Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to climatologist Brian Brettschneider only anthropogenic CO2 can possibly be the cause of recent global warming.
Global Warming Is Not Cosmic
Brian Brettschneider Contributor
Science“I heard that sunspots are the main driver of temperature changes.” “What about the Grand Solar Minimum?” “We’re headed for a new ice age based on orbital parameters.” “Cosmic rays are causing the Earth to heat up!”
There is no shortage of people in the online community who passionately advocate for cosmic explanations to account for the observed change in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. Why is this? Is there a kernel of truth to their arguments? Let’s separate fact from fiction.
…
What about cosmic rays? Speculation regarding the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation received a fair amount of attention a decade ago. Since then, additional studies have poured cold water on the idea.
…
The majority of warming is a result of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity. Period. There is overwhelming consensus on this point within the scientific community.
There is an appeal to attributing our warming climate to forces complete outside of our control. It a) absolves us of any responsibility for causing the observed warming, and b) provides some sort of assurance that eventually we will fall back to an equilibrium state. For several hundred years, a philosophical debate has raged on whether science and religion are compatible or mutually exclusive – or somewhere in-between. Ironically, those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use; namely, the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.
Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2019/04/21/global-warming-is-not-cosmic/
What about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age Brian?
The MWP and LIA are substantial climate shifts which occurred on century timescales over the last thousand years or so, well before anthropogenic CO2 could have been a significant contributor to global climate.
Despite numerous attempts to claim the MWP and LIA were regional, there is strong evidence the MWP and LIA were global – numerous sites in Australia and New Zealand demonstrate strong MWP and LIA signals. A study published in 2012 found MWP signals in Antarctica.
There is even mention of New Zealand MWP evidence in Climategate, though at the time consensus climate scientists were promoting a flawed narrative that the MWP was a local regional European climate event.
date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:07:38 -0400
from: Ed Cook <redacted>
subject: Oroko Swamp
to: Keith Briffa <redacted>
Hi Keith,Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!). In terms of rbar, sample size, and eps, it is probably okay back to about AD 980 at this time. I still have 3-4 more subfossil sections to process, but it is doubtful that the story will change much. When I come over in October, I am thinking about askin Jonathan Palmer to come over from Belfast for a visit. What do you think about that?
Ed
Climategate Email: 3759.txt
Oroko Swamp is in New Zealand.
How large were the MWP and LIA climate shifts compared to today’s warming? The following 1998 email from a Russian dendrochronologist to Keith Briffa, a CRU academic who helped Michael Mann construct his iconic climate hockey stick, sheds some light on Russia’s interpretation of their climate proxies.
…
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree line was far northward of recent one.
[Unfortunately, region of our research don’t include the whole area where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700 BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4200-4016 and 3330-2986 BC.]
This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several short (50-100 years) unfavorable periods, most significant of them dated about 4060-3990 BC. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably. During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during 1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.
Please, let me know if you need more data or detailed report.
Best regards, Rashit Hantemirov
Climategate Email: 0907975032.txt
Lab. of Dendrochronology Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg,
620144, Russia
Keith Briffa himself was convinced the MWP was significant, and said so in a Climategate email written in 1999, though as far as I know at the time he never shared this view in public.
… For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. …
Climategate Email: 0938018124.txt
We even have evidence from the instrumental record which demonstrates warming periods comparable to recent warming, well before anthropogenic CO2 could have been a major influence.
In an interview with the BBC, shortly after Climategate appeared, former CRU Director Phil Jones, who wrote the infamous Climategate Mike’s nature trick email, said the following:
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend (Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
In summary, there is evidence of recent substantial climate shifts on a similar scale to today which cannot be explained by anthropogenic CO2, including a global warming event a thousand years ago which matched today’s temperatures, and multi-decadal warming periods in the instrumental record. Evidence which “consensus” climate scientists sometimes seem reluctant to discuss.
I’m happy to accept anthropogenic CO2 is likely a contributing factor, but forgive me Brian, if I don’t find your casual dismissal of non-anthropogenic forcings entirely convincing.
Some people are so self-unaware it’s funny. This guy created a fake map a while back – V=https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2018/11/23/lessons-from-posting-a-fake-map/#511fda4a59ec – and discovered people thought it was real. The lesson he learned is that if information looks authoritative, people will believe it. And get upset if they don’t agree.
Yet he can’t see the same thing happens when the climate-chondriacts publish their scare stories.
The cluelessness – it burns.
And his main evidence that CO2 is the smoking gun is “an overwhelming consensus”? Does he mean like when the Earth was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth, the continents were fixed in place, and witches caused bad weather.
There was never an “overwhelming consensus” that the Earth was flat.
James S
In 1978 I was making a guest presentation to a primary school class in a place called Mambane, Swaziland. It is very remote. The belief system is old time.
I was explaining that in Canada in mid-winter in the far north, the sun did not rise for several weeks to months, and in summer the opposite when it didn’t set. The kids found this remarkable.
The teacher, seeking to make the most of this opportunity, jumped in to say that this was one of the proofs that the world was round.
The students, one and all, immediately shouted out their disapproval of her ridiculous claim and pooh-poohed the teacher’s obvious foolishness. They world was flat as anyone could easily see.
The First Nations people in N America were very certain the Earth was (or is) flat and rests atop a giant turtle. That is why they call the Earth “Turtle Island”. I’d call that a consensus in both cases.
Not sure I’d call an elementary classroom in Swaziland and a Stone Age culture “an overwhelming consensus.”
Pretty much everyone from the Med to China was aware the world was not flat, and I’d say that tops primary school kids and isolated, survival-level cultures.
Sometimes I think the belief that people used to think the world is flat is more widespread than the belief the world is flat was.
James S
I cannot find an example in the undeveloped world that thought the Earth was round. Perhaps you can. There were pockets of belief from time to time holding the Earth is round and circumambulates the sun. But not most people and not all the time and not for long.
It is more like, “a few people for some part of their life and some of the time. I can’t see how you would support the position that more than half, say, of the global population now thinks the Earth is round, and that the same % was the case in 1850. I would be willing to hear you out f you have something compelling to show.
A Newsweek survey found that 16% of Americans could not locate the USA on a world map that didn’t have borders drawn and names on it.
Andy P
The fact is that modern witches are insisting they can control the weather. Who’s to say they don’t?
Canada has led in many ways. They have a big cauldron in Ottawa attended 24/7 by climate witches stirring and stirring, muttering various incantations like,
“Dirt of carbon,
Tame wind so wild,
Accept this sacrifice,
Make weather mild.”
And what is this cauldron filled with?
Taxes. That’s right. If you stir enough taxes round and round through the economy the result is properly run climate with all the heat ad cold appearing on the right days of the year.
According to the CBC it will also prevent all flooding of homes built of every Canadian flood plain. It is truly a modern miracle what can be accomplished with taxes if, like Peter Pan, you truly believe.
Flat earth was an invention of Washington Irving in 1830.
But witches DID cause bad weather. They also caused droughts…..
