Inconvenient data for those who still insist climate change is making hurricanes more frequent is displayed in these two slides from Dr. Philip Klotzbach. As noted by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The bottom dropped out of US hurricanes over the last 10 years.
CommonDreams.org quoted Al Gore back in 2005:
… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.
Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 – largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes.
Since Katrina, climate activists have beat a steady drumbeat warning of doom.
- “Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes“, Nature, 2006 — “Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up.”
- “Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?“, Scientific American, 2011 — “Tropical cyclones like Irene are predicted to be more powerful this year, thanks to natural conditions”
- “Global warming is ‘causing more hurricanes’“, The Independent, 2012.
- “A Katrina hurricane will strike every two years“, ScienceNordic, 2013 — About a widely reported study in PNAS by geophysicist Aslak Grinsted of the Niels Bohr Institute Copenhagen U. Also see “‘Katrina-Like’ Hurricanes to Occur More Frequently Due to Warming” in US News & World Reports.
- “Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent“, Climate Central, 2013 – About a study in PNAS by Kerry Emanuel et al.
- See ten even more outlandish predictions from the big 3 networks.
But data based facts, they are stubborn things:
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/850069578214453248
“Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade”
That’ll be cos of global warming, that’s why….
Can the same be shown for Pacific and Indian Ocean storms?
Should the current US hurricane drought continue, I am sure some scientist could link it to climate change and show the occasional hurricane is a must to maintain a healthy coastal ecosystem. On the other hand, in case of a major hurricane landfall, both activists and the media are saved, because they could shout wolf again in the usual uninhibited manner. Worst of all if it turns out long term average of hurricane landfalls is not changing, because value of property in coastal regions do increase, with it damage suffered as well. Therefore we are doomed anyway.
Regarding extreme weather events, this site may be of interest:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/4/01-12
Which Klotzbach research paper do the 2 slides (at top of this article) come from?
I guess no one here wants to tell me…..
Maybe nobody tells me where Klotzbach’s alleged slides originate because no one knows their source?
JohnMacdonnell Does an echo chamber have a source other than itself?
“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/its-official-global-warming-and-higher-co2-ended-the-california-drought/
CO2 is rising WORDPRESS Boy
CO2 is toxic to you and I above normal levels humans evolved under.
Burning Fossil Fuels will hasten our demise
And You will be held responsible
GM
Yes, CO2 is toxic at extreme levels, levels never seen in nature. The atmosphere has CO2 at around 400 ppm, plants begin to die if it falls below 180 ppm. Your lungs have CO2 of around 50,000 ppm. If CO2 is poison, and you are worried about 400 ppm, why aren’t your lungs at 50,000 ppm not killing you? CO2 is a product of respiration. It is as organic a molecule is you can get. It is required to maintain a health pH of your blood. Bottom line, CO2 is far far far more likely to keep you alive than kill you. Basic human and plant physiology 101.
GuitarMan, maybe you missed these lectures at your liberal arts school. Not sure how much science they teach in the art departments.
he Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/the-benefits-of-higher-co2-levels-fewer-hurricanes-greater-prosperity-longer-life/
American Lung Association Never Mentions CO2 as Harmful to Human Health
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/american-lung-association-never-mentions-co2-as-harmful/
Patrick MJD April 10, 2017 at 3:35 am
Claim CO2 traps heat = FAIL!
ROTFF WTF LMAO WUWT
Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. . The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).
Let’s meet in person to discuss. Calgary works as does any other major city in Canada or the US.
Name your location co2islife
You’re forgetting about words like Typhoon, Cyclone, Nore’Easter, etc, etc, etc, Get a clue GED radio boy without a degree
I wouldn’t profess to be particularly scientific, but have a grasp of the basics. Am I missing something? It may have been mentioned before, but if temperature is a representation of how much energy something has, and 0K is zero energy, then increasing the temperature of the atmosphere is going from approx. 287K to 288K. This is an insignificant percentage, and the increased energy in a storm could not be measured.
temperature and CO2 have INCREASED (30%) radically in the last 30 years. This is the result of burning fossil fuels which emit GHG (CO2) which Trap Heat. Trapped Heat IS Energy. If you cannot admit that Chemistry & Physics apply your merely a paid protestor spewing forth lies
Claim CO2 traps heat = FAIL!
“Temperature……INCREASED (30%)…” – really? 30% of what? Exactly which part of my comment was a lie? I’m not suggesting CO2 doesn’t absorb IR energy, just questioning the amount relative to absolute zero. “Paid protestor”, very good. You found me out! /s
CO2 has increased from 280 to 408 (give or take a few ppm) parts per million in the last 250 years. This is due to the abundant and widespread use of fossil fuels such as COAL and OIL.
Based on that the relative percentage increase is just over 32%.
Temperature has also increased by a relatively similar amount however much of the heat has been absorbed by oceans, etc. In laymen terms the amount of heating is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima (4) Atomic Bombs PER SECOND!
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly. Estimates of the amount of energy the sun has sent to Earth are based on sunspot records dating back more than two centuries, and other proxy indicators, such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. More recently, satellite observation of solar activity from space suggest a slight decrease in solar activity.
It’s not the sun, it’s not Al Gore, it’s you and me generating all the HEAT and CO2 (+GHG).
For Our Sakes, Do the MATH
GM
@guitarman
Thanks for the clear explanation. Words like “relatively similar” and “absorbed by oceans etc.” really help a layperson to understand, rather than getting bogged down in technicalities. You can win an argument with someone with less knowledge, but never with a stupid person.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
here are a few people out there actively, vigorously, and loudly disputing this. Most recently, there’s a lot of hubbub over Hal Lewis‘s statements, such as my quote at the top, that cries of global warming are a hoax, and that there is a scientific fraud being perpetrated on the largest scale of all time. He recently resigned from the American Physical Society over their unwillingness to hold a Topical Group on Climate and Environment, and details his disgust here.
the Earth also radiates the energy absorbed during the day back into space at night. But it isn’t radiating visible light; the other main difference is the wavelength of light that the Earth emits; instead of visible light, this light is far into the infrared.
If this were all that were going on, the Earth would, on a year-to-year average, remain at the same temperature.But if, hypothetically, if you fill the Earth’s atmosphere with gases that absorb the light the Earth emits, you will heat up the Earth. That’s what a greenhouse gas is, and the most abundant one on Earth is carbon dioxide, or CO2, which absorbs best at around four microns.If we look at sunlight, we see that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the sunlight comes in at four microns, meaning that CO2 has a negligible effect on the energy coming in.
But what about the energy leaving? We have to look at “Earthlight” for that, and wouldn’t you know it? A substantial fraction — somewhere around 1% of the total energy emitted by Earth — can get absorbed by the CO2 in our atmosphere.
What happens to that energy after the CO2 absorbs it?
It gets re-radiated back towards Earth, heating the planet up again!
Humans emit roughly 38 Gigatonnes per year CO2. As I stated above DO THE MATH
OUT! Deniers #bigoil ##bigcoal #climatechangedenial
And GM proves himself a liar once more. I was so hoping he would be an honest alarmist and when he said “last comment” he meant it. Sadly none of them are honest apparently.
#bigcoal #dirtycoal #climatechangedenial #idiot #damages
#awards #oldandfat
So Newt is just the sock puppet of Guitarman. Should have known.
The length of his comments were a clear indication all he can do is tweets. Sorry Charlie, I do not do tweets. Tweets are for twits.
Who?
[snip . . . cut it out . . . mod]
>
[snip . . . if you really want to change minds then starting out by insulting them is generally a poor way to start. Why not spend some time understanding some of the many and varying points of view on here so that you can make an informed refutation of individual positions rather than just using a general smear? The opinions, as you will discover, range from the very general to the scientifically specific. Our contributors cover the entire range of skill, qualification, experience and that is nothing to say they also cover the spectrum from accepting everything mainstream about climate change to not accepting any of it and all points inbetween.
We often have contributions from people like you who pitch, cast insults and provide nothing of value to advance the debate. It is reminiscent of a chess tyro who having learned some moves reckons he can take on anybody, tries and fails dismally. A tyro of character will go off and learn a lot more, one without will just vanish like the morning mist. Which are you GM? . . . mod]
Scientific Fact
Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. T The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).
You’ve got the company line down pat!!!
I’m not certain that GHG’s, other than water vapor are of squat value to the global temp. I say for except water vapor, as water is what forms clouds and reflects energy back out to space.
You’ll also note, I said “not certain”. I read the adiabatic theory of CO2 on climate, and says CO2 cools the earth, by absorbing heat, rising in the atmosphere, and releasing it at the TOA, just like water vapor.
I do know this, Antarctica … a place where pretty much the only GHG effect would be CO2, is not cooperating very well with the theory that CO2 is playing a major role in warming the atmosphere. RSS, seems to suggests it is the opposite. Other than the areas close to sea, that are warmed by sea water, there is no apparent warming in antarctica that I can see.
To date, listening to all the arguments, and looking at reality, as opposed to considering the virtual worlds of computers and models, …. it seems to me the OCEAN is what maintains the temperature … and it is almost exclusively warmed by solar, and its temps are more dependent on its circulation modes than anything else.
JMO.
You wrote ” do know this, Antarctica … a place where pretty much the only GHG effect would be CO2, is not cooperating very well with the theory that CO2 is playing a major role in warming the atmosphere. RSS, seems to suggests it is the opposite. Other than the areas close to sea, that are warmed by sea water, there is no apparent warming in antarctica that I can see.”
Please elaborate with data and sources….
GM
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
You’ll note, the arctic, which is influenced by water circulation into the arctic is warming, the antarctic … where there is no such influence ….. flat as a pancake …. and up until last year, actually was cooling. You can thank the recent El Nino for saving the antarctic from getting even colder.
Since there is little to no water vapor in the antarctic, water vapor as a greenhouse gas can’t help that CO2 fry the world …. and as can see, without water vapor … there’s just not a whole lot to get excited about.
Of course … this is coming from “me”, who think’s it is impossible to really know the actual global surface temp. It is a scientific fact that we really DON”T know the actual surface temp, as ALL of the temperature products are calculated, adjusted, modelled, etc etc etc. Even the “observed” is nothing more than an “output” from some model.
🙂
Interesting thoughts to blame the meltdown and all-time-low polar ice on El Nino (which is a natural cycle). That’s actually a lot like blaming the sun for the 1.6 degree C average rise of the Earth’s global surface temperature, when in fact the sun simply cannot be linked to that by any measurement.
Consider this, when you pump 31 Gt CO2 annually via burning of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, do you think there is any impact on the Oceans, Atmosphere?
Call me crazy but “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” :-))
GM
The disappearing co2, 38, 36, 34 and now straight to 31. As if, 31 is to cover up the accounting between what should be in the atmosphere and what isn’t. What’s next, 29 ?
@rishrac – thanks for pointing out that it should have read 37 Gt. Nit-picking aside, CO2 emissions via human made GHG is an issue for all of us, even CEO’s of #BigOil
I don’t believe the 37 either. I have repeatedly pointed out, all of the additional co2 from 1998 as a base, has vanished. That includes the 50% that is acknowledged to have been sunk. It is n (n-1)/2. Then there are 8 years where the co2 ppm per year was under 2 ppm rise, which is another 6 per each ppm. I estimate about 200 BMT vanished and another 300 BMT sunk out of a total 600 BMT released since 1998. I’m being conservative. I think the actual total produced is around 40. China and India are opening much dirtier coal plants than we are closing down and much faster. It is not possible with so much co2 has vanished by an unknown mechanism. Increased uptake by plants cannot account for it. Neither can Henry’ s law, which is factored into the larger sink that the oceans can carry, which is estimated at 24% and land absorbs the other 26%.
There is a much bigger problem here than you might imagine.
By the way, co2 follows temperature.
Interesting thoughts….
In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
I really don’t think it matters if it is 40 or 30 Gt, the impacts are being felt.
GM
Co2 follows temperature. Chart the co2 ppm per year against the changes in temperature anomolies. There has been an underlying warming trend. Henry’s law about the absorption of co2 in the has been cited, but that has been factored in the acknowledged amount the oceans are absorbing. All numbers are from NOAA by the way. It is estimated that 24 % is absorbed by the oceans. Going back to 1965 when only 12 BMT was released total 6 was sunk and and another 6 made its way into the atmosphere for a rise of about 1 ppm in 1965. The amount missing from the calculations is staggering. It’s not a variation or a one off, the deficit of missing co2 keeps growing. In 8 of the years since 1998, the ppm has been below 2 ppm per year. In others it’s been below 3 except for NOAA changing 2005 from 2.53 to 3.10… AFTER they were told that co2 follows temperature and here’s the proof. They also knew when the speech was given about ‘ going back in time’ that co2 followed temperature by 800 years.
The seriousness of co2 can not be overstated. It means that something is increasingly depleting the co2 levels in spite of increasing production. That’s why I don’t believe 37 BMT. I know more about this than most, but not as much as some. It’s around 40 BMT was probably produced last year. I could have almost predicted the amount of 37 currently. After they got this the European agency magically came out with this year the co2 produced will not increase by a BMT like it has for the past 15 years. I reported it on here back in 2015.
Even so, whether it’s 37 or 40, it means that if I’m right 2016 was not the warmest year on record, the co2 ppm was barely above the co2ppm for 1998, or there is an unknown process that’s growing. Maybe both. But definitely one of them. If anthropogenic co2 is the only cause of the increase in atmospheric co2, the sinks are on orders of magnitude, too big.
New research, published this week in Nature, shows that a big part of the answer lies at the bottom of the world. Sediment samples from the seafloor, more than 3 km beneath the surface of the ocean near Antarctica, support a long-standing hypothesis that there was more CO2 dissolved in the deep Southern Ocean at times when the CO2 was low. “The chemical fingerprint left in the sediments is a long-sought smoking gun that there was increased carbon storage when the atmospheric CO2 was lower,” according to Sam Jaccard at the University of Bern, the study’s lead author.
“We now know that extra carbon was trapped in the deep sea by the buildup of dead organic matter from above, as long suspected,” added co-author Bob Anderson of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s also clear that the build-up and release of CO2 stored in the deep ocean during the ice age was driven by what was happening in the ocean around Antarctica.”
The new work also shows that these same processes were probably behind a series of natural, ~20 part per million (ppm) wobbles in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. “Our work shows that these natural CO2 wobbles were probably caused by changes in the amount of dust sprinkled over the ocean surface, which fertilizes the growth of phytoplankton, and by changes in the release of carbon from the deep ocean by changing ocean currents,” said study co-author Alfredo Martínez García of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry.
Whereas the natural wobbles of 20 ppm took thousands of years to occur, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen by 20 ppm over just the last nine years due to human emissions. “The current rate of CO2 increase is just so fast compared to the natural variations that it’s hard to compare them,” said Eric Galbraith of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, a study coauthor. “We are entering climate territory for which we don’t have a good geological analog.”
That’s if you believe the IPCC temperature and co2 record, I don’t. Your argument has been used so many times. It’s useless. As if I’ve never heard this before. The fact remains co2 follows temperature. There is no way of knowing whether the co2 increase is entirely natural or not. You are conviently leaving the 800 year lag time out. 800 years ago we were at the top of a warming plateau. Either way, it disproves co2 has anything to do with altering climate. Either they can’t explain why it was warmer without co2, or why the chart is flat in terms of co2.
It’s like a feeble attempt at resurrecting a dead theory. There are so many failures. I was reminded of one the other day, I could literally fill pages. Where’s the tropical hot spot ?
and you’re supporting a know CLIMATE DENIAL SITE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
Unless you can prove your claims through some form of vetting process, your statements are JUNK.
Back in 1999 the co2 level was lower. All I wanted to know was how do they explain the MWP and the LIA. Now they said, because of warming the oceans will expand and rise about 4 feet or 1.5 meters. So I did the math and I agree. If it warmed as much as they were saying many places would be under water literally. Next they explained all of the math and the retained warming that should have occurred. I did the math and yep, should have happened. They were adamant that unless we stopped co2 production we were reaching a point of no return. The result was ever increasing production, however, the temperature did not keep pace with forecast amount. Co2 ppm per year didn’t increase either from 1998. In fact, I think I’ve said this, 8 of those years with heavy production of co2 the result was below 2 ppm per year. Even though the cry was about the hottest year ever. Those years were below 1998, within in error bars, and nowhere near the models. The temperatures were/are below the lowest modeled forecast. Only though adjusting those temperatures were they able to show any warming at all.
They explained away the LIA and the MWP by saying it was local and not world wide. A drilling program was instituted to resolve this program. The first place was a lake in China. The drilling confirmed that changes took place for those 2 events as well as other lesser known events. The 2nd drilling took place off the coast of Pura. Again the data confirmed both. Many other sites as well were drilled. All confirmed that many such events had occurred. In particular the MWP was determined to be warmer than the current warm period. Many in the AGW community say now it wasn’t as warm or as cold. Now, at the time it was alarming that co2 was stated to remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Since then the time scale has been forgotten, and is now estimated to be about 38 years.
No warming took place to expand the oceans by 1.5 meters. Many projections/predictions were made, not one has occured. I don’t cut and paste to prove a point. The co2 ppm per year follows the temperature in every single year as far back as I cared to which was 1960. When temperature declined so did the co2 ppm per year. There is definitely an underlying warming trend. Co2 is only following that. I am concerned that co2 levels have plateaud along with temperature. Which basically means the overall temperatures are dropping. Which matches the temperature record 800 years ago. The temperature record I’m referring to is the one that has not been adjusted by the IPCC. Further, in whose right mind can you justify warming based on the width of tree rings ? The C/AGW took no action against this very bad science and was defended by peer reviews. Permanent drought both in Australia and California were much put out there as a result of global warming. The list just goes on and on. How you can support C/AGW as valid is beyond understanding.
AGW is wrong. And the solutions to this non problem are also wrong. And I can prove this. All data is directly from NOAA. other sources are well vetted on this site.
The most important of this is the relationship of between co2 following temperature. Look for yourself. Also, co2 not only follows temperature, but also solar cycles and cosmic ray activity.
“rishrac”Did you not read my reply regarding references ?
Your words are without references and your feeble blog’s tagline reads “4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site”
Until you produce something with SCIENTIFIC References (WUWT Does Not Qualify) Your Words are as I have said previously – JUNK
Adios Muchachos
Everything I said isn’t in your cut and paste world. In fact, anything I submit for publication wouldn’t make it past the climate censors. When cold fusion came out, it’s the information that is important on how to. I gave you the how to. I’m not in denial of the current climate change regime Im telling you it’s totally wrong. I have the facts and information to back that up. All the facts, including the 800 year co2 following temperature is in the scientific literature. The last 60 years of co2 following temperature is not an opinion. The data is directly from NOAA. You want a mouth piece from AGW to publish that, you wont find it. Thats not a 4 out of 5 denists statement. Thats verifiable. Anybody that has access to NOAA’s website can do so. The fact that every prediction made concerning climate change has failed, is beyond discussion. How do you prove failed prediction after production? The odds of being wrong every single time are astronomical. Your appeal to authority is the problem. It’s in the hand out I got 20 years ago on how to lead a skeptic to the right conclusion.
4 out of 5 scientists don’t believe you. The 5th is a denier
I really think you need medication
Another tactic of the global warming crowd, I need medication. I hear that several times a times year. Along with I have mental issues, a problem with authority, don’t understand the science, not a climate scientist, denying reality, outright threats, on the payroll of big oil, and a few others. There are 2 issues. One is warming and the other is the cause. The cause of the warming is definitely NOT co2. C/AGW has convinced me of that. I don’t use anybodys elses analysis other than government sources There has been a slight warming. As of Mar 17, + 0.19… where’s the rest of the heat gone for the last 20 years? In the oceans ? Wheres the heat content ? Wheres the thermal expansion ? Over the years, the quality and in every field of expertise has increased dramatically on here. It is only a matter of time before AGW goes away.
It never ceases to amuse me that recycled people/logic periodically appears on this site. They cut and paste a big long paragraph contending how co2 holds on to the heat, as if it’s brand new to me. And if they can prove unity, I’d be the first one on board, but wait warming community can’t release the emails under the FOIA. Scientists can’t operate under those conditions ? And I thought it was a given. Much like the guys that suppose to have discovered cold fusion. I give those guys credit. They didn’t hide behind some wall saying ” trust us, it works”.
I had lingering doubts about whether AGW was a real thing. Over time, I have no doubts at all. If AGW isn’t fraud, it is big delusional group think. AGW is wrong, and the solutions being advocated are even worse.
Newt, I take your criticism as a compliment. You can not disprove co2 follows temperature. You have 2 choices, amend the co2 record going back showing the recent warming periods, there by having to show increased levels of co2 and where the co2 came from.. or show how those periods occurred and what occurred then that is not happening now. You can’t or won’t do either.
Enjoy your fantasy world as your rants and raves fall on deaf ears.
Enjoy yours until the green money dries up.
Dear rishrac I am not employed by, nor do I accept any money from any form of Energy Company, be it Green, Brown, or any financial institution, investment instrument or dark monies.
I believe what I believe after receiving three degrees in Geology, Chemistry and Law. And I have utilized these degrees to help win unspecified cases, and promote the truth. It has become apparent to me that #bigoil & #bigcoal and already trialing the pending litigation in the court of public opinion. These groups hire people like you and others on this and similar sites to attempt to smear solid Science to minimize the pending damage charges that will be levied against the Seven sisters and more.
Cincidentally I saw this today http://www.climatecentral.org/news/march-2017-second-hottest-21351?utm_campaign=crowdfire&utm_content=crowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#350509998-tw#1492371245539
Change is coming. Hard, Fast & Furious.
ciao
Sorry, you do not get to define what a scientific reference is. Last I checked, “King of the World” was still a vacant position.
Still waiting for your scientific peer viewed and cited papers
Crickets
Apparently you are waiting on yourself. I would get your hearing checked for those bugs.
Meanwhile temps rising and it isn’t the Suns fault
Your post is junk. You reference Wiki to read about THIS site? There are plenty more reputable AND accurate than William Connolley’s cesspool of outright lies and bigotry.
Seriously, do some research before making yourself look more foolish.
So says the Denier
Seems you are defining yourself. But then you knew that already.
Stages of Denial
There’s nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don’t know why it’s happening
Models don’t work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change can’t be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It’s someone else’s problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
One record year is not global warming
Some sites show cooling
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
Greenland used to be green
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It’s the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
We are just recovering from the LIA
Ice ages
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
Global warming is nothing new!
Geologic history
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
It’s the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
Cherry Picking
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don’t have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren’t even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren’t even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can’t even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The models don’t have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It’s the sun, stupid
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
Vineland was full of grapes
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Greenland used to be green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Scientific
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA
Denial is not a River.
Name a few !!!!!!!
Read the side bar. You can read, can you not?
Philjourdan – ZILCH
FACT: More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon. Your JUNK is stinking up the place here
@GM
Those 3 fingers are working over time with you. Your facts are not facts. At best (and that is being kind) they are strong hypotheses.
You failed science 101, right?
Dear WUWT staff member
Waiting for your science papers which are peer reviewed
Crickets
Again, if you want to read Peer reviewed papers, you find them. I am not a staff member. I just call them like I see them. But you may want to reference where I made a statement requiring a peer reviewed paper. Pointing out facts about sites is not a peer reviewed activity. You need to learn the difference. If you are capable.
NO
GM …. you need to read my post correctly. Should I assume it is an honest mistake?? … or was it a deliberate ploy to divert the discussion?? I never said that El Nino had anything to do with “record low polar ice” …. that is a false construct of your ideological mind. In fact, I’m not talking about the “ice” at all. I’m talking about temperature.
As shown on the graph I posted, N. Polar temp is rising, S. Polar is not. Since CO2 is a well mixed gas, the difference in the two can’t be attributed to CO2. What other difference is there?? …. for starters, the N. Pole is an ocean, and the S. Pole is land. As such, the N. Pole is subject to heat transfer from the Pacific and Atlantic via the ocean currents that bring warmer water to the arctic basin via the conveyor. In contrast, the S. Pole is not subject to such, other than the coastal areas. Thus the only source of heating for the interior S. Pole is the atmosphere. Given that CO2 for the two is assumed to be identical {well mixed gas}, the S. Pole is an excellent meter for actual impact of CO2 on temp. Also noting the “polar amplification” aspect of global warming, it becomes clear that CO2 has little impact on temperature.
The real driver of Climate Change, Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Climate Disruption, or whatever your folk are calling it these days, deals with oceans. CO2 has little to no impact on ocean temp, less than 1%.
Since you like scientific facts …. you probably know this one as well …. the rise in Global Temperature is driven by an increase in night time lows, not day time highs. The rise in lows causes the “average” to rise. Now, …. go to your local desert that is very “dry”, then go to the coast, where it is very humid. …. note the differences in temperature change between day and night. Deserts cool off really quick, cause there is no water vapor to hold the heat. Coastal areas barely cool at all. This is a water vapor thing … not a CO2 thing. … and the largest contributor to water vapor is the ocean, not man’s burning of fossil fuels.
your graph is incorrect, both Poles have experinced record temperatures recently.
Scientific Fact
Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. T The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).
I just discovered something interesting about hurricanes from the NOAA site. Now ALL storms are considered damaging, including Cat 1s and 2s, 3s have been elevated to “Devastating!”
I lived in Florida from 1977-1987, a decade remarkably free of hurricanes. The one that did strike was David, barely a Cat 1, that caused no noticeable damage.
If someone unfamiliar with hurricanes reads this, they are likely to be terrified.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
PMK
http://www.stateofourclimate.com/recent_series.html stuff saved before removal by #bigoil #bigcoal interests
I’m beginning to wonder if there is a legitimate source for Klotzbach’s alleged slides referred to at the beginning of this article. No one here has identified it, if it exists, in 5 days.
Why would you expect a Climate Change Denial site to provide proof of anything. Drink the Kool Aide
GuitarMan I hear ya there. Great discussion with Deanster.
But in fairness, WUWT often has a supporting study linked in their essay. And sometimes the study is even good science. WUWT just twists its meaning, or cherry picks – to make it seem to say something it doesn’t.
I’m still wondering if WUWT can show a Klotzbach study which uses those 2 slides shown at the top of the article. It’s almost 6 days since I first asked. So far, no legitimate source has been produced.
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or decreased slightly. Estimates of the amount of energy the sun has sent to Earth are based on sunspot records dating back more than two centuries, and other proxy indicators, such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. More recently, satellite observation of solar activity from space suggest a further decrease in solar activity. It’s not the SUN, it’s AGW 99.99% Confidence Interval across the Globe. No reason to wait on more #JunkScience
FInal thought: Clearly you’re all misunderstood geniuses,please develop and submit a Scientific paper, about ANYTHING; Use actual & credible field data with proven statistical methods showing your evidence and supporting your theories. If you could prove what you feel is Scientific reality, I am sure you will all be very rich and famous. Making excuses such as “it would never get past the climate sensors” is a self defeating attitude. You’re clearly better than them, so put something out there that can be vetted, discussed, defended.
The Scientific community exists for this very reason. Why not play by the rules and show us how brilliant you are?
GM, well said.
Upending AGW in that way should earn them a Nobel Prize.
Still waiting for a legitimate source for the Klotzbach graphs.