As promised, I attended Al Gore’s climate change lecture at Rice University last night. Rice University is one of the most beautiful university campuses I’ve ever seen, so it was a delight to see it again. The architecture is outstanding, and the buildings are placed in a garden-like setting. It was lovely to walk from the parking lot to the fieldhouse. The speech was held in a packed Tudor Fieldhouse which seats 5,750. By the time the Rice University Provost was introducing Al Gore, there were no empty seats that I could see, see Figure 1.
Figure 1
A couple of minutes later, when Al Gore came on stage he received a standing ovation, I must say I was a little surprised, like I was in an alternate universe. However, about 40% of Texans vote Democratic and these voters are concentrated in Houston, San Antonio and Austin. As an example, Houston went for Hillary Clinton by over 160,000 votes. This was very apparent in Tudor Fieldhouse. The crowd even cheered when Gore railed against the fossil fuel industry and called for dismantling it. Although, I noticed lots of people (including the couple next to me) got up and walked out at that point. When the lights came up for questions, there were many empty seats, perhaps a quarter or more, had walked out during the speech.
As some predicted, prior to the speech, questions were pre-screened by the provost (Professor of statistics Marie Lynn Miranda). She is an unquestioning true believer in catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) just like Al Gore, so the three hand-picked questions she asked were softballs that merely prompted more vitriol about “deniers.” Yes, he used the word a few times. Once he said, “I know I’m being dismissive of them, but what can I do?” This was accompanied with an irritatingly smug and superior smile, like the one that lost him the election in 2000.
The first question is the only one I’ll discuss here. It was (paraphrasing): Why is the media ignoring climate change? Al Gore’s answer was very long and rambling, but he essentially said, even though climate change is the most important issue facing human civilization ever, the media ignores it because too many people turn off their TV’s or radios or change the channel whenever it comes up. He believes the media are not informing any more but, they are entertainment only. That was interesting, I agree with him on that point. Then he went on to say the internet and social media are not a positive thing today, they are divisive; but he had hopes for the future of social media. The media is toast, since both sides now think it has devolved to entertainment.
Points made in the lecture
The lecture was in two parts. In the first Gore asserted that humans are causing “dangerous” climate change, without offering any proof. He further asserted that 16 of the 17 warmest years “on record” were in this century, asserted that greenhouse gases (“mainly carbon dioxide”) were the cause since they “trap” 400,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat on the Earth every year. He presented no evidence that the greenhouse connections are related to the warming or that heat is “trapped” by them. The “evidence” that man’s emissions cause climate change is computer-model based, and not based on, or supported by, observations as discussed here. The popular concept of greenhouse gases “trapping” heat is very misleading and inaccurate as described by Rasmus Benestad here.
The idea that 16 of the 17 warmest years “on record” are in this century is debatable and depends upon which surface temperature record one chooses to use and the estimate of error-of-measurement one chooses to use. For a discussion of this see Pat Frank’s post here. This statement also ignores the very small change in temperature in this century, versus the latter part of the 20th century, as can be seen here. Further, the measured global temperature record only goes back to 1880, at the earliest, and this was the end of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age is the coldest period on Earth since the beginning of the Holocene as can be seen here in figures 3A and 3B. Do we really want to go back to the cold and miserable Little Ice Age? This was a very difficult time, as discussed here. I and most people like it warmer than that.
So, Gore’s assertions are very contestable, yet he moves on undeterred, and describes cherry-picked catastrophes all over the world, with emotional pictures. According to him, all are linked to man’s supposed changes to the global climate. He asserts that hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria were all made worse by global warming. He acknowledges “some say no link of climate change to extreme weather can be shown.” He doesn’t mention a source, but I suspect he was referring to the excellent work by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (here) and Dr. Cliff Mass (here). Dr. Judith Curry, a hurricane expert, has also discussed global warming and hurricanes here. Dr. Curry, in the cited post, says:
“Thinking that reducing fossil fuels is going to help with extreme events on the timescale of the 21st century is a pipe dream. Even if you believe the climate models, and we are able to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions by 2050, we’re going to see miniscule impacts on the climate and the weather by the end of the 21st century. Any benefits would be realised in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. If we think we have enough wisdom and knowledge to what might happen in the 22nd and 23rd Century — personally I’d rather see us deal with here and now, and maybe focus on what we might be facing out to 2050. That seems a more practical and realistic goal, for what we should be trying to do. That’s my opinion.”
But, then he asserts that the “probability” of “record breaking” extreme weather events are increased, although he contradicts himself to the “extreme” within a few seconds, the crowd did not seem to notice.
He moves on to blame global warming (or climate change) for “record breaking” precipitation, droughts, wildfires, etc. Sea level rise will flood Miami and other low-lying cities. “Rain bombs” are the new scary monster. He says CO2, through warming, supposedly increases water use by plants, ignoring evidence that CO2 decreases water use per pound of plant. Further, he says climate change also caused the “Arab Spring,” destabilizes governments, and we are in the sixth great extinction event. Fifty percent of all species will be wiped out, and on and on. If it’s in the news, global warming caused it.
Al Gore believes that fossil fuels receive $700 billion in subsidies. He didn’t supply a period of time, but this was just for U.S. A 2015 report by the EIA, exclusive of welfare programs like LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance), the U.S. industry receives $3.4 billion in subsidies per year (see here).
He also believes that solar and wind are at grid parity (cost of producing electricity) with coal and other fossil fuels and soon will be cheaper. This is sheer fantasy as explained here and here.
At the end he received a standing ovation.
Conclusions
The climate alarmists appear to be losing the battle for public attention and concern, but you would never know it from the reception to this speech. Those opposed to the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming, if they even came to the talk, left before the end.
The speech was all over the place, floods here, droughts there, sea level rise, wildfires, etc. Mr. Gore, there is always a flood, a drought or a very high tide somewhere, they don’t have to be caused by the same thing. As a skeptical scientist, with some knowledge in the area, I was unconvinced, but the others in the audience seemed happy with what he had to say.
I interpreted Gore’s speech to be more anti-fossil-fuels than pro-CAGW. He stated that he wanted to completely replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy. He is also pro-nuclear.
These issues are very political these days and very unscientific, which is a shame. But, then, many other issues are as well.
I had two questions, but was never asked for them, they are below:
16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century. The record goes back to 1880, the end of the Little Ice Age, which geologists believe is the coldest period since the end of the last glacial period, 12,000 years ago. Why use such an unusually cold period as a benchmark temperature?
Both Nature magazine (2012 editorial) and the IPCC (in AR5, 2013) have determined that we cannot compute the man-made global warming contribution to any storm or to any trend (increasing or decreasing) in extreme weather. This is also the conclusion of Dr. Roger Pielke (University of Colorado). Can you comment on this?
If I had been allowed to ask the questions, I wonder what he would say? Would he call me a denier and go to the next question?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People are just getting tired of BS algore-ithyms, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
https://youtu.be/JmzuRXLzqKk
The radical left needs another phony crisis to peddle to idiot kids – this on is like, i mean, so 1900’s.
So most of the audience gave standing ovations, how cute! Didn’t anyone kneel? Or do this…
http://dogknobit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/finger-die-ein-kreuz-bilden-15289186.jpg
They should hold their breath for a minute of silence-and a minute without exhaling evil CO2!
That may become a sacrament at some point
They only kneel on certain occasions.
Trump: “Bend the knee before me, you who worship me.”
Trump: “OK, start up the Star Spangled Banner!”
[??? .mod]
Think about it.
[hint: NFL]
In other words (those of Matt Walsh) “Oh my lord, Trump has tricked his critics into kneeling before him”
I’d bet $10 that’s the guy who tweeted that, and my inspiration source. Oh that was funny!
Yep that’s him
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/912150462593470464
IN your link to EIA I noted under the daily prices for various fuels that sunlight is still free.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.php
The other example of comparing electric production costs and comparing to a 100% renewable grid with “storage” is just a horrible comparison.
sans pot shots at solar, article was nicely done, thanks for going to see what the “narrative” morphs into.
In the ground, coal, oil and natural gas are also free.
The cost for all forms of energy is converting it to something useful.
Since the end cost is all that matters, wind and solar are still more costly than fossil fuels. And that is before you account for the expensive systems needed to compensate for the fact that wind and solar aren’t always available when you need them.
“He is also pro-nuclear.”
When did this happen?
The greenies got co-opted into nuclear is green because of low CO2
So is James Hansen.
But, but, but….didn’t Al Gore create the internet himself? 🙂
[Yes, he did try to claim credit for that, Snopes]
These establishment fools hate the internet, in which real news can take place, and the fake news narrative can be exposed.
It more that real news can’t be suppressed in today’s internet world. That ‘s is the Left’s real ploght in loss of control of the message.
WUWT is the perfect example. Pre-internet, tactics like the LATimes refusing to host climate skeptical views would have impact. Today with the internet, the LA Times attempt to suppress climate change skepticism has little meaning other than to highlight the LATimes inherent bias and censorship.
Those in power work to keep the real goings on out of the public eye ( Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch type meetings). The internet makes it harder for them to manage the news. The flip side is that there is a ton of garbage fake news propagated on-line. One has to use one’s noggin to figure out what makes sense and what is someone else’s political agenda that is pumped and primped for you to believe.
That must be why the establishment is working so hard to regulate the internet.
Here’s an awkward question for Gore that might get past moderation next time:
If you could go back in time ten years, how would you have made “An Inconvenient Truth” differently, knowing what you know now?
He’d just say that he was way too optimistic then. It’s now much worse than anyone possibly could have imagined when he made the movie. We’re all doomed!
So much brain power wasted on a nothing.
[Quote from post] Al Gore believes that fossil fuels receive $700 billion in subsidies. He didn’t supply a period of time, but this was just for U.S. A 2015 report by the EIA, exclusive of welfare programs like LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance), the U.S. industry receives $3.4 million in subsidies per year (see here).
From the linked article, the U.S. fossil fuel industry receives $3.4 Billion (not million) per year in subsidies. Still, the Goracle is over 200 times the truth in his estimate of fossil fuel subsidies. Also, renewable energy sources receive about 6 times as much subsidies as fossil fuels.
Also, it was interesting that about a quarter of the audience walked out when Gore dissed the fossil fuel industry. Could the “walkers” have been students in Petroleum Engineering or future refinery engineers, who didn’t appreciate Gore dumping on their future careers? The oil industry does provide a lot of jobs in Houston!
The FF industry pays taxes. The “renewable” sc@m, not so much. Their projects wouldn’t exist without subsidies.
solar PV 7 to 12 centss per kwh with no subsidies, on small household size scales.
Stock,
Even household solar systems are subsidized in the USA.
@stock
The rule of thumb for solar investment is that 1$/W turns into a 0.1$/kWh price.
Show me a project that cost 700 to 1200 $ /kW with no subsidies, and i’ll believe your “solar PV 7 to 12 centss per kwh with no subsidies, on small household size scales”.
At retail price, i found them at ~2000$/kW, and i would still have to pay for installation, connection, etc.
stock, you forgot to count for the cost of the batteries needed when the sun isn’t shining.
stock : “solar PV 7 to 12 centss per kwh with no subsidies”
you just said “solar is free”, how is it possible to have its kWh costing more than 0 cent ? Someone must be lying to you.
Does Gore ever declare a financial interest in the results of his proposed solutions to ‘global warming’?
I thought politicians had to do this when making comments about proposed legislation, and he seems to have had a big hand in carbon trading.
A progressive friend of mine explained the logic behind the $700 Billion in ‘subsidies’:
1. Oil comes from the Middle East
2. Our military exists only to the Middle East so oil companies can access its oil
3. Therefore if we don’t need oil, we don’t need a military
4. Therefore our entire defense budget is a subsidy to the oil companies to secure access to oil.
Proposed FY18 defense budget: $639 Billion
Morden96, I suspect you are correct, although Gore didn’t explain the number. I remember one study that claimed WWII pipelines from Houston to New York in 1941, to avoid German submarines, were a “subsidy.” The left uses insane logic.
Steve Zell, thanks for pointing out the error, I fixed it. Most of the “walkers” I saw were older and didn’t look like students. Those cheering Gore on looked like students to me.
A tax deduction that every company receives, is not a subsidy. Never has been, never will be.
“40 per cent of Texans voted Democratic” Are you sure they didn’t vote Democrat? Sorry, my pet peeve this week
There’s precious little democratic about the Democrat party.
When I was a grad student at Baylor College of Medicine, the grad school hosted Hwang Woo-suk, the South Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned dogs for the first time.
During his talk he described how he encountered many of the same challenges that stopped other scientists trying to accomplish the same thing. He then launched into a tale of how his breakthrough came due to the special abilities of his lab technicians. One lady was so devoted that she would sing to the cells and she would sit in the lab with them for long hours to keep them company. She treated them kindly and doted on them like a mother and child. It was this motherly attitude and care that led to success where so many others had failed.
As my BS detector was climbing to stratospheric new heights I started looking around me to see the reactions of the 100+ other scientists and trainees in the audience, and I was surprised that nobody else seemed at all concerned about what they were being told. His accomplishments had already been published, and he was already lauded as a scientific genius, so I suppose people gave him the benefit of the doubt?
But a few weeks later when the news broke that his claimed discoveries were fabricated and his colleagues started bailing out and abandoning him, I can’t say that I was at all surprised. I don’t know how seemingly intelligent people can buy into nonsense just because it has a scientific sheen to it, but I witnessed it first hand in that Houston auditorium.
One of the new Nobel laureates this year, Jeff Hall, expressed a similar feeling for his organism, the fruit fly. So, just because of one fraud, don’t throw out the maggots with the banana.
It’s one thing to claim to have a soft spot in your heart for your research subjects.
It’s another thing to claim that singing to cloned cells is the reason for your success.
I did get to ask Al Gore a question at a conference so I can tell what his reply would have been. Remember that he is first and foremost a politician and knows how to control the stage. I asked him (in 2015) “given there hasn’t been any warming in 16 years, how many years of stagnant or cooling temperatures would it take for him to change his mind or evaluate his conclusions “. He went on a 10 minute rant about storms, floods, Fukushima and disasters. He never came close to addressing my question and he wouldn’t have answered yours either so donfeel like you missed out
I suspect you are correct Scott.
Fukushima? He actually brought up Fukushima in a climate rant?
Mr Bradley has hijacked this thread with inane responses he can’t possibly believe himself.
He probably won’t be banned because our host has too much integrity, but we should learn not to respond to him (like I foolishly did below). Taking the discussion off on a tangent is exactly his purpose.
An argument from invincible ignorance can be sustained for as long as others don’t catch on that the instigators’ standards of evidence are impossibly high and ever-shifting. The best response is to call them out on it and walk away.
I scrolled past 80% of that hijack once I saw how ignorant the bastard is. Can’t stand Stupid and Bradley wears it on his sleeve.
I would face backwards.
It’s a race between NK and Al Gore. I think NK will turn out the lights a few months sooner.
So how much does the “average citizen” believe Al Gore? That’s the real issue. I don’t think ‘much’.
“Would he call me a denier and go to the next question?”
That is undeniable.
I really enjoyed watching both “An Inconvenient Truth” and the follow-up ” Truth to Power” documentaries. Putting one’s personal bias aside, you have to give the former U.S. Vice President, Gore credit for following a passion. I think he uses his oratorical skills to get the message across socio-ethnic-cultural barriers that climate change is a global problem.
I do not enjoy watching the liars enriching themselves off lies sold to others.
Al Gore is a failed politician and political money pimp. People like him cannot argue scientific principles and if he was forced to do so, he would be made a fool out of in short order by the scientifically astute.
So it is no wonder the University coddled and protected him by screening all questions. This is how they must operate to save face. A seminar setting with open questioning and follow-up crossing would be disastrous to any warmer considering the data available to refute all claims. The universities interest seems to be the continued desire to spread climate hysteria and propaganda so as to help the political establishment steal more of your hard earned money with frivolous carbon taxes and regulations, all of which stand to benefit all the players. Academia that gets some of the spoils, Al Gore who wants to sell carbon offsets is rewarded and the political class who can never get enough of your money with the taxation proposals. And the public at large? They get nothing in return for the taxation except they are told to feel good about the screw job foisted on them because after all, their “savin the planet”. My opinion of academia has been lowered another peg. Science in the post modern era appears to be relative to the flow of money rather than the truth.
2 time VP and got more votes than Bush in 2000 is “failed”
Plus, following a passion against GW for more than 30 years, I am betting before you even heard of it?
He has a lot on most of us.
He’s got nothing. He was born with a Commie-backed silver spoon in his mouth. He was a C student at Yale.
When he was buying into man-made global warming, I had not only heard of it but knew it for a pack of lies and junk science from the git-go. Roger Revelle, the college prof from whom he got the phony idea realized how wrong he had been before he died. But Prince Albert didn’t know enough science to correct his former misinformation.
Yup! He’s gotten rich off something he has absolutely NO professional or intellectual capacity to contribute to or even understand. He is a blatant political OPPORTUNIST and that is all he is. A failed divinity student for crying out loud! Basically, a functioning idiot! But a dead eye target for an easy buck!
He can’t even speak without putting people to sleep.
When counting Democrat votes, you always have to discount the 2 to 3% illegal votes.
Regardless, as Al Gore’s campaign manager said, if the election had been pure vote total election, both campaigns would have used vastly different strategies.
The claim that Al Gore may or may not have gotten more votes is just sore loser strategy by those who wish to change the rules of the game after the last play is completed.
He’s a lot more than you, but then that’s a mighty low bar.
“He [Gore] has a lot on most of us.”
Gore has no redeeming qualities. Just like the Clinton’s, you can’t believe a word Gore says.
“Both Nature magazine (2012 editorial) and the IPCC (in AR5, 2013) have determined that we cannot compute the man-made global warming contribution to any storm or to any trend (increasing or decreasing) in extreme weather. This is also the conclusion of Dr. Roger Pielke (University of Colorado). Can you comment on this?”
Simple. Even if you can not compute it, the water is hotter that it would be without GW. Therefore, on first principles, there will be more evaporation and thus more rain.
There is zero evidence than any SST is higher now than it otherwise would have been without more CO2 in the air.
simple fail, again.
“the water is hotter that it would be without GW”. It isn’t. Ocean show insignificant warming, like 0.01K.
And other CAGW believers have also said that hotter could mean drought, because, you know, hotter means higher dew point, so less rain.
Make you choice. More rain, or less rain? (although a “reallyskeptical” would know his choice may be wrong, and he will doubt it…)
I made mine: we just don’t know, and never will, because this problem is just intractable. Maybe we’ll observe more rain, or less, but we never be able to really explain why.
There are many factors that go into determining how powerful a storm will be.
Focusing in on one of those factors and proclaiming that you know precisely how changing it will change the storm is the kind of thing snake oil salesmen are famous for.
reallyskeptical : “Therefore, on first principles, there will be more evaporation and thus more rain.”
—————
more rain, and more drought too according to Goebels warmers, don’t forget that.
In fact, GW causes everything, and its contrary, les snow and more snow, less ice and more ice… there are thousands of papers to “prove” it.
“16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century. The record goes back to 1880, the end of the Little Ice Age, which geologists believe is the coldest period since the end of the last glacial period, 12,000 years ago. Why use such an unusually cold period as a benchmark temperature?”
because:
1. Present temps are likely higher now than in Medival times, before the LIA.
2. It’s not the the temp now, it’s the trend. We are 1 degree C up, and there is no evidence of a cooling trend. Based on what we understand, we could be +5 in two centuries.
3. even if we stop emitting C now.
All available evidence shows that a number of 50 year periods in the MWP were hotter than any 50 years yet experienced in the Current WP.
We ‘likely’ ‘could’ all be living on Mars in two centuries. If we stop emitting CO2 now we’d all be dead in about two minutes.
1. Present temps are likely higher now than in Medival times, before the LIA.
->That certainly why retreating glacier in Europe reveal medieval forest, village, etc. Or not.
2. It’s not the the temp now, it’s the trend. We are 1 degree C up, and there is no evidence of a cooling trend. Based on what we understand, we could be +5 in two centuries.
->Nope (unless you use “could” as in “based on what we understand, we could be Elves in two centuries”; ô magical word, that allow any fantasy…). Based on what we really understand, we couldn’t add more than +1 (not an current temperature, but on temperature that would have had happened without that; did you get this?). Based on what we understand, +5 will be a boon for life, while a mere -1 would be a disaster. Better incurs a loss (that wont happen, but, anyway) at +1 that risk a -1.
3. even if we stop emitting C now.
-> If so, then stop trying to stop the train with our miserable hands, just use our effort into coping with that new reality. Indeed, all the effort that are asked of western country would only delay the doom (if true) from 2100 to 2101. Completely useless anyway.
reallyskeptical, Gabro and paqyfelc did a good job of addressing your issues. I would only add that the current average surface temperature of the Earth is about 15-16 degrees. Over the last 600 million years the average temperature of the Earth has been ~20 degrees. An increase of 5 degrees is only reversion to the overall mean. Our current icebox condition is very rare in Earth’s history and will not last. Although, given the very cold Little Ice Age, which may have been a failed attempt at a new glacial period, we are probably headed toward a new glacial, but the next possible initiation of the glacial is not for another few thousand years. For more see here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/08/08/the-effects-of-the-bray-climate-and-solar-cycle/
Reallyskeptical-
Please stop emitting C now.
The Medieval warm period was as much as 1C warmer than today.
“2. It’s not the the temp now, it’s the trend. We are 1 degree C up, and there is no evidence of a cooling trend.”
Here’s evidence of a cooling trend. Notice how it was hotter in the 1930’s than it is today. If you draw a straight line from the high of the 1930’s to the temperature today, you will be looking at a downtrend.
The Climate Change God Hansen said it was 0.5C hotter in the 1930’s than 1998, which makes it 0.4C hotter than today.
If we ever break that downtrend line, come back and revisit this issue with us.
A scary Halloween story dressed up as actual science. And the headless whoresman to scare the kiddies. Wonder how many of the parents paying the tuition bills would agree that this is a wise use of limited education resources.
El Calentamiento es REAL….. sucedió, ya se esta terminando, los nevados,los glaciares ya están recuperando la nieve. La falla es haber culpado al CO2, a los combustibles fósiles,a la actividad humana del Calentamiento Global, estos causan un mayor daño CONTAMINAN
El calentamiento fue real, pero no mucho. Y no es ahora.
Ron Bradley, we are getting into solar minimum, and had huge El Nino, no cooling yet
Are you saying that El Nino causes a “natural rebound?”
…
Nobody here has explained what causes a “natural rebound”
…
Do you know what causes a “natural rebound?”
Rob,
You aren’t paying attention. That earth enjoys warming cycles and suffers cooling cycles is a scientific fact, ie an observation.
You’ve been repeatedly shown one reason for these alternating cycles. On decennial, centennial, millennial and longer scales, earth’s climate warms and cools.
The long-term trend remains cooling, as earth has done for the past ~3000 years and continues to do. But on the shorter-term scale of 300 years, earth has warmed as its average T has rebounded from the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum. On an even shorter scale, it recently warmed slightly, since we are in a secular warming trend, ie the warming cycles are the main trend and coolings the counter trend cycles. That’s the opposite of the LIA.
It’s all natural. No significant human fingerprint is observable. And if there be one, it’s because we cleaned the air compared to the 19th and early 20th century over the then industrialized world.
What causes the “natural rebound?”
“earth has warmed as its average T has rebounded from the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum.”
…
Why?
There are no sunspots today. We in a minima. Why do global temps continue to rise?
Rob,
I told you one reason for the rebound, it why the LIA has given way to the Current WP. That you don’t like the answer isn’t an argument.
Again, as I said, there is thermal inertia. The sun has only recently gone quiet after decades of exceptionally high activity.
And, the fact is that, factoring out El Ninos, earth’s T is at best flat and, based upon proxy data, cooling.
From 1979 to 2012, Arctic sea ice trended downward. Since 2012, it has trended upward. This is the first year since the dedicated satellite record began in 1979 that five years have passed without a new record low summer extent.
Earth warmed in the 1910s to ’40s, cooled in the ’40s to ’70s, despite rising CO2, warmed in the ’70s to ’90s or ’00s, and is now starting another cooling cycle. No human fingerprint is observable.
“There are no sunspots today. We in a minima. Why do global temps continue to rise?”
They don’t.
The ONLY rise in the satellite temperature data sets has come from El Nino and ocean oscillation effects.
There is absolutely NO CO2 signature in the satellite record.
El Ninos are a solar/wind effect, nothing to do with anthropogenic anything.
And if you think TSI is the only change in solar output, you prove yourself to be childishly ignorant.
If you think that the 70% oceans doesn’t have a huge buffering and delay on warming and cooling, you also prove your wilful ignorance.
But please keep going.. its funny to watch.
Rob,
Of course there are lags, but go ahead and plot satellite tropospheric data for the period since the height of the 2016 Super El Nino warmth, which also happens to coincide with the sunspotless interval.
You won’t like the results.
What causes the “natural rebound?”
Lags in storage/release process
That’s the way complex system create cycles without any external stimulus.
If you don’t understand this, please just stop pretending you know something about climate
Any storage/release process could be at work, and there are many of them. Water circulation, involving El Nino, is just one (now comes at the surface water that went down thousand of years ago. If this water is hotter that the water that came at the surface a century ago, then warming occurs)
“Rob Bradley on October 24, 2017 at 8:56 pm
There are no sunspots today. We in a minima. Why do global temps continue to rise?”
Why is the warmest part of the day after noon?
If one thinks that the burning of fossil fuels is bad then they should immediately stop making use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fules. That includes wearing clothes, eating food, or entering buildings that involve materials that were transported by the use of fossil fuels or even walking on pavement made of brick, concrete, or ashpalt. It is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.
From an examination of the paleoclimate record and climate modeling results, one can conclude that he climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.. Even if Mankind could some how stop the climate from changing as it has been doing for eons before mankind ever started making use of fossil fuels, we would still have extreme weather events because they are part of the current climate.
The AGW conjecture is full of holes. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect. But this radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. A planet’s atmospheric effect is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the troposphere, and gravity and has nothing to with the LWIR absorption propreties of component gassed. With the radiant greenhouse effect being only sceince fiction the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction.
Thank goodness someone who knows the difference between science and hype is being featured in such a prominent place online! And you have sources! How different than the cherry-picked, filtered, blindered and outright falsified examples used by the alarmists. Its amazing that anyone can do research on the internet and discover the truth snout global warming. Its hilariously ironic that Al Gore invented them both!