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.
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™.
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.
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……….
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.
A wall of shame would be good also.
excellent idea ball bounces.:)
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!
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…
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.
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.)
Start compiling your list, SRI. It shouldn’t take long.
Aaaaaay!
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/Srg_50Sj94El.jpg
David Middleton
Are you suggesting there are successful climate predictions?
It would make interesting, but short reading.
There has to be at least one successful climate change prediction… 😉
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
Allan,
Brilliant, thank you.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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
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.
+1
David: The entire list of correct climate predictions from the alarmists follows:
http://replygif.net/i/1071.gif
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.
“You don’t need anymore than that.” You only need one for science but this ain’t science – it’s religion.
– Stuart Chase
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”…..
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.
Definitely a partial list!
The biggest den ** er of them all; Mother Nature.
Excellent post. The fable of Chicken Little has antecedents stretching back for 25 centuries. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
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”
This is giving me ‘conjectivitis’…
SWAG , Some Wild A$$ Guess’s
Sun Spot,
The “S” is “scientific”.
Clearly.
rip
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.
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.
Prove that it is a problem first.
What problem? If believers in CAGW were to stop making stupid predictions then the ‘sceptics’ would have nothing to put in the calendar.
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]
ivankinsman
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?
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……
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 !
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
ivankinsman: CO2 is pumped into polytunnels to make tomatoes grow faster. Polyethylene is transparent to IR. How do polytunnels work?
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.
Nigel S: Like a REAL greenhouse.
Pet peeve:
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.
Pet peeve:
Or better, CO₂
“Nick Stokes October 30, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Pet peeve:
Or better, CO₂”
Or worse, just C (Carbon).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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…
Ivan,
still waiting for you to address Javier’s post.
Waiting and waiting…….
Ivankinsman, is this your first time here? you’re coming across as a few fries short of a happy meal.
Why, exactly, are high CO2 levels a problem? I would think that CO2 benefits most, if not all, life on earth.
“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.
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.
It is the red unicorns you have to watch out for…
The Unicorns to be afraid of are the ones that you can hear breathing. If you wake up and hear nothing… be very afraid!
“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?
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!
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???
@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?
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…
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……………………
Vostok Ice Cores. Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. Actually, the past four interracials were warmer than today.
“Temperature 120k years ago was higher than today. “
But what is “today” in that plot? It shows CO2 at 280 ppm.
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.
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.
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.
“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
“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?
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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))
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
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.
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.
Ivan, we may be overrun by a plague of unicorns, too.
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?
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!
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?
Still waiting for that bad weather you fools have been predicting for decades.
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?
Sheri, that’s just another example of left wing mental projection.
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!
I doubt he is paid….. if he is, it must be for incompetence.
Soros is reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of troll material.
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.
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.
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.
Freelance, meaning not good enough to hire permanently.
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?
Why would we try to find a solution to something that doesn’t exist?
And would be beneficial if it did!
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.
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:
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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
The CO2-hatred agenda really needs to be brought to a crashing halt.
It really is a case of supreme idiocy !!
We’ll see if this works.
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/
ivanski, you say that like it was a bad thing?
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
Say what!?
Bafflegab and circular reasoning.
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.
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.
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.
Translation: I know I can’t, and I’ll invent a preposterous excuse to justify my not trying.
From Ivan’s propaganda, he has a VERY low bar for “evidence”.
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.
Ivan says, “I have a full time job”
Those lavatories don’t clean themselves !!
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.
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/
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.
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 .
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So its acronym should be IGPOCC.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
tom0mason
Where’s his site? Ought to be good for a laugh.
@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.
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.
Ivanski, there were no regressive impacts back when CO2 levels reached 7000ppm.
So, when in your fevered imagination do these regressive impacts start?
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.
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
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.
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?
been=green
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.
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
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
“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
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.
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!
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.
“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?
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.
Save the lemur!
http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-is-pushing-these-rare-lemurs-to-the-brink.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ivankinsman wrote, “How about more worthwhile use of your time coming up with some practical solutions to the problem?”
What problem?
Teleport yourself off to another planet. Your not observant enough to be on this one.
Ivan,
Why don’t you proofread your comments before you post them? I though you were a proofreader.
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
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.
“it is not at all politicised here in Europe.”
It is highly politicised in the UK.
It is also worth remembering the vector borne disease scam and the ocean acidification con trick.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“The last El Niño increased the length of the day by 0.81 milliseconds by Jan. 2016.”
Very interesting. I didn’t know that.
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?
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.
Minor nit, I would say it changes the rate of rotation measurably, rather than perceptibly.
Climate, and CO2 levels are only a “problem” in the wild-eyed, climate koolade-addled “brains” of climate troll morons such as yourself.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I note that you’ve recently been updating your fine blog site at http://co2isnotevil.wordpress.com/
Well done!
markl
Oh they know about it, and they just don’t care. Here’s the evidence.
http://data.myworld2015.org
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.”
“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.
Nick, we are discussing climate here. Given El Ninos, La Ninas, AMOs, etc. the shortest interval with any meaning is 60 years. From 2004 to 2017 you can get a number of meaningless gradients just by carefully selecting your starting and ending points! I choose 2005 to 2012!
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.
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.
“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.!!
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 !!!!
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?
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.. 😉
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.
Great post. Regular updates would be useful
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.
“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.
Whether its cold, or whether its hot, there is going to be weather, whether or not….
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.”
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
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/8877491/Arctic-sea-ice-to-melt-by-2015.html
Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015’, written in 2011.
http://www.archive.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” by Paul Beckwith.
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
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.
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)
Warming rates since 1990 have a large non-anthropogenic AMO component.
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
Between 2001 and 2015, no warming
Really…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1997/to:2001/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2001/trend
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Gareth: See my comment upthread at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/comment-page-1/#comment-2650498
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.
Defending the FARCE that is AGW to the hilt.. so hilarious.
1 – 11.. ALL FAILED..
GET OVER IT !!!!
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…
“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.
Nick, the post is not news and there have been many lists like this posted over the years. But, Javier did select a pretty good set, in my opinion, at least. Among the scientific community, we all appreciate the uncertainty in all of these predictions, but among policymakers and the public not so much. They want everything to be black and white. The point of the post is do not make policy decisions based on predictions like these. I think we can all agree that calling polar bears endangered because of a prediction, rather than any evidence, is pretty stupid. Other examples include South Australia in your own country, their policies were pretty stupid, or California here in our country. Or the classic misjudgements of Germany and Japan. Speculative predictions are no basis for public policy. Wait until we know something.
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.
Nick
“What happens in these lists is a selection of the extremes.”
I just choked on my tea!
What happens in these lists is that extreme failed predictions, made with great fanfare at the time, and with total conviction, became the extreme because they failed so spectacularly.
The worlds leading authority on Arctic ice came out and confidently terrified the gullible that the ice would be gone by 2013. That wasn’t extreme, that was presented as a statement of fact by the media and a perfectly reasonable prediction by an ‘expert’.
It’s not Javier that’s citing extreme examples, it’s those making the proclamations of impending doom that are making extreme claims.
“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 .
Errrr no ! Your information is based on what ? SA got out of coal because they were trying to save the planet mate ! Period .
Based on what Alinta said. Alinta, the owner, is a commercial enterprise, and couldn’t make it work.
Not sure you understand the handouts given to renewables ? But more than likely you do so you must realise exactly what and why Alinta have said that .
I’m pretty sure it was the state govt that pushed the construction of the wind turbines and also sure they did it to save the world as they have stated over and over again .
Nick,
Those predictions, whether new or not, have been and still are being widely circulated through the mass media to scare people silly about climate change, so the point is not that some predictions are bound to be incorrect. The entire alarmist building is raised on false premises.
1 & 2. Just read it
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
They are very specific about what to expect by 2025. Of the 35 years, 28 have already passed. The expected increase and rate of increase has not happened by a big margin.
3. They talk about the consequences of milder winters because milder winters were expected. They did not talk about the consequences of harsher winters due to global warming until harsher winters appeared.
4. NH Snow cover unchanged. Not my problem if you can’t find the data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NHemisphereSnowCoverSince1972.gif
5. The first prediction of water stress due to lack of precipitations was shown unsustained, as eventually all drastic predictions will.
6. You don’t read the press, do you? We are constantly bombarded by claims from alarmist scientists that climate change is making weather extremes oh so much worse. Do I have to look for the link where Michael Mann was saying how Harvey was made worse by climate change? Failure to predict shows they are bogus.
7. Can you prove that wildfires have increased? I can prove that in the EU wildfires have decreased. This is consistent with the article that clearly states that overall fires are decreasing. Not precisely the promised scenario.
