Guest essay by Michael Greer
I was surprised, pleasantly surprised, UCLA allowed the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department to have Professor William Happer speak skeptically about Climate Change at a Physical Chemistry Seminar, until I learned two Conservative Chemistry professors had to do it under the radar. Nevertheless, in a room that could hold under 100 there were at least 50 standing with many in the hall outside. I’m told there has never been such an overflow attendance for any previous seminar in the past.
William “Will” Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science as part of the George HW Bush administration. Happer invented the Sodium Guide Star that most telescopes now have.
Dr. Happer was invited because of his accomplishments in atomic physics which would be acceptable to the other very Liberal professors in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. What wasn’t know to them was that Happer was allowed to pick the subject of his talk and he chose Climate Change.
Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.
Happer admitted he, himself, had grossly over predicted the effect of increased levels of CO2 during the 1980s. He said the hysteria over climate change is caused by computer models not observation. He pointed out the model predictions don’t come close to the observations. They predicted an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last decade but the temperature has only increased 0.05 degrees. He put up a slide that showed what the computer models predicted and what has actually been observed. The models show dramatically higher levels than have been observed. (see slide #1)
The Professor believes carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to climate change. In fact, the earth has had a CO2 famine for millions of years. CO2 was 1000 to 2000 parts per million during prehistoric times. We have a little more than 400 parts per million now. We could double that amount and little would happen. Happer pointed out the classroom we were in would have at least 2000 parts per million. The CO2 we exhale is 40,000 PPM. Each of us exhales two pounds of CO2 daily. The only effect increased CO2 has is more greening of the planet. (see slide #2)
Happer explained that water vapor is what greenhouse gases mostly consisted of and he explained how the molecules of the various greenhouse gases react. That part was a bit over my head but it wasn’t for the students in the room. He went on to explain how atmospheric circulation transports heat from the equator to the poles.
We’ve heard a lot about the acidification of the ocean caused by increased CO2, however, as Happer explained (as well as Willie Soon at the IMPROV debate) if CO2 was the cause of acidification warming would be happening on the surface, but it isn’t. The warming and acidification occurs deep in the ocean. The claim is that if acidity increases 1pH it’s a disaster but Happer pointed out that the ocean surface varies 2 to 4 pH every day. (see slide #3 and #4)
Happer then addressed rising seas. He showed several slides that show sea levels rising no faster than in the past. (see slides #5)
During Q&A a student thanked the Professor saying he gave a compelling argument with data to back it up. He then asked why so many scientists disagree. Happer gave several examples of a consensus of scientists who disagreed with scientists who were later proven right. (see slide #6)
One student said Happer neglected to include the effects of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Happer said the data didn’t reflect any increase. Another student didn’t think Happer’s presentation was scientifically rigorous. He said Happer was ignoring mountains of data that contradicted him. I wondered what mountain of data the student was talking about. Since the claim is that increased CO2 is causing warming and there hasn’t been any significant warming in 20 years what data contradicts that? Many students, however, appreciated the presentation and believed it was scientifically valid, one mentioning he appreciated the data from satellites in the presentation.
A man who identified himself as a science teacher said he would be out in the hall to discuss the fallacies of Professor’s position. I went into the hall and listened for a while. All they said was that Happer was offering opinion that disregarded data but offered no examples.
Several months ago when American Freedom Alliance brought Dr. Willie Soon to Los Angeles to speak, Dr. Soon, Dr. James Enstrom and I spent the day at UCLA trying to get any of the Professors in the fields that study climate to speak to him and none would. (see DR. WILLIE SOON AT THE IMPROV 10/2/2017; see REMEMBER THE DEBATE? NEITHER DO I 2/12/2017)
Apparently, since Dr, Happer’s seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department, as well as several other departments, are up in arms. They want to know how this happened. Who is responsible for allowing a skeptic to speak? They can’t have students questioning the Climate Change narrative. I’ve always believed when you are told not to listen to opposing opinions that’s exactly when you should. The truth can stand scrutiny.
It’s difficult not to be skeptical of the claims made by climate Alarmists when they are unwilling to even enter into a discussion with a colleague who might question their conclusions.
Michael Greer retired from the film/television industry and is the co-organizer of the Santa Monica Tea Party and the Los Angeles Tea Party, on the board of directors of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights and was a member of the Republican Central Committee for the 41st Assembly District. She is also vice president of American Freedom Alliance. Her website is: http://madderthanhell.wordpress.com/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This whole non-debate reminds me of Macroeconomics theory in the 1970s. The vast majority of economists, backed up by huge econometric models, believed fiscal policies (taxes and government spending) were all that mattered. However, a small group of economists at the University of Chicago, led by Milton Friedman, argued that amount of money in circulation mattered as much or more. They were ridiculed by mainstream (consensus) economists. Indeed, my undergraduate macroeconomics text book devoted a whole paragraph to explaining why these eccentric monetarists were wrong.
The stagflation of the late 1970s proved the monetarists were right. For a while, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. Now we are seeing more of a balance.
For those who despair about how ingrained the belief in the cult of AGW is becoming, many (Friedman, Stigler, Lucas, Becker, and Schultz) of those eccentric economists at the University of Chicago ended up as Noble Laureates.
Trouble is the ‘tax and spend’ hypothesis wasn’t hysterically indoctrinated into children throughout their entire education. Nor did the tax and spenders propose the imprisonment of Friedman and Co.
Dr. Happer helped start my skeptical journey. I just called him on the phone, drove over to Princeton, and had a conversation with him (this was in ‘07 or ‘08 maybe). It was great, because he broke it down in easily digestible chunks without being condescending or overly simplistic.
The stuff he told me about science decisions from his days working with the govt was alarming.
One large skeptic problem is failure to write & speak with clarity, to get bogged down in nonessentials, rather than use a simple metaphor or shift gears to get to the heart of the problem. We also need to stick to the “tell ’em what I’m gonna tell ’em, and then tell ’em, and then tell ’em what I told ’em” approach.
Nice work, Peter Morris and Dr. Happer.
my results also showed a bit of decline in RH values around the world, in line with a decline in global minimum T, now running at around -0.01K per annum.
there must be connection between the two?
It’s also hard not to be skeptical when climatrologists (C-rate scientists) and astronomers (cream of the crop) are at complete odds on atmospheric physics.
Great article. College campuses were once a place for discussion and debate about hot topics. Let’s hope to see more of it.
Suggest double-negative edit when you say: ..” because there isn’t no average world temperature.”
to : ” there is no average world temperature”
We need more goats.
“We need more goats”
Parliament is full of them down here !!
And a lot of them a dual citizens too.
How can one believe ANYTHING claimed by leftists?
They feel socialism works better than free markets?
And open borders are best for a prosperous nation?
The best way to help poor people is to give them money?
Confiscate guns (except from criminals who won’t turn them in) and crime will go down?
Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and young, unskilled youths will benefit?
You can keep your doctor?
You can keep your medical insurance plan?
Using fossil fuels will lead to runaway warming that will end all life on Earth?
With leftists, its just one emotional belief after another!
The only surprise would be if they actually recognized CO2 as the staff of life,
and realized the current amount of CO2 in the air is unusually low.
But you just can’t expect logic, data and reason from a leftist —
even those with advanced degrees — leftist beliefs ARE their religion.
Leftist beliefs based on faith, to this atheist,
seem a lot like conventional religious beliefs
based on faith.
Both are nonsense, to me, but what do I know?
I want more CO2 in the air
to accelerate the growth of C3 plants used for food.
And I think runaway global warming is a fairy tale!
Unlike leftists, I admit that anything I write could be wrong.
New information can make me change my conclusion.
Nothing can change a leftist’s conclusion …
although sometimes they do show some flexibility
… when they move further left !
Leftists — you can’t debate them, and you can’t shoot them.
You just have to live with them.
And tolerate their frequent virtue signaling,
and telling you how to live your life,
and telling you what words can’t be used anymore,
and what new words replaced them
Modern climate junk science is just another symptom of leftism.
If CO2 was not demonized, they would demonize the hole in the ozone layer,
or acid rain, or DDT, or ocean acidification, or … (you fill in the blank).
////Leftists — you can’t debate them, and you can’t shoot them.
You just have to live with them.///
My brother the M.D., I know he is smart but his politics tell me that intelligence does not necessarily imply any sort of critical thinking ability. He kind of scares me. But yes I will live with him and I may shoot him with a BB gun or something if he doesn’t tone it down at Christmas. At Thanksgiving he informed us that Snopes.com is a unbiased source of facts. Thank god for whiskey at times like those.
At a family gathering last winter a relative over age 60 stated out loud
that Trump ra-ped a 13 year-old girl.
My quick response was “No he did not”.
I was accused of drinking the “conservative Kool Aid”, whatever that is.
Of course this liberal reused to debate the claim.
They rarely debate — only if they have memorized some talking points!
I would not have believed it if I had not been there!
“I know he is smart but his politics tell me that intelligence does not necessarily imply any sort of critical thinking ability.”
Don’t matter how big your boat’s motor is, if you never untie from the dock . .
Excellent report. But I think that “isn’t no average” should be “is no average” in this paragraph
“Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.”
Why allthe blogging regardinga simple typingerror. Surely we all know what hemeant……………
The “mountain of evidence” is a justification used by the left. Like “it’s been debunked repeatedly” tact taken by HRC. It’s used to catch the questioner off guard by implying their being ignorant.
“Mountain of evidence” = because we say so!
you’ve got to learn the leftist language!
OT.. It appears that South Australia has bought some large diesel generators to back up their wind/battery electricity supply.
Such progress 😉
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/12/south-australia-heads-back-100-years-to-diesel-with-battery-back-up/#comments
The blackouts the battery was supposed to prevent.
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/almost-150-businesses-without-power-in-the-adelaide-cbd-during-the-second-black-out-in-a-week/news-story/82042e02b13473cf6157a857f1213df9
Three cheers for Dr, Happer. The seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, will drive a grand witch hunt and inquisition in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. Other departments, will be drawn into the wild
Maelstrom of fury at the Truth being exposed to students and public. There will be an inquiry into how this could have been allowed to happen. A scapegoat will be found for allowing a skeptic to speak publically. Climate Change Dogma cannot be challenged and is supported by 97% of funded researchers.
Is there a video of Prof. Happer’s seminar?
“We could double that (400 PPM) amount and little would happen. Happer pointed out the classroom we were in would have at least 2000 parts per million. The CO2 we exhale is 40,000 PPM.”
Before anyone starts to consider CO2 as pollution or high CO2 levels as dangerous remind them that a life-saving emergency medical intervention that is taught in every First Aid course is mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. 40,000 ppm CO2 does not mitigate the oxygen provided to the person in dire need.
However, never allow yourself to receive this from my sister. My older sister. She’s a vampire.
Did he happen to speak about the melting glaciers and returning snow line? To paraphrase, observation contradicts the data.
Look around, more forest fires, shorter winters, the Antarctic is falling apart. There are satellite images showing the earth getting warmer.
I was also under the impression, the average temperature is not based off the global temperature but specific recordings taken from the pre industrial time. The recordings for selected areas around the world were averaged yearly and now they use that data to compare to today’s yearly averages.
Satellite 🛰 images also show the earth getting greener. Because of CO2. Which is good.
Some glaciers are melting, as you’d expect coming naturally out of the Little Ice Age. Others are growing and staying the same. No evidence supports a connection with CO2.
The world has lately been getting snowier. If there is anywhere where the snow line is retreating, it has nothing to do with CO2.
Far from falling apart, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most freshwater on earth, is gaining mass. Parts of the tiny West AIS are losing mass due to volcanic activity.
Satellites show far less warming than the cooked book so-called surface “data”, which are a mix of faked surface and phony below ocean surface lies. Reconstruction of past temperatures are constantly tampered with, i.e. “adjusted”, to cool the past and warm more recent decades.
And even the made up “data” don’t come close to the GIGO computer model projections.
Fantastic heart-warming story, getting the ecofasc1sts jowlflapping and making them look stupid on multiple levels. Prof Happer is the towering scientific hero that Elon Musk is not.
Asked before, but what is the climate we are shooting for? We need to define the “goldilocks climate”, ya think?
All I see is if we go up a degree or two in 100 years we are doomed. So is the temp of 1950 or 1850 or 2000 what we are shooting for? Was our temp in 1980 the ideal?
Somehow, humans and many animals survived a really significant change in global temp and actual weather about 14,000 years ago. Sea level rose by dozens of meters. Humans figured out how to grow crops and raise herds of animals for milk and meat.
I am not sure about what the alarmists are going for other than that we are gonna be miserable due to heat and at the same time we will revert to 18th century technology. I want my iPad!!!! Ba waaaaahhhhhh!
Gums rants….
Goldilocks climate for whom and where ?
Goldilocks for central Kazakhstan probably a bit different to goldilocks for Florida.
And then there is that crop growing business.
There’s a body of opinion that suggests it has all been downhill for humanity since agriculture started.
Your iPad is similar to cropping. Cropping forces you to stay in the same location.
You are now a prisoner of iTunes
I’d love to be fully sceptical about human induced climate change- I really would. But I can’t. I don’t believe AGW will be catastrophic but I can’t see any way that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will produce a negligible effect.
The problem is that, as CO2 levels increase, it will accumulate in the higher colder layers of the atmosphere. This means that a higher proportion of terrestrial radiation will be emitted to space from those higher COLDER layers. Basic physics (S-B Law) tells us that the rate of energy emission is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. This MUST mean the rate of emission will be reduced so the earth will be cooling at a slower rate while it is still receiving a constant source of energy from the sun.
In other words more CO2 means – The EARTH MUST WARM.
The MODTRAN program can be used to simulate outgoing energy spectra with remarkable accuracy from any location on earth. If we double atmospheric CO2 levels MODTRAN calculations tell us that (without an increase in temperature) there will be an energy imbalance (incoming greater than outgoing) of ~4 w/m2 at TOA. Restoring equilibrium would require a surface temperature increase of between 1 and 1.5 deg C (ignoring feedbacks).
Sorry, folks, I’ve thought about this for some time and pretty much ALL serious “sceptical” scientists agree with this analysis. Spencer and Lindzen might argue for a lower sensitivity figure based on a negative feedback but the basic theory remains sound.
John Finn,
Granted you get 1 to 1.5C for doubling, the idea that this temperature increase is more harmful than beneficial is still dubious. The CAGW hypothesis is much more tenuous than the the temperature increase with CO2 doubling hypothesis. The models still don’t reproduce the data so the climate is obviously more complex than MODTRAN calcs.
1. I never said warming would be harmful. The net effect could indeed be beneficial.
2. The models include positive feedbacks which give enhanced warming projections. To date CO2 is responsible for about 2 w/m2 warming above pre-industrial levels. This has resulted in an increase of 0.8 deg C (about 0.4 per w/m2) Doubling CO2 will change the TOA flux by 3.7 w/m2.
0.4 x 3.7 = 1.48 deg C – almost exactly in line with MODTRAN (no feedback) calculations.
The effect of doubling, i.e. 1.1 to 1.2 degrees C is negligible due to net negative feedbacks on our self-regulating water planet.
Due to the logarithmic GHE, much of whatever warming will occur in going from a starvation level of essential trace gas at ~280 ppm in AD 1850 to ~560 ppm around AD 2100 has already happened, at present ~400 ppm.
So, no worries. More CO2 is good for plants and other living things. Optimal would be 1200 ppm, as De. Happer has noted.
The feedback effect is not yet clear. I suspect it’s slightly positive.
CO2 is still effective at higher colder layers. Logarithmic doesn’t mean negligible.
Delta E = 5.35 x ln(c1/c0) where c1 is current/future CO2 levels; c0 is pre-industrial CO2 levels.
Plug in 400 ppm and 560 ppm
at 400 ppm Delta E = 5.35 x ln(400/280) = 1.9 w/m2
at 560 ppm Delta E = 5.35 x ln(560/280) = 3.7 w/m2
So we’ve had about half the warming we can expect from doubling CO2. However, some of that warming will be due to increases in other ghgs such as methane so we might have had a bit more than half
John,
Of course logarithmic does not mean negligible. But we have already had about half of the warming to be expected from a doubling, without feedbacks.
Even if feedbacks are positive, which I highly doubt, the effect of two v. one degree is indeed negligible, as occurring mainly at high latitudes in winter at night.
The fact that there has been no warming at the South Pole, where it should be the greatest, suggests however that either the GHE is much weaker in the climate system than in the lab, or feedbacks just balance it out.
How odd that the ONLY warming in the satellite record has come from El Nino and ocean “events”
No sign of any CO2 warming at all.
The two periods before and after the 1998 El Nino are basically trendless.
ENSO is cyclical. El Nino warms while La NIna cools. The atmosphere supports a warmer temperature now than it did 30 years ago.
Further to my earlier post. Energy accumulated in the climate system isn’t just realised as an increase in surface temperature. Much of it is stored in the bulk of the ocean. We will, therefore, see fluctuations in the rate of surface warming which will be determined by ocean oscillations.
However, the long term trend will continue to be upwards.
“However, the long term trend will continue to be upwards.”
Brain-washed mantra.
Will be funny watching you as the global temperatures start to drop over the next year or so.
Worm and squirm around the FACT that there is NO CO2 warming signature n the satellite dat.
Only warming has come from the El Nino, which have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 or anything else to do with humans.
There is no “A” in CAGW and certainly no “C”…..
…. just a slight, but highly beneficial, solar based GW.
You missed out the second part of the iteration. As the heat increases the LWR cooling increases to compensate. GHE is net zero. Real GHE in real glasshouses works through convection because they have roofs.
Jim
You are 100% right
.CO2 is not a roof but clouds act like a shade cloth .Clouds keep the temperature cooler when the sun is shining and hold the heat from dissipating once the sun sets .
On a clear night the heat accumulated in the surface of the land heads out to space and in the winter frosts occur when the temperature rapidly drops sometimes up to 20 degrees . .
John Finn
The problem is that, as CO2 levels increase, it will accumulate in the higher colder layers of the atmosphere. This means that a higher proportion of terrestrial radiation will be emitted to space from those higher COLDER layers. Basic physics (S-B Law) tells us that the rate of energy emission is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. This MUST mean the rate of emission will be reduced so the earth will be cooling at a slower rate while it is still receiving a constant source of energy from the sun.
But you’re missing the sweetest part of it.
CO2 makes the equilibrium radiation level (ERL) go higher.
So granted – as you say – it will be colder so less radiation.
But the added CO2 in the atmosphere – which has caused the elevation of the ERL – also increases the emissivity of the air at the ERL.
More radiation from higher CO2 x less radiation from higher colder ERL = NO CHANGE.
This is what the geological record overwhelmingly shows – CO2 following ocean temperature changes with a delay but NOT driving temperature.
What a cruel betrayal – CO2 radiation itself defeating CAGW.
Et tu – CO2? Then fall, CAGW!
NO! Without greenhouse gases radiation would be emitted directly from the surface at much higher temperatures. In the presence of ghgs, this energy is absorbed higher in the atmosphere where it is emitted at lower temperatures.
You need to think about this.
ERL is not a real physical layer/level from which the earth loses most of its radiation. Radiation leaves the planet from all over the place at all levels in the atmosphere (and in all directions too, lots sideways). Some leaves the surface of the earth without interacting with a single molecule of atmosphere.
Do you dispute that increased CO2 confers the atmosphere higher IR emmissivity? If so, why are we talking about CO2 at all, except as a plant fertiliser.
“Without greenhouse gases radiation would be emitted directly from the surface at much higher temperatures”
Oh, so you are saying that GHGs keep the surface cool. Thanks. 🙂
I just keep asking as to why the statistical correlation between CO2 increase and Temperature (anomaly for your sake Nick) is not trotted out to shut us up. Could it be that there is none or very little?
Just asking.
The state of science on any topic is always somewhere between incomplete and completely wrong. At best the currently accepted working hypothesis and is progresses by testing, refining and often discarding those hypotheses. Or it should.
Continental Drift, is now established “science” but … it’s been pointed out (with maps to illustrate) that the continental fit is best at the bottom of the continual shelves – seems worth considering – sea level is transient – why should today’s coastline be more relevant than any other elevation? But cue derision. The earth would have to be smaller – how did it grow and on and on….
It was known that waves needed a medium through which to propagate, so when radio waves were found to travel through a vacuum, the “Ether”, stuff out there we couldn’t detect, was invented. Fast forward about 100 years and the sums told us there must be stuff out there in the Universe that we can’t detect, so cue “Dark Matter”. This year it was thought a smidgin of DM had been detected for the first time. About the then it was also reckoned that if you redo the sums you don’t need DM. Neither should be critised for pursuing either line of research
Big Bang – terrific headline grabber but is its hypothecation the result of backward extrapolation beyond the limits of the equations used (don’t claim to be able to do the sums, but limitations on the range of values for which an equation is valid are common)? And again there’s a paper about out there that proposes an alternative starting scenario.
Then there’s the really serious stuff like – eggs: good/bad/good. Animal fat: good/baaad/good …
Following the scientific method, the burden of proof must shift to those claiming CO2 controls global temperature. What is the compelling evidence for this? The claim has been falsified by the 800-year lag in CO2 increase vs. temperature in the Vostok ice core. Sherwood Idso published this contrary evidence in 1988. Up to now the alarmists have no compelling evidence for their claim. That so many people and politicians believe it can be described as mass delusion. International climate agreements are the modern witchcraft trials for the crime of weather cooking.
Oh boy but how they just HATE those damned ice cores. In the endless fruitless search for an anthropogenic smoking gun they turned up with a smoking howitzer which blew the foundations of the whole rotten edifice clean out instead. They really, really HATE those damned ice cores which cannot be vanished.
You might think being scientists and everything that when ice core after ice core completely refutes their hypothesis they might begin to entertain the idea that just perhaps the hypothesis is wrong. But not a bit of it! This is how it is patently obvious to any with eyes to see that here we have a full-blown religion which has nothing to do with science whatsoever.
“We don’t eat fossil fuel.”
Well actually we do, at least in the sense that if we phased out fossil fuel we could not feed the world’s population. The US could not feed its own population.
It takes about 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food.
(Units in calories, not Calories = 1000 calories).
In the US and probably elsewhere, half of wheat crop yield is from oil and other fossil fuels. What was 35 bushel land is now 100 bu/A land thanks to improved seeds and fossil fuel-based fertilizer, pesticides and vehicle fuel.
Yet another pro-climate sceptic article on WUWT. It has now been shown how whacky some of the arguments put forward by the sceptics are and this is yet another example. This study shows very effectively how sceptics rely on sources that simply confirm their own arguments, even though they are not based on science or written by people who are unqualified on the topics they write about: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial
Ivan,
Dana Nuccitelli? Seriously?
Actually, far from being vast, there is no evidence supporting man-made global warming. It’s possible that humans have had some effect, just not detectable. We don’t even know whether that effect is net to warm or cool the planet, but in any case, not measurable.
Please present some if you think there be any at all. Might be a Nobel in it for you. As usual, Dana didn’t.
OTOH we do know for sure that more CO2 in the air has been highly beneficial for plants and all living things which depend upon them.
Poor Ivan.. ZERO evidence of anything, yet again.
Just mindless propaganda yapping from the Gruniad, which you fall for every time.
Do you REALLY think there is one single bit of science in that childish link of yours?
Stop injecting Klimate Kool-Aide , maybe your mind will actually start to think for itself, instead of being so easily swayed by mindless propaganda.
That’s VS and you know it :). It is extremely convincing research proving the scientific research underpinning climate change … and the totally random unscientific sceptic fallacies. Keep up the good work my friend but it is to an increasingly shrinking audience.
ROFLMAO..
Convincing research… to a 5 year old, perhaps.
If you think that guardian article was anything but a slimy ad hom attack, you are mindlessly wrong, as always. There is ZERO science in that article, just a meaningless mantra based attempt to slime realist blogs.. FAILED miserably.
Arctic sea ice has been steady for 10+ years after a highly beneficial drop from the extremes of 1979.. still in the top 10% of Holocene extents. The sea ice bed-wetting is based purely on IGNORANCE.
There is little to no “human caused global warming”, except by data manipulation.
Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012.
Nice cherry you picked there Gabro. Everyone knows that 2012 was the record (satellite era) low point for Arctic sea ice.
…
AndyG55, 10 years is not long enough to determine a trend.
Its CYCLIC, there will be no long term linear trends.
Go and learn something before commenting next time.
AndyG55, where is your data that shows it is “cyclic?” You need a lot more than 30 years to show it.
..
..
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20111004_Figure3.png
Cyclic???
.
Your second graph is pure BS from the SkS, fakers.
The first graph illustrates the drop from the extreme level of the late 1970s
REAL data shows that level as being up with the extremes of the LIA.
Do you REALLY want the world to drop down to that freezing period again?
If so, move to Siberia.
Every bit of REAL data shows the temperature in the region strongly linked to the AMO
The AMO is now starting to turn back downwards.
Arctic sea ice is still within the top 10% of extent for the Holocene.
During the first 7000+ years it was often close to “summer ice free”.
Current levels are ANOMOLUSLY HIGH….. onely just a bit down from those of the LIA
do you comprehend !!!!
Here is the Arctic sea ice against the AMO. (ice extent is flipped)
And you can see why the AGWers are now starting to PANIC as they KNOW that the sea ice will start to increase over the next several years.
They are not as ignorant as they put forward in their façade to fool their brain-washed apostles.
You can see why they have to either start around 1979 or fabricate the data before that.
There is plenty of evidence that there was a huge increase of sea ice leading up to the late 1970’s
No AndyG55, the 2nd graph comes from NSIDC.
…
Your first graph ends in 1998, and show no “cycle” besides the fact that the y-axis units of “Koch” is not well defined.
..
Your 2nd graph doesn’t show Arctic sea ice, which happens to be the subject we’re discussing.
..
Finally, thank you very much for presenting your last graph. It defiantly shows there is NO CYCLIC BEHAVIOR in sea ice.
MASIE has current Arctic ice level above 2006, 2007, 2010, 2016.
The recovery from the extremes of the late 1970s has , unfortunately come to a halt.
A lower sea ice extent, even down to that of the MWP would have been highly beneficial to the whole region.
Commerce, travel, fishing, mining etc would have become possible for more than a couple of months a year.
But that dream will not come to pass, as Arctic sea ice starts to increase over the next several years.
The MASIE data product only begins in 2006, so it’s not good for comparison
..
https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_faq
…
Item #5:
“The initial MASIE product had a nominal gridded resolution of 4 km x 4 km that spans 01 October 2006 to present at a daily resolution”
Andy, please refrain from linking to FAKE NEWS New York Times
NYT used to be solid…. then it got taken over by the leftist agenda, and became totally unreliable.
Anything INFECTED by that agenda become unreliable, because it means that facts become irrelevant.
There is ZERO trend in the whole of the MASIE data since 2006
It is behaving exactly as it should with its relation ship to the AMO.
The AMO is starting to turn downwards
Arctic sea ice bed-wetters are starting to panic.
NSIDC has 2017 ahead of 2006, 2010, 2012 and 2016.
It will be hilarious watching you guys if it tops out above every year back to 2006, which is looking a distinct possibility.
GROWING !!!
Andy, 10 years of data is not sufficient to discern a “trend”
..
Besides, your data doesn’t show any type of cyclic behavior, and doesn’t even show correlation with the AMO.
…
Throwing out irrelevant data doesn’t help prove your point.
warming in 1922.
And we all know there was a global cooling scare after 1940
CYCLIC !!!!!
Cooling.. Arctic sea ice INCREASING
Leading to the peak in the late 1970s
Newspaper reports are not “data” and scientifically unreliable.
Denial of facts.
All you have left.
Why would anyone be writing papers about that back then.. No money in it.
Do you DENY that these are real comments from real scientists?
“scientifically unreliable”
You mean like SkS, Gaurdian etc 😉
Scientific papers showing Arctic sea ice is not lowest in history:
Web post by Kenneth Richard
http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/30/2-more-new-papers-affirm-there-is-more-arctic-ice-coverage-today-than-during-the-1400s/#sthash.HOopgjBx.dpbs
Stein et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/abstract
Yamamoto et al
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1111/2017/cp-13-1111-2017.pdf
Moffa-Sanchez & Hall
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01884-8
When you talk about ZERO evidence, what do you mean exactly? That is just a wild claim made by a sceptic who cannot accept that his argument is now a hollow one. Sceptics are simply talking to each other now in echo chambers while the rest of the world – and the majority in the USA – move on:
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/12/01/global-warning-greenland-ward-ac-pkg.cnn
Yup Greenland is cooling. Yup Anderson Cooper and Clarissa Ward have never seen this chart
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IG9DY45vi0Q/T8PR95c-uqI/AAAAAAAAAcs/H4Q6yUL7prk/s1600/GISP2+Ice+core+measurements.jpg
“Yup Greenland is cooling. Yup Anderson Cooper and Clarissa Ward have never seen this chart”
Seems you haven’t “seen” that that chart is not up to date and (although posted ad nauseum on here) is disputed by this very website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
How about this one, that includes modern warming ….
Oh, and the top of the Greenland plateau is not a proxy for the whole of Earth.
Would you accept it as one if it “proved” warming?
Exactly.
Toneb
there is evidence of settlements in Greenland made a thousand year ago that are only becoming visible now.
indeed the Vikingers thrived in this period and it is claimed they even were in America.
We also know from various investigations that there is a 1000 year SC named after Eddy who determined it.
And indeed, all the historical records indicate that the arctic warming has been with us before, 1000 years ago.
hence we found in the 16th century my countryman Willem Barentz trying to find the ‘passage’ to the east.
Sadly, as you know, he died trying to find it. Do you think he would have risked his life unless there was some persistent evidence that the passage existed?
Like I showed you [earlier on this thread] there is no man made warming. It is all natural, i.e. variation in irradiation and /or shifting of earth’s iron inner core.
Toneb
must say, you pushed in another graph there, showing the increase in atmospheric CO2 (g)
is this supposed to scare us?///
I remember that was the punch liner of Al Gore as well, stepping up on a special staircase to show how bad we really are.., leaving me and my big 4 x 4 diesel truck feeling guilty,
as I often times take my dogs up the hills..
It did not take long for me to figure that there are causes and effects:
Namely, there are giga tons of bi carbonates in the oceans and any sort of heating would release .the CO2 (g), [as it did in the past}
warming + HCO3- => OH- + CO2 (g)
This is like boiling a kettle, and you know that the first smoke you see is that of the CO2 coming out?
“Yet another pro-climate sceptic article on WUWT”
What a surprise!
The Right deals on facts.
The Left deals in perceptions.
That’s all you need to know.
I agree with mothcathcher that there must be something wrong in his referencing to the pH of the oceans. We are talking about such minute changes here (hundreds of a pH unit) that even most modern pH meters cannot detect it as it falls within the error range – unless they have somebody to calibrate the pH meter every hour or so?
John Finn
On what paper would you base your decision that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling?
Sorry to disappoint you.
There is no man made warming caused by CO2. Here is the result of my investigation on that:
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.