The featured cartoon is by Josh, who graciously gave me permission to use it, his website is here. This cartoon is in Josh’s 2022 calendar, I think he still has a few to sell.
By Andy May
My latest book,[1] just released, is about a climate change debate between Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne and Professor William Happer of Princeton, emeritus. One of the most interesting debate topics was about the attribution of global warming. The host was James Barham of TheBestSchools.org. Barham asked David Karoly in his interview: “If increased atmospheric CO2 is not responsible [for global warming], what is?” TheBestSchools notes that skeptics point out several factors that need to be considered before we can reach this conclusion:
- We are, after all, still recovering from the last ice age (in the true sense of the term), which lasted for about 100,000 years and only ended about 12,000 years ago; therefore, why isn’t modest warming simply what we should expect (the null hypothesis) …
- Over the geological record taken as a whole, it appears that warming trends regularly precede rising CO2 levels, not the other way around.
- Some studies show a strong correlation between solar activity cycles and Earth surface temperatures.
Karoly is confident that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases from human activity” are the major cause of observed warming (Karoly, 2021a, p. 23). He points to the AR5 IPCC report. Specifically, he directs us to Figure 10.5,[2] which is our Figure 1.
The IPCC computes the human contribution to climate change with models, nine of the fifteen models are listed on the left of Figure 2. Since the human influence on climate has never been observed or measured, the “climate forcings” plotted in Figures 1 and 2 depend solely upon assumptions built into the models. Figure 1 is a summary of the data and analysis illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 is a portion of IPCC AR5 Figure 10.4 (IPCC, 2013, p. 882). It displays the modeled greenhouse gas (GHG) caused warming, in green. The left panel, panel (a), is scaled in degrees C, and shows the range of modeled changes in temperature, from 1951 to 2010. The bars shown are based on a regression analysis of numerous computer-runs of each model. The individual computer runs systematically change the conditions, for example some runs have little change in CO2 and some have large changes in CO2. The central line in panel (a) is zero change for the analyzed climate forcing.
The forcing color schemes in Figures 1 and 2 are the same, so green represents GHG caused changes, yellow is other-anthropogenic, and blue is natural variability. The green bars vary from negative values (GISS-E2-H) to over 1.5°C (GISS-E2-R and H, CSIRO-Mk3-6-0). The other anthropogenic or OA estimates are just as variable. The most likely results from several statistical analyses of model results are shown as black squares, diamonds, and triangles in panel (b).
Panel (b) shows the same data, but as a scaling factor. The scaling factor is the amount each forcing component must be multiplied by to sum to the HadCRUT4 global temperature record. While the proportion of warming caused by each factor is model based, the total warming is thus constrained by the HadCRUT4 record.
This means that the coefficients used to compute AGW (anthropogenic or man-made global warming), and natural warming are computed from model results, not observations. The observations are only a constraint on the total.[3] Nathan Gillett and colleagues observed that some of the 15 models they studied produce very anomalous negative scaling factors, as shown in Figure 2(b). Their statistical assessment of the model results is shown as triangles in Figure 2(b). The negative scaling factors are a result of negative warming coefficients. This means the component is cooling as its forcing increases. They single out model GISS-E2-H and note the model is not “well constrained.”
Gillett, et al. comment that: “The assumption is usually made that a model’s TCR [transient climate response] is proportional to its GHG-induced warming trend over the historical period.” GISS-E2-H especially appears to violate this assumption, but, to a lesser extent most of the models violate it, which concerns Gillett, and colleagues. The models predict about the same warming, but very different TCR values, suggesting something is not quite right in the models. They observe that since the desired result is a multi-model estimate of climate sensitivity, the model’s violation of the assumption should be investigated. Thus, they admit that the connection between GHGs and warming is explicitly assumed, but the model results are not consistent with the assumption. They don’t say it, but it is also possible the models are not accurate.
In Figure 2b the central dashed line is a scaling factor of one, which means the sum of the model components equals the observed (HadCRUT4) warming over the period. Most of the models clearly overestimate warming since most of the component scaling factors are below one. The CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 model is a notable exception.
The interested reader is directed to Gillett, et al. for the details of their statistical analysis of the fifteen climate models in their study. Technically the statistical technique used is called an Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) or Principal Components Analysis (PCA). I have no serious problem with their statistical methods, my problem is that it is a study of model results, and unvalidated models at that. Further, why do the scaling factors in Figure 2b, cluster significantly below one?
The top set of results, labeled “multi,” are multi-model-mean values. The multi-model-mean overestimates warming relative to HadCRUT4 for all forcings in Figure 2b. Yet, the IPCC believed it was valid to create it from these diverse values and use the average to “compute” the amount of human-caused global warming. The IPCC summary assessment of the values from all 15 models is what is shown in the tidy Figure 1, the far less tidy Figure 2 is a frightening look under the hood.
Some of the models did not detect any GHG forcing,[4] but most did. An IPCC statistical analysis of the models suggests that: “Overall there is some evidence that some CMIP5 models have a higher transient response to GHGs and a larger response to other anthropogenic forcings … than the real world (medium confidence).”[5] This conclusion agrees with William Happer’s assessment of the models.
Figure 2 shows the same thing. Most of the scaling factors, for the nine models shown, are below unity, and some are negative. These models are clearly overestimating warming due to GHGs.
Figure 2 shows an exceptionally large variation in the computed greenhouse effect. The range of computed (or modeled) greenhouse gas warming from 1951 to 2010 is larger than the total observed warming of 0.66°C, the dashed line in panel (a). This does not give us confidence in the values plotted in Figure 1 or in the models.
Averages, especially global averages, hide a lot of critical detail. Nathan Gillett and colleague’s 2013 paper is a major source in AR5’s Chapter 10. Gillett is a coauthor of Chapter 10, and his 2013 paper is cited 25 times in the chapter. He and his coauthors have the following to say about the assumptions they made to attribute recent warming to human “carbon” emissions:
“Because TCRE [the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions] depends both on the carbon cycle and on the physical climate system, constraining it with observations requires both carbon cycle and temperature observations. … the most direct approach is to first use surface temperature observations to derive an estimate of CO2-attributable warming to the present and then divide this by an estimate of cumulative CO2 emissions. Estimating TCRE in this way relies on the assumption that TCRE is constant as a function of cumulative emissions between present day cumulative emissions and cumulative emissions at CO2 doubling. … Note that we estimate CO2-attributable warming using a fit to 150 yr of temperature observations … Because the historical increases in radiative forcings associated with aerosols and non-CO2 greenhouse gases have approximately cancelled each other out and large trends in volcanic and solar forcings have not occurred over this period, CO2 concentration changes caused by the temperature response to non-CO2 forcings are probably small.”
Let me translate. First, we assume that TCRE is a constant function of cumulative CO2 emissions, then we compare the 150-year records of CO2 emissions to the surface temperature record over the same period. We assume that aerosols and the other greenhouse gases cancel each other and that all solar and volcanic forcings are insignificant. Thus, they assume that CO2 emissions are the only significant influence on climate and then find that CO2 is the only significant influence on climate, big surprise!
This is just one example of the circular “proof” that CO2 emissions drive climate change, there are many others. There is no evidence, other than models, that human CO2 emissions drive climate change and abundant evidence that the Sun, coupled with natural climate cycles, drives most, if not all, of recent climate changes, as described in Connolly, et al., 2021.[6]
The bulk of this post is from my latest book, The Great Climate Debate, Karoly v Happer, it can be purchased on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com. If you buy it and read it, please leave a favorable review at one or both of the sites, if not, mark the favorable reviews as “helpful,” that counts also.
The bibliography can be downloaded here.
(May, 2022) ↑
on page 884 in Chapter 10 of AR5 ↑
(Gillett et al., 2013) and (IPCC, 2013, p. 882) ↑
(IPCC, 2013, p. 882) ↑
(IPCC, 2013, p. 884) ↑
(Connolly et al., 2021): “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate.” Existing data show that the Sun could explain anywhere from zero to 100% of recent warming. ↑
Sounds like a good book. I think you have it right.
You said: “Some studies show a strong correlation between solar activity cycles and Earth surface temperatures”
Your arguments would be stronger if you omit this faulty statement. The revised sunspot number and group number series do not show any correlation with Earth surface temperatures, let alone the lack of causal connection.
Leif, I agree. Climate fluctuates because climate fluctuates. It’s a super complex, interrelated system. If it didn’t fluctuate that would be very odd indeed. And assigning cause to any climate event is impossible. Take El Niños as an example, they happen when the trade winds slow, why do the trade winds slow, because (insert whatever cause you like), and what caused that cause, another climate cause, etc. You will always end up chasing your tail with cause-and-effect reasoning for a system as complex as the climate. It cannot be modled, it’s chaotic and it does whatever it does without need of a reason. Even a system as simple as a flipped coin fluctuates, It’s 50/50 H/T but it can turn up HHHHHH in less than a minute of flipping. Extrapolate the curve and you have heads forever, but that never actually happens.
Thomas:
Our climate is driven by varying levels of reflective (cooling) SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin. There is no climatic effect from CO2 levels, which is a gigantic hoax.
All El Ninos are caused by reduced amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere which causes warming, and all La Ninas are caused by volcanic eruptions spewing dimming SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
Our climate is NOT complex, but is easily understood in terms of SO2 aerosol emissions.
But, unfortunately,it is too complex for most WUWT readers to understand.
Probably more truth to that than any of the cockamamie theories of the IPCC.
“But, unfortunately,it is too complex for most WUWT readers to understand.”
Insults do not add anything to your statements, they only turn people away from your statements.
John Dilke:
But why else do I constantly get negative responses to my posts?
Because its clouds, not SO2.
Warmer SST causes more 7% more water vapor per degree. That water vapor turns into clouds. Clouds Reflect sunlight during the day and emit IR at night compared to a clear sky. WHEN clouds form and WHEN they dissipate controls the Earth’s temperature….not to mention that on the latest NASA heat budget Sankey diagram, evaporation is 88 watts cooling while net IR is only 53 watts of cooling.
Ocean local albedo .08, cloud local albedo as high as 0.9, etc, etc.
https://science.larc.nasa.gov/edu/energy_budget/
DMackenzie:
Average Anomalous global temperature changes PRECISELY track changes in global SO2 aerosol emissions.
When they decrease, temperatures increase, and when they increase, temperatures decrease. NO exceptions.
Temperature changes due to changes in global SO2 aerosol levels cause changes in cloud formation, making clouds only a second-order effect.
So precisely that SO2 goes down while temp did what again?
Doesn’t SO2 seed cloud formation and rain?
“Most people disagree with me, ergo they must be wrong.”
A real scientist would consider alternative explanations, such as:
1) I explained it poorly.
2) They are right and I am wrong.
3) A combination of 1) and 2)
Clyde Spencer:
There is a fourth alternative: Most people cannot believe that the cause of our climate is as simple as I have proven.
Negative feedback because you are full of yourself and you didn’t point to any evidence/proof – and insulting everyone here with no provocation.
What you said is plausible but how about some graphs showing the amount of sulphur in the air and co2 and temperatures to show the correlation?
pcman999
The attached image shows that whenever SO2 levels decrease, temperatures increase.
In this instance, the decreases in SO2 aerosol emissions were caused by idled factories, foundries, etc. during American business recessions.
I have a paper on this, if the link still works:
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
“The revised sunspot number and group number series do not show any correlation with Earth surface temperatures, let alone the lack of causal connection. “
Depends on time, so both his and your statements need help; Connolly et al didn’t say:
It takes eleven solar cycles to change the climate, via the tropical ocean connection.
Based on solar activity, I predicted the current tropical cooling in my 2018 posters. The eastern Pacific tropics step-up by ~1C from solar min to max, and asymmetrically step-down ~1C from solar max to min. The tropical step-ups drive global SST increases.
See Leif, solar-driven climate change is so very easy to understand!
“See Leif, solar-driven climate change is so very easy to understand!”
Good for you that you understand it. Unfortunately, nobody else does.
In a more perfect life, I would be drinking a beer with Leif.
Ditto, but I think Bob can’t tell the difference between weather cycles and climate cycles. Weather is SHORT term cycles, from drought to floods, and climate is LONG term cycles, from warming periods to ice-covered frozen planet periods. The real issue is figuring out what brings a prolonged cold period (ice age, if you will) to an end, and what triggers the end of a prolonged warm period, especially when these long-term events affect the entire planet.
My clunky bar chart of warm periods versus cold periods shows that once the cold starts, with increasing precipitation that piles up (snow, ice, etc.) it sticks around until something triggers the END of the cold and the long-term thaws begin.
Since we’re in a warm period, we’d better be grateful for it because otherwise, there won’t be anything at the grocery stores, and you guys will all have to go hunting for food on the hoof. 🙂 And yeah, it could end abruptly as easily as not.
“, but I think Bob can’t tell the difference between weather cycles and climate cycles.”
Cheap shot. Got examples?
The fact is I have covered both long and short-term cycles in my work posted here; that you didn’t notice says a lot about you.
“The real issue is figuring out what brings a prolonged cold period (ice age, if you will) to an end, and what triggers the end of a prolonged warm period, especially when these long-term events affect the entire planet.”
This is what my threshold theory is all about, long and short-term sun-climate warming/cooling, but when were you paying attention, and when did you ever ask me a question?
Only went on what you posted this time, Bob. Did not mean anything personal in it at all.
But if you want to get into the long and short of it, then please answer this: why was the Nebraska cold period (140,000 years in length) so much longer than its predecessors and succeeding cold periods? And why did the warm periods that followed it become increasingly longer and the cold periods shorter?
To be clear, the Nebraska cold period started 470,000 years ago (same thing in Europe and Asia) and ended 330,000 years ago. The warm period that followed it was about 30,000 years long. The length of time in these cycles is specific: there is NO average time length for either the cold or the warm cycles, period.
These are valid questions that don’t get addressed, y’know. Why is one cold/warm cycle so vastly different from the rest of them?
Hi Sara, this is my thinking (and Javier’s as well) on the timing of interglacials:
The timing of Interglacials – Andy May Petrophysicist
Thanks for that, Andy. That is a very good read. I appreciate the link to it.
Those are good questions Sara, but those events are well earlier than the Holocene period I cover. They might not be addressed because no one knows why. I personally don’t work with orbital data so those things could be better answered by someone who does. The longest sunspot dataset is the Multi-Messenger SN (9ky), not all the way through the Holocene.
Beyond orbital changes, that warm vs cold periods are unequal could mean the solar forcing is uneven over time on top of the more regular orbital forcing, but can we be certain without sunspot data for 470kya?
In general temperature changes from solar activity go up (down) under high (low) sunspot activity depending on duration, and can stay high (low) if solar activity remains relatively stable for long periods at the high (or low) level of sunspot activity.
But I don’t know if that applies to the Nebraska cold period.
To answer your earlier complaint about weather, here is the current connection between the sun’s TSI (TSIS) and CFSR surface Temp for the last year:
Several cold air outbreaks this NH winter were due to sharp TSI drops from the passage of large sunspot areas in Dec & Jan.
The currently warm mid and southern US temperatures came about from TSI being continually high for about ten days straight just recently (see above TSIS plot), which was a result of high sunspot activity in December 2021, because TSI lags sunspot activity by 27-54 days (1-2 solar rotations):
Welcome to sunspot-driven warming/cooling weather events.
I’ve no idea if Bob’s right or not. But if he is it wouldn’t be the first time a “nobody” had worked out something the entire scientific community had missed. Nor would it be the first time the ideas were dismissed out of hand. It will certainly happen again.
There’s a lot of arrogance in science where there should be humility
Leif,
The 2021 paper by Connolly, et al. thoroughly documents the various studies I’m referring to, it is in the post bibliography and the link is below. The quote from the post that you are commenting on is true as written. I realize that you have a different opinion, which is fine, but hundreds of studies show a strong correlation between surface temperatures and solar activity, there is no doubt about that.
The papers go back decades. Connolly, et al. is worth the time just for the bibliography. The hypothesis that the Sun (including Earth’s orbital and axis changes, variations in the solar wind. and magnetic field, etc.) cause climate changes on Earth through various mechanisms like ENSO, the PDO, variations in meridional transport of energy and so on is not going away. Neither is the greenhouse gas hypothesis. The only reasonable argument one can make is how much of climate change is controlled by the Sun and how much is controlled by the greenhouse effect, it’s the proportions we do not know, both have an effect.
How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate – IOPscience
Andy May:
“it’s the proportions we do not know, both have an effect”
NO. NEITHER have any effect.
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
You are conflating several things: there is little doubt that the orbital and axial changes greatly influence the climate; but there is no good evidence that solar activity does. Especially when the claims are based on outmoded [“going back decades”] reconstructions of said activity. The solar community is [albeit slowly] coming around to agree on this. The cosmic ray proxies show that the magnetic field of the sun did no go away during the Maunder Minimum [MM]. We do not [yet] have a good understanding of how sunspots form. We do have a good understanding of how TSI [the heat from the sun] depends on the magnetic field. Now, TSI is the combined effect of the heating caused by the faculae and the cooling caused by [darker] sunspots. The former effect is about twice the latter, so the faculae win and TSI gets a sunspot cycle modulation. If there were no visible spots during the MM there would not be any decrease of TSI due to the darker spots and it would seem [as some people have even proposed] that TSI during the MM would be higher than today. In any case, there is growing [science moves slowly] that TSI could not have been significantly lower during the MM [I am sure that you can find several references to that; try it. So, there would not be any solar cause for temperatures [the LIA] to be lower during the MM. This possibility shows how careful you would have to be with your assumptions about what causes what.
Leif,
TSI is just one aspect of solar output and one measure of solar variability. The quote you referred to was about “solar activity.”
This is a much larger topic than just TSI, I refer you to Connolly, et al. for a comprehensive discussion. Pay particular attention to section 2.6.
Even if TSI is as constant as you say, solar variability may well control climate change at the Earth’s surface.
An electrical motor imparts energy from the stator to the rotor through a magnetic interaction.
Does anyone KNOW how much energy may be transferred from the Sun’s magnetic field to the Earth’s magnetic field and thus the Earth, and how much that energy may very as the Sun’s magnetic field varies.
Just asking for a friend.
Drake, this is studied a lot and the solar aa index gives us an idea of how much solar magnetic variability affects the Earth’s magnetic field and Earth’s climate. See here for a discussion:
Solar Variability and Climate Change: Geomagnetic aa Index and Global Surface Temperature (fgcu.edu)
I should mention that the main influence on Earth’s magnetic field is the solar wind, but the power of the solar wind is determined mostly by changes in the Sun’s magnetic field. It is very complicated.
“It is very complicated”
Actually, to the level of accuracy needed for this discussion, it is not ‘very complicated. Our models of the solar wind derived from the measured solar magnetic field give a very good representation of the solar wind:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/wsa-enlil-solar-wind-prediction
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/wsa-enlil.html
All the measures of solar variability are directly controlled by the magnetic field which in turn is measured very closely by the sunspot [and group] number. Here is a modern view on the problem:
Centennial Total Solar Irradiance Variation Steven Dewitte, Jan Cornelis, Mustapha Meftah To cite this version: Steven Dewitte, Jan Cornelis, Mustapha Meftah. Centennial Total Solar Irradiance Variation. Remote Sensing, MDPI, 2022, 14 (5), pp.1072. ff10.3390/rs14051072ff. ffinsu-03584654f
Discussion and Conclusion: Since [12], solar-climate research has been dominated by the idea that during the Maunder Minimum, the TSI was significantly lower than the current conditions, characterised by a Grand Modern Maximum [13] of solar activity, and that this lower TSI could be at least partially responsible for the lower temperatures during the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) [48] from the 15th to the 19th century, where the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped by about 0.6 °C. For example, in [15], it is estimated that the TSI during the Maunder Minimum could be 3.3 W/m2 lower than its mean value from 1980 to 1986. The theory of the Grand Modern Maximum had to be abandoned after the revision of the sunspot number [20] and after the occurrence of the low solar cycle 24 occurring between 2008 and 2019—see Figure 3. Therefore, the long-term TSI reconstruction needs to be revised. A reconstruction of past TSI variations needs to be based on the analysis of existing TSI space measurements. We demonstrated in Section 2 that the daily composite TSI from 1991 to 2021 can be reconstructed with an RMSE as low as 0.17 W/m2 and a correlation coefficient as high as 0.94 from a regression model based only on a facular brightening proxy and a sunspot darkening estimate. There is no evidence that other physical effects other than facular brightening and sunspot darkening, both linked to the magnetic field on the solar surface, are needed to explain observed TSI variations. We can then endeavor the extrapolation of the TSI variations prior to their reliable measurement from space. On annual mean timescales, facular brightening and sunspot darkening are strongly correlated since the faculae result from the decay of sunspots on timescales shorter than 1 year, so that a single proxy for both can be used. In Section 3, we have used two facular brightening proxies—the MgII core-to-wing ratio and the F10.7 radio flux—and one sunspot darkening estimate—the SN version 2 —to reconstruct the measured annual mean TSI variation from 1992 to 2020, with RMSEs of 0.071 W/m2, 0.081 W/m2 and 0.086 W/m2, respectively. Prior to the used TSI space observations, the annual TSI extrapolations using any of these proxies agree well during their period of overlap, giving confidence in the soundness of the extrapolation. From the comparison of the sunspot-based TSI model with the other TSI estimates during their period of overlap, the stability of the annual mean sunspot-based TSI reconstruction is estimated to be ±0.25 W/m2. A TSI reconstruction similar to ours was used in [49] for an adequate reconstruction of global temperature change from 1850 to 2019, increasing the confidence in the validity of our TSI reconstruction. The occurrence of grand solar minima and maxima [50,51] can be studied from the 11 year running mean TSI reconstruction shown in Figure 5. An RMSD analysis as a function of time-shift confirms the existence of a 105 year Gleissberg cycle, similar to the one found in [45,46]. The TSI levels during the earlier grand minima in the beginning of the 18th and the 19th centuries are comparable, around 1363.05 W/m2, while the TSI levels during the later grand minima, in the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries are also comparable, around 1363.2 W/m2, only 0.15 W/m2 higher than the earlier grand minima. Clearly, this small TSI level variation cannot explain the occurrence of the LIA. The main contribution of our study is that, in opposition to earlier studies based on [12], we do not find a significant increase in TSI and hence solar influence on climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present.
Leif,
You keep returning to TSI. TSI may not even be important in this discussion. I grant that TSI may have been essentially constant for the past 300 years, it also may not matter vis-a-vis Earth’s climate.
Recent work, much unpublished at this time, suggests that solar activity (not TSI variability!) affects the stratosphere and solar cycles, especially ENSO and the Biennial Oscillation (QBO) and other long-term ocean oscillations. These drive the movement of thermal energy from the tropics to the poles (meridional transport or “MT”) where the energy is radiated to space. The North Pole is more important in the process than the South Pole since its polar vortex is weaker. You really need to read Connoly, et al. and think about it. Your fixation on Sunspots and TSI is making you miss a lot.
One key point, often missed, is La Nina and Neutral are the opposites in ENSO. El Nino is a self-powered export of energy to the poles. It only occurs when the ocean has collected enough solar energy to power it.
In any case, TSI is long gone as subject of interest. Read Connolly et al., it will catch you up-to-date.
“Read Connolly et al., it will catch you up-to-date.”
Most of Connolly et al. is concerned about TSI and solar cycle variability. The other stuff is not convincing [and the stratosphere is stable against vertical movements].
“Recent work, much unpublished at this time, suggests that solar activity…”
As you say ‘unpublished’, and ‘suggests’ is for the gullible.
If solar activity has not long term trend over at least 300 years, the various effects you like will have no long term trend either, in contrast to the temperature [if you believe the LIA]. So, you have no case.
As Willis often points out: show us the BEST case you have and don’t force me to hunt for it.
Leif you constantly conflate TSI and solar activity, they are not necessarily the same. My best source is Connolly, et al. 2021. If you’ve already read it and dismissed it, I have nothing else at this time.
“Leif you constantly conflate TSI and solar activity, they are not necessarily the same.”
Again, you must be consistent in what you say. We know extremely well on time scales from days to centuries that solar activity and TSI are simply given by the sun’s magnetic field, and measurements show that the SN [and new GN] are VERY good proxies for said magnetic field and thus solar activity, so there is no conflation here. About Connolly: if that is the best you can do, no wonder that you are misled. And, as I said, WHAT specifically convinces you to take that misguided position?
Study this paper to learn more:
Solar Irradiance Variability is Caused by the Magnetic Activity on the Solar Surface, by Kok Leng Yeo, Sami K. Solanki, Charlotte M. Norris, Benjamin Beeck, Yvonne C. Unruh, and Natalie A. Krivova: Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 091102 – Published 1 September 2017.”Climate simulations rely on model reconstructions of historical solar irradiance variability, and all current models are based on solar surface magnetism. The demonstration here that solar irradiance variability is indeed dominantly driven by solar surface magnetism bolsters the validity of their application to climate simulations.”
So the variations [you forgot that important word] of TSI and solar activity are necessarily the same.
All manifestations of solar activity vary in step with their cause, the magnetic field. If you know about one that does [directly or indirectly] not, this is your chance to enlighten us.
“Read Connoly et al.”
Well, their abstract starts with:
“AbstractIn order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities.” and on and on the paper focuses on TSI. In fact, TSI is mentioned 291 times…
So, Connolly is about TSI.
Leif they used only TSI levels and not the duration of low TSI, so their conclusions are faulty, disingenious even for leaving it out.
The 400y solar history is one of unequal epochs of low vs high sunspot activity. Their work apparently didn’t appreciate that.
When everyone is seeking higher TSI levels instead of long high vs low TSI durations, everyone will miss the true solar forcing.
“All the measures of solar variability are directly controlled by the magnetic field which in turn is measured very closely by the sunspot [and group] number.”
Not true, there were major lows in the solar wind strength 1969 and 1979-80 at sunspot maximum, and by the 1990’s the major lows shifted to around a year past sunspot minimum. As can be seen with the inverse response of the AMO:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1950/mean:7/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/normalise
Since when is the AMO a measure of solar wind ‘strength’ [seems you mean the sunspot number]?
In fact, your graph shows the clear lack of correlation between AMO and SSN.
“This is a much larger topic than just TSI, I refer you to Connolly, et al. for a comprehensive discussion. Pay particular attention to section 2.6.”
That section mentions TSI nine times and only briefly mentions solar UV and cosmic rays. I [and others, even Wolf back in 1852…] have shown that EUV [that is the energetic part of solar UV] varies just like the sunspot number,see e.g.
https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
“The reconstruction suggests that the EUV flux reaches the same low (but non–zero) value at every sunspot minimum (possibly including Grand Minima), representing an invariant ‘solar magnetic ground state’
It is well-known that the cosmic ray flux also varies just like the sunspot number, see e.g.
https://link-springer-com.stanford.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s11207-016-0969-z :
“we show a very good agreement between the revised sunspot records and the 10Be records from Antarctica and, in particular, the 14C-based solar-activity reconstructions.”
So, Connolly et al. is really about TSI.
Don’t forget about the Earth’s magnetic field as well. It waxes and wanes over time, the magnetic poles move around, and every 200,000 to 300,000 years they reverse. As all this happens the Earth’s magnetic field is not constant and is not symmetrical. This can cause varying impacts around the globe for the interaction of the sun and the earth.
Are you implying that the un-revised sunspot number and group number series does show a correlation?
Yes, before 1882 the group number was 40% too low and after 1946, the sunspot number was 20% too high. That induces an artificial upward trend which could be mistaken for a causal relationship between solar activity and earth temperature.
Either de-trending the time series or Fourier decomposition should resolve the question.
“Thus, they assume that CO2 emissions are the only significant influence on climate and then find that CO2 is the only significant influence on climate, big surprise!”
This stuff really gets my blood boiling. Last I looked the IPPC website said they were certain that CO2 was causing the warming because their models didn’t show warming when they didn’t add CO2, which is the most consequential unscientific bucket of hogwash I have ever encountered.
Given where we are today, I think it’s time that we start calling this sort of conduct treason. It’s used to wreck our economies and to make us, Europe in particular, beholden to Russia. It will kill the free world faster than Russian and China could accomplish it in a real shooting war, if they could even do that at all.
It’s time to stop being so nice about it.
My idea
Climate Change POLICY Crimes Against Humanity trials.
Hold them in the poorest African country
Penalties are varying number of years having to live as a subsistence farmer.
Imagine Tom Steyer and David Suzuki working side by side plots with their hand tools (oxen emit methane).
Sorry but I want them in GITMO for crimes against humanity.
Thomas, as I do point out in responding to Bob (above), this doesn’t account for the erratic length of time in cold cycles and warm cycles, not even a teensy-weensy bit, and those cycles occurred long before humans took up residence here.
There is no accounting for the changes from cold to warm, so when the IPCC makes such claims, they are letting everyone know that they are full of bull moose goo. But you’re right: they are using it as an excuse to destroy working economies, including ours.
I think this Ukraine thing has opened a wedge where people are starting to look closer and ask questions
I’m stirring the pot as much as possible
Now there is an understatement. NOTHING is right with the models. They are conceptually flawed. There is no “greenhouse effect” that impinges on Earth’s climate. Only in climate models can matter be created or annihilated each year. Only in climate models can deep oceans be warmed from the surface in decades. Only climate models have open ocean surface temperature exceeding 30C over any year. Only climate models and homogenisers cool the past to get a warming trend.
According to the CSIRO Mk3 model, the Pacific has been in La Nina conditions since 1850. The NINO34 threshold for La Nina is 26C. So perpetual La Nina for 200 years according to the CSIRO.
The SST trend for the NINO34 reqion in the satellite era from 1980 is MINUS 1.8C per millennium. The CSIRO Mk3 trend for the same period is PLUS 20C per millennium – give me a break. Models are devoid of reality. Anyone placing any store in these fantasies of faith should never claim to be a scientist.
This demonstrates the unique ability of Climate Models to create matter. This chart shows the 2000 to 2022 precipitation minus evaporation for the full CMIP5 ensemble:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_pme_Amon_modmean_rcp45to85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++_2000:2022.png
By inspection, you can see that precipitation exceeds the evaporation every year. The excess precipitations sums to 80mm over the 21st century so far. This is already 3 times the average water content of the atmosphere. So in just this century all the CMIP5 climate models have created far more water than exists in the atmosphere. Only climate models can create matter from literally nothing.
Great graph Rick!
I agree Rick, and CSIRO is just one example. The mismatch in Pacific and Southern Ocean surface temperatures in all the models are completely different in magnitude and trend from reality. And, from a climate perspective, the Pacific Ocean, especially the tropical Pacific, is a very critical area.
Andy, what I find puzzling is that none of the “claims” about CO2 acknowledge the simple fact that ongoing volcanic activity is more likely to contribute a high percentage of gases including CO2 to the mix, as demonstrated by the Tenerife volcano in the Canary Islands, (which has not settled down at all), the Iceland volcano Geldingadalar (still smoking but quiet right now) along with Hekla and Ejafjallajokl (both actively outgassing), and even Kilimanjaro, which constantly emits gases. Those are only a few. There is a massive caldera on the Kamchatka peninsula that is quivering, Toba still quivers, and – well, I could go on but these are a few samples. Even the Cascades are quivering and Mt. St. Helens is outgassing again.
Just saying that when it’s all about CO2 and humans are at fault, that ignores the reality that the planet is very active and can abruptly change everything in the blink of an eye. This is being blithely ignored by those “experts”. The Atlantic Ridge, which is the site where Iceland sits as well as the island of Tenerife further south, is acting agitated, and this never gets a nod, when it should.
Just saying that the things that really do cause climate change are right under the noses of all of us, but are being ignored. Not arguing that the Sun doesn’t matter, because it affects the weather everywhere, We had a rather dry summer with very little rain and this past winter has been drier than “normal” (nobody wants a blizzard!), but not enough snow over the winter season affects the following spring and summer. This is important to farming as well as those of us with tiny yards.
Without CO2 as a food resource, plants will die out. Is that what those people want? I’m beginning to think that maybe that IS what they want.
Hi Sara,
I’m not sure how much CO2 enters the atmosphere from volcanos, although the carbon isotope ratio is known and so is the isotope ratio in fossil fuels, so some part of the CO2 being added is clearly from fossil fuels.
The critical questions are,
CO2 is critical to life on Earth, it is where all our oxygen came from. As for #4, why not simply adapt? Why is this option ignored?
Why act now, as this post and my book explain, we have plenty of time and we still have no idea if, or how much additional CO2 affects climate.
The attached graph shows first fall frost (fff), last spring frost (lsf), climate growing season (cgs), and growing degree-days (gdd) from an agricultural study published in May, 2018.
It shows the growing season growing over the period from 1900 to 2014 as growing while the growing degree-days are going down. In other words there is less heat accumulation during the growing season even though the growing season is expanding. The only conclusion you can reach from this is that maximum temps are moderating or going down.
It must be noted that the study indicated that national averages don’t tell the whole story. You need to do a county-by-county analysis to actually determine what is actually going on. It’s somewhat analogous to global climate in that climate is local and regional, not global.
The study states: “The trends in the CONUS agroclimate with respect to agricultural production, in conclusion, can be characterized by decreased heat accumulation during a fixed crop growing season for the majority of commodity crops, and lengthening of the climatological growing season for all crops studied. This implies that these two
agroclimate indicators, counter each other as a lengthened CGS means increased availability of heat accumulation (in cases where producers and managers actually adapt to a longer CGS), whereas heat accumulation over time has decreased, which results in longer time (seasons) required for crop maturity. Hence, the actual crop yield impacts that different cropping regions have experienced would be dictated by a complicated balance between the lengthening of CGS and the decrease in heat accumulation. ”
Based on the fact that annual harvest for most grains continues to set records on a global basis, e.g. wheat in the Great Plains and Australia, I suspect that ag studies will show that many regions around the globe are seeing earlier LSF and later FFF (minimum temps going up), longer CGS, and moderating GDD. Exactly opposite of what the CAGW advocates keep pushing.
This means that your questions are highly relevant. As Freeman Dyson said climate study has to be done on a holistic basis, not just assuming that CO2 is the true thermostat control and since CO2 is going up so are all temperatures.
Makes sense, winters and nights are warming, summers and days are warming very little, if at all. Most state highest temperatures are prior to 1940.
Which means the CAGW meme that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder is not only devoid of factual support but is nothing more than delusion.
Yet during the Holocene Thermal Optimum there was a dearth of El Nino conditions.
Excellent, this is what we need knowledgeable credible people grading the work of the so called settled science. From what I gathered from Andy’s article I would grade this work at a D or an F because of the circular reasoning and it appears they used guard rails to keep their results within certain limits. The other reason is because we are dealing with models. How can any honest scientist offer models as a proof of anything, acting like the model is a substitute for a proper scientific study. My understanding is that models are tools used to check results or check different scenarios. That hardly constitutes a study.
Models are just to test an idea they are not proof of anything.
First and foremost, you can’t attribute warming to CO2. That doesn’t mean humans have no responsibly. There are other possible causes which humans have created.
Why not CO2? Because all the energy within the frequency range where CO2 absorbs energy is already being absorbed and it occurs within 10 meters of the surface. It’s called saturation.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
This means the full warming capability of CO2 is already happening. Thank you, CO2.
I’m sure many of you have heard that IPCC scientists have rebutted this claim. From what I hear the rebuttal is in two parts.
1) As CO2 concentration increases, the frequency range where CO2 can absorb energy also increases due to pressure broadening.
2) As CO2 increases it drives up the emission height to a colder part of the Troposphere. This reduces outgoing radiation which leads to an increase in temperature.
While 1) is true, this warming effect is actually countered by a cooling effect from increases in CO2 upwelling emissions. As you can see 2) is not just false, it is the wrong sign.
The fact it can’t be CO2 actually means there must be another explanation. My own view is the answer is a combination of different ocean cycles on top of a natural solar based recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Blame humans for 100%. It’s nothing. The average temperature of the Earth increase over the past 150 years by an amount that is so small that it happed if it over the next few minutes where you are sitting as you read this, you wouldn’t even know it happened. Meanwhile people are dying from bullets and bombs in Ukraine because Europe decided to leave it in the ground. Greta should be weeping.
Ignore the mechanism (ie. solar).
There was a Little Ice Age (LIA). We started warming out of the LIA before human caused contributions to atmospheric CO2 were significant.
The null hypothesis should be that we are still warming out of the LIA. Getting sucked into an argument about causality is just a distraction.
The paleo record shows that the planet has cooled since the Holocene Climate Optimum. There have been natural cycles like the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. None of those could have been caused by humans. There is also the fact that we are currently in an interglacial period (ie. the Holocene) and that the normal condition is glaciation.
The alarmists are natural variability deniers.
“Ignore the mechanism (ie. solar).”
So let’s not do any science then… when good-old hand-waving will do, right?
“The null hypothesis should be that we are still warming out of the LIA. Getting sucked into an argument about causality is just a distraction.”
Still warming out of LIA? Why, scientifically, didn’t it just keep cooling? Why did it cool? Why did it warm after? Why is it the null hypothesis can only be that it should warm out of an ice age? Why can’t the ice age persist for much longer? What is your null hypothesis when you’re right in the middle of the ice age?
Therefore according to you, knowing why the LIA happened or ended is distracting.
Sounds like sophistry not science commieBob. ‘It is what it is’ tells us nothing.
Bob Weber:
The answers to your questions can be found in the paper “The Definitive Causes of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
https://wjarr.com/content/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-0170.pdf
I didn’t have questions about it Burl. Your paper has disappeared:
Bob Weber:
That link has expired. Thanks for letting me know.
Try: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
Not hand waving. How about sticking to what we actually know for sure. It’s the exercise of simple basic logic.
Natural variability has caused warming out of the LIA. That should cancel the alarmist mantra that, since there is no other explanation, the late 20th century must be caused by CO2. Well, CO2 didn’t cause the 19th century warming or the early 20th century warming.
The demonstrably natural earlier warming makes the null hypothesis that the natural warming continues. The alarmists’ problem is to prove why that is not so.
There’s a big difference between science and things that disguise themselves as science.
I agree with some of it; but it’s everyone’s problem to know why & how.
If you don’t know, it’s important that you admit you don’t know.
We don’t want to be like the alarmists and make up crap from whole cloth.
This has been my basic argument for years. The models attribute 100% post-1950s but under predict 1910-1945 by a factor of 2x.
And then the glacial retreat and sea-level rise from 1850 (which must be caused by warming as early as 1835 due to lag) directly contradicts the IPCC temperature observations and models.
The inconsistencies are absolutely glaring.
Yeah, I’m not exactly crazy about facing an ice cycle of 140,000 years (Nebraska cold period). I prefer warm weather.
We live in a water world, Most of the energy from the sun goes to evaporate water. Evaporation is Indo-thermic and cools the surface of water. Changes in dew-point temperature are probably better measures of energy transport. Clouds form when rising air containing water vaper (and CO2) cools to the dew-point. Condensation is exothermic and warms the air causing it to rise faster. In this context, CO2 has little chance of “back radiating” to the surface. However, the water droplets at the bottom of clouds do radiate to the surface. The net radiation between the surface and the bottom of clouds is relatively small.
CO2 will always radiate in all directions at rates tied to temperature. The energy from one CO2 molecule is often absorbed by other CO2 molecules since they all have the same frequency. This allows CO2 to move energy in all directions with little interference from other gases..
More CO2 will radiate more energy in all directions including to space. This is a cooling effect. Good thing we also get a little more absorption as well to prevent cooling.
Back-radiation does exist and increases with more CO2 molecules. It doesn’t cause warming because those same CO2 molecules also increase upward radiation thus canceling out any potential warming
I agree the planet is a water world and temperatures are primarily driven by the oceans. CO2 helps energy from the oceans get moved evenly throughout the atmosphere and eventually to space. It also helps stabilize the lapse rate.
Richard M.
The “the other” explanation is simply that our climate is totally controlled by varying amounts of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere. This thesis is falsifiable, and has been tested and validated.
Aerodynamic flight models consist of major contributions from the wing/body, the horizontal tail, the elevators and the engines. All these contributions add up to zero in steady flight. The flight errors could be attributed to any of those pieces, the hard part is figuring out how much to each piece. If not done in the correct order, the corrected flight model could drive the contributions from the wing/body and tail into ridiculously large values of opposite sign. Wind tunnel and CFD models need to be used as reference to keep the flight model grounded in reality.
These climate scientists are making assumptions for which they have no basis. There’s little basic physics in there models, just curve fit results. GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out
Airplanes fly because air is composed of molecules that take up space and have mass. This is a fact that Bernoulli did not know.
Hard nosed CFD engineers are a totally different breed from climate storytellers.
CFD results are checked against wind tunnels, even when that costs, after some spectacular product disasters.
Supersonics, and hypersonics, and isentropic compression for thermonuclear fusion are a totally different ball-game.
It’s interesting to watch the Complete, the Perfect and the Absolute Denial of the existence of ploughs, the processes of tillage and of ‘forestry’ or more especially, de-forestry
Made even more incredible by the frank and honest admission by the people who use ploughs, paddy fields, chainsaws, fire and Roundup that they do what they do in order to “Dry out and warm-up” the land on which they use those tools
iow: They are changing the Albedo of the Earth’s surface.
That everyone, absolutely everyone doesn’t want to know that and made even more galling whenever anyone, scientist, warmist, skeptikist ventures into any and all explanations of the Green House Effect
The Very First Thing they declare in any and all explanations of the GHGE is:
We take/assume Earth has an Albedo of some number – some fixed and permanently immutable number
Made even worser and worser when the geo-engineers arrive and declare that they can “fix global warming” by changing (raising) Earth’s Albedo by adding aerosols into the sky
Surely Shirley, if that is the case, is it beyond belief that a lowering of Earth’s Albedo is what caused the warming in the first place?
It really is quite fantastic but also deeply worrying what is going on there.
I’d liken it to a Thelma & Louise situation – but where everyone lived happily ever after – simply because the protagonists kept looking up at the sky, instead of down at the ground below as it rapidly disappeared from beneath them.
I know why.
If anyone did venture into saying ‘The farmers did it‘ – they are going to be sooooo slaughtered by a blizzard of Political Correctness telling them what misanthropic monsters they are.
So, The Good Men say and do nothing.
Begs the question, are there any Good Men any more?
Not looking very bright there is it really – especially when 50% of Earth’s population know the answer.
And the other 50% imagine that by coming over ‘sensitive and caring‘ they’ll get laid – quite oblivious to the fact that the first 50% can see mendacity coming from the (proverbial) mile away.
To cite the french writer Jean-Paul Sartre: “l’enfer, c’est les autres” (Hell is other people).
Peta, you’re talking about a bunch of twits who think they can control the planet, when they can’t even control their own digestive systems.
Plenty of Good People still here. Have some tea and put your feet up.
Andy, in the UK we have a wonderful eccentric called David Icke who believes, inter alia, that he is the Son of the Godhead, that reptilian shape-changing aliens have bred with humans and that the cross-breeds have seized all the levers of power, that vibrational energy is the Secret of Life, the Universe and Everything. (I hope I have not misrepresented his world view). Advancing a theory of a contributor to warming which is in plain sight, is anthropogenic and can be addressed without bombing our civilisation back to the Stone Age makes me have some sympathy with him: we both believe we’ve seen something obvious that others miss, we both think that we have an important contribution to make to the debate. I, however, do not believe I am the Son of the Godhead, although when my singing in the Thursday night pub stills the crowd and there is that three seconds of silence when the last note dies, I know how he feels.
Even if the CO2 control knob theory is correct there is room for supplementary explanations for phenomena which that over-arching ragbag of belief and science ignores. Here is one such phenomenon.
The Black Sea is warming faster than the rest of the world ocean. So are Lakes Michigan, Tanganyika, Superior, Baikal etc. These anomalies cannot be due to extra CO2 forcing as CO2 is a well-mixed gas. The obvious explanation is changes of the albedo of the water surface. Is there a correlation between the rate of warming and the amount of oil spill, sewage and agricultural run-off? The first would lower albedo, the latter two would alter the ecosystem with variable results – my guess is that the resultant algal blooms are releasing lipids with my favoured culprit being diatoms which will enjoy the dissolved silica uptick. For the true canary in the coal mine, see The Sea of Marmara for truly spectacular results of pollution – it’s warming at three times the standard rate.
The mechanism is smoothing which lowers albedo. There are other results of smooths: there’s a backwards piece at wwwdotconservativewoman.codotukslashcold-comfortslash which examines how we could avert an ‘ice age’ and then points out that we are already doing most of them. Further info on request, Anthony has my email and so do the dedicated team at TCW Defending Freedom, the new name for The Conservative Woman.
Must go. The reptiles are bringing my meds.
JF
Surely, the meaning of life, the Universe, & everything is 42? At least according to Deep Thought, the world’s most powerful computer in the future!!! 😉
I gotta ask! What was the precision of Deep Thought? Is that exactly 42, or is there some round-off error?
Do NOT listen to the Vogon Captain’s poetry.
The obvious explanation is changes of the albedo of the water surface. Is there a correlation between the rate of warming and the amount of oil spill, sewage and agricultural run-off? – JF
Well, since Lake Michigan didn’t freeze over this winter, although the smaller lakes did (icefishing was very popular this past winter, and cheaper than buying fish) it’s entirely possible that the lack of ice had something to do with the change in the lake’s albedo.
This past winter (almost gone!) was dry and mild. We had two snow storms, neither of which amounted to a hill of beans. The smaller lakes did freeze which sent the fishing people out to fish and a few rivers froze on the surface, but there was very little snow, which is vital to a vibrant regrowth of plants when Spring weather arrives, especially in prairie spots and woodland areas.
The most important thing I noticed is that the Des Plaines River never once was at the flood stage from May of last year up to now. Not once. That DOES matter, because up where I live is where the river starts. Low river levels mean no spring flooding is likely, which will affect the plant population and that affects what the seed-eating birds will get in the way of food. It will also affect the fish, frog and insect populations. If the plants in marshes to the west of me aren’t getting enough water, they will withdraw and die back until the weather cycle changes to wet.
These things all go in cycles. I’m waiting to find out how this coming cycle goes.
And I’m a time traveler whose parents haven’t been born yet.
1. Temp went up, 1900 to 1940
2. Temp went down 1940 to 1970
3. Temp went up 1970 to 2000
4. Temp stay same 2000 to now.
5. Sea level went up constant from 1900 to now.
6. Man Made CO 2 emissions went up slowly 1900 to 1960
7. Man Made CO 2 emissions went up quickly 1960 to now.
While I have simplified the above key data, the fact remains, there is not a clear link between temp, SLR and CO2.
There are just to many unknown butterflies.
We need to move on from ‘this is a lie’, everyone knows that, and get into the ‘why are they lying’. Thats where the meat of the story is. Who is funding it, what are there goals, what is there agenda.
We all know about little ice ages, we all know about cosmic rays, but they are a distraction.
Maurice Strong and later directors of the IPCC have admitted what their real agenda is. The destruction of the eeviill capitalist society.
According to a publication of Pat Frank, the outputs of all these models could be easily simulated with a much simpler function which was linearly and only dependent on CO2 concentrations with ad hoc adjustments (tuning) of a few parameters. No wonder that these models show mostly CO2 dependencies, they were created to do just that. It’s high time to defund the IPCC. The scientists there have either given in to political pressure, or they are not listened to. The whole organization is extremely damaging, expensive and pointless.
I must say climate scientists get a very bad reputation.
While they are yet again nitpicking clever details, the Green Great Reset plows straight ahead, and voters are right now being Reset.
Voters notice energy, food, housing inflation directly and wonder what so-called scientist are babbling about, CO2 and the sun.
The game is over guys, the Green Great Reset is going ahead, the horse has left the stable.
The financial warfare right now unleashed against Russia, and maybe soon China, was well prepared since the FED August 2019 Jackson Hole call for Regime Change, with the UN and BlackRock onboard. A call to destroy all firms which do not follow Green policies with precisely the financial weapons now in full public view, ’cause Ukraine.
Prince Charles at his COP26 put it clear as day :
“we have to put ourselves on a war-like footing” and “we need a vast military-style campaign,”
Get it – COP26 failed so they now plow ahead to destroy the two powers that did not accept the Great Reset.
So argue on, your reputation is utterly ruined.
How is it that the error bar on the combined anthropogenic forcing is much smaller than the error bar of either of its factors: greenhouse gases, and other anthropogenic. I’m talking about figure 1. I know this figure comes from the IPCC but, how are these error bars explained?
SebMagee, Good question, here is what they say about that in the synthesis report:
Possible translation: We have no idea what the combined error bars are, but these look good.
Arguing about how much warming atmospheric CO2 causes is like arguing about what unicorns are up to these days.
As far as I know, the radiative warming effects of CO2 have never been validated in a laboratory or in real atmospheric conditions.
The atmospheric content of CO2 is 0.042%.
CO2 is transparent to 92% of the earth’s emission spectrum.
We have so-called experts adding, subtracting and even dividing radiative forcings as if it were any different than adding, subtracting or dividing temperatures.
We have so-called experts using the S-B equation or Planck’s Law to calculate the forcings of gases. These equations are for black bodies radiating at all frequencies or wavelengths not for emissions from a gas molecule at a single frequency or wavelength.
Where is the evidence that a ghg re-radiates a photon in a random direction? The 2nd LOT tells us in which direction it is most likely to re-radiate.
If anything ghgs cool the atmosphere. Without ghgs the energy gained by O2 and N2 from conduction from the earth’s surface would be locked into the atmosphere. Introduce 0.042% CO2 and every 2,500th collision of a O2 or N2 molecule with a CO2 molecule would add to the chances of any energy absorbed by the CO2 molecule being emitted to space.
Why does everyone assume such guff about CO2 to be true?
Why are you even discussing it?
I write about it, because too many people do not question it.
Well, Andy, I’ve nothing against you personally but I have just questioned it and you should have given me the courtesy of a proper and respectful reply.
But, Andy, you write about it, essentially, because you are cognisant that too many people ignore the lack of evidence. WUWT is a classic example.
I keep asking WUWT week after week, month after month, year after year, where is your evidence?
You cannot build a bedrock of science from a bunch of hypotheses.
An object cannot absorb what it has previously emitted. An object cannot absorb its own radiation. Back radiation is a myth. There is no claimed evidence that back radiation is real except in the 11 year wasted experiment by Feldman et al (2015). And how did that work out??? Berkeley Lab loved it. Hmmmm.
The reason why the CAGW narrative persists is because individuals like you, Willis, Anthony push the back radiation BS cr@p from ghgs, especially CO2, without any experimental evidence.
You’re dealing with a f***ing trace gas, 0.042% oft he atmosphere which is transparent to 92% of the earth’s emission spectrum and only absorbs around the 15 micron band in that emission spectrum. How tiny is that? How cold is that?
And what is always ignored is Hoyt Hottel (1954). That puts paid to the radiative properties of CO2 in a nutshell.
CO2 radiative warming properties – NO EVIDENCE
The GHE – NO EVIDENCE
THE ECS – NO EVIDENCE
It is pure sophistry.
I’m sure you prosper from your many publications, Andy, but you do science a disservice.
Sophistry is always found out.
leitmotif, I meant no disrespect, and I thought I answered your question. This post is not about CO2 radiative properties, GHE or ECS. I’ve dealt with those elsewhere. Here is my post on the GHE:
The Greenhouse Effect – Andy May Petrophysicist
Andy, I started off my post with:
Arguing about how much warming atmospheric CO2 causes is like arguing about what unicorns are up to these days.
You are arguing about CO2’s role (and inherently the anthropogenic role) in climate change.
Why?
There is no evidence. Do you think Feynman was going OTT when he said:
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
leitmotif, Here is the best I have aon the C2 radiative effect:
The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer – Andy May Petrophysicist
So you think Happer agreed with the GHE hypothesis?
Here’s a email exchange from 2014 between Happer and his fans.
https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html#:~:text=The%20mean%20decay%20time%20for,a%20billion%20times%20as%20long).
Do you think someone like Will Happer would think the GHE and the ECS had any credibility? Look at the stuff on collisions and mean decay time.
ECS is discussed in two posts, here is part 1:
Climate Sensitivity to CO2, what do we know? Part 1. – Andy May Petrophysicist
You are using the ECS to arithmetically add forcings together!!!!
Why not just add temperatures together?
Have you no shame?
Part 2: Climate Sensitivity to CO2, what do we know? Part 2. – Andy May Petrophysicist
These are all very big complex topics and only marginally relevant to this post, which is about models and attribution of warming.
I think the one thing that hasn’t been addressed, Andy is that the O2 level in the atmosphere favors lifeforms that aren’t just the giant bugs of the Carboniferous period and other primitive lifeforms like jawless fish in the Silurian period (among other things).
Right now, it’s balanced and habitable for something besides swamp dwellers, but this seems to escape people who should know better than to ignore it.
Maybe what we need is a good, hard wake-up call. Don’t know. I’m mystified by the people who think/say they can control how the atmosphere behaves when reality tells us the opposite.
These are all very big complex topics
Because you have made them so.
You do know that if you get into an argument about how much damage unicorns are causing in the world’s forests it can get quite heated?
The only winners are the unicorns.
From the article: “Since the human influence on climate has never been observed or measured,”
Yep, no evidence. 🙂
Just slightly suspicious is that the IPCC show the range for natural forcings and natural internal variability to both be precisely +/- 0.1 degC.
First point on that is….show your workings.
And secondly, I mean, everyone knows if you are going to make up numbers like that (sorry, estimate using experts) you should at least make the two numbers different enough not to draw attention to them.
Just the annual variation in the UAH satellite record, after detrending using OLS, is +/- 0.14 degC (1SD) with a min/max range of -0.27 to +0.45 degC
Excellent point.
From the article: “Let me translate. First, we assume that TCRE is a constant function of cumulative CO2 emissions, then we compare the 150-year records of CO2 emissions to the surface temperature record over the same period.”
They are making a comparison to a bastardized, dishonest surface temperature record which does not show the Early Twentieth Century warming.
HadCRUT4 has its problems, but it is better than HadCRUT5, which is a total mess. More on that in a later post.
Figure ! reveals IPPC’s mindset. Nearly all of that big green blob should be at the bottom labeled “natural forcing and variability”; with realistic estimates of confidence limits.