Some Failed Climate Predictions

By Javier

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious.

A. Failed predictions

1. Warming rate predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.

2. Temperature predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.

Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2 emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

Figure 1. CMIP5 climate models developed by 2010 still predict more warming than observed, only a few years later. Source here.

3. Winter predictions

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.

4. Snow predictions

2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.

5. Precipitation predictions

2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. See here.

Reality check: Only six years later, IPPC acknowledges that confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, and that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. See here, page 162.

6. Extreme weather predictions

2010 Dr. Morris Bender, from NOAA, and coauthors predict that “the U.S. Southeast and the Bahamas will be pounded by more very intense hurricanes in the coming decades due to global warming.” They say the strongest hurricanes may double in frequency. See here.

Reality check: After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected. NOAA U.S. Landfalling Tropical System index shows no increase, and in fact, a very unusual 11-year drought in strong hurricane US landfalls took place from 2005-2016. See NOAA statistics here.

IPCC AR5 (see here) states “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”

7. Wildfire predictions

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) said that fire frequency is expected to increase with human-induced climate change, and that several authors suggest that climate change is likely to increase the number of days with severe burning conditions, prolong the fire season, and increase lightning activity, all of which lead to probable increases in fire frequency and areas burned. See here.

2012 Steve Running, a wildfire expert, ecologist and forestry professor at the University of Montana says the fires burning throughout the U.S. offer a window into what we can expect in the future as the climate heats up. See here.

Reality check: The global area of land burned each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015, according to analysis of satellite data by NASA scientists and their colleagues. Scientists now believe the decrease in forest fires is increasing 7% the amount of CO2 stored by plants. See here.

8. Rotation of the Earth predictions

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

Reality check: Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change. However, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) informs us that the Earth slowed down from the start of measurements in 1962 to 1972, and sped up between 1972 and 2005. Since 2006 it is slowing down again. It shows the same inconsistency as global warming. See here.

9. Arctic sea ice predictions

2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer 2013, and said the prediction was conservative. See here.

2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer in 2012. See here.

2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008, see here.

2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2030, see here.

2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016, see here.

Reality check: No decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent has been observed since 2007, see here and here.

10. Polar bear predictions

2005 The 40 members of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) of the World Conservation Union decided to classify the polar bear as “vulnerable” based on a predicted 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. The principal cause of this decline is stated to be climatic warming and its negative effects on the sea ice habitat. See here.

2017 The US Fish and Wildlife Service releases a report concluding that human-driven global warming is the biggest threat to polar bears and that if action isn’t taken soon the Arctic bears could be in serious risk of extinction. “It cannot be overstated that the single most important action for the recovery of polar bears is to significantly reduce the present levels of global greenhouse gas emissions.” See here.

2010 Science: Fake polar bear picture chosen to illustrate a letter to Science about scientific integrity on climate change. You just can’t make this stuff up. See here and here.

Figure 2, the fake picture (left) published in Science, May, 2010.

Reality check: Average September Arctic sea ice extent for the 1996-2005 period was 6.46 million km2. It declined by 26% to 4.77 million km2 for the 2007-2016 period. Despite the sea ice decline the polar bear population increased from a 20,000-25,000 estimate in 2005 to a 22,000-31,000 estimate in 2015. See here.

11. Glacier predictions

2007 IPCC AR4 says there is a very high likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. See here.

IPCC officials recanted the prediction in 2010 after it was revealed the source was not peer-reviewed. Previously they had criticized the Indian scientist that questioned the prediction and ignored an IPCC author than in 2006 warned the prediction was wrong. See here.

12. Sea level predictions

1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. See here.

Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far. See here.

A NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology in 2015, claims that Antarctic ice mass is increasing. See here. Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent in 2014, see here.

13. Sinking nations predictions

1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. As global warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations. See here.

Reality check: Tide gauges referenced by GPS at 12 locations in the South Pacific reported variable trends between -1 to +3 mm/year for the 1992-2010 period. See here.

The Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean experienced a land area decrease of only 0.92% between 1963 and 2013. See here.

The Funafuti atoll has experienced a 7.3% net island area increase between 1897 and 2013. See here.

14. Food shortage predictions

1994 A study, by Columbia and Oxford Universities researchers, predicted that under CO2 conditions assumed to occur by 2060, food production was expected to decline in developing countries (up to -50% in Pakistan). Even a high level of farm-level adaptation in the agricultural section could not prevent the negative effects. See here.

2008 Stanford researchers predicted a 95% chance that several staple food crops in South Asia and Southern Africa will suffer crop failures and produce food shortages by 2030, due to 1°C warming from the 1980-2000 average. See here.

Reality check: On average, food production in developing countries has been keeping pace with their population growth. Pakistan, with 180 million people, is among the world’s top ten producers of wheat, cotton, sugarcane, mango, dates and kinnow oranges, and holds 13th position in rice production. Pakistan shows impressive and continuously growing amounts of agricultural production, according to FAO. See here.

15. Climate refugee predictions

2005 Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned that there could be up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade. See here.

2008 UN Deputy secretary-general Srgjan Kerim, tells the UN General Assembly, that it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. See here.

2008 UNEP Map showing the areas of origin of the 50 million climate refugees by 2010. See here.

Figure 3. Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Climate refugees will mainly come from developing countries, where the effect of climate changes comes on top of poverty and war. UNEP/GRID-Arendal map, source here.

2011 Cristina Tirado, from the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, says 50 million “environmental refugees” will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change. See here.

Reality check: As of 2017 only one person has claimed climate change refugee status: The world “first climate change refugee” Ioane Teitiota from Kiribati. His claim was dismissed by a court in New Zealand in 2014. See here.

16. Climate change casualty predictions

1987 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration then a professor at U.C. Berkeley was cited by Paul Ehrlich: “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” See here.

2009 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration, when questioned by Sen. David Vitter admitted that 1 billion people lost by 2020 was still a possibility. See here.

Reality check: There was a 42% reduction in the number of hungry and undernourished people from 1990-1992 to 2012-2014. Currently, the world produces enough food to feed everyone. Per capita food availability for the whole world has increased from 2,220 kcal/person/day in the early 1960’s to 2,790 kcal/person/day in 2006-2008. See here.

17. Time running out predictions

1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) says that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere must bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process. See here.

2006 NASA scientist James Hansen says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe. See here.

2007 U.N. Scientists say only eight years left to avoid worst effects See here.

B. Failure to predict

1. A greener planet

1992 The CO2 fertilization effect was well known, and experiments since at least 1988 showed that farm yields increased significantly. This was an easy prediction to make, yet it was ignored. See here.

In 2007 the IPCC was still downplaying the importance of the effect: “Since saturation of CO2 stimulation due to nutrient or other limitations is common, it is not yet clear how strong the CO2 fertilization effect actually is.” See here.

However recent satellite image analysis of changes in the leaf area index since 1982 have demonstrated a very strong greening over 25-50% of the Earth. CO2 fertilization is responsible for most of the greening, with the increase in temperatures also contributing. See here.

2. Increase in forest biomass

2006: For four of the past five decades global forest dynamics were thought to be primarily driven by deforestation. It was only in the last decade when it was noticed that a great majority of reports were contradicting that assumption. “Of the 49 papers reporting forest production levels we reviewed, 37 showed a positive growth trend.” The authors also write “climatic changes seemed to have a generally positive impact on forest productivity” when sufficient water is available. See here.

2010: The observed forest biomass increase was found to greatly exceed natural recovery, and was attributed to climate change, through changes in temperature and CO2. See here.

2015: Satellite passive microwave observations demonstrate that the trend is global and is accompanied by a recent decrease in tropical deforestation. See here.

3. Carbon sinks increases

1992: In the late 80’s a “missing sink” was discovered in the carbon budget accounting, and was discussed through the 90’s. The possibility that Earth’s oceans and terrestrial ecosystems could respond to the increase in CO2 by absorbing more CO2 had not occurred to climate scientists, and when it occurred to them they mistakenly thought that deforestation would be a higher factor. See here.

4. Slowdown in warming

2006: Professor Robert Carter, a geologist and paleoclimatologist at James Cook University, Queensland, was one of the first to report the unexpected slowdown in warming that took place between 1998 and 2014. See here.

The scientific climate community essentially ignored the issue until 2013 and have recently become split on its reality, with a small group negating it even took place. Nobody in the scientific community is even considering the possibility that the “Pause” might not have ended and was only temporarily interrupted by the 2015-16 big El Niño.

Conclusions

There is only one possible conclusion regarding the reliability of climate predictions. Outspoken catastrophic-minded climate scientists and high-ranking officials don’t have a clue about future climate and its consequences, and are inventing catastrophic predictions for their own interest. Government policies should not be based on their future predictions.

Another conclusion is that studies and opinions about future climate are heavily biased towards negative outcomes that fail to materialize, while ignoring positive outcomes that are materializing.

This post was edited a little by Andy May, who believes the only safe prediction is that the predictions of “consensus scientists” will continue to be wrong.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
408 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BallBounces
October 30, 2017 8:38 am

Failed Climate Predictions would make a good WUWT monthly calendar. We could observe the dates the predictions were made, and, if appropriate, the dates they failed.

Alternatively, WUWT could produce an ironic AGW calendar to send to alarmist friends with all the scary predictions and no mention that they had all failed — with appeals to support the WUWT Climate Crusade™.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  BallBounces
October 30, 2017 8:50 am

Ballbounces, I have done that in many places,with hard evidence of predictive failures,stating that long into the future modeling scenarios are unfalsifiable.

They often COMPLETELY ignore it to maintain their delusions.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 10:04 am

Ivan,the warmist propagandist, has so far avoided Javier’s post with three comments.

Will he ever make real argument against Javier? will he work up the courage………?

The suspense building up……………,

Waiting and waiting……….

Javier
Reply to  BallBounces
October 30, 2017 9:25 am

Anthony and Josh, Maybe for the next calendar? I speak for Andy and myself, we would encourage you to feel free to use the references in the post to add predictions to next year’s calendar.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  BallBounces
October 30, 2017 6:16 pm

A wall of shame would be good also.

bitchilly
Reply to  BallBounces
October 31, 2017 5:58 pm

excellent idea ball bounces.:)

October 30, 2017 8:41 am

Sayeth the author, Javier: “There is only one possible conclusion regarding the reliability of climate predictions: outspoken catastrophic-minded climate scientists and high-ranking officials don’t have a clue about future climate and its consequences and are inventing catastrophic predictions for their own interest.”

Amen to that, Javier!

Further: the 97% consensus meme persists? My arse!

PS: Javier, thanks much for your efforts!

Editor
October 30, 2017 8:45 am

Javier,

Wouldn’t it have been easier just to write up the list of successful climate predictions? (Do I really need a /Sarc tag?)

Great post, as usual…
comment image

South River Independent
Reply to  David Middleton
October 30, 2017 9:09 am

Well a comparison list of correct predictions would be informative and interesting. One proviso (there are probably others) is that the prediction can be judged correct only if it occurs because of the stated reason for the result. A predicted result is not a correct prediction if it occurs because of some phenomena not specified for the prediction.

Gunga Din
Reply to  South River Independent
October 30, 2017 2:10 pm

And it is not correct if the “prediction” comes after the fact?
(ie Mann claiming Harvey stalled over Houston because he’s been right all along.)

WBWilson
Reply to  South River Independent
October 31, 2017 6:45 am

Start compiling your list, SRI. It shouldn’t take long.

afonzarelli
Reply to  David Middleton
October 30, 2017 11:42 am

Aaaaaay!

Reply to  David Middleton
October 30, 2017 2:09 pm

David Middleton

Are you suggesting there are successful climate predictions?

It would make interesting, but short reading.

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 3:37 pm

There has to be at least one successful climate change prediction… 😉

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 2:21 am

HotScot wrote:
“Are you suggesting there are successful climate predictions?”

The answer is YES!

Here in part is our successful predictive track record. We published the following in 2002*.

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

We also wrote in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

There are a total of eight statements in our Rebuttal that have all materialized in those states that fully embraced global warming alarmist nonsense.

In fact, we have only one prediction that has failed to materialize – yet! That was written in another article published in 2002, and it said Earth would probably enter another natural cooling cycle by 2020-2030… and since we are not there yet, that prediction still has some time to run.

Regards, Allan

* Source:
PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 2:41 am

Further our remaining prediction that “Earth will probably enter another natural cooling cycle by 2020-2030”:

This prediction is looking good, since solar activity in SC24 and SC25 is expected to continue to be very low.

As Earth cools, atmospheric CO2 concentration will probably continue to increase, but at a slower rate.

These (probable, imo) future events should adequately prove that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atm. CO2 is so low as to be insignificant and there is no real global warming crisis.

However, these facts have already been clearly demonstrated by the ~35-year global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to 1975. Do we really need to experience this multi-decadal cooling cycle again just to prove what has ALREADY HAPPENED?

I suggest that we already know enough, from this and other evidence, to state with confidence that global warming alarmism is a false crisis, and it is time to devote society’s efforts to the many real problems that exist, and to stop squandering trillions of dollars on the falsehoods of global warming alarmism.

Regards, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 31, 2017 4:40 am

Allan,

hopefully the culpable alarmists will be held to account for missing the wasted opportunity of mild weather, low incidence of extreme weather events and the planet greening by 14% over the last 3 years.

The money wasted on this fruitless campaign to terrify people into accepting horrendous taxation to be wasted instead of taking advantage of the bounty they have deliberately ignored is a criminal waste.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 3:29 am

Allan Macrae

“I suggest that we already know enough, from this and other evidence, to state with confidence that global warming alarmism is a false crisis, and it is time to devote society’s efforts to the many real problems that exist, and to stop squandering trillions of dollars on the falsehoods of global warming alarmism.”

Think of how much those trillions of dollars could have been used to protect people from Local Weather Changes and Natural Disasters that are known to exist and repeatedly occur like Hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, torrential rains, volcanoes and earthquakes. If the money would have been used in building codes and infrastructure as defense against Natural Disasters and Weather related occurrences, with buildings and blockades and drainage designed to handle the worst that could be expected over the past 6 decades, there would not be the kinds of damages that have been happening now.

We would not be dealing with the massive price distortions created by this war on fossil fuels for energy, that has caused more harm to every economy that has implemented the Green Dragon Energy that has gobbled up our money and made more people poorer by the billions.

And by the way…many like myself have been making the prediction on sites like this one for a long time, that the Earth will become greener with higher CO2 and global warming would be a welcome occurrence if it ever happened. And that prediction has come true for the first part…unfortunately not for the second part.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 6:51 am

Thank you HotScot and Johchi7. I agree with you.

I wrote this an similar thoughts over the years”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/17/study-global-warming-will-cut-crop-yields-assuming-no-adaption/comment-page-1/#comment-2584347

John Harmsworth – thank you – an excellent post!

A few comments:

a. You wrote:
“They waste billions that real people could use to actually improve their lives.”

Actually, the waste from global warming alarmism now amounts to TRILLIONS of dollars every year.
For a fraction of this amount, we could put clean water and sanitation systems in every village in the world and run them forever. About 2 million children below the age of five die from contaminated water every year. In the three decades that global warming has been a popular obsession, that is ~60 million kids – more than the people of all ages on all sides who died in WW2. That is just one example of this waste.
Radical environmentalists are the great killers of our time, ranking with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Another example of this criminal malfeasance is the ban of DDT, which has greatly increased malaria in the tropics – another global scale holocaust based on false environmental alarmism.

b. You wrote:
“When I was a kid in the 60’s it was not uncommon for late spring or early fall frost to wreck otherwise promising crops.”

I remember this too – these crop failures coincided with the global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975, even as fossil fuel combustion accelerated from the start of WW2. We published a prediction in 2002 for moderate global cooling to start in 2020-2030. I hope to be wrong about this cooling, because humanity suffers in cooling climates. However, the weak SC24 and predicted weak SC25 – neither of which were forecast in 2002 – could very well lead to moderate global cooling.
Incidentally, this ~35-year global cooling period proves that climate is relatively Insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. The global warming hypothesis is thus falsified.

c. We made eight predictions in our APEGA-sponsored debate with the Pembina Institute in 2002,and all eight have materialized in those states that embraced global warming mania. In comparison, none of the scary predictions of Pembina and the IPCC have happened – the global warming alarmists have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record. Hence, nobody should believe anything they say.

d. Here is my take on the current state-of-play in climate science, published in 2015:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

Observations and Conclusions:

1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. [published on icecap.us in January 2008]

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 8:51 am

Allan

As ever, a pleasure to read some well considered opinions on the climate debate. Too often we are dragged into minutia by the alarmist trolls who pop up on this site like a bad smell.

You may well have seen these, and forgive me if you haven’t, but I would value your opinion on them. As you know I’m wholly uneducated so are forced to take things at face value before scurrying off and interrogating other people or laboriously reading a lot of stuff, much of which I don’t understand…….so more work!

The first two are short YouTube presentations on the cyclical nature of the climate which, here, are presented as entirely predictable and both, whilst approaching the subject by different methods, suggest precisely as you do, that a cooling period beginning around 2019 is about to occur.

The third one is a paper entitled ‘180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS’ by Ernst-Georg Beck. Published in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007 which demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 was higher than it is now, in 1942.

None are terribly long.

Climate Change, problem solved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU

Dangerous Climate Change in 2019 – What the Government and Media has Not Told You: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4hbKF5-qUE

180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 1:44 pm

Hello HotScot

Don’t sell yourself short – you make more sense than many PhD’s.

I am unable to answer your questions now due to time constraints, but will try to get back later.

In the interim, here are some points to consider:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/21/trying-to-perpetuate-alarmist-climate-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2643072

Here is a draft one-page rebuttal of the CSSR:

A. THE ALLEGED GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST

1. Since ~1940, fossil fuel combustion has greatly increased and global temperature has declined or stayed ~constant for ~52 years, and increased for only ~25 years.

2. The year-to-year correlation of atm. CO2 with changes in global temperature is very high, but CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE.

3. The rate of change dCO2/dt correlates strongly with global temperature, and its integral CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

4. Atmospheric CO2 ALSO lags temperature by hundreds or thousands of years in the ice core record. CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE AT ALL MEASURED TIME SCALES.

5. There is no clear, measurable effect of CO2 on temperatures in any time scale. The evidence strongly suggests that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atm. CO2 is very low.

6. We know to a reasonable degree of confidence what drives global temperature and it is almost entirely natural and has an INSIGNIFICANT causative relationship from increasing atm. CO2:
– in sub-decadal time frames, the primary driver of global temperature is Pacific Ocean natural cycles, moderated by occasional cooling from major (century-scale) volcanoes;
– in multi-decadal time frames, the primary cause is solar activity;
– in the very long term, the primary cause is planetary cycles.

7. The next trend change in global temperature will probably be moderate naturally-caused global cooling, starting by ~2020-2030, due to reduced solar activity (as we published in 2002).

B. ALLEGATIONS OF INCREASING WILDER WEATHER ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE

8. There has been no increase in more extreme weather events. Alarmist allegations of wilder weather due to increased atmospheric CO2 , global warming, etc. are unsupported by the evidence.

C. INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS ENTIRELY BENEFICIAL TO HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9. Natural CO2 flux into and out of the atmosphere dwarfs humanmade CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

10. CO2 satellites show that the high concentrations of atm. CO2 are located in tropical and agricultural areas and the far North, and less so in industrialized areas.

11. The year-to-year correlation of atm. CO2 with fossil fuel CO2 emissions is low.

12. Atm. CO2 is not alarmingly high; at ~400 ppm it is in fact far too low for optimal plant and crop growth. An optimal concentration of atm. CO2 would be ~1000-2000ppm (which is unlikely to result from human activity).

13. Atm. CO2 is, in the longer term, alarmingly low for the continued survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Past continental glaciations (ice ages) were near-extinction events due to very low atm. CO2 and the near-shutdown of terrestrial photosynthesis.

D. A SLIGHTLY WARMER WORLD WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR BOTH HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

14. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates.

15. Excess winter mortality in the human species totals about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year, and is high in both warm and cold climates. Excess Winter Mortality Rates are surprisingly high in countries with warmer climates, and are lowest in advanced countries that have cheap energy and modern home insulation and heating/cooling systems.

E. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

16. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

17. Based on all the above evidence, alarmist allegations of catastrophic global warming, more extreme weather events, and other very negative consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 are unsupported by the evidence.

18. A slightly warmer Earth with higher concentrations of atm. CO2 would be beneficial for both humanity AND the environment.

19. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.

20. The misguided focus on global warming alarmism has caused society to squander many trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on foolish CO2 abatement programs that have driven up energy costs, reduced electric grid reliability, increased winter mortality, especially harmed the elderly and poor of the world, and diverted our attention and our resources from solving the real and pressing needs of humanity and the environment. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 1, 2017 1:02 am

Allan,

Brilliant, thank you.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 3:31 pm

HorScot

Re Climate Change, problem solved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU

I generally agree with Prof. Weiss – climate is natural and somewhat irregularly cyclical. Also, increasing atm. CO2 has INsignificant (near-zero) impact on climate.

I have known this for about 30 years. This is how we predicted in 2002 that global cooling would commence by 2020-2030. Hope to be wrong about that cooling, but our prediction is looking increasingly good.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 1, 2017 1:04 am

Allan,

Re Climate Change, problem solved:

I thought that might be the case but I have no idea of the science he uses so it could have been a spoof for all I knew.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 4:30 pm

Hi again HotScot – I apologize for any typos.

Your second video is with former NOAA Meteorologist David Dilley, at

An interesting post. He mentions some issues that I have not studied, such as the 9-year tidal cycle.

Without doing a ton of work, I can only suggest that we agree on some points, including imminent global cooling – Dilley says starting by 2019, I said in 2002 by 2020-2030, but I am now leaning towards closer to 2020.

Best, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 1, 2017 1:12 am

Allan

“Your second video is with former NOAA Meteorologist David Dilley”

Again, thanks for that. No extra work needed, I just wanted to know if the guy was certifiable or not. Everything he says seems to make sense with my non existent science knowledge, but his credentials are impeccable so I figured he wasn’t crackers.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 4:42 pm

Hi HotScot,

Regarding the late Ernst Beck – he did a lot of work accumulating CO2 data from all over the planet, and raised some interesting questions.

Beck was generally dismissed and often disrespected by those who think they have this all figured out. Their general view is that atm. CO2 varies greatly through short times and global locations and Beck’s data were not from representative samples.

I think Beck’s critics may have some valid points, but I have not conducted a detailed critique of Beck’s data so I withhold my opinion.

I will say that I liked and respected Ernst Beck, I am saddened by the way he was treated, and I hope he is happy in his new home.

Best, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 1, 2017 1:26 am

Allan,

Regarding the late Ernst Beck

I read some critiques of his paper, again, from an unscientific perspective, and they seemed to raise some valid point, although some were downright rude.

My only take on the matter is that CO2 measurement in 142 couldn’t have been too bad, I understand the practise had progressed with more modern methods and equipment by then.

Even to me it seems that observed measurements of a phenomenon is a far more reliable means of measuring anything compared to paleo records. Therefore, even if measurements in 1942 weren’t as accurate as they are today, they would have to be ~33% off, which seems rather unlikely.

And whilst the WW2 was raging, Germany was yet to be devastated by Bomber Harrison’s area bombing which caused firestorms to engulf entire cities like Dresden. That would presumably emit enormous amounts of CO2, soot and ash into the atmosphere.

Once again, thanks for your time. And I wish my Physics qualifications were better than 1970’s ‘O’ Level, I didn’t even take Chemistry because it was so confusing!

Reply to  HotScot
November 1, 2017 5:22 am

Hello HotScot.

The atmospheric CO2 measurements taken circa 1942 (and much earlier) were accurate enough – the dispute is about whether the samples were representative or not. Atmospheric CO2 ranges seasonally by ~16ppm in the far North (Barrow Alaska) down to ~2 ppm at the South Pole. This seasonal variation is driven primarily by photosynthesis and oxidation, and also by ocean solution and exsolution. Even greater variation occurs in certain locations on a daily basis, also due to natural causes.

I wish I had more time to get into Beck’s data – there may be more to it than the critics say.

Regarding education:
Global warming alarmism has been supported by far too many academics with PhD’s who have absolutely no credibility – in fact they have negative credibility and nobody should believe anything they say. They are just taking the low-risk approach by parroting the nonsense they hear instead of actually taking the time and effort to look at the data. History will treat them with contempt.

Scottish education has served humanity very well. Many of the great breakthroughs that benefit humankind were developed by Scots with no more education that you now have. I recommend this book:

“How the Scots Invented the Modern World”
The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It
(or The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots invention of the Modern World) is a non-fiction book written by American historian Arthur Herman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World

Best, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 4, 2017 12:53 pm

Allen

A little favour if I may.

I have been engaged in a running exchange with cracker345 for the last nine days or so.

I have requested credible, empirical evidence of CO2 causing the planet to warm from him and he eventually posted this in response. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

It’s hard going for me and of course I’m not able to critically analyse it.

I don’t expect you to study it, but in your opinion, on a cursory examination, is there any merit in this?

Our exchange can be seen here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/imf-head-on-climate-we-will-be-toasted-roasted-and-grilled/comment-page-1/#comment-2654569

and my last comment is in moderation, not sure why, but I pointedly criticised his claim that he has four degrees, perhaps that’s it.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 30, 2017 3:22 pm

+1

spock2009
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2017 5:05 pm

David: The entire list of correct climate predictions from the alarmists follows:

Reply to  spock2009
November 1, 2017 5:08 pm

comment image

Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2017 8:46 am
Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 8:47 am

The PER DECADE warming prediction rate,AND the current feeble Logarithmic warming effect of CO2 destroys the AGW conjecture. Heck the absolute failure of the much babbled Positive Feedback loop mantra, alone destroys the AGW conjecture. The failure the Tropospheric “hotspot”,eliminated the AGW conjecture as being credible.

You don’t need anymore than that.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 10:32 am

“You don’t need anymore than that.” You only need one for science but this ain’t science – it’s religion.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.

– Stuart Chase

Irritable Bill
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 30, 2017 3:14 pm

I like that one The Original Mike, where does it come from? I often say that people will believe exactly whatever they want to believe…but yours is much better.
Another fact that absolutely destroys any possibility of ” Runaway Global Warming Holocaust” is that we are at 400PPM CO2. The geologic average is over 2,000PPM and has been well Nth of 8,000PPM. As you all know here. At record low CO2 concentrations over the geologic timeframe, and only up 100PPM since the end of the little ice age and the whole of the industrial revolution. I ask the warmest nutcases how is it possible that 400PPM will lead to a catastrophe? They cannot answer, and so deny my facts as right wing nutcase lies. When their Left winged nut case lies are “facts”…..

menicholas
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 30, 2017 3:58 pm

That fact that live on Earth exploded rather than was harmed when the Earth was warmer, much warmer, does not register with Warmistas, nor does the fact that CO2 being 5 to ten times higher than current values for millions upon millions of centuries, likewise does not phase them.
There is zero reason to have ever believed that CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere…which is why no one (except a few cranks) worried about it until the 1980s.
The mystery is solved when one learns of the true ulterior motive behind climate alarmism caused by CO2.
The pieces have never assembled into a coherent or rational picture, and yet powerful forces keep the CAGW bandwagon rolling right along.
The staggeringly huge amount of information that must be ignored to be frightened of CO2 is stupefying.

