly drawn (not even a temp scale) schematic graph drawn up for a book by Lamb based on very simplistic evidence” but that hat would be a very good fit for Mann, Jons and Briffa’s work too IMO. Any supposed ‘scientist’ who employs things like “Mike’s Nature trick” or ‘hide the decline’ simply has zero credit as a witness in the debate. Zip, zero, nil, nix, none. IMO they are simply grandstanding fraud’s.

      I don’t know where that leaves us. Where the hell could you turn to these days to get a reliable and credible crew to redo the task and try and get to the bottom of the issue? The whole ‘climate science’ field is so taken over by careerists, advocates, activists and apparatchiks that it is no exaggeration to characterise it as ‘Gaiantology’. The allusion there is deliberate not just on a quasi religious basis but also in terms of very aggressive treatment of doubters and critics, let alone ‘apostates’. The term ‘denier’ evidences that vicious attitude to any opposition.

      What possible credit can the CAGW mob have? (and I mean vicious, witch burning, lynching ‘mob’ ). These zealots have taken over large swathes of public administration in the same way that the early so called christians took over that of the Roman Empire. They are the IS of science, IMO.

      • This all reminds me too much, way too much, of a certain science based ology-religion that attacks its detractors just as viciously, maybe more so, and is equally based in fiction.

      • Komrade Kuma asks:

        Where the hell could you turn to these days to get a reliable and credible crew to redo the task

        Of course, that would be the point of the entire campaign; you can’t go anywhere. It’s an elegant attack on reason because it can’t be refuted by science. The allegations aren’t scientific to begin with, they aren’t based on evidence. The proponents have made claims of evidence, but even superficial examination shows the evidence is thin at best, largely nonexistent. Some is obviously fabricated. The result is there’s no refutation possible because the data doesn’t exist.

        The climate warriors have created a situation in which they’ve presented a story as fact to a guileless public. Detractors and critics are challenged to prove them wrong, however the technology necessary to prove the allegation either way simply doesn’t exist. The fossil record is incapable of delivering the precision and accuracy to both make the claims that have been made, or to disprove them. The instrument record is too short to be credible.

        And so the winner is the party that tells the best story. That’s all there is to it.

    • I believe you and I kept my health care too.
      You have lost all credibility.
      Who pays you to be a troll?
      Or do you do it for free?
      You are now at the same level as Dan Rather.
      Keep on digging.

    • Trick of language. There is not the evidence to say the MWP was as pronounced, rather than “there is evidence is was not as pronounced”.

      So, not enough evidence for the MWP, mainly due to lack of tropics and SH paleo data. OK sounds reasonable, but then it gets replaced by a spliced truncated hockey stick that had data deleted from it because “it diluted the message” and all weighted by one tiny proxy series of data that is even less data than the evidence for the MWP

      Yup seems legit

    • “… science has simply advanced to come up with more in depth studies (many) that now show that the MWP (globally, not just in England) was a not as pronounced, and also of course, current temps are now also more advanced …”.
      How do you know that?
      There were no thermometers back during the MWP let alone satellite data, the more recent proxy studies may be more precise than Lamb but there is no way of knowing whether they are more accurate.
      BTW there is no hockey stick, no Anthropocene, apparent in the Central England thermometer record:

      • “How do you know that?
        There were no thermometers back during the MWP let alone satellite data, the more recent proxy studies may be more precise than Lamb but there is no way of knowing whether they are more accurate.”

        So neither is the evidence for a MWP (worldwide and warmer then present) then!

        “BTW there is no hockey stick, no Anthropocene, apparent in the Central England thermometer record:”

        No indeed:
        Here it is…..

        And CET shows a rise of ~0.8C over its length.

      • You would be daft to – unless you had a long run of data befere that and you could determine a trend …. in which case that would be best indicator.
        Err, like we have now.

      • You would be daft to – unless you had a long run of data before that and you could determine a trend …. in which case that would be best indicator.
        Err, like we have now.

      • “No indeed … Here it is….. “.
        Like the ‘hockey stick’ itself that graph is a fabrication.
        Here are a number of the longest thermometer records available; all show a gentle warming trend from the LIA — the coldest episode during this interglacial — but none show that oh-so-familiar shape, no ‘hockeystick’:

      • Thanks, Justanelectrician! From just an electrical engineer.

        Anything from Bob Tisdale is the gold standard of objective rationality.

        I like that Housefather at least tries.

      • Toneb, I think it is generally accepted that the Little Ice Age (LIA) was the coldest extended period over the Holocene. There was the 8200 Year Event and the period between the Roman Optimum and Medieval Warm Periods, both possibly as cold, but of shorter durations.

        I hope we can all agree that the LIA was a seriously cold period in human history, engendering extreme suffering and widespread death. Coming out of it’s cold depths has been a boon to mankind. It is clear that the past warming has had its fits and starts, even periods of temporary cooling.

        Recent estimated temperature levels are not unusual compared to those estimated over the rest of the Holocene. It seems we have a ways to go to reach the levels of temperatures estimated for the Holocene Optimum period(s). With temperatures leveling over the first part of the 21st Century, it is not certain that we will ever reach those higher estimates.

        You suggested to me we needed a long run of data in order to draw conclusions. I infer from your comment that you think there is such a long run of data supporting AGW. I disagree.

        The only run of data that could conceivably support AGW is that from the late 1970’s to the end of the 20th Century. A little over 20 years is hardly a long run. Additionally, I won’t bother to list the known ocean and atmospheric processes that contributed to warming during that period; we all know them well.

        Radiosondes and satellites paint a different picture of the evolution of 21st Century temperatures than do the surface data. I believe atmospheric measures are more pertinent to global climatic effects of all the forces at work. I’m willing to let history, however, decide which is a more accurate representation of the evolution of our world’s climate.

        I regret that this is a rather late comment. Gym, feeding horses, scooping the results, showering and eating my wife’s fabulous ribeye, sauteed portobello mushrooms and steamed vegetables are distractants from resolving global climate disputes.

        Charlie Skeptic, aka Dave Fair

      • “Radiosondes and satellites paint a different picture of the evolution of 21st Century temperatures than do the surface data.”

        Really – Not what the folks at RSS think:

        “The excellent agreement between all TLT datasets in the northern extratropics should put to rest any doubt that there is significant warming of the troposphere in this region. This level of agreement is likely to be due to the high quality of most of the radiosonde stations in this region, the dense sampling of radisondes (which increases the likelihood that neighbor-based homogenizations techniques are successful), along with the relatively small diurnal adjustments needed for the satellite datasets…….”

        “…….This leads us to suspect that the radiosonde results are less reliable higher in the atmosphere. This is likely to be at least part of the cause for the decreasing agreement between radiosonde results and satellite results as we move to higher altitudes.

        The two satellite datasets also become more different from each other at higher altitude. There is a large difference between RSS and UAH TMT in the tropics, with RSS being in good agreement with the RAOBCORE measurement, and UAH showing agreement with the RUK and HadAT results. In the lower stratosphere, RSS shows substantially less cooling than UAH at all latitudes. Unfortunately, due to the suspect reliability of the radiosonde datasets in the stratosphere, they cannot be used to unambiguously determine which satellite dataset is closer to being correct.”

      • And I dont see any graphs from the Arctic and sub-arctic zones, where AGW has had most effect.

        And I wouldn’t expect to see such a marked “blade” in either CET or any of the other graphs you show.
        You do know that a large sample averages out variability to show up the trend?

        However, you can see on CET that there has been more warming post 1980.

        “With the (im)proper adjustments, your graphs can look just like Toneb’s.”

        Oh of course – if all else fails, it’s all a hoax.
        I don’t see much relevant changes post 1970 here ….

      • Missed a bit ……

        “Like the ‘hockey stick’ itself that graph is a fabrication.
        Here are a number of the longest thermometer records available; all show a gentle warming trend from the LIA — the coldest episode during this interglacial — but none show that oh-so-familiar shape, no ‘hockeystick’:”

        Actually, I though you folks rant on about the HS in part because of the fattening of the MWP bit … but anyway, the “blade” bit evident from around 1970 in the GLOBAL record coincided with the period when GHG’s +ve feedback overcame the -ve of aerosols – which you can see from the following graph…….

      • Toneb writes:

        Unfortunately, due to the suspect reliability of the radiosonde datasets in the stratosphere, they cannot be used to unambiguously determine which satellite dataset is closer to being correct.

        An observation that gives lie to my earlier comment concerning the advent of the instrument age, but lends some credence to the idea that it’s too short to be credible anyway. There’s an old saying about time; a man with a watch always knows the time, but a man with two watches can never be sure.

        In the end, you’ve failed to either prove or disprove the case of AGW; the data simply doesn’t exist. So it all comes down to which story you choose to believe and that isn’t what I would call science, certainly not anything a rational person uses to develop public policy.

      • @Toneb: If you wouldn’t mind sourcing the data for that last graph you posted showing temp, CO2 & etc? It’s interesting, never seen it before.

  11. “their evidence for the human causation claim is from model simulations,”
    Reminds me of a quote I read years ago. “To err is human but it takes a computer to really foul thing up”.

  12. If one goes back in history, man was the greatest destroyer of mega-fauna in history. From the age of cognition, about 40,000 years ago, wherever man went, mega-fauna disappeared. This was particularly true in Australia and North America, where man had not migrated before. Once man arrived, essentially all large animals disappeared. And that occurred long before man affected the environment in other ways.

    So, is it really better to regress back to the stone age when man did his most damage to biodiversity, or progress using our knowledge and scientific abilities into a more advanced age where man is aware of nature and protects it. Not be reducing GHG emissions, but by increasing biodiversity and life through CO2 fertilization and habitat restoration.

    The book Sapiens: A Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Harari gives an excellent account of the development of humans as a species and their impact on early environmental conditions. I don’t agree with all the conclusions in this work, but it does present a compelling argument that man from 40,000 years ago shaped and formed the environment in many ways well beyond what minor impacts we have today. And those that do not understand this history of mankind will condemn us to repeat the mistakes of the past.

    • Dr Bob

      Have you looked at the CO2 levels of 40000 years ago? I recall (cannot locate it) an article which pointed out that CO2 levels at the time were so low, about 180 ppm that the food chain collapsed. Flora almost disappeared, the dependent herbivores disappeared and in turn the carnivores disappeared. Nothing to do with humans. Also Monash University has a graph about the Sahul, ttp://
      shows how sea-level change through time alters the area of land masses and that land mass stretched up into SE asia. The Gulf of Carpentaria was a small lake in the middle of this vast landmass. Aboriginals did not “arrive” in Australia, they were cut off by rising sea levels. The Australian landmass we are familiar with today did not come into existence until 20000 years ago.

    • That speculation seems a bit wild Bob. How many humans occupied Earth 40,000 years ago? The whole planet? Any idea? My bet is it was much less than a million since published estimates suggest that number about 10,000 years ago, which makes it very difficult to think they might have had a significant effect on worldwide “mega-fauna”. How do 250,000 humans kill every large animal on the planet all by themselves with wooden spears?

  13. An irrelevant comment: The French also planted vast oak forests for a navy. French oak never went into a great navy, but it’s great for barreling wine.

  14. “There are too many people on the planet.”
    Maybe that explains progressive socialist open borders policies and U.S. heroin epidemic.

  15. Thank you again for a brilliant essay Dr. Ball. Your initial points made me want to write volumes in support since I feel the same way. Rather than subject everyone to that, I’ll just echo your dismay with Nature and its bastard offspring. I miss Nature too.

  16. Dr. Ball, there is one point you make I’d like to comment on. You write:

    People are using resources at an unsustainable rate, some more than others.

    At the root of this complaint is that there are people who think others are consuming more than their “fair share”. I think that’s important because the message is being sent by none other than Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates along with various and sundry others. It’s not a message being sent by the peons of the world; it’s being sent by the haves to the have nots.

    To my min its a fairly clear expression of greed. I and my family are using resources at an unsustainable rate, and it’s imperative Al Gore carry that message to me on a Gulfstream IV. This seems to me the basest form of hypocrisy and it truly amazes me so many people seem willing to voluntarily cede their resources to people who “just deserve them more”.

Comments are closed.