8. Munk’s enigma was published in 2002. The predictions and explanations that go the opposite way were published later. Mitrovica’s explanation of Munk’s enigma is controversial. William Peltier, who was Mitrovica’s thesis advisor, says it is wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/11/scientists-may-have-just-solved-one-of-the-most-troubling-mysteries-about-sea-level-rise/
9 & 10. Well known Arctic sea ice predictions and well laughed at.
11. The glacier prediction showed what the IPCC considered acceptable sources, and how much they took into consideration their own reviewer warnings. The whole IPCC process is contaminated by bias from its very set up as a panel dedicated to find an anthropogenic effect on climate change.
B1. Oh yes, Sherwood Idso did predict the greening
Industrial age leading to the greening of the Earth?
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6057/abs/320022a0.html
But as he was immediately labeled as a skeptic, or worse, I don’t think you can count that on the side of the warmists, or even consensus builders.
Sherwood Idso label at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
So that one is a score for the skeptics.
B2. Deforestation was believed to be a more important factor driving a global loss of forests. Just the opposite has been found.
B3. The missing sink was all the fuss in the early 90’s carbon budget accounting. They weren’t able to predict the observed increase in the sinks and they could not understand it for quite some time after observing it. Clearly it was not expected.
B4. The Pause was never predicted. The possibility that the warming rate could actually go down while CO2 was increasing was not considered in the literature before it happened. Most of the literature on the pause is from 2013 onward. Finding an earlier paper disproves nothing. The issue was ignored until it became impossible, and attempts are still being made at erasing the pause from the records.
Since you are not an alarmist. Why would you defend them when they are clearly and demonstrably so wrong?
+10
+10
Javier,
On (1), I don’t believe it is Scen A. Here is the CO2 plot, with my lines:
And CH4 and CHCs lagged more. For Scen A they gave an average trend for the century of 0.2 – 0.5 C/dec. For Scen B, their center value was 0.2°C/decade. It’s reasonable to assume a range applies there too. The GISS trend from 1990 to now is 0.187°C/decade. Doesn’t sound like a fail.
Nick,
When a prediction fails it is obvious that the conditions have changed. Thomas Malthus predicted a catastrophe in 1798 due to population growing exponentially and food growing arithmetically. The catastrophe didn’t happen because food grew much faster than he anticipated. Doesn’t sound like a prediction fail to you?
IPCC predicted a warming under an emissions scenario. The emissions scenario took place, the warming didn’t. They failed to consider the increase in carbon sinks. Malthus failed to consider the increase in food production. But in the case of Malthus it is clear that without the food increase the catastrophe would have taken place. In the case of the IPCC it is unclear that even if the predicted CO2 increase would have taken place, the predicted increase in temperatures would have taken place. We still don’t know the response of temperatures to CO2.
Nick forgets to say that CO2 rise has been business as usual.
MASSIVE FAILURE !!
And of course , as we all know…
The ONLY warming in the satellite temperature record has come form El Nino and ocean effects.
No El Nino….. No warming. NO CO2 signal WHAT-SO-EVER.
GISS is, as we all well know, is deliberately “adjusted” to try and help the myth of CO2 warming.
That make any comparison of reality with GISS, totally and utterly meaningless.
Javier,
“IPCC predicted a warming under an emissions scenario. The emissions scenario took place, the warming didn’t.”
No, they predicted under a concentration scenario. I showed the plot from the FAR. In fact in 1990 they didn’t really have good emissions data. That was collected as a result of the UNFCCC.
Nick,
Since you demonstrate knowledge of IPCC reports, it is unclear to me why you are lying about this.
Exact quote:
First Assessment Report. Working Group I. Policymakers Summary. Page XXII.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Nick…I appreciate that you responded to the article rationally, but your response reminded me of the old joke about the breakfast cereal that claimed to be high in calcium (if you ate it with milk), and high in iron (if you also ate the spoon). In other words, The AGW crisis theory has no substance. You are nitpicking, while avoiding the obvious conclusion that overall predictive skill of the AGW theory that supports a climate crisis is in the ‘even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut’ category.
I will concede that the article is not strictly a critique of the IPCC science, but is targeting some of the most infamous and most widely disseminated predictions used to influence populations and policy-makers. Does it really matter if the IPCC is so vague, that it actually gets some observation to fall within the bounds of it’s gaping conjecture? NO! What matters are the arguments driving policy and public opinion. Those arguments have the remarkable record of being incorrect 100% of the time. And that is the point of this article.
I don’t have the time to respond to every point you made, but I wanted to point out something about this one:
“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;…”
What passes for climate science these days is basically sweeping conjecture built on weak assumptions extended out for decades to produce dire scenarios. Perhaps the most well known (proven) aspect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere is the CO2 fertilization effect. Practical applications of this science have been around for decades. There have been many studies with observed, quantifiable results. There are tons of hard data on the effect. There are no assumptions in need of defending. There is no need for sweeping conjecture to support the idea of it. Yet, the IPCC dismisses it with ‘there are no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude…’.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
The one thing we truly understand about adding CO2 to the atmosphere turns out to be wonderfully positive, but it is made inconsequential with the statement that there are no reliable estimates of its magnitude. On the other hand, the IPCC is ready willing and able to go in great depth about any seemingly negative consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 without any physical evidence or observable quantification in the slightest! If the IPCC was honest, it would conclude every discussion about surface temperature change, tropospheric temperature change, sea level change, economic impacts, agricultural impacts, human health impacts, biosphere impacts etcetera, with the phrase “there are no reliable estimates of the precise magnitude of these things, but we do know the CO2 fertilization effect will be a great boon to humanity!”
Of course, the IPCC wasn’t created to be honest. It was created to build a case against emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, with the illusion of being scientific. Despite the huge financial support, the collusion, the spinning of the language in the Summaries for Policy Makers, and the remarkable complicity of a fawning media, it is failing.
“Yet, the IPCC dismisses it with ‘there are no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude…’.”
It’s simply true. There were no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude. And there still aren’t. Of course you can measure a response in controlled conditions. But in the wild, where water stress varies hugely over time and space, the effect of CO2 on viability is very hard to estimate.
Nick, It has been measured in the wild, even by the IPCC: “Satellite data shows that the Earth is greener now than in the 1980’s by 6 to 13%. Dr. Ranga Myneni (Boston University) estimates a 14% increase in ecosystem productivity in the past 30 years. The IPCC WG1 AR5 Report discusses the CO2 fertilization effect on page 502. They estimate a greening of the Earth, due to warming and CO2, of 6%. This is at the low end of published estimates.” There are also other estimates in the “wild” see here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/co2-good-or-bad/
It is the only quantifiable effect of additional CO2 that I know of.
Nick,
In the real world, more CO2 relieves water stress for C3 plants because they need take in less water to make the same amount of sugar. The stomata of their leaves need stay open for less time to take in the same amount of CO2, hence less water loss via transpiration.
Surely you must know this.
Andy,
“The IPCC WG1 AR5 Report discusses the CO2 fertilization effect on page 502.”
Well, that’s clear proof that they aren’t ignoring it 🙂 But the article linked was from 2005. And it seems that their statement was true at that time.
“It is the only quantifiable effect of additional CO2 that I know of.”
What are you having so much trouble understanding, Nick ?
CO2.. Great for all life on Earth…
Get used to it..because , if humans have any input, its just going to keep on increasing.
“Yet, the IPCC dismisses it with ‘there are no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude…’.”
It’s simply true. There were no reliable estimates of its precise magnitude.”
Yes…it is simply true. Would you argue if I said that the exact same statement is even more appropriate for the rest of the IPCC reports and all of their projections?
Gabro,
“Surely you must know this.”
I have known about CO₂ and stomatal gas exchange for over 40 years. And the IPCC has always spoken of it too. Here is what the said in the FAR (1990):
Nick,
The link doesn’t work. I’d rather not wade through the whole FAR to find the relevant passage.
Suffice it to say that the fact that more CO2 means more vegetation is not only settled science, but indisputable.
That more CO2 poses a threat of catastrophic global warming is not only not settled, but already repeatedly shown false.
Thanks for showing the passage.
The studies citing no effect from more CO2 are hopelessly out of date. The effect is immediate and highly positive on C3 plant growth, both under controlled lab conditions and in the field.
PS:
Remarkably enough, higher CO2 also reduces water need even for C4 plants, as found in this 2011 study of corn (maize):
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/48707/PDF
Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use
efficiency in corn
The FAR, as with all subsequent IPCC reports, is a pack of lies and shouldn’t be relied on for any purpose other than hygiene in outhouses without water.
I have spent the past 30 years listening to predictions of doom. Whenever I questioned one of the predictions I was called names. I filed the predictions away mentally, waiting to let reality reveal itself. Now we have reality, and it justifies the skepticism I felt over the years. Yet the people who were so adamant that “the science is settled” now say things like “this (failed prediction) was known for a long time” or “there was always a range of opinions”.
In the big picture no one gives a hoot about the bruised feelings of the occasional skeptic. But everyone should wonder which of the current predictions of doom will not only fail, but will also be excused with lines such as predictions do change over time “as people work out more stuff”.
Nick Stokes:
I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to some of these remarks. You recognize that predictions of a chaotic system must necessarily at times be wrong; but that’s not really the issue for me.
The problem is that by the time all this science is presented to policymakers, uncertainty and caution is gone and we must all act NOW or face certain doom. It is a standard FUD approach and many people are conditioned by generations of advertisers, con men and their own children to be on guard for any kind of hasty behavior change demand.
My personal favorite failed prediction is Dr. David Viner’s “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” comment. I doubt he intended it as a scientific prediction but the sheer boldness of it, combined with the loud “thud” one hears from its collapse, casts a shadow, maybe a cloud, maybe a thick wooly blanket over the whole entire climate change industry.
“It isn’t a prediction of milder winter temperatures; it’s from an impacts and vulnerability chapter.”
I appreciate the importance of that nuance; does that nuance make the trip to popular media such as National Geographic? I think not. Maybe in the fine print it might be there. I agree that risk assessments must explore all risks however unlikely and if everyone sought to avoid all risks I think the only habitat on Earth remaining would be Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
“7. It’s pretty hard to argue at the moment that wildfires are decreasing.”
It is certainly so in the mountain west of the United States where a few years ago it seemed everything was burning. I suspect it is somewhat cyclic; fuel hasn’t regenerated sufficiently for another round of fires.
Some rich people in Napa get houses burned and it is big news; Idaho finally getting a respite from burning isn’t news; except of course to the people in Idaho. If you build your fancy house in the midst of fuel one ought to expect being burned from time to time.
“9, 10. The varying predictions of sea ice and polar bears are well-known.”
Indeed.
“11. The glacier prediction was simply an error that was corrected.”
Agreed; but that isn’t how it was presented. Was the correction plastered on the front page of major worldwide publications? Not that I remember. The magnitude of the error ought to have gotten someone’s attention except that it fed into the confirmation bias of the editors.
It’s a futbol game, FIFA challenge! WUWT will notice and highlight team CAGW fouls and missteps looking for that free kick. Team CAGW will do likewise of course.
Referees? Not in this game.
It was NOT a typo, as you insinuate. It came from the gray literature, and IGPOCC failed to correct it when an Austrian IGPOCC member contacted it, twice, about it (claiming it wasn’t sent to the right department). Patchy defiantly persisted in defending it.
PS: it’s noteworthy that the IGPOCC dept. that received these emails didn’t either: A) forward them to the correct IGPOCC dept. or B) Tell the sender to address his email to that other dept himself.
You can say that it should have been corrected more gracefully. But it was corrected, so it isn’t right to count it as a prediction.
Nick, what do you mean that a corrected prediction doesn’t count? Every doom-sect leader keeps correcting the date of the end of the world as the date arrives and nothing happens. Do they get credit for corrections?
A prediction corrected is an original prediction failure. People were scared and urged to act by the original prediction.
Javier,
It wasn’t corrected because of the unfolding of new facts. It was corrected because someone stuffed up the document process, and this was (eventually) acknowledged and corrected.
Nick: “someone stuffed up the document process”
That sounds close to “the dog ate the homework.” The IPCC has all sorts of review mechanisms to prevent faux pas of this sort. The 2035 prediction could not have been the mistake of an errant copy editor. The Asia Group co-heads in the Impacts section (WG2) (Lal and someone else) approved it over the objections of the expert reviewer from Japan). He was told that a correction would be made, but it wasn’t. This suggests complicity by the higher-ups. So does the statement Lal initially made (and subsequently disavowed) to David Rose of the Daily Mail — that “we” wanted to motivate governments to act by including this forecast.
IGPOCC cannot credibly deflect blame for this alarmist hype onto “someone.”
Being an outsider in the climate change debate, I am not too comfortable in the weeds of climate science, especially about the fine distinctions between climate and weather. The usual metric for measuring the success or failure of a prediction, whether short-term or long-term, appears to be temperature. The quantum mechanical behavior of oceans and the atmosphere might as well be represented by a black box. The basic problem is to understand what the output of the black box, the planet’s temperature, can tell us about future temperatures. Frequencies of hurricanes, wildfires and droughts, the number of polar bears on ice bergs, the waxing and waning of glaciers, sea level rises and falls and all other proxies for temperature are lower quality metrics with no significant historical records. They simply muddy the waters.
If not already done, I suggest greater attention should be given to melding long- and short-range temperature databases to identify and analyze the frequency contents. Temperature is the only global climate science metric with time-series databases ranging from over 400,000 years to less than a day. If a predictable temperature trend cannot be recognized from those databases with enough accuracy to guide policy decisions, try a different line of work.
My first attempt to better understand the problem is a simple numerical analysis of the HadCRUT4 time-temperature series. The following graph shows the rate of increase (first derivative) of the global mean temperature trend-line equation, which has been constant or steadily decreasing since October 2000. The HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly has decreased by nearly 40 percent from March 2003, the El Nino peak, to July 2017. The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years. (draft ref: An-Analysis-of-the-Mean-Global-Temperature-in-2031 at http://www.uh.edu/nsm/earth-atmospheric/people/faculty/tom-bjorklund/)
The goal of climate studies should be to successfully predict global mean temperatures within a range of values narrow enough to guide public policy decisions. Hoping to model the planet or the solar system is overreach. Assign a student the problem of doing a Fourier analysis of the data.
A final thought: If climate and weather are not comparable, but GCMs are just modified weather forecasting models, why should the GCMS work?
“The HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly has decreased by nearly 40 percent from March 2003, the El Nino peak, to July 2017.”
It makes no sense to talk of percentages of anomalies, since it depends on what base period you choose. But this makes no sense; March 2003 was 0.45°C; July 2017 was 0.653. There is no sensible measure in which HADCRUT has decreased since 2003.
Nick: My bad. The base period was not the problem. I originally was responding to a comment by someone who chose to emphasize the run-up in temperature to the El Nino peak in March, 2016. I simply wanted to point out that since March, 2016 the temp anomaly had declined about 40 percent by July, 2017. Obviously, the El Nino peak was not in March,2003. A stupid exchange on cherry-picking. I regret I got involved and apologize to the readers for my sloppy editing. Thank you for commenting.
“…It makes no sense to talk of percentages of anomalies, since it depends on what base period you choose…”
Anomalies themselves depend on what base period you choose as well. So now they make no sense as well? lol
Nick and Tom, We have been in two natural warming trends, one is very strong and long term and it continues as we come out of the little ice age, it will last another 1,500 years or longer. The second is shorter, and it ended between 2005 and 2009. The shorter one (the “stadium wave”) is about 62 years and it has peaked, so we should see some natural cooling over the next few decades. The man-made warming, if it exists, is monotonic and should add. But, we cannot know the magnitude until we understand how much is natural, and we won’t know that for decades to come.
“so we should see some natural cooling over the next few decades”
Andy, you restated almost exactly what I said in the sentence, “The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years.” My analysis is only relevant for a short-time frame. I do not know the basis for the 1500 year prediction. I could argue in less than 1500 years maybe in a few decades, the planet will be entering the next glacial period simply by comparison to the frequency and length of past glacial periods and the present short-term cooling trend.
Tom, Javier explains the longer cycle, the “Bray” cycle in his posts. See here
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/08/08/the-effects-of-the-bray-climate-and-solar-cycle/
to get started on that, it is a 2450 year cycle. The stadium wave (~62 years) is best explained here: http://www.wyattonearth.net/thestadiumwave.html
Andy says:
“We have been in two natural warming trends, one is very strong and long term and it continues as we come out of the little ice age, it will last another 1,500 years or longer.”
It’s imaginary, CET shows no warming trend between 1730 and 1930.
“The second is shorter, and it ended between 2005 and 2009. The shorter one (the “stadium wave”) is about 62 years and it has peaked, so we should see some natural cooling over the next few decades.”
The AMO envelope is about 69 years, so on that basis it should return to its cold phase from the mid 2030’s. I would expect to see it peak a few more times until then.
I have always been puzzled as to why the benchmark for temperature rise is referred to as “Pre Industrial” when they really mean “Peak Little Ice Age”.
Because otherwise everyone will understand right off the bat that worrying about a warming trend is flat-out ludicrous.
All of this nonsense to try and achieve Maurice Strong’s political aims of an unelected socialist-marxist global government.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or…. one invented for the purpose.” Maurice Strong – speech to Club of Rome – and “invented” referred specifically to ‘Global Warming !
I understand why low-intellects types like Johnson, Ivan etc would fall for this agenda driven crap.