Tom Halla
October 30, 2017 8:53 am

Definitely a partial list!

Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2017 8:54 am

The biggest den ** er of them all; Mother Nature.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2017 5:17 pm

comment image

Bartemis
October 30, 2017 8:56 am

Excellent post. The fable of Chicken Little has antecedents stretching back for 25 centuries. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Earthling2
October 30, 2017 8:59 am

8. Rotation of the Earth predictions

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

I really liked this one, since it explains why I am getting so dizzy reading CC and GW predictions. Let’s keep track of all these predictions, since it will sooner or later make the case for the sensitivity of CO2.

Keep up your own predictions Javier, I think you have a much better shot at being right about a lot stuff, because you bring an unbiased opinion to science. I always appreciate your thoughts and comments when you show up on some post or thread.

Javier
Reply to  Earthling2
October 30, 2017 9:38 am

Earthling2, thank you.

The pattern is that if the prediction actually comes the opposite way, it is still due to anthropogenic climate change. After all any change can be blamed on us.

Edwin
October 30, 2017 9:00 am

There is little doubt in my mind that some of the CAGW ‘scientists’ do sit around and ponder the mistaken predictions they have made. We just no longer have the emails they send back and fourth to verify that fact. Sadly they will never take ownership for their mistakes even while it cost the rest of us trillions of dollars and prevents millions from rising out of poverty. The unintended consequences of their actions, and the support from their useful idiots that parrot unquestioned their conclusions, may actually lead to disasters just not what they predicted.

October 30, 2017 9:08 am

Regarding #12 and #13 on sea levels and sinking nations, a recent study of Fiji (presiding over the Bonn COP23 next month) showed the seas are not rising there or in the region.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/fear-not-for-fiji/

Alfons Mittelmeyer
October 30, 2017 9:11 am

Global cooling and very severe weather and climate change because of AMO

A long list of arguments against CO2 warming doesn’t change anything. For setting the climate science right we must grab the bull by its horns and not pull its tail.

What do global warming alarmists tell? If the earth warms some centuries more because of anthropogenic CO2, this could become a catastrophe. And they don’t give a convincing evidence.

This we can outdo. Due to a natural climate variability (AMO) there will be a catastrophic brutal winter and an exceptional severe drought summer followed by a drought period and cooling. And this will happen within a few years. And we give convincing evidence.

In this part 1 I don’t give evidence, but in part 2, which I don’t want to publish now: The Role of the Beaufort Gyre for the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwsrqxApFkzPLVBJNmVsaTRtZXZBZGI0c3VyUkNJZTdMdTdV/view

October 30, 2017 9:27 am

They are not predictions — they are wild guesses.

You have to know a lot about a subject to make predictions, and even then they are usually wrong!

Wild guesses about the future climate should not be given the honor of being called “predictions”

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2017 11:07 am

This is giving me ‘conjectivitis’…

Sun Spot
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2017 11:29 am

SWAG , Some Wild A$$ Guess’s

Editor
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 30, 2017 11:38 am

Sun Spot,

The “S” is “scientific”.

Clearly.

rip

October 30, 2017 9:27 am

Stop wittering on about how climate change is a hoax and starting thinking about record CO2 atmospheric concentrations in 2016 being the highest for 800,000 years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089#share-tools

You climate sceptic numbskulls love to congratulate yourselves on climate change being a hoax. How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem? Perhaps do something more positive with your knowledge than simply ranting on endlessly in this closed user forum.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:38 am

What is the climate sensitivity to CO2? The whole point here is that the mechanism that predicts catastrophic warming is based on false assumptions. There may be no way – even if we burn all the coal – to actually push the climate to the point where there is a full ecological crash.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:38 am

Prove that it is a problem first.

Gerry Cooper
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:40 am

What problem? If believers in CAGW were to stop making stupid predictions then the ‘sceptics’ would have nothing to put in the calendar.

Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 9:45 am

Record C02 atmospheric concentrations IS A FACT not a prediction. Take a look at the chart in the article. Do you think C02 conventrations have just been made up and the end result is trees are going to grow more? Believe that and you’re more of a fool than I thought.

[??? .mod]

Editor
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:06 am

ivankinsman

Record C02 atmospheric concentrations IS A FACT not a prediction. Take a look at the chart in the article. Do you think C02 conventrations have just been made up and the end result is trees are going to grow more? Believe that and you’re more of a fool than I thought.

I have no idea what you are talking about: Yes, today’s CO2 concentrations are higher than in the recent past. They are LOWER than in the deep past – when NOTHING BAD HAPPENED to the climate!
Yes, higher CO2 levels DO MAKE the trees grow more.

Do you think any skeptic, anywhere, at any time, is disagreeing about these two facts?

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 9:51 am

Here he goes again,Ivan defending an irrelevant narrative, while STILL ignoring Javier’s post.

Keep it up Ivan,to open fence sitters eyes, seeing that you have NOTHING to counter Javier with.

Snicker……

AndyG55
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 10:45 am

Its not “record” CO2 by a long shot.

And yes, there has been a MASSIVELY BENEFICIAL rise in life-enhancing atmospheric CO2..

…. to the benefit of ALL LIFE ON EARTH !

Bill Illis
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 11:25 am

CO2 at 12,000 ppm during the last Snowball Earth period at 635 million years ago (probably the coldest time in Earth history).

http://www.snowballearth.org/Bao08.pdf

Nigel S
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 12:21 pm

ivankinsman: CO2 is pumped into polytunnels to make tomatoes grow faster. Polyethylene is transparent to IR. How do polytunnels work?

Gabro
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 1:59 pm

Ivan,

Today’s CO2 concentrations are near record lows, not highs. At about 180 ppm, CO2 set a record low for the Phanerozoic Eon (541 million years ago to present), and probably ever, during the last glacial maximum, which ended around 17,000 years ago. Current 400 ppm is better, but still far from ideal for C3 plants, which include all trees and most crops.

So, yes, more will make trees grow bigger and more rapidly, and allow vegetation to reclaim deserts. There is no downside to more CO2. If it should indeed slightly warm the world, that’s good too.

The original proponents of man-made global warming in the first half of the last century, such as Arrhenius and Callendar, rightly considered it to be beneficial, if it existed.

Sheri
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 3:32 pm

Nigel S: Like a REAL greenhouse.

Editor
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 5:47 pm

Pet peeve:

Record C02 ….

It’s not C-zero-2, it’s C-oh-2. I.e. CO2. You’re not going to convince me about anything related to CO2 when you carry on about C02 (whatever that is). Anyone who knows what CO2 is would never write C02.

Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 5:57 pm

Pet peeve:
Or better, CO₂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Gerry Cooper
October 30, 2017 8:49 pm

“Nick Stokes October 30, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Pet peeve:
Or better, CO₂”

Or worse, just C (Carbon).

Sunsettommy
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:40 am

Ivankinsman is here!

Here is the first salvo from a warmist,who completely avoided the contents of Javier’s post. He tries to deflect with a meaningless claim,that doesn’t harm anyone,but make plants very happy.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I see this all the time,where they IGNORE the obvious prediction failures,to maintain their delusions because they have no concept of what is credible science,and beholden to the lunatic Environmental/Socialist propaganda.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 6:50 pm

I welcome debate, but Ivan should read the post first and then make cogent and rational arguments against it if he is not to be dismissed as yet anther climoreligionist. Please Ivan – sensible debate.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:44 am

Perhaps do something more positive with your knowledge than simply ranting on endlessly in this closed user forum.

Thank you for that ivankinsman. In my opinion the failed projections can be solved by sacking those directing and producing them. António Guterres are you there? Avoid being considered an accomplice, act now.

ran6110
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:47 am

You realize no one says ‘climate change is a hoax’ except your leaders. We say all of the scary stories, doom and gloom predictions are for the most part ‘fake news’ to [keep] you scared and them in power.

Also, like most of the things the warmers proclaim the 400ppm level was artificially set and deliberately set low for the scare value. From what I’ve read the plants are loving it and it’s not the end of the earth!

Reply to  ran6110
October 30, 2017 9:50 am

So by the end of the earth you mean some kind of biblical prediction that the earth will end tomorrow? Keep up the good work…

Sunsettommy
Reply to  ran6110
October 30, 2017 9:59 am

Ivan,

still waiting for you to address Javier’s post.

Waiting and waiting…….

Sun Spot
Reply to  ran6110
October 30, 2017 11:33 am

Ivankinsman, is this your first time here? you’re coming across as a few fries short of a happy meal.

btomko
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:48 am

Why, exactly, are high CO2 levels a problem? I would think that CO2 benefits most, if not all, life on earth.

TA
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 9:59 am

“How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”

What problem? I don’t see a problem with the weather other than it is getting a little chilly around here right now.

There is no evidence of CAGW anywhere to be seen, so no alarm. No evidence of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2 in Earth’s history, so no alarm.

Leo Smith
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:01 am

I have come up with a simple practical solution to the climate change problem. It is similar to the one I use to defend myself from attack by purple unicorns living at the bottom of my garden

I turn over and go back to sleep.

The Boy that Cried Wolf should go back to counting sheep.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 30, 2017 10:32 am

It is the red unicorns you have to watch out for…

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 30, 2017 11:09 am

The Unicorns to be afraid of are the ones that you can hear breathing. If you wake up and hear nothing… be very afraid!

TA
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:02 am

“Perhaps do something more positive with your knowledge than simply ranting on endlessly in this closed user forum.”

What closed user forum? You are in this forum, aren’t you? It’s not closed to you, or anyone else, so what are you talking about?

Reply to  TA
October 30, 2017 10:41 am

Good point! This i an open forum! And the complete failure of Ivankinsman to address Javier’s points is telling. He has no answers! He is just an agent of the fantastic fraud that is AGW!

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:03 am

coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?

exactly what is the problem?? Seems that the increase in CO2 has actually been a blessing. Did you read the article before commenting, or just trolling???

Tom Higley
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:15 am

@ivan – Indeed, the CO2 levels are higher than the last 800,000 year. Yet the current global temperature is lower by several degrees than the peak temperatures of the last several inter glacial periods. If, as the alarmists claim, that CO2 is the main driver of global warming, how is this possible? We should be seeing global temperatures that are the highest in the last 800k years as well. So what exactly is the problem that you think needs to be solved?

Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 10:22 am

How on earth do you know that? Were you living on earth at that time? Show me the data and I may take these claims a bit more seriously…

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 10:33 am

Ivan, STILL avoiding Javier’s post. Four comments he post, are on his deflecting comment about an irrelevant worry.

What are you waiting for?

Too much there for you to handle,Ivan. The supported evidence too inconvenient for you to face?

Waiting for your ON topic reply to Javier, waiting and waiting.

What is holding you back………………………………….?

Waiting……………………………………………………..Zzz……………………

Duncan
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 10:43 am

Vostok Ice Cores. Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. Actually, the past four interracials were warmer than today.
comment image

Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 11:03 am

“Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. “
But what is “today” in that plot? It shows CO2 at 280 ppm.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 11:44 am

I’m guessing that Nick actually doesn’t know how ice core proxies work.
Odds are he doesn’t know how proxies in general work.
Either that or he’s just trying to blow smoke up various orifices.

AndyG55
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 11:47 am

Not once during those CO2 peaks were they able to even maintain the higher temperatures.

IN FACT.. peak CO2 was ALWAYS followed by rapid cooling.

DCA
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 11:56 am

First ivan says:
“record CO2 atmospheric concentrations in 2016 being the highest for 800,000 years.”

then he says:
“How on earth do you know that? Were you living on earth at that time?”

He must be responding to his first comment.

Toneb
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 12:52 pm

“Vostok Ice Cores. Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. Actually, the past four interracials were warmer than today.”

The main driver of (millenial) climate is orbital eccentricity.
When we consider that, we see that ~120kya there was an insolation max at 65N.

That is why it was such a warm interglacial.
There were ~485W/m^2 then and around 427 now. Around 60 W/m^2 more.

http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/milankovitch-cycles/files/stacks_image_6997.png

And CO2 followed the +ve feedback of decreasing albedo over NH landmasses from the warming oceans.
Yes CO2 is usually a feedback, but it can come first as a driver, vis) How the Earth got out of it’s ‘ice-ball’ stage(s) … out-gassing from massive volcanic events.

Now something else is driving ….

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 12:58 pm

“Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. “ But what is “today” in that plot? It shows CO2 at 280 ppm.

Well if it was 280 ppm then with higher temps and it’s +/-400 ppm now with lower temps…doesn’t that give us something of a clue?

AndyG55
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 1:28 pm

Poor toneb didn’t notice

Not once during those CO2 peaks were they able to even maintain the higher temperatures.

IN FACT.. peak CO2 was ALWAYS followed by rapid cooling.

There is no such thing as GHG forcing ! So your graph is meaningless malarkey !

DMH
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 4:03 pm

Looking closely at the Vostok ice core data provided by Duncan one sees CO2 change always following temperature change by hundreds to a few thousand years.

See how well a big lie is told and propagated.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 4:46 pm

The reality is that nobody knows how we got out of the iceball earth stage.
So toneb’s definitive declaration that it was CO2 is just another of his lies.
Far more likely it was volcanic ash falling on the ice and no longer being covered up by new snow since most of the oceans were covered by ice.
The fact remains that the earth entered this snowball phase when CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are today.
So much for the claim that CO2 drives climate.

Gabro
Reply to  Tom Higley
October 30, 2017 4:52 pm

Toneb October 30, 2017 at 12:52 pm

CO2 didn’t get us out of the Snowball Earth episodes. You really ought to study up on topics about which you presume to comment.

Even alarmists scientists who have run the numbers have discovered that the hypothesis just doesn’t compute. But they want GHGs to be responsible, so they through in methane and anything else they can think of.

The better supported hypothesis is simply that the tectonic plates moved. As the ice sheets melted, the reduced weight on them increased volcanic activity, in a positive feedback. CO2 increased as a result, but, yet again, it was an effect not a cause, although maybe also a minor positive feedback effect as well.

Reply to  Tom Higley
October 31, 2017 4:53 am

ivankinsman October 30, 2017 at 10:22 am
“How on earth do you know that? Were you living on earth at that time? Show me the data and I may take these claims a bit more seriously…”

This is obviously not a Right-Wing link and a pro-AGW site…I have picked out several places and quoted them below this link and in the link several have references you can search.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html

– 252 mya: Period of great volcanism in Siberia
Siberian Traps Large Igneous Province releases
large volume of gases (CO2, CH4, and H2S) [8]
– Oxygen (O2) levels dropped from 30% to 12%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) level was about 2000 ppm
Temperatures reach 50-60°C on land, and 40°C at the sea-surface.[37]

– 201 mya: Central Atlantic Large Igneous Province volcanic eruption[38]
**Mass extinction killed 20% of all marine families
Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 mya)
– Earth is warm. There is no polar ice
– Cycads, conifers and ginkgoes are the dominant plants
– Age of the dinosaurs
– Giant herbivores and vicious carnivores
dominate the land
– Flying reptiles (Pterosaurs) appeared.

– 120 mya: Global warming event starts
Carbon dioxide levels were 550 to 590 ppm [27]

– 55.8 mya: Major global warming episode (PETM)[39]
North Pole temperature averaged 23°C (73.4°F),
CO2 concentration was 2000 ppm.

– 34 mya: Global cooling creates
permanent Antarctic ice sheet [21]

– 3 mya: Formation of Arctic ice cap.
– Accumulation of ice at the poles
– Climate became cooler and drier.

– 19,000 yrs ago: Antarctic sea ice starts melting.[22]
– 15,000 yrs ago: Bering land bridge between Alaska and Siberia
allows human migration to America.

– 11,400 yrs ago: End of Würm/Wisconsin glacial period.
Sea level rises by 91 meters (300 ft)

– 1781 CE: James Watt patented a steam engine
that powered the Industrial Revolution. ((this was well into the “Little Ice Age” near its peak cold period))

Sly Rik
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:20 am

Closed forum??? How is this closed… you posted here!!!

Also… the CO2 concentrations rose from 0.040% to 0.043% all of 0.003% increase.. OMG… we’re doooooomed I tells ya

Mydrrin
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:28 am

Yeah, and record CO2 is causing what to happen? Instead of a logarithmic temperature curve we get a sine curve. Record CO2 is doing what? Feeding plants that use less water because they don’t have open their stomas as much to get enough CO2. Using less energy and water to make the glucose is greening the planet. CO2 is causing the earth to be a bit warmer but it’s more of a warmer nights than a extreme heat as predicted by some. But Oh….noes…the end…of the….world….save yourself today. It’s become part of the politics of division and kind of disgusting. The fear isn’t without consequence when there is nothing people can do much about it is very damaging to people and we find suicide rates going up, that’s a prediction I made….and a sad reality.

Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 10:33 am

Believe that are you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. What annoys me is that you sceptics will be first to start whining for government compensation when exacerbated climatic events start affecting the areas you live in. Will you turn it down based on your viewpoint? Will you heck.

Tom Halla
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:42 am

Ivan, we may be overrun by a plague of unicorns, too.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 10:39 am

Now FIVE, off topic comments from Ivan, who must be allergic to Javier’s post,since he can’t seem to dredge up an argument against it. Take two allergy pills,then work up the courage to reply what Javier wrote.

Many here waiting for you to address what Javier wrote, It is right there in front of you in English,know you can read English since YOU write in English.

Waiting,Waiting for you Ivan,what is holding you back?

Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 10:48 am

When, Ivan? When will “exacerbated climatic events” start to effect the are i live in? I am 60 years old. I’ve seen all kinds of weather. Today’s weather in indistinguishable from the early 1970’s. Some catastrophe! You must cry when your soup’s too hot!

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 10:52 am

Notice that Ivan, doesn’t address what Mydrrin actually said?

“Yeah, and record CO2 is causing what to happen? Instead of a logarithmic temperature curve we get a sine curve. Record CO2 is doing what? Feeding plants that use less water because they don’t have open their stomas as much to get enough CO2.”

Ivan has NOTHING to sell here but deflections,evasions and empty replies.

Why are you here,Ivan?

Why you still avoiding Javier?

MarkW
Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 11:45 am

Still waiting for that bad weather you fools have been predicting for decades.

Sheri
Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 3:38 pm

ivankinsman: Why would anyone whine for government compensation just because a weather pattern wasn’t to their liking? And if they did, shouldn’t they be ignored for believing such nonsense as governments and humans control weather and climate?

MarkW
Reply to  Mydrrin
October 30, 2017 4:47 pm

Sheri, that’s just another example of left wing mental projection.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:32 am

Ivankinsman
You are a paid troll! Ask your handlers if they have any answers to the failed predictions pointed out by Javier or else take a hike. no one takes you seriously here. Your comments avoid the issues. Clearly!

AndyG55
Reply to  john harmsworth
October 30, 2017 10:53 am

I doubt he is paid….. if he is, it must be for incompetence.

MarkW
Reply to  john harmsworth
October 30, 2017 4:47 pm

Soros is reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of troll material.

Editor
Reply to  john harmsworth
October 30, 2017 5:55 pm

What evidence do you have that he is paid? I spend a huge amount of time explaining that most of the climate skeptics I associate are not paid by big oil and that stipends to speak at conferences are not enough to live on.

Your claim is just as bad, just as unhelpful, and just as unwelcome as the others. That’s not a cohort you should want to be in.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:32 am

“ivankinsman October 30, 2017 at 9:27 am
Stop wittering on about how climate change is a hoax and starting thinking about record CO2 atmospheric concentrations in 2016 being the highest for 800,000 years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089#share-tools

You climate sceptic numbskulls love to congratulate yourselves on climate change being a hoax. How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem? Perhaps do something more positive with your knowledge than simply ranting on endlessly in this closed user forum.”

Wittering?
Unlike your completely false claim ignoring the article and comment thread?

A) Just what is the incremental scale used in your specious claim?
Is a data point representing 100 years? 500 years? 1,000 or more years?

Comparing data recorded over a year, decade, fifty years to a paleo proxy maker incapable of the same resolution is comparing polar bears to owls. i.e. impossible.

B) Your 800,000 year claim that plants have been near starvation for 80,000 years is noted.
Now tell us all about the rest of Earth’s 4.5 Billion years?

Again, comparing Earth’s extremely recent polar past and claiming some version of modern disaster today is completely specious.
You ignore the majority of life’s history on this planet.
You ignore that plants are near starvation.
You ignore that mankind and wildlife thrive during warmer optimums.
You ignore that temperatures have been dropping since the Holocene’s early warming.

Perhaps you and the BBC should add some songs and a choreograph number to your hand waving? That way, your wittering will provide some smattering of entertainment.

DCA
Reply to  ATheoK
October 30, 2017 12:08 pm

ATheoK,

I’m afraid your questions (as well as Javier’s and all other questions) are way beyond Ivan’s comprehension.

But he can proofread, except some of his own comments. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-kinsman-27460a75

When I first asked him about this, he proudly admitted it on a earlier thread. He must be a holdover Polish Communist.

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
October 30, 2017 12:58 pm

Freelance, meaning not good enough to hire permanently.

DCA
Reply to  ATheoK
October 31, 2017 8:38 am

MarkW,

Did you notice that he doesn’t “proofread” his own comments. Up thread he says:

“Do you think C02 conventrations have just been made up and the end result is trees are going to grow more?”

What are “C(zero)2 conventrations” Ivan?

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:37 am

Why would we try to find a solution to something that doesn’t exist?

Reply to  F. Leghorn
October 30, 2017 11:31 am

And would be beneficial if it did!

AndyG55
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 10:42 am

Poor Ivan,

There is no CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data,

There is no CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

There is NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE.

It DOES NOT EXIST. It is a NON-problem.

Even your empty blathering can’t make it so.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 11:02 am

Ivan,

As with the 2016 election, name calling is not a particularly effective way to persuade people. Practical solutions for “the problem”? You assume there is a problem. Some of us don’t. 800,000 years IS a long time, but compared to the age of the earth, not so much.

If you want to see record setting CO2 amounts, you have to go a lot further back in time. See the following chart:
comment image

I can only speak for myself, but I like the idea of having CO2 in the 1000-2000 ppm range because plants grow better and use water more efficiently. More life. Lots of it. More CO2 is not a bug, its a great feature.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 30, 2017 11:03 am

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

AndyG55
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 30, 2017 11:04 am

The CO2-hatred agenda really needs to be brought to a crashing halt.

It really is a case of supreme idiocy !!

Gabro
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 30, 2017 2:08 pm

comment image

We’ll see if this works.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 31, 2017 7:32 am

It’s strange then how almost expert scientist in this article in Scientific American seems to disagree with you so I wonder who is wrong – they or you? Here is just a snippet showing why I think it is you my friend:

But how much heating and added CO2 are safe for human civilization remains a judgment call. European politicians have agreed that global average temperatures should not rise more than two degrees C above preindustrial levels by 2100, which equals a greenhouse gas concentration of roughly 450 ppm. “We’re at 387 now, and we’re going up at 2 ppm per year,” says geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. “That means 450 is only 30 years away. We’d be lucky if we could stop at 550.”

Goddard’s James Hansen argues that atmospheric concentrations must be brought back to 350 ppm or lower—quickly. “Two degrees Celsius [of warming] is a guaranteed disaster,” he says, noting the accelerating impacts that have manifested in recent years. “If you want some of these things to stop changing—for example, the melting of Arctic sea ice—what you would need to do is restore the planet’s energy balance.”

Other scientists, such as physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, examine the problem from the opposite side: How much more CO2 can the atmosphere safely hold? To keep warming below two degrees C, humanity can afford to put one trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2050, according to Allen and his team—and humans have already emitted half that. Put another way, only one quarter of remaining known coal, oil and natural gas deposits can be burned. “To solve the problem, we need to eliminate net emissions of CO2 entirely,” Allen says. “Emissions need to fall by 2 to 2.5 percent per year from now on.”

Climate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota, who is part of a team that defined safe limits for 10 planetary systems, including climate, argues for erring on the side of caution. He observes that “conservation of mass tells us if we only want the bathtub so high either we turn down the faucet a lot or make sure the drain is bigger. An 80 percent reduction [in CO2 by 2050] is about the only path we go down to achieve that kind of stabilization.”

Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-numerology/

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 11:41 am

ivanski, you say that like it was a bad thing?

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 11:56 am

Think of the amount of verbiage on WUWT between fellow sceptics saying “no, no climate change has a hoax” in ten thousand different ways and what impact this has on global climate change policy?

Turn this around and think how the amassed expertise on this site could be channelled into some positive solutions for dealing with the upcoming challenges. Everyone is very interested in the whole issue in this forum.

Tom Halla
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 11:59 am

Ivan, try addressing Javier’s post. The climate change community is in the same position as an evangelical preacher announcing the date for the Second Coming, and having it pass.

AndyG55
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 12:37 pm

“positive solutions for dealing with the upcoming challenges.”

The immediate and most pressing challenge is to get rid of this AGW nonsense, and get back to REALITY.

Stopping the manic CO2 hatred, hatred of a molecule that provides for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, and is currently at dangerously LOW levels.

That is the one of most important thing facing mankind at the moment.

To stop the utter destruction of the AGW anti-life agenda.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 1:01 pm

You know your opponent has lost when he has to lie about what you have been saying.

Since the tiny bit of warming CO2 is capable of creating is 100% beneficial, and since more CO2 in the atmosphere is very beneficial to plants, why should anyone spend any effort dealing with it?

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 2:48 pm

Ivan

“Turn this around and think how the amassed expertise on this site could be channelled into some positive solutions for dealing with the upcoming challenges. Everyone is very interested in the whole issue in this forum.”

No, how about turning round the profligate waste of intellectual, financial and physical resources sunk into the climate change scam which is promoting poverty in developing (not so much) countries because they are banned from burning the coal under their feet to improve their living conditions.

You are fortunate to have been brought up and educated in a Western civilisation made possible by the very fossil fuels you and your kind are denying the poverty stricken.

We have seen 30 years of unprecedented global greening thanks to increased atmospheric CO2 and resources that could have been used to capitalise on that bounty have been squandered on phantom predictions of global disaster.

That’s what I’ll be encouraging my descendants to hold you to account for, as the growing hysterical predictions of climatic Armageddon continue unfulfilled. Which is precisely what the article in question is about, the perpetration of a continuing lie.

And a lie is perpetrated on oneself before being delivered to others. Do try and stop lying to yourself.

Sheri
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 3:43 pm

ivankinsman: People have mentioned solutions, nuclear power among them. Then there’s using the money squandered on useless renewables, people flying to conferences to discuss how bad CO2 is, etc, for actual improvement of the lives of those in poverty. Maybe help Africa move into the 21st century instead of giving them solar stoves and lights using electricity generated from a bag of dropping rocks. All ideas to make things better.

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 4:01 pm

“ivankinsman October 30, 2017 at 11:56 am
Think of the amount of verbiage on WUWT between fellow sceptics saying “no, no climate change has a hoax” in ten thousand different ways and what impact this has on global climate change policy?”

Say what!?
Bafflegab and circular reasoning.

“ivankinsman October 30, 2017 at 11:56 am
Turn this around and think how the amassed expertise on this site could be channelled into some positive solutions for dealing with the upcoming challenges. Everyone is very interested in the whole issue in this forum.”

We already are channeled into positive solutions.
• 1) Stop the CAGW scam!
• 2) Restore scientific process back to science!
• 3) Cause false scientists pushing advocacy to flipping burgers or freelance whatever. They certainly • are not to be trusted.
• 4) Establish easy lifetime payment plans for activists to pay back the $Trillions wasted on fake science and BS papers.
• 5) Ensure history has all involved names and activist alarmists descriptions to educate future generations about fake science, crony pal reviews, ad hominem campaigns, etc.

Nothing like lifetime shame haunting alarmists as a reminder of their crimes.

Imagine a website with mountains of evidence?
Yet, no scientific evidence for CAGW has ever been proven!? It is all based on theory, faked data, adjusted temperatures, dodgy mathematics. Backed by shrieking, screaming, hand waving and massive ad hominem campaigns.

Whatever you think you have, it isn’t mountains of evidence proving CAGW anything.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 12:58 pm

Ivan,

since you never did address Javier’s post,I will not bother addressing your link to a misleading and lying article you posted.

Cheers.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 1:00 pm

No time to look for the evidence and refute it. I have a full time job. Take a look at my site for the mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

MarkW
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 1:03 pm

Translation: I know I can’t, and I’ll invent a preposterous excuse to justify my not trying.

MarkW
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 1:04 pm

From Ivan’s propaganda, he has a VERY low bar for “evidence”.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 1:24 pm

Gosh Ivan, if you have “mountains of evidence”, why can’t you use the alleged evidence to address Javier, …….HERE?

What are you waiting for? Why the suspense in actually addressing Javier’s post.

Many here waiting for you to make an argument, waiting and waiting for FIVE hours now.

It is here where Javier posted, thus this is where you must answer it. But everyone by now has realized that you are full of wind and piss,because you have NOT after about 9 comments, have addressed what Javier talked about.

How much longer do you want to convince people about how stupid you are,how you have no argument to offer against Javier. How you are deflecting to something else,that doesn’t even dispute Javier at all.

You are behaving like a troll,since you have been asked repeatedly to answer Javier,but never do it,but meanwhile you have called people names and avoided real debate.

You are as usual Pathetic.

AndyG55
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 1:26 pm

Ivan says, “I have a full time job”

Those lavatories don’t clean themselves !!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 8:41 pm

Ivan: “Take a look at my site for the mountains of evidence supporting AGW.”

But prominent skeptics don’t dispute AGW, They (and most WUWT-ers) dispute CAGW—i.e., the purported positive feedbacks that magnify the basic 1-degree temperature increase from CO2’s direct action alone. It is a classic piece of alarmist misdirection for them to assert that we contrarians “deny climate change”—meaning that we deny the direct warming effect of CO2. They employ equivocation to deceive their audience. At this point it must be deliberate.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 31, 2017 3:17 am

Here you go Sunsettommy, I have posted this link just for you. Read every single article and then tell me if it just trees getting greener or perhaps something more is happening. Happy reading!

https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/climate-change-consensus-the-97/

https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/the-financial-and-human-costs-of-climate-change/

Gabro
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 2:05 pm

By comparison, CO2 concentration was at least 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, first period of the Phanerozoic, and, as Bill Illis notes, possibly 12,000 ppm in the preceding Ediacaran Period, last period of the Proterozoic Eon.

More CO2 means more life, since living things require it. In the Ediacaran we find the first animals, although multicellular, eukaryotic, motile heterotrophs might have evolved earlier. Then as now, animals relied ultimately upon photosynthetic organisms turning water and CO2 into sugar at the base of most food chains.

gwan
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 2:09 pm

Ivankinsman
The problem is that the IPCC is a political body not a scientific one .You dont put politicians in a meeting to solve scientific problems .There is no problem with rising CO2 .It is a Myth Crawl back under your stone and observe the real world .

Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 2:18 pm

You dunderhead. The politicians act on the scientists’ recommendations. How else would the climate change initiatives be implemented at a national level. Next you will be saying we don’t need governments. Shut the f@@@ up.

AndyG55
Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 2:25 pm

“The politicians act on the scientists’ recommendations.”

You gullible twerp.

The politicians BEND the science to their wishes

Are you TRULY that NAIVE and lacking in base-level awareness ??

How do you exist in a real world ? Or do you work in a sheltered workshop?

Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 2:54 pm

Ivan

“Don’t give me the ‘greening’ old chestnut. At some point vegetation reaches its CO2 limits and atmospheric CO2 starts to have a regressive impact. Try doing some f@##ing reading before spouting off on this topic.”

At what point, precisely, does vegetation reach it’s CO2 limit? And as humankind is adding around 2ppm to the global atmospheric concentration every year, how long would it take to reach that limit?

Nor is there any need to swear, it demonstrates a lack of vocabulary.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 2:56 pm

Ivan,

the IPCC is short for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

It was set up by the government,funded by governments and accepted by governments.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.”

https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

A marriage of science and politics,which is why it is a mess today. Their many prediction failures are being ignored by you here,which means the you KNOW the IPCC is a failure in defending the long dead AGW conjecture.

Meanwhile Javier, showed the many prediction failures, as published in the IPCC reports. You have not defended the IPCC once in the thread,because you have no counter argument to what Javier posted on.

When are you going to answer Javier, waiting… waiting for something other than bluster from YOU ,Ivan the terrible.

I know you will never answer Javier,because it is OBVIOUS you have NOTHING to work with. Stop embarrassing yourself here.

MarkW
Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 4:51 pm

ivanski, that must explain why the first thing written in the IPCC reports is the executive summary, then all of the chapters are adjusted so that they agree with the predetermined conclusions.

MarkW
Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 4:52 pm

Ivanski, as you well know, most greenhouses increase CO2 levels to between 1000 and 1200ppm.
So your claim that plants have already maxed out on current CO2 levels is just another example of you making it up as you go.

Roger Knights
Reply to  gwan
October 30, 2017 8:45 pm

Sunsettommy October 30, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Ivan,

the IPCC is short for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

So its acronym should be IGPOCC.

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 2:18 pm

ivankinsman

No need to run about with your hair on fire.

There is not one single, credible, empirical study which demonstrates increased atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

And what’s the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2? Global greening.

Take your time now, I know it’s difficult for someone like you to get your head round those phenomenons without abandoning your unsubstantiated belief that CO2 causes GW.

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 2:23 pm

Don’t give me the ‘greening’ old chestnut. At some point vegetation reaches its CO2 limits and atmospheric CO2 starts to have a regressive impact. Try doing some f@##ing reading before spouting off on this topic.

AndyG55
Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 2:28 pm

” At some point vegetation reaches its CO2 limits and atmospheric CO2 starts to have a regressive impact”

Well above 20000ppm for plant life.

Your mindless point is ???

Optimum cost/benefit in real greenhouse plant production has been PROVEN to be around 1200 – 1500ppm

Gabro
Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 2:47 pm

Ivan,

You should take your own advice.

It’s not a chestnut, but a fact that present CO2 is far below optimum for the vast majority of plants on the planet, include chestnut trees.

Commercial greenhouses keep their air at around 1300 ppm because that is the optimum level for most C3 plants, ie the vast majority.

As CO2 fell during the Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, some plants evolved the CAM and C4 pathways to make better use of the essential trace gas. But most didn’t. And then the bottom fell out of CO2 during Pleistocene glaciations.

CO2 being higher than previously is beneficial, a very good thing indeed. We need more of it, but there isn’t enough fossil fuel available to get it above about 600 ppm, still far below optimum.

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 2:55 pm

Sorry folks………wrong reply, so I’ll rinse and repeat.

Ivan

“Don’t give me the ‘greening’ old chestnut. At some point vegetation reaches its CO2 limits and atmospheric CO2 starts to have a regressive impact. Try doing some f@##ing reading before spouting off on this topic.”

At what point, precisely, does vegetation reach it’s CO2 limit? And as humankind is adding around 2ppm to the global atmospheric concentration every year, how long would it take to reach that limit?

Nor is there any need to swear, it demonstrates a lack of vocabulary.

AndyG55
Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 3:02 pm

Actually HotScot, according to a friend of mine that runs 400+ greenhouses for local produce and flowers, plants actually don’t mind extra CO2 well above 1300ppm , AT ALL.. they rather like it, actually. 🙂

Its the huge spurt of having something above pure subsistence level that they really like, hence that first 1000ppm above 280ppm

According to experiments he has carried out, 1000-1500 seems to be the sweet point for cost vs benefit.

Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 3:27 pm

AndyG55

Yea, I know that. I was just hoping Ivan might answer the question himself and convince himself he’s talking rubbish. None of us can do it.

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 3:19 pm

@ ivankinsman

There is no naturally occurring upper limit to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that does not benefit life on this planet.

And yes I’ve seen your site — hahahahahahahaha! No evidence found! It all theory and nonsense, aka Science Fiction.

Reply to  tom0mason
October 30, 2017 3:28 pm

tom0mason

Where’s his site? Ought to be good for a laugh.

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 3:40 pm

@HotScot

As reluctant as I am to drive commenters to his site. However if you click on his name on his comments here you will go to his misanthropic place.
There you’ll find he says “Planet earth has now reached a tipping point or more probably gone beyond this.” I believe that may set the scene for what to expect.

Reply to  tom0mason
October 30, 2017 5:37 pm

tom0mason

You’re not driving me there mate, I’m just curious. It’ll be interesting to see what a guy with what appears to be a 2:2 in English has to say about a subject he has no qualifications in. And without wanting to insult anyone with an MBA (which it seems he has) I abandoned my MBA course when I realised early on I was being fed a formulaic qualification. Maybe it was just a bad provider (from a quality University) but it was rote learning as far as I could see, right up an alarmists street.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 4:54 pm

Ivanski, there were no regressive impacts back when CO2 levels reached 7000ppm.
So, when in your fevered imagination do these regressive impacts start?

Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2017 5:49 pm

tom0mason

OK, I got this far: “This website aims to become a record of this destruction – in effect a research database of everything that is degrading our planet. It tracks articles in the media that reflect what is happening……….”

Which says everything about the guy. Just like Griff who gets all his scientific information form the Guardian, then plagiarises it here, Ivan the terrible actually believes what the media is telling him.

Man, I thought I was thick, but at least I had the sense not to believe what I read in partisan media and scoured the internet to form my own opinions.

Seriously, how appallingly naive can Ivan be? I wonder if, in his reporting of media articles, does he include Christopher Booker of the Telegraph or Matt Ridley of The Times. Or does he just report on articles that support his confirmation bias?

I rather think I know the answer.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 3:25 am

This is a fairly standard article on the greening effect and offers the same fairly standard conclusions i.e.

“studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 31, 2017 5:43 am

ivankinsman

And yet there’s no evidence of that from commercial growers pumping increased CO2 into poly tunnels for decades now.

What are they doing so differently to the planet?

Were these studies in any way conclusive, then surely after 30 years of increasing atmospheric CO2, the planet would have stopped greening years ago as they acclimatised to it.

Somhow, I believe there is a credibility gap between theory and reality, much like the claim that CO2 at 400ppm is the defining factor of climate change.

Water Vapour forms 95% of all greenhouse gases and is the overwhelming beast, whilst CO2 is 3%.

Even Tyndall said that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and that whilst the remainder had an effect, it was minimal.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 5:45 am

Water vapour = 95% of all been house gases? This had me laughing out loud. Where on earth did you dredge up such an absurd statistic?

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 5:46 am

been=green

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 6:33 am

Ivan,

If you don’t know that basic fact you really need to do some research. The concentration varies of course, somewhere between very little at the poles to to 95% above the tropics. However, if you search for a list of green house gases, water vapour is almost universally ignored.

Try this from the University of Georgia. You will note that water vapour (in bold) is cites as between 0.004 to 4. CO2 is cited as a constant 0.0385 (which is also questionable as I believe CO2 is also more abundant over the tropics). http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/AtmosphereCompIV.pdf

Now, in light of your ignorance of the subject, you should be reconsidering your perspective on climate change. For you, the whole ball game has changed because you had no idea water vapour is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas. I suspect the reason for that is your knowledge is almost entirely gleaned from the media, the alarmist Guardian being one of the most prominent on your web site. And in case you weren’t aware, the Guardian is a rabidly left wing publication which will support any political initiative to promote socialism, including bogus climate change.

Tyndall: ”……..water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.’ Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation. Relatedly, Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

Nor do I like quoting Wikipedia as a source, but the page is linked directly from The Royal Societies web page on Tyndall so I believe it is largely reliable.

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 7:41 am

Ivan

and if you are naive enough to believe our current CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years, as recently reported in the media, you need to read this, or at least the abstract which reliably cites atmospheric CO2 levels at more than 400ppm in 1942. It was observationally measured but strangely/unsurprisingly, suppressed, because ice core analysis was determined a more accurate measurement of CO2 only ~70 years ago.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 7:07 pm

@ HotScot October 30, 2017 at 5:49 pm

Maybe ivankinsman should look here for a better list — http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html As it appears to fit the madness that is “…record of this destruction – in effect a research database of everything that is degrading our planet. It tracks articles in the media that reflect what is happening……….”

Pity ivankinsman feels nature is so ineffectual, or that humans are not part of the natural cycle.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 2:37 pm

Stop wittering on about how climate change is a hoax and starting thinking about record CO2 atmospheric concentrations in 2016 being the highest for 800,000 years.

Gosh! Who knew?
Better yet, who predicted it?
And who predicted the benefits of it?

PS Yes, as others have pointed out, you’re wrong about your “highest for 800,000 years” claim regarding CO2.

PPS Your comment only has to do with the assumption that a rise in CO2 will cause all the catastrophes your Mann-made idols said it will. It hasn’t. They were wrong.

Michael 2
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 3:44 pm

ivankinsman wrote “How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”

So what’s your excuse for being here? 😉

Anyway, I’ll look around and see if I can figure out what exactly you consider to be a problem.

“Stop wittering on about how climate change is a hoax”

Did anyone here do that? By show of hands: All who believe that the climate is changing, has always changed and likely will change until the universe freezes over, raise your hand!

There, you see? Unanimous. Everyone here agrees the climate is changing and is not a hoax.

Reply to  Michael 2
October 30, 2017 10:45 pm

Ok so let’s just replace climate change with the more specific AGW and I am very pleased you all agree with me. Now time to start thinking about practical solutions to reverse it.

Wondering Aloud
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 30, 2017 8:19 pm

Here’s one Ivan, replace coal fired electric generation with nuclear and geothermal. That would have orders of magnitude more effect than the Paris Accord and be generally good for the environment. While James Hanson would probably support this idea the fact that the big money environmental groups remain opposed is a pretty incontrovertible piece of evidence that they don’t believe their own CAGW mantra… Isn’t it.
.

Reply to  Wondering Aloud
October 30, 2017 10:42 pm

Perfectly happy with that option. I have never been anti-mucleur ad it is s very effective – but also expensive – option. France is mostly powered by nucleur and never has had any serious incidents.

Chris Wright
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 31, 2017 3:42 am

“Stop wittering on about how climate change is a hoax…”
No serious sceptic would say climate change is a hoax. In fact, a major sceptical argument is that climate change occurs pretty well all the time. The difference is that sceptics usually believe that most of the 20th century warming was natural, perhaps no more than the rebound from the Little Ice Age. However, there are good reasons to believe that much of climate science has been badly corrupted by money, politics and green extremism.
.
” ….record CO2 atmospheric concentrations in 2016 being the highest for 800,000 years.”
And the problem is…..?
The planet is becoming significantly greener precisely because of the extra CO2. As a bonus, it may have produced a very mild warming. It’s not a problem, it’s a huge benefit. Do you seriously want to live on a colder planet?
.
“How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”
What problem? Hurricanes have been falling in intensity, the numbers of people killed by extreme weather is at historic lows, the world is producing more food per head of population than ever before, and the planet is greening because of the extra CO2. The *real* problem is climate alarmism, which has caused the world to squander trillions of dollars uselessly trying to solve a non-existent problem. Climate alarmism has been very profitable for climate scientists.
.
” Perhaps do something more positive with your knowledge than simply ranting on endlessly in this closed user forum.”
This is not a closed user forum. The fact that I can read your post shows what nonsense that is. In contrast, sceptical posts on forums run by the true believers are quickly deleted. Provided posts are civil – which yours barely is – then I’m quite sure everyone is welcome. This is a major difference between the two sides. Sceptics welcome honest debate on both sides. It’s the true believers – like Scientologists and other cultists – who cannot stand real debate.
And it is precisely because of our knowledge that we can clearly see that much of climate science is rotten to the core.
Chris

Reply to  Chris Wright
October 31, 2017 3:50 am

Never talj about ‘true believers’ as you start to make your points subjective rather than objective.

Ref. the greening chestnut see the latest 2 links I have posted.

I have seen no evidence of sceptic comments being deleted on sites.

I too am open to debate on this issue. You argue your points and I’ll argue mine. And I am not some gay/trannie-loving green lefty extremist which is how sceptics seem to pigeonhole most non-sceptics.

Gaylon
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 31, 2017 6:55 am

With all due respect (sarc/off) our claim (or the claim of some, I should say) that CAGW is a “hoax” comes from the warmunists (all empirical scientific evidence aside): we were TOLD it was a ‘hoax’, a ‘false-flag’, for something other than “environmental” reasons by these people…

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm

Merkel: Germany can no longer ‘rely fully’ on allies, including U.S. 5/28/2017, Merkel’s comment on the Paris Accord, para. 9,
“This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said, adding, “There are no signs of whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris accords or not.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/05/28/Merkel-Germany-can-no-longer-rely-fully-on-allies-including-US/5361495988793/

The Socialist Party Magazine – ‘Profit-fueled global warming’ 2014
“The fight to halt profit-driven global warming is the fight to replace capitalism with a world socialist system based on human solidarity and respect for the planet on which we live.”
http://www.socialismtoday.org/174/climate.html

So your whine is lacking cheese & crackers…

Cheers!

Reply to  Gaylon
October 31, 2017 7:51 am

From USA Today:

“Representatives from virtually all the world’s countries will meet in Germany next month to work on strengthening the Paris Agreement.

But under President Trump the United States, which is the largest historic climate polluter, has said it will pull out of that agreement and is working to weaken its climate protection policies.” (Why? Because he is a moron).

Looking forward to a very successful global IPCC meeting that will be rolling back AGW. The sceptics on this site can whinge, moan and deny as much as they like but the ROW is moving on my friend – with or WITHOUT you … yes, and it is without until a non-moron sits in the Presidential office.

DCA
Reply to  Gaylon
October 31, 2017 10:14 am

“Here you go Sunsettommy, I have posted this link just for you. Read every single article and then tell me if it just trees getting greener or perhaps something more is happening. Happy reading!

https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/climate-change-consensus-the-97/

I looked at the first twenty links from Ivan’s and here’s what I found. Most being from The Guardian and other far left media sources.

1. The Guardian: Al Gore on the 97% consensus .
2. BBC interview with Stephan Hawking (non climate scientist)
3. The Guardian with Christina Figueres (previously admitted AGW’s goal to destroy capitalism)
4. The Guardian “Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (07.2017)”
5. The Guardian interview with David Runciman, professor of politics, Cambridge University
6. The Climate Reality Project (Al Gore soliciting donations)
7. Rutters: “Trump EPA to propose repealing Obama’s climate regulation: document (10.2017)”
8. The Guardian: “Climate change made Lucifer heatwave far more likely, scientists find (09.2017)”
9. Time Politics: “Mike Pence Will Help the Koch Brothers Plot Their 2018 Strategy (09.2017)”
10. The Guardian: “Global carbon emissions stood still in 2016, offering climate hope (09.2017)”
11. 12. & 13. The Guardian, CNN & BBC: “Is tropical storm Harvey linked to climate change?”
14. LA Times editorial: Harvey should be a warning to Trump that climate change is a global threat (08.2017)
15. Climate Signals: Map: Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, August 23, 2017 (08.2017)
16. The Guardian: “Paris climate deal: US tells diplomats to dodge foreign officials’ questions (08.2017)”
17. The Guardian: “Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year (08.2017)”
18. Financial Times: “Coal to stay king in India as power mainstay, says Niti report (07.2017)”
19. The Guardian: “Planet has just 5% chance of reaching Paris climate goal, study says (07.2017)”
20. Nature: “Less than 2 °C warming by 2100 unlikely”

After checking the first 20 links I finally found an actual science paper. The other 40 or so links offered very little if any science to “refute” Javier.

Ivan, I have just one question. Do you donate %10 of your income to your prophet Al Gore?

DCA
Reply to  Gaylon
October 31, 2017 11:16 am

Ivan,
You say, “And I am not some gay/trannie-loving green lefty extremist which is how sceptics seem to pigeonhole most non-sceptics.”

I’ve not seen anyone call you a “gay/trannie-loving…” but it appears that from your response to Gaylon that you don’t dispute him. I read your Personal Profile link and noticed that you live or have lived in Poland and from your picture it’s hard to tell how old you are. You probably either never lived there or at least don’t remember what it was like in Poland under communist rule. Do you really want to go back to that or why do you think Poland abandoned that totalitarian rule?

You say, “I have seen no evidence of sceptic comments being deleted on sites.” Why of course you don’t. That’s because they’re “deleted”.

FWIW: I almost spit out my coffee from laughing when I read in your PP “I am thorough and accurate in my work”. As a professional I would very embarrassed to the point of leaving if I made so many mistakes in my work as you have as a “proofreader”. You’ve made several spelling mistakes even after it was pointed out to you. You claimed you post on your cell phone, but that doesn’t stop you from proofreading before you post. There are times when I post before proofreading but I don’t make a living doing it.

Your insults, profanity, deflection, appeal to authority, false allegations and ignorance make you only good for troll baiting and most on this forum will just ignore you. Maybe it’s time to move on and save what little dignity you might have left. I must admit, you are good for a laugh.

DCA
Reply to  Gaylon
November 2, 2017 10:25 am

Ivan,

In the “save the lemur” link is another link about climate change which says,

“Forget about all the impending devastation to come from global warming”

That is not evidence that climate change is responsible because it’s “to come”. Although “Climate change” is in the heading, primarily to get a reaction from zealots like you, they also mention “the threats they already face, ranging from habitat loss to poaching”.

Perhaps your time would be better spent hounding those responsible for “habitat loss” and “poaching” because they are real and observed while as they say “climate change” is “to come”. We know that so many of these “to come” predictions have failed. That is what this thread is all about. Just ask Javier.

I agree with your concern to “save the lemur” but I believe you’re barking up the wrong tree.

WBWilson
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 31, 2017 7:03 am

ivan says:

“How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”

We are doing something worthwhile, ivan. We are trying to educate people about the science, even zealots like you, who are the problem. But but your brainwashing seems curiously resistant to reason.

Reply to  WBWilson
October 31, 2017 7:10 am

WB. Let me put it frankly. This site is for sceptics speaking to other sceptics. I seem to be the only AGW advocate. So how is anything going to change?

It would be much more profitable for some of your community to accept AGW and use your expertise to rectify or ameliorate its impact.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  WBWilson
October 31, 2017 11:41 am

Hello Ivan, the man who has ZERO argument to offer against Javier’s post.

Meanwhile you write this highly misleading statement,since most skeptics long accepted that CO2 has some warm forcing effect,a rapidly DIMINISHING one as shown by many science papers addressing sensitivity of CO2 warm forcing effect.

“It would be much more profitable for some of your community to accept AGW and use your expertise to rectify or ameliorate its impact.”

It is apparent that you are unaware that the AGW conjecture comes in TWO basic parts. The first the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 molecules and the second, the Positive Feedback effect of Water Vapor.

CO2 by itself has very little warm forcing left in it due to the basic Logarithmic diminishing returns of additional CO2 appears in the atmosphere. It is pretty much played out by 500 Million years ago.

There has NEVER been any evidence of widespread positive feedback of water vapor in existence,it remains in modeling fantasies. Not in the last BILLION years either…………………………..

That is why the AGW conjecture is a failure.

Satellite data show that since 1990, the IPCC has been profoundly wrong on their PER DECADE warming rate prediction,which Javier pointed out in his post,you cowardly avoid responding to.

Your behavior here tantamount as a troll, who avoids the blog post,while pushing a truly dumb position that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 is a threat to life of the planet.

That is why many here think you are stupid and ignorant,as your replies have been crushingly replied to,yet you ignore it all,in your haughty insulting manner.

Reply to  WBWilson
November 1, 2017 3:30 am

Ivan

“Ok so let’s just replace climate change with the more specific AGW and I am very pleased you all agree with me. Now time to start thinking about practical solutions to reverse it.”

Lets assume for a moment humankind could reduce atmospheric CO2 by any meaningful amount, in your opinion, what is the ideal level of atmospheric CO2?

And, again, assuming for a moment that CO2 controls earth’s climate, what happens if there is a natural event that also reduces CO2, dropping it below the ~150ppm required to sustain meaningful life? How does humankind anticipate and reverse that phenomenon quickly?

At the claimed 280ppm atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution, mankind was a mere 130ppm from extinction. By any reasonable assessment, that is far to low a number to be confident of continued life on earth.

Right now, the planet is around the coldest it has ever been before descending into an ice age, it has only been this cold, I believe, once before without an ice age. We also have almost the lowest CO2 content the planet has ever had, if CO2 is the control knob of temperature, surely then, reducing it will have far more devastating effects from the cold and reduced vegetation growth than extra heat and abundant vegetation?

On a slightly theological note; don’t you find it incredibly coincidental that at the precise moment in time, when the planet was at most risk of becoming just another barren blob in the cosmos from continued natural, but accidental CO2 sequestration, man happened along and discovered fire? I’m not religious to any extent but that single coincidence does make me wonder.

And here’s a nice rule of thumb calculation for you to consider.

Humankind produces 3Bn tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to 2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per year, which equates to 15Bn tons of CO2 per 1ppm.

The UN states that unless we do something about increasing atmospheric CO2, it will be at 468ppm by ~2100.

So, multiply 15bn tons by 468ppm = ~7Tn tons of atmospheric CO2 humans will have added to the atmosphere by ~2100.

The UN maintains those 7Tn tons are expected to cause 7°F of warming by ~2100.

So, to mitigate for 1°F of warming, humankind must eliminate 1Tn tons of CO2 production.

Dividing 1Tn tons of CO2 by our annual output of 3Bn tons, it will take ~33 years to mitigate for 1°F of temperature rise.

But that means no energy use whatsoever; no coal, gas, bio mass or even windfarm produced energy (it takes CO2 emissions to produce wind turbines). No hospitals, schools, housebuilding, factories or transport. Absolutely no CO2 production beyond humans breathing.

How practical is that?

spock2009
Reply to  ivankinsman
November 1, 2017 5:11 pm

Ivankinsman wrote, “How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”
What problem?

Reply to  spock2009
November 1, 2017 11:35 pm

Teleport yourself off to another planet. Your not observant enough to be on this one.

DCA
Reply to  spock2009
November 2, 2017 1:55 pm

Ivan,

Why don’t you proofread your comments before you post them? I though you were a proofreader.

Reply to  ivankinsman
November 7, 2017 7:40 am

Ivanskinman
I did not read your comment because it was a character attack on climate change skeptics.

I read it because I’d never heard of the word “wittering” before.

I’ve read about climate change for 20 years.

You appear to know next to nothing about the subject, so I will try to inform you:

No one here claims climate change is a “hoax” — the hoax is the claim that humans can predict the future climate, and that future climate will be runaway global warming, that will end all life on Earth, except for ants, and mother-in-laws.

If you are a climate change “believer”, then that is exactly what you believe,
although perhaps without realizing it.

Many people believe things without realizing exactly what it is they believe in.

You are probably one of them — the many followers of leftist politicians — if the government says something, then it must be true — no need for you to doubt the goobermint, or do independent analyses !

While some life experience should teach you (well, maybe not YOU) that predictions of the future are usually wrong, you leftists do not apply that common sense to goobermint bureaucrat scientists … who play computer games and have made wrong climate predictions for 30 years … so far !

We are skeptical, like all good scientists should be, because some leftists have claimed that after 4.5 billion years of natural climate change, man made CO2 suddenly became the ‘climate controller’ in 1940, with no explanation of how, or why, that could happen.

Then we were told CO2 will warm the planet … but there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 … and no trend at all from the early 2000’s to 2015. So how could that happen?

We were told a climate change catastrophe is in progress, but our senses told us the climate was wonderful, and getting better … especially people like me who lived in the same home for 30 years, and lived only 4 miles away for seven years before that. I should be the first to notice how climate change affected my area after 37 years … and all I have noticed is the nights do not get quite as cold as they used to in Michigan, USA.

No one knows the CO2 levels were in the past 800,000 years — ice core proxies are ignored by you leftists for temperature reconstructions, so why should they be “perfect” for CO2 reconstructions.

CO2 levels have been between about 200 ppm and 8000 ppm according to geologists.

We are at 400 ppm now, near the lowest ever.

Green plants that humans and animals eat (C3 plants) evolved when CO2 averaged about 1,000 ppm and we should want the CO2 level back to 1,000 ppm as soon as possible to maximize plant growth … and if that causes any warming, it will be +1 or +2 degrees C., and will be at night in the colder, drier climates when warming is welcome.

I just want you to know it took a lot of self control to try to teach you something about climate science with my reply post, rather than just calling you a “numb skull”.

I look forward to your data-free character attack in response!

For further learning about climate change,
although I think you already feel you know everything,
read my climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 8, 2017 9:04 am

Hello Richard
One of the more well-informed and reasonable replies I have received on this site.

I would be careful about pigeon- holing all climate change advocates as ‘lefties’. I am a social conservative – conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social ones. I am pro-nucleur and not in support of Antifa, trans-sexuals and all that dross. I am also very strongly against immigration.

Climate change outside of the US transcends political parties – it is not at all politicised here in Europe. People instead look at the hard science and draw their own conclusions. Don’t you find it strange thatvthe US now stands alone in not signing up to the IPCC Paris Agreement. Is it all some huge global conspiracy to undermine US economic power and influence?

The world is warming, and warming fast and every nation on this planet bar your own President’s – and look at his current status in the global community on this issue – acknowledges this.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2017 12:32 pm

“it is not at all politicised here in Europe.”

It is highly politicised in the UK.

martinbrumby
October 30, 2017 9:27 am

It is also worth remembering the vector borne disease scam and the ocean acidification con trick.

ran6110
October 30, 2017 9:31 am

The only real consensus for them is that if they don’t keep hyping the garbage they’ll lose their comfy positions and have to go out and get real jobs.

Remember, most of these guy’s get the big bucks because they are seen as experts (which most are not) and have a narrow range of work they are qualified for. They need to start practicing saying “would you like fries with that order sir?”

Brian R
October 30, 2017 9:32 am

Great list.
On the Earths rotation. I understand why/how the earth slows, but what would cause it to speed up? I think I remember hearing a large earthquake could cause change in rotation, but I don’t remember how.

Reply to  Brian R
October 30, 2017 9:40 am

Mass balance accumulating at the poles. Possibly claims of higher snowfall and less glacial presence in the tropics would change the overall mass balance such that it would be like an ice skater bringing her arms over her head in a spin.

Editor
Reply to  KL Kelleher
October 30, 2017 10:09 am

No. There is too little mass difference between north sea ice (at sea level + 1-2 meters) and sea water (also at sea level, but only 10% denser than sea ice above sea water) for the north sea ice to affect anything measureable.

Down south, increases in mass on Antarctica’s central icecaps “might” matter a bit – but the increase in mass is at 3000 meters, and is much, much smaller than the original mass itself. If you remain unconvinced, do the math.

MarkW
Reply to  KL Kelleher
October 30, 2017 11:50 am

When ice caps form, sea levels world wide (not just at the poles) drop.
This results in a transfer of mass from areas not near the poles (and hence further away from the earth’s axis of rotation) to closer to the poles.
This would cause the earth’s rate of spin to increase.

Javier
Reply to  Brian R
October 30, 2017 9:52 am

Brian,

Several factors are known or assumed to have an effect on the rotation speed of the Earth. There is a general slowing trend due to the tidal effect on the bottom of the oceans and seas acting as a lunar brake, that is usually subtracted. Then other effects are seeing as the skater spin effect of separating the arms or bringing them close again. Both the atmosphere and the melted core affect the speed of rotation, and geomagnetic and solar effects are also postulated. As an example a strong El Niño acts as a brake and a strong La Niña accelerates the rotation perceptibly. The last El Niño increased the length of the day by 0.81 milliseconds by Jan. 2016. The association between climate and the speed of rotation is one of the most interesting issues in planetary climate research.

TA
Reply to  Javier
October 30, 2017 10:08 am

“The last El Niño increased the length of the day by 0.81 milliseconds by Jan. 2016.”

Very interesting. I didn’t know that.

Javier
Reply to  TA
October 30, 2017 10:22 am

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-52/

Atmospheric Torques and Earth’s Rotation: What Drove the Millisecond-Level Length-of-Day Response to the 2015–16 El Niño?

menicholas
Reply to  Javier
October 30, 2017 10:50 am

Large tectonic movements are also known to have an effect.
Besides ringing the entire Earth like a bell and sending out ocean waves that echo around for a while, the Christmas earthquake in Banda Aceh and the big one off the coast of Japan a few years back caused large enough sections of the Earth’s crust to be displaced vertically by sufficient amount to alter the rotational speed of the Earth by measureable amounts.
It seems likely that smaller movements add up to enough to do so as well, but occur spread out in time.

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
October 30, 2017 11:51 am

Minor nit, I would say it changes the rate of rotation measurably, rather than perceptibly.

Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2017 9:37 am

Climate, and CO2 levels are only a “problem” in the wild-eyed, climate koolade-addled “brains” of climate troll morons such as yourself.

menicholas
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 30, 2017 11:01 am

Since he did not actually read any of the article, and being a warmista has put hands over ears and recited the “lalalalalalalalala” song whenever any good news is told of, Ivan has no idea that there is not only no problem at all, but increased CO2 is good news, with trees and crops growing faster, more food being produced, plants the world over requiring less water and thus becoming more drought tolerant and spreading into formerly marginal arid regions, and the immeasurably good news of our ice-age having planet becoming somewhat less frigidly and fatally frozen solid over the vast Arctic wasteland at our Northern polar region.
All good news.
The alarmist jackasses are not only wrong, they have it exactly backwards…CO2 increasing is pure great news and 100% beneficial …which is hardly surprising, given that the tiny trace of CO2 in our atmosphere is literally the base of the entire foodchain and the essential molecule which is providing the carbon of which our entire biosphere is based.
In short, to be a warmista is to be about as unscientific and foolish as it is possible for a human being to be.

Are you getting this Ivan? Because I can say it louder and more forcefully if you are still deaf to all the good news that CO2 is providing us.
You are welcome.

Reply to  menicholas
October 30, 2017 11:45 am

He is just sent here to cause a commotion. He slinks off into the underbrush as soon as we shine a light on his nonsense. I think his name gives away the game. The Russians are running a strong misinformation campaign against Western fossil fuel to enhance the value of their vast reserves. I know that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but it means billions to Russia so I have no doubt that they take necessary steps in the time honoured way of Putin’s KGB.

DMH
October 30, 2017 9:47 am

This article provides an important summary. Is it possible to organize predictions versus observations into a permanent section of this web site, or another?

Demonstrating how unreliable predictions have been draws attention to how unreliable predictions could be now if they are made the same way, based on the same models or understanding.

Having only recently discovered how flawed the climate alarmist ‘science’ is (or how poorly they have modeled climate), I can say the unreliability of past predictions was perhaps the most important part of my introduction to the concern.

TA
Reply to  DMH
October 30, 2017 10:15 am

“I can say the unreliability of past predictions was perhaps the most important part of my introduction to the concern.”

They used to predict that the Earth’s climate was cooling and heading for a new ice age, back in the 1970’s, and claimed the cooling was caused by human beings. This is a huge failure of prediction.

When the climate started warming up in the late 1970’s all these guys predicting Human-caused Global Cooling swung around 180 degrees and started claiming humans were causing the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up.

They were wrong in the 1970’s, so why should we assume they are correct now? Answer: We shouldn’t. Their track record is pathetic.

Kira
October 30, 2017 9:50 am

I recall a prediction that the world’s agricultural system was to collapse by 2015. A world record for crop production was hit in 2016 and was reported in the media. Sorry I don’t have references for you. I think that the 2016 record would make a good addition to your food shortages section.

DMH
October 30, 2017 9:52 am

1992: In the late 80’s a “missing sink” was discovered in the carbon budget accounting, and was discussed through the 90’s. The possibility that Earth’s oceans and terrestrial ecosystems could respond to the increase in CO2 by absorbing more CO2 had not occurred to climate scientists, and when it occurred to them they mistakenly thought that deforestation would be a higher factor.

Are there any climate scientists reading this who care to comment on how the Earth’s oceans were missed until the late 80s? Is chemistry not a required subject for a climate scientist, whatever that is?

Javier
Reply to  DMH
October 30, 2017 10:08 am

DMH, I think it was actually to much reliance on chemical and physical mechanisms that made them overlook the role that oceanic photosynthetic organisms (phytoplankton and algae) play in the ocean sink response.

CO2 is after all plant food, and Gaia is throwing a party to celebrate its increase. Everybody is invited, even grumpy humans.

markl
October 30, 2017 10:06 am

So how do you get this out to the people when AGW skepticism is treated like heresy? Members of WUWT think the people are aware but are they really? Or do they just not care? Do people in Butte, Montana care any more about sea level rise than people in Fargo, North Dakota care about slight warming?

Sunsettommy
Reply to  markl
October 30, 2017 10:21 am

Markl,

they go out of their way to ignore good postings like this one by Javier,who simply posted what what was predicted and why it failed.

Take note that so far, Ivanmarkinsman, has completely avoided addressing Javier’s post, to run with a deflecting argument attempt that is IRRELEVANT!

It is possible he simply doesn’t understand how reproducible science research is done,that he fell for the ecosocialist propaganda.

I am laughing at his avoidance of Javier’s well supported post.

Reply to  markl
October 30, 2017 10:35 am

The fundamental problem is relentless lies and exaggerations from a press driven by a far left ideology. I see many parallels between how the press is treating Trump and how they treat those who are skeptical of the conclusions of the IPCC.

Fake news, fake science, fake conclusion, hate, ignorance and unfounded self righteous indignation seems to be the new political reality. Anyone who can’t see how the new reality of politics has polluted climate science isn’t paying attention.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 30, 2017 5:43 pm

I note that you’ve recently been updating your fine blog site at http://co2isnotevil.wordpress.com/
Well done!

Reply to  markl
October 30, 2017 3:04 pm

markl

Oh they know about it, and they just don’t care. Here’s the evidence.

http://data.myworld2015.org

October 30, 2017 10:22 am

There are quite a few more.

UK Met Office, Smith et al 2007, failing to predict the pause:
http://www.knmi.nl/~laagland/KIK/Documenten_2007/smithetal.pdf
“the year 2014 [is] predicted to be 0.30°±0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence
interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004. Furthermore,
at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than
1998, the warmest year currently on record.”

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 30, 2017 11:18 am

“There are quite a few more.”
Not here. In Had4, 2004 was 0.447; 2014 was 0.579, which is +.3-0.17, ie within prediction range. 2015 (at 0.763°C) was +0.32 warmer than 2004.
2010, 2014,2015 and 2016 were warmer than 1998 in Had 4. That is more than half of completed years. 2017 will be warmer, too.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 11:44 am

Great that temperatures have climbed a just a little bit from the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

Wouldn’t you agree, Nick. 😉

Or would you continue to DENY that current temperatures are only just above that coldest of cold periods.

And HadCrut.. no warming agenda bias there nah, none at all . 😉

“2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 were warmer than 1998 in Had 4”

Only 2016, by a tiny amount in UAH or RSS…….. 2010, 2014, 2015.. not within cooee. !

Shows how HadCrud is fudged in a FAILED attempt to match the models (red is UAH matched to 1980 start point)

Gees those models really are just a whole mess of FAILURE, aren’t they Nick.
comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 12:09 pm

Andy,
“Nick, we are discussing climate here.”
No, we are discussing failed predictions. And that is a prediction that came out right. You may say that it was not so meaningful, but it didn’t fail.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 12:15 pm

“Or would you continue to DENY that current temperatures are only just above that coldest of cold periods.”

I got that prediction right, hey Nick

Stop squirming.!!

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 12:29 pm

And NO, it didn’t come out right.

There has actually been NO CO2 based warming in the whole of the satellite temperature record.

Sure in GISS, HadCrut etc, plenty of CO2 based “adjustments™”,

…. but the reality is that there is NO CO2 based warming in the last 40 years..

FAILED !!!!

sy computing
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 1:05 pm

You may say that it was not so meaningful, but it didn’t fail.

Wouldn’t this be logically equivalent to saying it was a meaningless success?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 1:31 pm

“a meaningless success”
I didn’t choose the prediction; Paul Matthews did, and said it failed. I simply pointed out that it didn’t fail; it was right.

menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 4:22 pm

According to the guidelines set out in the headline post, being right about something for the wrong reason does not count.
No one warned of global catastrophe because of el nino caused global warming.

TA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 5:54 pm

“2010, 2014,2015 and 2016 were warmer than 1998 in Had 4.”

Not in the satellite record. Here’s the UAH chart. None of the years mentioned above exceed 1998, with the one exception of 2016 which was one-tenth of a degree hotter than 1998.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2017_v6.jpg

And as far as that goes, the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, by 0.5C, which makes the 1930’s hotter than 2016, too.
comment image

Nothing to see here folks. We are still in a temperature downtrend from the 1930’s.

And yes that is a chart of the U.S., but if you look at other unaltered charts from around the world, you will see that same temperature profile, i.e. the 1930’s are as hot or hotter than subsequent years. They do Not resemble the bogus Hockey Stick charts.

If you are looking at a chart that doesn’t show the 1930’s as hotter than subsequent years, and doesn’t show 1998 as hotter than any subsequent year but 2016, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized “Hockey Stick Chart” like Had4.

Hockey Stick charts are all a big Lie. They were created in order to promote the idea that human-caused CO2 was making things hotter and hotter each year. The CO2 chart goes up at a steep angle, so they make the Hockey Stick chart resemble the CO2 chart and claim that is proof of CAGW. They are not telling you the truth. The temperature profile is going Down, not up.

AndyG55
Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 30, 2017 12:31 pm

“Furthermore, at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than1998, the warmest year currently on record.””

When you are in charge of the data, you can make anything prediction come true.. 😉

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 31, 2017 5:50 am

Furthermore,
at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than
1998, the warmest year currently on record.”

According to Hadcrut3:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat

None of the years from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 1998. Since it ended in 2014, we do not know if 2015 to 2017 would have exceeded it, but even if it did, it would be less than half.

andrew dickens
October 30, 2017 10:23 am

Great post. Regular updates would be useful

menicholas
Reply to  andrew dickens
October 30, 2017 4:26 pm

Every prediction an warmista has ever made is an update, and that trend shows no signs of reversing.
But, they have begun to make their predictions farther out in time, to avoid being proven wrong while the ruse is ongoing.
Mostly, they make the date of their catastrophes no sooner than the latest date they might hope to still be alive.
They are learning…how to be wrong better.

October 30, 2017 10:24 am

“a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

If you can’t predict warming, you might as well predict cooling. You can’t go wrong since if the climate wasn’t changing, it would be broken.

Greg Woods
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 30, 2017 10:41 am

Whether its cold, or whether its hot, there is going to be weather, whether or not….

October 30, 2017 10:25 am

https://www.thegwpf.com/met-office-fail/

Back in May, the Met Office forecast an above average hurricane season in the North Atlantic. And the outcome? “The 2013 hurricane season was one of the quietest seasons to be recorded in the last twenty years.”

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 30, 2017 10:26 am

And here is the Met Office kind of admitting they got it wrong
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/b/0/verification2013.pdf

October 30, 2017 10:30 am
October 30, 2017 10:31 am

http://www.archive.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” by Paul Beckwith.

The Original Mike M
October 30, 2017 10:38 am

More ammunition on #13 to add to https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013

… this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis.

Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 10:44 am

It is clear,Ivan will not answer what Javier posted. He KNOWS he can’t,which is why he is ignoring it to push an irrelevant deflection about CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Hello warmists! who want to take a chance in answering Javier? It is not dangerous, go ahead try to point out where Javier is wrong.

Waiting for someone to address Javier’s post………………………… surprise us with a counter argument.

AndyG55
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 10:57 am

Ok Sun, I would like to argue about Javier’s Figure 1.

I feel it is wrong to use current temperature data from HadCrud,

A more reliable source should be used, say UAH. (in red) (visual alignment of scales matching 1980 start point)
comment image

Yogi Bear
October 30, 2017 10:55 am

Warming rates since 1990 have a large non-anthropogenic AMO component.

AndyG55
Reply to  Yogi Bear
October 30, 2017 11:02 am

In fact, the only warming in the whole of the satellite temperature sets is from El Nino events,

There is certainly NO any anthropogenic warming signature at all.

Between 1980 and 1997, no warming
comment image

Between 2001 and 2015, no warming
comment image

October 30, 2017 11:01 am

Javier thank you again for your insightful articles. Well done.

It really gets me PO’ed when I think of how governments have created so many policies that are based upon these “wrong” predictions. The massive price distortions and increasing taxation that has been based upon them, that have raised the cost the people pay for not only energy, but everything they buy.

Don B
October 30, 2017 11:16 am

“The conditions were so bad that Tim Flannery, now Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

“Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping. Indeed, the rainfall that we had last year not only filled Brisbane City’s Wivenhoe Dam water supply storage, but also all of its flood mitigation capacity. The resultant releases of water required to prevent a truly catastrophic dam failure contributed to the inundation of large parts of metropolitan Brisbane.”

http://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

The linked article has other examples of botched forecasts.

Gareth
October 30, 2017 11:19 am

There is no doubt that the effects of climate change are exaggerated, but there is equal confidence that climate change is happening, and we have a hand in it, to a lesser or greater degree.

Akatsukami
Reply to  Gareth
October 30, 2017 11:52 am

But that is a meaningless statement. If I light a match, we may certainly correctly claim that I have contributed to global warming, but is it possible to detect that signal in all the noise? Can the signal of climate change attributable to human activity be detected in the noise of non-human causes?

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth
October 30, 2017 11:53 am

That is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is whether the small amount of heating that can be contributed to CO2 is large enough to be a problem rather than a benefit.

Reply to  Gareth
October 30, 2017 12:15 pm

Except you can’t show where we have had a hand in any changes to any degree. So that assertion is scientifically invalid. It is currently cooling. Please show how that is explained by human causes. It has not warmed for 18 years. Please explain how humans have failed to cause any meaningful change in the weather despite doing everything we do as vigorously as possible without any serious effort Not to change anything.

Javier
Reply to  Gareth
October 30, 2017 12:37 pm

Gareth,

Fomenting fear through alarmist predictions doesn’t help science. Real science is based on evidence, and computer models do not constitute evidence. After over 65 years of artificially rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the evidence that this is going to constitute a serious problem is surprisingly lacking. An unbiased assessment of the consequences would find that positive consequences outweigh negative ones so far. Only through silly extrapolation and imaginary worsening can we conclude that we are in any serious danger from climate change over the next 80 years. We can only conclude that we are being deceived. That some of the people that try to deceive us are self-deceived doesn’t justify it.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Gareth
October 30, 2017 9:04 pm
October 30, 2017 12:07 pm

As a general observation, this isn’t news. People have made varying predictions; they can’t all be right. We knew that.

Specifically:
1. 0.3°C per decade was an average for the next century. It wasn’t expected to be a linear increase. So it is not failed. However, subsequent IPCC reports made lower predictions. No news there.
2. Likewise, more recent IPCC predictions have been more modest. The rise in GISS from 1990 to date, based on linear trend, is 0.5°C.

3. The quoted IPCC sentence was actually:
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
It isn’t a prediction of milder winter temperatures; it’s from an impacts and vulnerability chapter. It predicts a consequence of milder winter, not really controversially. I don’t see evidence presented that winters have not in fact become milder.

4. Snow predictions – the counter evidence is just one or two winters, plus an assertion about NH snow areas which I can’t see sustained by the link.

5. Just compares two IPCC predictions. As I said, they do vary, as people workout more stuff.

6. Extreme weather – just gives one researcher’s view. IPCC has, as indicated, been cautious.

7. It’s pretty hard to argue at the moment that wildfires are decreasing. The cited statistic was particularly showing that advance of agriculture and clearing was reducing fires in savannah area. It isn’t clearly talking about wildfires.

8. Rotation – the Mitrovica link sets it out well, it’s called Munk’s enigma. Melting poles pushes one way, as damming also tends to; melting glaciers and depletion of aquifers goes the other.

9, 10. The varying predictions of sea ice and polar bears are well-known.

11. The glacier prediction was simply an error that was corrected.

etc, etc
On failure to predict,
” This was an easy prediction to make, yet it was ignored. “
That’s an odd one; it wasn’t ignored at all. The linked doc says:
“In addition to temperature and precipitation changes, climate change may also impact agriculture through greater competition from weeds, increased plant and animal disease, changes in soil nutrients and pests, and increased conflicts for available water. While these damaging effects are probably controllable, we are far from concluding what they may do the cost of agricultural production and how they will affect agricultural resources and the environment.

They are, however, probably less important than the impact that increased carbon in the atmosphere may have on plant growth. A carbon enriched atmosphere, like that under doubled CO2 concentrations, is widely believed to promote plant growth and also lead to increased efficiency in water use. This positive influence of climate change on plant growth is termed the CO2 fertilization effect. To date, there are no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude; existing ‘chamber’ studies of plant growth test separately for the effects of controlled “

2. Biomass. Odd to record this as a failed prediction, when it says re 2006:
” It was only in the last decade when it was noticed that a great majority of reports were contradicting that assumption. “Of the 49 papers reporting forest production levels we reviewed, 37 showed a positive growth trend.””
The “prediction” was actually not about climate at all, but deforestation. And yas, that has happened too.

3. “The possibility that Earth’s oceans and terrestrial ecosystems could respond to the increase in CO2 by absorbing more CO2 had not occurred to climate scientists”
That is nonsense.

4. “The scientific climate community essentially ignored the issue until 2013”
Again, just not true. One of the favoured misquotes by skeptics is the special report by Knight et all in the BAMS report of 2008. They were noting the slowdown in warming in the ENSO-adjusted record at that time.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 12:18 pm

Defending the FARCE that is AGW to the hilt.. so hilarious.

1 – 11.. ALL FAILED..

GET OVER IT !!!!

sy computing
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 1:21 pm

1. 0.3°C per decade was an average for the next century. It wasn’t expected to be a linear increase. So it is not failed. However, subsequent IPCC reports made lower predictions. No news there.

Because observations came in under predicted for the times in question, so we need to adjust our predictions in order to maintain some semblance of sanity to observers?

2. Likewise, more recent IPCC predictions have been more modest. The rise in GISS from 1990 to date, based on linear trend, is 0.5°C.

Again, because of 1)?

What happens when it isn’t .5, but .1?

4. Snow predictions – the counter evidence is just one or two winters, plus an assertion about NH snow areas which I can’t see sustained by the link.

Don’t you contradict yourself? Here a small span of time meant something: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/comment-page-1/#comment-2650037

But now it doesn’t any longer?

5. Just compares two IPCC predictions. As I said, they do vary, as people workout more stuff.

6. Extreme weather – just gives one researcher’s view. IPCC has, as indicated, been cautious

See comment to 1) above.

9, 10. The varying predictions of sea ice and polar bears are well-known.

11. The glacier prediction was simply an error that was corrected.

etc, etc

“etc., etc.,” indeed…

Reply to  sy computing
October 30, 2017 1:28 pm

“Because observations came in under predicted for the times in question”
The SAR 1995 predictions were made only five years later. Hard to say that the century prediction of FAR had failed by then.

“Don’t you contradict yourself?”
No. I didn’t choose that prediction; Paul Matthews did. I just pointed out that it came out right.

Reply to  Andy May
October 30, 2017 1:56 pm

Andy,
” but among policymakers and the public not so much. They want everything to be black and white.”
You can’t have that when there is a general discussion, and many people gives their views. You might as well ask why politicians don’t all speak with on voice. What happens in these lists is a selection of the extremes. If people want to make policy by selecting extremes of the range, it won’t work so well. The IPCC tried to give a more balanced version.

“South Australia in your own country, their policies were pretty stupid”
SA policies weren’t based on a prediction; they were based on an immediate need for electricity, when the excessive cost of the existing desert mining and transport of poor grade coal could not be commercially sustained. And it is working pretty well. They had a four hour blackout after a severe storm a year ago (and Puerto Rico?). Electricity is expensive, but so it was before.