Guest “I’ve lost track of how many things this guy got wrong” by David Middelton
WEATHER
Humans are causing climate change: It’s just been proven directly for the first time
by: David Yeomans
Posted: Apr 5, 2021 / 04:00 PM CDT / Updated: Apr 6, 2021 / 07:04 AM CDT
AUSTIN (KXAN) — While it’s now common knowledge that man-made greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat at the Earth’s surface and cause global temperatures to rise, it’s never been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.
But that’s now changed.
In a first-of-its-kind study, academic researchers along with NASA scientists are quantifying the direct impact that human activity is having on our climate system — and proving human activity is to blame for recent warming trends.
Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis where heat energy coming in to the atmosphere was equivalent to energy going out. Note that the sun brings incoming heat energy, and the Earth itself gives off outgoing energy to maintain balance.
There is a natural greenhouse effect caused by the aerosols and clouds in our atmosphere…
[…]
KXAN
“Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis…”
Horst schist! Ever hear of the Little Ice Age?
Or maybe the 1970’s?
Without the roughly 0.8 °C of warming since 1975, that allegedly can’t be explained by natural factors alone, we’d still be waiting for The Ice Age Cometh!
Even if humans are the primary cause of the warming since 1975, the fracking climate was doing this before we mucked up the “stable, harmonious stasis”!
How about the Pleistocene? Ever hear of that?
“There is a natural greenhouse effect caused by the aerosols and clouds in our atmosphere…”
Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”… Clouds aren’t water vapor.
Clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is the gas state of H2O and is invisible.
West Texas A&M University
Aerosols do not cause the “greenhouse effect.”
Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact
Take a deep breath. Even if the air looks clear, it’s nearly certain that you’ll inhale tens of millions of solid particles and liquid droplets. These ubiquitous specks of matter are known as aerosols, and they can be found in the air over oceans, deserts, mountains, forests, ice, and every ecosystem in between. They drift in Earth’s atmosphere from the stratosphere to the surface and range in size from a few nanometers—less than the width of the smallest viruses—to several several tens of micrometers—about the diameter of human hair. Despite their small size, they have major impacts on our climate and our health.[…]
The bulk of aerosols—about 90 percent by mass—have natural origins. Volcanoes, for example, eject huge columns of ash into the air, as well as sulfur dioxide and other gases, yielding sulfates.
[…]
Aerosols and Incoming Sunlight (Direct Effects)
The Sun provides the energy that drives Earth’s climate, but not all of the energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere finds its way to the surface. That’s because aerosols—and clouds seeded by them—reflect about a quarter of the Sun’s energy back to space.[…]
NASA
The first-of-its-kind study mentioned aerosols…. Didn’t you read it?
Abstract
Kramer et al., 2021
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space‐based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
Willis discussed the paper in this WUWT post… Losing Ones Balance. It’s interesting. It might even have some merit… But this graph from Mr. Yeomans’ article doesn’t have any climatological merit, even if it is correct…
If the only difference between the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic episode of the Holocene Epoch, is about 130 ppm CO2… Then CO2 isn’t such a bad thing.
References
Alley, R.B. 2000. “The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.” Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
Bohleber, P., Schwikowski, M., Stocker-Waldhuber, M. et al. New glacier evidence for ice-free summits during the life of the Tyrolean Iceman. Sci Rep 10, 20513 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77518-9
Dyke, A.S., Moore, A. and L. Robertson. [computer file]. Deglaciation of North America. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 1547. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 2003.
Grosjean, Martin, Suter, Peter, Trachsel, Mathias & Wanner, Heinz. (2007). “Ice‐borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier fluctuations”. Journal of Quaternary Science. 22. 203 – 207. 10.1002/jqs.1111.
Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7
MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins. 2006. “The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP”. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 10.1029/2006GL026152. LINK Data
Monnin, E., et al.. 2004. EPICA Dome C Ice Core High Resolution Holocene and Transition CO2 Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series # 2004-055.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Terando, A., Reidmiller, D., Hostetler, S.W., Littell, J.S., Beard, T.D., Jr., Weiskopf, S.R., Belnap, J., and Plumlee, G.S., 2020, Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking—The role of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1058, 25 p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201058.
From the article; “…greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat…“
Didn’t need to read anymore to know he was talking garbage.
“Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis…”
Using Pages12k, or really anything with proxies, to fight this statement is ludicrous. Virtually none of the proxies used would have captured any centennial scale changes.
True… But you don’t need to resolve decadal or centennial changes to demonstrate that the “relatively stable, harmonious stasis” bit was horst schist.
Meanwhile as all this waffle goes on about radiation and the GHE at some 1.6 Watts/sq.m we have the Latent Heat of evaporation at some 694 Watthrs/kg being driven up through the atmosphere by the buoyancy of the vapor/gas for dissipation. Some of which gets dissipated to space by the cirrus clouds nudging the tropopause where the ice crystals grow.
And no one seems to care a fig about that.
I should have added here to the above that the ice crystals then descend to form rain etc. thus cooling the atmosphere on the way down for recycling in the Hydrocycle.
Mr. Middleton
Your namesake David seems to be doing the Yeoman’s work of keeping Austin weird! Chuckle.
Mark
Seeing that CO2 is unaffected by 92% of what the earth radiates, how can anyone say it traps heat?
This excerpt from the comments made in 1989 by Thomas Karl (NOAA – NCDC) totally discredits the fake temperature graph used by the crooks who wrote the pseudo-science true garbage “humans blah blah blah …”:
“Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 — before the more re-cent sharp rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Thomas Karl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. While global climate warmed overall since 1881, it actually cooled from 1921 to 1979, Karl said”
h/t to Tony Heller :
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/humans-causing-climate-change-superstition/
Every now and then a little truth pops out about the climate.
Thanks Petit_Barde, and Tony Heller.
You were too generous; I give him an F-
I’ve sometimes heard that meteorologists would not be experts at climate because it’s not their field of expertise………..understanding and predicting climate is completely different.
What is climate?
The average weather prevailing for a long period of time, often starting at an interval of 30 years. Not just the averages of weather metrics but the variations and extremes in the weather during that period.
So you are telling me that somebody who is an expert on weather, can’t apply that expertise to compute longer term, statistical analysis, on their area of expertise, weather to apply it to climate?
I would think that it would be exactly the other way around. A climate scientist must first understand weather/meteorology before they can understand the climate…..their area of expertise.
Meteorologists are the ones that observe the actual conditions that go into the climate and must reconcile model differences with reality every day. We can have all these great theories and computer simulations of a possible atmosphere going out 100 years but none of them should get weighted more than the observations that meteorologists make for a living.
A climate scientist, projecting the atmosphere 60 years from now will be dead before we can give it a verification score. People like that are extremely slow to adjust their speculative theories based on current observations……even when the theories are busting based on the observations…….of meteorologists.
Meteorologists make a living on the observations, applied to short term forecasting that is ALWAYS reconciled with the reality of what happened. Either they are good at it…………….or they find something else to do. Orrrrr, they could look for a job as a climate scientist…. where accurate observations are not important and projections are NEVER objectively evaluated for skill (-:
There are actually some wonderful, objective climate scientists in the biz, so I was being unfair. Mainly, I was referring to the MAINSTREAM climate science being sold to us.
By an amazing coincidence, proof of the tooth fairy’s existence manifested itself in the early hours of April 5th. Up to that point, her existence was quite clearly a well established truth, but now her existence was confirmed by actual observation. My five-year old nephew Michael’s older sister Nancy actually woke him up to see a fleeting image of the tooth fairy exiting his bedroom. Since she saw her too, she appeared to be so happy that she was in a fit of giggles that lasted all morning. Meanwhile, Michael knew he had seen her because his tooth was GONE, and there was a five dollar bill under his pillow. When interviewed at his kindergarten class, Michael’s friends Kevin and Karl said that they hadn’t actually seen the tooth fairy, but they had similar experiences with a missing tooth and some money under the pillow, so there was no doubt that his sighting was real. They were all busy working on loosening a few more teeth. as five bucks buys a decent amount of candy.
In another strange twist of fate, this too is a complete work of fiction.
This has to be about the biggest load of hi-tech garbage I have seen yet on this subject, even the graphs used either avoid mentioning time periods and/or leave out entire areas of information. It is well known CO2 levels were much higher in the past and temps were also higher in the past at times.
‘These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.’ With in 4 years = send more money. LOL. If they believe they have found “distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity” then they don’t need more money.
ERBE clearly shows the warming is not due to trapped heat, since it shows an increase in heat leaving the plant.
As always with these types of papers from ‘science’ of the hyper-hubris type, they amount to —
“We have done some math (often with computer models) and it gave us the right answer, so it MUST be correct!”
The fact that the math and models they use grossly misidentify some natural climate properties (averaging of solar energy flux over the whole globe at once[utterly unreal!], what particulates do in the atmosphere, the varying temperature of the oceans, etc.) utterly misintrepret many other weather effects, and that the Earth’s ‘energy balance’ does not have to ‘balance at any particular time!. These ‘scientists’ lack the humility to understand that in real world science process, observations and measurements are the prime movers in gaining knowledge and understanding, and not some mathematical modeled slime ejected from these computer onanists.
The scientific process has never been absolute, anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluded.