By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Amid all the fabricated panic about an imagined “climate emergency” caused by global warming, one fact will be found almost nowhere but here. As the totalitarians tighten their fell grip on all the news and internet media, any truth inconvenient enough to run counter to the ruthlessly-enforced Party Line is suppressed. Here, however, you will find the still, small voice of calm. Here is the truth. There has been no global warming – none at all – for 7 years 7 months. Yet, during that time, a significant fraction of the influence of humanity’s energetic industries and enterprises on the climate has occurred, without so much as a flicker of response from global mean surface temperature.
The revisionists are, of course, maintaining that long Pauses are exactly what one would expect even with an underlying warming trend. But they can only get away with that by saying that each Pause begins with a prominent el Niño Southern Oscillation warming in the tropical eastern Pacific, such as those which occurred in 2016 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in 2020.
That, however, is an admission that, at least on the decadal scale, the natural variability of the climate is sufficient to mask the long-run trend. But it can only do that because the long-run warming trend is so very small. Here it is: just over half a Celsius degree per century:
“Aha!” they say, “But just look at the steepening of the trend from 1976 onward.” Well, yes, but did the CO2 concentration surge in the 1970s compared with previous decades? No: it continued to increase at much the same rate as before. It was another natural event – this time the Great Pacific Shift of 1976 – that coincided with, and inferentially had no small influence upon the more rapid increase in temperature over the 20 years to the late 1990s, when the trend leveled off to zero for almost 19 years, only to resume in the run-up to the Great El Niño of 2016, since when there has been no global warming at all.
As Willis Eschenbach has recently pointed out in one of his distinguished columns analysing the data, it is quite hard to detect any particular signal, whether natural or anthropogenic, once one describes that signal either as an absolute temperature (in which event the entire warming since 1850 amounts to an increase of less than 0.2% in global mean surface temperature) or as a trend plotted against the annual variability in regional temperature (in which event the trend is barely distinguishable from the noise). Willis rightly concludes that in a rational world this sort of common-sense perspective would apply.
My favorite example of a regional temperature record is the Central England record, which in fact encompasses almost all the English landmass, and has been kept since 1659. Here is that record since 1945:
Sure enough, the entire 1.1 C° warming trend since 1945 is not even a tenth of the annual variability. Global warming, then, is proving to be a non-event. There is simply not enough of it to justify the childish panic that has gripped those scientifically-illiterate politicians who, through craven fear of the unpersoning to which all of us who have dared to question the climate-Communist Party Line have been subjected, have failed to ask the rational questions that would at once expose the scam for the nonsense it is: immensely profitable to Messrs. Putin and Xi, whose agents of influence captured the environmental movement some decades ago, and just as immensely costly to the rest of us.
Now, one cannot expect anyone as cognitively challenged or as temperamentally totalitarian as Mr Biden, or anyone as scientifically challenged or as temperamentally totalitarian as Mr Johnson, to understand just what pseudo-scientific nonsense the climate-Communist case is. However, the White House has an army of advisors, and so – these days – does 10 Downing Street. When I was a policy wonk there in the Golden Age of Thatcher and Reagan and Pope John Paul II, there were just six of us in the Prime Minister’s policy unit. Now there are 43. Surely at least one of these effete drones can do an elementary macroeconomic analysis. Surely one of them can count how many beans make five. Hint: The answer is five.
Margaret Thatcher was sharp as a tack (but she was the exception). One method I used when explaining to the thicker sort of Minister (for he was the rule) what his proposed moonbeams-to-cucumbers policy would cost was to show how much an average family of four would have to pay for it.
So let us hold our noses and pretend that global warming will actually occur at the officially predicted midrange rate of 3 C° per century or per CO2 doubling (the two are about the same). Of course it won’t be anything like that much, but let us humor these nitwits.
IPeCaC’s current estimate is that every 4 units of radiative forcing will cause 3 degrees of eventual or equilibrium global warming. So each unit abated will abate three-quarters of a degree of warming that would otherwise have occurred. In the last three decades, between us we have all added just 1 unit of forcing in total, in more or less a straight line at one-thirtieth of a unit per year.
In the next 30 years, then, we should add another unit on business as usual. Therefore, if the whole world went from here to net-zero emissions by 2050 we should abate about half of that unit, and thus three-eighths of a degree of warming. With me so far, Minister? Here are some nice pretty counters, so that you can follow right along. If you pay attention, the Private Secretary will bring you some nice chocolate with your milk at teatime.
Trouble is, the whole world is not going to go to net zero by 2050. For the most striking feature common to the plethora of international treaties and agreements, accords and concordats and protocols about global warming is that every single one of them is directed solely at the West, using the flimsy pretext that our past sins of emission constitute a “historic climate debt”. Everyone else is exempt.
No, Minister, I’m not going to go into the strategic reasons why the Western economies have been made the sole targets of the climate treaties: you should have read the daily intelligence digest and attended the weekly briefings, but, like Mr Johnson and Mr Biden, you haven’t bothered.
Let’s play “Let’s Pretend”, Minister. Let’s pretend that the West accounts for as much as a third of all emissions, and that the West will actually reach net zero by 2050. No, of course it doesn’t and it won’t, Minister, but let’s pretend.
In that event, the warming abated by 2050, compared with what would have occurred on business as usual, will be just one-eighth of a degree. Yes, Minister, that’s right! One-eighth of a degree is one-third of three-eighths of a degree. Aren’t fractions exciting?
Now, Minister, let’s take Britain as an example of how much all this is going to cost. Britain emits about 1% of the world’s emissions each year. So our contribution to the West’s abatement of global warming would be 1% of three-eighths of a degree, or less than 1/250 degree. No, it isn’t a lot, Minister.
After correcting climatology’s elementary error of physics (they forgot the Sun was shining, Minister, and they added together the feedback responses from the Sun’s warmth and from warming by greenhouse gases and blamed them both on the greenhouse gases alone), the abatement of global warming by British net zero emissions would be not much more than a thousandth of a degree.
How much would that minuscule abatement cost us? That’s the right question, Minister. The Government’s climate change committee says £1 trillion (if you will believe it is as little as that, you will believe anything, as the Duke of Wellington used to say). The national grid corporation says £3 trillion. McKinsey, a leading consultancy firm, says £4 trillion, at a profoundly conservative estimate.
Let’s go with McKinsey’s figure. In that event, applying the UK abatement cost globally, abating the 3 degrees’ warming that IPCC predicts will occur over the 21st century would cost 3 times 1000 times £4 trillion. That’s £12 quadrillion, Minister.
Global annual GDP is £85 trillion, or £8.5 quadrillion over a century. Of course, were it not for the economic devastation caused by global net-zero emissions policies, GDP might be expected to grow over the century. But, as it is, the whole of global GDP, and then some, will have to be spent on emissions abatement. So nobody will be able to eat or do anything else. That’s how silly all this net-zero nonsense is.
There are 8 billion people in the world, or about 2 billion families of four. So the cost of global-warming abatement this century will be $6 million in total, or £60,000 a year, per family of four. In dollars, that’s $75,000 per year for each household, which comfortably exceeds the global mean annual household income.
Of course, none of that spending is in any way necessary because, after correcting climatology’s silly error of physics, there will not be enough global warming to do net harm. It will be net-beneficial.
So why are we doing any of this global-warming abatement? That, too, is the right question, Minister. It would be well worth your while to attend the intelligence briefings from now on. Then you’ll find out the answer. Well, all right, I’ll give you a clue: where do you think Mr Putin got enough billions over the decades to rebuild the Soviet armed forces that are now bogged down in Ukraine in pursuit of his special military massacre?
That’s right, Minister: sales of Siberian gas in ever larger quantities and at ever higher prices to nations that Putin’s agents of influence have persuaded to close down the competition from coal-fired power stations that used to generate electricity at not much more than quarter of the cost of gas. Did you really think that Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion were genuine environmental groups? Don’t be silly, Minister.
And why do you think Mr Xi has spent so much time and effort buying up and controlling very nearly all the global output of lithium carbonate for electric buggies?
Now you’ve got it, Minister. The two most brutal Communist regimes in the world have been profiteering from Western governments’ woeful, wilful ignorance of elementary science and economics, and from Ministers’ fear of being unpersoned. Xi and Putin have been laughing all the way to the Moscow Narodny Bank.
Ought we to stop them by scrapping all this climate-emergency nonsense that they have so sedulously peddled, and by getting rid of the net-zero-emissions policies on both sides of the Atlantic?
Yes, Minister.
Deliberately ignoring math and economics is a requirement to be a green.
Tom, it is altogether possible that they aren’t ignoring math and economics, but rather that they are simply ignorant of math and economics. That would seem to apply to both Biden and BoJo neither of whom can apparently do simple arithmetic sums, let alone real math of the sort Monckton refers to.
Or, Rud, they are simply using a poorly crafted fictional crisis to seize power and wealth. I’m quite sure that the two fools in question (or their puppeteers) can do Rocko math (from the Edward G. Robinson villian in the Key Largo movie): they just want MORE.
It is also entirely possible that they, like Griff, are well aware of the economics and are doing this deliberately to destroy the Western economies.
I don’t think so.
The scientific denialism that is “climate science” is a monomania: they only tink of one thing, “global warming”, or “climate change”, or any of their aliases, and ignore everything else under the sky. They reduce everything to that one idea and it occupies all their minds, nothing left to process other ideas. So, for them math and economics are non-existent.
yes, deliberate…nothing fails like success. The west is done. Be interesting to see how many westerners will be allowed to live.
I would say – follow the money .
How will the Davis elite benefit .
Sell windmills and solar – then before it all collapses sell out and buy ( the now cheap and undervalued ) fossil fuel companies .
I don’t think they are ignoring the facts; they are scared of admitting that they have got it wrong and they think that admitting it will make them look silly which would never do.
But now we know who the script writer was for “Yes, Minister”.
Deliberately ignoring math and science are requirements for being a WUWT cultist denier.
This is weak even for you paid trolls. The drive by shootings from you CCCP employees never contain any math. Ignoring math and science is your forte.
Those who blindly accept the anti-science propaganda vomited daily by WUWT are the ones who ignore math and science, Harkle.
Are yes, and ignorance is a bliss for those who blindly follow others off the cliff.
Once again, the trolls declare that only those who agree with their religion are capable of doing science.
Care to actually refute anything written, or is that beyond your limited abilities?
All he knows are argumentative fallacies or religious dogma from the CAGW priests. He’s like the old tattered man on the street corner holding a cardboard sign saying “Repent”.
Tim, I’m just saying stop being bamboozled by pseudo-scientific WUWT propaganda and learn some real science for a change.
Perhaps you could show us what Mr. Monckton has gotten wrong in the case at hand, so as to demonstrate that you are here to save us from our bamboozlement? Talk is cheap as they say, and we will need to hear more than just insults to deliver us from our lack of panic over projected cataclysmic consequences incoming, which you apparently feel is preventable by the “West” becoming a sacrificial offering for our “sins of emission”.
To me, nobody special, you seem to be common mudslinger, doing your mudsling thing. Pffft
The issue is not that Monckton got the 91 month 0 C/decade trend wrong. It’s not wrong. I get the same result. The issue is that it is not any more or less meaningful than the +0.26 C/decade trend that is now 184 months long or the +0.13 C/decade trend that is 522 months long.
What he is definitely wrong about in these updates is his claim that the IPCC prediction from 30 years ago is 2x higher than what is observed. As I have been pointing out in the last couple of updates the IPCC prediction is pretty close and if anything they it appears they actually underestimated the warming slightly.
He is also wrong about the expectation of pauses. He implies that the existence of the pauses undermines model predictions. Except that models say pauses of this nature are common and expected. In fact, the CMIP5 prediction for the frequency of pauses is not significantly different than what is observed in the UAH data.
“What he is definitely wrong about in these updates is his claim that the IPCC prediction from 30 years ago is 2x higher than what is observed.”
So, nothing along the lines of what I actually asked for, then?
“Perhaps you could show us what Mr. Monckton has gotten wrong in the case at hand, so as to demonstrate that you are here to save us from our bamboozlement?”
Do you agree that it’s essentially meaningless for the “West” to spend many trillions to very slightly lower the eventual global temps (ASSUMING the climate modelers are doing something more than kidding themselves and/or us about the efficacy of their models)?
PS- I really don’t care about your claims otherwise, if you don’t provide at least some evidence that you’re not just playing word games. Why no quote of “the IPPC prediction from thirty years ago” that you’re referring to? Not doing so simply sparks my suspicion that you’re not self-aware enough to take seriously . .
John Larson said: “PS- I really don’t care about your claims otherwise, if you don’t provide at least some evidence that you’re not just playing word games. Why no quote of “the IPPC prediction from thirty years ago” that you’re referring to?”
The IPCC AR1 (FAR) WG1 Physical Science Basis report from 1990 is available here. Sometimes Monckton says the prediction is 2x higher than observed, sometimes 3x higher, and sometimes 6x higher depending on which post we look at.
Here is what the IPCC FAR actually said. In terms of emissions humans selected a path far below business-as-usual (scenario A). As of 2020 there was 413 ppm of CO2 which puts us a hair above scenario B but well below scenario A. There was 1900 ppb of CH4 which puts us right on scenario C. And there was 225 ppt of CFC11 which puts us well below scenario C/D. A big part of this is the result of the Montreal Protocol.
In terms of forcing for all GHG species via W/m2 humans selected a path even below D. Again, this is due in part to the Montreal Protocol.
Based on the information contained in the IPCC FAR a reasonable assignment of human behavior is scenario C. The warming the IPCC predicted for scenario C is 0.55 C. HadCRUT shows that it actually warmed 0.65 C from 1990 to 2020. Based on this the IPCC did not overestimate the warming by a factor of 6x, 3x, or even 2x but actually underestimated it by about 15%. Even if you think humans went down a course closer to B that would be about 0.65 C of warming as to the observed warming of about 0.65 C or nearly spot on.
John Larson said: “Do you agree that it’s essentially meaningless for the “West” to spend many trillions to very slightly lower the eventual global temps (ASSUMING the climate modelers are doing something more than kidding themselves and/or us about the efficacy of their models)?”
I have no idea. This is a policy related question which I have little knowledge to speak intelligently and have absolutely zero desire to do so anyway. I strongly dislike policy and politically oriented discussions and so I bow out when the discussion moves in that direction.
John Larson said: “PS- I really don’t care about your claims otherwise, if you don’t provide at least some evidence that you’re not just playing word games. Why no quote of “the IPPC prediction from thirty years ago” that you’re referring to?”
I’m just letting you know here that I posted a thorough response to this topic. It is currently pending approval by the moderators so it might not show up for a few hours. Usually the moderators let my posts through so I do expect it to show up eventually. If in the unlikely event they reject it I can see if I can post a screenshot as long as it does not violate WUWT policies.
“I have no idea. This is a policy related question which I have little knowledge to speak intelligently and have absolutely zero desire to do so anyway.”
Then why are you commenting here (to me of all people)? This article is clearly about policy, based on the ASSUMTION that what you seem to believe the IPCC got right, is right.
(And, the IPCC “predicting” that mild warming would happen by now if nothing much changed in terms of human CO2 emissions, is pretty much the same to me, as them agreeing with those who said/say that mild warming is to be expected in the natural course of things.
(YOU NEED TO SHOW SOME NONORDINARY THING WAS PREDICTED AND THEN CAME TO PASS, for me to even consider it scientifically relevant to much of anything ; )
PS. I am not aware of any claims Mr. Monckton made about the IPCC gang predicting too much warming (in realityland), but am aware of him claiming that they overstated the role that CO2 et al play in causing whatever warming occurs. A misuse/misunderstanding of “control theory” at a fundamental level, as I understand it.
Is it possible that you are conflating one sort of claim for the other?
John Larson said: “Then why are you commenting here (to me of all people)?”
Because you asked a question in good faith which I thought desired an answer in good faith. Generally speaking though I do so to discuss the Monckton Pause, relevant statistical techniques and their results when applied to the rest of the UAH data, and to participate in tangentially related scientific topics.
“Because you asked a question in good faith which I thought desired an answer in good faith.”
I did ask a question, but the question I asked was;
“Perhaps you could show us what Mr. Monckton has gotten wrong in the case at hand…”
?
And in the case at hand, Mr. Monckton said;
“That, however, is an admission that, at least on the decadal scale, the natural variability of the climate is sufficient to mask the long-run trend. But it can only do that because the long-run warming trend is so very small. Here it is: just over half a Celsius degree per century”
It seems to me, nobody special, that sans the now decades long alarm of impending doom sounding from the IPCC gang, the current “climate” situation would have been seen as a very good state of affairs. A relatively warm period, with relatively high CO2 levels. What’s not to like?
John, in another post I made in these comment threads, I outlined (in more detail than I will provide here) three things … at least … that Monckton got wrong:
1- Monckton’s claim of “no global warming … none at all … for 7 years 7 months” is wrong, because he considers only atmospheric warming. The vast majority of the warming heat content goes into the oceans, and they have not stopped accumulating heat at all.
2- Monckton’s claim that CO2 content in the air has been a “linear” increase since the 1970s is wrong. Current CO2 increase rate is over 2.5 times more than it was prior to the 1970s.
3- Monckton’s handwaving about ocean cycles shifts being a major factor in the atmospheric warming trend since the 1970’s is also wrong. The oceans have been accumulating heat, not dispersing it to the atmosphere. There is something else (CO2 influence) warming both air and ocean.
“John, in another post I made in these comment threads..”
That’s fine, I have no beef with people making arguments they think are germane to the post at hand, that’s the whole point of having comments at all . . but simply hurling insults on this post, without comment on this post, is not a good way to get people to believe you’re here to save anyone from potential bamboozling, I suggest. It looks like you’re not able to intelligently challenge what the author has presented, so you went “special snowflake” instead ; )
No bamboozling here. I gave you a whole list of reasons why. You didn’t refute any of them. You just used the argumentative fallacies of False Appeal to Authority and Argument by Dismissal to avoid actually having to come up with something as refutation.
That’s how con men work!
I see. And what are we denying exactly?
Get lost, smelly troll.
Oops, someone hit your button.
Cheer up and enjoy the nice weather!
Are you the same MGC who used to post lies on Yahoo! before they terminated comments because too many people were challenging their false narratives? The same fool who wrote that climate change would cause fresh water to become a scarce resource followed almost immediately by a post that claimed global warming would cause us to be inundated with rain? That fool?
How many times, Meab, are you going to reveal your shamefully willful ignorance with that same tired old stupid comment?
Climate change is producing more rain in some locations but less rain in others. We are already seeing exactly that: heavier and more extreme rainfall in the eastern U.S. (Hurricane Harvey for example) while the western U.S. remains in severe drought.
Why is it so difficult for you WUWT anti-science cultists to comprehend something so simple?
The largest areas of “severe drought” today are SEMI-ARID deserts! Places like central California and New Mexico!
There is a *reason* these places are identified as DESERTS! There is no “remains in severe drought” for these places. Non-drought conditions in these places are NOT the norm!
History didn’t just start the day you were born, you know, right?
More childish handwaving and pretending from Gorman. The trend in these locations is toward less and less rainfall and more and more drought … exactly as projected decades ago by those climate models that you foolishly pretend to be “inaccurate”.
Pick your period, pick your trend.
When the next “atmospheric river” comes to those places, you’ll tell us the mudslides are also ’caused by climate change,’ and insist the ‘models’ also predicted THAT.
“The trend in these locations is toward less and less rainfall and more and more drought
Once again since you apparently can’t read!
These areas are SEMI-ARID deserts! What does the word “desert” mean to you? A tropical paradise?
Why do you think the truck farms in central California are so dependent on irrigation and always have been?
from https://www.independent.com/2019/01/10/greening-sahara/
“The Sahara Desert, an expanse comparable in size to the U.S., is one of the hottest and most arid regions of the planet. Up until the 1990s, global warming seemed to be causing more frequent and severe Sahara droughts. But in the last three decades, a surprising transformation has been occurring: increased rainfall, more plant growth, and an overall greening of the desert.”
Like I said, you apparently think history began when you were born!
Wow are you stupid, Tim. I’m so embarrassed and ashamed for you.