But why seemingly intelligent people like Nick, fall for it, is beyond me. !!
The meme is embraced by statists of every variety. And some of them are very intelligent.
Ivankinsman at 09:27 The record rise is CO2 is reportedly 0.6 of a ppm, or 0.00006%. Terrifying stuff, clearly.
The report also states that last time we had this same epic concentration, 800kya, it was 2-3C warmer than now.
This rather obviously demonstrates no causative effect between CO2 and temperature, as otherwise it would be the same temp now as then for the same concentration.
(Edited) MOD
“The record rise is CO2 is reportedly 0.6 of a ppm…..”
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/ckeditor/files/GHG_Bulletin_13_EN_final_1_1.pdf?LGJNmHpwKkEG2Qw4mEQjdm6bWxgWAJHa
“The latest analysis of observations from the WMO GAW
Programme shows that globally averaged surface mole
fractions(2) calculated from this in situ network for CO2,
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reached new highs
in 2016, with CO2 at 403.3 ± 0.1 ppm, CH4 at 1 853 ± 2 ppb(3)
and N2O at 328.9 ± 0.1 ppb. These values constitute,
respectively, 145%, 257% and 122% of pre-industrial
(before 1750) levels. The record increase of 3.3 ppm in
CO2 from 2015 to 2016 was larger than the previous record
increase, observed from 2012 to 2013, and the average
growth rate over the last decade. The El Niño event in
2015/2016 contributed to the increased growth rate through
complex two-way interactions between climate change
and the carbon cycle.”
““The record rise is CO2 is reportedly 0.6 of a ppm…..””
GREAT NEWS.. Those 1600 coal fired power stations going in around the world will only help that CO2 keep climbing….
….. to the absolute BENEFIT of all life on this CARBON BASED planet of ours.
Hurray!
Well done volcanoes, oceans, and humans making bread, beer, and burning all fuel and that input from streams and rivers (see http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/Butman_NatureGeoscience_2011.pdf)
Keep up the good work!
Onward to 600ppm and beyond…
So that would be *no* causative effect. Shucks.
Javier,
Thanks for all this work.
With increased snowfall, but wind and summer temperatures unchanged, why should more glaciers be retreating than advancing now, compared with AD 1850 to 1950?
I should add sea level rise at the same rate, too, which could affect those glaciers which reach the saltwater.
I don’t know. The relationship between temperatures and glaciers is not straight forward, as there appears to be a delay. For example many glaciers experimented a rapid decline between 2001-2007 when temperatures were not increasing.
In his 2005 Science article, Oerlemans studied 169 glaciers worldwide. The fall is rapid and sustained.
He then did a very interesting thing and reconstructed temperature changes from glacier changes.
But to me the important question is that globally glaciers are at their lowest extent in thousands of years according to experts. Most agree they are at their shortest in 3000-5000 years on average. And this agrees very well with what small permanent ice patches are saying. They are releasing organic materials buried 3000-6000 years ago. We don’t have a good explanation for that. It shouldn’t be that way. In terms of continental ice the entire Neoglacial period has been erased. I find this remarkable.
Thanks.
Oerlemans clearly studied the wrong glaciers. On average, they advanced during the LIA and have retreated during the Current Warm Period, same as during cool and warm cycles of this and all prior interglacials.
That the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing and Greenland stable should indicate that something is wrong with Oerlemans’ mountain glacier “data”.
While many little glaciers might be retreating, some very big ones are staying the same or growing, and on every continent that has them. In some areas, they are both waxing and waning.
Drought in the Pacific NW shrank some of our glaciers in this decade, but they’re already growing again, thanks to the Super El Nino snowfall last winter.
This analysis of Oerlemans 2005 is like the original paper, already outdated, but shows that the most rapid recession was in the past, in the first decades after the end of the LIA, with the retreat rate flattening out more recently, despite rising CO2.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/retreating-glac-2.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/09/14/glacier_length.jpeg
Or rebounding in the NZ case.
NSIDC keeps data on some 131,000 glaciers, at last count, so choosing 169 provides ample opportunity for cherry-picking.
Gabro,
I have over 40 scientific articles on this issue, and all but one agree that the present glacier situation is the most reduced in 3000-5000 years. It seems everybody is studying the wrong glaciers. Perhaps you can point me to bibliography studying global or regional glaciers that reaches a different conclusion.
That’s exactly what should be expected. At the start of the retreat glaciers were at their maximum extension and most vulnerable. Glaciers have now retreated to their highest, most resistant ranges. There is always more melting in the early spring than in late spring, and the last patches of snow take a long time to go.
To me the important question is that according to nearly all authors, globally glaciers are at their most reduced state in the late Holocene.
Figure from J. Koch & J.J. Clague 2006 article: “Are insolation and sunspot activity the primary drivers of Holocene glacier fluctuations?” They are clearly not consensus scientists. They don’t even mention CO2. The out of trend situation is very clear (trend lines added by me).
Of course there is regional and individual variability in glaciers, but unless you can produce scientific articles that contradict this statement, I’ll continue to believe what the evidence shows. As such strong reduction goes against the Neoglacial trend, it demands an explanation. So either temperatures are higher than at any time in the past 3000-5000 years, or CO2 has a specific enhanced effect on glacier extent, or both. Since due to multiple proxy evidence I don’t believe temperatures are higher now than at any time in the past 3000-5000 years (see https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/), the most likely explanation to me is the second one. Theory says CO2 competes with water vapor for its radiative effect and thus will have maximal effect when minimal water vapor is present. Observations confirm that temperature increase is higher for winter, night minimum temperatures, when water vapor is lowest. As glaciers are very cold, the air above them is lower in water vapor, so they should be more sensitive to CO2.
I believe, based on evidence, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is specifically causing an unusual glacier retreat bigger than what would be caused by the increase in temperatures alone. To me the effect of CO2 is real, just not alarming, and on average net positive.
For me to change this opinion would require several independent scientific articles that show evidence that during the Roman warm period glaciers were more reduced than now, and not only in the Alps, in other regions of the Northern Hemisphere or the tropics too. The Southern Hemisphere has an opposite insolation evolution due to Milankovitch forcing, so it is not comparable.
Javier,
No one gets rewarded for or could even get published a paper which stated the truth, which is that maybe half of glaciers are retreating (probably fewer), a fourth static and fourth advancing (probably more). Which doesn’t take size into account. Size matters.
Cherry-picking to support an agenda, as glacier studies do, is not science. Glaciers are growing on every continent with them, so CO2 can’t be to cause of the retreat of those of their neighbors which are receding.
The Antarctic ice sheets, repository of about 90% of the freshwater on Earth’s surface, not just of its ice, are growing. Mountain glaciers aren’t a pimple on the posterior of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
You are absolutely wrong. If that was what the data showed, it would certainly get published. But it isn’t. You accuse most scientists in a subfield to participate in a conspiracy to hide the truth. You should be wearing a tin hat.
And the climate of Antarctica has very little to do with the climate of the rest of the planet. Its surface sits at ~3 km high on top of a huge mass of ice nearly at the stratosphere, without ozone, and isolated both by a circular oceanic current and the Southern Annular Mode. It might as well be in a different planet.
Your reasons to reject the glacier evidence are unscientific, so I won’t have anything to do with them.
Javier,
It’s not just Europe, North America, Africa and Asia, but South America, New Zealand and Antarctica. Today’s glacial retreat is nothing special.
You don’t have to go back as far as the Roman WP. Southern hemisphere glaciers receded farther during the Medieval WP than they have so far in the Current WP:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/medieval_warm_period.pdf
“The results they obtained by these means indicated peat from the overrun sediments dated to between 707 ± 36 and 967 ± 47 cal. yr B.P.,” which led them to conclude, “ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P. and during at least two earlier times, represented by the dates of shells, in the mid-to-late Holocene.” Then, in language pure and simple, the three researchers say their findings imply that “the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented.” This leads them to pose another important question: “How widespread is the event at 700-970 cal. yr B.P.?”
“In answering their own query, the researchers respond that (1) “Khim et al. (2002) noted a pronounced high productivity (warm) event between 500 and 1000 cal. yr B.P. in magnetic susceptibility records from Bransfield Basin,” (2) “dates of moss adjacent to the present ice front
in the South Shetland Islands (Hall, 2007) indicate that ice there was no more extensive
between ca. 650 and 825 cal. yr B.P. than it is now,” (3) “evidence for reduced ice extent at 700-
970 cal. yr B.P. is consistent with tree-ring data from New Zealand that show a pronounced
peak in summer temperatures (Cook et al., 2002),” (4) “New Zealand glaciers were retracted at
the same time (Schaefer et al., 2009),” and (5) their most recent findings “are compatible with a
record of glacier fluctuations from southern South America, the continental landmass closest to
Antarctica (Strelin et al., 2008).” In light of these several observations, therefore, it would
appear that much of the southernmost portion of the Earth likely experienced a period of significantly enhanced warmth within the broad timeframe of the planet’s global MWP. And
this interval of warmth occurred when there was far less CO2 and methane in the atmosphere
than there is today.
“In one additional study from the Antarctic Peninsula, Lu et al. (2012)4 constructed “the first
downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the
Antarctic Peninsula (AP)” that they say were “suitable for reconstructing a low resolution ikaite
record of the last 2000 years.” According to the group of nine UK and US researchers, ikaite “is
a low temperature polymorph of calcium carbonate that is hydrated with water molecules
contained in its crystal lattice,” and they write that “ikaite crystals from marine sediments, if
collected and maintained at low temperatures, preserve hydration waters and their intact
crystal structures, both of which have the potential to provide isotopic constraints on past
climate change.” So what did they find?
“The authors report that “the ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” They also state that the “most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent rapid warming,” but they add that “this climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWP,” suggesting that even the dramatic recent warming of the AP may not yet have returned that region to the degree of warmth that was experienced there during the MWP, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today.
“Examining a different region of the continent, Hall and Denton (2002)5 mapped the distribution and elevation of surficial deposits along the southern Scott Coast of Antarctica in the vicinity of the Wilson Piedmont Glacier, which runs parallel to the coast of the western Ross Sea from McMurdo Sound north to Granite Harbor. The chronology of the raised beaches they studied was determined from more than 60 14C dates of incorporated organic materials they had previously collected from hand-dug excavations (Hall and Denton, 1999); the record the dates helped define demonstrated that near the end of the Medieval Warm Period, “as late as 890 14C yr BP,” as Hall and Denton describe it, “the Wilson Piedmont Glacier was still less extensive than it is now,” demonstrating that the climate of that period was in all likelihood considerably warmer than it is currently.”
So you say.
And you keep bringing the Southern Hemisphere and particularly Antarctica to the discussion, when I have already explained to you the reasons why they are not relevant. Take a look at the insolation curves. They go the opposite way in both hemispheres.
Javier
The insolation curves in the southern hemisphere do go “the opposite way” than those up north, but, you see, the effect of the greater sunlight over longer periods of the year around Antarctica means that any given sq meter at the edge of the Antarctic sea ice reflects 1.7 times the energy (over the full year ) that the an equal area of Arctic sea ice reflects or absorbs. Thus, the ever-increasing Antarctic sea is nearly twice as important as the Arctic sea ice.
Further, seven months of the year, loss of Arctic sea ice from its 1979-2009 average means GREATER COOLING losses from the newly exposed Arctic ocean!
I am aware, RACookPE1978, but the issue we are discussing here is if global glaciers are in an unusual situation for their Holocene evolution or not. Sea ice and polar ice sheets are not relevant for this specific point.
BTW, Koch and Clague have indeed joined the CACA Borg:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225622933_Extensive_glaciers_in_northwest_North_America_during_Medieval_time
Their 2011 paper above shows that they have joined the fight to get rid of the Medieval WP, whatever you might have concluded from their 2006 paper.
You are just seeing ghosts. Whoever doesn’t share your views is part of a conspiracy. Way to go.
Javier,
You really imagine that there is no CACA conspiracy?
As in, “We need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”? “We need to get that editor fired”? “Mike’s Nature trick (to hide the decline)”?
Where have you been?
I am a scientist. I know 97% of scientists are NOT involved in any conspiracy. Just doing their job. A few examples don’t make a rule. You say these glacier scientists are making up their data. I say you don’t know what you talk about.
Javier November 1, 2017 at 6:37 am
OK, so let me get this straight. Based upon cherry-picked glaciers, you’re convinced that mountain glaciers have retreated farther than at any time since the Holocene Climate Optimum, if not farther. The Alps, which show that we still haven’t reached the Roman Warm Period level, don’t count. The many glaciers in Asia and North America which are advancing don’t count. And the whole Southern Hemisphere doesn’t count, to include not just Antarctica but South America and New Zealand.
Nor do the Antarctic Ice Sheets, with 90% of the world’s surface fresh water count.
So, only those glaciers which are retreating count.
And you suppose that this selectivity to be science?
You are doing the selectivity. I am doing my reading of the scientific literature. You don’t trust science. I do. Science will sort this mess out, you won’t.
Javier November 1, 2017 at 6:40 am
You’re clearly seeing what you want to see, and disregarding the rest.
You are entitled to your opinion. I am spoused to the evidence, because all the rest just can’t be trusted. And the evidence is found in the data from the scientific literature.
As of course are you.
I showed you the scientific literature for the Southern Hemisphere, cited in the link provided. There are lots of other such studies.
Sorry, but the 40 papers upon which you rely are clearly part of the CACA conspiracy.
That there is a conspiracy isn’t in doubt, based upon the facts. It’s possible to wonder about the motives of all those in on it, but that it exists, no.
A cherry-picked sample from 2005 of 169 glaciers out of more than 130,000 is probably not representative.
Show me a better study with more glaciers from all over the world and perhaps you will convince me.
Javier,
My link wasn’t to a single study, but dozens of them.
Consider where glaciers are located: 85% in Antarctica, 10% in Greenland and just 5% in mountain belts, such as the Andes, Himalayas, Alps and North American Cordillera. Those attached to the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are also on average more massive.
Given growth in Antarctica, how can glaciers overall possibly be retreating to the lowest points since the Holocene Climatic Optimum? That is, without cherry-picking them.
Gabro,
Polar glaciers are a different story. The same way as glaciers that end in the sea or on land behave very differently. Everybody knows that Antarctica Holocene climate evolution is different to the rest of the planet. Antarctic ice cores are quite different to Greenland ice cores.
Javier,
If there weren’t an academic-government CACA conspiracy, you and I could use our real full names.
Gabro, I personally know hundreds of scientists. I assure you not a single one of them is part of any conspiracy. Even if convinced of a wrong theory, all of them are always very careful to get their data correct, because without good data there is no science, and the data is often the only thing that survives a scientific work as hypotheses change and theories evolve. If you tamper with your data you are essentially erasing yourself from science. You will not be cited in the future and you will be forgotten.
The problem is elsewhere. This scientific dispute has far reaching social, economic, and political consequences. The people that control science can decide who gets more funding and who is going to be listened by the media.
There is no ample scientific conspiracy. A few scientists putting their interest ahead of science is clear. Many scientists trying to take advantage of the situation is very likely. Most scientists trying to hide the truth and altering or selecting the data is impossible.
Javier November 1, 2017 at 4:43 pm
You really don’t think that Mann, Jones, Overpeck, et al weren’t conspirators?
Have you read the Climategate emails?
If you’re not afraid of retribution by the academic and governmental science powers that be, why not use your full, real name?
You could also add to that failed list Southern Hemisphere “expert” such as Prof Tim Flannery predictions from Oil prices, rivers not flowing, Dams not filling, Snow not falling most neatly captured by local politician Craig Kelly in this post https://m.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/posts/473769536151019:0
my personal favourite was prophesising increased cyclone activity in 2016 (at a time when the empirical data was showing a long term trend downwards in frequency and severity) 2016 turned out not one cyclone and 2017 is continuing the downward trend.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
All of these things actually happened…..in an alternative, holographic universe. Just not in this one.
Doesn’t the nonexistent tropical tropospheric hotspot prediction from GC models count as a failed prediction?
And the AGW assumption that the atmosphere will heat up faster and more than the surface?
Surely those are epic failures of CACA prognostication.
Yes the failure is catastrophic since a part of the Troposphere that was supposed to warm,actually COOLED a little,the rest warmed by less than half the predicted rate.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempChange%20BARCHART.gif
The chart posted in May 2013 here, http://www.climate4you.com
The models would have some utility if they were always 180 degrees off target, but unfortunately, the amount of their wrongness varies.
A mere fleshwound!
“Climate scientists” are generally too lazy to try models based on something difficult to measure, like photosynthesis, preferring, instead, to base their models on something easily obtainable, like CO2 concentration.
“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. …..”
“CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario”
Apparently not.
“outside the uncertainty range of 1990”
They didn’t incorporate natural variation – so uncertainty should(would) be larger.
Here…
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
“The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990 featured relatively simple energy balance/upwelling diffusion ocean models to estimate changes in global air temperatures. Their featured business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assumed rapid growth of atmospheric CO2, reaching 418ppm CO2 in 2016, compared to 404ppm in observations. The FAR also assumed continued growth of atmospheric halocarbon concentrations much faster than has actually occurred.”
” … FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred.”
And here…http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nclimate1763
“”The range of the 1990 prediction represents uncertainty in the
sensitivity of the climate to CO2 increases, and not the noise
from year-to-year variability in the realized weather. As natural
variability was not a part of the 1990 prediction…”
“The observed trend lies just on the borderline outside the range
stated by the 1990 scientists. However, adding noise from natural
year-to-year variability through any method widens that prediction
enough to comfortably include the observed trend. The degree of
consistency between the prediction and observations thus depends
strongly on whether or how one incorporates natural variability into
the prediction. ”
“Of course, these predictions were based on idealized future
scenarios that did not foresee the eruption of Mount Pinatubo,
the collapse of the Soviet Bloc industry or the growth of some
Asian economies”
Toneb,
Every prediction comes with its own set of conditions. The second coming of Jesus is contingent with Him not getting stuck in a traffic jam. It is obvious that the conditions not being met means the failure of the prediction. Obviously the warming predictions of 1990 did not let room for the Pause. But the reasons the predictions fail are irrelevant for the general public. A certain warming was predicted and people believed it was going to happen. Most haven’t learned to distrust this type of predictions. Yesterday I watched on TV we were going to get 10-20 meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we didn’t change our ways (WMO GHG bulletin release), because it is what happened last time these CO2 levels happened. They didn’t talk about other conditions.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-new-record
Like a new CO2 record was newsworthy. What next? A new population record?
@Toneb
” Their featured business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assumed rapid growth of atmospheric CO2, reaching 418ppm CO2 in 2016, compared to 404ppm in observations. ”
Trouble is, their BAU both UNDER estimated human emissions ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/#comment-2650325), while OVER estimating the result, meaning they utterly failed on their estimation of carbon sinks which IS part — an important part — of their job (as opposed to estimating human emissions, for which i won’t blame them).
So this is not an excuse for them, this is just another fail, you added yourself to Javier’s list
Javier,
I disagree with an aspect from the first point, specifically where you state that CO2 emissions have been “Business as Usual”. Per the FAR (1990), BAU human CO2 emissions were estimated at 1.5% growth rate per year. Instead, human CO2 emissions since 1990 have grown at 2.0% per year. That’s an increase of 1/3 over BAU. So the “warming” of the global mean surface temperature of the earth should have been proportionately greater than the 0.3 deg C (with 0.2 deg. C and 0.5 deg. C as upper and lower bounds) predicted for the smoothed running average.
(Note that the FAR predicted higher CFC emissions in the coming decades than actually occurred, largely due to the Montreal Protocol being passed, so this could actually have some “cooling” credit).
Perhaps these two cancel each other out, but I wouldn’t be so sure. So much of the purported effects of CFC’s (whether as Ozone killers or as GHGs) is actually conjecture when applied to a real atmosphere, with a host of additional variables to deal with. Climate prediction is hard.
Kurt,
It’s also hard to know how much CFC’s come from space dust versus an anthropogenic source.
Furthermore, the decline in solar EUV radiation directly impacts ozone creation.
I confidently predict that there will be even more climate predictions in the future, and that nearly all of them will fail in time…
“AGW/Climate Change” the useless, unwanted, and unneeded ‘gift’ that keeps on giving more stupid predictions.
http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=restoring+the+quality+of+our+environment+1965&l=1
This article should qualify for the list. A Presidential Report commissioned by LBJ that we know was discussed at the highest levels in the Nixon administration.
10 feet of sea level rise by Y2K.
Complete meltdown of Antarctica and Greenland within 400 years, causing 400 feet of sea level rise. They explain that this would be accomplished by sea levels rising 10 feet every 10 years, although if it took 1,000 years to occur the rate would -only- by 4 feet every 10 years.
So, 10 feet by y2k, and another 4 feet per 10 years since y2k = 10 + 4*1.7 = 16.8 feet of predicted sea level rise between 1965 and 2017. I think we can safely call that a failed prediction.
The willful, reckless and negligent pursuit of a failed scientific hypothesis by those in public office, to the financial and social detriment of people at large, is actionable.
It is both a common law offence (misconduct in public office), and also gives rise to a tort (malfeasance in public office).
In English law, the elements of crime to establish are broadly: The accused must be a public officer acting as such; he must wilfully have neglected to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducted himself; the degree of such neglect/misconduct (whether by act or omission) must be sufficient to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; and, there must be no reasonable excuse or justification for such neglect.
The elements to prove in the English law tort of malfeasance in public office (which if established gives rise to claims in damages for losses suffered as a result of the malfeasance) are broadly that at the material times: defendant must have been a public officer; he must have been exercising his powers as a public officer when acting (or failing to act) in such a way as to cause the loss complained of; and, his act (or omission) was such that it exercised either targeted malice and/or was ultra vires the powers of the public office held.
What Javier has done should be repeated in a far more detailed forensic way. Then sufficient public momentum should be generated (every taxpayer is affected by this CAGW scam), funding raised, and those in public office across government, local government, universities etc well and truly “got after”, both criminally and civilly.
To misquote von Clausewitz, leniency in warfare is madness – and make no mistake, ordinary people have been under deliberate and sustained attack by the CAGW brigade for a long time. It is a scam; it has no scientific basis, and it is time those in public office who are pushing CAGW pay the price for doing so.
Did anyone else notice that the new poster-child of the melting ice meme is the walrus as previewed in “The Blue Planet”?
Yes. I imagine exactly the same flaws in the propaganda wil be exposed as have been for Polar Bears. The Walrus survived through periods of very little ice and is no declining in numbers, when proper counts are taken. They simply move when local climates changes and icrease when people stop killing them, etc.. See Polar Bears. I await the arrival of Penguins at the North Poe, due to increasing Antarctic ice caused by climate change. Time Attenborough was extinct? The Josef Goebells of climate change along with Al Gore. The camera work was brilliant, shame BBC can’t stop inserting obvious, either evidence free assertion or actual science denying propaganda into an otherwise excellent and expensive natural history programme. Anyone can check sea and land ice science, and avoid the extremist versions of it, so its not clever to do this, just manipulating the public.
Here is another long list of failed climate predictions, from WUWT in 2014:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
Thank you Javier and Andy – I wanted to record your Conclusions because they are absolutely correct:
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.
____________________
I have written similar thoughts on many occasions, such as:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/06/so-what-happened-to-expertise-with-the-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-2629131
The IPCC’s position is that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is up to ~10 times higher than it really is, and therefore humanity should beggar our economies in the developed world and deny cheap reliable energy to the developing world, in response to their fictitious threat.
As evidence of the IPCC’s utter incompetence, none of their scary scenarios have actually materialized in the decades that they have been in existence. They have a perfectly negative predictive track record, so nobody should believe anything they do or say.
Regards, Allan
None of that means a thing when you are dealing with the ‘heads you lose, tails I win ‘ approach seen in climate ‘science’. Hence, one a good reason why when asked they can never state what would disprove AGW.
This is not ‘science ‘ think religion or politics and you will understand how the game is played.
A lot of climate sceptics keep on banging on about how rising CO2 is greening planet earth. It very well might be – as a positive consequence – which is what the sceptics focus on, but of course they make no mention of the negatives – I wonder why? To quote:
The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: “The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.” Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France is simply misleading and essentially wrong in the statements you cited. .
What the hell does this mean? You have to prove he is wrong!
@ ivankinsman,
I prove it every time I step outside and see the abundance of plant life.
@ivankinsman
What the hell does this mean? Philippe Ciais makes extraordinary claim (that plants may adapt to stop taking advantage of the nutrient ! Nobel ahead ! ) that contradict all we know since Darwin, HE has to provide extraordinary proof. Not just “some studies suggest”.
Ivan,
If his statement means anything at all, it is that C3 plants gain less when CO2 goes from 800 to 1200 ppm than from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. That is true. But they still benefit.
Well, you acknowledge a positive consequence, which makes you a DniR already according to Al Gore, Nobel co-recipient.
As for negative consequence, many have been claimed (in fact all disaster, petty or huge, has been linked to climate change…), but zero evidenced. They all belong in virtual model world and media freak show, but in reality and science, zero. Even IPCC says you links are not proved.
If Philipp Ciais is right, then he deserve no less than Physiology AND Peace Nobel price, for his newly discovered mechanism of adaptation of plants (to STOP taking advantage of a more plentiful nutrient !) which perfectly reconcile Darwin and Creationists (plant adapt, but so that they stay the same as before despite any change in environment; as per God design, I guess) and extinguish a major feud. It also means we may don’t have to worry so much about climate change, as is this is true for CO2 rise, is may be true as well for water, temperature etc.
OR
He knows just as much about plant physiology and evolution as he does in climate (namely: zero).
What you think?
“Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.” Thanks captain Obvious. However, know that more CO2 also means less stomata opening, hence less water loss, meaning water is less a limiting factor, while it is the most important one. Double yummy
Ivankinsman, The CO2 fertilization effect is established by data collected in the real world. Dr. Ciais counters with hypothetical conjecture that it will not last. I go with the data.
Ivan,
the link you refer to doesn’t in any way show that Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a threat to life of the planet.
Even if Dr. Ciais is correct,it doesn’t in any way prove that CO2 level at 560 ppm,is a danger to our health or plant life.
You are running on a dead argument.
Great job. Easy to read and solidly backed. You didn’t fell to the trap of “ad hominem” against failed predictors.
Of course it is hard to keep track of all failures, so some are missing (I miss “hotspot” for instance).
I specially appreciated the “failure to predict” section.
“Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change.”
Why yes, it’s the power of settled science, don’t you know?
This is good work. Will it get mainatined to ensure it is as proof aginst attack by the hard of science so can become a reference work?
As suggested above I really would like to take a government minister and senior cicil servant to court for malfeasnace. Is there any organisation in the World preared to do that. It could be the clear fraud of bio fuel burning, in the name of renewables which makes climate change expesnively worse. Anyone responsoble for enrgypoicy must know that, or be advised of it, as it is a k THE reason renewables are subsidised. Once the actual fraud isexposed in court as a climate change protection racket by the elites, the rest of the difice can be dismantled using fact tools stone by deceitful and legislative stone, perhaps faster by repealing a whole act and just keeping the polcies? In the UK Ed Davey would be a prime target over DRAX. Who is the DECC head that slipped this deceit past Davey, or told him legalised fraud was fine, though?
Once the CAGW ideology finishes crashing and burning, I predict that mindless climate trolls like ivanconmen will finally get a brain.
Haha, fooled ya.
Isn’t it the case though that in the second assessment report (SAR, 1996) the IPCC revised the warming rate from 0.3 to 0.2°C/dec? This was due primarily to lower CFCs emission scenarios as the Montreal Protocal began to take effect; also the inclusion of the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols, which had been overlooked in FAR, 1990. This seems reasonable, what with science supposedly being self-correcting and all that.
So the question is: are observations since 1990 consistent with the IPCC’s 1996 revised warming rate of 0.2C/dec? The mean of the 3 main surface data sets (HadCRU, GISS and NOAA), which I believe is the metric used by the IPCC, gives a warming rate of 0.185°C/dec from 1990 to Sept 2017. This of course rounds to 0.2°C/dec. Perhaps not too shabby after all.
any data set need ~30 years to give any trend, meaning they currently do NOT. And you do not count years already known as a prediction, do you? meaning you have to start in 1996, not 1990.
Wait until 2026 to have any trend, and compare it to model predictions.
Although Paul the octopus would have been able to accurately predict such a number, if the process were chaotic. Oh, but it is… never mind.
paqyfelyc
The mean of the 30 year trends in the 3 main surface data sets is currently 0.18 °C/dec, which also rounds to 0.2°C/dec.
“Wait until 2026 to have any trend”
It’s this article, not DWR, that wants to test the prediction now.
DWR54
0.18 rounds to 0.2 as much as 0.15. So you mean that 0.2 to 0.5 range actually means 0.15 to 0.54999… good joke
Nick
it’s OK to test prediction published in 1990 (actually made previous year or even earlier) in 2017. And it fails. period.
Any prediction that is revised, is an admitted failure.
“Any prediction that is revised, is an admitted failure”
That’ll be all of them then…
As ALL weather/climate model runs are revised.
Why?
It’s a forecast, not a ‘tablet of stone’.
And we know more to add to the forecast as we move forward.
We should give up then?
Or gain usefullness from them.
Depends if you a glass half empty or a glass half full person, eh?
the models run hot,
revise the start point so they are in the centre of the spread for a short while.
then the models run hot,
revise the start point so they are in the centre of the spread for a short while
then the models run hot
Comprehend??? or are the facts beyond you, Tone?
DWR54,
Even after seeing how much they failed with their first round of predictions, they are still making the same mistakes. CMIP5 was set in 2010 and hindcasted up to 2006. Which means it has only forecasted for 10 years and already shows a sizeable deviation that would be much worse if it wasn’t for the big 2014-16 El Niño. So the answer is clear. Their predictions were bad, and are still bad. Either they don’t learn or they don’t want to learn due to the implications.
The world is warming a lot less than predicted, so the hypothesis is wrong as formulated. They can’t keep adjusting parameters to pretend that the hypothesis is still valid.
How they love to frighten us !! If you cry “Wolf” often enough nobody listens, least of all is frightened. Why do we give these idiots time and space?
Ivan, You state that the government relies on science to make the decisions concerning man made climate change. The Ontario government announced several years ago that they were going to convert all coal fired power plants in the Providence to biomass to phase out dirty nasty coal. That was about 3000 MW of power. I worked on the project. We did a study and the study revealed that all of the forests in Ontario would have to be harvested to support this government mandate. No problem the politicians said we will buy biomass from Europe. Europe responded No, No and Hell no we are not selling you our forests for wood. So the Ontario government made a decision based on nothing but feel good policy, not based on any real data or facts.
They ended up shutting down most of the plants, converting 1 small plant to (wink wink) convert to biomass and converted some to natural gas. The public thinks that all the plants are converted to biomass and are living the green life. False narrative promoted by the government. When power demand starts to increase there will not be enough power. I hear it gets cold in Ontario. This is the type of thing that goes on all the time and we that are skeptical remain skeptical.
What an engrossing thread, including all the comments which I’ve also read. Now I’m about 4 hours late to bed. Oh well, it was worth it.
Nick Stokes October 30, 2017 at 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.
Nick you are an idiot or deceitful or both.
When Smith made that prediction you do realise HADCRUT4 didn’t exist!! If that was the database that he was using then it is HADCRUT3 you should be checking.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/trend
Smith would be using 1998 temperatures as existed then. You do know that Jones when he decided to re-programme HADCRUT he cooled 1998 and warmed years after 2004. Smith couldn’t have known that a particular database would change the value of the year he was predicting would be well exceeded.
The value his prediction has to be compared against is the one from his reality. I rather think if you make predictions and then past post and alter the figures to suit, you can win any prediction.
Why did Jones alter his computer program? Anything to do with this do you think.
“In climate science there is a problem because of thee 1910 – 1940 period whose warming rate is almost an exact match for the 1970 – 2000 period. However, there was no real increase in CO2 during this period. In public the proponents, kind of hand wave and declare ‘oh Solar and Aerosols’ it is nonsense but then they don’t really expect to be challenged.
In private between themselves though they admit that it is not these factors and it is a problem for the theory.
So Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones
“Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.”
So what ethical scientist would write to the keeper of a global data base saying how good it would be for them and the theory if the 1940 blip could be altered, knowing full well he had the power to do that?
Still I am sure like you will no doubt say that the subsequent reprogramming of HADCRUT was done completely objectively!!
Nope, Smith’s prediction is a fail against all databases that have not been past posted to fit.
I believe Paul Matthews should have added that his comment only went to 2014.
From https://www.thegwpf.com/met-office-forecasts-global-temperature-rise/
If we assume that the jump from Hadcrut4 from 2013 to 2014 would have been the same on Hadcrut3, then 2014 on Hadcrut3 would have been 0.522. So none of the 5 years past 2009 was above 1998.
Werner,
Paul Matthews quoited correctly, the paper is here. There is no specification that the prediction is for years to 2014. In fact, the prediction is also made in the abstract, with no mention of 2014 at all. And, of course, no mention of Hadcrut 3 (which doesn’t go beyond 2013), or even Hadcrut.
From the title, it might be inferred that it applies to the decade from 2009. And of course, restricting to Had 3 is ridiculous; the lifetime of the version is far less than that of the prediction, and there is no point in speculating what HAD 3 might have said after it ended.
ps They are predicting (in 2007) a slowdown as well.
It actually goes to May 2014.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
I beg to differ. I believe that since Hadcrut3 was the only data set they had in mind, then that should be used. I believe it is ridiculous to use a brand new data set that has been revised several times, as I have documented, And with each revision, the most recent years were warmed the most.
The link I gave above says:
“So what ethical scientist would write to the keeper of a global data base saying how good it would be for them and the theory if the 1940 blip could be altered, knowing full well he had the power to do that?”
Jones is not the keeper of HADCRUT; that is a product o the UK Met office. CRU does assemble CRUTEM, the land component, but in any case Wigley is trying to work out why there is a blip in the ocean temperatures.
ridiculous: 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
is that a reality check? maaaan what did u study, millions of people r moving because of natural disasters and the proof : only one person called humself “climate change refugee” … n that s a proof??
by the way noone talks anymore about global warming : it s climate change : the effects can be different warmer or colder but mostly : stronger. You choose only the exemples that fits your point of view. You talk about glaciers , in south of France there was more than 200 (Pyrenean Mountains) now like 10.
regardin snow u choose scotland : well in scotland they had plenty of snow in your exemple : it s not normal usually not a lot at this place, also can be interpreted as a sign of climate change
In france : almost no snow at all in the last ten years , we had a lot 40 years ago.
you say : No decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent has been observed since 2007, see here and here.
but Nasa says : decrease of ice in artic since 2009 has been constant
http://www.astronoo.com/fr/actualites/banquise-diminution.html
I can found as many examples that say the contrary.
what about the oceans gettin acid?
what about animals dying everywhere (70 % of insects in Europe)?
what about air pollution ?
ground gettin poisoned?
