Guest opinion by David Archibald
The global warming hysteria was reaching a crescendo in the lead up to the climate confab in Copenhagen in 2009 when a civic-minded person released the Climategate emails, deflating the whole thing. Those emails demonstrated that the science behind global warming was more like science fiction, concocted from the fevered imaginations of the scientists involved.
Nigh on 10 years have passed since then and we are currently experiencing another peak in the hysteria that seems to be coordinated worldwide. But why? Why now? The global warming scientists have plenty of time on their hands and plenty of money. Idle curiosity would have got some to have a stab at figuring out what is going to happen to climate. Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?
The passage of those ten years has given us another lot of data points on the global warming. There are now 40 years of satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature and this is how that plots up for the Lower 48 States:
What the graph shows is the departure from the average for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average. Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled? No, not rationally. Is it possible for global warming to be real if the atmosphere has cooled? Again no.
Now let’s look at carbon dioxide which is supposed to be driving the global warming, if it was happening. A lab high up on Mauna Loa in Hawaii has been measuring the atmospheric concentration since 1958. As it is the annual change in concentration that is supposed to be driving global warming let’s see how that plots up:
What it shows is that the driving effect has been in a wide band from 1979 when the satellites to measure temperature went up but the trend is flat. Think about that – 40 years of forcing and no result in the actual atmospheric temperature. If it was ever going to happen it would have happened by now.
The opposite of global warming is global cooling. What are the chances of that? Pretty good in fact. Only one graph is need to show the potential for that – the aa Index which is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field strength. Records of that have been kept since 1868:
The second half of the 20th century had a solar magnetic field strength that was 50% higher than that of the last 60 years of the Little Ice Age. That ended in 2006. We are now back to the solar activity levels of the 19th century and that may bring the sort of climate our forbears had then.
And so it has come to pass. January-February had record cold over North America. Seemingly the polar vortex was everywhere because Japan also had record cold.
Waiting for global warming to happen is like Waiting for Godot. It is never going to happen and the wait is getting beyond tedious.
In the meantime there is no evidence for global warming and the opposite is happening, as shown by the record cold we have just experienced. It is time to stop giving global warmers the benefit of doubt – they are loons. That includes Rick Perry.
David Archibald has lectured on climate science in both Senate and House hearing rooms.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quite a few ground based Weather Stations show the same thing.
It is definitely the case that Global CAGW doesn’t mean what we think it means.
Catastrophic Anti Global Warming. There, fixed. We can keep on running.
Lots of us think that’s why they lowered the bar to 1.5C.
By the time CAGW has been unwound, most of the guilty parties will still be alive and can be held accountable for their fraud.
No accountability as they can claim they acted in good faith according to the best scientific knowledge at the time. They’ve got the reports and articles to prove it.
Commie, they didnt just lower it to 1.5C. They also moved the starting gate from 1950 to 1850 to bankroll 0.8C. They really reduced it to 0.7C to 2100. This came about when their 1988 forecasts for 20 yrs hence proved to be +300% greater than observations and we were well into a 2-decade “pause” in temperatures with 30 % more CO2 having been added to atmos.
Basically they are seeing about the same rate as the past 150yrs. They had to make another 0.7C look dangerous, though. Archibald is onto something here. They are desperate to get some savage legislation on CO2 so if cooling is in the cards, then they can take credit for saving us using global gov by elites.
Is it actually possible to lower CO2 emissions within the next decade without causing global economic catastrophe? I don’t think so.
Now we all know that the heat is hiding deep down in the vast Oceans, just waiting to pop up and prove to you deniers just how wrong you are.
There is far too much money for this scam to quietly fall over, so expect lots of excuses, and there will be plenty of politicians who will want to continue to scare us, with the usual, “”Only we can save you” mantra. Just keep voting for us of course.
MJE VK5ELL
“””””Now we all know that the heat is hiding deep down in the vast Oceans”””””
Yes, and it´s a travesty we can´t find it.
If the “missing heat” is getting sucked is into deep oceans we can safely stop worrying about. It will make an infinitesimal change to vast body water and it really does not matter to any one or anything.
Not for the next 1500 years give or take
Lots of luck in finding the heat since 90% of ocean water is below the thermocline. Could claim some latent heat if they ignore tide gauge data and use satellites to measure sea level.
The oceans hold about 99.9% of the enthalpy of the air-oceans system. The energy content of the atmosphere is inside the error bars. The contribution of CO2 is therefore 0.0004 of the total. I.e. indistinguishable from Zero.
Yes, the heat is in the ocean. All of it. Nowhere to go, nothing to hide.
The oceans are still warm. I think it will take a few years before they cool to declare in fact the warmer period is over. The North Atlantic is turning colder already but the current El Niño will keep the Pacific warm for a while. Since the oceans contain all the heat so to speak, when (if) they go cold we are there.
The big part of this is when the oceans go cold and if the Sun remains in a weaker state, it will take decades to warm back up after the Sun inevitably cycles back in strength. Then we will see the real meaning of “Climate Change” and not the hothouse Earth it means now.
One of the ways the oceans stay warm is by the absence of upwelling cold water off the west coast of S. America. Within the last couple of weeks this upwelling appears to have started up again. If this continues I expect La Nina to form this fall and a lot of that Pacific warmth to disappear.
The day there is accountability for hoaxes is the day people will stop creating them, so like never.
David
Nice, clear and concise presentation.
Maybe this site could offer an “Occam’s Award”?
more like obsfucation
You would know.
Who the hell knows what ‘obsfucation’ is?
Typical – a couple snarky, badly- spelled posts with grammar consistent with about one drink too many.
Kinda makes you wonder if the rest of his work is that sloppy.
From which Weed Patch did you make that observation, Mr. Mosher. The one that says “the U.S. is not the world?” The one that says “CO2 is not the only consideration?”
Come clean, Mr. Mosher. Drive-by comments are just teasers to you, aren’t they?
Too late, Dave. Mr. Mosher has left the building.
Thank you Ron. I used to say Elvis has left the building after a visit to the smallest room in the house but now a more definitive name has surfaced (I dont like insulting people but I also believe in give and take).
To be fair, the temperature graph is for US. While the global temperature isn’t -0.03°, it has also cooled off a lot from the El Niño highs of 2016.
While CO2 concentrations continue to increase, temperatures are positively blasé.
Beats mindless tedium.
Well you guys can control the weather with your little tool box. If stations start showing cooling, they can simply be “moved” – yeah, I get it that there can be good reasons for moving stations but after having many criticisms of the record simply countered by “moving” I came to the understanding that this makes a great guise for also moving stations or removing stations reas9ns that aren’t good. A good lie should have some speckles of truth.
The algorithms used by tempkeepers that make what the avg temperature in the future will be for 1950 more of a mystery than the same for 2100 is another. Apply it to the entire Holocene and the Younger Dryas disappears.
Obfuscation: the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
I guess in your case, Steven, it means looking at the sacrosanct “settled science” of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change. To the true believers, a skeptical approach is “obfuscation”, also “blasphemy” and “heresy.”
And David never insulted(or attempted to insult) anyone. This is the type of sunologist to whom I like to listen.
This is Anthony’s blog and Anthony would not approve of not playing nice.
David,
His tolerance toward Willis’ and Leif’s insulting antics makes me doubt this notion.
I always read your articles with interest and sympathy.
Ditt, Bob Hoye!
I like the Occam Award… How about a razor paring a hockey stick mounted on a steam table…or a Carnot cycle?
Cheers
Mike
oops
Ditto
Mike
Can I ask why you chose the North American part rather than the UAH global data?
Just curious. Thanks
It does appear to be a cherry pick. However, it is possibly the first major land area to see the impact of the changes in geomagnetism. Time will tell.
With the post 2006 time frame we can verify the UAH dataset by comparing it with the CRN was one possibility I was thinking of but didn’t see in the article. The CRN is quality data.
“ rather than the UAH global data ” ==> +0.36 Cel degrees
A good analyst would look at all the data to diagnose warming.
1. OHC first and foremost as that is where 90% of the heat would go.
2. Global land
3, Global Ocean
4. Then move up in the atmosphere.
Plotting % change in c02 is also a physical joke
Steven
1. Why is that? Exactly how would the OHC rise prior to the atmospheric temperature?
I have heard many explanations of how CO2 can cause oceans OHC to rise but none that explain how that can happen prior to the atmospheric temperature increase, so if you could please explain the process.
If he tries to explain the joke, it isn´t a joke anymore.
A joke that needs an explanation reflects more on the teller than the listener. For the first time in a long time I am actually curious what he has to say.
I’m not sure what the ‘joke’ is – but I guess the punch-line is ‘obsfucation’.
Bob
He is telling a physical joke. And the way he sees causality, he needs the explanation.
And you are right, he is twisting causality, as “they” always are. First comes warm, then CO2 rises.
He´s doing his “hit and run” again, and he never explains nothing.
Bob: The atmosphere and the surface of the ocean are exchanging heat at a rapid rate. An average 333 W/m2 of downward LWR vs 390 W/m2 of upward LWR, 80 W/m2 of latent heat, 20 W/m2 of sensible heat. To some extent, the temperature of the atmosphere and the ocean reach a steady state relationship. The warmest and coolest temperatures over land away from the ocean typically occurs in July and January, about a month after the maximum and minimum solar irradiation. This is because it takes some time for the mass of the atmosphere and the land beneath it to warm given its heat capacity. In the case of ocean SSTs the lag is modestly greater and seasonal changes in temperature penetrate down to roughly 50 meters due to mixing by winds. In the presence of a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance, the atmosphere and the top 50 m of the ocean – if isolated – would warm 0.2 degC/year. So, from a climate change point of view (ie a decadal time scale), the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean warm and cool in parallel.
However, there is a massive amount of cold ocean below the surface “mixed layer” that is slowly and chaotically exchanging heat with the surface. A slowdown in this exchange will produce warming at the surface and in the atmosphere and a speedup will produce cooling – all without any radiative imbalance at the TOA. This is called internal or unforced variability in climate. One simple way to look at an El Nino is as a slowing down in upwelling of cold water off the coast of Peru and of subsidence of warm water in the West Pacific Warm Pool. This internal variability can warm global temperature 0.3 degC in six months! And none of it is driven by a radiative imbalance at the TOA.
Of course, we are all smart enough not to confused the rapid warming and subsequent cooling associated with a major El Nino with the slower warming expected from rising GHGs. Slower changes in exchange of heat between the surface and deep ocean could appear to be the warming expected for rising GHG or overwhelm the warming expected from rising GHGs. The 65-year AMO appears to be associated with changes in the Gulf Stream (part of meridional OVERTURNING circulation, but we haven’t seen enough of these oscillations to know how much they change global surface temperature. Until the ARGO buoys were operational for about a decade, we weren’t absolutely sure that rising temperature at the surface (in the atmosphere, at the surface of the ocean and in the mixed layer of the ocean – that all move in parallel) wasn’t at least partially the result of a slowdown in heat exchange with the deep ocean – which would become slightly colder, without subsiding warm surface water. Now we see consistent (though steadily decreasing warming) down to 2000 m, we can be sure that the surface warming we have observed is not due to internal unforced variability in ocean overturning.
So Mosher is telling you to look FIRST for the warming effect from rising GHGs (which reduce radiative cooling to space) in the warming of the bulk ocean.
Why climate”scientists” don`t use that method. Is it because they can´t count to four (4)?
I agree that plotting annual percent change in CO2 is ridiculous. The total change in CO2 concentration since 1958 is more than 30%, a fact that he appears to be trying to hide. If we are arguing about “global” warming, then we should also use global temperature datasets, otherwise the argument is meaningless.
If we let authors like this cherry pick to their hearts content we skeptics will have lost the scientific high ground.
How is it that the U.S. has not warmed over a 40 year period in a warming world? Could there be glitches in the AGW theory? ‘An inquiring mind wants to know.’
If you don’t have an inquiring mind, there is always the GND.
I heartily agree. It’s a pretty large landmass with a lot of data. Other parts of the world are poorly represented by local weather stations. If CO2 is “the control knob” it should be strikingly clear that temperatures have risen over that time, even only in North America. If indeed it’s hidden in the oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific, it should be showing up in temperatures in North America by now, shouldn’t it?
Dave: The temperature of the troposphere is highly variable and that above the US is even more variable. The troposphere above the US has warmed 3 degC and cooled 2 degC at various times in the past. Global warming is occurred at a rate of about 0.2 K/decade. So it doesn’t matter much what the most recent monthly temperature was. The only thing that matters if the long-term trend. Use you eye to estimate the long term trend – which David omitted because he doesn’t want you to think about that. Is your estimated trend distinctly different from 0.2 K/decade. Mine is, but it looks a little higher than 0.1 K/decade. The UAH global trend is about 0.14 K/decade (+/-0.4), modestly lower than most other global records suggest.
As best I can tell, there is no special absence of warming over the US, just deception by the author of this post.
So, CO2, a molecule that :
– absorbs / emits in the 15µm band from a cooler environment than oceans,
– can’t penetrate more than 5 to 10 µm in the 4000000000 µm mean deep oceans before being re-emitted,
– can’t even cause evaporation (15µm photon energy is 16 times less than the latent molecular evaporation energy and due to photoelectric effect there will be no water evaporation from 15µm photons whatever is their flux intensity),
can nevertheless significantly contribute to the OHC … 90%
I presume that OHC is for Ocasio Head Content …
Indeed! The author seems to think that the sun ain’t gonna shine anymore (with applogies to the Walker brothers) .. on other areas of the globe except the US! As a German I’m able to report that this is not the case! There is global warming since 1980! And: after 1960 or so the solar activity declined albeit this warming. What climate sensitivity vs. GHG is to estimate IF the sun has bigger influence than thought?? It woul be a nice excercise for the author to recalculate the TCR IF the solar forcing is to say 10 times bigger than estimated in the latest forcing data ( see https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/LC18-AR5_Forc.new_.csv ) for the time frame after 1960! Good luck!
4. GHG theory starts in/with the atmosphere.
1. Show accurate long-term OHC measurements. To the 100 thousandths of a degree C?!? ARGO results seem to contradict alarmism.
2. I might, just might, trust the new U.S. CRN data. It seems to contradict alarmism.
3,[sic] See 1.
The joke’s on you, Mr. Mosher.
Before someone tries to tear me a new one. I am commenting on the %change of CO2, only. I too find that to be a useless metric. There is simply no point to it.
Let everyone know when we have some meaningful ocean heat content data and then we can make an informed judgement on the “oceans ate the heat comment”.
Steven. A good analyst would look at the current observations in light of previous observations, such as the higher temperatures of previous warming periods compared to the current modest warming. A comparison with the Holocene Climactic Optimum would be a good place to start. A comparison of the Holocene interglacial period to the Eemian interglacial would be a productive way to place current warming in a context of natural climate change. You can’t know “now” if you don’t understand “then.”
That seem like a difficult choice to justify given the UAH data for the lower atmosphere is available for global measurement and doesn’t suffer from some of the problems land based measurements have in terms of geographical coverage. In fact He published the updated global lower temp from UAH on Mar 1 at his page [and I think it was cross-posted here]. I don’t think that would have quite the impact of the lower 48 graph, but if you are going to write “Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled?” then it seems incumbent to match the ‘global’ in the beginning of the sentence with global atmosphere data. As here; [hope this image link works] http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2019_v6-550×317.jpg
The UAH Global lower atmosphere temp, while not as compelling at -0.03°, still shows little (i.e. not significant) warming.
You are correct though, I believe David should have used the global data. If anything, by limiting to US, he took away from his argument.
Because 330 million Americans live in the lower 48. Global warming as a lived experience. Nobody in the lower 48 has lived global warming. Not one of the 330 million. You are expected to believe in something that nobody, not one soul, has experienced. It is a theoretical abstract notion. I was originally going to write this describing global warming as an imaginary friend that people have despite no evidence for his existence. That they talk to and he tells them wonderful tales. And 40 years now! 40 years! That is close to two generations. Belief in global warming is being handed down from one generation to the next without any evidence it exists. It is like those cults that have a particular day for the end of the world so they sell their possessions and go to the field where the rapture is going to happen and then nothing happens. After 40 years it is time to say that it is not happening.
That would be a good title: Global Warming – Where’s the Rapture?
Can anyone post a location/region where Global Warming is being lived (outside of urban areas??). USCRN says no warming in Continental US. NASA says big warming around the globe. So, where is the rural location that shows the warming? Surely somewhere its getting hotter??
Here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pushchino,+Moscow+Oblast,+Russia,+142290/@54.83613,37.5882447,12521m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x41350ec6cdc92c5f:0x71cd8fe533f67c85!8m2!3d54.8395772!4d37.6258923
In the 30 years I had lived there (1960s – 1990s), I saw Global Winter Warming of several degrees. Ice on the river changed from 1m thick in January to non-existent or fringe-only. Schools stopped getting closed for weeks on end to protect children from frostbite. Plant and animal populations have changed. Migratory birds stopped migrating. The last time I visited in 2010, the winter was still mild and short, with only a few days of snowfall.
I could stop right there without telling you of multiple confounders. That’s what people pushing global warming do when they stoop to pointing out facts instead of modeling or simply lying.
I’ll just name a few confounders that come to mind:
* Continued dam construction and deployment on upstream tributaries, resulting in a more stable and warmer water flow, due to buffering behind dams. That alone could delay the start of ice formation by several weeks.
* The cessation of industrial navigation and dredging in late 1980s. A shallower and faster water flow reduces ice thickness and coverage, with all other conditions being equal.
* Temperature is not the only factor that compels birds to migrate. Ducks will overwinter if there is open water year-round; even better if it is surrounded by extensive fields of ice. They feel safer that way. Rooks decided to stop migrating when the town’s population surpassed 15000 and could reliably offer enough edible trash in winter. They even moved their rookery into town from a dilapidated farm nearby that they inhabited previously. Interestingly, the year when they decided to stay was not the coldest ever, but was probably the coldest in a decade, with substantial snowfalls still happening in May.
* While winters undoubtedly became warmer and shorter, summers have also changed. They became cooler and wetter. In 1960s, the only places where one would find moss were by permanent water streams in the deep shadows of a forest. By 1990, moss was growing everywhere, even on masonry and competing with grasses in the meadows.
As far as I could tell (and I did keep records), there was no change in multi-year average temperatures, even though the extremes have changed dramatically. Because the range of temperatures is never zero and changes are stochastic, one can always pick a moment and location with a higher temperature than a year or ten years prior and claim Global Warming.
Is there a reliable temperature history there? One unaffected by urban heat effect?
But … but … but CO2 has been increasing rapidly throughout that 40 year period! That just can’t be; all the models (except for those from the hacking, non-colluding Russians) tell us it has been warming significantly throughout the U.S.! Burn Christy and Spenser! Heretics!
David,
That is nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that only things experienced by inhabitants of the US
(or to be more precise those in the lower 48 states) are real. People living in Australia for instance have just experienced the warmest summer on record. It was 2 degrees over the long term average and 0.6 degrees higher than the previous record. Are you going to deny their lived experience?
Also what about gravitional waves or neutrinos? Billions of neutrinos pass through every person in the US every day but no-one experiences them? Does that make neutrinos a “theoretical abstract notion”?
Izak, none other than the great Gavin Schmidt said something like: Any given temperature is not important; it is, rather, the change one experiences over time. [He used it to justify the radically different average global temperatures in the various UN IPCC climate models.]
It is a fact that over 300 million CONUS-residing people have experienced no change in temperatures over a 40-year period. Get over your pique, Izak. It doesn’t really matter that the globe has slightly warmed over that period; there has been no measurable change in negative climate metrics.
The real concern is that UN IPCC climate models’ temperature trends run 2 to 3 C hotter than that measured. Those faulty models are being used to hype hysteria. Such hysteria is being used by Globalists/Socialists/Progressives (whatever name fits) to gain control over free peoples. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
According to the UAH data, the US land area has warmed at 0.18 deg per decade since in the past 40 years. David Archibald has used the greater volatility in regional data to mask the actual increase.
“Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?”
Speculation of this nature legitimizes speculation on the other side and that confuses the issue. Shouldn’t fight speculation with speculation.
David, good posting, as usual, but “deflating the whole thing”? Yes, deflating the science by showing the null hypothesis, however I just watched a trailer on breitbart.com that shows this: (a young girl speaks and is accompanied by text) I am 13 years old, I am in the seventh grade, and I am a Climate Scientist”, and then she goes on to say how she and other like-minded Climate Scientists will save the world (presumably from the likes of “deniers”?). The issue of CAGW has such deeply-embedded political implications that actual removal of the issue from the culture will be a long task. That having been said, PRESS ON!
Her age is in very good level to be climate”scientist”.
This whole episode has been like pre-teenage dream.
Article by Scafetta & Willson published in Advances in Astronomy – 2019 :
Satellite Evidence Affirms Solar Activity Drove ‘A Significant Percentage’ Of Recent Warming
http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/25/satellite-evidence-affirms-solar-activity-drove-a-significant-percentage-of-recent-warming/
I try to see a bigger picture. One of the great accomplishments of the modern West is a focus on science: rigorous attention to detail, seeking to prove testable hypotheses, transparency and replication, etc. Many intelligent people now apparently can’t be bothered with that, and to make it worse, they chant, meditation-style, “I believe in science.” (See the great Judith Curry on this mantra). If they are not going to follow science, where are they going to go? Where does their agenda lead? An optimist might say nature will teach them some lessons, and they will change their ways. But if they are half as noble as they think they are, they will be willing to “pay a price” for their cause–or force the poor to do so.
I don’t see it as a recent phenomenon that science has political aspects. This is the way it has been for a long time. In the next century, schoolchildren may learn how science used to be done in the backwards days of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Boo and hiss. NEMS and SCAMS were measuring the temperature in the atmosphere since the very early 1970s. No get off your rumps and read all those NEMS 7 track 556BPI tapes and reanalyze the data. At least SCAMS was 9 track 1600 BPI. SCAMS was basically the fore-runner of the AMSU. 5 Channels, 3 temp, 1 window, 1 water vapor resonance.
There is about 50 years of sat record for those folks that can pry the data loose.
“Surplus production has been repeatedly dumped onto neighboring markets and resulted in massive disturbances for the respective national power grids.”
This dumping take the form of putting the power into the European Grid. When they do that, another distributor in, say, the Czech Republic, can but from the grid well below the cost of the local generation plant which burns coal.
So the effect is subsidized wind driving unsubsidized companies out of business. Because that is illegal, the Czech Republic is suing Germany at the WTO. It is dumping, plain and simple.
If Germany bankrupts the Czech generating station they might end up subsidizing them to keep it going to fill in the gaps, inefficiently of course.
I like to compare what James Hansen said in 2011, with reality.
Hansen: More CO2 causes a reduction in OLR, leading to climate warming; this is the mechanism of the GHGE.
https://ibb.co/8MW8snc
Reality: All 4 satellite data series show the opposite: increasing OLR.
https://ibb.co/6nG6GZb
Dear Dr Hansen, Oh Saintly One, does this mean more CO2 causes climate cooling?
Sincere question: Would it be correct to say increased OLR would be predicated on increased SW reaching the earth? The various impacts of different clouds and their differing global distribution?
I think the OLR changes observed are due to increased/decreased total solar insolation, TSI. Climate warming and cooling happens. Look how the OLR increases track El Nino with a slight delay. You can also see the pause before the most recent El Nino.
This warming, of course, violates another commandment of the “climate consensus” : that 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
Yes, I agree with both points.
I’m sorry for flamebaiting, but this is just drivel in any larger scope. We have to agree to disagree, because there’s no common ground.
The real issue is control, isn’t it? If “we do this”, then “that will happen”, so “TAX, TAX, TAX” and make it a financial burden for the average person.
The more disturbing aspect of the CAGWer scam, in my view, is the refusal to admit that there are natural cycles taking place on a recurring basis, shows up in all the physical stuff like tree stumps from Greenland and above the current snow line in the Alps, and geological evidence that places like salt pans in deserts are evidence of being under water a long time ago.
These cycles are irregular, and we puny humans have no control of them, never have and never will, and this is just to difficult for these control freaks posing as science peeps to admit.
Sara
+10 !
You exposed true denials.
I’m sorry, F1nn. I’ll try to be more subtle next time.
But that graph is miss-labelled deceptively and on purpose as the Little Ice Age ended in the first half of the 19th century and should not appear in that graph. To defend that the Little Ice Age extends to 1935 is ridiculous. There goes David Archibald losing more points in credibility. Then he goes to defend that there is a cold period since 2005. Really, David? A cold period since 2005? In which global dataset?
Climbing up from the bottom of LIA is still LIA until “normal” is reached. Whatever the “normal” is.
“Climbing up from the bottom of LIA is still LIA until “normal” is reached. Whatever the “normal” is.”
In that case, I would say 1934, and 1998, and 2016 are “normal”. They are the three warmest years in the US temperature record (20th and 21st centuries), and they are all fairly close in temperature. 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and was 0.4C warmer than 2016.
And today, March, 2019 is about 1.0C cooler than 1934.
Yes, this means we have been in a temperature downtrend since 1934. There is no unprecedented heat to fear.
There is no normal. The LIA ended around 1840. Glaciers have been melting in earnest since 1850. If you say the LIA ended in 1935 you make a fool of yourself. Or worse, you can be accused of lying to people.
“There is no normal. The LIA ended around 1840. Glaciers have been melting in earnest since 1850. If you say the LIA ended in 1935 you make a fool of yourself. Or worse, you can be accused of lying to people.”
Well, that’s why I put “normal” in quotes.
I don’t assume 1935 is the end of the Little Ice Age. That’s something you dreamed up for you to criticize.
Could be accused of lying? It looks to me like you are accusing me of lying, in a rather cowardly way. Do you think I’m lying? Come right out and say it if you do and then give the reason why you accuse me of lying. You up for that?
No, I am not accusing you of anything, except perhaps not being very bright, because I was obviously referring to David Archibald, author of the article where in one of the figures the LIA ends around 1935.
As I say, it’s drivel. I don”t understand why it was published here, though this site is like Lutheran church: roof so high and walls so wide anything goes, just anything.
Just saying North America and Japan were cold does not equate to global cooling.
Western Europe has been relatively benign this winter.
What Russia from the Baltic to Vladivostock?
How about Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia etc?
I am not saying warming is happening, I am saying simply report on the whole world before drawing global conclusions.
Everybody should use same methods that IPCC use. And this report is better than IPCC´s because it doesn´t twist climate history.
I would speculate that Trump, the French yellow vests, and nature not cooperating, with the cooling since February 2016, have created a sense of urgency. The last thing they need is skeptical governments pointing to a new lack of warming, like the Pause so well described by the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
James Hansen et al. are already on record with their “Global Temperature in 2017” report saying:
“because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
So they are aware that after the sweet 2014-2017 years that ended the Pause, a new or renewed Pause might be coming, and therefore it could be now or never to push the Western World towards decarbonization.
Yes, they know the public is catching on and that warming has been nothing like they predicted.
They are now getting more and more desperate to get something cast into legally binding treaties and national laws before the bottom falls out of the whole damn thing.
That is their “urgency”.
Looks like a March temperature spike is going to cruel any talk of a new hiatus, anyway I still like the old one.
Javier: A “new Pause” can’t be coming soon. According to models, there is about a 25% likelihood that any five-year period will show no warming merely by chance. So lack of apparent warming from now until 2022 won’t have any scientific meaning. The last slowdown wasn’t called a hiatus or slowdown until it had lasted for 10 years. So we could have a “new Pause” by the late 2020’s. As for a “renewed Pause” (extending the Pause begun in 1998 or 2001), even another 10-year pause won’t create an extended Pause more than two decades long. According to HadCrutT4, the average temperatures in the 2000’s was between +0.45 and +0.5. If you do a 13-month smooth, temperature since the last El Nino descended to +0.60 K, still 0.15 K warmer than the 2000’s. To extend the former Pause, temperature needs to DESCEND another 0.15 K and remain there for most of another decade. Since temperature never returned to the pre-2013 baseline after the last El Nino, all trends since any time during Pause are significantly positive.
Barring another LIA, the only reasonable argument is that projected warming is grossly exaggerated, not that warming isn’t occurring.
Impression of a global warming hiatus is exactly same as impression of global warming.
David. I have gotten older. If you were to see a graph of my hotflashes, which are starting to cool now, I could say, sans plausible mechanism, that my combined cohort around the world today, is responsible for warming, and present slight cooling of Earth’s land temperatures. Geez! I know you have at least some science acumen but you sure didn’t show it in this post. Any more than I just did.
Pamela, why didn’t you say? It turns out that I am an expert on that sort of stuff too. I once edited and published a book on the role of phytoestrogens from the legumes in modulating the human female hormone system. “Hormones with Harmony” is available on Kindle:https://www.amazon.com.au/Hormones-Harmony-Dr-Graham-Kelly-ebook/dp/B00AK0LUGS
These days I research weapons systems and devise more cost-efficient ways of killing Chicoms.
Not an on topic response to my comment made in gest. You speculate that the sun’s magnetic component has something to do with weather here on the ground of Earth So I speculated, simply because the wriggles match, that my hot flashes and those of countless women my age, could be the cause of climate change. Neither has a plausible mechanism. And neither can hindcast.
A little off topic but here’s the link for summary of day two of Peter Ridd hearing
Sounding good
If mankind is substantially responsible for all the warming, how much is it responsible for the recent pause?
A: The cooling is due to natural forces that suppressed the overall warming trend.
So, there are natural forces that affect the average global temperature?
A: Of course. I just said that.
So why couldn’t natural drivers be the cause of the previous warming if they are the cause of recent cooling?
A: We have math that shows how much is contributed by man and nature. After we calculate mankind’s contribution, the remainder is the natural contribution. We know it’s correct because when we add the two together we get exactly the total amount every single time. It even works after we adjust historical temperatures, so the models are very robust.
So it works when you adjust inputs to be zer from man, all natural?
If not, why not.
Answer some tough basic questions?
Geoff
“40 years of forcing and no result in the actual atmospheric temperature. ”
The idea of forcing caused by CO2 is in opposition to specific heat. Thermodynamics says an increase Q, any form of energy, will cause an increase in temperature. Climate science says if the energy includes an IR component then you must throw in the forcing formula.
Q = Cp * m * dT does not depend on whether the input has an IR component. That would be double counting.
That is a pretty silly and disingenuous argument.
Saying “the atmosphere has cooled” based on one month’s average and that we can draw conclusions about AGW based on that is a ridiculous idea.
I follow WUWT to keep abreast of news and SCIENCE about climate. Making it a place for alarmists to point to for stupid and disingenuous arguments by “climate deniers” is not a good idea. Please stop it.