Ivor Williams
Summary
There are two reasons to doubt that our changing climate is a ‘crisis’.
1. The science is largely based on rising global temperature values. But these are given a false aura of accuracy by way of their unbelievable measurements to one hundredth of a degree Celsius.
2. The weather and climate of England and Wales have been monitored more closely for much longer than anywhere else in the world. Why is there no trace of a climate emergency in the temperature, rainfall, storm and tidal measurements?
We are being told there is a climate emergency
The UK govt May 2019: ‘MPs have approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency ….This proposal, which demonstrates the will of the Commons … was approved without a vote.
Teachers were encouraged to take action by way of a 29-page manual: ‘How to declare a climate emergency at your school or college … Do you simply declare a climate emergency, or do you proclaim a MEANINGFUL climate emergency? A meaningful climate emergency declaration demands direct action and measurable systemic change.’
Local councils in the UK were quick to join in: ‘300/404 (74%) of District, County, Unitary & Metropolitan Councils have declared a Climate Emergency to date. Also 8 Combined Authorities/City Regions.’ (October 2021)
The United Nations added detail: ‘Climate change is the defining crisis of our time and it is happening even more quickly than we feared …. Rising temperatures are fueling environmental degradation, natural disasters, weather extremes, food and water insecurity, economic disruption, conflict, and terrorism. Sea levels are rising, the Arctic is melting, coral reefs are dying, oceans are acidifying, and forests are burning.’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change: ‘Scientists are observing changes in the Earth’s climate in every region,’ they pronounced in their August 2021 report. ‘Many of the changes observed … are unprecedented in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, and some of the changes … are irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years.’
These warnings of catastrophe have turned every flood, every storm, every drought and every ‘record’ high or low temperature into clear evidence of dangerous climate change. But the world’s weather has been regularly monitored only over the last two centuries – a mere 2% of the period since the last ice age finished. There will be many more records broken in the next millennia or two.
Is the data real?
Greenhouse gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Research has shown that the pre-industrial (1750-1800) atmospheric content of CO2 was around 278 ppm (parts per million). This is used by the IPCC as a base-line. Measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1958 show a steady increase.
September 1961: 315 ppm
September 2021: 413 ppm, a rise of around 30% in 60 years
413 parts per million = 0.04%
Scientists say that it is the continued rise in the amount of this and other greenhouse gases that is driving global warming.
The atmosphere contains 1-4% of water vapour which is by far the largest greenhouse gas. The others are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (O3), and fluorinated gases, all in much smaller quantities.
These gases are keeping earth warm. Without them the earth’s average temperature would drop over 30 deg C, from plus 14 to minus 18. But there is also a feedback problem: if the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour, thus exacerbating its effect on weather and climate.
Global temperatures
Global temperatures are being monitored by the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration, Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA/GISS), the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA), The European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre. The reports are in the form of a temperature anomaly with reference to an agreed period average, usually 30 years.
The NASA/GISS graph of global temperatures from 1880 to 2020 uses data as an anomaly with reference to the 1951-1980 average.
This graph is shown as it appears on the NASA/GISS website. Note that the y-axis (temperature scale) is exaggerated to show the trend more clearly. It is this shape, sometimes with the x-axis (year) squeezed for even more exaggeration, which appears throughout the media.
NOAA also use data from 1880. Their graph plots global temperatures as an anomaly with reference to the 1901-2000 average and is a very similar shape to the one above.
The JMA calculate the global temperature anomaly with reference to either the 1991-2020 average or to 1901-2000.
The UK Met Office Hadley Centre use data from 1850. Their 2020 anomaly was +0.92 deg C above the 1961-1990 average which was in fact 14.0 deg C, so they are saying the global temperature for that year was 14.92 deg C.
Temperature data
Meteorological observing stations report temperature to one decimal place. ‘NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from more than 20,000 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures … These in situ measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heat island effects …. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.’
The NASA/GISS, NOAA and JMA websites give the annual global anomalies for 2020 to two places of decimals: +1.02, +1.19 and +0.34 deg C respectively, warmer than each of their average periods.
The whole scientific basis for global warming rests on the temperature data produced by these five organisations, plus the CO2 records.
It is very hard to believe that scientists can measure the overall annual temperature of our entire globe, all 510,000,000 km2, to an accuracy of one hundredth of a degree. The two places of decimals reflect only the extent of the averaging process, not the accuracy of the data.
The whole scientific basis for global warming rests on the temperature data produced by these five organisations, plus the CO2 records. There is no indication of any margin of error, which leads to considerable doubt about the quoted accuracy of the figures.
