NASA GISS Director Gavin Schmidt

Green Matters: Humans are Responsible for 110% of Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Green Matters is worried that a lot of people doubt we are solely responsible for climate change, but quoting a statement from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt should settle things, right?

Is Humankind Completely Liable for Global Warming? Here’s What Experts Think

BY STEPHANIE OSMANSKI

Despite ongoing research, many still aren’t 100 percent convinced that climate change exists. But if you’re looking for answers on global warming you’ve come to the right place. Keep reading to find out more about humans impact climate change.

According to Carbon Brief, NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt believes humans are responsible for about 110 percent of observed warming. This is a sentiment echoed by the U.S. fourth national climate assessment from 2017, which found that human activities were responsible for anywhere from 93 percent to 123 percent of observed warming from 1951 to 2010.

What can I do to curb climate change?

Some ways to start include installing solar panels or using clean energy providers, using LED light bulbs, washing your laundry with cold water, laying clothes out to dry instead of running the dryer, buying an energy-efficient shower head, washing dishes in the dish washer, and using biodegradable, non-toxic laundry detergent

Abiding by a vegan diet is also thought to be the most effective way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, as per the Guardian. Using public transportation instead of driving, and compositing food scraps helps, too.

Read more: https://www.greenmatters.com/p/climate-change-caused-by-humans

I’m not sure vegetarians have fully considered the surge in climate damaging methane emissions which would occur if everyone went vegan, and started eating more lentils instead of meat. But I’m sure if everyone switched to using an energy efficient shower head it would tip the balance.

4.3 17 votes
Article Rating
181 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Walter
January 6, 2021 10:13 pm

The Irony, the Irony: “110%” proves they cannot do basic mathematics! So how can anyone trust their “models”

Reply to  James Walter
January 6, 2021 10:18 pm

Worry not; people with sufficient mathematical ability do not. They are called “Climate Realists.”

walt
Reply to  James Walter
January 6, 2021 10:36 pm

Exaggeration pleases the media. Honesty is not a virtue with journalists.

Reply to  James Walter
January 7, 2021 12:05 am

“The Irony, the Irony: “110%” proves they cannot do basic mathematics!”

No, the failing is yours. In fact it is the IPCC estimate. In the absence of AGW, there would have been a small amount of cooling. AGW countered that, and also provided the warming we observed. Total AGW is 110% of warming observed.

Fractions have to add to 100%. But if some can be negative, others can be more that 100% and still add to 100.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 12:51 am

Nick

A happy New year to you. Presumably if you believe the headline, you have been abiding by green rules for some years?. I have encapsulated some of them here and assume that due to your concern over the climate you have already taken the personal climate pledge?

“Assuming journeys are necessary in the first place, I will travel only by bus, cycling, walking or train. No flying except in an emergency.

No spring water in plastic bottles, No imported food or food out of season when there is a local alternative. A drastic reduction in meat eating is needed, together with limitations on consumption of dairy and fish.

No hot daily showers, an embargo on throw away fashion clothes, no cotton. Infrequent washing of clothes in tepid water and no artificial drying of them. Minimal home and work place heating will be the norm, which will be combined with regular power cuts. I will change all my lighting to LED’s.

Drastic reductions of energy guzzling internet and social media is needed, combined with substantial curtailment of music, film and tv streaming services, with smart phones and computers rationed to one per household that will be kept indefinitely and used infrequently,

I undertake to make a considerable reduction in personal purchases of consumer goods, especially those that are non-essential. I agree to the curtailment of new entertainment, such as films, documentaries and TV, especially where extensive travel was necessary in their making.

I will enjoy only a weekly cup of habitat destroying coffee and curtail consumption of vegan foods which have achieved mythical status on their ability to save the planet. Many vegan ingredients come from all over the world, often by air and have huge carbon footprints.

I will undertake to forego endless home deliveries of everything from fast food to shoes.

I undertake not to attend music festivals or sporting events, especially overseas, or those that need to use floodlights and aren’t near public transport.

You just need to endorse these aims as ones that you already adhere to and then we will know you have taken the measures needed to curtail the climate emergency you seem to believe is upon us. With regards

tonyb

Reply to  tonyb
January 7, 2021 1:04 am

Tony,
I write about the science of climate change. It’s real, and it will affect our lives greatly. I don’t generally preach about what individuals should do about it. That is for them and governments to work out. It matters to all of us, not just to me.

But I lead a fairly abstemious lifestyle.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 1:24 am

Yes, the science of climate change is real, and we have to put up with that BS every day.

Ron Long
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 2:13 am

It appears to me, Nick, that you write about the Political Science of AGW, not the actual science of naturally occurring climate variation and cycles as recorded by 600 million years of Sequence Stratigraphy.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 2:57 am

“ It’s real, and it will affect our lives greatly”

When will this happen? What does greatly mean?

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
January 7, 2021 7:39 am

It’s already affecting our lives greatly, in the form of higher taxes and energy prices as well as in the form of unreliable energy supplies.

Don
Reply to  Derg
January 7, 2021 5:55 pm

Exactly , I have been waiting for the effects of climate change to impact even slightly on my life and environment for 25+years but NOTHING! Hot summers ,cool summers (2020!) , cold winters (2018) not so cold winters , the odd drought , very wet years etc etc , normal ! as I have experienced in my 65 years ! Even the sea level in a near by coastal town which is open to the sea where we used to go on holiday 55 years ago the water level around docks and wharfs and beaches is at exactly the same levels and old locals who been there all their lives say the same no sign of sea level change .

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 3:54 am

No you do not write about “science”.. you write about “the science™”.

You highlight the statistical mal-practice involved in the climate change

Thanks for continually bring it to the light of day.

“It’s real,”

No, its complete and utter BS.. and you know that.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 3:57 am

Climate change affect us when it gets colder, not warmer, or when the politics think, they have do s.th. against it – than it gets worse than we thought.

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 4:04 am

Weather affects our daily lives more so, and it requires that we respond accordingly. Failure to realize this is like abstaining from using an umbrella when it’s raining. You get wet.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 4:47 am

Nick,
The statement “humans are responsible for about 110 percent of observed warming.” can be looked at in two different ways.
It either refers to the portion of the total warming over a starting point, ie: the warming is X% more than the starting point and humans are responsible for 110% of that total percentage increase, or it refers to the percent of the total raw number of increase, and that cannot be more than 100%.
It is common that many people refer to “giving 110%” as an indication that they have given above and beyond what was expected. We all know that usage is a metaphor. Perhaps James Walter had that in mind when he posted his comment.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 6:21 am

Nick, there is absolutely nothing going on with the climate that is anywhere close to being unprecedented. But go ahead and name them anyway.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 8:16 am

Nick,

You are so incredibly wrong about the science, it’s embarrassing. Whenever challenged to answer to the broken science, you flail. Let’s see you try and wiggle out of this one. I’ve asked this of you in the past and the result is either crickets or nonsense which is a clear indication that you are clueless about how first principles physics like COE and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law MUST apply to the climate system.

Each average W/m^2 from the Sun results in about 1.62 W/m^2 of average surface emissions. The nominal IPCC sensitivity requires the next W/m^2 to increase the steady state surface emissions by about 4.4 W/m^2 in order to achieve the mythical 0.8C per W/m^2.

What’s so special about the next W/m^2 (Joule) that it can do so much more work maintaining the surface temperature than the average W/m^2 (Joule)?

The ignorant answer is ‘feedback’, so how can feedback tell the next Joule from the average Joule?

Do you understand that Joules are the units of work? Do you understand that once the temperature has changed, the only work required is that to maintain the temperature which is proportional to T^4? There are so many gaps in your understanding, it’s laughable.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 8, 2021 7:36 am

Nick,

As expected, crickets. It’s amazing how cowardly alarmists are when it comes to defending the largely broken science supporting their position You must realize that this tactic of denying the scientific truth is unsustainable and projecting this denial on those like me who reject the IPCC as being more legitimate than the scientific method is a transparent ploy to hide your politically driven ignorance.

DonM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 10:04 am

“I don’t generally preach about what individuals should do about it. That is for them and governments to work out. It matters to all of us, not just to me.”

… disingenuous at best. You do everything you can to convince the government part of “them and governments” to regulate the ‘them’ into your belief system.

(disingenuous => nice way of saying something else)

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 11:24 am

Another zealot insisting on their vision of a disastrous future if we don’t follow their vision. And he is telling us that the government must force us to take actions that will affect our lives greatly in order to avoid his disastrous future that “… will affect our lives greatly.”

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 2:12 pm

Nick,

climate change. It’s real, and it will affect our lives greatly.”

Peak electricity generation occurs in Dec and Jan from heating. Another peak is in July and Aug from cooling. Attached is a graph relating electricity generation (residential, commercial, industrial) for various years in the US compared to population growth.

I can’t see where “climate change” is having much of an impact on our lives. Electricity production during Dec/Jan tracks pretty well with population growth, the trend line for electricity production has a slope of 20 and for population the trend line has a slope of 22. Electricity production during Jul/Aug only has a trend line with a slope of 2 compared to population growth with a slope of 22.

You would think that if the climate was getting warmer in the US that electricity generation in the peak summer months would be going up equivalent to population growth.

Something doesn’t jive.

elec_use_pop_growth.png
leowaj
Reply to  tonyb
January 7, 2021 9:12 am

tonyb, if you don’t mind, I would love to use your green creed as a document to get my green friends to agree to. I’d also like to add that those adhere to this strict doctrine must also forego all medical care and hospice care since these both consume very large amounts of material and energy.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  leowaj
January 7, 2021 11:35 am

You are very welcome

Tonyb

Waza
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 1:03 am

Ok Nick please enlighten us.
If the 110% is the best guess from ar4 in 2007 based on PDF of between 50% and 150% surely you have a more accurate estimate ( 93% to 123% not really good enough).
Provide a hypothesis and full workings.
Once complete for 1950 to 2010, then uses the same method for 2010 to 2020.

paul courtney
Reply to  Waza
January 8, 2021 11:37 am

Waza: Indeed. Mr. Stokes says he “writes about the science”, but here he is writing about gaslighting. Skeptics wanted to know, what percentage of warming was AGW, knowing that the answer would (at least) reveal uncertainty that AGW believers like Stokes won’t admit. The answer of 110% is absurd, gaslighting I calls it, to distract from the fact that they can’t show their work (Mr. Stokes, if you care to show the math behind the “10% cooling”, feel free). tonyb has a good reply, but that will never work with Mr. Stokes. Your approach is magic, it makes him disappear.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  paul courtney
January 10, 2021 8:25 am

He also needs to split it into natural variation + AGW. Blaming all warming on AGW naturally precludes natural variation. Where are the studies showing that our planet has magically gotten to the point where natural variation is no long a problem? No more Ice Ages would be nice.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 1:07 am

Agree that there is nothing wrong with the concept of 110%. if Gavin is right then thank god for AGW Without it we would be cooling, and that cooling would incease Arctic Albedo causing more cooling and so on and then an ice age. Save the planet,! MakeCO2

Reply to  Alastair gray
January 7, 2021 8:25 am

Too bad there’s not enough fossil fuels to burn to keep the next ice age from occurring. Let’s not forget that the only thing Gavin has right is that the climate changes, although he also seems to think that it shouldn’t.

DonM
Reply to  Alastair gray
January 7, 2021 10:08 am

The quote was for OBSERVED warming.

What is the observed warming?
What percent of that OBSERVED warming are humans responsible for?

The concept of 110% revolves around hype. There is something wrong with the concept.

fred250
Reply to  DonM
January 7, 2021 5:35 pm

OBSERVED temperatures show NH temperature similar to now in the 1930s/40s

OBSERVED temperatures show WARMER than now in Australia in the 1880-1910 period.

In reality, OBSERVED temperatures show no warming in the NH in 80 or so years

and no warming in Australia in 120 or so years

110% of NOTHING is NOTHING.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 8, 2021 12:29 pm

“110% of NOTHING is NOTHING.”

Exactly!

The only warming occurring is in the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

Herbert
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 1:22 am

Nick,
Let’s take your argument a little further.
Let us assume that the amount of human emissions since 1950 is more than 200% of the increase in global emission increases recorded at Mauna Loa, and not just more than 50% as the IPCC maintains.
This is currently widely asserted as humankind’s share relative to total global emission increases.
In May 1919,Professor David Karoly went on ABC Q&A in Australia and informed the audience that “we know with absolute certainty” that all of the warming since 1900 was occasioned by human emissions.
His reasoning is that since pre-industrial times the recorded global emissions have increased from 280 ppm to 416 ppm, a increase of some 40%.
Thus for Australia, our share of emissions is not 1.3% of 4% of 416ppm ( as was the argument he was meeting by broadcaster Alan Jones) but rather 1.3% of 40% of 416ppm.
For the US, the relevant proportions would be 17% of 40% of 416%.
You will understand the difficulty I have in accepting that prior to 1950 or indeed between 1910 and 1940 when human emissions were much limited one can assert that all warming over the last century (or longer) is attributable to humankind.
I believe Phil Jones agreed that there was no statistical difference worldwide in warming between 1860-1880,1910-1940 versus late 20th Century warming, 1975 to 1998.
Your thoughts.

Herbert
Reply to  Herbert
January 7, 2021 1:23 am

Nick,
Correction: “May 1919” should read “May 2019”.

Waza
Reply to  Herbert
January 7, 2021 3:25 am

Herbert
Good comment.
I am a simple man. I want a simple explanation.
The ipcc and Gavin say most ( actually 110%) of the warming from 1951-2010 is man made.
But why were there equal size warming and cooling prior to 1950?
And why is there not extra warming since 2010?

fred250
Reply to  Waza
January 7, 2021 4:33 am

“And why is there not extra warming since 2010?”

Many places have not warmed this century… or even longer

eg Central England…. no warming since 1997

comment image

Canada

comment image

South Pole

comment image

Jim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
January 10, 2021 8:28 am

Yep! Where are the areas with twice the warming to make the average come out?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 3:41 am

Nick. In the absence of the IPCC nobody would bother and everybody could spend their time on things more worthwhile.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 11:38 am

The UN IPCC is a political organization originally designed to get a particular result: “Proof” that human production of CO2 would harm the earth. I do not trust political organizations that produce “proof” of their original, unsupported assumption that undergirds its formation.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 3:51 am

Poor Nick.. your senility is showing big time

Time to hang up the AGW rocking horse and live the rest of your life in peace.

All Gavin has said is that it would be COOLING if it weren’t for the “climate change agenda” adjustments

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 5:47 am

Nick – given that there has been no research on natural climate change and the admission that any human caused climate change is impossible to tell from natural climate change, how can you possibly say what the percentage might be? For all you know we might have had 10 degrees of warming over the last 100 years that has been completely inhibited down to around 1-1.5 degrees – that would make it a high negative percentage. The whole thing is a pointless exercise in speculation unless you invest in more research on natural climate change, which you won’t do because it would expose the whole CAGW enterprise as fraudulent. To borrow from a (Japanese?) proverb -‘they who have hold of the tigers tail daren’t let go’.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 7:55 am

Considering the fact that the models have predicted more than twice the warming that has actually been seen, shouldn’t CO2 be responsible for 200% of the observed warming?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 8:24 am

Nick, IF we are altering the climate at 110%, we are doing the future humans, who might otherwise be facing a glacial apocalypse, the greatest favor ever done.

As John Christie told that Congressional committee a few years back, the way we think we understand something is by making correct predictions. You keep spewing your completely vague hypothesis, and never proving it by doing real science, which is offering a case for how it could be falsified, formulating and then attacking your hypothesis with tests against it (which it survives).

When you say general, vague bullshit, you cannot even hope to falsify your claims. All you do is endlessly bloviate about opinions of other ignorant “experts” and promote statistical tests that are not proven fit for purpose. This is beyond aggravating. And it’s pointless, since your hypothesis is just vague crap, that might match a hundred or a million different natural variations other than CO2 concentrations in any case. Try to be very specific, and start attacking your own precious, Nick, or be prepared to be forever doomed to this unproductive sniping.

TonyG
Reply to  Mickey Reno
January 7, 2021 9:00 am

If we’re supposed to cut our emissions to stop the warming, and we do it successfully, we’ll stop 110% of the warming and start cooling again. That seems to be the intent, right?

So what I want to know is: what is the target temperature?

DonM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 9:52 am

Nick,

The quote “Dr. Gavin Schmidt believes humans are responsible for about 110 percent of observed warming.” is where the 110% came from.

It includes ‘observed warming’ as the subject … OBSERVED.

How much warming has anyone observed?

How much of that OBSERVED warming are humans responsible for?

You are often times the one that tries to point out things like this.

When you (YOU) feel the need to exaggerate or lie to make a point, it shows that (deep down) you really must know that there something significantly wrong with the point your are trying to make.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonM
January 8, 2021 12:41 pm

“it shows that (deep down) you really must know that there something significantly wrong with the point your are trying to make.”

How can Nick or any other knowledgeable alarmist not know? They have all seen the unmodified regional surface temperature charts from around the world. They all know it was just as warm in the recent past, around the world, as it is today. And they all know that the temperature profile of the regional charts looks nothing like the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart profile.

Yet they persist in promoting the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart as the one that represents reality. The only chart that shows warming.

It’s a deliberate lie. Or we are dealing with very deluded people who can’t recognize reality. Either way, they are wrong and misleading people by claiming CO2 is causing the world to overheat. It’s not.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 10, 2021 8:36 am

Global Average Temperature (GAT) anomalies simply can’t be proven correct by using the sum of the parts (regional/local areas) to arrive at the total. The wheels will come off sooner or later.

meab
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 11:04 am

If humans were responsible for 110% of the warming since 1950 then, as you say, there would have been recent cooling in the absence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Let’s summarize what we actually know, not what Alarmists speculate. The actual measured global average temperature did DECLINE from 1940 to 1970 but the temperature increased from 1910 to 1940. That earlier temperature increase took place at almost the same rate as it has in the last 30 years.

Since we know that the earlier period of warming took place at a low CO2 concentration and the cooling from 1940 to 1970 took place at higher CO2 concentration, then the effect of CO2, counting all feedbacks, must have been very small at 1940 – 1970 levels – global cooling overwhelmed any effect from a growing CO2 concentration. Since we’re only just matching the warming from 1910 to 1940, and the recovery from the Little Ice Age started in about 1850, BEFORE CO2 started to increase, the effect of CO2 has to be, at most, comparable to what natural warming can (and has) delivered. Plus, CO2’s effect is logarithmic so we can say, with certainty, that there’s no impending climate crisis.

How do these climate alarmists know that the natural cooling would have continued when they aren’t sure what caused it and what caused the earlier warming? Some have theorized atmospheric aerosols, but that argues that recent reduction in aerosol concentrations must be responsible for some of the recent warming.

The IPCC actually stated that they’re 95% confident that “at least 50%” (**not 110%**), of recent warming is anthropogenic so, Nick, you seem to have lied on that point.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  meab
January 8, 2021 12:48 pm

“How do these climate alarmists know that the natural cooling would have continued when they aren’t sure what caused it and what caused the earlier warming?”

There you go! Excellent question! Let’s see if ole Nick or Gavin have an answer.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 11:11 am

Nick, the UN IPCC climate models collectively insist that ECS is over 3X. Do you believe that is the case? If so, how do you explain the fact that the “hot” models can’t accurately reflect past temperature trends, even with their liberal, arbitrary applications of aerosol forcing? Why do the various models continue to diverge more and more as they go either forward or backward in time? Do the different models even reflect the same basic universe?

Not only is the elephant wagging its trunk, it is taking a dump.

Last edited 5 months ago by Dave Fair
Ian McClintock
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 7, 2021 3:07 pm

Nick, you have obviously not read the IPCC AR5 Scientific basis report, because if you had you would no doubt find, (carefully hidden in it), an analysis of the various factors both contributing to and lessening the warming of our planet’s climate.

In relation to man’s net overall contribution of greenhouse gasses they show burning fossil fuels contributes 3.8% and land-use-change a further .5%, a total of 4.3%.

Natural emissions constitute some 95.7% of the atmospheric increase in these gasses, according to their calculations.

The IPCC are clearly confused about this as in other places in their Reports they make outlandish claims contradicting their own science-based findings.

There are very sound reasons to substantiate their science-based position.

If you disagree you will need to authenticate your claims.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 8, 2021 7:38 am

Ohh-kay, so it is a presumed negative fractional natural warming, i.e., a ‘cooling by nature if humans weren’t there’ that justifies the 110 percent calculation? A counterfactual assumption is the basis for this then, i.e., we know what the temperature would have been with no human activity?

In a case like this, the common sense that says 110 percent is bad math is essentially the correct outlook. Actually measure the amount of global warming, if you can, and tell me how much of it was likely caused by humans? The alternative interpretation you propose would allow your ‘what if’ machine to generate any number you want to blame on humans — thousands of percents even, if it seems so expedient!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 8, 2021 12:19 pm

“Total AGW is 110% of warming observed.”

Not in the United States and Canada. CO2 is zero percent of warming observed here, because it isn’t warming, it is cooling, since the Early Twentieth Century.

The CO2/Global Warming scare is for everyone else, not North America.

I guess North America is special, in that way. How do we explain this discrepancy between North America and the rest of the globe? North America is not in danger from temperature rises caused by CO2, but the rest of the world is?

We all know why, don’t we. It has something to do with the “global” temperature record being bastardized for political purposes, which shows “hotter and hotter” when there really is no “hotter and hotter”. It’s all computer-generation combined with dishonest motives. That’s where the warmth comes from.

No bastardized Hockey Stick chart = No Human-caused Climate Change/Global Warming

The fraudulent Hockey Stick chart is the only place CO2 warming shows up. It’s not the Bible. It’s Science Fiction, created to defraud the people of the world.

Go ahead, continue pushing these lies, Nick.

Mark E Shulgasser
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 9, 2021 9:14 pm

Complete arithmetic sophistry.

tygrus
Reply to  James Walter
January 7, 2021 2:35 pm

SOLUTION:
If they calculate the natural contribution to be negative (ie. cooling) then the human contribution can be greater than the observation.
Natural warming + Human warming = observation warming
eg. -0.1 + 1.0 = 0.9
1.0 / 0.9 = 1.11 = 111% (with some rounding)

My OPINIONS:
But this assumes they can calculate the natural warming/cooling changes & reliable temperature records. The methods & confidence intervals for some of these are questionable.

If the human contribution is slowly increasing and largely accumulative then the human contribution should follow that curve. If the natural contribution is predictable then the models should show the natural contribution making up most of the seasonal variation leaving a smooth line for the human contribution. What I actually see is the human contribution varying greater seasonally than the natural contribution when working backwards. They often create a model with natural variation that imitates the historical record when averaged over enough years but the accuracy of predicting any single year is very poor. It’s like I can predict a block of computer data to have a 50:50 ratio of 1’s & 0’s very accurately but pick any position and I’d still have only 50% accuracy (non-significant) at predicting the 1 or 0.

January 6, 2021 10:14 pm

The American Meteorological Society frequently surveys meteorologists and asks them what percentage of the last 50 years’ warming they attribute to “human activity” (presumably mostly GHGs). This bar chart is from their 2017 survey report:
 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍
comment image
 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

As you can see, the “average” or “midpoint opinion” of American broadcast meteorologists is that a little over half of the warming was caused by human activity (presumably mostly by CO2):

  (.905×15/92)+(.7×34/92)+(.5×21/92)+(.3×13/92)+(.095×8/92) = 57%

So the averaged best guesses of those meteorologists is about half Gavin’s guess.

Last edited 5 months ago by Dave Burton
MarkW
Reply to  Dave Burton
January 7, 2021 7:41 am

Meteorologists aren’t insiders, so their opinions don’t count.
Only those who have been properly anointed as insiders are allowed to have opinions on this matter.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Burton
January 7, 2021 11:37 am

Dave
You said, “(presumably mostly by CO2)” Your presumption would be wrong. Land-use changes, such as deforestation and plowing, 4.2 million miles of highways in the US alone, metropolitan areas that absorb energy and re-radiate at night (when most warming occurs), and a small amount from waste-heat from human activities almost certainly exceeds the claimed impact of CO2, which itself is questionable.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 7, 2021 12:41 pm

Well by all means let’s stop the plowing. Darn those farmers. Who needs food crops? We can always eat each other. Anything to keep the Earth from getting any warmer. Mother Nature wants it colder. Don’t mess with Ma Nature, silly humanoids.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Burton
January 8, 2021 12:59 pm

“So the averaged best guesses of those meteorologists”

They are still just guesses. The meteorologists don’t have any more evidence for Human-caused Global Warming than does anyone else.

The so-called “settled science” of climate change isn’t very settled at all, it’s just guesses all the way down.

Joel O'Bryan
January 6, 2021 10:15 pm

If you really want to be Green with your diet… go Soylent Green.
NY’s Gov Cuomo is filling up the supply side of that equation.

gary
January 6, 2021 10:26 pm

Stephanie sounds like she is 11 and trying to impress teacher.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  gary
January 6, 2021 10:45 pm

no doubt she’s the product of a modern liberal arts education. and I couldn’t gaf about her preferred pronouns which she no doubts tells people she meets. It’s a mental illness.

fred250
Reply to  gary
January 6, 2021 11:33 pm

The scientific credentials of a 5 year old…….. or any chosen AGW apologist/troll.

January 6, 2021 10:37 pm

Too bad Schmidt refuses to justify the absurdly high sensitivity coming from the UN. The faith based science he proselytizes needs to be exposed as the fraud it really is.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 6, 2021 11:09 pm

They’re all fully aware everything they say is fraudulent and have known for at least two decades. They’ve all told the usual lies so often they no longer need to do any real science. What other reason could there possibly be for avoiding debate? If they were so certain of their facts and “science”, they’d welcome open debate.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 11:51 am

Its deregur in CliSci to deplatform those you consider to be evil. You wouldn’t engage the Devil, would you? Schmidt apparently considers those who distrust his speculative modeling as evil in intent and ignoring scientific understanding.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 7, 2021 1:14 pm

You got that right, Dave. De-platform and gaslight … those are the key methods of “cancel culture’ and the gradual integration of the Marxist message. If one chooses to engage, they at least recognize the existance of an opposition. “Settled science” is a done deal … the end of the road.

fred250
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 6, 2021 11:34 pm

I wonder if his legs still ache from all that RUNNING AWAY !! 😉

Graemethecat
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 7, 2021 7:46 am

Unlike Climatology, a real, rigorous discipline exercised by people with training in Geology, Meteorology, Physics, etc., Climate “Science” is practiced entirely by computer “scientists” with no grounding in the physical world. It is a fake Science, and like all fake sciences, it never actually answers any questions nor does it ever make any progress. It can’t even decide what the value of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is, despite decades of “work”.

Last edited 5 months ago by Graemethecat
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 7, 2021 5:46 pm

It would be amusing that the ‘settled’ ECS has +- 50% uncertainty, execpt that these alarmist idiots use this trivially falsifiable lie to drive policy.

Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 10:40 pm

How is a dishwasher more environmentally better than washing by hand?

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:03 pm

Because she probably owns one !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:10 pm

Ok, many might say this is bollox, but it is not. It is proven that hand washing dishes wastes vast volumes of water. A dishwasher actually does save, if you fill it to capacity.

Lee L
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 7, 2021 12:23 am

Yes, maybe… AFTER you’ve washed enough dishes with the machine to offset the mining, smelting, production and transport of the raw steel, copper, fossil derived plastic, aluminum in the machine plus the transportation emissions from the manufacturing plant (China) to your house and the ultimate disposal or recycle emissions. Oh and the actual purchase currency must be earned in an emissions free manner. Maybe THEN it makes sense.
Emissions related to sales and marketing of the item need to be offset as well.

MarkW
Reply to  Lee L
January 7, 2021 7:48 am

Most dishwashers will last 20 to 30 years.

Reply to  Lee L
January 7, 2021 5:48 pm

My discresionary time is worth enough to make this worthwhile.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 7, 2021 12:58 am

I had a dishwasher at one time. To effectively clean, things need to be 3/4 clean before loading. The glasses and cups come out foul-smelling if you wash pots and pans as well. It takes a long time and nobody bothers taking the dishes out of the washer, so they sit there gathering bacteria in their lovely, moist environment. Maybe it’s ok for a large family, but for two people it’s a waste of electricity and resources. Dishwashers are filthy troublesome things and I will never have one again.

Damon
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 2:30 am

I live alone. I have one, and use it all the time. So sue me.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Damon
January 7, 2021 3:19 am

Suit yourself.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 11:57 am

Probably the most profound sentiment I’ve encountered today. Individual freedom is the only kind of freedom. Collectivism leads to misery. Read actual history.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Damon
January 7, 2021 5:43 am

Quite right too. My wife and I have one as well, thanks to it and our other labour saving appliances we are able to enjoy 110% of our leisure time.

DonM
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 7, 2021 10:16 am

very good point. I don’t have one (and the clothes washer/dryer are way way out in the garage). So, as such, we only have 97% of our leisure time (to enjoy, or not enjoy).

Last edited 5 months ago by DonM
Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonM
January 8, 2021 1:05 pm

I see what both of you did! Clever! 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 4:03 pm

I have had that problem on older type washers but never had that with the type I have now (Fisher and Paykel dish drawers) and they user very little water, 10lt per cycle IIRC, compared to washing up in the sink.

lee
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:10 pm

My wife has a dish washer she says. ME.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:13 pm

They can be more efficient comparing a full load to an equivalent quantity one by hand. It filters and recycles water, using it’s own heating elements. If you don’t use the drying cycle, it’s even better. The much higher temps dry the dishes very quickly when air dried.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 12:17 am

Yeah, right, it “uses its own heating elements…”
How, exactly, Rory and Patrick, do you think heating elements work? By magic? It concentrates the hot air you are blowing out your backsides? Your washer comes with a special cannister that holds the heat you extracted from the warming planet? Hey, maybe there’s some wires that connect it all the way back to a big old power station belching horrid CO2 or radioactive waste?
“…uses its own heating elements…” Jeeziss kreist!
You know what is most disturbing about the average intelligence of the climaholocists? Half of them are stupider than that!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 7, 2021 12:53 am

You didn’t need all that juvenile verbiage and sarcasm to demonstrate your ignorance. Your name alone sufficed. I’m sure you can’t help your stupidity … you’re clearly among the group “stupider than that”. Hell, all you needed to do was look it up.

First; dishwashers use much less water because it’s recycled and far hotter. Many use immersion heaters, so they heat their own water as needed. It costs money to store large quantities of water.The shell of the dishwasher is well insulated, maintaining the heat. There is a considerable loss of heat getting stored tap water to the sink. The lower temps require a second filling to rinse, wasting both water and more energy.

What’s more … when the much hotter dishes are air dried, they add their warmth to the room reducing your heating bill.
BTW … I’ve forgotten more about this subject than you’re ever likely to grasp.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 11:47 am

Rory
You make a good point. Henceforth I’ll only wash dishes in the dishwasher during the Wintertime.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 8, 2021 11:24 am

Such a knowledgeable gentleman. So, during summer, don’t you feel just a little bit of guilt, having to run your aircon that much harder to cool down the house your warm plates heated so efficiently? I admit to being fascetious, but your brilliance just lit a spark. Like when a fly lands on a urinal, I just had to take aim.
By the way, genius, if you rinse clean dishes in hot water, you are doing it wrong. But then, mommy’s always been doing things for you, how would you know?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 8, 2021 1:23 pm

By the way, genius, if you rinse clean dishes in hot water, you are doing it wrong

It’s clear you’ve never spent much time in a kitchen, but I’m fascinated why you’d believe anyone rinses clean dishes … with hot or cold water. In any event, it’s always fascinating to get the views of someone with a true gift of stupidity.

PS … I’ve never had any use for “aircon” like most people. Heating constitutes ALL the expense.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 7, 2021 11:45 am

“Half of them are stupider than that!”

I think you are being unnecessarily generous. Consider the quality of the contributions from the likes of Loydo and Griff.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  paranoid goy
January 7, 2021 4:01 pm

I actually have two dishwashers (Dish drawers) that do not use heating elements. They draw hot water from the main water heater when needed, not that much either IIRC it’s less than 10lt per cycle. Then air is pumped through the compartment to dry the items.

fred250
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:40 pm

Think of all the Steel, Plastic, electricity fossil fuels, etc that went into making and delivering that dishwasher

This is one of the modern conveniences that will have to disappear in a leftist’s green old world.

I wonder is poor little steph could cope without it. 😉

You can see how UTTERLY TRIVIAL her mind is.

https://parade.com/member/stephanieosmanski/

EVERYTHING she writes is FULL-ON TRASH !!

Finally found a scientific equal for Loy or nyhol or griff.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Waza
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 6, 2021 11:58 pm

My default position when debating climate change with a lefty female is – educating women in the developing world is amore important issue than climate change.
100s of millions of woman don’t have a dishwasher, washing machine, refrigerator or access to cleaning running water.
Fossil fuels are the cheapest way to provide grid based electricity and help 100s of millions of women gain extra valuable hours for education.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 3:47 am

Actually it is in some respect. You use quite a bit more water doing it by hand. The machine is supposed to be more envirofriendly although it means that the concentration of organic matter in the wastewater is higher.

Last edited 5 months ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
MarkW
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 7:47 am

Some people run the water continuously when washing by hand. As a result they use a lot more water.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 4:17 pm

I’m not against dishwashers. If people want them, it’s fine by me. I’m only interested in the financial side of doing dishes ie. electricity, water usage. I don’t see any real environmental advantage to a dishwasher (home use). The way things are going it may become mandatory that every household should have one.

fred250
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 7, 2021 5:42 pm

If they want to pay for it and install it. go for it.

I still won’t bother using it.

Chaswarnertoo
January 6, 2021 10:41 pm

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Rory Forbes
January 6, 2021 11:02 pm

Like most AGW true believers, Schmidt has neither basic arithmetic skills nor an understanding of the term “climate”. As for Stephanie, I’m sure has perfect teeth and was first in her gender studies class, but should have left science reporting to someone else. Clearly, the things she believes will alter her climate just don’t measure up. Hell, there’s no evidence that there is a human climate signal at all.

fred250
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 5:44 pm

“Hell, there’s no evidence that there is a human climate signal at all.”

How true that is.!

…. and the resident AGW cultists keep proving that FACT.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Mike
January 6, 2021 11:20 pm

110%? Well everything’s settled then. You can’t argue with that.

Loydo
Reply to  Mike
January 7, 2021 1:01 am

You can argue with science here if you like:

From US governments Fourth National Climate Assessment

“…a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).”
comment image

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Last edited 5 months ago by Loydo
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 2:02 am

Do please try not to be so gullible.
Just very recently here I appealed to your ultimate authority on the subject of radiation forcing – Jozef Stefan and did some sums
It’s not difficult to work out the radiation coming from the sky, the ground, the sea or anywhere or anywhere.

The entire radiation coming from our atmosphere, at its average temperature of minus 15 Celsius is less than 5 Watts per square metre

Thus the figure you present here is laughable beyond belief.
It states that (primarily) CO2 is ‘forcing’ by 2.3 Watts per sqm

a) Because CO2 has lower emissivity than all the other atmospheric gases, raising its level will displace higher emissivity gases and thus reduce the radiant power

b) The radiant energy coming from the atmosphere will not increase the energy content of whatever is on the surface. The surface is always warmer than the sky above it, because of Lapse Rate, and cold objects do not cause warm ones to become warmer

c) If it really is such a big signal (a 50% increase in the ‘downwelling’ radiation) coming from a well-defined source, why are there such big error bars on that figure? Why has no-one actually measured it?
What planet was Trenberth on when his energy budget graphic effectively told us that the atmosphere has an emissivity of unity and an average temperature of plus 19 Celsius – typically 4 degrees warmer than the surface is reckoned to be.

As a trivial thought, consider the entire universe.
There is vastly more cold space at a temperature (seemingly) of 269 Kelvin than there is warm space or warm things.
Why, after 13 Billion years of this ‘forcing’ is the universe such a cold, expanding and cooling place?
The theory of Greenhouse Gases says it should have near-infinite temperature

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 10, 2021 9:06 am

At best, CO2 would only radiate half of any intercepted 15 um radiation back to the earth. All this would do is 1) slow any rate to equilibrium, and 2) reduce the equilibrium temperature itself.

Too many people think of IR as photon bullets that have a direction. If intercepted going up, then an equal amount must be remitted down, i.e., no reduction due to spherical radiation from a point source. I’ve been reading a translation of Planck’s original treatise on heat radiation. Amazing what he had already figured out by 1914. The math is a little heavy but understandable if you’ve had vector calculus.

Waza
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 3:11 am

Loydo
What is the formula for “likely”?
The clear challenge to Gavin Schmidt is to explain the 110% in physical terms not model or statistical terms such as “likely”
A. Explain IN PHYSICAL terms, how man made component was 110% between 1951-2010
B. Use same physical terms to explain the rise in temp from 1910- 1940
C. Ditto the fall from 1940 – 1970
D. Ditto the flat section from 2000 -2020

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Waza
January 8, 2021 1:29 pm

The temperatures fell from 1940 to 1970 yet the IPCC uses 1951 as their starting point.

That’s what happens when the IPCC uses the fraudulent, modern-era (instrument record) Hockey Stick chart.

Here’s a comparions of a legitimate regional surface temperature chart, the US chart (Hansen 1999) with a fraudulent, modern-era Hockey Stick chart.

As you can see, the US chart shows the temperature decline from 1940 to 1970.

The fraudulent Hockey Stick chart artificially cooled the 1930’s and makes it appear insignificant temperature-wise as compared to the US chart.

The U.S. chart shows no warming since the 1930’s (1998 is just as warm as 2016).

The fraudulent Hockey Stick shows lots of warming and shows it was getting hotter and hotter, decade after decade and we are now living at the warmest time in human history. A perfect, scary scenario. But it’s all a Big Lie. It’s all made up in a computer and was done to promote a political agenda.

comment image

comment image

All the regional unmodified (actual temperature readins) surface temperature charts from around the wold show the same temperature profile as the US chart, where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

No unmodified surface temperature chart resembles the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

Disregad the Hockey Stick chart and you can disregard the fear of CO2 and Human-caused climate change because the Hockey Stick is the only place “warming” shows up. Nowhere else in the world.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 8, 2021 1:34 pm

If you look at a chart and it does not show the Early Twentieth Century to be as warm as today, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, Hockey Stick chart

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 3:56 am

ROFLMAO !!

You really do fall for BLATANT ANTI-SCIENCE PROPAGANDA so easily, don’t you Loy

Only a 5 year old could be SO DUMB !!

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 4:10 am

Yes, loy…

We KNOW that human adjustments are responsible for a large proportion of the increase in the fabricated “global average surface temperature”

But we also know IT IS NOT REAL.

And why would they start at 1951, when they KNOW it was warmer in the 1940s ??

Only warming since 1980 has come from El Nino events which have ABSOLUTELY ZERO human contribution

So what they are saying is that humans caused all the slight warming from 1950-1980

Good luck finding any EVIDENCE of that !!

Oh Wait….. EVIDENCE is not something you “do” , is it empty sock.!

—–

Let’s try yet again.. loy satte….

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Please continue to PROVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for warming by atmospheric CO2

Please continue to post mindless inanities so as to avoid producing any actual real evidence

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 7:52 am

Where’s the science? All I see is a bunch of unsupported opinions.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 11:30 am

There are hundreds of cited papers listed in the reference sections of that report. Look harder.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 3:46 pm

Poor loy-dumb

YET AGAIN runs away from presenting any actual scientific evidence

You do immeasurable harm to the AGW scam with you utter and complete incompetence.

So DUMB you don’t even realise it.. 🙂

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 5:50 pm

“Look harder.”

Its your fairy-tale, loy……. up to you to support it. !

TheMightyQuinn
January 6, 2021 11:22 pm

She is 150% wrong.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
January 7, 2021 11:51 am

Shouldn’t that be “150.000% wrong”?

fred250
January 6, 2021 11:26 pm

Gavin Schmidt would know.

Him and his mates are the ones responsible for most of the data adjustment.

What he is actually saying is that the planet is ACTUALLY COOLING !!

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Scissor
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 4:16 am

It actually is cooling on a millennial scale and man made global warming (not adjustments) is about the only thing that might prevent the next glaciation.

Anyway, we shouldn’t worry about it.

fred250
Reply to  Scissor
January 7, 2021 4:36 am

Yep, Gavin should be CONGRATULATING the human species for saving the planet for a further dip into an Ice Age

….(if he really “believes” the nonsense he spews out)

Rod Evans
January 6, 2021 11:27 pm

Phew, that’s a relief. Only 110% responsible for climate change, us humans. There I was worried we might be responsible for the full 127% 🙂 Just goes to prove things are no where near as bad as the climate alarmist imagine I guess….
Where do they find these so called experts?

Waza
January 6, 2021 11:40 pm

AFAIK the 110% is because
A. Naturally the climate should be cooling.
B. CO2 also offsets aerosols cooling.

If Gavin accurately knows the amount of warming or cooling produced by A and B above he should have been able to accurately predict/ project the last decade of almost no warming.

Richard (the cynical one)
January 6, 2021 11:48 pm

110% divided by how many billion of us? Makes the guilt tolerable. I think I will put another steak on the grill.

Redge
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
January 6, 2021 11:52 pm

I think I’ll turn up the heating a little

fred250
Reply to  Redge
January 7, 2021 4:11 am

Turn it up to 11 😉

fretslider
January 7, 2021 12:05 am

110% ???

What are they teaching these days?

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
January 7, 2021 9:55 am

It’s new math.

AndrewWA
January 7, 2021 12:25 am

Thanks Gavin….next time we want your opinion we’ll ask for it,,,,,,

SAMURAI
January 7, 2021 12:30 am

Green Lives Matter???

Is this a new social justice movement for Martians?

GLM may also be for social justice for the mathematically impaired, as in, “humans are responsible for about 110 percent of observed warming”.

Leftists are so comical.

Josie
January 7, 2021 12:46 am

Reminds me of the inimitable Martin Lukes.

Alastair gray
January 7, 2021 1:44 am

Slightly digressing Schmidt and his ilk will show you a graph of CO2 vs time with an overall exponential rising trend. This is then accompanied by a Temp vs time plot extrapolated into the future with modelled data. then a gleeful Eureka chant See the correltion!
Logical flaw though A assuming CO2 leads and causes T rise .

a linear rise in CO2 over time should cause a logarithmic rise in T.
An exponential rise in CO2 should cause a linear rise in T
So CO2rise and T in exponential lockstep is precisely what i dont expect
If on the otherhand T rise leads and causes CO2 rise by ,say, ocean dissolution then the two would expect to be in lockstep.
I asked earler what assumptions a GCM makes or a trise vs CO2 conc.

Quilter52
January 7, 2021 1:48 am

I’m glad NASA’s space engineers are rather better at mathematics than their climate scientists. We are still talking to Both Voyager Spacecraft using their maths more than 40 years after launch. A NASA climate prediction Rarely lasts a year Before disappearing in obfuscation because it’s wrong.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Quilter52
January 8, 2021 1:44 pm

The Voyager spacecraft have now entered intergalactic space and they are reporting that they are now flying through an area that is denser than inside the Sun’s magnetic field. I don’t know what significance that might have, if any, but that’s what they are reporting.

Nelson
January 7, 2021 3:09 am

Very sad. What has become of intellectual honesty? In the unadjusted data, there is no correlation between CO2 changes and temperature change. Gavin is just a flat out liar. He and Mann are quite a pair.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nelson
January 7, 2021 11:55 am

Considering the claimed shenanigans during the recent election, and the response from elected officials, “What has become of honesty?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 8, 2021 1:50 pm

When I first read Orwell’s book “1984”, I thought it was an unrealistic scenario. I started reading the book again the other day and it now looks like the future.

Our personal freedoms are definitely at risk now that the radical Democrats have the power. They will use this power to try to suppress their political opponents. It’s already started.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 8, 2021 4:44 pm

“It’s already started.”

Trump permanently banned from twitter. Apple threatening to boot Parler from the app store unless they start censoring. And Biden isn’t even sworn in yet.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
January 9, 2021 5:16 am

It looks like we are getting ready to have a Soviet-era purge of political opponents by the radical Democrats. They appear to be drunk with power. Nancy Pelosi is unhinged. And she calls Trump crazy.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 9, 2021 2:58 pm

“Lincoln Project” keeping a database of Trump admin members and pledges to “go after” companies that hire them.

ABC news calling for a “cleansing” of Trump supporters.

All of this while calling the Trump people fascists and N@$i’s

This is getting into some very disturbing territory.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nelson
January 8, 2021 1:45 pm

I think you nailed it, Nelson.

leitmotif
January 7, 2021 3:20 am

A good example of Cargo Cult Science.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 3:39 am

The vegan plug is the give away.

Scissor
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 4:20 am

Yes, and there may be more than correlation of idiocy with veganism.

Philip
January 7, 2021 4:09 am

I’d erroneously imagined 100% to be all. Now I know all is greater than 100% but less than 124%. It’s all, 123% your fault, man! Science! 😏

Last edited 5 months ago by Philip
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Philip
January 7, 2021 5:41 am

I think Nick Stokes has shown in the past that by using multiple thermometers and statistics you can get it much more precisely to 123.994373646%.

January 7, 2021 4:23 am

110% ???
Exactly talking at the right place, Mud ville 😀

Sara
January 7, 2021 4:26 am

Okay, well, since the Greenbeaners are all 110% paranoid about the climate changing, which is NORMAL on this planet, it might be better if they got some professional help with their problem, wouldn’t it?

I have said this before and will repeat it ad nauseum: the O2 level in the atmosphere is 20%; the CO2 level is 0.04%. That is, for uninformed individuals, a 400-hundredth of ONE percent CO2 vice 20% O2. So WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM??????

Bruce Cobb
January 7, 2021 4:27 am

Gavin Schmuck exaggerates bigly. By approximately 10,000%. Give or take. We humans might be responsible for all of 1% of the warming. Too small to actually measure, and certainly too small to matter one iota. And the claim that without us humans the earth would have cooled is laughable on its face.

Rick
January 7, 2021 4:52 am

My non-toxic laundry detergent definately runs WAY cooler than the toxic detergent we used to use. That stuff was so hot it would burn holes in my undies all the time.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rick
January 7, 2021 12:14 pm

Its your emissions which burn holes in your undies.

very old white guy
January 7, 2021 5:02 am

not much can be said about the level of stupid required to believe that man can change the climate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  very old white guy
January 7, 2021 11:58 am

Rain dances change the weather all the time. Climate is just a long record of weather.

Richard M
January 7, 2021 5:14 am

Climate pseudo-science continues to deny our oceans are one of the biggest drivers of climate change. With the AMO and PDO both positive for about 80% of the last 40 years and ENSO adding to the warming, it is silly to claim that natural climate factors would have caused cooling.

Finally, factoring in the increasing salinity over the last 400 years and you really can explain close to all the warming. It requires no contribution from human emissions at all.

Kevin kilty
January 7, 2021 5:57 am

Porridge diet.

Recycle urine at least once.

Stop washing soap as it requires energy to make.

Keep your home temperature as close as possible to outdoors.

I’m not sure what compositing food scraps means, but lets do it….

No problem, soon you are living in the middle ages again, complte with nobility once more, and luvin ‘ it.

Lrp
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 8, 2021 11:11 am

No home, just a hole in the ground.

DrTorch
January 7, 2021 5:59 am

Then AGW has saved the world, b/c otherwise we’d see cooling, and that would be disastrous.

Notanacademic
January 7, 2021 6:05 am

110% mmm I wonder if you subtract the artificially raised later temperatures from the record and then also subtract the artificially lowered older temperatures what percentage would you be left with.

Gator
January 7, 2021 6:40 am

This would explain the modeling failures.

Mr. Lee
January 7, 2021 7:54 am

Actually, I 110% agree with Gavin on this one. Observed climate change IS 110% caused by humans….humans at the NASA Giss office, fudging the numbers! LOL!

TonyG
January 7, 2021 8:51 am

If the premise is true, that would suggest we would be COOLING without human emissions, right?

So let’s go back to LIA I guess. Glaciers for everyone!

Burl Henry
January 7, 2021 9:31 am

For anyone interested in the REAL Cause of Climate Change, see my paper “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”

http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climate-change/

Irrefutable.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 7, 2021 9:38 am

Rats! 404. The publisher must have changed the URL

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 7, 2021 9:45 am
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 8, 2021 2:06 pm

Henry, I think I see a problem with your calculations.

You are using the fraudulent, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart for your correlations.

Regional surface temperature charts don’t correlate with the Hockey Stick chart.

Hockey Stick charts don’t represent reality.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 8, 2021 2:10 pm

I’m sorry, Burl. I meant to address you as Burl, but I wrote Henry instead.

And btw, I don’t dismiss SO2 as a factor, I just don’t know how much of a factor it is.

Frank
January 7, 2021 10:57 am

Well, if Gavin says so, it must be true. This latest needless destruction of trees follows from the much publicised narrative that the earth’s temperature is continually increasing. But publicized is not the same as truthful.
 
From Murray Salby’s talk, there has been no consistent change of global temperature:
 
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=15m56s

Dave Fair
January 7, 2021 10:59 am

Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician that plays with computer models. His NASA models insist the world would be cooling from the 1950s if not for AGW. His problems? 1) His models can’t replicate the early 20th Century warming, even with 20/20 hindsight. 2) Despite heroic parameterization efforts, his models can’t replicate paleo temperature estimates. Other than that, his award-winning science is outstanding [/s].

Dennis Stayer
January 7, 2021 11:04 am

The fact that she/he wrought this, and it passed the editors appears to indicate that there is no intelligent thought in this organization.

Greg
January 7, 2021 11:59 am

and eating decompositing food scraps helps, too.

Scott
January 7, 2021 12:05 pm

Damn I knew we were bad but 123% bad? that seems impossible but Dr Schmidt is gifted with statistics much more than me

Smart Rock
January 7, 2021 12:12 pm

110% – right. It’s the standard post-hoc rationalisation of why the “models” show much more warming than the observed trend (even after adjustments, homogenization etc.). It’s trotted out occasionally but never given much prominence. I suspect because they don’t have any real evidence that a natural cooling trend exists. How could they, when it’s supposedly overwhelmed by human-caused warming?

ResourceGuy
January 7, 2021 12:20 pm

Math is hard, especially when it’s demoted in public education in favor of new agenda advocacy subjects.

Charles Higley
January 7, 2021 2:31 pm

Gavin, Gavin, Gavin, when will you learn that when you are lying you are wrong, when you are altering the data, you are wrong, and no one can every be responsible for 110% of anything quantifiable.

You are so deep into your fantasy land that free-association is akin to science in your mind. Wow. Any one who looks closely at wind and solar energy and electric vehicles will quickly find that we could not even do the UK to the standards these green energy activists demand. We simply do not have the resources, the time, the money, or the environment to destroy to do what they want.

High Treason
January 7, 2021 4:29 pm

So, what happens WHEN the inevitable mini ice age strikes. There is a limit to how long they can keep the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative going. Oh, it is now called “climate change.”
One of the best ways to pick a liar is when there is a change in the narrative. The ways you pick up on a scam are – you pick an outright lie, there is a change in the narrative-“hey, you said different last week” or it all becomes too ridiculous to believe. The amount of total absurdity that some people have bought in to defies rationality. You have to wonder how gullible some people are. Are they actually dung beetles? Scientific illiteracy makes it hard for people to cotton on to the outright lies with global warming. They are easily fooled by the appeal to authority.
To quote Voltaire-“Those that can persuade you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” A lot of brainless people have bought one or more of the propaganda stories over the decades- hole in the ozone layer, impending ice age, impending catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, “climate change”, COVID. What will be the next fear campaign to be the last coffin in the nail of human freedom?
It is time to click your heels and say-“I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it.”

TonyG
Reply to  High Treason
January 7, 2021 9:17 pm

I think Larry Niven answered your “what happens” question at least somewhat in Fallen Angels – essentially, they blame the “deniers”

Gerald Machnee
January 7, 2021 4:38 pm

Why the discussion? Tony Heller long ago figured out the human contribution.
Apparently, you can do it from your chair with a mouse. Then you get 9% correlation with CO2.
See, I told you:
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 8, 2021 2:34 pm

Thanks for the Heller link, Gerald. I’m going to bookmark that one.

Here’s pertinent quote from the link:

“The implication of this is that the huge adjustments being made to the US temperature record are being made to match global warming theory, which is the exact opposite of how science should be done. The unadjusted data shows essentially no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

end excerpt

William Haas
January 7, 2021 6:31 pm

But climate change has been taking place for eons. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. This is all a matter of science.

Buckeyebob
January 8, 2021 1:03 pm

Well, Spinal Tap turned it up to 11, so what’s wrong with 110% 🙂

January 10, 2021 5:41 pm

110% of ~nothing is still ~nothing.

Global warming crisis cancelled.

Last edited 5 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Brian BAKER
January 11, 2021 6:04 am

So I’ve got to keep separated by 2 metres. Rules out public transport then. Let them go bankrupt. cw Marie Antoinette

%d bloggers like this: