Skeptics often get asked to show why they thinks climate change isn’t a crisis, and why we should not be alarmed about it. These four graphs from Michael David White are handy to use for such a purpose.
Note: the top chart of 10,000 years of climate change has been updated to reflect the x-axis on 1/31/17
How about overlaying NOAA’s past temperature reconstruction from the 1970s with the same period now, to show the chic@nery?
Thanks to Tony Heller
This is a good on from Anthony’s paper:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/watts/watts-fig-8-rural-mmts-airports-out.gif
Excellent and thanks!
+97%!!!!
Apparently this is a reference to the PROVEN FACT that 97% of the actual hard data and evidence supports the claims that humans have NOT usurped the vastly more powerful forces of nature that determine weather, temperature and climate and that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of trends in same.
Thanks!
Adding some knowledge about CO2.
#FAQ about #CO2!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2016/06/questions-and-answers-about-co2.html
Oops. Chemtrails above!
“At above link,” I should have said.
Only had to read down to the 3rd bullet item under “Now let us talk about CO2” to find an untruth
“Is CO2 a poison”
The answer to that is definitely yes, when in the right quantities.
CO2 is toxic to some garden pests at 10,000 ppm 1%, and is toxic to humans after an exposure of 5 minutes to a level of 90,000 ppm 9%
Given the right concentration and CO2 is definitely poisonous to humans
all is poison, nothing is poison, the dosis alone makes the poison.
So i guess you can say that CO2 is a poison, but that’s not really fair. Water will kill you faster, does it means that water is a poison as you understand this word?
Let say that CO2 is a poison that doesn’t harm us because we have natural ways to cope with it, up to concentration 100 greater than normaly found. That is, a non poisonous poison.
Brian A, a lethal dose of milk will kill you. Marathoners have died from drinking a lot of water without also adding electrolytes (essentially salt), oh and like CO2, too much salt will kill. I think we have a law developing here:
Excessive Anything Will kill You.
Gary Pearse, I would like to commit suicide by having too much sex.
Well, and don’t think I’m one of those nuts who thinks the government is deliberately spraying us with some sort of harmful or mind controlling chemicals PLEASE, technically the water vapor in jet exhaust is a “chemtrail”, just not what those who are worried about them say it is! And it may well be that these “chemtrails” (visible jet engine exhaust, which is mostly CO2 and water vapor, isn’t it? What else is in there – other than perhaps some inefficiently burned fuel?) DO in fact have some SMALL effect on something like solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, or being reflected before getting well into the atmosphere. There was a paper that suggested a measured difference in this during the days following 9/11, when many flights were cancelled and the skies were unusually clear. What ever became of that theory? Any more evidence to support or refute it? Anyone know?
I thought if I had Google translate, it would help. It didn’t.
If You meant my article. Please just select the right language symbol. For English the flag of UK!
Only the flags with available article have a link, the others are greyed out.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Does not CO2 cause death by asphyxiation ie by exclusion of O2 & not by toxicity?
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of carbon monoxide?
No, it can be pretty toxic in itself. At high levels It changes the ph of blood which has a disastrous effect. It also has some effects which are essential to good homeostasis, but like everything, it’s a question of balance.
This is right. On the other side CO2 is the foundation of O2. Plants absorb CO2 to release O2 by photosynthesis. What they additionally need is strong sunlight and water.
So the rise of CO2 indicates missing sunlight and/or water.
We need the 21% O2 in air for breathing. If the rate of O2 sinks below that level and the rate of CO2 increases accordingly we are suffocated. CO2 level is a trigger for us to feel asphyxiation, before we are really in danger of death.
Below “essedelendam” suggests that,
“the rise of CO2 indicates missing sunlight and/or water.”
That is an interesting theory though I know of no evidence supporting any claim of a significant reduction in either sunlight or water, to any significant degree, but I also have no evidence I can provide to refute it at this time – that is to say I do not insist it is untrue, I just am not ready to believe it until I see evidence that either sunlight or water is missing. My opinion is that there are natural sources and sinks of CO2 that are ALWAYS of varying strengths, for various reasons, and I do see evidence to support this view of things, which is so obvious that I will leave it to those who don’t to ask me specific questions if they care to do so. Anyway, even the changes we have seen are not unprecedented, IMHO, with respect to rate or amplitude, at least as far as we are able to accurately ESTIMATE based on the proxies at hand, which are known to be rather flawed, the further back in time we try to guess, or if you wish, estimate, what things that were not actually directly measured were like.
Now yes, I know that “chemtrails”, which in this context are MERELY THE VISIBLE EXHAUST OF JET ENGINES, containing primarily water vapor as the visible part and the products of the combustion of jet fuel as well, often misrepresented as some devious chemical being sprayed by governments or some shadowy malevolent yet usually unidentified entity, but which have been hypothesized to perhaps have some influence on the Earth’s energy balance. That seems to be PERHAPS what is being claimed here, though I do not think that human activity has reached a level where that influence is significant. Is there any ABUNDANT evidence that I am wrong? Has anyone gone beyond (as I already mentioned) the paper which I did read that claimed to have measured a significant change in incoming solar energy during the time flights were grounded during the aftermath of 9/11?
“Only had to read down to the 3rd bullet item under “Now let us talk about CO2” to find an untruth” Could you please try the keep the context to today’s climate science? Unless you think we are heading towards 90,000 ppm? Or maybe it is a poison we cannot live without? Some whackjobs think we need to spend trillions to try and get back to 280ppm, like that is some kind of magic number, and I guess it is if you main goal is to limitthe number of people on earth…
Could You please what is the untruth in the list?
I am collecting basic knowledge about CO2, to show that the so called “climate science” is not science but a marketing religion for geoengineering.
Maybe You did not read the content precisely. I don’t think anything about CO2 when ask questions and give the answers.
So please don’t claim anything what I have not written there.
The geoengineering mafia may have intention about population reduction, because geoengineering is already damaging the environment and killing people. Their current goal is water grabbing for fracking and farming industry.
When You check other articles there, You will find that various aspects of geoengineering are explained separately.
that malleability of data one did grab my eye and confuse me for a moment. wasn’t able to read the text about deviation from start initially, once was able to rotate and read it all made sense.
Need a little further explanation of the third graph to make it comprehensible to a semi-scientist like myself – and to laypersons in general
It’s showing the global temperature on two scales. The right-side axis applies to the red line but the chosen scale seems to be arbitrary. If you graph average global temperate on a scale of -40°C to +40°C, the approximate highest and lowest temperatures found on earth on any given day, you can’t tell the temperature line has any slope at all.
All the graphs should show the source of the data otherwise alarmists are just going to “deny” them. : )
The source is shown.
Tom Trevor. You’re right! I didn’t realize the charts included the text. Thanks.
Greenland.
My bad. The 1st and 4th seem to be of Greenland (which doesn’t agree with global averages since other parts of the planet more than make up for the heat in the other direction).
The 3rd graph is just a stretching effect, saying that graphs are stretched to create feeling of seriousness visually. I think the idea is to make it clearer to see the numbers since it should be obvious that if you compress you cannot see them. And I think the range matters as many studies have suggested a few degrees rise would be a serious affair, especially if it’s not just the surface temp but translates to the deep oceans.
The 2nd graph is missing context and appears to be lined up badly towards the left side. Some of the missing context are the “error bars” of the projections and which projection are they talking about. Projections come from computer simulations. They are many such models and they use probability (stochiastic) to account for the fact we don’t have an infinite number of thermometers to carefully measure temp everywhere, nor do we have unlimited computing power so have to approximate. Also, the modelers must make guesses about many future things like CO2 release levels, volcanic activity, etc (eg, smog can cool the earth as can heavy volcanic activity while the air is opaque/whitish). You have to make sure to adjust the projections once you know these variables in the future; otherwise, the projection is burdened not just with modeling CO2 effects but also guessing what laws mankind will pass and how much CO2 will be released and the strength of the sun, etc. Models are more narrow in scope and focus on natural effects of what we have measured.
If the model graph (graph 2) is a variation of what was posted in 2013 (here and elsewhere, including by jonova) and made by John Christy, then the graph indicates the temp data is not surface data but data from balloons high up and data from satellite that covers a wide swath of the atmosphere averaged together. [We know from daily experience that something can be very hot near the core yet release little heat near the surface, eg, a hot oven insulated well.] Meanwhile, the model projection looks like the modelling of surface temperature not lower atmosphere area temperature. So is that graph overlay doing apples to oranges?
“All the graphs should show the source of the data otherwise alarmists are just going to “deny” them.”
True, but in my experience, even when MY SOURCE is THEIR SOURCES, (i.e. the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, peer reviewed papers published in respected journals, “climate scientists” including but not limited to Michael Mann, etc.) they STILL deny it if it forces them to re-evaluate their chosen world view and recognize their obvious cognitive dissonance.
Chart 3 shows a big change in gray and a small change in red. Both the gray and the red are the same numbers. The Y Axis on the left is for the gray and the Y axis on the right is for the red.
Overlapping graphs like this are common in some fields, but it is confusing, especially if your not used to it. Usually some clarification is added by making the scale match the color of the line it corresponds to. In this case the scale for the red line is on the left, and the scale for the gray line (with fill below it) is on the right. The data is the same, so the only difference is the gray is at a 10x vertical exaggeration to the red.
I hope I that was clear.
I suppose there could be a graph in one scale, then another graph in the different scale and then the combo. That might help people see. I like the graph. It’s hard to get people to understand that the scale on the graph matters a great deal.
For graphs in colour, it’s usually easy for the “graph maker” to match the colours of their scales with their curves. The malleability graph would have benefited by having the left vertical scale in grey and the right one in red. The Banality graph could have both vertical scales side-by-side on either the left or the right, but not use both. This way the casual viewer can see that they are essentially the same scales, just with a different/shifted zero datum.
Provide a +Button and a -Button to animate an increase/decrease in the y-axis scaling along with the corresponding animation on the resolution of what is being graphed.
Why’ve you compared the temperature change in one small region (Greenland) with the global climate change in the 4th graph? Wouldn’t you expect the temperature to vary more in a small locality than when averaged globally?
The last graph Y axis should be labeled ‘from Greenland’
I just use one….
Latitude, Nice chart. And that’s after adjustments were made to make the past cooler!
I use it too.
Catch up with the 20th century, and show us that in Celsius. Then we’ll see some Global Warming, won’t we?
better yet, in Kelvin
Absolute zero as base! That will look really impressive.
For reasons that were never made clear, the graph’s text refers to alcohol thermometers twice. I suspect that’s a mistake, and that it should refer to mercury as that freezes near -40F/-40C. Perhaps Latitude can explain that, I don’t think anyone has bother to inquire about it. Oh, I just checked the source. Alcohol because it’s usually red.
Lame.
Tufte would not approve.
Do the same thing with your favorite stock.
Personally for me, no need to do so for the majority of my stocks since they all tend to migrate to absolute zero upon purchase …..
Good job I scrolled down to check before posting the same….well done Latitude. This image totally humiliates ‘dangerous climate change’ theory in one single snapshot. Be warned though; using this against alarmists tends to make them very angry indeed. 🙂
It makes even more sense to plot that on a meaningful scale such as degrees Kelvin. That shows a total heat quantity, which might be uaeful. Darned hard to see any trends for the stability, though.
The Y axis range should be chosen to be just beyond the range of the actual variables being plotted. Examples of this can be seen in the post we are commenting on. To choose a Y axis range that is 50 times the range of the Y variable is an obvious attempt to minimize the appearance of change. Such a graph would be laughed out of any scientific conference, or corporate boardroom for that matter.
Piece of crap chart, especially used by itself. We’ve covered this before. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/#comment-2117915
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:15 pm Edit
I’m disappointed that no one has mentioned Edward Tufte, author of books like The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. If you have the opportunity to go to one of his One Day Courses, do so! Expensive ($420), but you get copies of several of his books.
One thing he recommends for graphs like this is to aim for a slope of about 45°. Too low and you get the ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over here, too high and it appears exaggerated, call it the analog SHOUTING in text.
It also helps if the readers have read his books too….
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:48 pm Edit
Lotsa of Tufte and words of wisdom from Dilbert. Doesn’t get much better than this.
http://www.jmp.com/about/events/summit2010/protected/elements_graphing_figard_ppr.pdf
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:57 pm Edit
h/t to Steve Mosher for the Tufte reference to 45° while I was reading comments.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2117899
Steven Mosher
January 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm Edit
no problem.
everytime I see people try to attack the anomaly charts I think… have they read Tufte
Ric Werme
January 12, 2016 at 4:54 am Edit
I think “They need to read Tufte.” 🙂
commieBob
January 11, 2016 at 7:19 pm Edit
I totally agree. You don’t even need to buy the books. A bit of googleing around will get one a pretty good taste of Tufte’s wisdom.
… the ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over …
If you want to show that the earth’s average temperature is remarkably constant you would go for the flat graph. Other than that, I agree, such a graph is kind of useless. For instance, if I wanted to describe ice ages and interglacials I would make the vertical axis cover about ten degrees C. If I wanted to describe the annual temperature range in Saskatchewan I would make the vertical axis about 100 degrees C. (180 deg. F).
Aphan
January 13, 2016 at 2:32 pm Edit
That’s the point. The earth’s average temperature IS remarkably constant. Attempting to show otherwise, one has create graphs that make it APPEAR like earth’s recent temperatures are not ALSO remarkably constant by using “anomalies” and pretending they reflect temperatures accurately.
When scientists (or their fawning fans) are FORCED to compare earth apples to earth apples-instead of comparing WORMS in apples, to apples-it makes them go batcrap crazy and make statements like “that ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over”.
The first chart shows 10,000 Years of NATURAL Climate Change. When IPCC mentions Climate Change, they are referring to CAGW, the CO2 Armageddon Global Warming Climate Change.
The news showed the woman on the airplane going ballistic due to a Trump supporter. She hysterically mentioned that the Trump supporter didn’t believe in ‘Climate Change’, i.e., she understands the phrase Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, not the CO2 Global Warming Climate Change. She is incensed that intelligent people on this planet, including WUWT readers/commenters/posters, don’t believe in (Natural) Climate Change.
I’ve said it before, and most people ‘don’t get it’ – the IPCC purposely changed the topic from Global Warming cuz they knew (rather cleverly) that most people would now conflate Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, when they should be interpreting it as Global Warming (CO2) Climate Change.
OK, you people can eviscerate me all you want but I will tell you this: IPCC has wordsmithed the skeptics, especially the great scientific minds (NOT being sarcastic) and you just don’t get it. You’ve been played by a smarter group.
i always say climate always changes, to believe in a “stable climate” is believing in a lie.
“to believe in a “stable climate” is believing in a lie.”
And yet, the last 150 or so years have been remarkably stable.
Very little real temperature change compared to Ice age changes, or even the drop from the Holocene optimum. A small but highly beneficial rise out of the LIA,
Very little change in Hurricanes, rainfall..
Droughts etc probably less severe than in the past..
Altogether… pretty BENIGN. !!
Ah, no. “climate” is never stable, it changes constantly.
If you think of the Earth’s climate as a control system with feedbacks, it is definitely stable as evidenced by millions of years of having a temperature within a narrow, bounded range. For those involved in control systems design, by one definition, a system is stable if every bounded input produces a bounded output. Stability in that sense does not mean that the output is unchanging. I’d say the climate exhibits the characteristics of a stable system…and yes it does change a bit over time…almost entirely naturally except in heavily urban environments. My two centavos.
Yes the climate is stable because there has never been a runaway climate in one direction. Temperatures go up and down, bounded within some fairly narrow range. There is and has never been a tipping point. There is zero evidence of a tipping point as defined by the warmists.
+1 boulder skeptic
Climate is stable, chaotic, changing all the time with no need of any cause to do that.
“Stable climate” is an oxymoron, isn’t it?
exactly and this brings me to the claim many make about the earth being in “equilibrium” as its natural state and that humans releasing co2 have upset this equilibrium and are causing a NEW “equilibrium” at a warmer state…….there is NO EQUILIBRIUM in the real world, the entire record shows NO period of stability = NO EQUILIBRIUM, this means there are factors at work seeking a balance(thermodynamics as one example) but because the factors at play constantly change then the point of equilibrium also constantly MOVES and cant be found. like a teeter totter with changing weights on both sides, YES for a fleeting moment there is balance as it moves in one direction or the other, but it NEVER comes to rest at that balance point…
Sorry for getting off-topic, but IMO this miracle planet we find ourselves on has had a “stable” environment for life for the majority of its time orbiting the sun. Yes, there have been major extinction events, however none of those are attributable to our climate – changes have occurred however these are all due to extenuating circumstances and not due to natural changes in our climate.
And these major extinction events appear to be epitomes of “silver linings”. Life that evolved after each such event has been different from the past, and has usually left “something” behind for us to utilize.
The relative stability of the climate of earth, always in constant flux but always remaining within the window for life to evolve and flourish, is the reason for our presence on this planet. It is very unfortunate, IMO, that we have wasted so much time and resources on attempting to alter the natural course of the ever-changing climate.
For nothing.
Pollution is entirely another matter. CO2 is not pollution.
Really? Whenever anyone tries to bully me with “climate change” I just remind them that the alarmists are still claiming every year to be the “Hottest Evaaah”, so they’re actually still talking about “global warming”, not “climate change”, and that it’s semantics. Why play semantics? Because the “science” of CAGW is utter tripe, and they know it.
Yes, the alarmists are trying to play “us”, but they’re not a smarter group. When your success depends on bamboozling the stupid and the venal, you’re not really that smart, just manipulative (naughty words self-redacted).
I agree with most of your points but no we’ve not been played by a “smarter” group. We’ve been temporarily out maneuvered by a vastly more deceitful group.
And by temporary I’m not suggesting that we descend to deceit and manipulation of data. In the end the truth will win out.
Think of it like a chess game. Our opponent has thrown a full assault on our position and sacrificed material to gain a temporary advantage. Yes to a less skilled person they seem to have the advantage. Then comes the late mid game where our defense has held and then the end game where our superiority is a guaranteed win.
Resignations are accepted graciously. Hurling the king piece across the hall and storming off does occur but is frowned upon 🙂
“She hysterically mentioned that the Trump supporter didn’t believe in ‘Climate Change’, i.e., she understands the phrase Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, ”
You really are dumb if you think what she meant by “climate change”..
She definitely meant Al Gore type climate change, requiring immediate ranting and raving.
………
“You’ve been played by a smarter group.”
RUBBISH. Most people conflate “Climate Change” as “human forced” climate change.. as in CO2
Nobody has been fooled by the name change, except, apparently, you.
“You’ve been played by a smarter group.”
No, I was wise to their tactics all along. As they played their little game, trying to subliminally change “manmade global warming” to “climate change” to “extreme weather”, I morphed my own catchcry to its current, handy C6 acronym: CCCCCC – Capitalist Caucasian Caused Catastrophic Climate Change. Each time they play a game, I’ll just come up with another appropriate C to add. Roll on C7!
For years I’ve used the the term: Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult
That was my C5
Then you topped me with your C7
I can’t tell you how upset I was after reading your C7 — considered throwing myself off a building, but I couldn’t find an elevator.
But then I combined parts of your C7, with my C5, to come up with my new C9:
Caucasian Capitalist CO2-Caused Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult.
… and now you will have to go back to the drawing board.
In the leftist tradition, I (we?) know that naming something appropriately, for propaganda purposes, is far more important than knowing anything about the subject.
To save on typing, I often use the term “warmunist”.
And I give the warmunists the appropriate ridicule and character attacks they deserve.
The Global Warming Hoax is not real science — it’s just computer game wild guesses to scare people anf gain political power — so should not be treated as real science.
Kokoda, we are ahead of you there, and so is Trump.
It is actually the alarmists who do not believe in “climate change.” They believe that some arbitrary point in the recent past is the “normal” climate, and that any deviation from that point is abnormal and must be caused by man, since there is no such thing as natural climate change. Deniers!!! All of them!!!
Of course this article also reinforces my belief that there are “lies, damn lies, statistics… and charts/graphs..”
I thought the point of going from “man-made global warming” to “climate change” was that it was not falsifiable no matter what happened. The warmists can never be ‘wrong’ to say “the climate is changing”.
They will call it a crisis no matter what.
Skeptics have turned that on its head and pointed out natural climate change has been going on for 4 billion years.
The vast oceans are heat sinks and CO2 sinks, and its useful to turn this back around to marvel at the degree of natural negative feedbacks that moderates the climate, and will make any concern wrt CO2 a moot point, as the heat and CO2 both are moderated away.
The phrase “climate change” was not coined by scientists. It was first used by Frank Luntz, an American political consultant. See “Conclusions Redefining Labels” item number 1 [page 142 (12 on PDF)]
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
“It was first used by Frank Luntz”
Your link has Frank Luntz advising Republican congressmen on how to sound as if they care about the environment, without scaring anybody. He seems to think climate change is a good word for them to use.
Right. Skeptics as well as warmists use lack of falsifiability as a weapon when it is to their advantage in making an argument. Needed for resolution of the public policy issue is for falsifiability to be installed into the methods of the investigation.
The failure of the climate models to predict the magnitude of climate change falsifies the assertion of scientists who claim to have the capacity to see the future.
Michael David White:
An often misunderstood subtlety is that the climate models do not predict. If they predicted, the claims of these models would be falsifiable but they are not. For falsifiability a statistical population has to be installed beneath each of the models. Currently there is no such population.
Terry Oldberg: “An often misunderstood subtlety is that the climate models do not predict. If they predicted, the claims of these models would be falsifiable but they are not. For falsifiability a statistical population has to be installed beneath each of the models. Currently there is no such population.”
Chart Author: I don’t understand this comment. I have assumed the models are used for predictions of climate. If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?
Michael David White:
You ask ” If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?” I answer “nothing.”
Michael David White: ” If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?”
Terry Oldberg: I answer “nothing.”
Chart Author: Is the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming a prediction? If yes, is it invalid? if it is invalid, why?
Chart Author:
“Is the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming a prediction? If yes, is it invalid? if it is invalid, why?”
Oldberg:
To call dangerous manmade global warming a “prediction” or “hypothesis” is a misleading use of language as under the language of global warming climatology “prediction” and “hypothesis” are polysemic terms That each term is polysemic supports arguments that are equivocations. Whether the conclusion of an equivocation is true or false not resolvable.
Most people think climate change is something new. We have all been indoctrinated by the dominant media to believe climate change is new because a recent change will logically be attributed to man. The 10,000-year history shows climate change is old and normal. It throws the burden of proof on the alarmists. The climate has always changed. The alarmists need to prove carbon dioxide caused the recent changes.
Meanwhile, the propagandists are hard at it. I want to believe that Ethan knows better, but he consistently disappoints. Can’t believe Forbes published this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/18/climate-science-isnt-political-lying-about-it-is/#27dae701f854
Well, someone has to say it.
It’s worse than we thought!
The dissimulation, the massaging of statistics, the fudging, the fr@ud, that is.
If the new POTUS does indeed cleanse these Augean stables, many ‘scientist’ will be looking at serious jail time.
Who will turn state’s evidence first?
First movers get the best deals.
“He suggested I fudge the data . . .”
“She ‘hoped’ I would eliminate high temperate stations from the World Average.”
Auto. Waiting.
First one’s to turn state’s evidence get the only deals.
Once investigators have enough to officially deal with others or prosecute several, that’s enough.
More details will out as they squeeze the bad practitioners.
Any evidence regarding international collaborators may be shared with that nation’s officials. Though sufficient collaborating and malicious career targeting could cause RICO use.
Auto, spot on, wherever you are.
He is not the first person to be obsessed with the idea that ‘x-out-of-the-last-y-years-were-record-highs’ is somehow unexpected or unusual: The hottest day of summer is very likely to follow, or be preceded by, the second and third hottest days of the year. They tend to cluster together for good physical reasons.
Similarly, a new high in the stock exchange is likely to follow a new high the previous day. No surprises.
The loftier peaks in a mountain range tend to be clustered near each other. Well, duhhh…
But somehow, when it comes to global warming, some quite sensible people seem to lose many of their critical faculties.
Here’s another one:
There’s ZERO actual evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures at all .. notwithstanding the theory. But there’s plenty of evidence that CO2 sharply increases agricultural yields. Recent yields:
While I don’t doubt your premise, I don’t think CO2 explains everything in improved agricultural yields.
Right. I didn’t say that, but it could explain 30% of it, and with higher CO2 ppms to 1000ppm or more agricultural yields would continue growing steadily:
http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/student_exp/mckemy/figures/fig21.jpg
I agree. That is better stated “..increases in CO2 are ‘part’ of the reason why…”.
Warmer temps also play a part in increased crop yields, along with improvements in seed strains.
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., published a paper in October 2013 entitled, “The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change © 2013, http://www.co2science.org).
From 1961 to 2011, the estimate is an additional $3.17 trillion in crop revenue.
Forecast from 2012 to 2050, assuming that the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues on its current trend, is an additional $9.76 trillion.
Just shy of $13 trillion over 90 years. $4,554/second, for 90 years. One of the reasons why I call CO2 the “molecule of life”.
So the CAGW crowd would change the scale on your first graph so that the degrees ranges from -1 to 2. Then it would look more scary and also it would follow the CO2 line. They would all yell Ah Ha! See? It proves warming is caused by CO2!
The yield increase primarily associated, after green revolution technology introduction, with chemical fertilizer use and irrigation use. These I discussed in my book.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Eric Simpson January 28, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Your graph makes the same mistake as shown in example 3: Scales in Temp and CO2 have no connection to each other. You can both of them give them any angle you like.
Better to show something like that:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:49/from:1940
Its a single graph that explains a lot.
1. I have aligned the CO2 curve from 1970 to 2000 to the Temperature Curve, as many did to prove Global Warming.
2. It shows also how the the idea has unfolded and got “science fact”. 30 Years having a correlation seems to prove everything.
3. It also shows how the “pause” destroyed the whole idea.
4. Even before 1960 there was no correlation.
5. This Chart could be added to show how the data have been reworked to fit to CO2 again.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1963/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/from:1963/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:49/from:1963/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1963/to:2015
HadCRUt3 only has data up to May 2012. Here’s the most recent (up to last month) Hadley time series, and with more stations.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:49/from:1940
Thanks. The topmost graph prooves that there IS a hockeystick (in the rightmost centimetre) 😉
Very nice. Chart 3 illustrates several points also made with other examples in ebook The Arts of Truth.
In OZ they prefer to just start at 1960 and work forward , that way it’s always hottest on record etc .
Perhaps a Top-Twenty collection of charts could be assembled.
Sort of was. See essay When Data Isnt in ebook Blowing Smoke, and then feel free to improve the top 20. The essay has 31 charts.
The alarmists have an answer for every one of these arguments just as the skeptics have an answer for every alarmist argument.
So there we have one of the shining lights of the alarmist camp reduced to gainsaying rather than being able to say anything intelligent.
Could someone comment on this, please: https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/do-you-really-want-to-know-if-global-warming-is-real/
Doug, I just commented there. It is a dishonest pushback, rather pathetic really.
Just read your comment there Brett – it’s just been belted out of the park.
No doubt buried under a pile of appeals to authority.
No doubt buried under a pile of appeals to authority.
You didn’t read the material and decided that was a sound basis upon which to comment?
What is the scale for the fourth graph? I ask because I would have expected the last points to match with the time scale being the only thing that changed.
The first graph is mislabeled. That is a NO-NO in this business…
but just off by a factor of 1000. That’s nothing in this biz, apparently.
how specifically – some are learning here
The units are marked in 1000s of years, but should be just years.
But the worse con is not mentioning that it includes no modern warming.
Do you mean the NOAA/GISS fabrications??
or the natural warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years ?
Nick Stokes January 28, 2017 at 10:03 pm
You really think that’s a con, do you? You really think that the author deliberately labelled an axis thousands of years when it was really just years. You really think that, do you?
I wonder why?
“You really think that’s a con, do you?”
No, I think it is an error. But I think the quoting of a graph with an unstated 1855 endpoint, and an implication that the graph shows there was no man-made warming, is a con.
Nick, you can’t just append the global temperature record to the Richard Alley calibrated Greenland temperature record before 1855. They are measuring different things and are computed using two different methods. And Alley did his in the wrong way anyway.
What he’s saying is that they axis is labeled “thousands of years”, but each of the numbers are not “thousands of years”. Otherwise, the 10000 on the left side of the chart means 10000 thousand or ten million years.
Thank you for the correction. I am changing the Y-axis label to: Years in the Past. Ending in the year 1855.
I am changing the X-axis label.
Anthony? I use a simple, direct sentence. Climate changes, humans don’t cause it and can not stop it. For those 11 words I get sh*t all over. Perhaps this will explain to persons who see my comments in various and sundry places why I get so “exercised” over this sh*t.
lol. you wear it well.
Aww, look! It thinks it can find some more “crack ho”s to exploit. What, exactly, do you get “from” them, sweety?
Tell us, darling, exactly what frightens you so much about intelligent, successful women? Why do you pee yourself whenever you see one on the TV? Go ahead! We won’t “judge” you, as you do them. Tell us.
i had to google that …lol
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=2hotel9+“…Kellyane+Conway+is+a+“crack+ho””&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
“Theres nothing more sexy, gentlemen, believe me when I tell you, than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote ’em all, I say.”
Here’s one of the Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.
That’s scary! If that trend continues, something will or won’t happen, and we’ll be doomed either way.
Antarctic Total Ice Mass is even scarier.
This NASA study from last year suggests you may be wrong regarding your flat line.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Gareth, I think you are missing the point. NASA (and most sources) only use net ice loss(gain) from year to year based on a nominal ice loss value. Andy G55 is stating that the total ice loss(gain) is so small relative to the total mass of ice in Greenland that the measurements are not likely accurate.
A graph with no attribution or source provided?
One thing that’s annoyed me since the beginning of the current climate scare is the idea that the entirety of the Earth’s temperature/climate can be expressed in one number: the average annual global temperature. To me this has always been BS, especially when this number is presented without any indication of margin of error. Does it make any sense to say, for example, the Earth’s temperature in 2010 was 57.5F (or whatever)? How accurately can that number describe the conditions in Frobisher Bay? In Borneo? In Nepal? In Antarctica? Does it really make sense to use that single number to describe annual or multi-year conditions off of Cape Verde and near Moscow?
To accurately describe a planet-wide climate you need more than a single number.
Just saying.
See this post by Nick Stokes, which addresses your exact questions: https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/global-anomaly-spatial-sampling-error.html
I have to agree Forrest. The only reason to statistically manipulate the data is to make more precise calculations. That makes them look more accurate. The data has a certain amount of variation, random and otherwise. That is the number that should be used. It gives a better explanation of the overall uncertainty.
I also didn’t like the idea of calculating anomalies for a station over 30 years, and then combining those anomalies by averaging. When you go one step further to form a temperature field representation as they do it goes even further from reality.
When a single, yearly, average temp is disseminated to the public, and it is reported as going up by some amount, the non-critical-thinkers assume that every city’s temperature in every country over every square inch of the earth went up by that same amount, and if this continues then all the scary stories of sea levels rising and desertification occurring, etc. etc. is surely coming to pass.
This article has plenty of the “Smoking Gun” charts.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
Also WUWT readers, I just wrote an article on this graphic and would appreciate some reviews and critiques. I’m not 100% sure on the interpretation of this chart.
Sorry, here is the link to the article.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
”..would appreciate some reviews and critiques.”
1) The K/day cooling rate at each wavenumber legend has a spurious blue block labeled 400 which does not appear in the original 1995 cite. Positive legend numbers are cooling rates and negative numbers are warming rates at each wavenumber.
2) Note that the cooling rate in K/day at each wavenumber around 650 show small warming rate (a slight negative cooling rate) and smaller cooling rate in the lower troposphere than the much higher cooling rates in stratosphere around 650 wave number. This is the classic signature of IR active atm. gas (wv, CO2) around 650.
Co2islife.
Your article is exactly right.
To add some additional proof to it, one can use Modtran to add different radiation profiles to the idea …
… change the Modtran parameter to “looking up” and change the height to “0” as in looking up from the surface rather than down from top of the atmosphere as it usually shown. Now you are supposed to see the “back-radiation” from CO2. Sorry, does NOT exist. Not until you move the altitude to about 3 kms and higher. Now there is a tiny bit of radiation. It becomes dominant after 10 kms height. Move around to other places like the US, mid-latitudes.
… and change the cloud parameter to any kind of clouds (only 65% present in the real atmosphere) and suddenly “looking up from 0 kms (to 4 to 5 kms) is nothing but a blackbody spectrum. Clouds are a blackbody and CO2 can have no real change on a blackbody spectrum. This is very very important and you never hear that anywhere.
… Now you can go back to the usual looking down and change the heights again to see where CO2 becomes a cooling mechanism for the planet after about 10 kms in height. It cools the planet. If there were not CO2 in the atmosphere, I guess it would happen from water vapor, clouds and the atmospheric windows instead but I think that could actually make the Earth warmer rather than colder.
… Now CO2 can still have an impact on the surface temperatures that does not show up in the radiation spectrums of Modtran. If it absorbs photons in its spectrum and then immediately thermalizes the energy into the rest of the atmospheric molecules of N2 and O2 and Argon. Which is actually what happens but there is no way to accurately model that. It happens at picosecond time frames between trillions of molecules colliding billions of times per second. Any model of this would only be based on what assumptions you used to model it. And this in NOT how the theory is explained to anyone.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Thanks a million. Your comment is greatly appreciated.
Bill I need your help.
The problem with modtran is the atm condition settings, an average is useless, it’s going to require a time series.
This graph shows the issue.
The effects are transient.
But I need to run modtran for a wide range of absolute humidity, and then for each of those I have to run it as it cools so rel humidity goes up, so I can make a contour map.
What it’s going to show is a rising plane, with a hockey stick edge at high rel humidity.
It’s a case of having a simulation tools and not using it right (15 years as a simulation expert).
I just have figured it out well enough for my modeling.
” change the Modtran parameter to “looking up” and change the height to “0”
When I did so, the back radiation was shown as 347.912 W/m^2 for a nonzero intensity around 650 wavenumber along with 0 altitude T(K) a little under 300K. This is contrary to Bill’s claim of “Sorry, does NOT exist.” One can double check that result with an inexpensive IR thermometer pointed up at clear sky reading brightness temperature much larger than 2.8K background of deep space. This is also consistent with the 1995 Clough paper chart posted.
I routinely measure temps under clear skies that are 70 to 100F colder than the surface, only the bottoms of clouds are anywhere near 340W/m^2
Further, as MODTRAN calculates for Bill’s parameters, the Clough paper chart shows the impact of CO2 on the lowest dense troposphere to be slight warming rate (~ -0.5 K.day) around 650 wavenumber and a cooling rate in the thin upper atm. as shown for no net change in total atm. temperature.
Micro 6:59am, agree. Change the modtran to subarctic winter, much lower clear sky emission to surface (backradiation ~162), your brightness readings there would be even lower, colder T than surface but warmer than deep space and find the atm. intensity much lower (due dry, low atm. emissivity ~0.7) for K(T) shown closer to 255K.
CO2 converts radiative to thermal energy by “activating” the CO2. Of course it is warmer than outer space. It is temporarily converting energy in form. The point is, once that activated CO2 drops back down to a lower orbital and releases that photon it has an easier path to outer space. Moving that energy br conduction or convection would take a relatively long time. Radiative energy travels at the speed of light.
I think the bright emissions at 15u in your chart, is this activity in action, I’d need to know more about that data sample though.
8:37am, the point is not clear, any emitted photon will have no “easier” (your term) path to space from that when it was absorbed, if emitted on the same vector. Molecule still at essentially same height. Any different vector will result in a different not necessarily “easier” path. A vector more toward the zenith than original will result in less probability of atm. absorption (thinner optical depth). Also, the electronic level is rarely the “activating” (your term) process as the energy jump needed is far higher than kT, the molecular rotational quantum level jump which is way more aligned with the energy (order kT) in Earth atm. molecular collisions around STP.
Assume each CO2 molecule is a net to catch photons, the higher you go up, the fewer the nets to catch the Photos. The density of nets decreases with height. It is simply easier to reach outerspace than it is to reach the surface of the earth.
11:53am, Better point. The big “net” (your term) in your Clough chart at 1000 mb shows the classic CO2 surface warming rate impact (the lighter blue) at the expense of the CO2 100 mb and above fewer “nets” cooling rate (yellow, red) around 650 wavenumber. In a sense, the surface denser “nets” are shading the upper thinner “nets”. I would prefer use atm. optical depth than your “net” terms to catch photon fish.
“I’m not 100% sure on the interpretation of this chart.”
I interpret it as showing that you need to improve your tie-dye technique. Nice colours, though.
Thanks…I think 🙂
The two key charts are the tidal gauges which show no increase in the rate of sea level rise (and thus warming) during the industrial age and the satellite lower troposphere measurements which actually show a decrease in the rate of warming as China industrialized and doubled human c02 production in the last 20 years
Excellent!
This one says it all:
?w=840
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
With the greatest respect, in reply to your first statement, “This one says it all:”, “Um, no it doesn’t”! First, there are two charts not one and second, what is obvious to you isn’t obvious to me. Please do me the courtesy of explaining what you mean. I need all the help I can get. Your intentions are good but my abilities are not.
The two charts are indistinguishable. The one is of atmospheric temperature, the other is of atmospheric H2O. Where H2O is, warmth is. The same can not be said about CO2. More is written here: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
Here is another one:
?w=840
Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/
OT, ( somewhat). On this site and others, I have seen a lot of articles and comments about the 800 year lag of rising CO2 and temps. The last figure in the article shows a distinct “spike” in temps ( around 1100 YBP) it is now ~ 800 years later. and the CO2 levels are slowly rising. Is that a correct observation?
I have been pointing that out, on and off for the past 20 years, and nobody (pro or con) has taken me up on the observation.
@asybot: Yes we are watching that too, and expect just what you point out, a lag of c.800yrs. A la ice cores. A slowly cooking proof, you might say….
I don’t think that we can prove with that spike 800 years ago that our present CO2 is from natural ressources.
1. The spikes in long time observations are from proxies and somehow dampened and not related to exact years or an exact rise like the Keeling Curve.
2. We actually add double as much CO2 into the Atmosphere than it is left at the end of the year. So Ocean and Biomass are actually swallowing half of our CO2.
This posting details the 800 year lag.
Exhibit A: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-a/
Thanks co2., Great info.
Trump is accused of lying every day, CNN talks about nothing else lately. “Alternative Facts”. Yet Obama and Dem Senators like Whitehouse and Gillibrand are never called out for big lies and easily debunked “facts” like “2016 was the hottest year on record, 2015 the second hottest, 2014 the third hottest ….” and “Sea level rise is accelerating rapidly” and “Severe weather events are much more frequent and devastating”.
If 2016 was not the hottest year in the temperature record, which one was, and what record are you using?
The .02 degree F difference reported by msm between 1998 and 2016 cannot be within the instrumental sensitivity of the measuring apparatus being used to claim that 2016 was the warmest year. There must be an error bar on the measurement devices as well a a statistical error bar.2014 and 2015 differences from 1998 would have to be even smaller than the .02 degrees F though I suspect we are camparing ground to satellite measurements on the latter.
So which one was? Obama is accused of lying for saying 2016 was. Why is that a lie? Which year do you claim was hottest?
1934 was the hottest prior to homogenization. According to Greenland ice core studies, a bit above 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than any one of the past 100. For Santa Rosa and Ukiah, California, roughly half of the years from 1925 to 1940 were warmer than 2016 (before homogenization). During the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago, almost all of the years were warmer than the average of the Holocene interglacial. Current warming “is much sound and fury signifying nothing.”
It’s called “statistical insignificance”. Ergo 2016 was indistinguishable from 1998. By my reckoning that means no significant warming for 19 years, or one entire human generation. No kid graduating HS this spring has lived through any warming.
Now, please show me the data or graph showing accelerating sea level rise. Hello? [Is this thing on?]
“1934 was the hottest prior to homogenization.”
Nonsense
” that means no significant warming for 19 years”
But somehow it just got hot?
Its called an El Nino, Nick
and its GONE.. finished.
Get over it !!!
AndyG55 January 29, 2017 at 1:19 am
El Niño likely to return this year but you are probably correct. Nick is just playing his silly games today.
The definition of lying is always difficult and therefore leaves it open to challenge but dishonest not so much. Obummer was being dishonest as are all those scientists who do not you error statistics.
Obummer was an inveterate liar and could have been called out many times but those on the bread would never do that now would they. However, there is a new man in the house, the scientists are screaming. Lets wait and see. A whistleblower will almost certainly come forward when his her job is threatened
“Obummer was an inveterate liar and could have been called out many times..”
Yeah, unlike Trump who said he would release his tax returns if elected. Oops, there’s lie #1. Who said he would drain the swamp in DC, then appointed insiders and billionaires. Oops, there’s lie #2. Who said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Oops, there’s lie #3. And we’re only starting week 2!
Nick
“2016 was the hottest year.”
Nonsense.
Nick,
So Phil Jones spouted nonsense?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
In the best temperature series, ie the US, 1934 remains the warmest year “on record”. But of course most of the Holocene has been and the Eemian was warmer. Since the end of the LIA cold period, the ’30s still haven’t been beaten by another decade.
NOAA and HadCRU cro0ks have cooked the books by cooling the 1920-40s, and warming since then.
“1934 remains the warmest year “
It is hard to maintain any kind of dialogue when people are so careless with facts. No one was talking here about the continental US.
!975 was the hottest I can remeber to me nearly every day broke records.
I remember it well because it was the year I got married. Boy it was the hottest year ever for a 23 year old.
I still want to know how 2015 and 2014 can be claimed as record hot years if 2016 only beat 1998 by 0.02F. Was 2015 0.01F hotter than 1998 or are they using the “alt facts” form the Karl et al 2015 paper?
“If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep him or her.”
Pages of lies upon lies, but just scratching the surface:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
A telling addition re: Climate Models Fail … (second graph) would be some older model predictions/projections, which didn’t benefit from hindsight. The one shown suggests there is some sort of “reasonable” (even if too hot) correlation between model and reality up until ~1996. This is deceptive since the ACTUAL (historical) data was known at the time of the model run and parameters/inputs can be adjusted to somewhat mirror past known reality. Some older model run graphs would indicate that the models have ALWAYS failed to predict and always ran too hot and diverged from reality, unless by pure fluke over some brief period.
I do not have a comment about anything in the article but I do have a comment on how the data is presented.
The last graph, 140 years over 10,000 years.
For someone like me that has some color blindness I have a difficult time discerning the two colors used in the graph.
Some ten years ago I was doing some GIS work a learned the hard way the what may look good on my computer screen, what may still look good when turned into a PowerPoint presentation or turned into PDF, can look horrible when presented using a projector.
I’ve recently been having to tweak some fire alarm CAD work that was done outside the office because line styles and colors aren’t different enough and have caused some confusion. It probably looked different enough to the creator but they are used to how they do it and they are also familiar with the work.
On the graphs here we are only talking about a couple of lines. Some colors may look great on your own system but won’t look good on everyone’s system.
It would have been so easy to use bright red and blue or use dark green and orange.
Some key presentations, and charts, from the recent Heartland conferences from you blog host.
I would encourage most to take a look at the inventory of talent via video from the Heartland conferences. It is really good stuff. See for yourself. Share it and spread the word. Just sayin.
https://www.youtube.com/user/HeartlandTube/playlists?shelf_id=3&view=50&sort=dd
Thank you Joe Bast for doing what you do for all of us!
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8&boxcar=1&boxwidth=2&c_date=1866/12-2019/12&datasource=psmsl
http://www.sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2017-01_150yrs.png
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph1.php?id=Sydney&boxcar=1&boxwidth=2&thick&datasource=psmsl
http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_vs_CO2.png
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu&boxcar=1&boxwidth=2&thick&datasource=noaa
http://www.sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_vs_CO2.png
Takeaway: increasing CO2 from under 310 ppmv to over 400 ppmv has caused no significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years, in any high-quality, long-term sea-level record, anywhere in the world.
“These four graphs from Michael David White are handy to use for such a purpose.”
The first graph is a version of one on the WUWT paleo page, labelled there “Incorrect graph”. Although the x axis says “Years in the past”, in fact the data ends in 1855. So the claim that in the years shown, man played no part, is spurious.
The second graph gives no indication of what data it is talking about. You may meet a real skeptic who will ask. It looks to me like some comparison of modelled surface temperatures with measured troposphere.
The third graph is just one that shows how you can disguise information by compressing the scale. You could do that with anything.
The fourth is just the misleading graph from one, and misleadingly comparing a single unusual location with a global average anomaly. The two y-axes already make a nonsense of it.
thank you – I’m still awaiting anything from Lief about how #1 is mislabeled
accuracy is tantamount – some here are trying to learn; we get the gist, but the details ???
The x-axis is labeled ‘thousands of years in the past’. It is not ‘thousands of years’ but only ‘years’.
Amazing that people only see what they want to, and what is there.
NOT there, of course
Nick Stokes
I think you just ruined the party.
“in fact the data ends in 1855”
So you are saying Mickey Mann’s graph is wrong??
Mickey’s graph clearly shows the tick up starting in about 1910 with the 1940’s peak then dip to 1970
I propose that Mickey got the date correct (even though he goofed completely on the pre 1800 stuff)),
and that the tick up on the paleo graph is actually ending at 1940.
It’s nothing to do with Mann. It is Alley’s ice core data, and it ends in 1855.
Surface thermometers are unreliable and subject to UHI effect, siting problems, neglect, even tampering. Satellite data is much better for the recent past, but most of the data keepers are keen to keep “adjusting” the data.
Poor Nick
Run and HIDE, you squirmy little worm
You have been caught out, and you KNOW it !!
You either have to say Mann was wrong , or admit that the up-tick on the paleo graph is from 1910-1940.
Catch-22 of the AGW SCAM
So funny to watch you squirming.. 🙂
Wow.. great EVASION, Nick. 😉
Graph 1 (GISP2) looks OK to me, the temperature line stops short of the X-axis ‘0’ as it should being highly smoothed implying the mid-nineteenth century before human CO2 emissions took off around 1940, although human as well as animal influence on local climates has gone on for millennia no doubt .
The statement that temperature variation over the Holocene in the ice core record or any other proxy for that matter was ~6.5F (~3.5C) is an understatement because the actual noise or decade to decade, century to century variation is unrecoverable hence smoothed away.
Graph 4 is nonsensical for the same reason.
To emphasise that last point, here is a plot of Nuuk, Greenland anomalies since 1865 vs Gistemp land/ocean. Compare with Graph 4 here. It’s just what you get when you campare a single point with a global average. It doesn’t mean the climate was more volatile. It just means that single locations are more volatile.
This should follow the comment below.
Everybody should note the massive cooling trend from 1940-1970,
and that the recent El Nino transient has dropped back to probably below average.
Thanks Nick ! 🙂
ps.. Thanks for the graph Nick.
I have saved it, and will be using to show the HUGE cooling trend from 1940-1970, and the transient nature of the 2015 El Nino.
Many sites will see this. 🙂
I wonder if Nick realises that his Nuuk graph has TOTALLY DESTROYED the AGW scam. 🙂
You are a wonder, Nick.
The world will thank you. 🙂
“and that the recent El Nino transient has dropped back”
No, data from Nuuk has been patchy lately. The last data point there is 2011. It is well known that Greenland had a warm period in the 1930’s.
Nick Stokes, you mislabeled your axis. It should say “year”, not “years”. Just trying to be as picky as you were earlier.
Nuuk updated to 2016. Nick’s chart ends in 2014 and the NCDC has made even more adjustments to Nuuk’s temperatures in the last year or so
Unadjusted monthly here. This is NOT global warming.
And this how “Global Warming is Manufactured”. Adjustments made to Nuuk quality controlled data by the NCDC in its “adjusted” version. Earliest years down, later years up and just leave out any cold years that don’t add the manufactured line.
Nuuk NCDC adjusted data here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/t4250_mean1_anom_a.txt
Nuuk Unadjusted but quality controlled here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta4250_mean1_anom_a.txt
Here is a NOAA plot of NUUK, Greenland, over 150 years. It shows a range of about 7°C. Individual locations, especially in Greenland, are vastly more variable than a global average.
Interesting pick Nick, would you care to comment this:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/more-spectacular-arctic-temperature-fraud-from-noaanasa/
Wow look at that huge COOLING trend from1940 to 1970
I thought you said it didn’t exist.
Foot in mouth disease, Nick.
Can’t keep up with you own lies, so it seems. !!
That spike.. El Nino, transient at best, and you know it.
“Interesting pick Nick, would you care to comment this:”
Yes. It’s a typically dishonest Goddard post. Ranting about Gavin Schmidt, when GISS in fact didn’t alter Nuuk data at all. As so often, he reaches back to some earlier dataset to find a difference with GHCN V3 adjusted, when all he needs to do is look up GHCN V3 unadjusted. I don’t know why it is so impossible for him and followers to acknowledge that this set exists. And NOAA displays it in datasets; the one for Nuuk is here. The adjustments, made by NOAA, are clearly shown.
Plus of course the usual con – switching of datasets. Gavin was saying that GISS has not removed the 40’s warmth. So Goddard produces nothing more that a plot of one location (Nuuk) and says Gavin is lying.
An evasive non-answer from Nick as expected.
Nick, would you rather comment this:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation
The use of one of these four graphs would show that a sceptic is foolish! It lowers the bar too much. There is no reason to discuss BS!
Yet you do. always.
AndyG55: I think you are the same person who wrote this BS: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/28/germanys-flagship-mediatop-pols-fanning-trump-hatred-veiled-attempt-to-trigger-an-assassin/#comment-1159823 . So it seems to me it’s a waste of time to respond to your propaganda and hatefully comments for the Kindergarten- people who believe in your alternative facts.
Nick wrote: “The fourth is just the misleading graph from one, and misleadingly comparing a single unusual location with a global average anomaly. The two y-axes already make a nonsense of it.”
Actually, the graph has two y-axes and two x-axes (:)). The 10,000 year x-axis isn’t shown. However the graph is still somewhat interesting because of polar amplification. In general, we expect more (twice?) as much temperature change in polar regions as on the planet as a whole. This is the case when glacials and interglacials are compared, for example. Over the last 10,000 years (but not the most recent 150 years, since this Greenland ice core record apparently started 150 years ago), temperature in Greenland has varied about 4 degC. Over the last 140 years, GMST (presumably over land) has risen about 1.5 degC. So recent warming over the last 140 years is comparable to the largest warming we have experienced in 10 millennia.
Hardly. The point of the first graph was to illustrate that over a relatively long time span before industrialization the available data indicate that “climate” was considerably variable (changeable). That’s all.
The second graph would be better if the modeled and actual trend lines were properly referenced. Nevertheless, the message is clear. “Climate Scientists” and their projections are kiddies in the sandpit. They haven’t got a clue what is going on.
The 3rd graph is useful in that it shows how scaling can be used/misused to create alarm (actually Nick, this was the very graph you used on a different thread to do that very thing, wasn’t it?).
The fourth graph makes a visual comparison of the magnitude of change observed in the data over 10,000 years (prior to most man made CO2) and of the recent past (150 years of industrialization) showing that the magnitude of change (range of temp change) for the industrial period is around one third the range of change observed in the longer, pre-industrial period.
The conclusion: there is nothing in the man-made climate change hyperbole to be alarmed about. Now I think that is what has really alarmed you, Nick.
Hardly. The point of the first graph was to illustrate that over a relatively long time span before industrialization the available data indicate that “climate” was considerably variable (changeable). That’s all.
The second graph would be better if the modeled and actual trend lines were properly referenced. Nevertheless, the message is clear. “Climate Scientists” and their projections are kiddies in the sandpit. They haven’t got a clue what is going on.
The 3rd graph is useful in that it shows how scaling can be used/misused to create alarm (actually Nick, this was the very graph you used on a different thread to do that very thing, wasn’t it?).
The fourth graph makes a visual comparison of the magnitude of change observed in the data over 10,000 years (prior to most man made CO2) and of the recent past (150 years of industrialization) showing that the magnitude of change (range of temp change) for the industrial period is around one third the range of change observed in the longer, pre-industrial period.
The conclusion: there is nothing in the man-made climate change hyperbole to be alarmed about. Now I think that is what has really alarmed you, Nick.
Nick: “in fact the data ends in 1855. So the claim that in the years shown, man played no part, is spurious.”
Author: The assumption is that from 1855 and going backwards in time man had no influence on temperature. The fact that the data ends in 1855 to my mind validates the statement that “man played no role in the change of temperature or the carbon level” in the data charted. Your objection does not make sense to me.
Nick: “second graph gives no indication of what data it is talking about”.
Author: The data is: GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (Boulder). It is listed on the chart at the bottom but it is difficult to read.
Nick: “The third graph is just one that shows how you can disguise information.”
Author: Yes. I was trying to prove it is easy to disguise data.
Nick: “The fourth is just the misleading graph from one, and misleadingly comparing a single unusual location with a global average anomaly.”
Author: Reasonable sources say the GISP2 is a good proxy for global temperatures. Check the story below:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
Michael David White posts: “Author: Reasonable sources say the GISP2 is a good proxy for global temperatures”
.
.
If you accept that it’s a good proxy, look at the GISP2 data when you plot the site temperature for 1855 and 2009:
Michael,
“The fact that the data ends in 1855 to my mind validates…”
But you don’t say that it ends in 1855. Looking at the graph, it seems to go to 0 years in the past. And the natural interpretation of “man played no role in the change of temperature” is that industrial activity had no effect, as shown in the graph.
“The data is: GISP2 Ice Core…”
It isn’t. It is troposphere data. Apparently derived somehow from models, and by averaging satellite data which seems to be TMT, though it doesn’t say. There is no way of telling whether they are the same levels of the troposphere.
“Yes. I was trying to prove it is easy to disguise data.”
So what does that have to do with climate? You can do it with anything.
“Reasonable sources say the GISP2”
Easterbrook writing on a blog is not an authoritative source. But in the post you link to, he only says that global and GISP2 temperatures are correlated. He skips the question of scale. He shows a drop of over 20°C in the glacial. Nobody thinks global temps did that.
I showed below the relation of one place in Greenland, Nuuk, to the global GISS land/ocean. It looks similar to your plot 4. But all it proves is that a single Greenland location can be much more variable than a global average.
Michael,
“The fact that the data ends in 1855 to my mind validates…”
But you don’t say that it ends in 1855. Looking at the graph, it seems to go to 0 years in the past. And the natural interpretation of “man played no role in the change of temperature” is that industrial activity had no effect, as shown in the graph.
Author: The chart does allude to the fact that the data is pre-industrial. Chart meant for general audience. If you get into the 1855 end-date and start the 10,000-year clock in 1855 that is abnormal for most readers. It is confusing. I am going to change the X-axis label so it’s clearer.
“The data is: GISP2 Ice Core…”
Nick: It isn’t. It is troposphere data. Apparently derived somehow from models, and by averaging satellite data which seems to be TMT, though it doesn’t say. There is no way of telling whether they are the same levels of the troposphere.
Author: Data source for chart 2 is listed below and at bottom of chart::
John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist, and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Projected: Tropical average mid-tropospheric temperature variations (5-year averages) for 32 models (lines) representing 102 individual simulations.
Actual: Satellite record is the average of three satellite datasets (green – UAH, RSS, NOAA).
Author: “Yes. I was trying to prove it is easy to disguise data.”
Nick: So what does that have to do with climate? You can do it with anything.
Author: The point of chart 3 is that it is easy to commit fraud by misrepresenting the data. A lot of the current debate is not about data but about fake data. The chart shows it is easy to fake data. If fraud is being committed in the presentation of data, then it is a central issue. You may know it is easy to fake data. Most people don’t.
Nick: I showed below the relation of one place in Greenland, Nuuk, to the global GISS land/ocean. It looks similar to your plot 4. But all it proves is that a single Greenland location can be much more variable than a global average.
Author: Quote from Easterbrook: “correlation of the ice core temperatures with world-wide glacial fluctuations and correlation of modern Greenland temperatures with global temperatures confirms that the ice core record does indeed follow global temperature trends and is an excellent proxy for global changes.” It looks like he is saying GISP2 is a good proxy for climate change. I don’t have the expertise to comment on your charts. If you have a better 10,000-year record I would like to know what it is.
A graph of tidal forces is interesting. Today, the distance between the Earth and the Moon is aprox. 15x greater compared to what it was, when the Moon was created.
An the tidal forces back then were about 3400 times stronger…
It shouldn’t require much, to recognize the difference and the impact.
A statistical population is required for this argument to be meaningful. What is it?
There needs to be a 5th(&6th?)
Why co2 doesn’t matter
And
micro6500, I don’t understand what you’re showing here.
Let’s just start with the first graph.
You have no label or scale on the horizontal axis, but I think it’s a time scale recording data (at intervals of a minute or a few minutes( over a period of four days. Is that right?
You have three different traces, but only one vertical axis label, and I don’t understand what those numbers (ranging from -75 to +125) mean. Which trace(s) do they label?
“RH” (the red trace) I presume is Relative Humidity?
Green is air temperature (Fahrenheit? in Australia??)? Measured where — ground level?
Blue is labeled “NetRad W/m^2” — so that’s apparently depicting the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. I guess that means where it’s low is nighttime? But where? Ground level? TOA?
The graph label, “Proof of active temperature regulation at night by water vapor that controls the amount of heat released to space,” suggests your NetRad is for TOA. But the reference to a particular location in Australia suggests it’s lower than that, perhaps even ground level.
I also don’t understand how relative humidity (rather than absolute humidity) could possibly affect radiation to space.
I also don’t understand how any of this demonstrates an “active temperature regulation” (feedback) mechanism.
Usually when someone using an anonymous handle posts complicated graphs “proving” something, which make no sense to to me, I assume it’s crackpottery and move on. But I’ve seen you post astute comments in the past, so I doubt that’s the case this time.
Can you please explain it?
Also, as a suggestion for the future, a horizontal scale and label, and vertical grid lines for it, are helpful in any graph.
Dave, as soon as I can figure out how to get dang x axis that’s labeled I will gladly, Excel just does not like that data, unless all you want to see is the axis only.
Okay.
Yes about 4 days, rel humidity, temp, net rad at the surface, clear skies.
Additional information is here.http://wp.me/p5VgHU-2A
The paper I borrowed the data from is listed as well. There is an exponential decay in the rate of temp drop at night, that is not due to equilibrium. I have detected it in my weather and ir data, when I read their paper and they did not identify the cause, I knew right where to look.
Which is thus graph.
Yes, it seems that when rel humidity goes near its upper limit, the net cooling rate drops, it does this most of the planet.
Now, so outgoing radiation leaves the surface, at 2 speeds, low rel humidity like at sunset, cools very fast, high rel humidity cools very slow. I think we will find with more data, the high rate will vary over a range of absolute water vapor, and as long as it nears 100% rel humidity that will shutdown outgoing, or it just gets really bright in ir at the surface and the net drops. That pretty color ir radiating that co2isnotevil posted, what I expect is that as water vapor condenses it lights up at 15u, which lights up co2, and you get that pretty orange and red spike.
But too much data is just generic averages, and this is a dynamic process almost every night, you won’t see this on a std atmosphere modtran run.
The result of this, is minimum temps are regulated to dew point temperature.
Dave, thanks!
Oh, it is my name, minus the 6500, just spelled out differently so a search by name in my workplace keeps this separate.
Scale percentage, degrees F, and radiation in W/m^2
”..minimum temps are regulated to dew point temperature.”
Dew point temperature is an interesting subject, mishandled by many. There is no fundamental law supporting your assertion I clipped. Two fundamental processes occur as atm. air is cooled toward its dew point: water vapor is removed from the air, which lowers its dew point, and condensation (net of evaporation) gives rise to warming.
Rather than unqualifiedly write air temperature is regulated to the dew point, it is far more defensible to write on a clear day with light winds the late afternoon dew point is a good estimate of min. overnight temperature which is often taught in meteorology; note the qualifications. Your charts do not show wind speed nor sky condition (as far I can tell).
Sure there is, the added energy of condensation. But that might not be what’s happening. There are two choices for that net radiation. DWIR stays the same and OWIR slows down. Or OWIR stays the same and DWIR goes up. It’s still night, so not solar. I am leaning towards DWIR going way up. Also what happens to photons in a plasma that the same wave length of the plasma itself. Your bright spike at 15u.
Fair enough.
You’d see different temperature profiles like this.
I believe the data set also has all of that, but those are clear sky calm winds.
An advantage of having your own cheap weather station, you can compare actual weather to what gets recorded.
“Sure there is, the added energy of condensation.”
No fundamental law or show a law that computes night time min. temperature from the “added energy of condensation”.
The two processes I noted compete in calm, clear sky conditions, add wind and clouds and the overnight min. is much harder to predict. It might have occurred before sunset and the temperature rise overnight, no law says min. temperature is regulated to occur at night or at any temperature such as the dew point.
Ah, there’s an equation in the paper that defines the decaying temperature profiles, they could not find the correlation. There’s going to be two main ones, absolute humidity and rel humidity and the length of day. But an exact formula including those I do not.
Yes, the others are immaterial though in defining the “best” atm condition to radiate to space under. And then what are the key parameters, like you would characterize a transmission line.
Micro 650 notes:
First, when the air near the ground drops to the dew point, dew forms. This released latent heat and if the temperature is warm enough, greatly slows down the overall cooling. My weather station shows this quite nicely.
Second, fog may start forming. Like any cloud, it reflects LWIR back down, and greatly slows down the overall cooling. Unlike other clouds, it’s warm and top of the fog may radiate quite well, though perhaps mainly in H2O’s absorption band. I don’t have tools to measure all that.
If it’s cold enough, say -20C, then the air is so dry that there isn’t much latent heat getting released and cooling slows down only slightly.
I think the “warm enough ” part is just the level of absolute humidity.
The higher the level the slower the high cooling rate radiates energy. And the the slow rate is based on rel humidity. But because there are 2 distinct rates, and the slower rate is engaged based on temperature, this is classic switching power regulation. And in this case it is temp set to a little above dew point.
That what this shows.
This is why climate science, and co2 being any kind of control knob is plain wrong.since switch over happens after air temps near whatever dew point is, it cools to this point, then the cooling rates significantly.
Micro6500 also notes:
Yes, I had assumed clear and calm with a very thin air temperature inversion.
If there’s a wind, then the inversion doesn’t form and the mixing leads to a much warmer low temperature. Now the cooling ground has a lot more air to cool so the rate of cooling goes way down. It likely radiates more heat, but the mass of the atmosphere overwhelms the blackbody radiation.
The only correlation I see with minimum temp are to dew points.
And of course clouds reduces cooling.
”when the air near the ground drops to the dew point, dew forms.”
Not exactly, dew forms on a surface at a temperature (of the surface) that is not well defined. A good discussion is in Wylie 1965 Humidity and Moisture Vol. 1, dew-point hygrometer p. 125.
For calm, clear conditions micro is correct as the data shows the air temperature does not usually drop below the dew point. Thus min. air temp.s can be estimated for the coming night in calm, clear conditions. The surface however, radiating to the clear night sky, often does so as dew (or frost) on a colder surface is often observed.
”fog may start forming. Like any cloud, it reflects LWIR back down..”
Fog is interesting like dew points too but what is true for polished silver and aluminum is not true for fog (or clouds). Although fog and thick clouds may have high reflectivities for visible solar radiation, the same fog & clouds are nearly black (very absorbing, low reflectivity) in the terrestrial LWIR bands emitted by the ground.
Don’t forget, I had noted above:
FWIW, here’s a calm, cold, clear night from near Concord NH last month:
http://wermenh.com/images/dec19-20.png
It looks like an air mass changes was going on, but the air inversion sets around 15F. The jump in dew point temp may be from a nearby river. Frost soon begins to form, most notably at first on the cars as radiational cooling chills the interior of the car faster than the ground. The frost point is a couple of degrees warmer than the dewpoint, as ice crystals latch on to water vapor molecules more strongly than liquid water.
The cold conditions mean that there isn’t much water vapor so little latent heat gets released, and by dawn the air temperature reaches -22C, colder than the dew point at the start of the inversion.
I have to head to work, I could dig up a clear summer night that shows the dew point floor nicely.
That’s what I would think too. I don’t think I have noticed that bump, I’ll have to start looking for them.
I’ve noticed another dynamic, and that’s as the planet starts cooling with longer nights, for a while air temps push harder against 100% humidity, I think until the amount of water vapor starts to drop as the Sun moves towards the other hemisphere.
The paper I referenced, they looked for cross correlations between temps or rate (I’m not sure which), against both absolute humidity and rel humidity, but it had a poor correlation.
This is because absolute humidity would correlate to the high cooling rate only, so only when say rel humidity was 0 to ~70%, and the slow cooling rate correlates to rel humidity from ~70 to 100%, and most places on the planet see this swing as it goes from day to night and back.
”It looks like an air mass changes was going on..”
Don’t think so. On Dec 20, sunrise at Concord was 7:15am and as you write the weather was shown as clear, sunny day w/very light 2mph winds persisting all day, so – if I am reading your time stamps correctly – this temperature/dew point graph (6:12am comment) is coincident with impact on temperatures simply from sunrise.
That’s not from me, so I can’t be sure, but I wasn’t referring the bottoming, but the bump in the middle of the night.
This is more what clear days looks like here. And this is in July too.
Not quite as sharp, But these two were vastly different amounts of absolute humidity. And I think that will correlate to change in the high speed cooling rate. But even in Ric’s you can see how steep the curve is at first, and how much it slows.
You can also see it is not in equilibrium, as it’s still cooling pretty good even at the slow rate.
There are two “bumps” correlated to sunrise, one each day 19th and 20th, that then start to decline around 4:00pm each day. There is no obvious bump in the middle of either night when the temperature trace steadily declines. At least if I understand the time stamps which aren’t explicitly labeled except for start on 19th and stop on 20th.
I don’t understand the timing of this, it looks like later afternoon to late afternoon the next day, but that doesn’t match what I’d guess from the labels. I would expect more like what I posted.
Start at top left temperature line, begins at midnight 12/19, steady decline over night for little more than 8 hash marks (hours) to after sunrise at 7:15am, then bumps up for about 8 hash marks in daytime (8hr.s) to about 4:00pm when it falls off again overnight to the bump up just before the third 12/20 which is just before 8:00am 12/20.
The weather on the 19th was windy, 14-17mph, so there is a case that colder air mass was moving in on the 19th for the lower overnight min. T on 12/20 which as discussed before was almost to the dew point of the previous late afternoon 12/19 (-9), when calm conditions returned overnight on the 19-20th justifying earlier discussion for the calm, clear night of the 19-20th reliable estimate for min. T actual was -7 overnight, therefore proved out.
Add the dew point graph to your July data.
Probably not till morning till I can get to it.
This might be acceptable
Thx, yes, if look at dewpoint at 18:00 each late afternoon then next overnight min. T is reliably ~5F higher.
The average chart up thread has about a 5 F spread between min and dew point too.
I disagree with the initial statement. At least in my experience the questions thrown at skeptics do not get beyond “why are you anti-science” or “why don’t you believe the real experts” or “what are you, nuts”?
I would faint if a believer were to finally ask me to substantiate an argument.
Don’t forget these two, which the skeptic will always be asked to explain:
Your top plot shows that there has been a loss of ice area of about 1 to 2 million sq km depending upon month (ie., Jan a drop from 15 million sq km to 14 million sq km, Sep a drop from about 8 million sq km to say about 5.5 million sq km).
If that is so, it suggests that we have today broadly the same area of ice as was assessed in 1974. See the IPCC data from AR1 that suggests that ice area extent grew by about 1.8 million sq km between the end of 1973/beinning of 1974 through to 1976.
Nothing to get particularly alarmed about. 2 million sq km is clearly within the bounds of natural variation.
Yes, but for the Griffs of the world, the idea that “the skeptic will always be asked to explain” doesn’t infer that a) they want answers, or b) they’d understand the answers.
They’ll just keep asking, and asking, and asking, like one of those little bird ornaments that keeps dunking, and dunking, and dunking…
My fafourite Graph is this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:49/from:1940
30 years alignment with CO2. Everybody thinks this is the proof, but suddenly the pause. But also before 1960 no correlation.
Please be aware: This is Hadcrut 3, which ended in 2014, but had no extreme data rework. It compares even nicely tothe satellite data.
Another interesting graph: Annual average ice area in the Arctic has an upward trend now for 12 years. Or a 13 years pause. Antarctic sea ice upward trend for 38 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:144/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/trend
excuse me for not understanding.
Shouldn’t the black and brown lines in the bottom graph “the banality of climate change” be at the same temperature for the present day ?
CO2 is a well mixed gas, temperatures track together in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, until they started diverging about 1990. That divergence has become quite extreme http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1997/trend
In the 1990s, at least since 1996 the Tropospheric Aerosol Injection (TAI) was started and the full water grabbing rolled out. Since that time also the shale petrol and gas fracking and desert fracking industry began to grow together with cheap airline companies, followed by huge investments of gulf Arabs into the aviation industry.
All this is not a coincidence, because TAI is implemented by spraying aerosol building fine dust by accordingly prepared airplanes, which are registered as “passenger jets”, but their only service is TAI. That is the reason for the cheap airlines being cheap, because the passenger transports were only a disguising second income.
Please give feedback, if You understand this, else I can give You further explanations on the geoarchitektur.blogspot.
So what happened to my comment to this article? It went into moderation and hours later it disappeared. Is this some sort of censorship? After putting some effort into a comment it is not nice to see it erased arbitrarily.
WordPress seems to occasionally lose comments, you can submit them but they never show up in the thread or in the review queue. I suspect WP has some race conditions when two comments are processed at exactly the same time.
For important posts, I like to use the “It’s all text” add-on which lets me edit a comment in my everyday editor and when I save the file, the contents are copied to the text box.
Thank you Ric, but my comment showed up in moderation for a couple of hours, so it didn’t get lost.
Anything substantial, I’ve learned always to copy.
Dear friends, writing valuable comments and delivering informative charts about CO2 and disproving the lies about it.
It is all true, but be assured, that the liars know that they lie!
Why do the fraudsters need this single strategy scam.
Principles of Climatology Faith
At the bottom the Geoengineering Mafia has only one lie to prove its claims, a second lie to push it forward, a third lie to blame it on the victims, a fourth lie as conclusion and a fifth lie to glue the scam together!
1. CO2 is producing global warming by positive feedback of energy. Earth becomes a warming green house!
2. As a result of first lie, the climate is changing dramatically, causing drought, flash rain, super hail, super lightnings and environment and people are dying!
3. The suffering and dying people have to blame themselves for the current and upcoming catastrophes, because they are pouring CO2 into the Atmosphere by industrial activities.
4. The humanity has to pay a CO2 tax to global authority, which will use this money to regulate the emission of CO2 to save the climate, the environment and the survival of humanity!
5. You are not allowed to question all this lies, because much more intelligent people, named “scientists” have found a 97% consensus! You have to believe it, else You may be declared a denier and no one will love You!
You may read further here about that!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2016/06/single-strategy-scam.html
I disagree. Rather than lying, the geoengineering Mafia equivocates. An equivocation is harder to spot than a lie accounting for the continuing appeal of this particular equivocation.
You are right equivocation is always part of the manipulation. This is done by abusing the missing knowledge.
The geoengineering mafia proposes Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as a solution for “climate change” but Aerosol Injection can only be done in the Troposphere.
When asked if SAI is already applied they can always “plausibly deny” it.
Look here.
#Plausible #Deniability!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2017/01/plausible-deniability.html
Most people don’t know anything about the Troposphere and Stratosphere!
Good article and charts.
Here’s another chart I propose top ridicule the current sorry state of climate science:
Title: “Future Climate = Hot to Damn Hot”
Chart is a rectangle around a picture of a smarmy-looking politician saying :
“It’s gonna’ get so hot you could go outside
and boil an egg on a bald man’s head …”
unless you give me money, vote for me,
and then do exactly what I say.
That would sum up climate science” in one chart
Climate Modelers = non-science = nonsense***
*** The modelers and their decades of wrong predictions are not real climate science
Right. Also, to convert climate pseudoscience to a legitimate science is straightforward. The first step is to place a statistical population underneath each climate model. Well meaning but statistically challenged bloggers are inclined to mistake a time series for a statistical population. Though a time series is present a statistical population is not.
This is a good chart from Lindzen
http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif
Another good chart by Scotese
http://worldview3.50webs.com/6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg
The chart by Scotese is an example of a time series. A statistical population is not evident but is required for a conclusion to be reached by Scotese’s argurment. A conclusion cannot be reached as Soctese’s argument is an example of an equivocation.
By your logic, ice core data are worse since they are from one location. Scotese reconstruction is from multiple location globally.
[snip – lose the accusations -mod]
[snip -cry me a river -mod]
It’s a pity that charts directed to be used by ‘skeptics’ are missing so much information.
First of all, the citing is uninformative. How does one climateaudit this? I found data for the graphs myself, but do not know whether it is the same data used by the author, particularly the Greenland data. The waters are muddy from the outset.
First chart of Central Greenland is missing 20th Century. ‘Age before present’ usually means from 1950, but even if it was from 2000, that would still mean the last 95 years is missing (ref). Current temps are around -29C. (ref)
Some context – Greenland received more insolation 10k years ago from orbital dynamics.
Second chart of models/obs is of mid-troposphere (satellites) showing divergence between models and obs. But the divergence is overblown. To compare temperature evolution properly there should be some baseline matching, but neither line intersects anywhere. The gap between is an arbitrary value. There should be at least a 5 year baseline where both are zeroed.
Third graph is a note on scale. Well, yes, if you want to diminish anything increase the scale. On the scale of a kilometer, I’m pretty much the same height now as I was when I was two years old. My mother will be surprised to hear that.
5C is the difference between 100 meters of global sea level and ice sheets across the North of America and Europe hundreds of meters thick. So we should be interested in each degree of global climate change – and the pace at which it has/may occur. The scale suggested above is 15C…..
Fourth graph conflates one location with global, diminishes by using scale (a lot more variability in Greenland temps than global), and still is missing the last 100 years in the Greenland temps.
I’m all for well-reasoned criticism, but these graphs would mislead the uninformed.