“oh scientists n politicians lies because they got an agenda”… well dude wake up even if the climate change aint that bad (ur point of view) theyare so many other problems caused by human activites… what r you some employee of a car manufacturer? dude let scientists do thei job, ur bad at it.
Your link about Arctic sea ice is way out of date.
Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012, and has been flat since 2007, based upon data from the US NSIDC, same source cited by your Canadian article.
Please cite a source for the preposterous claim that 70% of insects are dying in Europe.
Oceans are far, far from acid. In some tested areas, they are slightly less alkaline than before, but no problems have arisen as a result.
Badscience,
Your name says it all.
– “In france : almost no snow at all in the last ten years”
You try to disprove a 45 year hemispheric trend with a 10 year local manifestation.
There is no change in NH snow cover for the past 45 years.
– “what about animals dying everywhere (70 % of insects in Europe)? what about air pollution ? ground gettin poisoned?”
You add things unrelated to the CO2 increase or to the climatic change to try to confound the issues. None of those things are due to climate change.
– “Nasa says : decrease of ice in artic since 2009 has been constant”
You show lack of knowledge or bad information. NSDIC data shows more Arctic sea ice extent in September 2017 than in September 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/10/monthly_ice_09_NH_v2.1.png
And so does DMI:
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-09.png
Therefore Arctic sea ice has grown for the past 10 years and the 10 year trend is positive. The predictions were wrong.
“The predictions were wrong.”
This was the prediction – I would say wrong because of the suddenness of the decline and not for the trend which will be realised on a longer time scale than 10 years…..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/08/Figure52.png
“Therefore Arctic sea ice has grown for the past 10 years and the 10 year trend is positive.
Also it ‘grew’ between 1990 and 2001.
It’s called natural variation or weather.
Like GMST it doesn’t and shouldn’t be expected to trend incrementally.
If natural variability is expected, as you say, what is the point in repeatedly predicting an ice-free Arctic? Are they stupid? Or are they trying to put that image into people’s mind?
How many people know the Arctic is melting? 100%? How many people know it hasn’t melted for 10 years? 2%?
And the main problem is that the natural variability is cyclic, and therefore predictable to a certain extent.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/05/arctic-ice-natural-variability/
Clearly most experts are not including this natural variability cyclicity into their models and forecasts. Therefore they are not to be trusted.
The CO₂ hypothesis is a linear (logarithmic) cause-effect hypothesis. The real climate has an important cyclical component capable of stopping the long term trend for decades. The unavoidable conclusion is that the CO₂ hypothesis only explains a part of climate change, and therefore the alarmism is unjustified.
“If natural variability is expected, as you say, what is the point in repeatedly predicting an ice-free Arctic? Are they stupid”
Some people are, yes … that is the natural state of human nature.
Then the sensationalising media get hold of it.
One or even a few idiots who shoot their mouths off about some element of AGW does not turn the IPPCC consensus into that statement.
“Clearly most experts are not including this natural variability cyclicity into their models and forecasts. Therefore they are not to be trusted.”
There may or there may not be a cyclic component.
I would tend to agree that there used to be, but that has now been subsumed by Arctic amplification of the GHE. Still with some modulation however.
The AMO does not (IMO) explain greater melting in the Being Straight and Chuckchi Seas. (one reason that the puted Iceland Ice Index is not fit for purpose of a proxy of current vs earlier ice extent).
Time will tell and 10 years is certainly not long enough for that.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031972/full
No. The media is not guilty of misinterpretation. They have been told that the Arctic was melting in just a few years by people like Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow & Ice Data Center.
But even the IPCC is guilty of not including a cyclic variability that has been reported in several scientific articles that they ought to be aware of.
Natural variability indicates Arctic sea ice isn’t going anywhere for the next 20 years, by then IPCC predictions will be hopelessly wrong. To think that Arctic sea ice depends on atmospheric CO₂ levels is obviously wrong.
“No. The media is not guilty of misinterpretation”
That’s NOT what I said
Again…
“Then the sensationalising media get hold of it.”
Sensationalising is not misinterpreting, it’s putting a ‘spin’ on it.
Happens all the time with regard to weather in the UK.
Look at the silly Express headlines FI recently.
“They have been told that the Arctic was melting in just a few years by people like Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow & Ice Data Center.”
But he is not the IPCC.
The IPCC postion is representd by that extent decline graph, and others like it.
Like I said the AMO likely does contribute to extent on the Atlantic side but I really cant find any correlation here …….
https://diablobanquisa.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/extension-hielo-marino-artico-1935-2014/
FI there seems to have been a peak in the 50/60’s while the AMO was +ve!
That you can’t find a correlation, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Obviously you have to use undetrended AMO data, as sea ice data is not detrended. This is using the same data you link:
The IPCC is usually wrong. Just not as wrong as the alarmists. They are still predicting too much warming and sea level rise for 2100 and they are taking fire for being too conservative.
The correlation is clear, but appears to break down when sea ice is below 5 million sq. km, probably because then the weather becomes a more determinant factor.
what about the oceans gettin acid?
-> has nothing to do with climate change, only with increased CO2.
ocean are not getting acide, they are getting less alkaline. AND they are alkaline for a reason: life eats up all CO2 that would reduce. Marine life also need more CO2, as land life.
what about animals dying everywhere (70 % of insects in Europe)?
-> has nothing to do with climate change, only with humans treating them as pest or having rather use the land as he see fit, instead of letting it to nature.
what about air pollution ?
ground gettin poisoned?
-> has nothing to do with climate change
Each time you focus on unreal CAGW, you unfocus on these real threats. Great things could have been done with the money uselessly invested in bird and bat choppers and fryer.
Our latest news in New Zealand via Greenpeace to our TV news and Press ‘
Record Rise in Greenhouse Gas ‘
This must have gone all around the world .The claim is that the level went from 400 parts per million to 403.3 parts per million in 2016 .They state that the previous record increase was in 1997 at 2.7 parts per million .
Petteri Taalas The secretary- general of the WMO states that “the laws of physics mean we face a much hotter more extreme climate in the future ‘
He then goes on with a lot of garbage that if emissions are not cut temperatures at the end of the century will be well above the targets set by the Paris agreement .
How soon will this prediction be disproved
Comments
I have looked at the Mauna Loa data and the present reading as at 30th of October 2017 is 404.16
Go back a year and at the end of October 2016 the reading was close to 402 .5 ppm but some of you clever guys can find the exact number .
I then go back to the 1st o January 2016 and it looks like close to 402 ppm and the 1st of January 2017 and it looks like 404 ppm .Please check exact figures but nothing like 3.3 parts a million over 12 months .
These people should be called out to explain
It was an annual rise from 2015 to 2016 of 400 to 403.3.
(I guess it’s delayed because of this ….
“The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks.”
from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
This being a free country one is free to call these things “predictions.” However to do so is destructive of the scientific method of investigation for under this method claims made by a model are falsifiable but these “predictions” are not.
This being a free country
…
We are not in a “free” country.
….
This is America.
…
Nothing in America is free.
I initially called them “broken climate promises.” We were promised this is what would happen if we didn’t severely curtail our GHG emissions.
The “Climate Change Integrity” nugget, by fraudster Peter Gleick of all places, with a fake polar bear picture and the corigendum, is priceless. The corruption level of climatism is mind boggling.
For the sake of not totally affirming our own biases, are there any legitimate predictions made that have been accurate?
Of course, Matt.
The scientific literature is full of reasonable predictions that have turned out quite correct. The world has continued warming, the CO₂ has continued increasing, heat waves have become more common, sea level has continued rising. It is just the alarmist predictions that have proven an absolute failure. Not a single one of them has turned out right. These alarmist predictions are mostly coming from a small group of activist scientists and some officials. The changes are generally less than anticipated, and on average climate change is so far mostly beneficial. As with any change not everybody wins, but the net effect appears to be clearly positive.
Of course if the warming continued forever it would eventually stop being positive. But there is no reason to believe it will continue indefinitely. Conditions change cyclically and the past shows that other similar periods never lasted more than a few centuries.
Excellent report that real scientists already know. Now, how to get the information disseminated to the population? The coming climate calamity is the total waste of earth’s scarce resources used to fight “climate change”!
Don’t forget this classic from February 2004:
” Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world”