Just because a region is already semi-arid and already has a relatively low amount of rainfall, that doesn’t mean that it can’t trend toward even more aridity and even less rainfall.
That’s what’s happening in the U.S. Southwest. Water resources that are already scarce there are becoming even more scarce. And what’s happening there is just as projections made decades ago said would happen. Projections made by those nefarious climate models that you lying WUWT cultists claim are “always wrong”.
And here you are now, wallowing in your intentional ignorance, apparently imagining that by just blindly babbling “bu bu bu bu bu bu water is already scarce there” that you can simply pretend away the trend in the U.S. Southwest toward even more water scarcity.
So deliberately dumb. But that’s what WUWT does to people.
Pure projection and abject fantasy.
Alleged tight water supplies in the Southwest, yet the golf courses use plenty of water.
The Southwest and West abuse their water supplies.
Those areas have minimal water available, yet the population is skyrocketing, cities are growing and confused Departments of Wildlife release scarce water for no real benefit.
Droughts in the Southwest are recorded as lasting centuries. The abundant, relatively, water of the 19th and 20th centuries are likely the peak of water supply, ever.
Yet, the things you refer to, are not climate!
They are simply weather events! Weather that comes from a chaotic atmospheric system.
Here’s AtheoK pretending (lying to himself) that the measured and proven fact of declining precipitation in the southwestern U.S., a fact that even his propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits is true in his latest book, is merely “pure projection and abject fantasy.”
Such tragic head in the sand foolishness.
Declining rainfall from a high normal for a semi-arid desert does *not* mean climate change. It is the natural variation of a semi-arid desert that has seen century long droughts in the past!
“It is the natural variation of a semi-arid desert”
BECAUSE I SAY SO!
BECAUSE I SAY SO!
BECAUSE I SAY SO!
Tim has zero evidence to demonstrate that it is “only” natural variation. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Diddly-squat. Squa-doosh.
Moreover, Timmy Boy won’t bother to investigate why science professionals conclude otherwise, that a human influence is likely. He’s too devoted to being an intentionally ignorant and deliberately dumb anti-science propaganda puppet.
Maybe some day he’ll finally stop letting propaganda outlets like WUWT fill his head with anti-science disinformation and for the first time actually take a real and honest look at the scientific evidence.
You sound deranged and obsessed
I had to work in phoenix last summer. the greens had burned all the saguaro around the city. it was humid and raining. invasive water loving plants thriving in the bright green desert…it did not look like that in the 80’s…esp the population explosion
I can only ask one more time – what does the term “desert” mean to you? A tropical paradise?
G’Day MGC,
“The trend in these locations is toward less and less rainfall…”
I assume that you skipped primary and secondary school and went straight to university.
Primary school. Australia. In the 1950’s. We learned about the major deserts on the west coast of each of the continents. They have been deserts for many thousands of years, and will be deserts for many more thousands to come.
The fact that on one continent a major city was established in their desert has led to water problems. Rape the Owens Valley, steal water from the Colorado River and even northern California – and there’s talk of a desalinization plant – and the residents still get saddled with water restrictions. These are the folk bleating about climate change.
People living close to the other four deserts know better than to build a megalopolis in a desert.
There are several similar but different nuances in this topic that need to be separated from each other.
The first is the question of whether or not the U.S. Southwest has been becoming more arid and seeing less rainfall. It is a simple fact that this is indeed what has been happening, and is primarily what I’ve been trying to point out here. Tim Gorman has appeared to want to just hand wave this fact away.
The second question is the cause of water shortages in that region. Yes, putting major cities in that desert area is certainly one influence. But those who have researched the question conclude that less precipitation is the primary cause of the water shortages.
The third question is whether or not the lack of precipitation has been aggravated by human influence on the climate. Given that climate models projected decades ago that this scenario would be expected to happen, and further research evidence supports such a link, it is reasonable to assume that yes, human influence is likely a factor.
“The first is the question of whether or not the U.S. Southwest has been becoming more arid and seeing less rainfall.”
The answer is that the area is returning to its normal condition – all part of the natural variation of the area!
Of course it’s becoming more arid than it has been for the past 100 years! SO WHAT?
Like I’ve said before, for you history began when you were born. If an area is seeing less rain than when you were born then it is turning into a desert instead of returning to being a desert!
Translation of the latest Gormanian screed:
“It’s just natural variation of that area and is not aggravated in any way by human climatic influences … not because I have any actual data to support my claim, but merely BECAUSE I SAID SO”.
How pompously ridiculous.
Meanwhile, climate science professionals have valid scientific reasons, not just your infantile “because I said so” dogma, to conclude that human influence is a factor.
Maybe try for just once, just once, to climb out of your stinking cesspool of intentional ignorance and actually learn why the scientific professionals have reached their conclusions, instead of just blindly and ignorantly pretending it all away, merely so that you can continue to wallow in wanton ignorance.
Or try to become a major food source for a large nation! It’s why the truck farmers in central California are whining about declining irrigation supplies!
These areas have had droughts in the past that lasted for over 200 years. Yet you are proclaiming that several years of drought is proof of CO2. To think you actually claim that others are ignoring science.
Far too many people today, born after 1950, have lived too long in the life of luxury their entire lives and believe that history began when they were born. They have absolutely no clue about natural variation in weather and climate and they believe any kind of change in either represents a catastrophe.
Utter tosh.
Trends are unchanged as far back as records occur and even further back using proxies.
Natural cycles occur over decades and centuries.
You are the one waving hands and pretending.
Such a woeful parroting of the totally lying and wildly dishonest anti-science propaganda that WUWT vomits into the empty skulls of its sheeplike followers.
Here are a few refutations of this insolent lying garbage:
“No rising trends in rainfall. No rising trends in storms”
NOAA data demonstrates otherwise. There’s been a clear trend upward in precipitation and in more extreme precipitation. Even your propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits in his latest book that there’s been more precipitation.
“cold fronts still arrive every winter”
They arrive later and later every year and disappear sooner and sooner.
“Arctic sea ice is not disappearing or even declining beyond the annual melt cycle.”
Pure 100% outright LYING. Check data at NSIDC.
“There are glaciers accumulating ice.”
The vast majority of glaciers worldwide are not only losing mass, but the loss is accelerating.
“Oceans are not warming.”
Another blatant LIE. Check data at NOAA global ocean heat content.
“NOAA data demonstrates otherwise. There’s been a clear trend upward in precipitation and in more extreme precipitation. “
Then why are you also claiming increasing desertification? You seem to want your cake and to eat it too.
Whatever works at the time, right?
““cold fronts still arrive every winter”
They arrive later and later every year and disappear sooner and sooner.”
And yet the total heat accumulation over the expanded growing season is stagnant or declining. Meaning maximum temperatures are *not* growing. So how is earth turning into a cinder?
“Then why are you also claiming increasing desertification? ”
How many times are you going to play the intentionally ignorant Gormanian troll and blindly trot out this stupid “objection” that has already been refuted countless times? Why?
Oh never mind. We both know why. Actually acknowledging the answer to your “objection” would mean that your fairy tale fantasy world of denier delusions would come crashing down at your feet. And we can’t have THAT now, can we? Oh my, no!
G’Day again MGC
“Such a woeful parroting of the totally lying and wildly dishonest anti-science propaganda that WUWT vomits into the empty skulls of its sheeplike followers.”
There’s a book by Dale Carnegie published in 1936 – you might care to read it.
G’Day again Gabby.
I’ve read Carnegie’s book. I guess that stating the simple honest truth amidst this sea of tragic WUWT dishonesty is what is more important to me, regardless whether or not it “wins friends”. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.
G’Dy MGC,
“wins friends”
I was really thinking of the “… Influence People.” part of the title.
Who reads articles on this site? Michael Mann’s Twitter account has on occasion revealed that he is aware of the articles here.
Ah yes, the old, any change, no matter how minor, is the result of CO2 argument.
No need to actually prove any linkage, just make the claim and the taxpayer money rolls in.
There is nothing happening that is outside the range of what has happened before.
Because records are available that prove those alleged “more extreme” events are perfectly natural.
In Hurricane Harvey, alarmists ignore the fact that the location cited did not record rainfall until late 20th century. It’s known as “cherry picking”
Just a few miles away, rainfall records dating back to the 1800s clearly showed the rainfall was not unusual.
”
Climate change is producing more rain in some locations but less rain in others.”
Wrong.
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The European Physical Journal Plus volume
AbstractThis article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.
west = desert, east = forest…i’d expect more rain in the east, please produce data to refute this real world observation
We cultists ignoring math? That’s rich, considering, they don’t even teach math and physics to “climate scientists”. Anybody that believes .04% of the atmosphere controls the other 99.96% is inumerate.
Yet another blind parroting of such an intentionally ignorant denier meme.
Small amounts of particular substances most certainly can have huge influences. Try, for example, Slowroll, to put .04% cyanide in your bloodstream, and then come back and share your results with us.
Oh never mind. You’d be dead.
Here’s reality, pal: it’s been known scientific fact since the 19th century that even this small amount of CO2 acts to control atmospheric temperatures. Pretending otherwise is every bit as stupid as pretending that oxygen “doesn’t” support combustion.
Totally bogus analogy.
No one in their right mind consider CO₂ a poison.
I see you totally missed the point, AtheoK, which was that small amounts of certain substances can and do have large influences.
stop driving, stop, flying and stop eating…that should be a small change that saves the world
Not all small changes have large influences, meiggs. Duh.
The problem with people like you MGC is that you have swallowed the so called science and have become a useful (useless ) idiot parroting these lies and propaganda that the western world has been bombarded with for the last 35 years .
The effect of CO2 on rising temperature is logarithmic .
This fact is dismissed by many climate scientists of late but it has been a well know fact since the early 1900s .
The first 100 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere twice as much as the second 100 ppm .
At 410 ppm the atmosphere is virtually saturated and very little if any warming will result from further increases .
It is well past the time when western countries should put”‘climate change global warming ” aside and focus on looking after their populations welfare .
There is a looming threat of food shortages around the world caused by the war in Ukraine and the soaring costs of fertilizes and fuel in many countries .
Electricity and fuel shortages and rocketing prices will hurt many in countries in the next two years caused by very poor decision making by those in charge .
Why all this nonsense of de carbonizing western countries when other countries are increasing their use of fossil fuels ?
Mount Tambora released 100 MtSO2 in 1815. It caused the year without a summer in 1816. 100 MtSO2 is only 0.000002% of the atmosphere yet the effect was indisputably dramatic.
The early 1800’s were characterised by extremely low temperatures – 1814 is in the top 10 lowest average temperatures; without that as a basis, the mount Tambora eruption wouldn’t have been anywhere near as bad. And yet, although 1816 was known as the year without a summer, the effects were pretty much done and dusted in less than a year. So yes, tell me of this dramatic and catastrophic phenomenon please?
Catastrophic is your word; not mine. Anyway, what more would you like to know about the Tambora eruption and/or SO2?
Richard Page disputed your claim and you resort to twisting words in an attempt to evade a proper response.
Utter BS from budgerigarwx.
Is there a serious peer reviewed dispute of the Tambora eruption effects?
If anyone is twisting words here it is Richard Page. I never used the word catastrophic in my post. That came from him and him alone. Just because he insinuated that I said it does not mean that I actually said it. If that is not twisting words then I don’t know what is.
Frost on the western US on May 9.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/05/09/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-99.86,45.33,1417
My plants are way behind this year. Knock on wood, the frosts aren’t hard ones.
The temperature everywhere can be 10C different year on year for any calendar date.
That’s 10 x the warming.
That’s 100 x the rate of change.
And everything, nature and society, adapts just fine.
So why should a smaller and much slower change be newsworthy?
It isn’t for normal people like you & me. For megalomaniacs with a lame excuse to expand
their power, it’s much needed to promote fear & moral self-righteousness!
“IPeCaC’s current estimate is that every 4 units of radiative forcing will cause 3 degrees …”
Prima facia absurd and it’s a crime against physics that this deception has been allowed to go on for so long.
This increases the surface emissions from about 390 w/m^2 at 288K to 412 w/m^2 at 292K for an increase of 22.2 w/m^2, or the equivalent of 22.2 units of radiant response or 5.6 units of radiant response per unit of radiant forcing. The only radiant forcing resulting in the 390 w/m^2 of radiant response is the 240 w/m^2 of post albedo solar input which results in about 1.62 units of radiant response per unit of radiant forcing.
How does the climate system tell the next unit of radiant forcing from the average unit of radiant forcing so that the radiant response can be about 3.5 times larger, especially since the basic physical unit of both the radiant forcing and the resulting radiant response is the Joule whose behavior is otherwise bound by COE?
“My favorite example of a regional temperature record is the Central England record, which in fact encompasses almost all the English landmass, and has been kept since 1659.”
The CET does not encompass almost all the English landmass, nor has it been kept since 1659, but apart from that I agree, it’s a useful reconstruction.
Here’s the entire reconstruction from 1659 clearly showing that the Maunder Minimum was a non-event.
Be aware that low solar activity brings changes to the ozone zone. Therefore, the temperature drop occurs in the winter season when the stratospheric polar vortex merges with the troposphere.
Do you mean England or Great Britain? I’m pretty sure Monckton of Brenchley knows the difference, I’m not sure about anyone else.
I mean England. The CET has always represented an idealized concept of Central England, not “almost all the English land mass”.
The Met Office uses three weather stations to record the Central England Temperature: Stonyhurst (Lancashire) north of Manchester, Pershore (Worcestershire) between Worcester and Gloucester and Rothamsted (Hertfordshire) Just north of London.
So the modern CET covers a large area in England. I can’t claim to have any knowledge of the time frame those stations have been in use.
The three CET sites cover much of England. They’re in Lancashire, Worcestershire and Hertfordshire.
All suffer from the urban heat island effect.
The Maunder does show up, as well as the Dalton Minimum.
Warming of 1.1 degree C in 363 years is nothing to get worked up about, especially since urbanization, deforestation and agricultural changes swamp out any CO2 effect.
Yes, that’s the case since the Met Office started running it. Three stations are not most of England.
“The Maunder does show up, as well as the Dalton Minimum.”
As does the warming during the 20th century, but you’d have to really squint to find them amongst the seasonal cycle.
“Warming of 1.1 degree C in 363 years is nothing to get worked up about, especially since urbanization, deforestation and agricultural changes swamp out any CO2 effect.”
Who says I’m getting worked up about it? I just like graphs that inform rather than obscure. The claim is that 1°C is irrelevant when compared with the difference between winter and summer – but by that logic the 1690s weren’t anything to get worked up about.
Here’s a graph that makes CET changes clearer, showing a 10 year moving average.
And yet MN in the US recorded its 4th coldest April evah….and the CO2 continues to grow from China.
The Minnesotans for Global Warming were hot for a while. Miss them.
Minnesota is not encompassed by CET
The 10 year moving average clearly shows a 200 year long hiatus. Now thats what I call a hiatus.
What are you going on about, “it’s not all of England.” I live in Manchester(much warmer than the towns just outside, by the way) and let me tell you England is tiny and if you cover from Herts to Lancashire you have covered most of the country. Yes, its not Devon and Cornwall or the Lake District or freezing Newcastle (on shore wind, ouch) but it is about averages. There is nowhere in England really cold, nor is there anywhere in England really warm, that’s why temps are easy to measure as they don’t change that much. If we hit 30C the world is coming to an end and if we hit -5C you know it has ended… lol
Just had a look for you Americans..
England is the same size as New York State
True. NYS is about 10% larger than England. NYS and PA combined are about 10% larger than Great Britain.
It’s amazing to think Pennsylvania (along with Delaware) was granted to William Penn to pay a royal debt!
It does not encompass nearly all the English landmass. I know how tiny England is, I live here myself, but that doesn’t mean an area from London to Lancashire is nearly all of it.
Dunno – those were some bloody cold winters, way back then.
Hope they don’t come back.
Update prepared by:
Climate Prediction Center / NCEP
2 May 2022
It looks like there is a really good chance that the JAS season could stay below -0.5 which would be the first time there was 3 consecutive years in the same season of a La Nina in the UAH period of record.
Wait…that’s not right. It did happen one other time before: 99, 00, and 01.
The question is, when will the current La Niña end?
Yes, during LaNina events the earth GAINS energy and a big part will released during the next ElNino. One can see this energy in the IPWP in the depth down to 250 m:
Yes, but when will that happen when too little energy is reaching the western equatorial Pacific?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202205.gif
Look at the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
Yep. There is a significant amount of heat locked and loaded. Once ENSO switches from negative to positive it will get released into the atmosphere.
Haha that’s absolutely hilarious, and incredibly misanthropic; the heat simply isn’t there – there is little or no increased ocean heat content, but if there were then being gleeful about it being released in one big meltdown with the casualties that would entail is pretty horrific.
RP said: “there is little or no increased ocean heat content”
Cheng et al. 2022
RP said: “but if there were then being gleeful about it being released in one big meltdown with the casualties that would entail is pretty horrific.”
I’ve not seen any evidence that transient ENSO related energy releases would lead to excess casualties or be horrific. The most likely bump in temperature during the next strong El Nino would only be expected to be maybe 0.1-0.2 C above the 2016 value assuming it occurs on or around 2026.
Better get used to Noth Atlantic cooling because it’s here to stay for a long down cycle, at least compared to political, promotional, and advocacy lifespans.
The Aztec’s applied human sacrifice in an attempt to change the weather. The modern approach is to sacrifice science. Neither is very effective.
Nice one, very true
The Aztecs – “Most People I Know Think That I’m Crazy”
The first concert I went to in the seventies at the town hall in Melbourne.
Loud? My ears rang for a week….
The sacrifice of science was a gambit. They’re looking to checkmate Western Civilization.
In case anyone wants to see it visualized. I just have it handy.
The five little circles on the right side are just the last five data points so I can see them easily.
Here
I love the overlap between the two pauses. The best part of a year were the glob was simultaneously in two different pauses, with 0.24°C between them.
It does give support to the conjecture of steady temperatures with sharp jumps in between. A “punctuated equilibrium”, to borrow a phrase from the evolutionary biologists.
Just eyeballing the graph you can see several extended negative Simpson’s Paradox trends embedded in the overall trend.
Clearly the peak of a wave. Just like all the others before it. It won’t get any warmer than it is now.
Mike says: “It won’t get any warmer than it is now”
That’s what the delusional denier cabal said in 1979, and again in 1982, and then again in 1989, and again in 1995, and then in 1997, and again in 2007, and again in 2014. And they were wrong every time.
You’d think that the denier cabal would have learned their lesson after a while. But no. They’ve tragically remained intentionally ignorant and deliberately dumb.
You don’t really think there is a past do you.
The 60 year peak is just about over. Bobbing around for a few more years, maybe even 10, not warming, not cooling. After that guess what? The global warmening scare will be over the hill. But maybe you’re right! Maybe co2 will override all that! 🙂
By the way, the 250 year cycle can be seen here.
Those “cycles” are no different than make believe astrology, Mikey Mike. They have zero physical basis and are nothing but purely pseudo-scientific handwaving conjecture.
You mean like CO2 induced warming?
Another anti-science troll has spoken. Even your propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits that CO2 induced warming is more or less real, scientifically proven fact.
<sigh> look CO2 can cause an increase in temperature… please note the ‘can’ but it is really a minor factor. The main issue is increases in water vapor in the atmosphere which SO FAR have been given a positive feedback. However that positive feedback is very tenuous and may be mitigated by a variety of other factors.
I have been studying this for over 30 years now. I am less concerned about CO2 than I am about people who have been using this as a scare tactic to gain fame/money.
If we REALLY wanted to fix this we would lay down a bunch of Nukes and use energy from those. It is not that ‘green’ energy is bad – it is that it is inconstant. Solar is a great offset for peek summer usage, but wind sucks because it is not consistent.
People point out that the ‘price’ of solar and wind is the same as nuclear… which is wrong but even if they were correct on that point the difference is CONSISTANCY.
So if we were being RATIONAL about moving away from a carbon based economy. I would be indifferent. This is not the case, nor are the plans where the Western world moves away from Carbon but India and China embrace it 3X times where we were helpful either.
Finally I will say this. We use proxy data in our ‘temperature series’ and then interlay REAL temperature data and then mix in satellite data. Have you ever asked WHY they do not simply compare proxy to current proxy? Of course you don’t you simply look at the hockey stick and say ‘ah hah’ but I am skeptical of data being fed to me by others. Double so when they make claims of doom and gloom. All to often they are selling you something.
Look – stop being antagonistic and engage with people. I realize others are being antagonistic as well. Don’t simply post a ‘gotcha’ because often times there are disputes about multiple issues with that data.
For instance in the last 12,000 years the water has been up to 9 feet higher than today. Do you dispute this? There have been multiple studies done about this from across the globe with the same findings… Do you dispute ‘science’. Of course you don’t but please pray tell HOW can there have been more water with a lower temperature?
This is not meant to box you in but rather to simply say that there are honest people who see this kind of information and have real earnest questions about a narrative about there only being one cause of the current warming.
Finally you are correct that few people are saying CO2 cannot cause a miniscule amount of warming. Rather that the amount of warming, the benefits to society, the belief that it is ‘the control knob’ for the temperature of the planet ARE in question. That this low amount of warming – if not for other factors, would normally be ignored except for the politicization of the science.
Climate Change can be used for EVERY CHANGE – for instance the western semi arid regions of the USA are drying out. Or if they were getting wetter. Or really ANYTHING. Of course these areas ALWAYS have gone through these patterns so using ‘Climate Change’ as a way to explain it really gets on my nerves. It is SLOPPY.
Anyway cheers my antagonistic friend. Know that I am a member of a cult according to you… But I can throw that right back at you because the way in which you parrot things in order to ‘show you are correct’ bothers me greatly.
Hey there Forrest:
An interesting post. I have a few comments, mostly along the lines of just trying to promote an accurate agreement on what is known via the research data:
(1) “positive feedback is very tenuous and may be mitigated by a variety of other factors”
If one reads the published scientific research, there is essentially no doubt that feedback is net positive. The only real question is how big net positive.
(2) “WHY they do not simply compare proxy to current proxy?”
They do. How do you think they figured out historic proxies to begin with?
(3) “if we were being RATIONAL about moving away from a carbon based economy …”
I agree that there needs to be greater focus on understanding how to move quickly away from fossil fuels in a “rational” manner.
(4) “I am skeptical of data being fed to me by others”
I am skeptical of those who have no valid evidence nor rational scientific basis for said skepticism.
(5) “in the last 12,000 years the water has been up to 9 feet higher than today. Do you dispute this? please pray tell HOW can there have been more water with a lower temperature?”
I’d need to see a reference to substantiate the 9 feet higher claim, but I’ll assume it is valid. So let me ask: are you saying that we shouldn’t bother about us possibly causing 9 feet of sea level rise (or more) ourselves … that we also have the power to mitigate … simply because it has happened before?
(6) “real earnest questions about a narrative about there only being one cause of the current warming … the beliefs that it (CO2) is ‘the control knob’ for the temperature of the planet ARE in question”
The scientific research evidence is by now so strong, that among all the major scientific organizations on the entire planet, there is essentially no question on this point. None. Of course there are other ancillary influences, but all the evidence points directly to the primary overwhelming influence for what is happening right now as being human CO2.
So I’m sorry, but no, because the evidence is so strong, I do not see these as genuinely “earnest” questions. And to quote someone: “that really gets on my nerves. It is SLOPPY.”
(7) Climate Change can be used for EVERY CHANGE – for instance the western semi arid regions of the USA are drying out. Or if they were getting wetter. Or really ANYTHING.
I agree that sometimes media coverage overdoes links of certain events to climate change. But one cannot scientifically link “anything” to climate change, because specific projections were already made decades ago on many of these things. One for example was that the western U.S. would become drier. Now, if it were actually becoming wetter, clearly something would be amiss.
(8) “this low amount of warming – if not for other factors, would normally be ignored except for the politicization of the science.”
It is not a “low” amount of warming. It is enough, for instance, if it continues as projected, to raise sea levels over the next couple of centuries by perhaps as much, or even more than, that 9 foot mark we just discussed.
Anyway, cheers, my “cult” friend! LOL.
”I am skeptical of those who have no valid evidence nor rational scientific basis for said skepticism.”
Lordy lordy. You think that the current warming, being absolutely nothing unusual from the past natural ups and downs of global temperatures as evidenced by oceans of observations, written history and proxy data, is no rational basis for skepticism about the current milding?
MGC only knows his religious dogma. History began for him when he was born, natural variation doesn’t exist in his history.
Decades of carefully measured evidence all point directly at human CO2 as the major cause of current warming. Handwaving “objections” that refer to past climate changes do not in any way change any of that measurement data.
These “bu bu bu bu what about the past” so-called “objections” are as every bit as silly as this scenario:
You go see your doctor because you’ve had headaches. The doctor does some tests and finds that you have a brain tumor. Your “response” is: “but I’ve had headaches for other reasons before. Therefore I have ‘good reason’ to be skeptical of your evidence that shows I have a brain tumor.”
Good argument!
“If one reads the published scientific research, there is essentially no doubt that feedback is net positive. The only real question is how big net positive.”
Net positive feedback *ALWAYS* leads eventually to runaway. Which is what the CAGW proponents are actually saying is what we are seeing today, backed up by climate models that show linear temperature increases for the future.
In an electronic circuit, runaway is limited by the power supply. In a control circuit, runaway is limited by physical movement, e.g. the hydraulic actuator reaches the limit of its movement.
What limits the temperature rise in the climate models? Certainly not the available energy from the sun!
Feedback in a stable system has to be less than or equal to zero. Being less than zero does *not* mean the output is being driven to zero, e.g. temperature. It merely means the output is being driven to a stable value. Since the earth has been in a relatively stable for known history the only conclusion that can be reached is that net feedback is less than zero. Natural variation comes from the response time of the feedback loop being relatively slow, perhaps even in units of centuries or more.
If you believe the net feedback in the biosphere we know as Earth is net positive then you are definitely in the CAGW camp that believes Earth is going to turn into a cinder. There is no other conclusion that can be reached with such a belief.
Tim demonstrates that he doesn’t have any clear understanding of what “positive feedback” actually means within the context of climate change.
I had this same go ’round with that other Gormanian ignoramus. Yes, there’s a “negative feedback” which kicks in … eventually … which limits the warming from the positive feedbacks. But that negative feedback takes a while to become large enough to halt the positive feedbacks.
Anyone who has any understanding of basic physics should immediately realize what this longer term negative feedback is. That other Gormanian fool, however, didn’t know what it was, and never bothered to do any research to figure out what it was.
This second Gormanian fool probably doesn’t know what it is either, LOL.
And once again you put your foot in your mouth!
The gain equation for a system with positive feedback is:
A_f = A / (1-AB) where
A_f is the gain with feedback, A is gain without feedback, and B is the feedback percentage.
As the product AB approaches one A_f goes to infiinty, i.e. runaway!
That is *NOT* what you said! You spoke of no limit or the existence of negative feedback.
You said: “there is essentially no doubt that feedback is net positive. The only real question is how big net positive.””
And now all you can do is run away from what you said and try to denigrate those that show how you are wrong.
Apparently *YOU DON’T”! Especially since you can’t tell us when it will kick in and make net feedback net negative!
The only one you are fooling is yourself. You really don’t know much except argumentative fallacies.
More ignorant obfuscation from the Gormanian fool. Just like the other Gormanian fool.
Whenever positive feedback exists, there is also a negative feedback which will grow over time, which eventually puts a stop to the warming due to the positive feedback. But within the context of climate change, the positive feedback is the only one that is really talked about, since it is the one that drives everything. The negative feedback only operates in response to the positive feedback. Sorry that you are too intentionally ignorant to have known any of this.
“you can’t tell us when it will kick in and make net feedback net negative”
More ignorance. It does not “make net feedback negative”. It just balances out positive feedback (eventually) and brings warming to a halt.
And of course I could immediately tell you everything about the very simple physics that I’m talking about here, but its just too much fun watching you blindly blather away and so comically demonstrate your lack of understanding, LOL.
Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous this all makes you look? No, of course you don’t. You clearly demonstrate that you really haven’t the first clue, yet you still want to pretend that you (ha ha ha ha ha!) “know better” about climate science than scientific professionals all over the world.
When will you at long last stop playing the deliberately dumb WUWT propaganda swallowing puppet?
” CO2 induced warming is more or less real,”
More or less. What’s ”less” mean and what does ”more” mean?
I think them there is meaningless words.
“more or less” in this context means “as much as Anthony Watts is grudgingly willing to admit, given his role as an egregiously disingenuous purveyor of pseudo-scientific climate change disinformation.”
Says the guy who’s convinced that every wiggle in the data is proof that CO2 is going to kill us all.
Thanks for demonstrating yet again MarkW, that you have nothing even remotely intelligent to add.
Never ever extrapolate a bipolar fit! Try to do it for the past and you’ll find the year it boiled on earth! 😀
What happened to the global cooling and subsequent ice age that your mob were predicting in the 1970s?
It’s almost as if you eco-fanatics haven’t got a clue, isn’t it?
Here we go again with another tired old, long refuted denier falsehood, the so-called 1970’s global cooling “predictions” meme.
Here’s reality, pal:
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Peterson et al
Journal of the American Meteorological Society Sept. 2008
“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
I lived and read news during the 1970s. They were indeed warning loudly about another ice age.
re: “I lived and read news during the 1970s”
So did I, slowroll. So did I. The popular press may have spoken about another ice age, but the majority of the scientific literature was not. Try reading the reference I provided and learn what actual science was saying even back then.
By the way, you denier cultists always seem to forget to include (no doubt intentionally) why there was even talk back then about another ice age. It was because we were putting so much smoke and dirt and smog into the air, and if we continued, it might eventually block out a significant portion of sunlight.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but over the past several decades we’ve pretty much stopped doing that.
The only reason the “majority of the scientific literature” speaks about human-induced global warming now is because the “scientific literature” no longer lives up to its name.
Yet another fairy tale make believe “Nuh Uh because I say so” spew of wanton ignorance, fueled by the ludicrous conspiracy theory clap trap vomited daily by your WUWT propaganda puppet masters.
Wrong again, mgc.
A) you just admitted there was a 1970s cooling scare.
B) your alleged reason above was listed as just one of the possible causes.
You should not be basing your worldview regarding scientific truths on the opinions of the media. You should be basing it on the abundance and consilience of evidence instead.
William Connolly, well known wikipedia leftist extremist who erased/rewrote online history, repeatedly.
Bogus rewrite of the 1970s, which ignores all of the 1970s printed evidence regarding ‘climate is cooling’ alarms.
Can you post links to the peer reviewed publications that present evidence of climate cooling and that Peterson et al. 2008 did not include in their analysis?
Long refuted nonsense.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.oWZrStbL.PXvEHcU3.dpbs
“No Tricks Zone” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !! How pathetic to see a “reference” to such an egregiously lying propaganda website.
That ridiculous spew of pure nonsense at NTZ is SO easy to refute.
They dishonestly included any research publication that simply mentioned the known fact that there was a slight global cooling between 1940-1970. A mere mention of those decades does not in any way support any such “consensus” of continued global cooling going forward.
So ridiculously dishonest. And so tragically shameful that dupes like Richard M so easily fall hook, line, and sinker for this kind of wildly dishonest pseudo-scientific propaganda.
Got yer battery car and heat pump yet?
The ilk casually slandering others with the word “denier” would never dare do it face-to-face. They’re almost always passive-aggressive emotional adolescents. A looming sense of dread usually keeps such naughty children from acting so petulantly in person.
Mathew, if I met a WUWT cultist face to face, I would not hesitate one second to call them out as a “denier”, because that is what they are. In fact, I have called out deniers face to face many times.
It’s also so tragically ironic to see WUWT cultists slandering and bad mouthing those folks who are intelligent enough to accept the research data and conclusions of every major scientific organization in the entire world, but then work themselves into a tizzy when they have their own actions mirrored back on them.
MC, what is ironic is someone implying he is intelligent in the very same sentence in which he appeals to the Bandwagon fallacy. Every lemming thinks he’s in the “in crowd” right up until (and for a short while after) he marches off the cliff with his friends.
Warmunism is toxic stew of fraud and farce concocted by felons for consumption by fools. Keep in mind, I am aware you had nothing to do with concocting it.
Nice try, Matthew. It’s not the “bandwagon fallacy” as you falsely claim. Its the vast overwhelming preponderance of decades of scientific evidence.
“toxic stew of fraud and farce concocted by felons”
Not because there is any valid evidence to justify this claim (there isn’t) but rather because my WUWT propaganda puppet masters told me so.
Umm, no. The same insular, intellectually inbred group keep nodding in unison, as they repeat each others babblings. Warmunist Lysenkoism is bound to unravel, though the grifters will do all they can to keep it going for a few more binges at the government trough.
Like I said, Matthew can’t back one bit of his fairy tale claims of “fraud and farce concocted by felons” with any evidence … because no such evidence actually exists.
And actually, it is the denialist cabal that must eventually unravel. As the world continues to warm and the seas continue to rise, the projections made decades ago by that so-called “insular, intellectually inbred group” just keep slowly being vindicated, decade after decade after decade.
Meanwhile, its hard to recall a single “Nuh Uh because I said so” denier prognostication that has ever come true.
Allegedly lived during the 1970s, yet writes comment responses like a basement dwelling adolescent.
I deliberately use a writing style that appears as if written by a “basement dwelling adolescent”, so that you anti-science cretins might have some chance of understanding it, LOL.
MGC is one of those guys who is convinced that the earth was stable and unchanging prior to the release of the evil gas.
Yet another blind parroting by MarkW of a typically ignorant WUWT denier meme.
Of course the climate has changed in the past. Duh. The issue now is the speed of the change. We are changing the amount of planet warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate over 100 times faster than any natural change in tens of millions of years. And such rapid climatic changes in the past typically led to mass extinction events.
Mike said: “It won’t get any warmer than it is now.”
That’s what the contrarians have been predicting since at least the 70s and yet it keeps getting warmer and warmer even with all of those pauses and cooling periods mixed in.
I’m guessing you’re too young to remember the 70’s. The idea that people not afflicted with Leftist rabies were saying it wouldn’t get any warmer in the 70’s is ridiculous, since a three decade long temperature down cycle was mercifully bottoming out then.
It was Disco Leftists who abandoned the sine wave for a straight line down to permanent winter. That’s why they were pushing the fear porn of a coming ice age in the 70’s. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that they offered the same “cure” back then to man-caused ice ages as they do today to man-caused hot houses.
I don’t know what “Leftist rabies” is or who “Disco Leftists” are or why any of that matters. The prevailing prediction from scientists from the 70s onward is that the planet would warm into the future [1].
There were plenty of scientists that recognized how little we knew about climate. However, they did know that we are in between glacial periods and headed to a new one. They just couldn’t predict when the start of a new glaciation would begin. We still can’t predict when it will occur. The warmists want everyone to ignore that and just assume it will continue to warm forever. They need to name a model that can show what conditions will be when we start the next glaciation. If a model can’t do that then it only has less that a 50% chance of being correct.
re: “The warmists want everyone to ignore that and just assume it will continue to warm forever.”
Yet another typically false Gormanian strawman “argument”. No one claims it will continue to warm “forever”, ignorant fool. But because we keep pumping billions of tons of a known warming agent into the air every year, there’s no rational reason to imagine warming will stop any time in the foreseeable future.
One rational reason would be the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic. Like applying additional coats of paint to a window, further additions of the elixir of life, atmospheric CO2, has little-to-no further effect on the beneficial warming we’ve all been enjoying.
“One rational reason would be the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic”
Hey Matthew, that’s almost … almost! … the first intelligent thing that any of you WUWT cultists has said here!
Yes, CO2 warming is logarithmic. And if our fossil fuel emissions created a linear CO2 increase, then yes, the warming would slow down over time. But it still would not stop. It would only slow down somewhat. “further additions of atmospheric CO2, has (sic) little-to-no further effect” is not a correct description.
Not to mention that there’s still lots more warming to come from all the CO2 we’ve already put into the air. Even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases this instant, the planet would continue to warm for a while.
But furthermore, the CO2 increase has not been linear. It’s been exponential. An exponential driver crossed with a logarithmic warming influence results in a linear temperature increase trend, which is pretty much what we’ve been observing thus far.
No, we’ve seen a continuation of a multi-century warming trend, which humans have had little to no effect on. Atmospheric CO2, while the elixir of life and free fertilizer for subsistence farmers in the Third World, never was much of a driver of temps. And whatever impetus it would ever supply has already been baked in. Desert nights remain as frigid as ever because atmospheric CO2 sucks at global warming.
Earth is an ironic name for our water planet. Water dominates Earth’s climate. Regions lacking it act the most like the moon. For instance, the arid Sahara can swing from 50 degrees C during the day to -4 C at night! That day/night delta is five times greater than what the humid Amazon Forest experiences, on average.
As for CO2, well, another name for its effect would be “rounding error”.
“No, we’ve seen a continuation of a multi-century warming trend, which humans have had little to no effect on. Atmospheric CO2 never was much of a driver of temps.”
Merely because I, the great and powerful Matthew, have declared it to be so! Never mind that there are literally decades of clear, well verified evidence easily demonstrating that my claims are ridiculously false.
I say so, and my WUWT pseudo-scientific propaganda puppet masters say so, therefore it IS so!
OMG LOL. How tragically infantile.
You’re correct, your claims are ridiculously false.
I call BS on the ridiculous statement, that atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially. A quick look at a chart of Mauna Loa data shows a LINEAR increase.
And, if previous additions of the elixir of life, atmospheric CO2, have an ongoing, cumulative impact, how could there ever be a pause in warming, let alone one lasting as long as you’ve been potty trained?
Atmospheric CO2 is wonderful and increasing levels of it are an unalloyed blessing to mankind. But it is not the sole control knob for our climate, nor even an important one among several. Atmospheric CO2 simply isn’t very impactful as a GHG, not on a planet where the climate is dominated by water vapor.
Warmunists have dug themselves into a hole. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Their data fraud and manipulation has helped them to prolong the agony, but it will no more save their quixotic crusade against human advancement than voter fraud in 2020 will help Leftists this coming November.
Matthew Schilling said: “And, if previous additions of the elixir of life, atmospheric CO2, have an ongoing, cumulative impact, how could there ever be a pause in warming, let alone one lasting as long as you’ve been potty trained?”
It is the atmospheric temperature that has paused. But the climate system as a whole continued to warm with most of the excess energy going into the ocean. This is expected behavior because CO2 is not the only factor modulating the flow of energy into and out of the atmosphere. Other factors like ENSO are also in play. But nature does desire high entropy states so the atmosphere will be forced to warm to equilibriate with rest of the climate system. It might be 10 years from now or 5 years or sooner, but it will warm and go higher than 2016 eventually. The fact that the planetary energy balance is positive guarantees it.
Matthew Schilling said: “But it is not the sole control knob for our climate”
Agreed.
Matthew Schilling said: “nor even an important one among several.”
It is pretty important especially on decadal and longer time scales.
Matthew Schilling said: “Atmospheric CO2 simply isn’t very impactful as a GHG”
Yes it is. The radiative force is 3.7 W/m2 per 2xCO2.
Matthew Schilling said: “not on a planet where the climate is dominated by water vapor.”
Water vapor is a very significant contributor indeed. However, because it is a condensing gas it does not force the climate. It only responds to it and amplifies a force catalyzed by another agent.
Matthew Schilling said: “Their data fraud and manipulation”
There is no widespread fraudulent manipulation of data going on.
Serious lack of mathematic skills.
CO₂ has shown an incremental linear increase since being tracked in the late 20th century.
More childish nonsense.
Just where does these CO₂ molecules bank all of this stored heat?
Answer, nowhere! Every day is a new period of CO₂ infrared absorption through a very narrow band of radiation.
“CO₂ has shown an incremental linear increase since being tracked in the late 20th century”
Who sold you this laughably false claim, ATheoK? Was it your wildly dishonest WUWT propaganda puppet masters again?
The rate of CO2 increase has itself been increasing for decades. See graph below. An “increasing increase” is by definition not a “linear” trend. It is an exponential.
If it’s not going to warm forever then just how long will the warming last? The climate models are nothing more than y = mx + b linear trends after a few years. They show no tapering off of the warming at all.
Will the earth turn into a cinder as the CAGW crowd claims before the warming stops?
“Will the earth turn into a cinder as the CAGW crowd claims?”
Yet another utterly moronic strawman fallacy. So deliberately dumb. But that’s what WUWT does to people. Being deliberately dumb is a badge of honor among WUWT cultists.
Ocasio Cortez: ‘The World is Going to End In Twelve Years If We Don’t Address Climate Change
Greta Thunberg: ““You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words… Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
John Kerry: ““The scientists told us three years ago we had 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis. We are now three years gone, so we have nine years left, he said … There is no room for B.S. anymore. There’s no faking it on this one,”
And you speak of cultists? These are the High Priests of your religion! Are you renouncing them and their religioius dogma?
You WUWT fools so sadly continue to be just SO deliberately dumb.
When someone says “we have only 12 years left” it does not mean that the worst consequences are going to happen exactly 12 years hence. It means that if we do not act within the next 12 years, then it will be inordinately difficult if not more or less impossible to stop the worst consequences later on down the road.
But your WUWT propaganda puppet masters never explained that little subtlety to you now, did they, Gorman? No, of course they didn’t.
We might already be beyond some points of no return. For example, we already know that sea level rise due to human greenhouse gas emissions is almost certainly going to continue for centuries, perhaps even millennia. Even if we stopped all greenhouse emissions this very second, sea level rise would continue for at least another century.
Don’t forget mgc worships a paper on which Connolly was co-author. Making Connolly one of it’s “High Priests”
Leftist cultists sodden with koolaid.
It’s just as valid to say it may not warm any further given observations of the past as it is to say it may continue to warm due human co2. In fact, more so. much more. As yet, the two have not been separated. Please don’t try to come up with some tiresome gobbledygook which you believe proves they have. It’s bullshit. The human co2 signal is PRESUMED and nothing more.
It is not quantifiable. If you still believe it is, I’m afraid you must be relegated to the category of climate cult zombie.
Mike says: “The human co2 signal is PRESUMED and nothing more.”
Sorry, but totally false, son.
The CO2 increase in the air is easily proven to be due to human emissions with nothing more than grade school arithmetic. And its also been a known scientific fact since the 19th century that CO2 acts as a warming agent in the air. Moreover, changes seen in the measured spectrum of the atmosphere as CO2 has increased over the past several decades actually show the CO2 signal.
There’s literally all kinds of directly measured evidence demonstrating the human CO2 signal. Nothing is merely “presumed”. Pretending otherwise is what puts one in the category of “climate cult zombie”, LOL.
”The CO2 increase in the air is easily proven to be due to human emissions with nothing more than grade school arithmetic. And its also been a known scientific fact since the 19th century that CO2 acts as a warming agent in the air. Moreover, changes seen in the measured spectrum of the atmosphere as CO2 has increased over the past several decades actually show the CO2 signal.”
Ok so, not one word of that has demonstrated that we can separate the ”human co2 warming” signal from natural variation. Not one word! Congratulations for 1, not comprehending the comment, and 2, being number one clown in this thread!
But zero points for assuming sceptics don’t know the extent of, and the limitations of the science.
Again, MGC doesn’t believe in natural variation. He only knows what has happened since he was born.
The IPCC Physical Science Basis reports summarize the contributions of natural and anthropogenic factors. Here is a graph that might help illustrate things taken from AR6 WG1.
garbage.
Another sadly infantile “Nuh Uh because I say so” from Mindless Mike.
Mikey Mike
Really? Are you actually THAT stupid?
The data just described can be used to derive how much warming can be expected from human CO2 emissions. That value matches closely the amount of warming actually observed. Therefore the observed warming is pretty much entirely due to human greenhouse gas emissions, and little if any is due to “natural variation”.
“zero points for assuming sceptics don’t know the extent of, and the limitations of the science”
It is no “assumption”. So far you’ve provided little if any indication whatever of any proper understanding of science.
Drivel
Yet another juvenile, zero relevant content “Nuh Uh because I say so” retort from Mindless Mike, and demonstrating yet again his lack of any proper understanding of science.
As Willis E showed, any human-caused warming is hidden within the natural variation. It is so small it is not discernable – unless you can count the number of angels on the head of any given pin. Of course that is what climate scientists of today claim to be able to do!
“As Willis E showed”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Another reference to laughably incorrect pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo from a single biased amateur hack.
Sorry, but I’ll accept instead the decades of clear evidence and the conclusions derived from that evidence by scores of scientific professionals from every major nation in the entire world.
”evidence by scores of scientific professionals”
You funny.
Another tragically juvenile spew of truly ignorant foolishness from Mindless Mike. So disgraceful.
Leftist rabies is the disease that destroys the minds and morals of its victims, rendering them bigoted sociopaths. The vast majority of outbreaks have occurred on college campuses. It seems it takes repeated exposure to Leftist bullies in enclosed spaces to catch it.
A “Disco Leftist” would be a reference to both a timeframe and a character/mental flaw.
In the 70’s, only an idiot doubted the planet “would warm in the future” (which is why Disco Leftists obsessed over global cooling). The planet had spent three decades sliding back down from the strong warming cycle of the first four decades of the 20th century. Temps were bound to start moving back up again. After all, the larger warming trend that kicked in after the trough of the Little Ice Age was bound to continue. It is still ongoing to this day.
Sadly, we have yet to fully recover to the lovely climate of the MWP. If we had, the land where the Vikings built there farms and villages centuries ago in Greenland wouldn’t still be permafrost.
In fact, prior to Leftist nonsense, everyone referred to warm periods as “Optimums”. So whatever observations were being made in the 70’s, “that the planet would warm in the future”, they didn’t include, “We’re all about to burn up and die because white supremacists created and built modern society!”
MS said: “After all, the larger warming trend that kicked in after the trough of the Little Ice Age was bound to continue.”
Why would the warming continue from the 1970s up to 2016, but not continue after 2016?
Perhaps you posted your reply before I made my last edit. My sentence, “it is still ongoing to this day” was added several minutes after I posted the comment.
I should probably rephrase my question then. Why is it bound to continue and for how long?
A natural trend that has been ongoing for centuries is more likely than not to continue, barring some trend-breaking occurrence. I’d be less confident about that if current temps exceeded the MWP or the Roman Climactic Optimum. They haven’t yet, so there’s room for temps to still climb, yet remain within the range experienced for the last few millennia.
What natural factor is causing the trend?
Why would that natural factor necessarily continue?
Current temperatures do exceed the MWP era on a global scale.
Kaufman et al. 2020
Three year olds don’t ask so many questions. Hush child, go play elsewhere.
If you don’t know what natural factor caused the warming then how do you know it was natural?
I’ll see your Kaufman et al, and raise you 100 other papers saying the opposite.
I’m certainly no expert, but I’ve spent years looking for global average temperature reconstructions. I’m not sure 100 independent global reconstructions even exist let alone 100 that say the opposite. And of the comprehensive studies there are only a handful all of which are consistent with the hypothesis that the contemporary era is warmer than the MWP era on a global scale. I have boldened the word global to drive home the point that I speaking in regards to the global average temperature and not local or region temperatures many of which were indeed warmer at some point in the last 1000 years or so.
Another ignorant appeal to that 1970’s “ice age” foolishness. Same tired old, long refuted denier memes, blindly parroted over and over and over again.
Here’s reality, pal:
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Peterson et al
Journal of the American Meteorological Society Sept. 2008
“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Right, because the CIA drafted a report about the looming Ice Age… based on a single Newsweek cover! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Must… catch… my… breath… Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
Also – The Leftists squatting in editorial offices in “the popular press” in the 70’s weren’t tied at the hip with the Leftists squatting in academia. Or something.
The same brazen, shameless liars who now try to pretend they didn’t fear porn over global cooling in the 70’s are the same sociopaths who claim they didn’t bully relentlessly to ban DDT worldwide – consigning millions of innocents to misery and death.
Wow Matthew, pulling out all the far right wing conspiracy theories now, aren’t we, LOL! Now its the DDT conspiracy theories. What other delusional nonsense are you going to blindly parrot? Fluoride in drinking water? JFK assassination stories? Trumpty Dumpty’s ludicrous election “fraud” claims, LOL?
Leftists view inconvenient historical facts as “conspiracy theories”. In fact, Leftist racists worked tirelessly to ban DDT as a form of population control of little brown and yellow people. White Leftists don’t mind being murderous bigots, they just think it’s impolite for anyone to mention it.
You might want to sit down for this one: JFK really was assassinated. Take your time. Compose yourself.
Like Newsweek in the 70’s documenting the Leftist obsession with global cooling, Time magazine actually boasted about the concerted efforts to steal the 2020 election. Of course, Biden also boasted of having assembled “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization” in American history. Historians call that a “firsthand account”. But, in Leftist Speak, it’s referred to as a “conspiracy theory”.
And now, some of that extensive voter fraud has been documented, using cell tower data. Murder – and massive voter fraud – will out!
re: “Newsweek in the 70’s documenting the Leftist obsession with global cooling”
Another mindless regurgitation of ludicrous and long refuted falsehoods, based once again merely on unfounded stories in the popular media, not on what scientific research publications in the 1970s actually said.
What the scientific research actually said in the 1970s is documented in the reference provided earlier, but we both know that you won’t bother to check out, because it rips your fairy tale world of denier delusions to shreds. You prefer your intentional ignorance instead.
re: “extensive voter fraud has been documented”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Which lying reich wing propaganda outlet vomited this laughable nonsense into your empty skull, Matthew?
The same fake paper you linked before.
“It was Disco Leftists who abandoned the sine wave for a straight line down to permanent winter.”
Alarmists seem to think trends go on forever. In the era of Human-caused Global Cooling they thought the trend would continue down, then along came warming, and now they think the warming will go on forever.
They need to learn to love the Sine Wave. Then they will have no more fear about CO2. That’s meant to apply to honest climate change dupes and True Believers. The Climate Change Connivers don’t care, they have another agenda besides finding the truth. They hate the Sine Wave. They deny the Sine Wave exists. Who’s the denier around here?
Typically false, mindless pseudo-scientific handwaving and strawman fallacies from Tom Abbott. Again.
Newton’s first law, that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon, has had the effect of making the straight line a picture in the modern mind of default action. But to the Greeks, the circle, and the cycle, were the default paradigm. The cycles of days and seasons agreed with and reinforced that thinking. We would do well to come back to it.
One real problem for humans with thinking in terms of straight lines is, we are much better at interpolation than we are at extrapolation. Yet, CAGW is a feverish exercise in extrapolation. It is nothing without extrapolation.
If AlGorites had been walking around in the very first autumn when people noticed leaves on trees change color and fall off, they would have shrieked the trees were all dying – and dying because of us. Their hysteria would not have abated until spring. Of course, then they would have declared that their shrieking and tears had brought the trees back to life.
ROFL! Good description of the AlGorites!
Another sorry spew of strawman fallacies from the WUWT cult crowd.
Says the poster that can’t even show how to calculate the correlation coefficient between two sine waves?
Another irrelevant non-sequitur and more infantile Gormanian lying.
So disgraceful.
CO2 is up 15 to 20 ppm during last 8 years? Almost every country in the world claims there is a CLIMATE CRISIS going on….most major corporations go along with the story…higher “edumacation” too….not 97% but many scientists are all in…..time will eventually reveal the truth but the waste already is beyond massive.
That reminds me of a saying. “You have to hand it to those blind prostitutes.”
“The revisionists are, of course, maintaining that long Pauses are exactly what one would expect even with an underlying warming trend. But they can only get away with that by saying that each Pause begins with a prominent el Niño Southern Oscillation warming in the tropical eastern Pacific, such as those which occurred in 2016 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in 2020.”
Yes, that is what I’ve been saying for the past decade. Thanks for noticing.
Out of interest, here’s a little test of this hypothesis. I’ve trained a linear model using CO2 and ENSO conditions on UAH data up to 2015 (green), and then used the same model on data after 2015 (blue).
Bellman, are you saying the green and blue dots are somehow correlating CO2 and ENSO with UAH6? To what ends? How do you relate CO2 to ENSO? What is the math?
It’s very much a work in progress at the moment. All I’ve done in that graph is split the data into two sets, before and after 2015. The pre 2015 data is used as training data, and the post 2015 as the test.
That particular model is based on a linear regression of the log of CO2 plus ENSO data with a lag of a few months to the UAH monthly data. (For the CO2 I’m using a 2 month average to avoid the seasonal cycle).
I then use the model to predict values for the test data. The idea is to compare different models, but for now I’m just giving a visual impression.
The formula for this model is
-16.72 + 1.95 log2(CO2) + 0.09 ENSO
Thanks for the information, Bellman.
Keep training
“Heel!”
That’s pretty cool. I was playing around with a similar model like this but only for ENSO and I got an optimal coefficient close to 0.1 as well.
Only problem is, you’ve got cause and effect backwards, unless you believe that the future causes the past.
The data I’m looking at says that ENSO leads UAH TLT by about 5 months. What data are you looking that says UAH TLT leads ENSO?
The continued high global temperature after El Niño in 2016 seems quite incredible in the face of a prolonged La Niña.
There was a strong spike in temperature over the Arctic Circle in March and April 2022, but in the lower stratosphere, not near the surface.
The most important climate questions: what is the optimum climate for our biosphere? Are any natural trends moving towards or away from that optimum? To what extent is human activity involved in that change? Nobody is interested in these questions let alone the answers.
What drives La Niña, El Niño? Surely not humans.
Anthropausocene.
A Brenchley Plateau.
There does appear to be evidence of Russian funding behind anti-fracking protests and other so-called environmental groups at-arms-length via off-shore shell companies.
It is a reminder of KGB financing so-called peace and anti-nuclear organizations during the Cold War.
The patterns are there to be seen; Russia is still using offshore accounts of the useful oligarchs to move vast sums of money to where they want it used. It should be interesting to see the funding patterns for the activist groups change over time before and after the Ukraine invasion – seizing the oligarchs assets is one thing but the offshore accounts need to be frozen as well.
What is it going to take to cause the new pause to be enjoined with the older longer pause to create the new super pause?
More CO2 😉
A couple of years ago, shortly after the end of the old “Pause”, many were curious about this. So I looked.
Here is what I found. In this example, I have added a hypothetical 5 years to the data set with a temperature low enough to turn the old pause into a new pause with the old start date unchanged, and the end going all the way to the current month.
In this example, the added temperature was calculated to be -0.16 degrees to pull the average down to that which is required.
From the looks of it: Not likely, certainly not in the allowed 5 years.
(as usual, click to embiggen)
Interesting, in light of the developing La Niña maybe even odds.
Such an eventuality would certainly get the adjusters working overtime.
I have a similar approach to “TonyL”, but set an end-date of December 2030 instead of “in 5 years (/ 60 months)”.
I found that any linear extension had a critical “average level” that had to be maintained before the “New Pause” would be “dragged down enough” to merge with the “Old Pause”.
That level will — obviously, when you “pause” to think about it — depend on how long you are willing to wait before the merge happens. “TonyL” found a level of -0.16 to do it in 5 years, I found a level of -0.05 to do it by the end of 2030 (see attached graph).
To get a “merge” on decadal timescales requires the UAH numbers to be consistently below zero. Extrapolating from the (most negative) “recent trend”, from December 2015 to April 2022, it looks like we’ll be waiting until 2040-ish …
I was intrigued why the graphics in Monckton’s post above don’t appear in my Safari browser on a Mac.
I tried the page using the Firefox browser and the graphics appear as they should.
Looking into the image code I find that the suffix for the Monckton image files is .webp – whatever that is.
I check other WUWT posts using Safari – e.g Willis’s A Sense of Proportion – and the images are visible. I check their image suffixes and it’s png, a traditional image format recognised by all browsers.
Similar problem with a recent post titled “Explaining Abundant Polar Bear Sightings on The East Coast as An Upshot of Sea Ice Loss Is Absurd” … no images in Safari but no problems with Firefox, because the image file types are .webp.
On the WUWT home page, the various post images that are .webp files appear simply as grey boxes in Safari, while all png, jpg, gif files are visible.
I’ve no idea why Firefox can understand a .webp suffix but Safari can’t. However, it might be worth WUWT noting that .webp image files cause problems for some visitors.
A little bit of light reading suggests that WebP is supported by Safari 14+. Milord Monckton’s graphics show perfectly in Safari 15.
CMoB said: “The revisionists are, of course, maintaining that long Pauses are exactly what one would expect even with an underlying warming trend.”
A couple of months ago I pulled the CMIP5 data from the KNMI Explorer to test the hypothesis that pauses are expected. I believe CMIP5 predicted that about 20% of the months from 1979 to 2022 would participate in a “Monckton Pause” lasting at least 7 years and 6 months. So yeah, pauses are expected. FWIW the UAH dataset shows about 25% such months.
Lengthy pauses in global warming with ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere are just CO2 back radiation taking a vacation? Not to mention the permanent vacation the tropical tropospherical hot spot is taking, a requirement of The Theory ™.
No, it doesn’t work like that. Because CO2 is a well-mixed non-condensing gas whose concentration only changes by a few ppm in the annual cycle its modulation on the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere is nearly constant. What is not nearly constant are the modulations by many of the other factors like the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, heat flux from the atmosphere to the cryosphere, cloud patterns, and many others. And because the atmosphere has an incredibly low heat capacity it responds quickly and with a lot of variability to the changes in energy flows. Over the last 91 months the UAH TLT layer has been in ΔE = 0 scenario even though the entire climate system has been in a ΔE > 0 scenario. But because nature desires high entropy states the heat differential between the atmosphere and the rest of the climate system can only diverge so much before it must warm and equilibrate with the rest of the system. During this period the climate system took on an additional 70e21 joules of energy. [1][2]
“Over the last 91 months the UAH TLT layer has been in ΔE = 0 scenario even though the entire climate system has been in a ΔE > 0 scenario. But because nature desires high entropy states the heat differential between the atmosphere and the rest of the climate system can only diverge so much before it must warm and equilibrate with the rest of the system. During this period the climate system took on an additional 70e21 joules of energy.”
The ‘UAH TLT layer’ is not the same as ‘the atmosphere’, is it? You cannot expect your argument to make logical sense to others if you change its subject between sentences.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I’ll even generalize it further now. Not only will the atmosphere equilibrate with the rest of the climate system, but so will the cryosphere, land, and any other heat reservoir; just not necessarily simultaneously.
OK, I see what you’re saying now (I think). However, I’m afraid I remain unconvinced.
I accept that temperature-pauses of 7 years and 7 months duration are to be expected with a certain specific frequency and probability of occurrence. But that is just a general statistical description of the phenomenon which doesn’t tell us anything about the specific physical causes of the current pause which we’re discussing, nor about how long this particular pause can be expected to last, nor whether it will be succeeded by a new period of warming or one of cooling and how long that one can be expected to last either. In short, it adds no useful information to what we already know about the pause and doesn’t really provide any explanation of its origins or behaviour in cause-and-effect terms.
Your attempt to provide such a causal explanation in terms of the entropic behaviour of the components of the climate system may be ingenious, but it is so general and indiscriminative in the absence of a lot of hard data that we simply don’t have, that it would still apply whatever the climate happens to be doing at any moment and that means it is scientifically untestable in our present state of knowledge of the climate system. And if it is not scientifically testable, it does not qualify as a valid scientific explanation of the pause.
Finally, and just for the record, if, in the UAH TLT layer ΔE = 0 and in the entire climate system ΔE > 0 as you say, I think this confirms unequivocally that there is no tropical tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’ in existence at the present time. In fact, to me those data indicate the existence of a tropical tropospheric ‘Cold Spot’ instead!
How could such a ‘Cold Spot’ possibly arise in a scenario of accelerating global warming due to humanity’s profligate emissions of greenhouse gases? There’s something wrong with that scenario, or with the data, or possibly with both, it seems to me.