Maybe someone should tell Brian that every time he opens his mouth, or posts something online (which uses electricity and produces heat), he’s contributing to Global Warming all by his lonesome.
Not this shit again!
No alarm, no money.
Yes, it’s the money. But these guys are motivated even more so by a strong belief… they are true believers…..in Socialism, not Climate.
They know they are fudging and selecting data to rig climate science for political purposes. They describe data (studies) that contradicts their story, and they are torn by the existence of that dats. They were dismayed by the fact that strong signals for the Medieval Warm Period showed up in the southern hemisphere…worse, the data was more solid than the flimsy evidence they dug up TRYING hard to prove the Medieval Warming was only regional.
If a jury heard this story in court, all the jurors would know what was going on — there is a pattern of attempts to deceive. The “jury” of public opinion doesn’t get to hear this story because their socialist friends in the press give them the usual press cover up tricks to cover up the truth.
Well, Doc, I usually go for the simplest causation.
No alarm, no grants, no CliSi job. No alarm, no grants, no academic overhead payments, smaller Department, fewer cushy academic jobs.
No alarm, no votes. No votes, no campaign donations. No votes, no consulting/lobbying jobs for family. No votes, no ghost-written books with pre-sold copies. No votes, no lucrative speaking engagements for family.
No alarm, no subsidized green stuff. No subsidized green stuff, no crony capitalism. No crony capitalism, no campaign donations … see above.
Alarm is mandatory, never-ending.
So alarm the ba$tards with your vote.
It is not only books but another money spinning venture that exploits the climate ignorance for financial gain – both the prestige scientific journals and gutter press.
Na, the simple reason is these people aren’t very smart. They are as sharp as a marble. Incompetent pseudoscientists…
Robert, I have a problem with your analysis.
There is a difference between ‘stupid cute’ and ‘stupid stupid’.
The former make a damn good living of us taxpayers.
In any case it is not science, he used the political term ‘consensus’ twice.
What would one expect from a magazine owned by the the Chinese. Just more disinformation.
Yeah, except most Forbes readers are pretty good with numbers, and their profits depend on not being sucked in by charlatans. Unlike most CAGW hysterics with degrees in “journalism” or drama.
Not only did the totes infiltrate all universities, institutes, NGOs, environmental industries, news media most governments, but wow, they are taking over business/capitalist icons like Forbes used to be. We 3% should take a bow if we have put all these soldats in such ill humor.
The peak of the NH MWP happened 900 – 1100 AD, during that was a cooler time at the Oroko swamp.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Oroko-Swamp-silver-pine-January-March-temperature-reconstruction-This-series-show_fig3_229481977
Cherry picking times of faster warming early in the post 1860 period and comparing them with times of slower warming late in the post 1860 period and then claiming no increase in the rate of warming for the entire post 1860 period would be laughable if it weren’t so obscenely dishonest.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2009/to:2019/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1975/trend
From my link to “numerous sites in Australia and New Zealand…“:
As for the recent rate of warming, I’m happy to go with Professor Phil Jones’ assessment that the warming periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975 – 1998 are not significantly different.
Eric Worrall
Well, everybody is looking for the “signal” of increasing CO2 amidst the “noise” of the 900 year long cycle and the 66 year short cycle, right?
Well, there it is – if it exists at all.
Look at the three short cycle increases in temperature 1860 – 1880 (20 years), 1910 – 1940 (30 years), and 1975 – 1998 (2002 ? 23 years.)
Compare those increases in temperature against time-in-the-cycle (peaks and dip before the next cycle increase).
Look at the decrease in temperature between these periodic increases.
Compare the first two (when CO2 was near-minimum for life at 280 ppm) against the 1975 – 1998 periodic increase AND the “plateau” after 1998 to 2012, then the slight ramp in the 11 years between 2008 and 2019.
The “plateau” (a near-flat line in temperature increase, when each previous 30 year increasing period was followed by a marked decrease in global average temperatures) is the CO2 signature showing itself as the “filler” that turned an expected decrease (like 1960-1980) into a flat line or slowly-increasing line.
Now, in 2018-2019, 20 years AFTER the 1998 short term “peak” was “historically” supposed to have begun a short-term decrease in GAT’s, we should begin to see another increase in GAT until about 2060-2070. Further, if the CO2-temperature link is valid at some positive value, the next 20 years’ increase should be greater that that increase seen between 1975 and 1998.
All the above assuming 1998 was actually the true short-term peak. And not a “shallow, rounded-top peak” of longer duration – say, 1998-2008.
Excellent hypothesis. Maybe our added CO2 will stop another little ice age, maybe not. Perhaps we should plan on creating as much extra CO2 as we can just to make sure. Personally, I hate being cold, and I love warm.
Seems like an excellent application of the Precautionary Principle.
Excellent hypothesis. Maybe our added CO2 will stop another little ice age, maybe not. Perhaps we should plan on creating as much extra CO2 as we can just to make sure. Personally, I hate being cold, and I love warm.
Entirely plausible that CO2 has had some influence. It is the suggestion that anthropogenic CO2 has completely overshadowed powerful natural forcings which I thought was absurd.
Given that solar forcing has been slightly negative, aerosol forcing is strongly negative, and orbital changes suggest slight cooling, and oceanic oscillations are just that … oscillations. What natural forcings are you suggesting would explain the changes now? and it is no good saying “but things also changed in the past” yes, we know TSI and volcanoes affected things in the past. That is not the question. The question is what is happening now? and we have no natural forcing mechanisms to explain the current bout of rapid warming because when you look at natural forcings (and human-sourced ones like aerosols), we find no correlation, and correlation is a necessary condition for demonstrating causation. TSI ? nope no correlation. Solar Cycles? nope… the last one was 24 and was very weak. Cosmic rays? nope no correlation. Oceanic oscillations? nope. Aerosols? they are going hard the other way. So if you have another natural forcing mechanism that could remotely explain the very rapid warming of the last 50 years that put us above the global temperature of the MWP, I think we would love to hear it,
Finn
I don’t see that the “current warming is rapid”. I don’t see any rapid warming after 1998. I don’t see rapid warming before 1998 until one looks back to the 1720’s. There was some rapid warming although it didn’t continue for more than 40 years.
Oh, and CO2 had nothing to do with that.
Yo mitted from your list of possible influences, the oceans acting directly on the atmosphere. There are several large cycles in the oceans and they have a huge influence on the air temperature. The air temperature has basically no influence on the ocean temperature. The small fluctuations we have witnessed since 1850 can easily be accommodated within an ocean heat content change that is barely detectable with the most modern instruments.
Since cloud cover is known to be variable on a global scale, that serves as explanation enough for the ocean heat content. By that I mean anyone claiming a strong influence for CO2, and within it, AG-O2, has to answer why it is not cloud cover and ocean temperature changes (overturning circulations). Why? Because oceans+clouds is a reasonable explanation and CO2 concentration is not. It has a terrible correlation coefficient vis-à-vis air temperature and at most its influence is modest – probably between +3-+1 C per doubling. It is already clear there are no positive water vapour (total water column) feedbacks which can be detected with modern instruments.
The CO2 concentration cycles up and down throughout the year. Pick any place in the tropics that is on or near the equator. Check the temperature. Is it constant? Or does it rise and fall with the CO2 rise and fall? Is there an annual CO2 signal in the temperature of (anywhere) that reflects the change in concentration? Not that I can find.
If a 6 ppm concentration change makes no difference, why should 60 overturn the entire ecosystem? That only happens in models; bad ones.
@ Finn ..faulty logic. You are suggesting that there should be some cooling effect from the Milankovitch cycle moving very slightly past the mid point. How many years to the low point of that cycle, 11,500+ left to go? Should we expect some noticeable level of cooling every year now?
And the same with your suggestion that there should be an immediate cooling effect from the slight change in solar conditions. Imo, only the long term solar cyclical changes will lead to a cooling trend which can then be directly attributed to the sun. Watch the oceans for change as that is what will lead the climate to shift into a different pattern.
Hi Eric, “I don’t see that the “current warming is rapid”. I don’t see any rapid warming after 1998″ interesting you chose 1998 and not 1993, or pretty much any other date. But you chose the high point in a known internal oscillation… guess what that is called? If I choose 1993, I get massive warming… surprise…. surprise whatever else… even Roy Spencer puts warming at 0.13 C per decade which is a rate far faster than the baseline holocene.
” There are several large cycles in the oceans and they have a huge influence on the air temperature” yes there are large cycles in the oceans, but they do not correlate with the observed temperature changes, so they can’t be the cause, can they? If you could be more specific about which cycles you are referring to we would be able to test your idea.
Cloud cover is a feedback and not a forcing.
water vapour’s positive feedback can be tested (Soden 2001).
cheers
f
“The majority of warming is a result of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity. Period. There is overwhelming consensus on this point within the scientific community.
There is an appeal to attributing our warming climate to forces complete outside of our control. The majority of warming is a result of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity. Period. There is overwhelming consensus on this point within the scientific community.
There is an appeal to attributing our warming climate to forces complete outside of our control. “
Brian makes two abuses of scientific reasoning of his own here as well:
There is a fallacious Appeal to Authority argument here.
“There is overwhelming consensus”
… and in his pseudoscience eyes, consensus is apparently never wrong in science.
There is also a fallacious Straw-Man Argument here too.
“forces complete outside of our control”.
He attempts to label every skeptic as arguing CO2 isn’t a GHG by adding the intentionally misleading word “complete.” A classic strawman argument tactic.
This guy is merely engaging in the same level of junk propaganda and deceptive messaging to deny any scientific uncertainty in the AOGCM crap outputs or other attribution studies.
Joel, that’s how they talk. None ever come out and say here is the convincing evidence and point it out for all to see. It’s all handwaving, ridiculing sceptics and refusal to debate . The latter two parts is the ‘tell’ that they don’t have game. If 97% of them are certain, why would they lose so much sleep over a handful of ragtag sceptics with little or no support. Why wouldn’t they love to skewer sceptics publically in debate?
The answer is because even they know that uncertainty is huge. They suffered two decades of no warming that wasn’t expected and this scare resulted in them getting rid of the 1930s highs and a 35yr serious cooling that had occurred with galloping CO2 growth. After the “Climate Blues” caused by the implications of the Pause, they jiggered the pause out of existence and changed threshhold warming from 1950 to 2100 from 2C (pulled out ofa hat) to 1.5C from 1850 to 2100, which is what you would get with 0.7 degrees added on to their earlier goal posts. Yeah. We got O.8C from 1850 and it’s basically a linear extension for another 100yrs.
Anyway, they are beginning to sense that nothing is going to be done about climate
and the hysteria, tears and recruitment of children, duly terrified by lefty teachers, is the last desperate try. Thank you President Trump.
Gary,
The Do-Nothing approach to Climate Change is the Best approach.
It is the Trump approach. And I am fully with him on that.
Just ignore the Climate non-problem.
Yes, the Looney Left will howl, the rent-seeking climateers will holler and squeal, but at the end of the day, everyone will be better off not doing anything about a non-problem.
“Joel O’Bryan April 21, 2019 at 11:10 pm
Gary,
The Do-Nothing approach to Climate Change is the Best approach.”
Absolutely! It *IS* the best option.
Joel, This is why I’m happy with a 12yr deadline to disaster. Nothing could possibly be done in that time frame and we will have a n experiment to debunk this rubbish. I may have to eat more broccoli to make it another 12yrs but it has the making a wonderful betting situation! Lets wager and we will find out how certain the clime syndicate is about their forecast! Maybe a millionaire will put up the money and watch the waffling and lack of confidence in their science. They do all this scare stuff with impunity.
“…those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use…blah, blah, blah.”
Yawn.
At least he didn’t pull out the old “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” comparisons. These guys keep recycling the same old smears instead of actually answering and/or debating the critics.
I think that CliSci should be interested in the fact that the globe has been cooling over the past few thousand years. Until they figure that one out, UN IPCC climate models are suspect.
Always walk away from a salesman that insists you must buy now.
“…those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use…blah, blah, blah.”
Paul,
Actually, he has that quite backwards. It is the religious-based prognosticators who are the ones who blame Man for the coming disasters and say the End Of The World Is Nigh unless Man Repents and Renounces his evil ways.
I have long thought that it is quite eerie and bizarre how much the AGW/CC Alarmists resemble the doomsayers throughout the history of Mankind to include the calls for sacrifice, often human, but in many forms be made to appease the gods.
One constant has been that the people calling for sacrifices are never the ones who get sacrificed and, often, do manage to make quite a nice profit off of the sacrifices of others. There is nothing to suggest the Mayan high priests, for instance, ever sacrificed their own virgin daughters to the gods.
Actually, there is a similarity between arguments raised by skeptics and those made by creationists. There is no scientific way of testing evolution against a counter-hypothesis that the universe was created by God. Evolution may be the best scientific explanation for the development of life on Earth, but no amount of scientific evidence could disprove the belief that humans were created by an omnipotent being. The “omnipotence” thing will always gum up the scientific evidence, no matter what.
Climate skeptics quite rightly point out that there is simply no way to scientifically measure how much warming is attributable to fossil fuel consumption. You can’t experiment on the climate system and there is only one Earth, so you can forget about any statistical analysis of a control group versus a test group.
Thus, both evolution and global warming are un-testable theories.
Evolution as a theory of origin cannot be tested. Creation as a theory of origin cannot be confirmed. One is based on limited, circumstantial evidence that exhibits a measure of correlation with observation. The other is based on myth or knowledge passed through history. In fact, both are myths. Science is a near-space logical domain, with cause. The alternative is to recognize a separation of logical domains, and not to jump to the most popular, expedient, attractive answer. Both may be wrong. What is the value of believing a theory of origin?
I spent some years in the creation-evolution arguments over on the old talk.origins newsgroup, and the author is backwards in his attribution. Creationists attributed all actions to God, who could do anything. The shorthand for this persona was “the God of the Gaps,” because He was invoked anytime there was a missing piece in the creation “theory.” The evolution side depended on known scientific principles that perhaps sometimes behaved in ways that were not yet understood, and freely admitted they didn’t know what was going on.
In the AGW scenario, the alarmists would be the creationists, with CO2 standing in as the God of the Gaps, while the skeptics are willing to admit they don’t know the complete climate picture, but that the observed evidence does not support the CO2 (God) hypothesis.
I think the creationists had better treatment from the evolution side than alarmists give skeptics. Probably because no money was involved.
James S
Well-argued.
There are other examples as well where explanations “are needed”. Criminals were excused because their mothers didn’t love them enough – and alla that. Whatever it was, missing mom was the root of the problem.
We don’t learn much new, do we, as a species…
I ave studied evolution and creation and they both have no logical basis. Evolution is riddled with scientific and mathematical impossibilities.
One of the reasons I became an AGW sceptic 5 years ago was because I noticed a similarity between evolution and AGW where both have no falsifiability criteria, suppress any dissent, and “consensus” trumps evidence.
“Kurt April 21, 2019 at 7:51 pm
Actually, there is a similarity between arguments raised by skeptics and” no-nothings.
No-one ever will answer the question “is there a question mathematics can’t answer”.
e.g. all digits of pi.
That’s the ultimate ¿?
( and than there’s the question “are there answers mathematics deliver no-one needs.
When you say “god” do you mean Mother Nature?
John Bell
When you say “Mother Nature” do you not really mean “God” (er, an “Intelligent Designer”) 8<)
WUWT readers, the Teenage Super Sleuths have started a video series on Global Warming. It is part entertainment, action, drama, comedy, education, and science. Please visit their site and show them support for their efforts, and share their videos with any grade school age child that you know. Here are some links to their newest videos. Please pass them on and leave supporting comments so the kids keep up the good work.
https://youtu.be/K_j1NoBRQ6U
https://youtu.be/ZDRvPMvn1kc
https://youtu.be/bcFiDQD6LtM
https://youtu.be/pqdBvA475fo
https://youtu.be/w_w8PLjLdaU
Main Site:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH0C8BmpzY_8YXvYWBChJ3w
AOC should see these. She might learn something?
The acronym chosen should have been TSS instead of TASS not to be mixed with Russian News Agency TASS !
There is still zero evidence that CO2 has a significant impact on global temperatures now, or at any time in the history of the Earth, while there is all kinds of evidence that natural climate cycles are omnipresent, now and always. So when Brian says:
“The majority of warming is a result of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity. Period. There is overwhelming consensus on this point within the scientific community.”
…he is simply making up stuff! Period.
I wonder if this Brian guy is a real scientist. If he was and using real data he would not be saying drivel like the 97% consensus etc. etc. He certainly has lost my vote. But he wouldn’t care for me I bet. I would vote for Trump and for Brexit but can’t do either cause I’m a silly Canadian. Go away Justin please in fact very far. Cheers,
Jim
PS Tim Ball gets my vote.
The regional little ice age and regional MWP has always one of the weakest links in the AGW theory.
Seriously – Why do the alarmist believe that story line is even credible.
We are told that the Northern Hemisphere is warming more than the Southern Hemisphere. So … the modern warming is regional. Does that prove it isn’t happening?
“commieBob April 21, 2019 at 7:15 pm
We are told that the Northern Hemisphere is warming more than the Southern Hemisphere. So … the modern warming is regional. Does that prove it isn’t happening?”
cp, this says CAGW is only half happening.
NH is warming mainly due to arctic polar effect due to ocean cyclical warming. This is different to Antarctica which is land based and has obvious geographical differences being more distant to continental landmass. All it proves imho is that the oceans drive most of “climate change”.
The weakest link in the AGW theory is that it forever doomed to be nothing more than a theory.
Scientifically speaking, it’s not even a theory. A theory should have a strong predictive and explanatory capability to which AGW doesn’t even come close.
At best, it’s a hypothesis, and apparently an unfalsifiable one at that.
Music has a better theory than AGW.
“b) provides some sort of assurance that eventually we will fall back to an equilibrium state.”
What ‘equilibrium state’?
Exactly. What is this equilibrium state he speaks of and when did it occur? In fact when is ‘nature’ ever in an equilibrium state?
My vote goes to glacial state. Interglacials are only 10%- ish of time. So we are living now nonequilibrium hotworld time.
I live about polar bears spit away from north pole. I would love to feel this catastrophic warming. Of course it is here, and we pay a lot of CO2 taxes. And those are working great. We can´t feel the heat because our wallets are empty.
From the article: “So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
The warming during the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) period from 1910 to 1940, was equal to the warming from the 1970’s to 1998.
So why do these climate scientists insist that it must be CO2 that causes the warming from the 1970’s to 1998, even though CO2 is not considered a factor in the similar warming from 1910 to 1940.
If Mother Nature causes the temperatures to rise to a certain level during the 1930’s, then why shouldn’t we assume Mother Nature is causing the similar warming from the 1970’s to 1998.
There’s only one reason: The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
The Hockey Stick charts were created to erase the visual significance of the 1930’s, because they were just as warm as today. The same temperature level, not just the same magnitude. Hansen showed 1934 as being 0.5C warmer than 1998, in the United States.
If the Climategate conspirators had let this stand, then it would be obvious that we are not experiencing unprecedented warming today because today is no warmer, temperature-wise than it was in the 1930’s.
So the Climategate cheaters created an entirely new temperatue profile out of thin air. A profile that makes current-day temperatures look a lot warmer than past temperatures, so they can claim we are experiencing unprecedented warming and it must be caued by CO2, because, according to how the Hockey Stick chart looks, the temperatures of today ae much higher temperature-wise than in the past. This is the Big Lie.
Here’s a comparions of the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart and a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The Hansen 1999 chart on the left represents the true temperature profile of the globe. It shows that the 1930’s were as warm as today with practically the same high temperatures, within a couple of tenths of a degree of each other.
The Hansen 1999 chart shows no unprecedented warming. Mother Nature caused the temperatues to rise in the 1930’s, and Mother Nature is causing the current similar temperature levels.
The bogus, bastardized modern-era Hockey Stick chart on the right is the Big Lie. As you can see the Climategate Charlatans took the Hansen 1999 chart and in effect removed the warming of the 1930’s so as to make the temperatures on the Hockey Stick chart appear to be climbing steadily year after year, and shows the current date to be at unprecedented levels of warming. It’s all a big lie.
The Hansen 1999 chart profile is very similar to other unmodified temperature charts from around the world, showing the 1930’s to be as warm as today, and debunking the unprecedented warming claim.
No unmodified temperature charts resemble the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
The Hockey Stick charts are science fiction meant to make it appear that the world is experiencing unprecedented warming. The unprecedented warming occurs only in the computer models, not in reality.
The Hockey Stick chart is the only “evidence” the alarmists have. They dreamed this up to support their CAGW speculations. They did a good job of fooling people but now they are running into trouble because the temperatures are not cooperating with their CAGW warnings.
And it’s ironic that although the Climategate Charlatans managed to make the Hockey Stick chart erase the visual image of the 1930’s being as warm as today, they couldn’t erase the fact that both periods, 1910 to 1940, and 1970’s to 1998 warmed at almost the exact same rate.
Phil Jones admitted as much but he doesn’t think that is a problem as long as people continue to view the Hockey Stick chart as real. So what if the warming was equal in both periods, just look at the Hockey Stick chart and see how much higher 2019 is than the 1930’s, Phil says.
Except the Hockey Stick Chart and its creators are lying to everyone who views it. There is no unprecedented warming today.
Show me a ‘scientist’ who believes in consensus views of unproven scientific theories and I’ll show you a politician.
Al Gore?
(Maybe not. I don’t think he actually believes it. He just profits from it.)
That’s unfair of some politicians. ‘I’ll show you a charlatan’ is more accurate.
“Despite numerous attempts to claim the MWP and LIA were regional, there is strong evidence the MWP and LIA were global – numerous sites in Australia and New Zealand demonstrate strong MWP and LIA signals. A study published in 2012 found MWP signals in Antarctica.”
This is weird
Anyone care to document how many ACTUAL locations have data for the LIA?
Anyone care to document how many actual locations have data for the MWP?
Go ahead I will wait.
how many land locations? how many ocean locations?
Then ask these questions:
1. Is this enough locations to give you a global picture? Why or why not?
2. How accuarateand precise are the temperature estimates for these locations?
3. How firmly do you believe in the LIA given this evidence.
My bet. Not a single person can answer these questions directly. they are honets questions dorected to anyone who actually believe in the LIA and MWP.
what data? Imagine if I told you the world was warming and pointed to the new zeeland as my only evidence? You’d laugh.
so, how many locations and is that enough?
references not blather.
Steven Mosher
I’ll take your “bet”, and double it.
http://www.co2science.org
They have several hundred different papers archived (linked) about the LIA and Mideival Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period 900 years earlier and the Minoan Warming Period 900-1000 years before that. And, of course, the Modern Warming Period – conveniently 800-900 years after the MWP. Right on time.
Now, we dont know WHY these four cycles are “right on time”. Nothing wrong with admitting “I do not know.”
Steven,
try this lot for a start…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
Can you answer your own bet?
If you know something about climate, you know LIA very well. It was all over.
If you are scaremongering greenhypealarmist, you don´t care.
Numbers are much more accurate than yours modified, adjusted and homogenisized propaganda climate records high fly lies. Just count the bodies.
So there aren’t enough data points to prove MWP but we can confidently declare the warmest years ever based on differences of hundredths of a degree?
And I don’t see the point of questioning the MWP anyway. The argument is that the planet has been warmer with lower CO2. Disputing the MWP didn’t change that fact.
Steven Mosher, use the US Temperature Record (1880-2018) and document how many actual locations were being monitored for each of the 138 years of the Record.
Go ahead I will wait.
Then ask these questions:
1. Is this enough locations to give you a picture of US average yearly temperatures for the years in question? Why or why not?
2. How accurate and precise are the recorded temperature estimates for these locations?
3. How firmly do you believe in the US Temperature Record (1880-2018) given this evidence?
They are honest questions directed at you or anyone who actually believe in the US Temperature Record (1880-2018),
If you believe CO2 has caused any warming you should tell us the updated specific heat value for dry air. The one in my thermo book was done about a hundred ppm ago so there should be a new value.
So, Stephen…do you reject the hockey stick and all the work done by Mann et al, claiming to show little evidence for the MWP and LIA? Certainly that body of work fails your test!
If all the references at CO2science are not enough to show significant evidence of the MWA and the LIA on a global scale (comparable to the not-so-global nature of the latest global warming), then you are essentially arguing that the past climate cannot be discerned, and all climate reconstructions are basically invalid.
I could agree with that and accept that we really don’t no much of anything about climate change, including what the future will bring. Of course, that makes the assertion that late 20th Century warming is largely man-made unsupportable! You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept the evidence for past climate change and recognize that recent warming is not unprecedented, or you reject the historical climate change evidence and admit that we don’t have a clue.
Mr. Mosher,
Below, you will find a few references of the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere. Feel free to peruse these at your leisure. If you need more reading material, please let me know, as there are many more for the rest of the world.
Africa
DeMenocal, P., Ortiz, J., Guilderson, T. and Sarnthein, M. 2000. Coherent high- and low-latitude climate variability during the Holocene warm period. Science 288: 2198-2202.
Esper, J., Frank, D., Buntgen, U., Verstege, A., Luterbacher, J. and Xoplaki, E. 2007. Long-term drought severity variations in Morocco. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL030844.
Ngomanda, A., Jolly, D., Bentaleb, I., Chepstow-Lusty, A., Makaya, M., Maley, J., Fontugne, M., Oslisly, R. and Rabenkogo, N. 2007. Lowland rainforest response to hydrological changes during the last 1500 years in Gabon, Western Equatorial Africa. Quaternary Research 67: 411-425.
Kondrashov, D., Feliks, Y. and Ghil, M. 2005. Oscillatory modes of extended Nile River records (A.D. 622-1922). Geophysical Research Letters 32: doi:10.1029/2004GL022156.
Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Cooper, G.R.J., Lundblad, K., Partridge, T.C., Scott, L., Sithaldeen, R., Talma, A.S. and Tyson, P.D. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 2311-2326.
Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292.
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.
Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.
Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.
Antarctica
Lu, Z., Rickaby, R.E.M., Kennedy, H., Kennedy, P., Pancost, R.D., Shaw, S., Lennie, A., Wellner, J. and Anderson, J.B. 2012. An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 325-326: 108-115.
Bertler, N.A.N., Mayewski, P.A. and Carter, L. 2011. Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 308: 41-51.
Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-970 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.
Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258.
Williams, M.B., Aydin, M., Tatum, C. and Saltzman, E.S. 2007. A 2000 year atmospheric history of methyl chloride from a South Pole ice core: Evidence for climate-controlled variability. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL029142.
Hall, B.L., Hoelzel, A.R., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., Le Boeuf, B.J., Overturf, B. and Topf, A.L. 2006. Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10,213-10,217.
Castellano, E., Becagli, S., Hansson, M., Hutterli, M., Petit, J.R., Rampino, M.R., Severi, M., Steffensen, J.P., Traversi, R. and Udisti, R. 2005. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96) ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: 10.1029/JD005259
Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003. Oxygen-isotope (ð18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Holocene 13: 251-263.
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.
Khim, B-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.
Hall, B.L. and Denton, G.H. 2002. Holocene history of the Wilson Piedmont Glacier along the southern Scott Coast, Antarctica. The Holocene 12: 619-627.
Australia/ New Zealand
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75
Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.
South America
Cioccale, M.A. 1999. Climatic fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 years. Quaternary International 62: 35-47
Jenny, B., Valero-Garces, B.L., Urrutia, R., Kelts, K., Veit, H., Appleby, P.G. and Geyh M. 2002. Moisture changes and fluctuations of the Westerlies in Mediterranean Central Chile during the last 2000 years: The Laguna Aculeo record (33°50’S). Quaternary International 87: 3-18.
Chepstow-Lusty, A.J., Bennett, K.D., Fjeldsa, J., Kendall, A., Galiano, W. and Herrera, A.T. 1998. Tracing 4,000 years of environmental history in the Cuzco Area, Peru, from the pollen record. Mountain Research and Development 18: 159-172.
Mauquoy, D., Blaauw, M., van, Geel, B., Borromei, A., Quattrocchio, M., Chambers, F.M. and Possnert, G. 2004. Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits. Quaternary Research 61: 148-158.
Haberzettl, T., Fey, M., Lucke, A., Maidana, N., Mayr, C., Ohlendorf, C. Schabitz, F., Schleser, G.H., Wille, M. and Zolitschka, B. 2005. Climatically induced lake level changes during the last two millennia as reflected in sediments of Laguna Potrok Aike, southern Patagonia (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Journal of Paleolimnology 33: 283-302.
Polissar, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V. and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004. Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K’ sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132.
Nester, P.L., Gayo, E., Latorre, C., Jordan, T.E. and Blanco, N. 2007. Perennial stream discharge in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert of northern Chile during the latest Pleistocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 19,724-19,729.
Rebolledo, L., Sepulveda, J., Lange, C.B., Pantoja, S., Bertrand, S., Hughen, K. and Figueroa, D. 2008. Late Holocene marine productivity changes in Northern Patagonia-Chile inferred from a multi-proxy analysis of Jacaf channel sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80: 314-322.
von Gunten, L., Grosjean, M., Rein, B., Urrutia, R. and Appleby, P. 2009. A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850. The Holocene 19: 873-881.
Sepulveda, J., Pantoja, S., Hughen, K.A., Bertrand, S., Figueroa, D., Leon, T., Drenzek, N.J. and Lange, C. 2009. Late Holocene sea-surface temperature and precipitation variability in northern Patagonia, Chile (Jacaf Fjord, 44°S). Quaternary Research 72: 400-409.
Kellerhals, T., Brutsch, S., Sigl, M., Knusel, S., Gaggeler, H.W. and Schwikowski, M. 2010. Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction? Journal of Geophysical Research 115: 10.1029/2009JD012603.
Neukom, R., Luterbacher, J., Villalba, R., Kuttel, M., Frank, D., Jones, P.D., Grosjean, M., Wanner, H., Aravena, J.-C., Black, D.E., Christie, D.A., D’Arrigo, R., Lara, A., Morales, M., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Srur, A., Urritia, R. and von Gunten, L. 2011. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Climate Dynamics 37: 35-51.
Bracco, R., del Puerto, L., Inda, H., Panario, D., Castineira, C. and Garcia-Rodriguez, F. 2011. The relationship between emergence of mound builders in SE Uruguay and climate change inferred from opal phytolith records. Quaternary International 245: 62-73.
Fletcher, M.-S. and Moreno, P.I. 2012. Vegetation, climate and fire regime changes in the Andean region of southern Chile (38°S) covaried with centennial-scale climate anomalies in the tropical Pacific over the last 1500 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 46: 46-56.
Vuille, M., Burns, S.J., Taylor, B.L., Cruz, F.W., Bird, B.W., Abbott, M.B., Kanner, L.C., Cheng, H. and Novello, V.F. 2012. A review of the South American monsoon history as recorded in stable isotopic proxies over the past two millennia. Climate of the Past 8: 1309-1321
Elbert, J., Wartenburger, R., von Gunten, L., Urrutia, R., Fischer, D, Fujak, M., Hamann, Y., Greber, N.D. and Grosjean, M. 2013. Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30’S). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 369: 482-492.
Vilanova, I., Schittek, K., Geilenkirchen, M., Schabitz, F. and Schulz, W. 2015. Last millennial environmental reconstruction based on a multi-proxy record from Laguna Nassau, Western Pampas, Argentina. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Palãontologie 277: 209-224.
Too funny I went to post Eric reference with a map of MWP studies.
Clicked on a random pin
Opel et al. 2013: Subtle warm phase 900-1275 AD, followed by slightly colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age. 20th century much warmer than Medieval Warm Period.
Nagornov et al. 2006: Subtle warm phase 900-1275 AD, followed by slightly colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age. 20th century much warmer than Medieval Warm Period.
own goal
Did you read the respectif papers too ?
Mosh
Try looking by subject and put in LIA, you find quite a bit. Funny how the very first responder won your bet! Too bad when you make a bet you never put your money where your mouth is, my guess is if you did you would stop betting pretty quick!
“I’m happy to accept anthropogenic CO2 is likely a contributing factor, but forgive me Brian, if I don’t find your casual dismissal of non-anthropogenic forcings entirely convincing.”
There’s an apples/oranges dynamic going on here. Brian Brettschneider is illogically presuming that the warming observed in modern times must have been “forced” by a change in energy input to the Earth, whether from CO2, solar output variations, cosmic rays, etc. and saying that of all these, only CO2 could plausibly explain the warming. But he is not considering that the Earth’s climate system itself could exhibit very long term up-and-down trends in temperatures regardless of any change in forcing. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, for example, may have been forced by nothing – merely resulting from inherent changes in the Earth’s climate system itself.
So Brian Brettschneider’s dismissal of non-anthropogenic “forcings” may be entirely reasonable, yet still be insufficient to rationally attribute recent warming to anthropogenic “forcings.”
Water (H20) vapor keeps the desert near-surface air “warm” at night, …. CO2 will freeze your ying-yang off iffen you don’t cover up.
Of course, there are plenty of us guys here at WUWT who will reply to your piece, Eric – but will Brian Brettschneider?? You have written a decent, serious, scientific article, directly addressed to him. I expect he will read it -and he will probably also read our many comments to it. So I will ask him straight here, “Will you, Brian Brettschneider, have the decency to give Eric a written response to his article, defending your scientific viewpoints??”
Was secretly hoping for an actual scientific confirmation of the “climate change is caused by CO2” meme but then he appealed to “consensus”. That tired, old worn-out shoe.
There are two possibilities.
1) Brian lied
2) Brian is an idiot.
One thing is very obvious. Brian has no understanding of science.
It might be arguable, but I would posit that 1) and 2) are not mutually exclusive.
Why do they put argon in double-glazed windows? If CO2 is that great at trapping outbound radiative heat and sending some of it it back, shouldn’t we have pure CO2 between the panes of glass?
This is actually a serious question. I’m well aware of the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-radiate LWIR. I’m just a bit dubious about how much effect can derive from 0.04% by volume when H2O vapour, which can do the same thing, is present at concentrations up to a hundred times greater. And then there are clouds……….
If we could use the “greenhouse effect” to help keep our houses warm in winter, we wouldn’t need to burn so much fossil fuel. Perhaps………….
Argon is a noble gas and generally speaking, it doesn’t react with anything. CO2 is reactive.
CO2 is mostly inert. The oxigen is tightly bound and only Magnesium burns in CO2 because in MgO the oxigen is even more tightly bound.
I wasn’t giving a chemistry lesson.
Argon is a noble gas and generally speaking, it doesn’t react with anything. CO2 is reactive.
Who cares if the windows go cloudy or dissolve in the rain so long as it saves the planet…. perhaps this is the ‘final solution’ to Mayor de Blasio’s proposed ban on steel and glass buildings in New York city…
( mod: do I need to sarc?)
Cheers
Mike
The thing about argon is that while it’s good at offering some resistance to regular vibrational (kinetic) heat flow, it is generally accepted that it’s not very good at resisting “infrared” heat flow, Infrared is the longer distance type of heat transfer that is of interest for all the global warming or planetary heat balance kinds of ideas.
For a window I, would understand, you would be looking at putting some special coating on the glass surface to get more resistance to *that* heat transfer mechanism.
Window glass itself is almost opaque to midwave and longwave IR.
Smart Rock:
“…Why do they put argon in double-glazed windows? If CO2 is that great at trapping outbound radiative heat and sending some of it it back, shouldn’t we have pure CO2 between the panes of glass?”
I like it! Would CO2 react with SiO2 to make silicates possibly rendering the glass opaque? Like cataracts in us old folk?
Thank you!
Cheers
Mike
Yet another strawman held up.
I think those of us with the ability to think for ourselves (and who are not taking government money to create BS models) understand that the climate system has many drivers, and we don’t ID one specific driver for all change the way the CO2 is the devil crowd do.
Some writers suggest that CO2 concentrations are the only variable effecting our climate. Others suggest “other worldly causes”. I go with the other worldly’s.
below comments based primarily on: newscientist.com/article/mg21228411-
For billions of years Earth has been on a perilous journey through space. As our planet speeds around the sun, the whole solar system circles our island universe every 200 million years. On this journey our solar system is exposed to radiation, meteorites, solar wind, and myriad gravitational forces. These “cosmic’effects may have wiped out swathes of life, smashed up continents or turned the planet to ice. Others my have sown the seeds of life.
The galaxy’s melee has certainly caused significant impacts to our Earth, but as yet undetermined as to where and when. Earth itself, its rocks constantly recycled by plate tectonics, the associated volcanism and remodeled by erosion is remarkably forgetful of past assaults from space. Suggesting that these cosmic effects are less significant in our constantly changing climate than a few ppm CO2 increase may be short-sighted.
As a scientist, I can tell you that I have not been overwhelmed by the “overwhelming scientific consensus”.
The phrase “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. Those who can scientifically demonstrate something have no need to care about a consensus. Those who care about a consensus do so because they can’t scientifically demonstrate what they believe to be true.
Professors and other academics rely on consensus. Scientists do not.
So we have a minuscule amount of warming since the end of the LIA — so what?
It appears that IT’S QUITE NATURAL!
The currently rare atmospheric gas, CO2, has risen by a barely measurable amount since the end of the LIA — yes a warm planet tends to outgas some CO2, so what?
It is perfectly normal, quite natural — unless you have verified and observed evidence that CO2’s rise is unnatural and can overheat the planet but you don’t, do you? No YOU don’t and the best you do is guess at what the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Then spend years arguing about it.
So the planet get warmer with CO2 levels get off the starting blocks. What’s not to like? Warm, damp planet with CO2 levels better able to support life — things ARE getting better.
Or are you believing the misanthropes who can only see environmental doom and necessary human catastrophic disaster at the end of this climate rainbow.
The most definitive work on the Little Ice Age was done by Jean Grove titled ” Little Ice Ages” available at Amazon in e book or hardcover. The hardcover edition is $411.01
I used to read stuff like this from Brian Brettschneider (research associate from Alaska) and file them mentally in the useful idiots cabinet. Then I had an awakening and realised I was wrong to do that.
I now file these appeals to authority in the “useless” idiot cabinet.
The force of consensus must not be underestimated however. Always remember the Catholic Church was so consensual, it maintained an absolute authority up to and including Galileo showing them they were wrong. His telescope revealed the Earth and the planets circle the sun. That was not something the Catholic Church taught its believers. He was imprisoned for the rest of his life for being right, the consensus refused to accept scientific evidence, they refused to accept the truth.
NB I am not having a pop at Catholics here, I am married to one. I find they are as acceptable as any other religion. All religions hate change, they are the ultimate advocates for the status quo.
Actually, not true. The church authorities accepted Galileo’s observations. The trouble is that he wanted to change thing too fast for their comfort, and also did a few other things to tick them off. They wanted a few decades to introduce the teachings gradually, he didn’t agree.
Paul of Alexandria ..
…”The trouble is that he wanted to change thing too fast for their comfort,…”
Too right mate! Else the popular mantra “Speed Kills” would be true … ponder that one next time you’re in the sardine section of an Airbus traveling at 10 miles a minute. It’s not the speed that kills it’s the sudden stop. Change is not the problem, it’s the rate of change…..derivatives for the algebraicly inclined as the Hedgefundies of Wall Street discovered (at our expense) in ’08.
Cheers
Mike
What would the AGWarmers have said we should do at the start of the little Ice age. Assuming that their ‘computer’ models were accurate. /S
I’m open to persuasion, just as I was when I drifted from believer to skeptic around the time of ClimateGate.
But references to a consensus that I know for a fact does not exist only tells me that you are deficient in knowledge or lying.
It’s such a pathetically weak argument that I wonder how some people obtain PhDs.
After 1994 in clinate ‘science’ the Ph stands for ‘phony’.
Yes, and D for “Dork”.
“What about cosmic rays? Speculation regarding the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation received a fair amount of attention a decade ago. Since then, additional studies have poured cold water on the idea.”
The “additional studies” he references is a Nov. 2011 article in Scienterrific American by Paul Brown citing the words of two U. of Durham prof’s, Sloan and Wolfendale. From the article, way back then: “We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10 percent of the measured global warming observed in the 20th century. As a result of this and other work, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified.”
Meanwhile, Henrik Svensmark has published this year a summary of his work which “pours cold water” on the opinions of the esteemed professors. Look up “Force Majeure” GWPF Report 33, H. Svensmark, 2019
In my local cool temperate southern hemisphere area there seems to be a pattern of high amounts of cloud cover corresponding with low annual rain fall and low average temperatures. The question is whether there is a general correlation between a decrease in annual rain fall and a decrease in average temperatures.
Don’t overlook the recent WUWT article that contained this tidbit:
And how much warming was caused by the removal of SO2 because of the Clean Air Acts of the 60’s,70’s and 80’s? About 0.4 deg C was my understanding. Am I right? That eats into the 0.8 deg of warming. SO2 reflects sunlight and acts as cloud nucleation to help remove H2O from the atmosphere.
Getting to the point of this post, here are carbon estimates attributed to the 2005 Third Report of the UN IPCC-
“Consider the following IPCC estimates for carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, expressed in billions of tonnes (Gt) of Carbon (C)/year:
Respiration ( humans,animals,phytoplankton) -43.5-52
Ocean Outgassing (tropical areas)- 90-100
Soil bacteria, décomposition – 50-60
Volcanoes, soil degassing- 0.5- 2
Forest cutting, forest fires- 0.6- 2.6
Anthropogenic emissions – 7.2-7.5
Total- 192-224 Gt. C/ year.
Uncertainty- 32 (~15%).
Canadian climatologist Professor Tim Ball was the first to point out that this range of estimates of natural and human carbon production (as carbon dioxide) has an uncertainty factor of 32 Gt. C/ year. The human contribution of 7.5 Gt.C/year lies within the uncertainty range of each of the first three natural sources, and the total uncertainty is almost five times the human production.”
The conclusion is that it is not possible to analyse, nor to manage in any rational way components of the global carbon cycle that are so small that they are dwarfed by the uncertainty of the largest natural sources and sinks.
The source of this is “Taxing Air” by Robert Carter and John Spooner, Ch X, ” How will a carbon dioxide tax affect climate”.
What are the current estimates of Anthropogenic Carbon versus Natural Sources and how does a tiny 410 ppm. trace gas of CO2 forming some 3.4% of the world’s carbon cycle become the control knob of the climate ?
Are these guys ever invited to answer to their critics on WUWT?
It’s all very well posting these ‘reposte’ pieces on here but there’s never any traction with them, there should be a way to get more milage out of them.
Add up all the (non) replies to invites etc. We could have a Reference page with all the refusals to debate, maybe we could find someone with integrity, or just use it as a poster child for the lack of backbone in the alarmist community.
Excellent idea (Lurker Pete April 22, 2019 at 2:07 am) even though quite an onerous task which might take too much time end away from the core work of the site. I fully support your idea that CAGW authors should be invited to participate in answering comments on articles about their work, perhaps drawing their attention to those with a scientific basis.
I would also extend the opportunity, in the case of published papers, to the learned peer reviewers of such work who at present get a free ride inflating their egos with the pomposity of being perceived as an authority on the subject. If they are made aware that their own “work” is under close scrutiny the progress of the Old Pals act might be slowed. What say you, Andrew?
Evidence which “consensus” climate scientists sometimes ( use, draft, get ) ?
seem reluctant to discuss.
Forbes ceased being a serious business publication at least a decade ago. Its grasp of science and the scientific method has never been strong.
Was the MWP warmer than the AGW?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/02/mwp/
Yes, it was. Here in Finland oak trees from that period has been found from Laplands swamps. Lapland is now tundra with some stunted birchtrees. Oak trees grow now in the most southern part of Finland.
______________INFORM THE POLICE!______________
With every major case crime you can’t solve
climatologist Brian Brettschneider calls you
“creationists and other religion-based prognosticators”!
“the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.”
___________________________________________________
“those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use; namely, the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.”
Here we go again… This guy doesn’t know how to do science. He is actually afraid to learn. He’s afraid the control of the weather and climate are outside of man’s control via CO2 or any other means, and he can’t accept that. Notice he went on to ‘cleverly’ attempt to put a ‘religious’ spin on the complete solar control of the climate, like skeptics have done in identifying alarmists’ religious belief in CO2 as THE climate control knob.
If Brian B. was a competent scientist, he’d have learned long ago the ocean determines the state of the arctic, while the sun determines the state of the ocean via the 1-2W TSI variation over time.
Brian claimed anthropogenic CO2 has caused climate change. Brian’s problem, like the rest of the CO2 alarmists, is he hasn’t realized there is no discernible anthro CO2 signal that can be differentiated from the action of all-natural ocean outgassing via Henry’s Law.
Another problem is there is a Youtuber named David Dubyne (Adapt2030) strongly pushing the cosmic ray theory and a current ‘grand solar minimum’ – both points are wrong. So now it’s one set of bad propaganda vs another, ie, one strawman argument vs another.
The last GSM was the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715, with a Group Sunspot Number of 1.0, whereas the two Dalton Minimum solar cycles from 1798-1823 averaged 2.3, 130% higher than the Maunder.
Using the group number and v2 sunspot numbers from 1700 through 2015, the last year with a GN, I derived an equation, GN=0.0468*SN+0.6797. Since the MM GN average was 1.0, the equivalent v2 sunspot number equals 6.8.
A Grand Solar Minimum occurs at 6.8 to about 15 in v2 sunspot number with margin of error.
The Dalton Minimum averaged about 34 in v2, whereas solar cycle 24 averaged about 53.
The 2018 v2 sunspot number averaged 7 in yearly data, and 2019 so far is about the same.
Until we have whole solar cycles in the above defined very low range, we are safely outside of Grand Solar Minimum territory. The current popular GSM theory is busted since cycle 25 will likely be similar to cycle 24, far above Dalton or Maunder minimum activity levels.
The only thing Brian got right is cosmic ray theory is wrong.
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme events, not CO2! – via 1-2W TSI variation.
I myself have no doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 has caused a few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780.
But the writer of the Forbes article is either ignorant or disingenuous if he omits to mention the effects of: the water vapour feedback loop theory and the enormous uncertainties associated with it, natural variability, vulcanism, changes in aerosol concentrations, deforestation and overgrazing, and the enormous urbanisation of the 20th century – to name but a few.
I myself have no doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 has caused a few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780.
Is your CO2 science as strong as your CO2 faith? Please clearly identify the anthro CO2 portion separate from ocean outgassing needed for your few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780, and then explain how that works when CO2 changes follow temperature changes, the opposite of what is necessary for CO2 warming theory. How does that leave you with ‘no doubt’.
Solar variability drives natural variability.
The climate is cyclical and that is the end of the freaking discussion.
No Brian et al are taking full responsibility for disappearing Waikiki Beach-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/travel/news/hawaiis-waikiki-beach-could-soon-be-underwater-because-of-rising-sea-levels-caused-by-climate-change/ar-BBWaVyu
whereas I’m innocent not being part of their consensus. The rest of you can please yourselves whether you’re guilty or not. Period.
Oh my…he used the word “Period”. That means the scientific debate is over, all scientists who count agree, and we skeptics should just shut up.
Or, it means someone who is not taking the time (or may lack the ability) to understand the science behind the issues doesn’t feel they can successfully debate the point, so stop talking about it.
Take your pick.
(What is amusing about this, is in…12 years was it?…it should be obvious ONCE AGAIN they have missed ANOTHER of their deadlines…Period)
Has anyone done a computer modeling/observation on the amount of warming, or cooling, due to natural carbon emissions?
In addition to strawman arguments, Brettschneider uses the tried-and-true ploy of reversing the Null, conveniently “forgetting” that it is they, the Climate Catastrophists who need to make their case, and they have failed miserably. Oops.
While oft discussed by some, this is hitting a more mainstream source. I should know this, but are the unadjusted data sets available somewhere for more independent analysis?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and more$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$