Scientists And Media Outlets Increasingly ‘Scolded’ And ‘Pressured’ To Blame Extreme Weather On Humans

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 27. January 2022

Although potentially “misleading” and “specious,” realizing the goal of fomenting “action” on climate change means uncertainties and caveats must be journalistically eliminated. Media outlets are pressured by “green groups” to opportunistically claim every extreme weather event – including the ensuing damage – is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent decades there has been a deintensification of extreme weather (precipitation) events.

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2020

Deaths and property losses from extreme weather events have also been on the decline in recent decades (Broccard, 2021).

Image Source: Broccard, 2021

Models cannot simulate extreme events and mechanistically attribute them to human activity (Bellprat and Doblas-Reyes, 2016).

Image Source: Bellprat and Doblas-Reyes, 2016

While they admit “climate-centric framings of disasters can be misleading and problematic,” Lahsen and Ribot (2022) nonetheless seem to defend the practice of journalists and media outlets systematically dismissing uncertainties and doubt in attributing extreme weather to humans. They even acknowledge that alarmism is coached.

Where is the science in this?

“Powerful science leaders hope that identification of the role of climate change in extreme weather events will ‘spur more immediate action’ to mitigate climate change.”

“[T]he progressive research and information center Media Matters for America regularly scolds U.S. media outlets for failing to mention that climate change is driving the conditions that create this ‘new normal’ of frequent crises”

“[L]eading climatology communications advisors associated with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) invoke examples from around the world to criticize media outlets for ‘far too often’ failing to seize on ‘clear opportunity’ to call attention to the climate as cause (Hassol et al., 2016). They coach experts to begin communications about such events by clearly defining climate change as cause, “[r]ather than starting with caveats, uncertainties, and what we cannot say,’ as scientists often do”

Image Source: Lahsen and Ribot, 2022
5 17 votes
Article Rating
93 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 28, 2022 6:03 am

Crazy. For those of you who know me, you probably never expected this from me. But I really converted. I really believe now that more CO2 causes more heat on earth.
But, ja, it works different than what everyone had thought……
(1)
My calculations on the molecule showed that there can in fact be no net heat effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Summary of analysis CO2 spectrum NIST (1).xlsx
(See first rows, columns K and L, top)
Seim and Olsen also made real measurements that confirm my calculations.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
(2)
My measurements of global warming showed that the warming of earth is not evenly distributed as what you would expect if CO2 as gas was the cause of the warming
An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water
(3)
I was surprised to find that CO2 is used in real greenhouses to get bigger tomatoes etc. Happer said they measured that more CO2 causes more plant growth because a plant with more CO2 in the air can survive with less rain.
My measurements on Earth showed me that wherever it has become greener, it has also become warmer, especially the minima:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/01/10/global-warming-due-to-ehhh-global-greening/
Crazy, huh?
So: More CO2 = > More plant growth = > more heat is captured by vegetation.
So now what? What do you want? More or less green?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 6:59 am

More green, please.

Tom.1
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 7:30 am

You say that since warming is not “evenly distributed”, that this is evidence for a lack of “global warming”. The global warming we are experiencing is very small, something like 0.02 deg C per year, more or less. A quick look at the data will tell you that natural variability is much, much larger than this, so local trends do not have to match the global trend, if there is one. It would be illogical to expect that every point on earth would exhibit the same climate trends for something like temperature. There is no reason to believe that the small amount of “global warming” expected or even measured would be the same everywhere.

Let me say it another way. Suppose the measured global trend for temperature was zero. Would you expect it to be zero over the span of a few decades everywhere on the planet?

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom.1
Reply to  Tom.1
January 28, 2022 7:49 am

Tom.1
My argument is here that if CO2 as gas was the cause of warming, then, because of the relevant gas law, the rate of increase (by man, or whatever reason) of CO2 must of course be more or less the same everywhere on earth. Consequently the increase in T must be more or less the same everywhere on earth where I measure, following the same trend. It is not. See my report on that.

Tom.1
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 8:25 am

Even if the GHG effect is the same everywhere, it can be completely obscured by natural variability from one place to another, and for very long periods of time. No?

Reply to  Tom.1
January 28, 2022 8:31 am

I am saying that the correlation between T and greening / ungreening is uncanny.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/01/10/global-warming-due-to-ehhh-global-greening/

It should get priority money for research.

MarkW
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 9:21 am

Consequently the increase in T must be more or less the same everywhere on earth where I measure

That would be true if CO2 was the only greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas and it overlaps most of the frequencies that CO2 is capable of absorbing. As a result, where ever you find lots of water vapor, CO2 will have little to no impact on temperatures. Where there is little water vapor, there will be some but not a lot, of warming.

Tom.1
Reply to  MarkW
January 28, 2022 9:31 am

Good point.

lee
Reply to  MarkW
January 28, 2022 6:01 pm

So CO2 is not the Control Know? /s

But seriously if Antarctic temperatures are falling (cold desert; low water vapour), then CO2 is definitely not a factor.

Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 7:53 am

So: More CO2 = > More plant growth = > more heat is captured by vegetation.

HenryP
I suggest that there are three conjectures relevant to your analysis:

  1. The land surface albedo is reduced (the plants are making the Earth darker), so there is more solar energy captured by the climate system.
  2. The increased evapotranspiration means that there is more vigorous water vapour fueled convection and so there is more energy being carried by atmospheric processes.
  3. Night time humidity rises so there is less surface radiative cooling.

Each of these conjectures is capable of testing via the traditional scientific method of using observed data.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 28, 2022 8:08 am

Philip
I am with you. Even though the 2006 report from John Cristy suggests that follow up on this is important, it is a pity that apparently this was never done.

Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 8:10 am

Sorry. Small spelling error. It is John Christy.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 8:19 am

Another viable hypothesis. Too bad the “science is settled” so we”ll never know i guess

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
January 28, 2022 8:22 am

You only need one man to stand up strong.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 28, 2022 9:16 am

Phillip: Green plant life puts up an Albedo of about 0.40
If it has been given lots of Nitrogen fertiliser, as farmers do, it appears to you and me as a darker shade of green nut in fact the Albedo has increased to 0.45
Compare that to bare dry earth(soil) of Albedo 0.15 or wet earth/soil of Albedo 0.10
If you doubt me – go see for yourself…
(I used to get lots of my electronic stuff from) here

edit to PS
Re Your point (3)
Forget the radiation, forget the dancing angels and the phlogiston
You’re nearly there when you say about Humidity – it’s simply that water has a huuuuuge heat capacity
Also it lowers the Lapse rate = reduces the thermal gradient so heat flows upwards more slowly.
But primarily and what caused the humidity was wet soil/earth/dirt beneath your feet and THAT is where The Trapped Heat is actually trapped/stored
And the water was/is trapped there by *dead* plant material – an ineviyable consequence of having (extra) green plants growing out of the wet/damp soil

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 28, 2022 10:25 am

Peter

When you look from the top.
Jungle / forestry looks darker than desert.
Hence
The albedo of desert is greater than that of forests.

Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 10:25 am

Peter = Peta

Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 29, 2022 1:05 am

Green plant life puts up an Albedo of about 0.40

Peta,
My bad.
Philip

2hotel9
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 8:45 am

More CO2 equals more plants, more oxygen and more food. Only leftists would be against more food and more oxygen.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 9:54 am

Not crazy at all Henry – as I’ve asserted here for a long time, “Deserts are Cold Places”

It is perfectly No Surprise concerning the extra greenery.
If there is more greenery, inevitably there will be more ‘blackery’
i.e. Dead plant material on the surface of the soil and being buried within by bugs, worms, beetles, grubs, larvae and all sorts of other stuff that makes girls scream when the see it.

It it that Dead Stuff, because it is primarily Cellulose and has an epic affinity for water, is doing exactly that = Trapping and storing water within the soil.
And because water is simultaneously THE most misunderstood and amazing stuff in this universe, the water ‘traps the heat’ – amazingly large amounts.
That is why nighttime temperatures are increased – because of the reluctance of all the dead cellulose to release water and thus the heat (energy) it contains within.
Very basic and very very simple

On top of that, what water is released increases Humidity which in turn reduces the Lapse Rate and so puts the brakes on any convection that might want to start.
Heat loss from the ground/soil is virtually stopped by the very low thermal conductivity AND low emissivity of the air itself

Where Global Greening is coming from is from a childish and naive assumption and as taught in primary school at age 5 or 6, is that plants need only CO2 and water.
It is The Most Hideous Simplification there could ever be and is flat out wrong ##

Plants in glasshouse greenhouses have their roots in THE most fertile growing medium there could ever be.
The net result of that being that CO2 becomes their Liebig Limiting Nutrient – hence when the glasshouse operator adds more, the plants grow better
But that is The Very Last Thing that applies out in the wild – CO2 is NOT the Liebig Limiter for plants growing in ANY soil you will find anywhere on this Earth.
The very fact that farmers spend so much money on ‘artificial’ fertilisers tells you as much.
How the fook do people, especially scientists who should know better (Yes NASA, I’m looking at you) completely ignore that fact

It’s very simple
Science Is Dead – we truly are in a new Dark Age

wrap up warm

## Young children (age 5,6 & 7) should NOT be taught any science at all – I’m starting to think that even reading and writing should be put on hold.

What children of that age should be learning are Social Skills, Spatial Skills and learning how each other ‘work’
They should be putting the finishing touches to the business of actually building their brains
Because otherwise, we get exactly what we see – Junk Science based on childish ideas but ideas that have become part of the child’s brain and are thus immovable.
Just as Judith Curry talked about Climate Science being = a Brain Tattoo

We also see childish behaviours in all human interaction (inc Science) such as Business, Politics and Marriages

The first 3 years at school (Age 5, 6 & 7) should be devoted entirely to play and exploring the world. if that ‘world exploration’ includes numbers and words, fine OK but Do Not Force those things upon them.
They will push back – creating exactly the mess (e.g. Dead Science) we see around us today.
Not least and incl. the $10 Billion per day healthcare bill

DHR
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 28, 2022 12:22 pm

“On top of that, what water is released increases Humidity which in turn reduces the Lapse Rate and so puts the brakes on any convection that might want to start.”

But humid air is less dense than dry air, the higher the humidity the lighter the air, hence increasing humidity causes increased convection, lapse rate decline or no. Rising humid air is what causes those great columns of clouds we all see and in their formation, removes from the surface of the earth a lot of heat discharged to space.

alf
Reply to  DHR
January 29, 2022 10:03 am

Do lapse rates decline or do they increase in altitude because more heat is released at altitude? Have been para glider pilot for 20 years lift usually stops when you reach the clouds unless you have large cumulus clouds, the convection stops at the top of the cloud

Sara
Reply to  HenryP
January 28, 2022 6:28 pm

More tomatoes, please, and cucumbers. Gotta have cucumbers. Can’t have pickles without cucumbers…. 🙂 Therefore, MORE GREEN!!!!!!

Last edited 3 months ago by Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 30, 2022 4:32 am

Sara,
I like your jokes. But this is no joke. This is serious:
Arjan asked me (on the Dutch blog)
Henry, can you quantify the warming due to greening?
Henry says:
Arjan, you hit the hammer on the nail. I also first thought that it might not be significant.
Here is the abstract from John Christy’s report of 2006:
The debiased segments are then merged, forming a complete regional time series. Time series of daily maximum and minimum temperatures for stations in the irrigated San Joaquin Valley (Valley) and nearby non-irrigated Sierra Nevada (Sierra) were generated for 1910–2003. Results show that twentieth-century Valley minimum temperatures are warming at a highly significant rate in all seasons, being greatest in summer and fall (> +0.25°C decade−1). The Valley trend of annual mean temperatures is +0.07° ± 0.07°C decade−1. Sierra summer and fall minimum temperatures appear to be cooling, but at a less significant rate, while the trend of annual mean Sierra temperatures is an unremarkable −0.02° ± 0.10°C decade−1. A working hypothesis is that the relative positive trends in Valley minus Sierra minima (>0.4°C decade−1 for summer and fall) are related to the altered surface environment brought about by the growth of irrigated agriculture, essentially changing a high-albedo desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain.

  1. So they measured 0.07 C/decade, but in neighboring Sierra Nevada the temperature went down by 0.02C/ decade, due to natural causes. So the corrected result is 0.09K/decade. Agreed?
  2. Now look at my result in Las Vegas. This also used to be a desert. The average temperature went up by 0.65K per decade. That is about +3C over de last 50 years.
  3. Johannesburg is one of the few places in South Africa where I observed some significant warming. Note that Johannesburg did not have any natural water. This used to be savannah. But there was gold. So they brought water. Here I measure + 0.18C per decade.
  4. Now let us look at the areas in the Arctic. If you look carefully on the chart at the beginning of my post (click on my name) you can see that the leaf area increased by more than 50% in the areas around the arctic ocean. It appears from current measurements that it is warming there by about 0.5K per decennium.

So:
0.09 + 0.65 + 0.18 +0.5 / 4 = 0.36K/decade.

This is 300% of the warming reported by Spencer &….. But obviously, we only looked at a few areas where we know that it became a lot greener.

Amazing, is it not?

Last edited 3 months ago by HenryP
Ron Long
January 28, 2022 6:18 am

Feelings trump data! Unless the data is tortured enough to support the feelings, then you can feel the data. In this theme the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has just come out in support of Neil Young and thinks Joe Rogan needs to be censored, because, you know, mental health or something.

fretslider
Reply to  Ron Long
January 28, 2022 6:35 am

In 2006 Young got back together with CS and N for, er, a Freedom of Speech Tour.

He seems to have forgotten his Monsanto album etc He’s fully signed up to the current narratives. What a fall.

Van Morrison is far more honest

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ron Long
January 28, 2022 6:37 am

After Spotify gave Rogan 100 million bucks to move from YouTube to their site- they surely aren’t going let Rogan be censored. He’s now probably the most popular person on the internet. He still has something like 15 million subscribers on YouTube though it now shows only clips of his full shows.

fretslider
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2022 7:06 am

After Spotify gave the Sussexes £18 million……

SPOTIFY is taking Harry and Meghan’s £18 million podcast project “into its own hands” by hiring a host of in-house producers to finally help deliver content. ” – The Sun.

Rogan delivers.

.KcTaz
Reply to  fretslider
January 28, 2022 10:06 pm

That anyone would listen to those two syncophants is absurd. That any company would pay them that much money thinking people are going to listen to those two, well, if people actually do, we are doomed.

RevJay4
Reply to  Ron Long
January 28, 2022 7:20 am

WHO? Oh, those clowns who decide what is a threat to the planet. So far they have been correct on zip, near as I can figger.
Their “feelings” on the Young vs. Rogan thing fits with everything else. Morons in charge of the UN results in this kind of crap. So many morons floating to the surface of the swamp everywhere in the world. Yikes!

Dave Fair
Reply to  RevJay4
January 28, 2022 12:50 pm

The WHO is very sharp at generating money and political power.

Al Miller
January 28, 2022 6:20 am

…and the fact that they are complying is precisely why the legacy media and “authorities” are losing credibility on a daily basis.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Al Miller
January 28, 2022 6:41 am

speaking of legacy media- the Bah-stin Globe’s Climate section reports:

“Federal court revokes oil and gas leases, citing climate change
A judge ruled that the Interior Department must consider the climate impacts of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before awarding leases.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/27/science/federal-court-revokes-oil-gas-leases-citing-climate-change/

originally in the NY Times (which now owns the Bah-stin Globe)

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2022 6:46 am

and, another beauty from the Globe- which I call “the glob”- oh, they just hate gas- gotta stop it! not they’ll scare people that they’ll be poisoned by leaky stoves

“Gas stoves leak methane even when turned off, report shows”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/27/nation/gas-stoves-leak-methane-even-when-turned-off-report-shows/?p1=BGSearch_Overlay_Results

Gas stoves leak significant amounts of methane when they are being ignited and even while they are turned off, according to a new report, adding to the growing debate over the effects of gas-powered appliances on human health and climate change.

The small study — based on measurements from cooktops, ovens, and broilers in 53 homes in California — estimated that stoves emit between 0.8 percent and 1.3 percent of the natural gas they consume as unburned methane, a potent greenhouse gas. During the course of a typical year, three-quarters of these emissions occur when the devices are shut off, the study showed, which could suggest leaky fittings and connections with gas service lines.

DonK31
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2022 8:44 am

The NYT got rid of the Boston Globe about 9 years ago, practically giving it John Henry, who owns the Red Sox. The Times bought it for roughly $2 billion and sold it for promises to pay off the running debt. Kind of like Newsweek being sold for $1.

Just in case you care.

Coeur de Lion
January 28, 2022 6:23 am

By ‘greenhouse gases’ they mean CO2 of course. And ‘mitigation’ means reducing this. And they believe the increase is human-caused. So how are they going to do this? Don’t they read the newspapers? Articles about Asian coal power stations? Articles about ocean outgassing? Can’t they even put two and two together? How will their beliefs stack up against an inevitable CO2 increase for decades?

fretslider
January 28, 2022 6:26 am

“To Blame Extreme Weather On Humans” The next level in ramming home the narrative.

“Schools are “in danger of preparing students for a world that’s no longer going to exist,” 

https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/climate-change-schools-risk-teaching-about-world-wont-exist

Media outlets are pressured by “green groups”, not to mention teaching unions and academia… 

“Climate change: How schools can strike back”

The problems identified and demands made by prominent campaigns in the UK, such as Teach the Future (backed by the UK Student Climate Network and National Union of Students), and Extinction Rebellion (which in October campaigned outside the Department for Education asking for changes to how climate is taught in the curriculum), are wide-ranging.

https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practice/climate-change-how-schools-can-strike-back/

XR shouldn’t be anywhere near a school, unless it’s behind a desk learning something.

observa
Reply to  fretslider
January 28, 2022 6:40 am

Today’s weather history lesson for griff if he shows up with the dog having eaten his homework again-
World’s worst weather through the decades, from 1900 to today (msn.com)

climanrecon(@climanrecon)
Reply to  fretslider
January 28, 2022 6:41 am

The Long March of Greens through the institutions is complete. They have hijacked science education in schools to emphasize topics such as air pollution, greenhouse gases, and the evils of chemicals, and those topics (and race) dominate the MSM.

Pretty soon someone farting will be the lead item on the news, as long as there are no racist tweets on that day.

TonyG
Reply to  fretslider
January 28, 2022 11:05 am

“Schools are “in danger of preparing students for a world that’s no longer going to exist,”

Well, THAT part is right. They’re preparing students for a world that has abundant energy, technology like computers and iPhones, the luxury to buy food at a local grocery store that they can then eat in a nice warm (or cool) house.

What they SHOULD be preparing them for is how to grow crops in the field, hunt for meat (or raise their own), cook over an open fire, and chop wood for heat. Since that’s the world they’re pushing.

DMacKenzie
January 28, 2022 6:39 am

Scolded ?
For a bout of nausea just have a look at
https://coveringclimatenow.org/

John Garrett
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 28, 2022 6:53 am

“Covering Climate Now” isn’t a “conspiracy theory.”

IT IS a flat-out, bald-faced, brazen, provable CONSPIRACY.

It is, of course, a violation of every tenet of ethical journalism. What is particularly galling is that the participants have not disclosed their participation to their audience.

NPR, PBS and the rest of the scumballs are routinely, deliberately and intentionally deceiving the public.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 28, 2022 7:39 am

“On Climate, What Are Republicans For?”
I’ll tell you what this republican is for:

  1. Telling what the actual data says
  2. That pollution is a problem, but CO2 and methane emissions are not a problem 3, I’m for adapting to extreme weather events, you can’t prevent them 4, building gas power plants instead of wind and solar

(Note: trying to edit 1. 2. 3. & 4. is impossible)

Last edited 3 months ago by JON P PETERSON
Tom Abbott
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
January 28, 2022 9:53 am

“What Are Republicans For?”

That’s what Joe Biden was asking the other day.

Hey, Joe, Republicans are for common sense. What are you for?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 10:17 am

“… asking the other day [as he stared at the cufflinks in his hand with a puzzled look].

(part of that quote didn’t get published — but, I found it. Heh.)

Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 6:44 am

The Alarmists attribute CO2-caused climate change to every weather event, without there being any evidence to support such claims. In fact, the weather statistics put the lie to these claims of the alarmists.

This just shows how weak the case is for CO2-caused Climate Change when they are reduced to having to use ordinary weather events to scare people into believing their climate change delusions.

What do the alarmists have for evidence of CO2-caused Climate Change? They have a bogus, bastardized global temperature chart and the claim, without evidence, that severe weather conditions are caused by CO2.

The Alarmists have nothing. Nothing but hyperbole and distortions of reality. That’s it.

JOHN CHISM(@johchi7)
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 8:36 am

Tom, governments learned long ago that scare tactics gets their populations to do things they’re ignorant about, that will increase taxation on the population that creates revenue for the government.

Making people believe they are the cause of the affect/effects – Global Warming caused by Fossil Fuels increases Carbon Dioxide – will have people voluntarily pay more taxes for their sins – Taxes on Fossil Fuels – even if it increases their cost of living that everything they do or buy uses Fossil Fuels to provide or produce and deliver them makes their costs increase. That at every stage generates Taxation that funds parts of the government.

.KcTaz
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
January 28, 2022 10:22 pm

”The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 11:48 am

Tom Abbott:

You say that the alarmists have nothing but hyperbole and distortions of reality., but they can point to the rise in temperatures since the late 1970’s. to support their position.

What is needed is a factual explanation as to why temperatures rose, if it is not due to CO2, then what IS the actual cause?. It turns out to be very simple, and easily proven.

Tie following is a direct quote from “Volcanoes of the World”, published by the Smithsonian Institution ”…(volcanic) SO2 reacts with stratospheric H2O to produce an aerosol of H2SO4 , and it is this fine mist, distributed as a broad stratospheric layer, that acts as a shield to solar radiation, thereby cooling the Earth’s surface below”

NASA, in its paper discussing atmospheric aerosols, affirms this, and also states that Industrial SO2 aerosols have the same climatic effect…When these SO2 aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, warming occurs because of the cleansed air, usually resulting in the formation of an El Nino.

Examination of a plot of average anomalous global temperatures, from 1850-2019, for example, shows that every temporary increase or decrease of those temperatures correlates with a decrease or increase in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels. There are no exceptions due to sunspot activity, or any supposed cycles, such as the AMO or PDO

Some claim that “correlation is not correlation”, but that is a requisite for a correct explanation

Those temporary changes are superimposed upon the general warming caused by the removal of Industrial SO2 aerosol levels from the atmosphere due to global “Clean Air” or “net-zero” efforts.
.
Because of the random nature of volcanic eruptions and industrial activity, our climate can never be modeled.

Cleansing the air of SO2 aerosols is a desirable goal, but it has the unfortunate side effect of rising temperature!s

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 28, 2022 5:48 pm

“Examination of a plot of average anomalous global temperatures, from 1850-2019, for example, shows that every temporary increase or decrease of those temperatures correlates with a decrease or increase in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels.”

If I recall, all those correlations you did of SO2 and temperatures were done using the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. So your correlations match up with a temperature chart that does not represent reality.

You should try correlating that SO2 with the U.S. regional surface temperature chart.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 29, 2022 9:55 am

Tom Abbott;

To the best of my knowledge, I have never used the hockey stick chart that you mention

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 29, 2022 2:48 pm

Tom Abbott:

I have never paid any attention to temperatures in my analyses, but instead have focused on WHAT caused the temperatures to change. I n doing so, I have found that every increase or decrease in temperatures was due to a decrease or an increase in SO2 aerosol levels

I did make an interesting discovery about American Business recessions. Since 1850, every recession/depression (34) resulted in a temporary increase of about 0.2 deg. C.in average anomalous global temperatures. The increases were due to fewer SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, due to idled foundries, factories, etc, The temperature increases lasted until the recession ended, or decreased due to a volcanic eruption.

This is an indication of how sensitive Earth’s temperatures are to changing levels of reflective SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

The American warming of the 1930’s was .also caused by decreased levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels

wolf at the door
January 28, 2022 6:45 am

UK Met Office warns of armed militia roaming the streets in years to come due to climate change (Daily Mail)
What next? Plague of boils and death of all the first-born?

RevJay4
Reply to  wolf at the door
January 28, 2022 7:33 am

OMG! Stop it! Don’t give them any ideas for the future bogus predictions of calamities due to their “feelings” re: climate whatever. They don’t need any help in that regard. The “covid” didn’t work well enough, so “climate….” is back on top. Another set of dire predictions for the future. Which will fail, of course.

January 28, 2022 7:10 am

Didn’t the BBB (Broken Brain Biden) administration demand that the media and big data censor misinformation? Did this really mean to double down on propaganda?

RevJay4
January 28, 2022 7:11 am

“Science” no longer means the same thing as it did when I was in school. A long time ago, pre-70s, when it was actual using real measurements, not “models” and hyperbole.
However, having said that, I seem to remember some old nun telling the class that there was only about 40 years of fossil fuel left in the planet. I don’t think she backed it up with anything other than her opinion, But that was then. Now the same junk is being pushed by the greenies based on computer models obviously programmed with garbage data and fudge factors to cover their butts.
“Science” is what the propagandists say it is. Just ask Fauxi.

Marcus
Reply to  RevJay4
January 28, 2022 8:51 am

When I was in school, many, many years ago, we were taught that fire was a chemical reaction between oxygen, fuel and heat. At the time, this also included wildfires. Now wildfires are impermissible without “climate change.” Scary, isn’t it?

MarkW
January 28, 2022 7:15 am

That’s how it is with the left. You have to worship as they do. Exactly as they do, and with at least as much fervor.
Any failure to toe the line is treated as a betrayal.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
January 28, 2022 1:22 pm

There is no evolution of thought with socialist idealogues and Leftist systems; there are periodic abrupt changes in the various dogmas driven by unelected “thought leaders.” Woe be upon the (former) believers should they fail to grasp the new dogma quickly enough. The destruction of feminism by transgenderism is a prime example. The U.S. Title IX (promotion of girl and women’s sports in educational systems) is now being used to destroy female sports, contrary to its original purpose. Even Bruce Jenner (I forgot its new name) thinks this is a bad idea.

Jeff corbin
January 28, 2022 7:28 am

Ubiquitous top down pressure to brain wash the American public. I doubt this impetus is originating solely from radical environmentalist agenda. There are deep pocketed global elite out there must have a much bigger scam unfolding. The endless “anti-human”, “blame-human”, “shame on your for loving life and wanting to have actual sex and babies”, is a narrative of smoke and mirrors leading to guilt and fear designed to hood wink people into saying “no” to resisting carbon taxes and paying more for hydrocarbon fuel when they should be paying far less. Endless meta-narratives, (pandemic, climate change) leading to guilt and fear lead to mob self righteous action….”Lookie here I am happy to pay more for my fuel and eating plant based meats”. It also redirects the imagination and energy of people away from doing local economy and solving their own fuel and food commodities problems locally. The goal is for everyone to do nothing but rely completely on a colluded centrally controlled commodities supply chain. The phone is the perfect propaganda vehicle for sucking creativity and energy out of people and empowering people to do nothing of any value most of the time.

This isn’t really about climate change… it’s about big global supplies of dough projected out 30 years. War may break out in Eastern Europe and unrest and war is breaking out in central Asia….. Over carbon taxes… no!. Over plant based meat… no! Over forcing people to compost their poop… no! It’s all about establishing Russia as the head of a natural gas cartel and dominating hydrocarbon fuel markets in the emerging markets of central Asia. Why natural gas?. Because there is an enormous glut and, LNG ports continue to expand globally, (and will happen faster if bought judges and politicians would stand down). Finally, one day THE BATTERY will happen empowering decentralized electrical generation (any source) storage and distribution that will take down the grid and the hydrocarbon cartels…..and their subsidiary commodifies cartels. But the fight is one until then.

This conflict of control of existing Hydrocarbon fuel markets and domination of the expanding emerging markets in central Asia has been building pressure since the first projections of shale gas were released by MIT and EU and other sources, soon after 911 and the EU announcement to eliminate nuke power in 2007.

When you think about the word “Climate Change”…. remember this was once an unknown label. The label began during “the pause” after the minimum of SC 23 in 2009. This parallels the EU’s announcement to ride themselves of Nukes. And the MIT report on shale gas came out in 2009?) The word was “global warming”. Global warming was a nut job environmentalist movement that has now been completely leveraged under the banner of “climate change” and huge dollars and enormous power has been rallied under it’s auspices. It’s big dollar function is to control people and ensure that the humans pay through the nose for fuel for generations to come.

Tom.1
January 28, 2022 7:40 am

It just kills me how the media, and especially the media) constantly sound the drumbeat of climate change driven weather or other events when there is an abundance of data to disprove their claim. I find it hard to believe they do not know this; they just choose to ignore it.

And just because the media use completely unsupportable arguments of climate change doesn’t mean we have to fight fire with fire and make completely unsupportable arguments against the alarmist climate change narrative.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom.1
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom.1
January 28, 2022 9:58 am

“And just because the media use completely unsupportable arguments of climate change doesn’t mean we have to fight fire with fire and make completely unsupportable arguments against the alarmist climate change narrative.”

Do you have an example of skeptics making completely unsupportable arguments?

Charles Rotter(@jeeztheadmin)
Admin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 10:03 am

I reject ridiculous climate skeptic submissions all the time. I’ve posted a few by mistake, and I regret my sloppiness. Many authors will get extremely angry about the rejection and accuse me/us of censorship and conspiracy.

Jon R
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2022 10:59 am

Thank you for your service to the species.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jon R
January 28, 2022 1:27 pm

Whenever people thank me for my combat service, I think of Anthony Watts and his moderators.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2022 5:54 pm

“I reject ridiculous climate skeptic submissions all the time.”

I was referring to the regular skeptic posters who comment on the articles. I dont recall any of them making unsupportable arguments.

The implication was that skeptic posters were going off half-cocked here at WUWT like the alarmists do, and I would, and did take exception to that. And still do.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Charles Rotter(@jeeztheadmin)
Admin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2022 7:56 pm

You’ve never seen a comment here saying something, such as, “The greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics”?
You’ve never seen a comment here saying something, such as, “The greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics”?

And many others of similar veins.

Last edited 3 months ago by Charles Rotter
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 29, 2022 3:32 am

Well, I would still like Tom.1 to provide an example of what he is talking about.

His implication was that skeptics here at WUWT were as bad about exaggeration as the alarmists. The truth is that anyone who throws out unsupported claims about anything, gets a good critique from the skeptics here at WUWT. To imply that most skeptics are as nutty as the alarmists is just wrong.

Alarmists walk in lock-step, immersed in group-think. Skeptics do not.

January 28, 2022 7:46 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gup3Zni8Dw

Yeah, climate change
But maybe the wrong direction ?
A LOT OF SNOW, up to 164 cm (65 inches) in Tuapse region of Krasnodar Krai, Russia, Black sea area!! (Lake effect ?)

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
January 28, 2022 8:19 am

If extreme weather events really were the fault of humans, there would be no need to scold anyone into compliance.

richard
January 28, 2022 8:27 am

“Stop blaming the climate for disasters” https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00332-2

2hotel9
January 28, 2022 8:43 am

So, these people are openly admitting it is all propaganda, coercion, intimidation and zero science.

Dave Fair
Reply to  2hotel9
January 28, 2022 1:30 pm

With the smug assurance that people don’t know enough to discern the propagandistic nature of their actions. At least before they retire or get rich.

Ben Vorlich
January 28, 2022 8:45 am

I watched an item on BBC TV lunchtime News today. The RSPB ( Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) today said the UK had lost 30 million birds in 50 years. The report was accompanied by film / stills of raptors, and of small birds feeding on food put out by humans. Two possible reasons for the decline many more raptors and small birds concentrating together to spread disease in unhygenic conditions and multiple targets for predators.

Naturakky Climate Change was list among the reasons for this loss. No mention of the actual population of birds in the UK.

richard
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 28, 2022 2:46 pm

“Historically, cats have been specifically implicated in at least 33 bird extinctions, making them one of the most important causes of bird extinctions worldwide”

There are 32,697,408 cars registered in the UK- sadly, I kill between 1 and 2 birds per per year but I live in the country.

“In 2004, Toms told the BBC the three major causes or birddeaths were: “Cats, collisions with cars, and collisions with garden windows.”

Last edited 3 months ago by richard
fretslider
January 28, 2022 9:11 am

“ Climate and extinction crises move too slowly for us to pay attention – here’s the answer” – The Conversation

https://apple.news/Av3MGJ_EHTRqNvWFHY1Z6_A

And my favourite

“ In order for policy making and mass behaviour to change, the threat of climate change and species extinction has to become impossible to ignore. For this to happen, we need to develop an emotional, rather than merely intellectual, relationship with the planet and its future inhabitants.”

Yeah, feelings….

very old white guy
January 28, 2022 9:13 am

When I have been chosen GOD, I will control the weather. I will also change creation so we never have to worry about foolish people again.

ResourceGuy
January 28, 2022 9:37 am

The main rule of thumb of “follow the money” is equally matched by the “no cost of stupid statements” rule. Like a bad viral or bacterial infection, the growth does not stop until costs outweigh the expansion of stupid.

Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2022 10:04 am

Cripes, the attribution of any weather event by MSM to the ‘climate crisis’ couldn’t get any worse, could it?
It appears that it’s not even enough to attribute actual events (extreme or otherwise) to ‘climate change’ – it seems to me they’ve begun to frighten us about pending extreme events that often never actually occur.
E.g. Just recently in NZ we were all told to prepare for some tropical storm bringing 8m waves to race down from the north and batter the country. To do so it would need to take a fairly unusual path (i.e. travel directly south, or even slightly to the west).
Upshot? It didn’t happen.
This crying wolf by the weather ‘experts’ has gotten to the point where I basically don’t believe anything they say.
I wonder if people who rely on accurate forecasts (e.g. mariners and farmers) still trust the weather ‘experts’.

TonyG
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2022 11:35 am

“the attribution of any weather event by MSM to the ‘climate crisis’ couldn’t get any worse, could it?”

Just wait until they think of “Extreme normal”

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  TonyG
January 28, 2022 12:31 pm
Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2022 1:35 pm

Actually, it appears that people and businesses that are impacted by weather events are increasingly using independent forecasters like Dr. Judith Curry’s company. Politicized governmental agencies are not reliable enough.

Peta of Newark
January 28, 2022 10:10 am

Just *look* at that:
Quote:”…erroneous representations of relevant physical mechanisms
(from the AGU100 piece)

That has got to be one of THE biggest understatements of All Time.
How?
By taking the emissivity of CO2 to be about 2,000 times greater than it is..
Also the Oxygen/Nitrogen mix that is ‘air’ = taking its emissivity to be easily 50 times greater than it is

Even before the GHGE, as always explained, requires Heat Energy to flow up a thermal gradient.
If that really is the case – what is this Energy Crisis that is now ongoing?
It’s straight out of Alice in Wonderland

OMG
OMFG
It’s just dawned and fits perfectly with the rave I aimed at Henry

Climate Change is actually just a children’s story.
It is what the little children (age 5, 6 & 7)at primary school SHOULD have been doing instead of having Science forcibly mashed into their faces, heads and tattooed on their brains.

i.e. Playing, exploring and listening to stories

They are actually acting out and trying to replay what *should* have happened in their childhood but didn’t.

is that sad or what.
Really sad, pity the poor little children.

OMFFG It’s even there in the Banner Picture at the top
What’s that they say about ‘Great Minds?

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
n.n
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 28, 2022 1:33 pm

Anthropogenic CO2-attributed climate change is a handmade tale for social justice and other special and peculiar “benefits”.

Janice Moore
January 28, 2022 10:29 am

leaders hope that identification of the role of climate change in extreme weather events will “spur more immediate action’ to mitigate climate change buy our solar and wind and cladding and disaster insurance and electric car junk.

Last edited 3 months ago by Janice Moore
marlene
January 28, 2022 12:11 pm

“Powerful science leaders hope that identification of the role of climate change in extreme weather events will ‘spur more immediate action’ to mitigate climate change.” Or spur big returns for investors – depends on who has something to gain by it. Their jobs maybe?  

Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2022 12:24 pm

First the “global warming” narrative wasn’t scary enough so they changed it to “climate change”, then “climate chaos”, then “climate catastrophe”, then “climate crisis”. Then they hit the propaganda jackpot with “extreme weather”. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Your average dull-witted sheeple understands and is very afraid of “extreme weather”. Why didn’t they think of that before?

Gerald Hanner
January 28, 2022 1:20 pm

Pressured by whom?

n.n
January 28, 2022 1:30 pm

Take a knee, beg, good girl.

Jim Le Maistre
January 28, 2022 6:21 pm

The Irony of The Written Word

Modern society . . . such an interesting construct. Less than 30% of high school graduates go on to attain Under Graduate Degrees from university. 65 % of those study in the realm of ‘Letters’, the many fields of The Arts. First, research published works, summarize the findings then write a legible, well documented and concise review. We have created wordsmiths, not interrogative minds, not scientific inquisitors. Not minds that doubt – respectfully – We have created ‘Intellectual Parrots’. This . . .  represents the learning and rational thinking of the vast majority of our leaders. Teachers, Journalists, Political Advisors, Publicists, and yes Environmentalists. In all these fields of study consensus is the ruling doctrine. Researchers whose works are most often ‘referenced’ rise to the top of their fields. Quality and content are judged not so much by an analytical review of the input data . . .  judgement is based on ‘Peer Review’.

Aristotle’s contention that The Earth was the center of the Universe lasted 1,600 years or so as The Prevailing Doctrine. When Galileo, thanks to scientific observation through a telescope, demonstrated that the Sun was the center of the Universe, the Science supporting this observation was categorically rejected and deemed ‘Blasphemous’.

Today . . . in the 21st century . . .  little has changed. Scientific reviews challenging Globally accepted ‘Consensus Views’ are treated as ‘Blasphemous Aspersions’ being cast upon ‘The Peers’ and ‘The Writers’ who have come to be known and loved. More energy is expended defending prevailing positions than will ever be spent examining the ‘Descenting Science’. Common sense in the face of change, evaporates. Counter-prevailing research and the Authors behind it are defamed, and aspersions are cast while the elite of the prevailing views spend vast energy reinforcing and reiterating their prevailing views . . .  At times, even the courts are used to confront ‘Descenting Scientific Research’ that is counter to prevailing consensus views.

Galileo, the father of ‘The Modern Scientific Methods’, suffered 5 years of imprisonment and lived out his life under house arrest for his ‘Descenting Scientific Research’. The more things change . . .  the more they stay the same. Environmentalism, today, is the new ‘Religion’ defining the prevailing ‘Global Consensus Views’ on Climate Change. The 2001 united nations document co-authored by Michael Mann that included his now famous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ has become the new ‘Holy Grail’. Research . . .  any Scientific Research counter to this Globally accepted consensus view that Climate Change is caused by humanity burning Fossil Fuels shall be deemed blasphemous to the ruling doctrine of our time, akin to ‘Satanic Worship’.

The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject, is Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. Environmentalism is a relatively New Science and it is being truly tested for the first time. If Climategate starting in 2009 is any example, we can only imagine what is yet to come. When that One Stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations that have been supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.

 

Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the one to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .      

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see . . . How Ironic . . .

 

Jim Le Maistre

Copyright 2022

Jim Le Maistre
Reply to  Jim Le Maistre
January 28, 2022 6:26 pm
Vincent Causey
January 29, 2022 12:19 am

As the Covid models have been shown to be rubbish, perhaps people will begin to loose faith in the models used by climate doomsayers.

%d bloggers like this: