By Michael David White
A change in temperature is a change in climate. We worry about man-made climate change if a temperature change will last decades or centuries and if the change will disfigure the environment.
The physical basics of climate change state that “atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs and re-radiates longwave radiation downwards. The radiation is trapped (or at least delayed) meaning that there is more of it around and hence temperatures go up.” [1]
Solar energy which would normally go out into space is kept inside earth’s weather system by the presence of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, especially water, “trap some of the heat we receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space.” [2]
***
How much can increased atmospheric carbon dioxide be expected to warm the earth? If the atmosphere is sensitive, it will heat a lot. If insensitive, new carbon dioxide will have limited effect. Climate change proponents argue that if the atmosphere is sensitive, we must phase out use of fossil fuels.
The opponents agree with all of the science laid out here, but think the atmosphere is not sensitive to increased carbon dioxide, meaning that carbon dioxide emissions will not have a profound impact on water and clouds and the greenhouse effect. Skeptics believe other factors, like the sun and the ocean, are predominant in creation of weather and temperature.
We know from the historical record that “the climate changes all the time, in different and unpredictable” [3] ways.
Earth’s temperature changes constantly. The range of temperatures is approximately 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 10,000 years. The chart shows temperatures in Greenland fluctuating between negative 29 degrees Celsius to negative 32.5 degrees Celsius. Do they prove climate change real? Yes, climate change is real and constant. Is “manmade” carbon dioxide causing climate change? In all of the 10,000 years shown in the chart man played no role in the change of temperature or the carbon dioxide level. The climate changes with or without man’s presence. (See the chart: “10,000 Years of Climate Change. The Climate Has Always Changed.”)
Is the addition or subtraction of carbon dioxide the consequential factor in the creation of global temperature? Is air with added carbon dioxide the “greatest threat facing humankind today”? [4] Or, if we take action to reduce carbon dioxide, will we simply close “a window in a house with no walls”? [5]
***
Pre-industrial carbon dioxide was 280 parts-per-million (ppm). Current carbon dioxide is 400 ppm.
Our current carbon dioxide level is “near to an all-time low as assessed against the geological record.” [6] Using a 550 million-year timeframe, the “earth currently exists in a state of carbon dioxide dioxide starvation.” [7] Carbon dioxide is increasing, but compared to history it’s abnormally low.
Sea levels have been rising due to the climate but “sea levels have been rising steadily at the same rate for at least the last 700 years.” [8] Sea levels have risen about 130 meters – equal to a 30-story building — in our current interglacial, beginning 12,000 years ago. [9]
Sea levels for the past twenty years have risen 3.2 millimeters a year, according to the University of Colorado. [10] They are rising a foot-a-century. The width of a laptop screen.
Ice at the poles is also a critical measure of temperature trends. Ice cover in Antarctica in 2014 was greater than any in the satellite record started in the late 1970s. NASA says sea ice cover in Antarctica has grown 1.5 per cent a decade for several decades and was 7.7 million square miles at its maximum in 2014. [11]
Ice cover in the arctic is at or near lows in the satellite record. The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports three million square miles of arctic ice in July 2016. The poles are moving in opposite directions, but the arctic is shrinking faster (21,000 square miles a year) than the Antarctic is growing (7,300 square miles a year).
***
The key figure in dangerous manmade global warming is temperature change. Temperatures have warmed 0.7 degrees Centigrade in the twentieth century. [12] Other sources say the increase is slightly higher or about 0.8°C or 1.4°F. [13] The increase is small enough to be almost “undetectable” for human observers. The Met Office calls the increase 0.8° C in the last 150 years. [14] “But the great bulk of it—0.5°C out of the 0.8°C—occurred during the last quarter of the twentieth century.”
The increase in temperature stopped about eighteen years ago. [15] The rapid upward movement of temperature at the end of the 20th Century created a factual basis for concern, but not an alarming concern in view of the historic temperature record.
“We actually live in a cold epoch,” according to Ian Plimer, emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. “Ice is a rare rock and has been on Earth for less than twenty per cent of its history.” [16]
Warming of one degree centigrade since the Little Ice Age is also “entirely unalarming in rate and magnitude”, said Robert Carter, Emeritus Fellow and Science Policy Advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs, science adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute and chief science adviser for the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), “when compared with other similar natural warmings that occurred over the preceding 10,000 years.” [17]
“Plotted in the same scale as a standard outdoor home thermometer,” said Anthony Watts, Retired American Meteorology Society certified television meteorologist, “the change of the last 130 years is hardly even visible.” [18]
***
Carbon dioxide is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.
Oceanic weather patterns influence temperature. They include the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. [19]
Garth W. Paltridge, emeritus professor and honorary research fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies, hypothesizes that “internal ocean behavior could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century.” [20]
The planets also influence temperature.
The earth itself has “natural cycles that span tens of thousands of years including changes affected by Earth’s tilt (41,000 year), eccentricity (100,000) and precession (20,000).” [21]
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch has argued that the earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession profoundly influence glaciation [22] – the rise and fall of global ice.
Glaciers, including ice at the poles, play a major role in temperature. Ice expands and temperature falls. Ice retreats and temperature rises.
The glaciers are especially influenced in their decline or growth by sun patterns. “The major factor in long term glacial growth and retreat is summer insolation (the amount of incoming solar radiation).” [23]
The possible disappearance of sun spots today has led to speculation that “the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming,” said Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University. [24]
A lot of influences make weather. Ocean-weather patterns, variations in the earth’s astronomical patterns, the sun’s intensity, the level of carbon dioxide, and its interaction with water in the formation of clouds, all factor into the creation of temperature.
If the earth does warm quickly, the concern is that we will have “fast-rising seas, failing crops, melting ice caps, permanent droughts, worse epidemics and mass extinctions.” [25]
We could reach catastrophic tipping points. Burning oil, gas, and coal may lead to “sea level rise, ice sheet melting, torrential rains, drought, hurricanes, and any other severe weather event.” [26]
***
In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “predicted a huge and rapid rise” [27] in temperatures of up to up to six degrees in this century. After the warming life on earth would be “wiped out”. “Millions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” [28]
Huge fire balls smash into cities. They explode with the power of atomic bombs. Flash floods wreak havoc. “Life on earth ends in apocalyptic storms.” [29]
The seas rise 100 meters. Water covers the land.
***
This sounds frightening, and it will be devastating if true, but the climate models scientists invented to see the future have falsified the reliability of the predictions of doom. [30]
We have had “37 consecutive years of documented, systematic model failure.” [31] “The failure of the models … need to be acknowledged” [32] but the proponents refuse to admit their error.
“The current generation of general circulation climate models (GCMs) are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period,” said Mr. Carter, the former earth sciences professor. [33]
If the theory of dangerous manmade global warming predicts the future, and if weather models prove scientists cannot predict the future, then the alarmist theory about a dangerous future has been disproved as a scientific hypothesis. You cannot reasonably champion a scientific theory when your own work proves you do not have the expertise to make the claim. (Please see the chart: “Climate Models Fails to Predict Warming Trends”.)
Yet an overwhelming majority of climate scientists confidently predicted global warming would accelerate but “there has been no further warming at all” [34] since approximately the year 2000.
The models prove above all else our ignorance, said Mr. Paltridge of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies. “The chances of proving—proving in the hard scientific sense—that change of climate over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil.” [35]
Dr. Roy Spencer, who runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville global temperature data, said climate models have so far “failed miserably”. [36]
***
There are benefits to warming if the warming trend returns. We may end up embracing warming as a precursor of abundant wildlife and human comfort.
The cold kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. [37]
There will be “dire economic implications of trying to cease the use of fossil fuels.” [38] Poverty is the most successful and dangerous human disease. Fossil fuels are the primary medicine we take to fight poverty.
I think of those persons, for example, who burn manure to stay warm and cook their food. Fumes from this burning are “the major source of indoor pollution in the developing world and is reckoned to cause at least a million deaths a year.” [39] Electricity and natural gas would solve this problem. Both require the creation of carbon dioxide emissions.
The increase of carbon dioxide has made the earth “observably greener”. [40] Carbon dioxide is the basic plant food. Carbon dioxide is the key to photosynthesis, the process plants use to live and grow. Carbon dioxide is like oxygen for plants.
Our attitude toward carbon dioxide should start by recognizing that “the biggest health risk in the world today, particularly of course in the developing world, is poverty.” [41] Fossil fuels play a huge role, perhaps the primary role, in the war against poverty.
***
We are spending big money on climate change. “The current re-direction of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day.” [42] Climate change has also been called a “trillion-dollar industry”. Renewable-energy investment is $359 billion annually. [43]
The corridors of power in big science are filled with true believers zealously advocating for the adoption of the dangerous manmade global warming theory; referred too here as the alarmist movement. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary vehicle of alarmists, is “the expression of the beliefs of a small circle of scientists and interested lobbyists who, against all evidence, have convinced themselves that humans are having a dramatic effect on the Earth’s climate,” said Dr. Willie Soon, a researcher with the Solar and Steller Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. [44]
You have read that 97 per cent of scientists have attained a consensus agreeing that half of the global warming since 1950 has been caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. Legates et al. checked the scientific papers on climate to verify the 97% consensus. They found “0.5 per cent of the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers on climate-related topics published over the 21 years from 1991-2011 had explicitly stated an opinion that more than half of the global warming since 1950 had been caused by human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.” [45]
One-of-200 papers say dangerous manmade global warming is real, but the media says 97 of 100 scientists support the theory. If scientific papers are the library of scientific knowledge, the 97 percent consensus figure is a hoax. Big Media has manufactured a fake truth.
***
The important figures in the field should be contacted and questioned so that we know the true state of opinion. Disagreement is much wider than reported. 31,487 U.S. scientists “have publicly signed a statement that they consider the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis inconsistent with the evidence.” [46] (See the Global Warming Petition Project.) If there are more than 30,000 scientists who question the dangerous manmade global warming theory, how many support it? How can we even start a meaningful conversation without having elementary questions answered?
We don’t have basic facts about the judgments of leading practitioners. What if only 10 percent of climate physicists and weather experts are hardcore advocates of dangerous manmade global warming and all the rest is media bias?
Nigel Lawson, the British politician and author, says “the overwhelming majority of scientists in climate and related fields, therefore, remain commendably open to the possibility that some other influence—such as the sun—may be the true primum mobile of the Earth’s climate.” [47]
***
“The IPCC asserts against all evidence that the sun has little influence on climate change,” said Dr. Soon, the aerospace engineer. A total of 41 persons worked on an IPCC chapter on the sun. Only one was an expert on solar physics. Their work is “shot through with critical errors and serious misrepresentations.” [48]
The media has reported literally hundreds of events and trends caused by global warming; presumably many of them attested by scientists. One famous list has 883 entries of changes caused by global warming.
In that list climate change has caused: alligators in the Thames, animals to head for the hills, the reduction of avalanches, increased avalanches, beetle infestation, confused birds, blood contamination, cave paintings to be threatened, lost clownfish, the earth crumbling, the earth dying, the earth warming, the earth’s light dimming, the earth pushed past the point of no return, the earth slowing down, the earth spinning faster, the earth exploding, the earth turning upside down, deafness in fish, lopsidedness in fish, glacial earthquakes, the balding of hedgehogs, indigestion, Italy to be robbed of pasta, a Maple syrup shortage, the speed up of ocean waves, oyster herpes, alteration of penguin sex lives, rabid bats, sexual promiscuity, sour grapes, traffic jams, a truffle shortage, the doubling of water bills, and witchcraft executions. And 850 other things.
***
The likelihood is that the content of carbon dioxide in our air today has had no influence on the occurrence of this list of bad or unusual things. Who is paying for attaching the ills of the world to dangerous manmade global warming?
Global warming “risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavor.” [49]
The U.N. panel on climate change will not acknowledge the powerful non-carbon dioxide factors which create weather because they are “financially and ideologically dependent upon coming to a single, aprioristic viewpoint, regardless of the objective truth.” [50] What we have done is “create a monster that ignores the truth.”
If dangerous manmade global warming is falsified, the proponents lose everything: Money, job, reputation, meaning. The only thing they will recover is truth and honesty.
There is good reason to believe both truth and honesty have lost their place among scientists as we shall see in part two of our work on climate change.
Part 2: Climate Change: Data is a Travesty
Climategate in 2009 proved the scientists were “quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the case for dangerous climate change.” [51] The leading scientists spoke openly about gatekeeping research journals “to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma.” These are the actions of a person or group that is committing fraud.
To make your point or hide the truth you may change the representation of data. Both of the charts above show the same numbers. (See the chart: “140 Years of Climate Change on Two Scales”.)
In the Climategate emails we saw desperation to escape from data. The scientists saw the failure of climate models falsified their theory of dangerous manmade global warming.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” said Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a major author in the history of the UN reports on climate, who has published 532 scientific articles or papers, including 62 books or book chapters, and over 247 refereed journal articles. [52]
The travesty is maintaining public advocacy for a theory which in private you know has been disproved. Dr. Trenberth embodies the travesty.
The pause in warming, if it remains steady, or if temperatures fall, then the massive global warming industry will die, and the reputation of the leaders will be ruined.
“The tyranny of the experts is now crumbling,” said Andrew Bolt, columnist for the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. [53]
***
Big Media calls skeptics deniers. Big Media make opponents of a scientific hypothesis equal to the people who say Hitler did not kill Jews.
Academics who want to speak up don’t speak up because “dissent can be career-threatening.” [54] Skeptics are “cast into outer darkness and dismissed as ‘anti-science’ or a ‘denier.’” [55]
Something is driving the warming proponents which is overruling the scientific method. A billion-dollars-a-day of work is part of it. The power and the glory is part of it. The totalitarian nature of progressivism is part of it. My opinion is that the totalitarian instinct, the horrendous human trait given religious preeminence in the progressive faith, is now the guiding driver of proponents.
***
The confidence of the proponents should have been tempered by now after seeing the work their models have done, but their failure has had no effect on their opinion. Many of their predictions are now proven false. Their failed predictions have had no effect on their opinions.
“Al Gore claimed in his film An Inconvenient Truth that seas were rising so fast ‘that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand’. … (but) in a British court case, Justice Michael Burton found ‘there is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.’” [56]
In December 2008 Mr. Gore said the ‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. [57] “Ted Scambos, of the US Snow and Ice Data Centre, told the ABC there was ‘a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 we’ll have an ice-free (summer) Arctic’.” [58] Ice covered 1.7 million square miles of Arctic in the minimum of 2015; the minimum being the period after summer temperatures have reduced the ice to its smallest footing. Eight years after his prediction, Mr. Gore is off by an ice sheet equal to six times the size of Texas.
Bertrand Timbal, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said in 2009 the rain there will never rain like it once did. “We are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.” [59]
In 2010 and 2011 Australia had it wettest two-year period on record. In the story quoting Mr. Timbal, the lead paragraph said: “SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.” [60]
If drought proves climate change, what does heavy rain prove? Did the newspaper print a story saying heavy rain proves there is no climate change?
In 2005 the IPCC said global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. [61] Have there been any climate refugees as of 2016?
“In 2000, Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia claimed ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.” [62] Then came the snow. “Five of the northern hemisphere’s six snowiest winters in the past 46 years have occurred since Viner’s prediction.”
If no snow proves climate change, what does heavy snow prove?
***
Will the planet heat dangerously and fast?
“Little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emissions will cause dangerous future warming,” said Mr. Carter, the former professor of earth sciences. [63] There is an “equally likely occurrence of global cooling” and cooling is more likely. [64]
“No unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions,” said Mr. Carter. “In particular, the cryosphere (glacial ice) is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.” [65]
In other words, “the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” [66] like the sun, ocean currents, and earth’s cycles.
Changes in temperature in the 10,000-year record and the 140-year record show that recent temperature changes are normal in magnitude. The 10,000-year record has a range of 3.74 Centigrade. The 140-year record has a range of 1.34 Centigrade. The magnitude of change in the long record is almost three times greater than the range in the short record. (Please see the chart: “The Banality of Climate Change. 140 Years of Climate Change and 10,000 Years of Climate Change”.)
“We forecast that global average temperatures will trend neither up nor down, but will remain within 0.5 °C (1°F) of the 2013 average,” said Kesten C. Green, Senior Research Associate of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia, and Senior Lecturer at University of South, and J. Scott Armstrong, of Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and an expert on forecasting. “There is neither need to worry about climate change, nor reason to take action.” [67]
“The cost of global warming that might result from human activities, as reported by the IPCC, is very small,” said Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs. [68]
If we do continue to experience warming, it is likely to be beneficial. [69]
“The optimum CO2 content is more than 1,600 ppm (as compared with current content of 400 ppm).” [70] After warming “there is a huge increase in biodiversity” and “extinctions are universal in colder times.” [71] “All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity.” [72] “Global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations.” [73]
***
It’s possible we will experience planetary catastrophe, but “there is no scientific basis” [74] for predicting catastrophe, so “a policy of decarbonisation cannot possibly make sense,” especially given “the unequivocally adverse economic impact of the decarbonisation policy.” [75]
Even if it did make sense to limit carbon dioxide “there is no chance of any meaningful agreement being concluded” [76] by the important nations that must agree.
We are pursuing a policy that’s not needed for a group of nations which will never live by the terms required which, if they did agree, they would violate, and penalties cannot be enforced.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” said Professor James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, who in 2006 predicted billions of deaths from climate change, and who now predicts that we cannot predict the climate’s changes. [77]
Climate science Professor Judith Curry, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the US Congress in 2014: “For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature … The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.” [78]
***
Something is missing from our consideration of dangerous manmade warming. It is now a billion-dollar-a-day industry. What could we use that money for that is more important than carbon dioxide’s influence on temperature?
Does everybody have clean water? Does everybody have a dry safe home? Is every person protected from heat and cold and rain? Do they eat well? Is the kitchen clean? Why does their home smell? Why are they burning manure on the stove? Why is the floor made of dirt? Do they have no shower here? No soap and hot water? No clean towels? Do the poor know what it’s like to get into a clean bed and go to sleep protected from the elements and noise and hunger? Can you imagine taking all of these good things away from hundreds of millions of poor people based on a guess?
We have a very scientific method for curing the condition of poverty. It has undergone rigorous testing in millions of experiments. This method to eradicate poverty is called capitalism. Cheap energy turbocharges capitalism. Expensive energy kills it.
***
“The greatest immorality of all concerns the masses in the developing world,” said Mr. Lawson, the writer. [79] The most effective form of disease is dire poverty. The impoverished person ends up “suffering all the ills that this brings, in terms of malnutrition, preventable disease, and premature death.”
A great effective weapon against poverty is energy. Fossil fuels make the world go around. Make it speed up. Make capitalism work. Make the poor wealthier.
“Energy is the most basic of economic resources behind wealth and living standards even though it represents only 5 per cent of GDP.” [80] The dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis demonizes the energy needed to fight poverty. By diverting us from the proven way to end poverty “global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked,” said Mr. Lawson. [81]
Poverty is a real source of misery and death here and now. By blocking the advance of economies, our actions taken to combat dangerous manmade global warming may one day rival the great wars of the 20th Century as great totalitarian destroyers of wealth and happiness. The more successful the proponents of dangerous manmade global warming, the greater the misery they will bring to the world.
“The economically vulnerable have been pushed into fuel poverty,” said Mr. Plimer. “Vulnerable people die earlier, costs and unemployment increase and, in the Third World, such climate policies create the continuation of crippling poverty and unnecessary deaths, especially amongst women and children.” [82]
***
Ice is a rare rock. We expect ice on earth only 20% of the time. Since we live in a time which is comparatively cold in geologic history, shouldn’t we call warming normal? If two of three days in the last 10,000 years have been warmer than today, shouldn’t we expect warmer temperatures?
If we live in a time of carbon dioxide starvation, should we welcome the addition of carbon dioxide? It makes the plants grow. It makes the trees strong. It makes the animals and the forests come to life. Cold kills. Warmth gives life. If carbon dioxide brings life to life, do we need more carbon dioxide?
If carbon dioxide was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming? In the past we had extreme cold during the time we had extreme carbon dioxide. These facts make one skeptical the “manmade” carbon dioxide will be dangerous.
What about the other makers of weather? What about the sun, the oceans, the changes in the earth’s cycles? What about water and clouds? We have to know all of these things perfectly before we can precisely say what role carbon dioxide plays in temperature. Do we know all of these things well enough? Should we be skeptical of our knowledge, especially about the future?
We read about the arctic losing ice. We never read about the expansion of ice in the Antarctic. Should we trust the media if they tell us the bad all the time and the good never?
We read that 97 percent of scientists say man is responsible for a majority of global warming, but in fact only .5% percent of scientists gave that written opinion in the scholarly literature. The consensus is .5% not 97 percent. How do you believe anything the press says after that kind of lie?
The AP Style book says that the opponents of dangerous manmade global warming cannot call themselves skeptics because they don’t promote scientific inquiry or critical investigation. The AP pretends to know the minds of millions of persons, but it is impossible for them to know. The AP has also fully incorporated as true the 97 percent “consensus” falsehood by saying skeptics “reject mainstream climate science.”
The forces of darkness are taking arms in support of a sea of dishonesty. The attorney general of California has initiated a prosecution of the oil companies for their research and opinions on dangerous manmade global warming.
The attorney generals in New York, California, Massachusetts, and US Virgin Islands are conducting “an ongoing investigation into potential fraud by ExxonMobil” for “knowingly misleading the public and investors on the dangers of climate change.” [83]
A subpoena was issued for a decade of Exxon’s communications with over 100 academics, think tanks and universities. [84] The government attacks speech with the power of the state. This is how totalitarian society advances.
Big Media could care less. Writers have abandoned their first principle. Free speech is the first commandment for writers, or it was. Now it slows progressive ideology so free speech is abandoned. The progressive writers have abandoned free speech the same way scientific bodies have abandoned neutrality and the encouragement of individual opinion in the climate change debate. Group think is winning everywhere the progressives go. It’s what they do and who they are.
All of this has an obvious cause. We must remember that progressivism is a social disease, a group psychosis, and that the heart-and-soul of progressive thought is totalitarian domination. The out group members are deniers, social outcasts, monsters. Conservatives are Jews in Nazi Germany. Skeptics are conspirators who say Hitler did not kill the Jews.
How did progressives grow so immediately comfortable and capable in the most notoriously evil human conduct; the kind of frightening conduct which is warned about in every work of literature whose theme is man’s inhumanity to man?
***
The Global Warming theory, if it is disproved, will be the greatest crime ever committed against the poor and humanity. Its adherents have perpetrated shocking destruction within the scientific community by breaking centuries of principle requiring free thought, individual opinion, unswerving respect for dissent, and open-and-free publication of all data.
Even if carbon dioxide has little or no influence on weather or temperature, global warming may end up being the Joseph Stalin and the Mao Zedong of the 21st Century. It should be treated as a danger of the exact same nature except that the dead bodies are not as easy to count. The poor are spread all around the world and they will suffer and die everywhere, but many more will die if the progressives have their way on climate change.
The manufacturing of consent in the climate change debate proves that progressivism is the greatest threat to mankind in the 21st Century. Progressivism must be defeated and destroyed and ended. The massive destruction of wealth and encouragement of poverty by climate change proponents proves it.
Michael David White writes about politics economics and history at The Right Track Magazine.
ENDNOTES
[1] Climate Change: The Facts, 2015, Edited by Alan Moran, Stockade Books & The Institute of Public Affairs, Location 3690
[2] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1379
[3] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1373
[4] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1375
[5] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2334
[6] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1019
[7] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1031
[8] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1930
[9] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 234
[10] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4004
[11] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4028
[12] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 990
[13] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3776
[14] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1401
[15] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2229
[16] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 218
[17] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1015
[18] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3777
[19] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 691
[20] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2067
[21] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1282
[22] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 793
[23] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 795
[24] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1192
[25] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3935
[26] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 242
[27] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3936
[28] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3941
[29] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3947
[30] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 456
[31] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 483
[32] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 578
[33] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1153
[34] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1403
[35] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2111
[36] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3965
[37] Cold Weather Kills Far More People Than Hot Weather, The Lancet, May 20 2015
[38] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 124
[39] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1467
[40] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1460
[41] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1447
[42] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2102
[43] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2170
[44] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 824
[45] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 951
[46] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2519
[47] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 954
[48] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 841
[49] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2075
[50] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 959
[51] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2135
[52] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3954
[53] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3905
[54] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1372
[55] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1912
[56] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4010
[57] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3208
[58] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4023
[59] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3990
[60] “It’s Not Drought, It’s Climate Change, Say Scientists”, August 30 2009, By Melissa Fyfe, Sydney Morning Herald
[61] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1673
[62] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4032
[63] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1050
[64] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1186
[65] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1149
[66] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1507
[67] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2653
[68] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1691
[69] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1393
[70] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 221
[71] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 271
[72] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1160
[73] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1167
[74] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1543
[75] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1508
[76] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1561
[77] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3974
[78] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4041
[79] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1611
[80] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1856
[81] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1618
[82] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 314
[83] State AGs Vow to Tackle Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Industry Fraud, March 29 2016, By Samantha Page, Think Progress
[84] Climate Change Prosecutors Suffer Setback as AG Pulls Exxon Subpoena, June 29 2016, By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times
UPDATE: For those few people that were confused about the footnote links being “broken” …here’s a bit of education. An essay written in Microsoft Word that has bookmarks for reference notes will not translate to WordPress because WordPress offers no support for in-page links, i.e. bookmarks. It’s been a long standing problem, people that write in MSWord often get this idea that their documents, including complex tables, math, overlays on images, etc, will automatically translate to the web…they won’t.
So to quiet the complaints for those that didn’t figure out that a link inside brackets like this [3] means look at the footnote [3] at the bottom, I’ve simply deleted all links on the essay, save for one.
I’ve also edited the text to read “carbon dioxide” rather than “carbon” to use accurate terminology.
If folks want to help me edit the volume of works I publish here daily, I’m open to volunteers. – Anthony
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
HIGHLY recommended read covering all aspects of the “climate change” phenomenon that has snowballed so successfully into the new fashionable religion of our collective, groupthink age…
Takeouts:
“If the theory of dangerous manmade global warming predicts the future, and if weather models prove scientists cannot predict the future, then the alarmist theory about a dangerous future has been disproved as a scientific hypothesis. You cannot reasonably champion a scientific theory when your own work proves you do not have the expertise to make the claim. (Please see the chart: “Climate Models Fails to Predict Warming Trends”.)
Yet an overwhelming majority of climate scientists confidently predicted global warming would accelerate but “there has been no further warming at all” [34] since approximately the year 2000.”
“Something is driving the warming proponents which is overruling the scientific method. A billion-dollars-a-day of work is part of it. The power and the glory is part of it. The totalitarian nature of progressivism is part of it. My opinion is that the totalitarian instinct, the horrendous human trait given religious preeminence in the progressive faith, is now the guiding driver of proponents.”
“Climate science Professor Judith Curry, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the US Congress in 2014: “For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature … The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.””
“A great effective weapon against poverty is energy. Fossil fuels make the world go around. Make it speed up. Make capitalism work. Make the poor wealthier.”
“[The] method to eradicate poverty is called capitalism. Cheap energy turbocharges capitalism. Expensive energy kills it.”
“The dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis demonizes the energy needed to fight poverty. By diverting us from the proven way to end poverty “global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked,” said Mr. Lawson.””
“Big Media could care less. Writers have abandoned their first principle. Free speech is the first commandment for writers, or it was. Now it slows progressive ideology so free speech is abandoned. The progressive writers have abandoned free speech the same way scientific bodies have abandoned neutrality and the encouragement of individual opinion in the climate change debate. Group think is winning everywhere the progressives go. It’s what they do and who they are.”
“The Global Warming theory, if it is disproved, will be the greatest crime ever committed against the poor and humanity. Its adherents have perpetrated shocking destruction within the scientific community by breaking centuries of principle requiring free thought, individual opinion, unswerving respect for dissent, and open-and-free publication of all data.”
“The manufacturing of consent in the climate change debate proves that progressivism is the greatest threat to mankind in the 21st Century. Progressivism must be defeated and destroyed and ended. The massive destruction of wealth and encouragement of poverty by climate change proponents proves it.”
“HIGHLY recommended read covering all aspects of the “climate change” phenomenon that has snowballed so successfully into the new fashionable religion of our collective, groupthink age…”
I agree. I found myself nodding in agreement all the way down the page. Very good article. It hit all the high points of the debate and then some.
Yup, me too. Good article, kind of an omnibus of all the skeptical lines put together very clearly. A good read too.
A summary of four or five lines would be helpful. And what is “voguing”?
Don’t bother…. this article is so wrong on so many levels, not least of all it is entirely out of date.
Care to specify the issues?
I think factual errors were the least of this essay’s problems. It comes off as a disorganized rant. Headings would help the readers and would help the writer to organize his thinking.
The essay’s conclusion is this:
The essay could have been much shorter and could have done a much better job of developing towards its conclusion.
I assume that the author knows that ‘Manufacturing Consent’ is a book written by Noam Chomsky. (Ignore the fact that Chomsky is a left wing idealogue for the moment.) The book shows how it is that the MSM will cleave to the party line without overt coercion. A short essay showing that Chomsky’s analysis applies exactly to CAGW propaganda would be most enlightening and welcome.
How about this one
Unless CO2 can tell direction or is a polarized gas just how is it supposed to redirect all of the Longwave IR Downward? Seems to me that the Longwave IR re-radiation would go outward from the molecule in every direction rather than all downward in a single one.
conformity to the dialectic of the warmunists permeates the article.
the term carbon is used where ‘carbon dioxide gas’ should have been.
how to make a selfie with text! repackage what you read and be seen as teh xpert!
consume it, digest it, then drop it on a blog.
Well for starters on any typical say July 4th, in northern summer, the earth climate Temperature might be anywhere (measured ON the surface) from about -94 deg C (-140 deg. F) to about + 60 deg. C (+140 deg. F).
So nyet on 6.5 deg. F in the last 10,000 years.
And any typical week in Sunnyvale CA; heart of Si valley, the total range of Temperature for the week will be much greater than the entire planet average has changed in the last 600 million years (The Cambrian).
So Temperatures are well within the comfortable range.
G
Gestering like a super-model, but actuality your a pig with lipstick.
Fashion models are “voguing” when they use exaggerated gestures on a runway to attract attention to themselves. Progressives desperate for attention dress themselves in moral superiority through climate change “voguing”.
Yup. Absolutely. TOTAL model failure. You hear the Chicken Littles continue to squawk about “3.6° of warming in a hundred years!!!” No. The whole basis for that fear-mongering was the models, and every single one of the models has failed, and failed spectacularly. That “3.6°” is out the window. It’s just not going to happen. We will have very mild warming, or cooling:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-54/lutgen-1.jpg
My image didn’t show.
I think it needs to be https not http to work (??).
So here’s a different version of the image:
OK Eric:
Just to see if we’re comparing apples with apples and also a product that is still supported.
I assume that one sat products iis UAH?
If so which version is plotted? (we are on V6(beta5) currently).
And the other RSS?
If so is it V3.3 or V4.0 and is it TLT or TTT (TLT is no longer supported in V4 due to sat “drift issues”).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/RSSv4-vs-UAH-MT-original-series.jpg
http://s28.postimg.org/ye6hlporh/UAH_v5_6_vs_V6.png
Oh, and a properly constructed graph should have a plot of uncertainties. What are the underlying structural uncertainties for the sat products?
Also both data series are running cold when compared with RATPAC A sonde data since the AMSU sensor on NOAA15 took over from the MSU on 14 in ’98.
http://postmyimage.com/img2/995_Tropospheretrends.png
Radiosonde data is notoriously bad, due to Radiosonde temperature sensors having poor exposure your Tamino comparison is worthless.
Anthony:
That is true but we have here multiple ascents in a quality controlled series and if it were instrument error on the sondes (multiple) vs instrument error on the Sat (single) – is it not strange that the disconnect on the multiple sondes occurs exactly at the point of transition of the MSU to AMSU sensor?
Earth to Kevin Trenberth; Hey Kevin, I rotate on my axis once a day.
Sorry you missed that in your models.
G
[1]. Carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation, mostly to saturations in the first 10m or so from ground level. Because of atmospheric density, and relax vs collision times, it does not re-radiate below about 11km. No energy is trapped or delayed anywhere, it is just converted to kinetic energy by thermalising the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with by convection. Energy is not kept inside Earth’s weather systems by the presence of carbon in the atmosphere… or carbon dioxide for that matter.. that is total and abject nonsense.
[2]. Carbon is NOT and never will be a greenhouse gas, it is a solid. Only H2O actually slows heat transfer in some cases, but the only reason it does is because it has already done or overdone it cooling job in the atmosphere. How the heck else can it become clouds and atmospheric moisture vapour except by transporting energy to cloud height and beyond.
So you see, the first two points are nonsense, so its really not worth reading any further.
I thought it’s a good article, imo, Andy. I give the author credit for the post’s comprehensive treatment of the issue. And he makes a lot of solid points if you read through it. I don’t ask for perfection, and clearly compiling this article took a lot of work. On your point #2 he probably was just trying to save space by saying just ‘carbon,’ though I prefer it be spelled out with dioxide but no huge deal. You could just say ‘CO2’ for short.
Trying to save space, so he used carbon rather than CO2? Huh? Saying carbon takes 3 more characters.
“Carbon is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.” That’s grammatically incoherent and scientifically like saying “the sun is not the only factor in determining rates of growth of plants.” It’s so basic as to have no place in an article unless it is written for junior high school science.
Sounds like nitpicking to me, Chris.
TA, there are another 25 – 50 examples of poor writing in the article I could point out. That is not nitpicking. I like to read novels. Am I nitpicking if I don’t read the ones that are poorly written? Of course not.
That is because the so called ‘basic’ physics is never properly explained or thought through on this spinning water world on which we live.
Water, including water vapour, is a very different kettle of fish due to its specific heat capacity, phase changes and latent heat.
When cAGW crumbles, proper physics may be rediscovered.
I hope you are right Richard.
“When cAGW crumbles, proper physics may be rediscovered.”
All too true .
The most basic calculations of radiative balance for arbitrary spectra show it is impossible to explain why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops – or their radiative temperatures which in a case like Earth are lower by 9% than their orbital gray body temperature .
No quantitative experimentally demonstrable GHG physical theory has ever been presented to support the claim — even here . In any real branch of applied physics , one could point to not more than an handful of equations which would explain the purported phenomenon to the precision of measurement .
the ghg effect is the result of the modification of the lapse rate from 9.8c/km to 6.5c/km. this is due to the condensation of water during convection. this net 3.3c/km change is spread over the 20km height of the convecting atmosphere. the bottom 10km being warmer than otherwise, the upper 10km being cooler. the net surface warming is thus 3.3c/km x 10km = 33c.
co2 does not change the lapse rate and thus cannot change the surface temperature. what co2 can do is reduce the spread between min and max temperature.
Not to mention that anthropogenic CO2 constitutes only a trivial fraction of all CO2 emitted (~3% – 4%), so even if CO2 (at 0.04% of the atmosphere) were to have any effect, our contribution would be next to nothing.
However, that said, your comment about water vapor hits the bulls eye squarely. My understanding is that it exists in the atmosphere at ~1% (the poles or Northern latitudes) to 4% (the equator), or anywhere from 25 to 100 times the concentration of CO2. Its effects therefore swamp any that CO2 might exert.
The simplicity of the basic physics rule out claiming that CO2 is the monster “greenhouse gas” it is supposed to be.
… any good papers to recommend on … the proper physics ?
This is what’s so frustrating to me in trying to weigh the arguments. Everybody seems to have their own version of … the proper physics
Mathematical physicists make an argument, and the non-mathematical physicists tear it down, saying that the physicists don’t understand the physics. Somebody complains about a missing quantity. There’s bickering on all levels of technicality that I cannot begin to want to try to dissect, because I cannot see who the hell really knows the physics.
Who KNOWS the … proper physics ? … Is there a substantial collective of people who AGREE on … the proper physics ?
Where is this proper physics clearly laid out ? I want to see it. I keep thinking that I have, and then somebody tears it down again, as if there are arguments to be made against the physics itself.
When a quantum physicist speaks on the ludicrousness of the physics, and HE is ridiculed by other physicists, it puts a person wanting to understand in a precarious position. I believe the quantum physicist, but should I ? I sense vast differences in the level of understanding even within a specific field.
Which physicists should I tune into ? Which physicists should I tune out ?
… just venting a bit of frustration here, and I probably speak for others too.
Thank you.
The minute I see a writer inaccurately use the word “carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide” I immediately discount the author as a reliable source.
Thanks AndyG55,
As soon as I see this Newspeak, I stop reading.
Carbon is Carbon, CO2 is CO2.
When someone transposes the two,
They’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid
Calling carbon dioxide “carbon” is as ignorant as calling water “hydrogen”.
I noticed that a couple of times in the article, it was written “carbon dioxide dioxide”. So maybe the author had a few errant dioxide’s misplaced and never got them tacked on to the end of the “carbon” word. I don’t really know how that would happen, but I don’t know why someone would write “carbon dioxide dioxide” either.
TA December 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm
I haven’t read all the comments on here yet so it has probably been mentioned below – but I’m guessing that (as in the “Update” where Anthony says he changed ‘Carbon’ to Carbon Dioxide’) Anthony did a word search replace/add word program feature and added the word ‘dioxide’ wherever ‘carbon’ was mentioned, maybe not realising ‘dioxide’ had already been used in some instances. Hence it appeared twice.
Thanks for that explanation of how it might have happened, Luc Ozade. That makes sense.
the people they call science deniers are ironically those who won’t tolerate bad science
here are a few examples:
1. the much hyped correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming is spurious.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2853163
2. in fact there is no evidence of a correlation between emissions and warming even at a 30-yr time scale
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
3. The IPCC carbon budget is flawed because it is based on circular reasoning
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
4. in fact there is no evidence of a correlation between atmos co2 and emissions
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438
The imbedded links don’t work?
Yes, originally written in MSword. links to references are page-centric, and don’t translate to web. A Microsoft “feature”.
Oops that page Can’t be found
None of the links work for me.
They all lead to a Watts Up With That Page
As an example https://wattsupwiththat.com/Users/Anthony/Downloads/#_ednref34
168 broken links. There was a time when WUWT would fix broken links within minutes…
… and not publish a sloppy rewrite of ‘Climate Change: The Facts’.
Apart from the tireless Eric Worrall, WUWT is struggling these days.
Yes, originally written in MSword. links to references are page-centric, and don’t translate to web. A Microsoft “feature”.
I can’t fix these links to footnotes because WordPress doesn’t offer a bookmark link feature. Therefore, your complaint is misplaced and irrelevant.
Mr Watts
I agree with your statement but not your conclusion.
What really is the point of even having links if they don’t work? Why are they even there?
And why is my criticism misplaced and irrelevant?
Same here, when I read Carbon Dioxide referred to as carbon, my tired eyes glazed over.
B I N G O !
Calling carbon dioxide “carbon”, is fingernails on the black board.
Have any of you brilliant wordsmiths comprehended what has been written?
I doubt it.
You are just too dumb.
WUWT enters Universal Thermodynamic Heat Death.
What is TonyL talking about? Attend, I shall explain.
There is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe which goes something like this:
Is a far distant future, all nuclear reactions which can happen, have happened, same with all chemical reactions. Further, all matter is evenly distributed, and the whole universe is isothermal. There are no hot spots and no cold spots. Therefor, heat cannot flow, and work cannot be done. Nothing can happen, ever.
The universe is dead.
So how does this relate?
The author sets out 84 climate factiods, true as they might be. (Do not start with me on this, I am trying to be nice.) Unfortunately, many of the factoids presented have been beaten to death, here and elsewhere. In the process, all useful work has been forcibly and vigorously extracted from each and every one of the 84 factoids set out here. Usually, this has been done a *long* time ago.
There is no energy here, and no work can be done.
Heat Death.
I thought it was a very good summary of the scientific and political situation. Worth the author’s time, and mine to read it.
My only complaint is that I didn’t see an explanation for the title.
“My only complaint is that I didn’t see an explanation for the title.”
OK, I will try to help out.
The author seems to be saying that “Dangerous Manmade Global Warming” is now in vogue. Which is to say that it has captured the attention the Hollywood Beautiful People, movie stars, singers, dancers. Also celebrities
of all sorts, jetting around to places like New York, London, Paris, Milan. (Carbon footprint? I don’t see any carbon footprint.)
The author then expresses alarm at the trend.
Since this trend has been going on for at least 25 years, I would say that the author needs to get caught up on 25 years of current events, and going forward, needs to make an effort to stay caught up.
Glad I could help.
Entropy perhaps?
Entropy death and Heat death are equivalent terms, of course. Entropy death means that maximum entropy has been obtained, the system is in a state of maximum disorder, it cannot get any worse.
But I have found, over the years, that no matter what the situation, things can always get worse.
That is why I prefer the term “Heat death”.
Crikey:
A classic gishgallop of gainsaying, employing many myths and quotes but little science – just the repudiation of it.
I’ll need at least 2 parts.
Pt 1
“Our current carbon level is “near to an all-time low as assessed against the geological record.” [6] Using a 550 million-year timeframe, the “earth currently exists in a state of carbon dioxide starvation.” [7] Carbon is increasing, but compared to history it’s abnormally low.”
The point is we are comparing climate over the time frame of human civilizaton not 550mya, when other factors would have affected climate, Vis a weaker Sun and a different continental configuration.
This is the CO2 concentration for the last 800,000 years ….
“compared to history it’s abnormally low.”
Well patently not, using the history of Mankind on Earth.
It is this background that CO2 concentration should be judged on.
Man has settled in regions best suited for agriculture, access and comfort (Vis coasts)
It matters not what CO2 levels were 550mya.
“Sea levels have been rising due to the climate but “sea levels have been rising steadily at the same rate for at least the last 700 years.””
Again, missing the point.
That AGW is happening (OK most dont get that here) then SL rise will accelerate.
Must do, it’s a natural consequence of any warming.
“Ice at the poles is also a critical measure of temperature trends. Ice cover in Antarctica in 2014 was greater than any in the satellite record started in the late 1970s. NASA says sea ice cover in Antarctica has grown 1.5 per cent a decade for several decades and was 7.7 million square miles at its maximum in 2014.”
Oh, do get up to date. It’s nearly 2017 not 2014 ……
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/12/GlobalSeaIce_2016.png
Also, although Antarctic land-ice will be lost from the periphery of the continent (specifically the WAIS) where grounded glaciers are being melted by warmer up-welling waters. The vast continental interior is effectively isolated as a pole of cold and it’s surrounding oceanic and tropospheric currents. It is at an ave altitude of 8000ft will and see increased snowfall in the coming decades/centuries as WV builds in the atmosphere in response to temp rise.
“the Antarctic is growing (7,300 square miles a year).”
Not this year ….. and I’m only saying that plainly wind/and sea temps are having an effect on the extent of sea-ice there …….
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/12/monthly_ice_11_SH.png
TonyB
Exactly!!!! This article really is a hotch potch of outdated nonsense.
Oh do get real, if sea was record high in 2014 after 30 yrs of “warming”. You still have to explain how that could happen even if 2016 turns out to be lower than average.
ironargonaut
Sea? Sea what?
Your ice core CO2 for the last 800kyr covers less than half of the Pleistocene, the current ice age. Before that CO2 was much higher, but still FOLLOWED temperature in benthic cores going back some 5 million years.
Perhaps colloquial would be easier for you to understand: CO2 don’t do Jack.
Even today.
“Your ice core CO2 for the last 800kyr covers less than half of the Pleistocene, the current ice age. Before that CO2 was much higher, but still FOLLOWED temperature in benthic cores going back some 5 million years.”
Ah, *sceptics* climate myth #1.
That CO2 followed,temp in the past and must do today, else it’s ……
You do understand the carbon cycle?
That a warmer climate releases more CO2 and a cooler one absorbs more. Chiefly via the oceans?
That’s the natural process.
However human fossil burning CO2 is not known by the biosphere. By it’s temp.It cannot cope with sinking it all. ~ half of our emissions are sinking into the oceans, and it’s ph is lowering as a result
They cannot sink it as they are too warm.
The human source is outstripping the sinks.
It can happen both ways as CO2 is a GHG.
It is normally a feed-back, but will also drive if it comes first.
Nope Tonyb, ocean uptake is limited by Henry’s Law. Don’t believe me, ask Ferdinand. The oceans APPEAR to be a small net sink, not half of human production.
It is you who does not understand the Carbon cycle. The isotopic composition of human CO2 is PREFERRED by the biosphere (plants and photosynthetic plankton). These are absorbing the bulk of human production…AND the concomitant increase in soil respiration (also light Carbon) as the planet continues to generally warm. Soils currently produce six times as much CO2 as humans.
If CO2 DID do Jack, it would show up somewhere. It just doesn’t.
Sorry Tonb but I have to ask, How much Fossil Fuel and/or Fossil Fuel related products do you still use?
If you find it that distastefully villainous then by all means cease to utilize it, set the path, Lead the way.
Don’t be just another “Do as I say not as I do” Hipocrite like Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio
Bryan:
I have a 4kwp solar array on my roof, burn locally sourced wood (chopped by myself) and drive a 40mpg diesel Ford Kuga just 10k miles a year.
However if my roof was unsuitable for the solar, would that make me a hypocrite?
You see, denizens seem unable to divorce politics from the science.
All I advocate IS the science.
If this site posted some that did not have it’s raison d’être as the need for the consensus to be wrong (incompetent experts, fraud, conspiracy, greed etc) then I wouldn’t be here.
As it is ( noW Mosher seems to be scarce) is Lief, Nick and myself who have backgrounds in science and a few others who can be bothered to put up with the “Troll” type replies.
I say to them – what purpose does it serve that you all pile in here to cheer on your fave “citizen scientists ” who just come here themselves for the hugs and kisses they would not get if they actually published a paper in a reputable journal.
That’s not science and neither will it bring it down.
All I aim to do is deny ignorance (of the science).
Where are Leif, Nick, and yourself with substantive “scientific” criticisms of my work? You are the ignorant troll. There are many “citizen scientists” who know more than twice what you do.
Bring it, honey, if you wish to deny the science.
We are both sinners. Think of the “black” (as if there were any other color except diamond) Carbon spewing from our chimneys. Not to mention the “grey” fly ash and other imponderable chemistry.
We can console ourselves that the Carbon in the wood would be released eventually by the fungi anyway…hey, we may have saved the atmosphere a bunch of chloromethane the fungi would also have delivered.
“As it is ( noW Mosher seems to be scarce)”
Mosher doesn’t like to be shown he is incorrect. When that happens, he disappears.
“As it is ( noW Mosher seems to be scarce) is Lief, Nick and myself who have backgrounds in science and a few others who can be bothered to put up with the “Troll” type replies.”
We appreciate that, Toneb. You, and the others you mention add to the debate. There can’t be a debate without two sides.
We could do with a little less condescension, though.
Tone,
Forgot to mention that you are not in the same league with Nick, or particularly Lief.
“Oh, do get up to date. It’s nearly 2017 not 2014 ……”
Oh, do show a plot relating to your blurb. It says Antarctica. The plot says Global.
The finest summary of skeptical reasoning….and hard climate truths…..that I’ve come across in several years.
Nope. I just gave up. I couldn’t work out whether this rather sloppy presentation of ‘facts’ was a reflection of the author’s beliefs or if he was trying to debate and nullify (or support) each of them in turn. But when I get to see so many transitions from CO2/Carbon Dioxide to ‘Carbon’ I figured this is rubbish.
Now, I’m prepared to believe the author may have been quoting others in their use of the term, ‘carbon’ but there was no construction in the essay that gave this away. As I said, sloppy. Especially considering the amount of effort put into the piece.
Yet another article using “carbon” when it should be “carbon dioxide”.
Also, it is not possible to trap heat. Heat is energy being transferred across a temperature gradient. I disregard articles that cannot even get the basics correct.
I love this video from Bill Grey explaining why CO2 hasn’t and won’t have much impact on temperatures. Spread the word about it. Just the 30 minutes are the most important:
Prof Bill Grey – Why Climate Models are Wrong:
Again Eric….
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
Toneb,
So what? What temperature, or any other climate phenomenon you care to list, is outside the range of what has occurred in this interglacial period?
ToneB. Can we all play these games? Care to comment on this?
Tonyb
I’ve always questioned in my mind how Berkeley could combine CO2 and Volcanoes into ONE trend-line? How do volcanoes dramatically reduce CO2 during these eruptions? If it is through dust reducing temperature, why not plot two separate lines and leave it at that. Why do their charts not include a Scale for this CO2/Volcano trend line? Or just CO2 alone for that matter? These people are a lot smarter than me, this is graphing 101 stuff. Lastly how much smoothing did they apply to their results, like wow. Might as well have drawn it with a ruler. Why make graphs so convoluted? Their graphs look good (to fit a narrative) but smell of something which I just cannot place.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Duncan:
If you click on the the “Temperature, CO2 and volcano data” under the graph here …
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
You will find a spreadsheet, and under “Temperature fit” you will find the intercept crossings and adjustment made (presumably for each year) for the volcanic forcing.
That is what they did – calculated a forcing along the curve ( which must be shaped by the natural log function), to come up with an incremental temp along the time period of the y-axis.
To add, why is there no explanation given for the huge temperature spikes mid-1700 and 1800? These temperature spikes dwarf all warming post 1956. Due to timing, these had to been natural occurring events. Wouldn’t this raise some eyebrows over at Berkeley? Why was 1750 chosen for the start of the graph and not another time frame? Where is the explanation what caused warming pre-1956?
If Berkeley intended for this research to be a non-bias accounting of temperature/CO2 record, why insert the IPCC warming due to humans note? They have thrown all impartiality out the window with that one.
Harry Passfeld, sure, I’ll comment. In ToneB’s graph, the Y axis limits of both variables are selected so that the plot locations cover roughly 80% of the Y axis range, which is the norm for how multivariable plots are done. In your plot, you chose a Y axis temperature range that is nearly 3 times as large as it needs to be. The intent of that, of course, is to make any link between temperature and CO2 levels appear to be minimal at best.
Harry Passfield
“Can we all play these games? Care to comment on this?”
____________
If I may ask, what temperature data are you using? All the current main data sets, including satellite, show that both Feb and Mar 2016 peaked noticeably higher than any month in 1998, yet your chart shows the opposite.
Also, your axes are scaled in such a way as to raise the CO2 levels above the temperature data. There’s no valid reason for doing this. Both axes should be ‘normalised’ so that the data can be compared on a similar scale.
Here is UAH v6.5 global versus CO2 since 1979, with both data sets normalised so they can be seen on comparable axis scales. Also both smoothed by 12 months to remove seasonal signal of CO2 and for clarity: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/normalise
“To add, why is there no explanation given for the huge temperature spikes mid-1700 and 1800? ”
Explained in the paper ….
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Toneb. From the paper you linked; are they suggesting the current post-1950 temperature change is not abnormal and withing natural variability? In quick review, besides volcanoes (cooling), I did not see an explanation for the rapid warming.
[Quote]
“We have obtained an estimate of the Earth land surface
temperature from 1753 unto the present. The limited land coverage
prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the
record; despite these, we see behavior that is significant. Most
dramatic are the large swings in the earliest period. These dips can
be explained as the effect of large volcanic eruptions that took place
during that period. The rapid changes in the Earth’s temperature at
that time are remarkably swift, and at times even greater than the
changes taking place in the last 50 years.”
“ToneB. Can we all play these games? Care to comment on this?.
Yes I Would.
That graph is hiding the correlation by stretching the y-axis for CO2 vs that for temp.
It could be seen if the x-axis was wide enough to include dates prior, like this ……
Seeing how the slope changed for both at the same point
And incidentally shows that solar forcing was left behind once -be aerosol forcing was out cancelled by the CO2 forcing.
GISS follows CO2 because GISS is adjusted to match the CO2 curve. UAH doesn’t show your fantasy correlation.
http://i66.tinypic.com/24njswn.jpg
Also, the 1C rise in temperatures over the last 30 years has prodigiously been touted as Unprecedented in the temperature record. Yet, Toneb’s utilized graph above indicates that between about 1755 and about 1770, temperatures rose from an average of 6.75C to an average of 9.55C or 2.8C in 15 years this would equate to a truly unprecedented rise of 5.6C over the same 30 year period.
ToneB, DWR54, and Chris: It seems from your comments that at least two things are apparent:
1. You have nullified the hypothesis that CO2 lags rather than leads temperature
2. CO2 (man-made, apparently) is the only form of CO2 that can lead temperature
From this I assume you to mean that MM CO2 has not only the the right isotope of carbon to affect climate, it must now be considered the Marks and Sparks of isotopes. Funny that. ‘Cos an awful lot of miserable millionaire marketeers are very happy to know that MM Carbon (sic) can present them with such a potential fortune. Derived from the poorest people on the planet. And that alone is a very good reason to be a sceptic.
“If I may ask, what temperature data are you using? All the current main data sets, including satellite, show that both Feb and Mar 2016 peaked noticeably higher than any month in 1998, yet your chart shows the opposite.”
Noticeably higher = one-tenth of a degree.
Harry Passfeld, hmmm, interesting how you completely ignored the main point of our posts on how you did your graphing.
I have, maybe you can explain what Berkeley means by this note, straight from the link you posted.
Fit = alpha + beta * log( CO2 / 277.3 ) + gamma * Volcanic
These fit values include consideration of the uncertainties and
the correlation structure of those uncertainties.
Note also that the fit uncertainties reflect the uncertainty
on determining the best value of each fit parameter. They do
not necessarily indicate how successful the fit will be at
predicting the temperature value. In general there is additional
variation, e.g. weather and natural variability, that is not
included in either this simple model or in the observational
uncertainty. These variations lead to additional disagreement
between the model and individual temperature observations.
Toneb, I clicked on the wrong reply. Anyway, I will point out they say it is a “model”, it’s worse than I thought.
“In general there is additional variation, e.g. weather and natural variability, that is not included in either this simple model”
No it’s the use of the empirical equine of the GHG forcing of CO2
Forcing = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
The model is a simple one integrating the intercepts and volcanic factors.
( be rather tedious to do by hand DYT).
The equation comes from here …..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/98GL01908/asset/grl11304.pdf?v=1&t=ixalmewm&s=3371baa759eb9affa1c9c590bd7f2798ea32fb02
Toneb, I cannot open your link – Error 403. Anyway, good-day to you.
Duncan:
Try….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/98GL01908/asset/grl11304.pdf?v=1&t=ixaq2khw&s=9624001821b7ad99031be6c149bca060c38aafa8
stevekeohane
“UAH doesn’t show your fantasy correlation.”
___
You claim that, then you show a chart that, once again, has the CO2 axis planted firmly above the temperature axis. You also show UAH data that is long out of date. It looks like it’s a running 12 month smooth stopping some time in early 2015, before the UAH running 12-month smooth set a new record.
Once again, here is the most recent UAH running 12-month smooth verses the most recent CO2 running 12-month smooth, both from 1979 and both compared on a chart that allows for a more a reasonable comparison between the two: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/normalise
As you can see, the most recent UAH and CO2 values have a reasonably good correlation.
Where? Two lines going (very) vaguely in the same direction is a correlation?
Pitiful.
Here is what a significant correlation looks like. You match all the detail like that, and then you have something. And, what you have is temperatures driving the rate of change of CO2, not CO2 driving temperature.
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
AGW is dead, dwr. Dead.
I used Roy Spencer’s Version 6 beta 5, as he shows on his website, taken from the same on 12/29/2016. Can’t get any newer than now.
First few paragraphs, Mixing units again, temperature is not a measurement of energy. So, you can’t compare the two this way. Basic physics. That is where global warming theory breaks.
A simple fact is that there is a greenhouse effect in the climate of the Earth making this planet a habitable place. It is also a fact that the contribution of CO2 in this effect is about 11-13 %. The essential question is, how much the increasing CO2 concentration increases the temperature. IPCC manifests the transient climate sensitivity of about 1.8 C degrees based on the formula of Myhre et al. Some scientist say it is only about 1.2 C degrees (because of no positive water feedback). I say it is only 0.6 C degrees based on my own research studies. If you say that it is wrong, then you have show, what is wrong in my calculations. That is the old traditional way of quality control in science by repeating the calculations of published papers, if there are any doubts about the results.
I have noticed that the is only a handful of researchers who have published the spectral analysis calculations about the warming impacts of CO2. That is the only way, because the empirical methods would not work. The changes are so small that it is impossible to show the culprits for warming. That is also the basic reason why IPCC and AGW alarmists has been able to continue their policy with the help of main stream media. The empirical method works in one case only. The IPCC*s model shows the temperature of 1.22 C degrees for 2015 but the real observed temperature by UAH is only about 0.85 C degrees. The error is massive 44 %. No reactions by the media. We can talk about the new dress of the King.
My conclusion about these endless discussions is that there will be no change or no scientific consensus before the global temperature starts to decreased. We will see it in 3-5 years, if the alternative cosmic theories are true.
You used “greenhouse effect” a reference to glass reflection thermal retention in your statement. “Greenhouse Effect” was proven to NOT be related to any gas more than 20 years ago. “Greenhouse Effect” was an ignorant assumption made without any scientific analysis of the system observed and likely made as a propaganda lie to begin with. Don’t use the term if you wish to be taken seriously.
It’s high time for a change in terminology. The problem being studied is “infrared warming”. Always has been, always will. Not “greenhouse effect).
You do not show any scientific reasons. The outgoing longwave radiation is about 240 W/m2 corresponding the black surface temperature of -19 C degrees but the observed temperature is +15 C degrees. How do you explain this difference? The spectral calculations show LW radiations fluxes which can be confirmed by global measurements. There are so many people on these pages having no scientific knowledge. You cannot win the battle against AGW alarmists by the claims like yours.
Measure ice in square miles. How about cubic? Square miles are likely meaningless compared to cubic Meters ah well cubic feet. Sheesh who uses imperial these days?
Sea levels for the past twenty years have risen 3.2 millimeters a year, according to the University of Colorado. [10] They are rising a foot-a-century. The width of a laptop screen.
Over the last ten years or so Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group has rewritten their historic data effectively ramping up the rate of sea level rise nearly a full millimeter per year.
http://oi66.tinypic.com/15i9efb.jpg
Well it is an exhaustive coverage of the topic and a heck of a lot of work. It could be shortened to better effect (some repetition) and it does have a feel of having been written a few years ago. It would be better to split the essay into three posts.
I like the indictment of progressivism. We have been too kind in not speaking candidly about this movement. Progressives have brainwashed themselves with the uplifting title of the movement. I’ve tried to tell friends the party they think they are supporting isn’t what it appears to be and that it is a vastly different one from what it was not so long ago.
The old “Liberal” parties have been hijacked by misanthropic totalitarian ideologues as bad as we have ever seen. They are diabolical enough to have made the lives of urban, educated liberals AND conservatives who go along quite comfortable financially and feeling good about themselves in their ignorance.
I’m not down on Democrats or Liberals as they call themselves outside the USA. I’m down on what they’ve become. The CAGW stuff has been a handy tool (actually first harnessed for purpose by Maurice Strong, a brilliant rural high school drop out and professed communist who created “lefty capitalism” and the IPCC’s parent environmental org in the UN.). Globalization, at least of the kind we have, was not created by capitalist corporations. They were rewarded for engaging in it because their function is to make profits. The diabolical part of it all is they can also use corporations as the scapegoats and screen for the ideologues to quietly pursue their own global “progressive” agenda. Oh this is a story yet to be told.
#40 is WRONG.
Plants use oxygen all day to function. If you remove oxygen from their environment they die faster than if you remove carbon dioxide. At night plants survive by generating carbon dioxide from oxygen. Plants even have “body temperatures” in the form of waste heat from both processes.
Oxygen is OXYGEN to plants.
Carbon/carbon dioxide uberfail. Wrecks the whole piece.
The repetitive use of the word CARBON instead of Carbon Dioxide detracts from the content of the story but none the less, the story is correct.
Isn’t it strange, that in this current political era that supposely places enormous value on “diversity,” that no one in the mass media has ever noticed or called attention to the complete lack of diversity of opinion present in the IPCC panel? Gee, I wonder why? Probably because the mass media struggles to even know what “IPCC” means. Notice how ill-prepared the media is to deal with anything of a scientific nature? They publish articles based almost completely on shock value
or the ability to incite the reader to read their articles. The goals of the mass media are almost diametrically opposed to the goals of science. Experimental replication? We don’t need no stinking experimantal replication. Whatever that is. ” Has the media ever pointed out what Michael Mann himself admitted in an email to his fellow conspirators : “Our models suck – they can’t predict anything and are an embarrassment.” (or thereabouts). The mass media has committed fraud an by avoiding the truth, has committed “fake news.” Failure to tell the truth is equivalent to lying.
“I think of those persons, for example, who burn manure to stay warm and cook their food. Fumes from this burning are “the major source of indoor pollution in the developing world and is reckoned to cause at least a million deaths a year.” [39]”
The ‘million deaths’ is in fact a modeled ‘million premature deaths’ meaning they are estimated to have had their life shortened by exposure to smoke from dung burning fires. There are no bodies or death certificates in that count.
Please edit and add the correct term ‘premature deaths’ as per WHO GBD documentation.
This is the laziest extensive misuse of carbon instead of carbon-dioxide I’ve seen in a long time. After “Carbon is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.” I stopped reading. Who is this written for?
Mr. White, if I read 3 pages of an article and STILL can’t discern the author’s point, or even his point of view, the author is doing it wrong. No thank you.
Who is Michael David White?
https://therighttrackmagazine.com/michael-david-white/
He’s the author of this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LYLVF2K
The links to the endnotes that I tried give
Oops! That page can’t be found.
It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try one of the links below or a search?
The same- or similar looking – article appears on other websites.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
https://therighttrackmagazine.com/2016/10/15/3-climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
Michael David White, I couldn’t finish your article for the many reasons mentioned in comments prior to mine.
A lot of specific criticisms have been made in this comment thread. You’ve been peer reviewed and you should make constructive use of those criticisms.
There seems to be something ‘there’ to your article, but a lot of readers here can’t make out what it is. My suggestion, or criticism, is to break up your essay into parts, such as sea level, GHGs, consensus science, or whatever groupings that make sense of all those points. Then make use of the pointers given to you, such as using ‘carbon dioxide’ instead of ‘carbon’ unless you really are discussing carbon.
Take heart and maybe give it another go, keeping in mind the criticisms offered above.
Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee
Tony L and Tony B
Progressive trolls seem to show up in pairs like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Often a father and son in matching smart suits. Always reading from the little black book with prepared answers to a small list of permitted questions – nothing beyond this narrow list would ever be talked about. Really very like CAGW evangelists.
Hint: to debunk an argument you need to do more than just say “it’s been debunked”. You need to actually debunk it. “Trust us we’re the experts” and “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain adjusting all the climate data” are also old, failed and dead strategies.
Why not debate the science? O I forgot – it has to be in the little black book of prepared questions, answers and cooked data.
Yes the article is somewhat disorganised and amateurish. However it just shows that the egregious flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies in the AGW narrative can be easily seen through by anyone with scientific curiosity looking at the facts.
Ptolemy 2
You mean tone b not me. I think he has been on duty during December.
I have made no comment other than this one on this thread.
Tonyb
If its Voging, it can’t be man made.
Vogons are not a human species…
…I’ll get my coat….
Don’t forget your towel.
“Progressive trolls”
Really, ptolemy2, a Progressive troll? Just for having a bit of fun with a post which seems to have way more entropy content than is usual around here. Do note that I try to avoid engaging certain personalities around here and Toneb is one of them.
I think you might be getting torqued up a bit too tight on this one.
The reference links don’t work for me.
Big media COULD care less. If they could care less, why don’t they? The expression (tired, overused and silly) should really read “Big media COULDN’T care less. In other words, they care so little that they can’t care any less.
Yes, Trebla – exactly. I was going to write something similar myself but I’m glad you did.
I do get tired of reading the American version of what should be written, in PLAIN English. They write the exact opposite of what they mean.
Voguing – see here for cultural reference.
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/nov/18/-sp-vogueing-dance-came-back-into-vogue-madonna
Clicking on a few of the backup notes reveals that there are no pages linked to the numbers. This may be a technical problem only, but it does subtract from an otherwise well written article. Also,referring to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is lazy and sloppy. Saying I didn’t read the article because he refers to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is equally lazy.
“Saying I didn’t read the article because he refers to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is equally lazy.”
There are thousands of articles and papers about CO2 and climate change. Have you read them all? There is nothing lazy about deciding not to read an article that is poorly written.
I join with other comments above. PLEASE stop using the term “carbon” when you mean “carbon dioxide.” This is a cave-in to warmist sophistry and propaganda. Using a term like “carbon pollution” falsely conflates CO2, a necessary and beneficial gas, with true atmospheric pollutants such as black soot, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other harmful carbon based molecules.
From the article:
“If carbon was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon will lead to dangerous warming? In the past we had extreme cold during the time we had extreme carbon. These facts make one skeptical the “manmade” carbon will be dangerous.”
Huh?
a thousand times higher?
Thanks for the heads up. It will be corrected to: “If carbon dioxide was up to a thousand times higher in the first great ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming?”
pt 2
Or another random walk through the gishgallop of he OP.
“The increase is small enough to be almost “undetectable” for human observers.”
Well, of course it is!
Do you expect changes that SHOULD happen in geological time-scales to be noticeable in a human life-span?
“Warming of one degree centigrade since the Little Ice Age is also “entirely unalarming in rate and magnitude”,”
Again No……
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/GISS_land+ocean_1880-2014.png
That 1C has largely happened since 1970, since the +ve forcing of CO2 outpaced the -ve one of aerosol and since the previous major -ve PDO/ENSO regime (the last one merely caused the *pause*).
And this is the correlation to CO2 using the empirical Forcing=5.35ln(c/co) W/m^2 ……
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
“Carbon is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.”
Science doesn’t say it is – so correct.
On geological time-scales it is orbital eccentricity, which is then fed-back into by the carbon cycle.
Natural variation is the movement of the climate system’s stored heat into and out of the atmosphere. ~30 years sees that cycle complete and the TOA imbalance is what we revert to.
“The possible disappearance of sun spots today has led to speculation that “the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming,””
Yes but of the order of 0.1% – same has happens in a normal solar cycle min (ask Leif Svalgaard)…..
“In the previous reconstructions, the 17th-century ‘Maunder Minimum’ total irradiance was 0.15 to 0.65% (irradiance change about 2.0 to 8.7 W/m^2; radiative forcing about 0.36 to 1.55 W/m^2) below the present-day mean (Figure 6.13b). Most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanki and Krivova, 2003) calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W/m^2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W/m^2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing used in Chapter 9 for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W/m^2 relative to today).”
Yes there is a greater reduction of UV – which does affect the stratospheric PV, and can initiate polar tropospheric polar plunges. However as we see this winter – it leaves the Artic warmer.
IOW: the net TSI budget (W/m^2) remains unaltered.
Toneb, I’m sure you understand that this is too sharp a site to toss out something like : the 1C rise is since 1970. Actually, the 1C since 1970 was wrought in June last year by a guy called Tom Karl of NOAA. He did this just before he retired, would you believe? It is well known as the “Karlization” of temperature, a desperate act to get rid of the dreaded Pause, which had been in effect for two decades, essentially the length of time that all the CAGW hype has been about. Yes, the El Nino came to the rescue anyway, but that isn’t CO2. The fact you used the one year old dishonest Karlization graph is very telling to readers on this site.
Also, the 1C rise in temperatures over the last 30 years has prodigiously been touted as Unprecidented in the temperature record. Yet, Toneb’s second graph above indicates that between about 1755 and about 1770, temperatures rose from an average of 6.75C to an average of 9.55C or 2.8C in 15 years this would equate to a truly unprecidented rise of 5.6C over the same 30 year period.
Look for yourself.
OK 0.7 C.
“the El Nino came to the rescue anyway, but that isn’t CO2. The fact you used the one year old dishonest Karlization graph is very telling to readers on this site.”
Just part of the cycle. You don’t get to end it on the down bit, which is what the *pause* was due to.
Yes the PDO /ENSO cycle is natural but it has to play through.
Yet they keep on ending at higher temps.
How,s that happening then?
And at the same time OHC is rising.
If there is a net transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere then it should cool, and over the long term stay stable.
http://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/n-g_temperature_El-Nino_1967withlines.gif
http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/_Media/ocean-heat-content-2016_med.jpeg
Toneb,
your use of the GISS temperature data set,invalidates your entire post and destroys your credibility.
You also like most warmists ignore the too high predictive PER DECADE warming rate the IPCC many times posted from 1990 onwards. You also keep ignoring the Satellite temperature data altogether.
Wish you would stop being a dishonest person on this topic.
The much fabricated GISS is the only thing he has.
He KNOWS its a farce, and he KNOWS that he is being DELIBERATELY DISHONEST.
Dishonesty and outright LIES are the only things the AGW scammers have to fall back on.
“your use of the GISS temperature data set invalidates your entire post and destroys your credibility.”
So the sat temp data does not invalidate your *argument*?
See my further posts.
There’s NOTHING that is more adjusted in the sphere of climate science than UAH/RSS.
“Wish you would stop being a dishonest person on this topic.”
If merely correcting mis-truths and presenting the science (linked) is dishonest ….
Then frankly that comment says more about where you come from my friend. ( conspiracy ideation)
Try refuting what I posted and not using ad hom.
You lost the *argument* straight off.
What would you do without those Hockey stick charts, Toneb?
Pt3
“In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “predicted a huge and rapid rise” [27] in temperatures of up to up to six degrees in this century.”
No it didn’t …..
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrich_Cubasch/publication/235948804_Climate_Change_2001_Synthesis_Report/links/00b4952a888af0e5af000000.pdf
“Global average surface temperature is estimated to increase 1.2 to 3.5°C by the year 2100 for profiles that eventually
stabilize the concentration of CO2 at levels from 450 to 1,000 ppm. Thus, although all of the CO2
concentration stabilization profiles analyzed would prevent, during the 21st century, much of the
upper end of the SRES projections of warming (1.4 to 5.8°C by the year 2100), it should be noted
that for most of the profiles the concentration of CO2 would continue to rise beyond the year 2100.
The equilibrium temperature rise would take many centuries to reach, and ranges from 1.5 to
3.9°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 450 ppm, and 3.5 to 8.7°C above the year
1990 levels for stabilization at 1,000 ppm.”
“We have had “37 consecutive years of documented, systematic model failure.” [31] “The failure of the models … need to be acknowledged” [32] but the proponents refuse to admit their error.”
No…..
And give the usual (GISS is *adjusted* and can’t be trusted)
,then quote the Trop temp Sat data series (which one? RSS v1.0 to 4.0 or UAH up to V6.0(beta5)
And even then they don’t agree with sonde data since the AMSU sensor took over in ’98…..
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
“The increase of carbon has made the earth “observably greener”. [40] Carbon is the basic plant food. Carbon is the key to photosynthesis, the process plants use to live and grow. Carbon is like oxygen for plants.”
It is/has.
However the Earth’s biosphere including humans flourished at 280ppm of the “insignificant trace gas” and no more is necessary, with the law of diminishing returns and then worse involved…..
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
“The likelihood is that the content of carbon in our air today has had no influence on the occurrence of this list of bad or unusual things. Who is paying for attaching the ills of the world to dangerous manmade global warming?”
“alligators in the Thames”
A *classic*
Look up Milankovitch cycles.
“The confidence of the proponents should have been tempered by now after seeing the work their models have done”
Err, nope……
NB: adjusted for forcing that actually occurred v those that were projected at the time of the CMIP5 runs.
“‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. ”
He was quoting one estimate of someone who had not yet published a paper on it. In the same speech Gore also quoted 22 years … oh, and you meant 7 years. Yes?
“Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Gore was alluding to Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey and the actual prediction from Maslowski’s 2009 publication (not a peer-reviewed paper) is, “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.”
He was wrong. AS is likely to be the case for an outlier prediction.
He did do a peer-reviewed paper in 2012 ….
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345
Now to the nub of it …..
“Something is driving the warming proponents which is overruling the scientific method. A billion-dollars-a-day of work is part of it. The power and the glory is part of it. The totalitarian nature of progressivism is part of it. My opinion is that the totalitarian instinct, the horrendous human trait given religious preeminence in the progressive faith, is now the guiding driver of proponents.”
Now there is a name for someone who says that, ignoring the near certainty of the science. I’ll leave you to figure what it is.
Sceptic?
So what is the red curve in the graph? The subset of UAH TLT that is in the part of the world covered by RATPAC-A? And what is the blue graph – RATPAC-A with weighting of various altitudes according to the weighting curve of UAH TLT? And what is the left scale – how much these disagree with global UAH TLT? I wish it was more clear what these are, because the red and blue curves agree well with each other, especially in the AMSU period.
Donald:
It is the UAH data series minus the RATPAC A 850-300mb throughout showing the disconnect at the MSU to AMSU changover.
Now Mears at RSS has said that they do not know which is the incorrect sensor and so have produced v4 such that it minimises the diff between both sensors.
Christy at UAH has said that the new AMSU should be the correct one (no reason – just newer). And they have gone with that a being correct.
Result – both are wrong but UAH is likely most wrong.
They are running too cold.
If the Y axis is UAH minus RATPAC A 850-300 mb, please explain what the red and blue curves are. At this point, I still suspect that the Y axis is UAH TLT global minus RATPAC A 850-300 mb, and one of either the red or blue curves is UAH TLT global minus RATPAC A measurements, and the other is UAH TLT global minus its subset that is the part of the world covered by RATPAC A. I ask for clarification to refute in a good specific way or to confirm my suspicions here. Your response noted as December 29 1:05 PM does not explain why there are red and blue curves and their split linear trends, as opposed to only one curve and one split linear trend with a disconnect around 1999.
Toneb: Giss is not the only falsified temperature set you use. By itself it will invalidate your argument but there is more. You have made it your business to unearth data that falsifies not just one but several demogrified temperature sources. By using such falsified temperatures your babble that makes use of them is worthless. Specifically, the falsified temperature sources you use belong to “CMIP3 individual reealizations…” and “Global mean temperature anomalies” graphs. Look at figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” to find the truth. That UAH vs. Ratpac of yours I don’t recognize either. The downslope in its twenty-first century is intriguing and may have a partial explanation but aspects of ENSO that exist after 2012 you have completely wiped out. The fakery of the first two graphs I mentioned has a common origin so let’s look at that. Satellite data show that in the eighties and nineties there was no warming and that a hiatus existed from 1979 to 1997. The last date was the beginning of the super El Nino of 1998 which put an end to the ENSO peaks that existed between it and 1979. You ignore the existence of the hiatus of the eighties and nineties and create a temperature increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius during this period. Your fakery does not end there because that imaginary heat now becomes the base upon which the super El Nino and the twenty-first century that follows are built up. Furthermore, you also keep raising the temperature during the first part of the twenty-first century twhen there is no warming. Using the November issue of UAH satellite data, any warming stops after this and global temperature begins to cool down before the first decade is over. It does that for ten years and then turns up again in a buildup to the El Nino of 2016. Both CMIP3 and CMIP5 completely ignore the existence of this El Nino. This is not surprising because climate models are pretty worthless that way. There has been enough time to check on the performance of the earlier ones and they all fail to correctly predict what is ahead. What they do most consistently is predict warming that never happens Looks like wishful thinking made true by their million-line climate programs running on supercomputers. As to the real future, if you extrapolate the downward slope between 2002 and 2012 linearly through and past the 2016 El Nino you will find that the most likely future global baseline o will return to what used to be in the (real) eighties and nineties baseline. It is not likely that any models can predict anything like that. There is still more here but I don’t feel like beating a dead horse any more..
While I quite agree with the overall thrust of this piece, there are some questionable assertions. This one stands out:
Where does the author get this idea from? There is a method to avoid this kind of bloopers. It is called “homework.”
“On yet another scale, geology shows that all six of the great ice ages were initiated when atmospheric CO2 was far higher than at present and, with the first two great ice ages, up to a thousand times higher than the current atmospheric CO2 content.” Location 215 of Climate Change: The Facts. Ian Plimer. Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide.
That was a typo in “Climate Change, the facts”. It’s 400 now. It has been as high as 7000, IIRC <20times.
The second major ice age, the Cryogenian, had CO2 nothing like a thousand times what it is now, closer to 3.5 times what it is now.
The atmosphere has 400 ppm CO2 now. One thousand times more would be 400,000 ppm, or 40%. Such a value would completely wipe out all animal life. Probably not even plants could sustain it. Where would all the carbon come from, as well as the oxygen that is also part of the CO2? How could the geochemical carbon dioxide sinks be prevented from functioning long enough for such a high concentration to build up? It is completely fanciful.
“Creation of temperature…”
What? This is like speaking of the creation of distance. I was tired of this essay even before reaching this puzzler.
What the heck is “voguing”? I couldn’t get past the title.
w.
Try this out…
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/nov/18/-sp-vogueing-dance-came-back-into-vogue-madonna
I think the article writer is referencing the stylized posturing of it, as a metaphor.
How voguing came back into vogue
The dance, invented on the streets of Harlem in the 1980s and given cult status by the documentary Paris is Burning, is back in the mainstream.
Grauniad
Ha – I missed Steve Fraser’s response.
I am the only one here who finds Toneb’s casual use of completely made up temperature anomaly data disturbing? People of his ilk need to be called out on this EVERY time they present false data.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
–Joseph Goebbels
Fake quote.
Perhaps he meant to cite this
2. Hitler and the “Big Lie”
The false Goebbels quotation above is actually a take-off on Hitler’s familiar statement in Mein Kampf, which is often misunderstood. Hitler stated:
“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)
It’s amusing how often quotes about lies are themselves lies.
Goebbels did say this about the English and lies, which might fit Jonathan K’s argument:
“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Joseph Goebbels – Churchill’s Lie Factory
TLDR – but since the author has fallen into the trap of referring to carbon dioxide as “carbon” the rest is highly suspect.
I understand this is a quote from a published work, I would still suggest replacing it with:
In other words, “the impact of [anthropogenic] climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” [66]
Regarding: “If carbon dioxide was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming?” Except CO2 never was that high any time during or after the Cambrian period. The highest it got to any time since the beginning of the Cambrian period was about 15 times as high as it is now.
One of the best compilations utilizing short synopses presented on a single page that I’ve seen. Thanks for all the work!
This part of the article stuck out to me:
““Energy is the most basic of economic resources behind wealth and living standards even though it represents only 5 per cent of GDP.” [80] The dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis demonizes the energy needed to fight poverty. By diverting us from the proven way to end poverty “global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked,” said Mr. Lawson. [81]”
The promotion of the CAGW speculation is causing great harm to humanity, now and in the future. We need to wake up and get our priorities straight. The CAGW speculation is diverting resources from areas where they are really needed.
This post is a fine example of the problem arguing CAGW/CC or whatever this weeks name for “The Sky is Falling .”
Too much material.
Too many undefined terms.
Too many diversions.
Now being somewhat familiar with the ins and outs of this story I can sort of see what the author is saying, but the Title (Point?) is never arrived at.
This subject was designed as a tarbaby, being neither science nor honest, it leaves the doubter in a curious position, that of disproving a negative.
Global Warming, Climate Change are meaningless terms, hugely emoted yet never defined.
#1 Time period.
#2 Definition of change.(What is climate how has it changed?)
#3 Falsifiable theory.
So the first rule of communication should be,”who are you talking to?”
Just as the old rule, a genuine scientist/engineer should be able to explain their work to an average 12 year old.
When faced with emotional people who convincingly appear to believe 6 impossible things before the conversation began, where do you start?
The usual tactic is to use their own rules to reach them, yet this founders on their genuine incoherence.
Attempting to see the world through their eyes, leaves you feeling blind and stupid.
Or reeling in laughter, incredulous.
This is why I respect Brad Keyes, that man can delve farther into the alarmed mindset than I will ever bother and come back with genuine gems.
I guess age may play a part here, I can fix near anything technological,given sufficient time and material, stupid is not repairable and I have learnt,the hard way, not to try.
Once I recognize stupid,I move along.
The 5 laws of Human Stupidity should be read by all.
As the most misunderstood rule is this
“You cannot protect yourself from harm due to the actions of a truly stupid person”.
We all forget this rule, usually until we are paying the costs of just that,once again.
Thinking I can anticipate an idiots actions is the worst most arrogant self delusion.
If a person wants to persist in idiotic self destructive behaviour, I now believe they are welcome, however I will protect me and mine as much as possible.Read that as run.
Avoidance works best,or encouraging them to avoid me is even better.
Now the myth of manmade doom through climate destruction has a silver lining, because of its religious nature, the self preening,virtue signalling types seem drawn like moths to the flame.
Self identifying themselves for all to notice.
If you value the longterm health of your community, pay attention.
This kind of Gullibility should never hold power over others.
Of any kind.
‘A change in temperature is a change in climate.’
Not really.
This ignorant loopy drivel from the man who can’t even name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of air.
Can’t tell any of us what the equation is.
Can’t tell any of us what the factors stand for in it.
Clueless bluffing, incompetence too ignorant to be ashamed at not being able to solve for the temperature of air or gases.
“Toneb December 29, 2016 at 10:44 am
Bryan:
I have a 4kwp solar array on my roof, burn locally sourced wood (chopped by myself) and drive a 40mpg diesel Ford Kuga just 10k miles a year.
However if my roof was unsuitable for the solar, would that make me a hypocrite?
You see, denizens seem unable to divorce politics from the science.
All I advocate IS the science.
If this site posted some that did not have it’s raison d’être as the need for the consensus to be wrong (incompetent experts, fraud, conspiracy, greed etc) then I wouldn’t be here.
As it is ( noW Mosher seems to be scarce) is Lief, Nick and myself who have backgrounds in science and a few others who can be bothered to put up with the “Troll” type replies.
I say to them – what purpose does it serve that you all pile in here to cheer on your fave “citizen scientists ” who just come here themselves for the hugs and kisses they would not get if they actually published a paper in a reputable journal.
That’s not science and neither will it bring it down.
All I aim to do is deny ignorance (of the science).”
I find it hard to understand why the temperature history measured from 1880 until the present is not more widely discussed in terms of it probably being the best predictor of future temperature change that is available. It certainly surpasses the ability of the many failed computer models. For example, if the previous pattern of measured temperature change continues then there will only be forty year of warming in the current century. What remains to be seen is whether each period of warming will feature more warming than the previous period of warming.
I find it hard to understand how we can trust any depiction of temperature history anymore. I am loosing faith in the data. That’s why I think the argument has to shift to the physics, and to models based on the right physics to prove those failed models wrong.
So many graphs, … so little range — 0.6 degrees ! … [img src] this is so huge ! … We’re doomed ! ] … (note the use of “imaginative sarcasm” brackets.)
“Those failed models” have already been proven to be wrong. The battle over whether man is the cause of global warming has to be fought and won in front of the public in terms the public will understand. Consideration and use of temperature data would appear to be essential to winning that battle.
This ‘article’ is just a blog, and media obfuscation at it’s best. It’s just a lot of info thrown at you to give it the look of credibility. And, I refuse to believe the claim that this is the world’s most viewed website on climate change. 2.1 million hits in November and a bounce rate of 63% doesn’t add up.
On the content, all but two of the ‘sources’ are from one book by Alan Moran published by the Institute of Public Affairs, so this is basically a reprint of that book’s talking points. But it gets better (citations via Sourcewatch).
Alan Moran: Director of Deregulation unit at the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. He works to end most government regulation and he is a climate change skeptic, opposing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.’ Here’s a sample of his thinking: ‘Moran endorsed the concept of Australia establishing a dump for global nuclear waste. “…Australia could provide a permanent solution to other countries’ problems,”‘, ‘often argues that because most people travel by car they have a preference to do so. He takes little consideration for the fact that car usage is the result of poor planning and lack of public transport provision to new suburbs’, ‘makes the claim that people presently only use public transport because it’s because paid for by the government. However, he later makes the claim that even if public transport were free, people won’t use it.’
As for the IPA: ‘a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne…close links to the Liberal Party of Australia…key policy positions include: advocacy for privatisation and deregulation; attacks on the positions of unions and non-government organisations; support of assimilationist indigenous policy (cf. the Bennelong Society) and refutation of the science involved with environmental issues such as climate change.’, ‘For all their talk of ‘transparency’ though, the IPA has been embroiled in controversy over failure to disclose funders of its work…has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations’
What’s more, the blog’s conclusion has nothing to do with climate change but attacks ‘progressivism’. And I haven’t even addressed all the pseudoscience! (measuring ice cover in square miles?!?)
It does get one thing right though; don’t trust everything you read. Anthropogenic climate change isn’t open and shut, but it’s strongly suggested by the real data, and with so much at stake you must apply the precautionary principle, and for God’s sake, be honest.
v’
If the temperature charts provided by official sources in the United Kingdom and the United States are of any value then the temperature history from 1880 until the present does not support the notion that man-made CO2 or any other CO2 is the cause of global warming. Or is the fact that there is not continuous warming at the same time that there is a continuous presence of CO2 in the atmosphere not evidence of the apparent irrelevance of the CO2 to the warming