The fifth temperature series and other UK data
There is another temperature record available, for a much smaller area but running from 1659. This is the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s Central England Temperature Series which is by far the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. It covers a roughly triangular Manchester-London-Bristol area. Currently four reporting stations are used.
The monthly graphs (below) include the latter part of the Little Ice Age (1300-1850) and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (from the second half of the 18th century). The y-axis (temperature scale) is more condensed than on the NOAA and HadCRUT graphs (above).
These graphs show actual average temperatures (not anomalies) using four reporting stations over a small area. This much longer time span buries all traces of weather and shows climate more clearly. There is some warming evident in several months, but nothing to indicate a crisis.
Precipitation
The England & Wales rainfall totals are available for a period of 254 years from 1766. There is no sign of a climate emergency here, or of any noticeable change in the amounts recorded.
Storms
There also seems to be no effect of climate change on UK storms.
Sea level
UK long-term tidal measurements at North Shields and Newlyn show a slow and steady rise over the last 100 years of 2 mm/year.
Summary
The global temperature anomalies, plus the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions, are the reason for the concern about climate change.
The extraordinary publicity given to the temperature data has led to every case of unusual weather throughout the world being seen as evidence of impending doom.
Weather is mostly normal with variations, plus occasional lapses into something wilder. It has always been like that.
Although the global climate is changing there are two reasons to have some doubt about calling the situation an ‘emergency’.
1. The science is largely based on the rising global temperature values. But these are given a false aura of accuracy by way of their unbelievable measurements to one hundredth of a degree Celsius.
2. The weather and climate of England and Wales have been monitored more closely for much longer than anywhere else in the world. There is no trace of a climate emergency in the temperature, rainfall, storm and tidal measurements.
I wish someone had shown this to Boris Johnson.
Boris has risen above and beyond the facts, into narrativeland and so he would stop reading at the fourth word, as in narrativeland an attention span over 13 s is undesirable.
I read somewhere that Boris asked three of his scientific advisors to produce a slide show of why CO2 is “BAD” and that’s when got on the band wagon of net zero. Either that or Carrie telling him no more nookie until he signs up to saving the planet.
I think it understates the lack of CAGW.
“ The weather and climate of England and Wales have been monitored more closely for much longer than anywhere else in the world. Why is there no trace of a climate emergency in the temperature, rainfall, storm and tidal measurements?”
The above is equally true on a global basis, no global increase in hurricanes droughts tornadoes severe storms etc…
As an example global tide gages, adjusted for geo static elevation flux, show about 1.4 mm per year SL rise.
Also the only warming that fits CAGW is tropospheric warming. And that, per UHA, demonstrates about 1/3 rd of predicted CO2 warming.
Finally my perspective is any article skeptical of CAGW should incorporate at least a paragraph or sentence on the immense benefits of CO2. – The increase of CO2 from 280 to 415 PPM has increased global food production about 15 to 20 percent, ( this is beyond other agricultural advances) while requiring ZERO additional water or land, and this has reduced frost damage and increased plant drought tolerance.
It would never get past Carrie and the woke inner circle
Like the author, Ivor Williams, I am particularly interested in the accuracy (or otherwise) of temperature measurements since error bars are not usually reported. A quick search on the WMO website led me to the ‘Guide to the Global Observing System’:-
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4236
wherein I read at page 120, “Temperature data … shall be reported with precision in hundredths of a degree even if they are measured with the accuracy in tenths of a degree.”
By contrast, at page 15 we are told in respect of the uncertainty in sea-surface bulk temperature measurements that the goal is 0.5K but the threshold is 2K.
Thus I wonder whether it is possible to put a realistic and representative numerical value on the error in particular data sets relating particularly to surface air temperature and sea-surface temperature. If so then what are these error values? At first sight they can’t be less than a couple of tenths of a degree kelvin.
Regards,
John.
Done, John.
“Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit” pdf (900 kb)
“Negligence, Non-Science and Consensus Climatology” Here
“Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: the surface air temperature record” Here.
Another paper is in preparation that will kick some serious backside.
Excellent analysis and….
that’s GREAT NEWS 😀
Go get ’em, Data Warrior!
Thanks, Janice. 🙂 Greetings and nice to see a note from you.
The data are analyzed, but next paper will be awhile coming. Other projects … 🙂
😊
A quick search on the WMO website led me to the ‘Guide to the Global Observing System’:-
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4236
wherein I read at page 120, “Temperature data … shall be reported with precision in hundredths of a degree even if they are measured with the accuracy in tenths of a degree.”
I can’t believe they wrote that seriously.
Not surprising, Graeme. What’s just as bad is that they’re further ignoring the ±0.25 C resolution limit for the historical LiG thermometers. The whole field is a hopeless mess.
“Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit” pdf (900 kb)
I just get a 404 error for this link
The link has a trailing backslash.
Try this:
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Frank/uncertainty_in%20global_average_temperature_2010.pdf
Yes, thank-you yirgach. My mistake.
Well done, Ivor Williams. You make good sense.
HadCRUT and NOAA publish their confidence intervals (+/- error margins) with each monthly update.
GISS publish their confidence interval calculation method, complete with access codes, here.
That’s a bit disingenuous TFN.
When people like Gavin Schmidt of GSS and Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth pontificate in mainstream media like the Washington Post about “hottest record temperatures” by 0.1F, they make no mention at all about (+/- error margins).
So the largely uninformed WAPO etc readers are left not only more uninformed, they are misinformed / disinformed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/
The author stated that the main surface temperature data producers don’t indicate their error margins. They do. Who’s being disingenuous?
Surface station data is so corrupted and mal-adjusted, the error margins are likely to be +0/-5C
Real data would show very little warming since the 1940s, just a cooling trend to the late 1970s, then a couple of steps at El Nino events to the current mild situation
Still well cooler than most of the last 10,000 years
Who is being disingenuous.. Zeke, and Gavin, of course!
Its who they are.. its their job description.
In reference to public comments and graphic publications they don’t. Beyond that, as peer reviewed publications show, they are based on random measurement error only. Just below Pat Frank will give you links. You will not follow them, read them or understand them, instead you will make snide remarks and claim consensus.
They all assume random measurement error. The published uncertainty bounds are a crock. A monument to incompetence.
As far as I know they all publish their methods in peer reviewed papers. You are at liberty to explain why these are ‘crock’ via the normal rebuttal or comment methods. Or you can just call them names in a blog comment.
See my published papers linked here, TFN. They don’t exhaust the lot.
I’ve studied the published papers in detail. Every one of them assumes random measurement error. They’re wrong to the point of incompetence.
Check for yourself.
And willfully wrong to boot because they consciously ignore critical literature. They all behave as though they’ve never made a measurement or struggled with an instrument.
Their willful ignorance is hopeless ignorance.
Are you saying that you have rebutted all the methods published by these groups in their many and various papers? How come no one takes any notice of that? Are you sure you’re not kidding yourself? If you have done such an astonishing thing to the extent to which you apparently believe, why aren’t you taken seriously?
I am taken seriously, TFN. That’s why my work is ignored.
Falsifications are not allowed to interrupt the narrative.
Listen to yourself. Everyone’s wrong and you’re right. There’s a big conspiracy to supress your great wisdom. Oh dear.
It’s easy to figure out, TFN. Read the papers.
It appears you’ve come to judgment without having read the papers or done the work.
You’re merely arguing from authority.
And then you get on a soapbox of indignation. Foolish twice over.
To highlight ‘the papers’ and of course TV outlets, such as the BBC, read this article regarding the BBC’s renowned ‘Science’ Editor:
Thanks TFN..you just provided the fundamental difference between group think and the scientific method..🙂
“I am taken seriously, TFN. That’s why my work is ignored.”
Certainly half true. But your situational awareness seems to be on the upswing…
Bad pennies always turn up.
You’ve lost every debate, bob. Which is why you now just do drive-bys.
You can’t average out limitations of the instrument precision. Simple example: if I gave you a tape measure, would you be able to measure the average length of all tables in a shop down to a micrometer? No, because the instrument is not precise enough. Any random error just adds to the instrument precision, it can’t make the instrument more precise. And what does for example NASA? They declare their satellites can measure sea level with an error of 3.3 cm (should be reported as 4 cm, btw), and then they pretend that a million measurements somehow eliminate this error. In reality, sea level change as measured by satellites is 0 ± 4 cm. The same with temperatures. They are either dishonest or stupid, or both.
Climate crisis no integrity crisis yes.
We live in a post-integrity world.
An excellent article; thank you.
I’m 73 years old, born and raised in the UK, and have lived here for all of those years. I’m amazed that anyone considers that the British climate is changing. I’ve challenged several people to show me exactly where in the Met Office data these dangerous changes are manifesting themselves, and no-one has come up with an answer:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
What is needed is a similarly detailed look at available climate data from other countries.
I would like to see an end to the media-hyped garbage about climate once and for all, but I can’t imagine how that might happen.
Carbon, it would require that the scientific societies adhere to professional integrity. Past history indicates they have had none for at least 30 years.
Interesting that the most discernable recent increase in temperatures has been at the end of Winter and in the Autumn. The deep winter and Summer temperatures have not really changed.So we get a longer growing season. Awesome. Feed the World.
Thank you, Mr. Williams, for all that hard work and careful writing in support of data-driven science.
Glad to see your efforts published!
Btw: even with confidence intervals, the asserted accuracy of the surface temperature data you mentioned is still meaninglessly overstated and your point stands.
Here in Calgary the trend is colder and wetter, based on growing conditions. I moved here in 1997 and for years i grew amazing tomatoes outside, starting to harvest by late July. I had to water constantly because the June monsoon would end right around the start of Stampede and everything would dry out shortly after.
In the last decade i didn’t have to water anywhere near as much and many years i was lucky to eat tomatoes in september, one year i got none at all as they were hard small green when the killing cold came.
We have plenty of evidence of climate change here, but none of global warming.
I would prefer global warming.
No, there is no climate crisis. The climate crisis is pure propaganda designed to create fear. The purpose is to trick the public into adopting radical political, economic and social changes they would otherwise reject.
BBC World & other sources report ‘highest temperatures on record’ in India’. Would someone care to offer an informed comment on this report?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61242341
https://www.bbc.com/weather/features/61483012
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/delhi-records-highest-ever-temperature-49c/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/india-heat-wave-climate-change/629786/
Paul Homewood spoke to this recently on WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/heatwaves-getting-worse-in-india-more-bbc-lies/
Here we go again with the same tired old anti-science ankle biting denier nonsense, sadly seen on WUWT over and over and over again.
Same tired old pretending (lying) that the “whole scientific basis for global warming rests on the temperature data”, totally ignoring all kinds of natural markers such as increased sea level rise, ice melt, glacial retreat, movement of plant hardiness zones, etc. etc.
Same tired old ignorance of the difference between the resolution of individual temperature measurements and the resolution of the mean of those measurements. They are not the same thing.
Same tired old outright denier lies thrown in here and there. Lies such as “There is no indication of any margin of error” (of temperature data). Oh please. Of course there is. You just haven’t bothered to look.
Same tired old “bu bu bu bu CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere” pathetically ignorant canard.
Same tired old cherry picking of only particular locations. Ignore places like India, which is as we speak seeing wheat crop destruction due to soaring temperatures.
Same tired old pretending that what has happened thus far is all there is to it. Foolishly ignore that we’re really only in the 2nd inning of human caused climate change effects.
Same tired old false dichotomy, pretending that the only two possibilities are a “catastrophic emergency” or “nothing at all”. No room for reasoned consideration of anything in between.
(You are now in MODERATION) SUNMOD
Uh huh, and you represent “reasoned consideration”, right?
Internet trolls don’t provide reasoned consideration.
This site is all about reasoned consideration which is all about airing different views and analysis.
The actual data shows that right now there is “nothing at all”, certainly nothing outside of historical norms.
And the fact is that those who say every day there is a climate emergency are the same ones who say we are all going to die by 2100.
By 2100 most of the alarmists and rent-seeking climate profiteer hucksters will be dead. Certainly, all of today’s current climate change mongering politicians will be dead by 2100. Who will be held accountable when no climate crisis comes to pass?
A few more years of energy shortages and inflation (and recession?) will change the equation, Jeffery.
Who among the dead deniers will be held accountable when coastal cities all over the world are under water in a couple of centuries?
I have followed SLR for a while and I chose one at random; Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents. There are hundreds more which show SLR, generally, averaging around 1-2mm per year. Serious? Worrying? No matter where in the World where there is SLR, at this rate, is it not beyond the wit of man to resolve a few inches of SLR over a hundred years.
The Maldives which is currently the country of choice for saying they will be under water in a few years time – I wonder why World Banks have loaned them $Billions to build a new airport and runway and 5 new holiday resorts. I am sure they did their due diligence before loaning them the money!
“resolve a few inches of SLR over a hundred years”
Sea level is already rising by a foot or more per century in many locations worldwide and can be expected to significantly increase beyond that in the coming decades.
Thanks for yet another typical example of shameful denier dishonesty, JoHo.
And SL is falling in many other places..
Average is just below 2mm/year, with no discernible acceleration.
8″ per century… ARE YOU SCARED YET !!
Go into manic panic over 2mm/year.. so funny
You poor pathetic, tormented, chicken little.
You mean we can’t adjust to the 6″ of sea level rise in 79 years time?
You think small and your insults smaller.
It’s going to be more like a foot in the next 79 years, tommy, not 6 inches. And it doesn’t just magically stop there. It’s going to continue for centuries. And keep rising faster.
Really you are a time traveler from the future where are the far into the future data, you forget to bring there here?
Doggerland had far more rapid sea level rise yet Europe is overpopulated today maybe you visited that place recently which is why you have developed a silly fear of a very slow sea level rise that snails can outrun.
Cheers.
“This site is all about reasoned consideration”
This site is about presenting pseudo-science and disinformation.
“The actual data shows that right now there is “nothing at all”
“Nothing” other than a known warming agent increasing in the air at a rate over 100 times faster than at any time in tens of millions of years.
More scientifically unsupportable BS from MGC
Whenare you actually going to post some science , rather than just random spews of regurgitated fake mantra ?
It has actually been directly admitted, right here in an article on this website, that WUWT publishes what it knows is obviously false content.
Yep, WUWT knows that it feeds lies to gullible, scientifically illiterate readers like you. Yet they do it anyway. And you tragically ignorant fools blindly swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker.
What a disgrace.
(You need to stop making sweeping sitewide attacks and get back on topic) SUNMOD
Yep, you are a utter disgrace to humanity.. for sure
Still zero science from you.. because its all you have.
When are you actually going to post some actual science?…. NEVER !
Yet you don’t provide the link to the article which means your assertions are unsupported.
When people like you comes here with a snotty mouth approach to continually make lots of unsupported assertions, I start to think you are here to flame and troll rather than to debate on the topic the way mature rational people normally do.
When are you going to start being a debating member?
re: “lots of unsupported assertions”
That’s a pretty comically ironic statement coming from you, tommy.
You’ve posted a grand total of one piece of data in the discussion threads to this article. A piece of “data” that was not even correct, LOL. So that’s actually a grand total of minus one pieces of data from you, LOL.
re: “debate on the topic the way mature rational people normally do”
There is little that is “mature” or “rational” about they way climate change is “debated” on WUWT, because it so routinely consists of distortions, misinformation, half truths that intentionally leave out crucial details, and outright lies.
LOL,
It is people like YOU who is comically afraid of a very slow sea level rise over many decades time that humans can easily adapt to.
Cheers.
There you go again, using debunked talking points. The problem with you people is almost everything you think is true isn’t.
In other words, bullshit.
Not a single “debunked” talking point. All simple, easily verified facts.
Since you can’t find high correlation between CO2 & T on the graph below, there’s no
meat to the CAGW theory.
Secondly, without an explanation for the missing heat in the tropopause, the theory’s
also debunked! 😮
Old Man Winter pulls out a standard denier canard with this tired old drawing, that is 1- not all accurate, and 2- doesn’t take into account changes in solar insolation.
Here’s what actual scientific research, not just a silly cartoon drawing, says about this topic:
CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic
Royer 2006
“A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.”
Winter might also do some research on the PETM event of 55 million years ago. Large amounts of CO2 were injected into the air due to volcanic processes. Large and rapid temperature increases resulted.
The difference between the PETM and now is that human emissions are putting CO2 into the air at a rate 10 times faster.
Another empty rant pertaining to absolutely nothing.
You are an utter failure.
“easily verified facts.”
NONE of which you have ever been able to verify with any actual science.
You remain a sack of regurgitated fake mantra.
And the head in the sand denier blindness sadly continues …
Keep proving me correct, there’s a good little muppet
You cannot produce any scientific evidence… period. !
Leading blind horses like you to water is pretty tiring and boring for sure … asking you to drink in a little of that WUWT clarity is likely impossible.
“WUWT clarity”
Quite a laughable comment, Brent. WUWT not only routinely publishes obviously false content (i.e. WUWT lies to its readers) but this fact has been directly admitted, right on this website itself.
MGC , ranting like a 5 year old having a tantrum
Just ignore the science, MGC, because you don’t have any.
What a joke of a comment, b.n.
I have the backing of every major scientific organization in the entire world. You have only pseudo-science propaganda websites like this one, that even admits that it lies to its readers, LOL.
Then produce some evidence.
So far you are totally empty of any evidence of anything except your ignorance.
I doubt you have the vaguest clue what scientific evidence even is. !
You have the logical processes of a three toes sloth !
Anyone pushing consensus arguments tells me you have nothing else to offer except insults and snootiness that gets old really fast in ANY website..
I am having trouble understanding the fixation on the India heat wave lately. India, out of anywhere in the world based on the models or observational trends, shows the least likelihood to warm as suggested by anything coming out of IPCC. It’s a striking anomaly on the modelled spatial distributions. So, relentlessly pointing this out runs counter to the prevailing ideas.
This image depicts all model scenarios, the wolf pack and all. Furthermore, the constrained TCR models (not depicted) show exactly zero predicted warming in India. Based on any available information from consensus science India should be warming the least.
In my view, the ongoing devegetation of India, draining, and erosion of soils has led to quite dry conditions before the monsoons. This has increased the proportion of sensible heat flux – reaching maximum right before the monsoons (it’s driest before the monsoon). This must result in temperature extremes. This has nothing to do with CO2. However, I have noticed some resistance to the idea of human influences on climates that are not associated with greenhouse gas emission; this I also don’t understand. It seems to be more about a crusade against gases, than anything to do with objective science. The objective science says that climates can and do change, and that humans probably have substantial impacts, especially regionally. Eventually it all sums up on global circulation at the north pole.
Yeah, never been hot in India before. Obviously, we are all gonna die real soon.
Same old mindless blather from MGC.
Not one jot of any evidence of anything except his pathetic brain-washed mantra.
Sorry that you remain unable to handle reality, b.n.
Still no evidence.
You poor empty sac. !
head still firmly buried in the sand, I see
YAWNNNNN … Still no evidence.
Do you even know what science is.
Seems you even FAILED climate 101. !
Sorry, Luke Warmist, but, the burden is on YOU to produce enough evidence to prove that human CO2 emissions are likely
to significantly and dangerously shift the climate zones of the earth.
You haven’t even made a prima face case.
Why you hide behind a non-name is clear.
Why you bother to show up here and comment is not clear.
My guess: money. You need the AGW conjecture to continue so you can make money from solar or wind or electric vehicles or a temperature data product you crank out or a book you want to sell ……..
Janice, the worldwide scientific community has produced more than enough evidence. But the denier community has simply closed its eyes, stuck its fingers in its ears, and yelled “NA NA NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” when confronted with that evidence.
And I even wrote “YOU” in all caps….
Pathetic.
Sorry, Janice, but I’m not your remedial science tutor.
Do yourself a favor: stop relying on pseudo-science propaganda websites like WUWT for your “information”. Heck, WUWT even admits that it lies to its readers.
Try genuine scientific organizations instead. Here’s a good place to start:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
(Your sitewide attacks must stop and just answer the comments like normal people who wants a real discussion does) SUNMOD
A video designed as propaganda for small children is all it takes to convince you.
You really don’t have a functioning brain, do you.!
There is no scientific evidence in that video..
It is just a regurgitation of anti-science papa.
Right down your alley !
“no scientific evidence in that video”
And the ludicrous lies just never stop from this buffoon.
Not to mention that the video is not the only information available on that website. But b.nice is too intentionally stupid to investigate any of the rest of it.
“more than enough evidence.”
Then why can’t you produce any of it !
All you do is make yapping chihuahua sounds. !
You have no science to back anything you say.
“when confronted with that evidence.”
YOU HAVEN’T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE. !
You didn’t try to answer her challenge, how weak of you!
LOL
Wrong again, tommy. I posted a link to one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world. There is more than enough data there to back my case.
You deniers need to stop wasting your time reading the lying pseudo-science jibber jabber that WUWT spoon feeds you and go look at links like that one. Go read some real science for a change.
That is a CUT and Paste reply why can’t you reply in YOUR words instead or is that is too hard for you to do?
Climate Change in 60 seconds…..
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
The Climate in my region is the same as it was in 1964 when I moved there and the same as it was in 1855 when a famous treaty was made in the region.
“increased sea level rise, ice melt, glacial retreat, movement of plant hardiness zones,”
All your regurgitated mindless blather is meaningless and not based on anything resembling reality.
Re India.
The two places where the 49C was registered are stations less than a year or 2 old, They are meaningless readings wrt climate.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/05/17/record-temperatures-in-delhi/
Places with longer running records did not surpass previous records.
Seems you got sucked in by alarmist lies.. .. all your life.
After seeing the global failure of scientific COVID-death models, a reasonable person may question whether ANY modeling – especially by tin-cup banging, grant-based scientists – is worth basing policy decisions on. Couple that with historical knowledge that the actual greenest period on the planet – the Carboniferous – had us descending through 2000 ppm CO2 without burning us to a crisp, it seems the ‘pathetically ignorant canard’ is all yours. The tin-cup-bangers had to invent ‘radiative forcing’ to get the rubes in line for the financial grab, when all their nonsense is perfectly disputed by Maxwell. Sucks to be you, I guess.
The sun’s heat output was far smaller during the Carboniferous period. But your propaganda puppet masters who told you about 2000 ppm CO2 during that time never let you in on the sun’s lower heat output, now did they, apb? No, of course they didn’t.
re: “had to invent ‘radiative forcing’”
And now we’ve totally submerged ourselves in “pathetically ignorant” anti-science La La Land. Radiative forcing has been known scientific fact for decades, bub. Without it, the earth would be much, much colder than it actually is. Again, well known scientific fact.
“Sucks to be you, I guess.”
Again.. more ignorant regurgitated spew…..because you have absolutely nothing else to offer.
Do you know how pathetic that make you appear .
Or is that your intent. !
Science is not something you have the remotest interest in, is it.
Just blather.
Such sadly childish blabber. Still ignorantly pretending away scientific facts known for several decades.
Poor petal.. Still an abyss.
Zero evidence
Sad sac !
All these “facts” LOL.. yet you cannot produce one single bit of evidence.
Do you know just how incredibly STUPID that makes you look !
Still ignorantly pretending away scientific facts known for several decades.
MGC typical troll alarmists…
Same denial of zero acceleration in tide gauge readings around the world showing 1.4 mm year.
Same denial of zero global increase in droughts flood hurricanes, tornadoes etc…
Same cherry picking of typical bad weather events that have always happened.
Same cries of impending doom and we only have five years o save the planet, made every five years for the past 25 years.
Same ignoring of the massive benefits of CO2.
Same cruel impoverishment of millions, and waste of trillions of dollars and cause of energy starved and vulnerable people to this planets natural weather. (You, and folk like you have caused great harm and poverty, and needless pain, and prevented the best natural population reduction life improvement technology from aiding millions.)
Another typically blind parroting of lying denier propaganda talking points. For example:
“zero acceleration in tide gauge readings around the world showing 1.4 mm year”
Tidal gauges show at least double your false claim. And they are accelerating. See for example the longest continuously running tidal gauge graph below. “No acceleration” ? Oh please.
Here is the actual tide data.
Something happened around 1900, trend is stable since then
Its a kink, rather than an acceleration.
Your graph shows that whatever happened….
It is not related to atmospheric CO2
You FAIL yet again.
My graph is the exact same data as the graph you’ve shown, b.stupid, except mine is annual data instead of monthly.
More importantly, the axis ranges on my graph are better chosen, so that it is actually possible to see the obvious acceleration.
It would help if you guys post the link to those charts.
I agree with you. But in their defense, these plots (with data) are so commonly discussed in this forum, and so easily found, that I can see them saving the 30 seconds. Feel free to download either the XL or csv data into Open Calc or comparable. Tell us what you see.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=190-091
It is incumbent on the person posting the chart to provide a link for them there are many readers who may not know where to find it or too busy to search for it which is another reason for posting it.
I have come across many charts that are hard to find the source for yet another reason why I ask for links.
And why are you unaware (ie ignorant) of the fact that Brest tide data show DECELERATION for the last 50 years.
Your mathematical ability seems to be basically ZERO. A complete FAIL.
All you have presented is evidence that CO2 does absolutely nothing to sea level .
Well done
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, that’s right, dishonestly cherry pick an abnormal, extremely high starting point and then blindly babble “look, a decelerating trend”.
You fool no one with your ridiculously dishonest pseudo-scientific hogwash, b.stupid.
Picking any one station as exemplary is a fools task. Especially this one.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jogs-2020-0124/html
If you want to check out real trends, pick out any 20 stations from the hundreds available, randomly. It’s easy using a random number generator. Then, calculate their post 1980 accelerations, and the rise from now to year 2100 if those trends were extended. 1980 is a good year because it’s a long enough period to be statistically/physically significant, and because the contributions of negative RF aerosols are diminished. The man made GHG’s are mostly CO2 and CH4. Investigate ground sagging or not.
Spoiler alert. You will find that:
Or you could learn how the experts use spatial weighting and other techniques to do it properly – and to come to the same conclusion.
He is now in moderation for his repeated snotty sitewide attacks.
Yet you stick around long enough to post at this time 529 postings maybe you are tired of watching TV so you come here to unwind with your opinionated uninspiring complaining.
That is sweet of you.
Sorry, not “opinion”, tommy. All well researched science supported by every major scientific organization in the entire world.
No, you post a lot of insulting opinions and avoid true debate/discussion you have been asked repeatedly to discuss it and support your assertions you avoid it most of the time.
Your consensus statement indicate that you are just another visitor not interested in a real debate/discussion.
I think this sentence needs clarifying for the casual reader and our resident alarmists.
Other than that – top marks.
I’ve just watched the 10th and final episode of a series about Covid.
The parallels with Climate are just uncanny and surreal – the thinking processes and responses are identical.
How:
We all know how it is with Climate – that every even slightly unusual Weather Event is now perfectly and absolutely a sign of Man Made Climate Change.
So it was with Covid. The documentary showed the example of a Californian motorcyclist who’d mashed his bike and himself into the side/underneath a huge truck.
But, as per the ‘climate test’ he had to be tested for Covid before his wrecked remains were scooped up off the road and…. the PCR test said he had Covid.
So that was it, Covid killed him and not the crash he was in.
Likewise walking/talking heart attack ‘victims’ who may have struggled along for 10+ years but, when they finally croaked, the Covid test came up positive and that was that.
Same with influenza and in fact, hospitals were told to do the Covid test first and if it came = True, not to investigate further.
The Covid thing came about because it had been decided fron ‘On High’ that all elective surgery in the US be cancelled during the pandemic – that being the Bread & Butter financial lifeblood of almost all hospitals.
To replace it, a $13,000 payment was made for ‘confirmed’ Covid cases and another $39,000 if they needed ventilation
The hospitals, their administrators and not least doctors had perfectly no choice – else they were bankrupt and guilty of all sorts of medical malfeasance
So it is with Climate – how many times here do we see ‘Follow the Money’ and how research articles will never see the light of day unless it includes Climate Change in its title/abstract/conclusion.
You write about Climate Change or you lose your house, career, everything and learn busking on the London Tube
Climate researchers very effectively have a gun to the heads in the same way hospitals did with Covid.
How did that happen – that’s the question, what is driving this? ##
The Covid one is building to a happy ending tho.
PCR tests are now shown to be producing in excess of 75% false positives and will be banned completely inside this year.
Also, nearly 50% of all US citizens have refused any vaccine
There we are – what would be the equivalent inside Climate?
Me?
As ventured, it has got to be on the incredible claimed accuracy of the temperatures – the parallel to the false positive PCT rests is amazing innit?
All those temperature numbers/graphs/statistic/claims are = False Positives – how long before they are banned?
## We are collectively mentally ill. Just like the starving locusts come together in a consensus and go on an all out wrcking spree, powered by Serotonin.
Serotonin being the neurotransmitter hormone released inside us all, locusts included, when we are starving
Those he would destroy, he first makes mad
Peta
The WHO is gathering momentum, and looking at a global agreement where they will have final say about what happens in the agreement bound countries.
There are many facets of this method of control that are not well understood. They are just taking a breather at the moment, it ain’t over yet.
Peta, good post but a significant quibble here…
“The Covid one is building to a happy ending”
The economic harms are massive and being compounded by government decisions, and starting to snowball.
Non Covid Excess deaths, properly tracked, are yet equal to or above the distorted Covid numbers showing a deadly response to horrible government policy and the vaccines.
The long term affects of adverse clot shot reactions is TBD, and indications are very bad.
As you state, It is claimed that temperature increases will cause humidity increases which will further increase temperature. That claim is not supported by the data. See climate4you.com for recorded humidity levels at various elevations for the past several decades.
“These gases are keeping earth warm. Without them the earth’s average temperature would drop over 30 deg C, from plus 14 to minus 18.”
Insolation in near space is about 1340 watts/sqM which averaged over the surface would amount to 1340/4=335 watts/sqM. However Earth has an albedo of 0.3 which reduces the absorbed energy to 335* 0.7 = 235 watts/sqM. Warmists use the Stefan Boltzmann law to claim that at 234 watts/sqM the back body temperature would be around -19 C. Its actually +14 C because of GHG warming.
GHG’s, because they can radiate energy to space, create a cold junction at the tropopause. This allows the formation of a heat engine with a hot junction at the surface of the equator. A heat engine must have a cold junction where heat is lost from the system as well as a hot junction where heat is added. Without GHG’s there would be no cold junction and thus no heat engine. Global convection would stop and along with it cloud formation. In a still atmosphere dust would also precipitate out leaving a completely clear atmosphere and a very low albedo. Earth would not be absorbing 234 watts/sqM but closer to 330 watts/sqM giving it a surface temperature of +3C. So the net warming impact of GHG is not 32C but 11C. Hard to see how one doubling of the only second most significant GHG could increase warming by 3C ie: 3/11 or 27% especially given that CO2 is already about 10 doublings beyond line center saturation (which is when the logarithmic relationship starts). Since each doubling contributes about the same watts/sq of warming that would imply CO2 contributes 270% of the total warming!
Also, without the convection that is our weather system the conditions on Earth would be essentially the same as on the moon +127C during the day and around -180C at night. The only reason it would be slightly less extreme is that our “day” is 24 hours whereas a “day” on the moon is 672 hours.