From Greg Wrightstone and the CO2 Coalition.
RELEASE: Immediate June 22, 2022
ARLINGTON, Va. — President Biden’s Social Cost of Carbon rule is “scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States,” according to a court brief by two physics professors at Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the CO2 Coalition.
Filed today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the amicus curie brief said, “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits.” It asked that the rule be enjoined from further use pending outcome of a hearing by a trial court.
The lawsuit before the appeals court — the State of Louisiana versus Biden — seeks to stop the use of “temporary rules” that are implemented by presidential order. The Biden administration’s SCC rule directs regulators to include the purported projected “global cost” of every ton of carbon dioxide emissions from a wide array of projects where federal funding or approvals are needed, from transportation, to housing, to energy and infrastructure.
The academicians named in the brief are Dr. William Happer, chairman of the CO2 Coalition and professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Department of Physics; and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor emeritus in the MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences and a CO2 Coalition member and past chairman.
The brief says that a district court’s preliminary injunction should be reinstated because the technical document supporting the SCC and President Biden’s executive order imposing the regulation “are scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States.”
“Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, government opinion, peer review or manipulated data,” says the brief. The brief says the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted essentially the CO2 Coalition’s view of what constitutes valid science.
However, the brief notes, predictions supporting an SCC — particularly climate forecasts generated by computer models — have regularly failed the test of real-world observation. Meanwhile, the brief says, supporters promote an SCC on the basis of claims of a consensus, the favoring of governmental opinion over scientific challenge, endorsements by peers, the manipulation of some data and the omission of other information.
A glaring omission in the administration’s proposed regulation are the benefits of carbon dioxide and of the fossil fuels whose burning in the generation of electricity and industrial processes emit the gas.
“There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, and therefore it would be disastrous to reduce or eliminate them,” the brief says.
The brief notes that warmth and moderately higher carbon dioxide levels in recent decades have correlated with an overall greening of Earth and record crop harvests. The document shows that per capita gross domestic product has increased over the last 2,000 years from a few dollars to approximately $7,000, closely tracking the increased use of coal, oil and natural gas in recent centuries.
The brief says that the president’s order violates a congressional directive requiring that benefits as well as costs be included in environmental considerations and that it exceeds the president’s authority by unilaterally creating new law.
The CO2 Coalition, based in Arlington, Va., is an organization of approximately 95 scientists and researchers engaged in educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to people’s lives and the economy.
###
Devilish CO2 is going to make life for ordinary plebs a misery
Expect another imminent gas price rise.
The Telegraph is (23 June 2022 • 10:11AM) reporting:
Germany has just triggered the second phase of its emergency gas plan as it accused Putin of launching an “economic attack” over energy supplies.
The ‘alarm’ (second) phase of the three-stage plan kicks in when the Government sees a high risk of long-term energy shortages and takes the country one step closer to rationing.
Under the tougher measures, Berlin will provide a credit line of €15bn (£12.9bn) to fill gas storage facilities, while a gas auction model will be launched this summer to encourage industrial gas consumers to save energy.
However, Germany will not yet trigger a clause that lets utility companies pass on soaring gas costs to customers.
Economy minister Robert Habeck said his country was in an “economic confrontation” with Russia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/23/ftse-100-markets-live-news-russia-gas-inflation-strike/
Dummkopf Trump warned Germany about the need for a plan B and a plan C and they laughed at him. Now these same people are blaming Putin. Perhaps they should ask themselves, “Who is the real Dummkopf?” and look in a mirror.
Good point.
Trump sees the Big Picture. Obviously, German leaders did not. This shortsightedness has put Germany’s economy in jeopardy.
German leaders need to start consulting with Trump. He will show them the way out of this mess.
But the tweets…..
There was no need for Plan B and Plan C.
Germany gets gas from Gazprom if they pay in Rubles.
Germany gets more gas if they allow Nordstream 2 to open.
Gazprom can not risk accepting Euros with current sanctions
So if customers pay them in Rubles, they get natural gas.
Those who refuse get a restricted supply or no gas.
It’s that simple.
The real Dummkophs are the Germans for shooting
themselves in their own foot.
The Germans are finally doing the right thing by sanctioning Putin for invading the Ukraine. If all Putin really wanted to do was protect the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, he could have done so very easily through diplomacy. Instead, because he wanted a puppet regime in Ukraine like he has in Belarus, he invaded, thinking his glorious army would make short work of the Ukrainians. He forgot that some people really care about their freedom.
On energy policy, Germany has been shooting itself in the foot for the last decade by closing coal and nuclear plants to rely on intermittent wind and solar and gas from a ruthless, murdering dictator (what could go wrong there?). If they are changing these policies now for the better, we ought to cheer them on, even if it’s painful for them and for us.
Dummkopf Trump is an experienced businessman who recognizes both costs and benefits of actually doing something. Politicians who have never had to be accountable for their decisions hardly ever include benefits into their calculations when using only costs make spending more palatable.
It is kinda like adjusting temperatures so a “long” record can be maintained. Government spending without accountability can guarantee a “long” career in politics.
They just have to convince biden’s campaign funders, not biden. But this may be difficult ’cause they probably have financial interests that things go this way…
Thanks, Luigi. biden spelled with a lower-case b made me laugh. Very appropriate!!!
Regards,
Bob
PLEASE show respect for our grand high exalted leader.
Biden starts with a capital B
He should be referred to as
President Jumpin’ Joe Biden
or by his initials FJB.
Or Citizen Bidet!
I thought it was Gropin’ Joe, but whatever…
Wait… Falling Joe (the) Bicyclist?
Cornpop Slayer (C.S. for short).
Trunalimunumaprzure Joe!
Let’s
Get
Biden
To
Quit!
Or 100% Wrong Way Biden for the USA (though 100% best for the enemies of the US).
Always use a capital B for Brandon.
“biden” is good, but I prefer President Brandon, with a capital “B.”.
I prefer to respect the office, if not the Person.
I am sure a good number of scientists would publicly support Happer and Linden if it were not for the fact that their livelihood would be in jeopardy. I am sure these two men receive many threats and scurrilous attacks. I admire them for the courage of their convictions. What they say makes sense and is supported by careful real world observations.
The good professors are both retired are they not?
Wisdom grows with age.
Geoff S
Unfortunately they are, and given that climate ‘science’ is largely funded by governments aligned with alarmist policies, I don’t see anyone like them in the pipeline.
Frank, I have a son who is half their age and an engineer but he is not in academia. He does not buy into the green nuttery but his Maths, Statistics and interest in what really works keeps him on the right track. I am hopeful there are others like him.
“The good professors are both retired are they not?”
If they weren’t, they would be as of the day they published this. Cancel culture is a bt#ch in general, but especially in academia.
‘I am hopeful there are others like him.’
As am I. A strong sense of integrity will always serve him well.
The Internet evaluates CO2 Coalition press release:
Look, Happer and Lindzen are old, OK?
Happer and Lindzen are white. I know, right?
Happer and Lindzen are male. Eww!
Happer and Lindzen are cis-gendered. Ohmigod!
How could Happer and Lindzen possibly understand climate justice? They don’t even use TikTok. They’re so basically basic! Eww! Eww!
Nicely done. Irrationality is fashionable.
Rich, nice, except you are being far too reasonable and rational in pretending to be twatter and its reactions to this lawsuit.
Michael, that was a typo, it’s “Lindzen” not “Linden,” I let Charles know.
Thanks, I find I am making more typos because of age so I just copied the names from the article and did not notice. I usually try and correct typing errors but this option only seems to allow a limited time for changes.
Keep up your good work on this site.
rather often , in my experience, no change is possible because the edit function often doesn’t work .
Moderators can edit it easily will check to see if the article has been corrected yet.
Prof. Happer mentioned years ago that he regularly receives death threats, and that even his wife had received a death threat.
Many of the foot soldiers in the climate movement are basically pretty nice people, who are just very badly confused. But some of the leaders are pretty nasty people.
Looks like the CO2 Coalition is doing some good work as regards analyzing the total impact of CO2, whether human generated or natural. Since Louisiana has filed a suit against the Executive Branch, which is trying to usurp the role of Congress, let’s hope this ends up in front of the Supremes, and a fair hearing ensues. That would be entertaining and maybe even stop the wild nonsense of the CAGW crowd. I guess we’ll have to wait for it.
It’s good to have Dr. Happer leading the charge. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to the atmosphere.
Where’s the link to the amicus brief?
Right! It shouldn’t take an economist to tell you that calculating a net cost requires evaluation of both costs and benefits. You cannot do a valid cost-benefit analysis by focusing entirely on minor, hypothetical costs, while ignoring huge, proven benefits.
I recently tweeted about that:
———
1/12》From all the hoopla about global warming, you’d think that warming was the main effect of CO2 emissions. It isn’t. It is of very minor consequence compared to the major, proven, biological BENEFITS of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=greening#benefits
———
2/12》When IPCC says we must prevent global warming from exceeding “1.5°C” they don’t really mean that. They mean 1.5° warmer than the chilly Little Ice Age, which they guesstimate was roughly 1.1°C colder than now. (Nobody really knows!)
So they really mean 0.4°C of warming.
———
3/12》When the IPCC claims that “>2°C” would be catastrophic, they don’t really mean 2°, either. They mean 2° warmer than the guesstimated temperature of the chilly LIA, so when they say “2°C” they really mean a mere 0.9°C warmer than now.
———
4/12》They reference temperatures to the LIA so they can use a bigger numbers, to obfuscate their meaning & make the absurdity of their claims less obvious to the targets of their propaganda. It’s easier to convince people that 1.5 °C “of warming” will be harmful than just 0.4°.
———
5/12》It’s like when Putin feigns outrage at being “surrounded by NATO.” It’s just propaganda. (Not counting the Kaliningrad Oblast enclave, Russia is 1.23% “surrounded” by NATO.)
Scientists call warm periods “climate optimums” because they’re better!
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22climate+optimum%22+OR+%22climatic+optimum%22+site%3Aresearchgate.net
———
6/12》The claim that 1°C warmer temperatures would be catastrophic is 100% crackpot nonsense. The lunatics are running the
asylumIPCC.0.4°C is too slight of a change to notice, even indoors.
0.9°C is, perhaps, barely noticeable, but completely innocuous.
———
7/12》Plus, a nice thing about “global warming” is that it isn’t really very global. It disproportionately warms cold winter nights at high latitudes, and slightly lengthens their short growing seasons. The tropics warm less, which is nice, because they’re warm enough already.
———
8/12》How much planting date adjustment do you think would be needed in the American heartland to compensate for 1°C (1.8°F) of temperature change?
A table of average monthly temperatures makes it easy to answer that question:
A: about six days. 🥱
———
9/12》Now look at a growing zone map. Note the latitude change that gives ≈1°C (1.8°F) temperature change. I added the scale-of-miles to this map from the Arbor Day Foundation:
A: 1°C = about 50-70 miles latitude change. 🥱
———
10/12》It’s even easier to see how much elevation change gives 1°C of temperature change. The average tropospheric lapse rate is about 6.5 °C/km, so 1°C = (1/6.5) km = 500 feet. (Even less where it’s very dry.) 🥱
———
11/12》So, 1°C (1.8°F) of additional warming is like planting ≈6 days later, or moving 50-70 miles south, or moving to a 500 foot higher elevation.
If those things don’t sound catastrophic, congratulations! Welcome to the ranks of the Climate Realists!
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=famine#benefits
———
12/12》Such minor changes are a tiny price to pay for global greening, the enormous (+20% & climbing) improvement in crop yields we get from higher CO2 levels, and the end of major famines.
@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha unroll
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=madrasfamine
High CO2 🡷 Low CO2 🡶
———
Tweetstorm compilations:
———
Mark Douglas Miller replied: “Dave, you should do something on the land mass required to go carbon free. I hear 400-600 times more land needed (solar, wind) per equivalent nuclear power which is a reliable energy source. I realize nuclear is the clean but despised by catastrophists.”
———
13/12》
If you used 100% of the Earth’s land for solar panels and wind turbines, you’d still freeze in the dark on windless winter nights.
However, I did a related calculation:
—
If we didn’t have the better crop yields we get due to CO2 “pollution” we could nearly make up the difference by using ALL of the Earth’s rainforests for agriculture.
Or we could just endure a lot more famines:
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1521825920344072192
WOW! Great compilation of why CO2’s a welcome guest, not our enemy.
Thanks!
Correction:
Oops, I wrote “higher” when I meant “lower.” Sorry!
s/ moving to a 500 foot
higherelevation / moving to a 500 foot lower elevation /Thankyou Dave Burton for this comprehensive essay.
This should be a basic education resource for every politician and in every school and university through out the world .
Even the UN know that without fossil fuel the world would be a miserable place but so many leaders do not have a clue and they are elected to power on the promise of saving the world by going green .
Here is an example of the stupidity of politicians being pushed by a green minority .
The UN has stated that no country should take action against reducing green house gas emissions that could threaten food supplies .What does the Labour Green government in New Zealand do?
Because New Zealand feeds our own population of 5 million people and we export food to feed another 30 million people around the world .
The majority of our exports are from farmed animals .Dairy products followed by beef then sheep meats ,wool and venison .
These animal based exports make up over 60% of our exports followed by wood, fruit fish and aluminum .
Our stupid government is attempting to go “Carbon Zero ‘ and because of the way methane emissions from farmed animals calculated these emissions are 50 % of our total emissions .
Enteric methane emissions from farmed livestock are a closed cycle and will never increase CO2 or CH4 levels in the atmosphere .
So what is Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw doing ?
They are attempting to apply levies ‘ TAXES ‘on our biggest exports in direct defiance to the UN directive.
To make matters worse they are encouraging overseas investors to buy up good farm land for CARBON FARMING to earn carbon credits and send the money off shore .
What the hell is carbon farming?
Carbon farming will be hell when the old unpruned pine trees catch on fire in 30 years time .
Planting productive farmland in pine trees which will never be harvested in the vain hope that at some time in the future our native frees will grow under them and sequest carbon .
This again is directly against what the UN has stated that actions should not be taken that threaten food production .
Here is the link to the amicus brief:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CO2Coalition-Happer-Lindzen-Amicus-Brief-Filed-1.pdf
The Earth will, eventually, run out of Oxygen albeit around 1 billion years hence!
The shift and eventual loss of oxygen will most likely be caused by the sun, according to New Scientist. As our sun ages, it becomes hotter, releasing more energy and decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Without CO2, plants will not be able to breathe, which means they won’t release oxygen into the atmosphere.
So the big bad carbon dioxide is not sooo bad! Should we not be producing more CO2 and storing it for future emergencies?!!
Dr. Patrick Moore has made the argument that we should be looking at ways to keep hydro-carbons in the ground for future needs (making plastics, and anything else that uses processes crude), as much as possible. Meanwhile, expand/develop cost effective energy like nuclear, maybe some appropriate solar or wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
Let the benefits of present day 400 ppm CO2 be enjoyed.
Big E
Provide the link or reference for your statement by Dr.Patrick Moore.
I even say please when I ask griff for a link to his claimed “facts”.
Please, the magic word. Finally the msm is beginning to talk about the caustic nature of society, starting with behavior on airline flights. Amazing how that is their first area to address, they must fly often because anything they cover is always about them.
I won’t fly again until the mask mandates are irrevocably eliminated. You buy tickets so far in advance, I don’t trust the Brandon administration and airlines not to reinstitute them at any time for political purposes.
Pretty sure most airlines allow you to cancel without a penalty now.
Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors are needed now. https://www.copenhagenatomics.com
I totally agree that fossil appears to be finite. Some theories disagree with that assumption. So finding cost effective replacements for fossil is in the best interests of all. Nuclear appears to be the only realistic solution at this point. Small mass produced modular units installed underground in local neighborhoods could be a very viable solution if costs can be kept low enough. This has the advantage of making our grid more robust and lessening the chances of wide scale blackouts. Mass production should allow costs to be contained.
I was just having a laugh at the Guardian’s expense when I came across this statement:
“And since 2012, the human caused climate change fingerprint has been clear in any single day of global weather.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/23/if-global-heating-is-a-thing-why-is-so-called-right-now-weather
Why 2012?
“Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale”
Sebastian Sippel 1,2,3*, Nicolai Meinshausen 2, Erich M. Fischer 1, Enikő Székely 4 and Reto Knutti.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0666-7.epdf?sharing_token=Ha_qpZxns3qfBC9Cxvq4b9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OdMx1oJ3ZWa7BKzSg7sgojUio-YF6Gkc4PPaZxPJPOiL3UKzRhucKA2wH1F16enyajozb6hRgNzNNqkucN0siG4YcplsYS76eVroXJ6rhWDPQ8jBO8h69uotH4wPQf9We62HydGx0EefruT2l2u3c4uV4j9SeHs9kNvnggR3f19uWA1xQL4OgiWsv7BNQTAYVoUerdTOeUxVO6LFTb9Wgtu2Ym3aGHqSdxW_p7Ra0a87-qKVsJx5xVUjfm_otyyjklzu7i_obUXJ8rLE55xoYFKcytSSlUCeAbdvE8AaiRVA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
Talk about SKS’s famous one paper syndrome, eh!
The bottom line for the UN, the Biden puppet theatre, and the West in general is it is in hock to the anti-human, anti-impact school of thought.
Human flourishing is not to be encouraged.
fretslider: “Human flourishing is not to be encouraged.”
It’s always everyone else that is a drag on the planet, not the ones trying to save the planet. Funny that.
Anyone who thinks there are too many humans on the planet should do the honorable thing.
Me? I disagree so I’ll stick around.
“Our detection approach invokes statistical learning and climate model simulations to encapsulate the relationship between spatial patterns of daily temperature and humidity, and key climate change metrics such as annual global mean temperature or Earth’s energy imbalance……We have shown, using fingerprints of key climate change metrics, that observations, reanalyses and model simulations agree that climate change is detected now from global weather in a single year, month or even a single day..”
My statistics course did not have ‘statistical learning,’ only learning statistical methods. But that was back in the day when “The end is near” was only found on the street corner.
More GIGO. Their “algorithms” will find whatever they tell them to find; it doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Isn’t modern science wonderful? Even though temperatures worldwide are not much different than any in the past 100 years, keeping in mind measurement error, and certainly not remarkable if one looks back over the past millenia or back to when the world was teeming with life compared to now – still yet the statisticians, modelers and data massagers and torturers can pull out the incriminating fingerprint accusing CO2 of making the world a little tiny bit warmer and wetter over century timescales.
Statistical analysis only provides descriptor values of the data distribution. A mean is not a mathematical relationship providing a PREDICTION of physical state. There are other statistical descriptor items that describe the shape of the distribution such as variance and standard deviation. The fact that there is a distribution at all shows that there is no relationship involved.
It should also be mentioned that the SCC algorithms have to go out 300 years to get the damages. Truly nuts.
The cost of carbon requires an accurate prediction of the climate
effect of CO2 emissions in the future. Meanwhile no one knows
the exact effect of CO2 in the past 100 years. There are too many
climate change variables to know exactly what CO2 has done.
We can observe the warming since 1975.
It has been good news, no matter what the cause.
Warmer winter nights in Siberia
Greening of our planet.
The global warming so far has been beneficial.
There was a net benefit.
Although I enjoy reading Lindzen and Happer,
they are among the scientists (100%)
who do not know the future effect
of CO2 emissions.
They have their estimates.
They seem reasonable compared with
observations in the past 100 years,
but there are many other estimates.
THEY ARE ALL WRONG.
The climate effect of CO2 increases in the future
is “NO ONE KNOWS.”
Science has to be verified by observations.
Data.
We have data for the past and present.
There are no data for the future.
If the future climate can be predicted,
which may never be possible, such a
prediction must start with a thorough
understanding of what caused climate change
in the past. That understanding does not exist.
To know the effect of CO2 increases in the past,
you would have to know the effect of every other
variable affecting the climate. There may be
unknown variables and variables that interact
with each other too. That adds up to “we don’t know”.
However, I have lived through 47 years of global
warming since 1975, and I love it. Our winters
here in Michigan are not as cold as in the 1970s
and the snowfall last winter was, by far, the smallest
total since I moved to Michigan in 1977.
It’s been colder than average this year,
and we are not happy about that.
The changes were not large. I may notice them
only because I’ve lived in the same home since
1987, and 4 miles south before that.
We have scientists making wild guesses about
future global warming. But we also have almost
8 billion first hand witnesses who have lived with
actual global warming for up to 47 years.
I’m not a judge but I prefer eyewitness testimony
about ACTUAL global warming over scientist
wild guesses about the FUTURE climate,
even when they are from respected scientists
such as Lindzen and Happer.
The cost of carbon can not possibly be known.
It is a wild guess not based on data.
If based on data (for actual global warming
in the past 47 years) there would be
a benefit from CO2 enrichment.
Similar to the benefit of CO2 enrichment used by
greenhouse owners to accelerate plant growth.
Richard Greene:
You say “..such a prediction must start with what caused climate change in the past. That understanding does not exist.”
You are incorrect. Past and present climate changes are totally due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, of volcanic origin in the past, but also of industrial origin since about 1850.
Which is why future temperatures cannot be predicted, because of the random nature of volcanic eruptions.
Earth’s warmest periods have all been when there was very little volcanic activity.
(You need to read NASA’s fact sheet on “Atmospheric Aerosols: What are they, and why are they so important).
Here’s Burl once again sadly trotting out his long refuted “climate changes are totally due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols” pseudo-scientific crackpot falsehood. So tragically disgraceful.
MGC:
It has never been scientifically refuted by anyone!
Which is why I keep putting it forward. It explains every nuance of Earth’s changing climate.
Same tired old crackpot nonsense over and over and over again.
Burl’s claim “Earth’s warmest periods have all been when there was very little volcanic activity” is totally false. The Cretaceous Period saw massive volcanic activity and was also among the hottest periods ever of the earth’s climate history.
Game. Set. Match.
Burl simply has no idea what he is talking about.
MGC:
No, YOU are the one who doesn’t know what he is talking about. The Cretaceous period could NOT have had massive volcanic activity, and also high temperatures, AT THE SAME TIME, so your “proof” is meaningless..
According to NASA’s Fact Sheet on Atmospheric Aerosols,Volcanic SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid), reflect sunlight, reducing the amount reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, cooling them. Man-made SO2 aerosols (from the burning of fossil fuels), have the same cooling effect.
If you examine volcanic activity back through the Roman Warming Period, you will find that the warm periods are all associated with few volcanic eruptions, with decades between VEI4 and higher eruptive events. Cold periods have frequent volcanic eruptions that spew massive amounts of cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
There is no reason to expect SO2 aerosols to have behaved any differently at any time in the distant past.
(See my supportive papers on Google Scholar to educate yourself)
Burls says:
“the Cretaceous period could NOT have had massive volcanic activity”
Merely because I, the great and powerful Burl, have declared it to be so. Never mind that there is overwhelming evidence of significant volcanic activity during the Cretaceous period. Here is just one of a myriad of examples that could be cited:
Schlanger, S.O., Arthur, M.A. (1990). Relevance of Cretaceous Volcanic Activity to Cretaceous Resources, Events and Rhythms.
“Studies of Cretaceous strata now exposed on the continents show that volcanic products form a significant portion of the rock record (see Axelrod, 1981, for review). Examples of periods of intense volcanism can be seen in the occurrence of more than 200 ash beds, bentonites and procellanites in the late Albian Mowry formation and correlative units in the U.S. Western Interior Basin. A later Cretaceous episode has also been documented. As Axelrod (1981) pointed out “… volcanic tuffs and bentonites occur with increasing frequency at higher levels in Upper Cretaceous rocks“.
Once again: Game. Set. Match.
Burls’ “response” is quite typical of pseudo-science crackpot behavior. Rather than accept the obvious fact that his pseudo-scientific theory is pure nonsense, he just pretends away reality instead. So shamefully disgraceful.
MGC:
In retrospect, I could have provided a better response. I was thinking of eruptive volcanism of VEI4, or greater intensity, whose aerosols circle around the globe for a year or two, before settling out, and always cause global cooling..
However, there can also be massive effusive eruptions, which do not inject SO2 into the stratosphere, and would not interfere with any warming. In fact, the absence of dimming aerosols in the atmosphere would guarantee a very warm climate.
This is not to say that there never were any eruptive volcanoes during that period, just that they were uncommon, with only an undetectable short-term climatic effect
The paleo records are not likely to show the effect of SO2 because of the resolution capability of the record. We *do* know that it was warm during the Cretaceous. Any volcanic activity that would have resulted in a cool period long enough to show in the proxies would have kept the Cretaceous cooler than we know it was. As you point out, the presence of volcanic activity doesn’t mean SO2 was ejected into the atmosphere.
The CAGW advocates never seem to be able to get cause/effect quite right. There is a reason for that!
Gorman says: “the presence of volcanic activity doesn’t mean SO2 was ejected into the atmosphere.”
Another truly abysmal display of typical “skeptical” ignorance from Gorman.
For one, the key point is not “ejected into the atmosphere” but “ejected into the stratosphere“.
Second, the probability that SO2 was “not” ejected into the stratosphere, amidst tens of millions of years of known intense volcanic activity, is with almost absolute certainly far too small to even calculate.
Talk about grasping at straws.
“Second, the probability that SO2 was “not” ejected into the stratosphere, amidst tens of millions of years of known intense volcanic activity, is with almost absolute certainly far too small to even calculate.”
Really? Then show us how you would calculate that probability!
MCG:
What an asinine comment.
Of course there were periods where there were no, or few, SO2 aerosols injected into the stratosphere.
They were called Interglacials
Burl,
Sorry, but yours is the “asinine comment”. Actually “utterly asinine comment”.
Over our planet’s geo-historical record, there is zero zero zero zero zero evidence that SO2 aerosols injected into the stratosphere decreased consistently during long term interglacials. No evidence whatever.
You haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about. None.
Typical pseudo-scientific crackpot behavior.
MGC:
The low LIA temperatures were due to the volcanic injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere from extensive volcanic eruptions.
It ended when when there fewer eruptions and as a result,temperatures began rising.
There is supported by ice core analysis spanning thousands of years, and there is, no reason to believe that things .were any different in the more distant past.
re: “The low LIA temperatures were due to the volcanic injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere from extensive volcanic eruptions … there is, no reason to believe that things .were any different in the more distant past.”
Same tired old hand waving nonsense excuses. There is overwhelming reason to believe things were very different at other times in the earth’s history.
Again, the Cretaceous was one of the warmest episodes in our planet’s geological history, despite tens of millions of years of known intense volcanic activity during that time. Game. Set. Match.
And again, no one disputes that injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere will act as a temporary cooling mechanism. Emphasis on temporary. But there is overwhelming evidence that there are other far more significant, and far longer lasting influences on the planet’s temperatures, such as the greenhouse gas warming effect.
Pretending otherwise still remains nothing but willfully blind, head-in-the-sand, anti-science crackpot nonsense.
Burl says:
“In retrospect, I could have provided a better response.”
Well, yes, you could have instead said something that was actually congruent with the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. Maybe something like this:
“Whatever came over me? How could I possibly be espousing such utterly ludicrous pseudo-scientific claims, that are SO obviously false?”
MGC:
NASA’s notes on atmospheric aerosols :”Atmospheric Aerosols” What Are They. and Why Are They So Important?” fully support my claims.
I would suggest that you read them before commenting further. You are making a fool of yourself.
Burl,
That NASA’s notes reference does not in any way support your laughably false crackpot claims.
No one has ever disagreed that aerosols act, of course, to cool the atmosphere. However, they are a very short term temporary influence. As stated in that NASA’s notes reference, aerosols remain in the atmosphere for only about a week at most if injected into the troposphere, or perhaps a couple of years if injected into the stratosphere.
Non-condensable greenhouse gases like CO2, on the other hand, remain a significant and continuous warming influence in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries.
Sorry, but I am not the person here “making a fool of themselves”.
MGC:
NASA’s reference that SO2 aerosols remain in the air for only about a week is correct ONLY for isolated events
Most industrial SO2 aerosol emissions are emitted by continuous sources, such as foundries, factories, Power Plants, etc. so that those that are washed out are quickly replaced, and annual emissions into the troposphere, even now, after more than 40 years of Clean Air efforts, .
are still more than 70 million tons.
Yes, non-condensable “greenhouse gases” can remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time, but no one has ever proven that they cause any warming, it is just an unproven hypothesis,
.
re: “annual emissions into the troposphere, even now, after more than 40 years of Clean Air efforts, are still more than 70 million tons.”
A hundred years ago, these emissions were only 30 million tons. SO2 emissions now are more than double what they were a century ago.
According to your own “SO2 rule of thumb”, temperatures should have fallen significantly over the past century. But of course they did not. Exactly the opposite. Your “SO2 controls the climate” claim is so obviously nothing but laughable nonsense.
re: “it [greenhouse warming] is just an unproven hypothesis”
And here we go again with the same tired old, willfully ignorant, head-in-the-sand anti-science flim flam. So tragically disgraceful.
Greenhouse gas warming is now so well demonstrated, that to pretend it is “just an unproven hypothesis” is on an anti-science par with claiming that “oxygen supporting combustion is just an unproven hypothesis”.
It is that level of shamefully ridiculous.
MGC:
You cannot give a single example where CO2 has actually been PROVEN to cause any warming
By the way, just for the sake of completeness:
Yes, volcanic activity and SO2 aerosols do, of course, lead to some short lived cooling episodes. But to claim that this is the “only” factor that controls our planet’s climate is pure nonsense.
Solar irradiance changes, changes in the earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles), changes in the shape and the location of the continents, and of course, changes in greenhouse gas concentrations have also been significant climate change contributors throughout geological history.
Currently, changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (due to human fossil fuel emissions) are, by far, the most significant climate change contributor.
MGC:
NO ONE has ever proven that greenhouse gases cause any global warming. It is just an unproven hypothesis
On the other hand, the thesis that SO2 is the control knob for Earth’s temperatures is falsifiable (empirically testable), and has been tested and validated hundreds of times, as when there are VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption, or in the climatic response to increasing or decreasing levels of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.
And there can be only ONE tested and validated explanation for a given problem, in this instance, Climate Change.
.Game. Set. Match
Burl continues his little demonstration of what full crackpot mode looks like.
For starters, no one ever “proves” anything in science. One only states that the evidence supports the hypothesis.
There are decades and decades and decades of well verified evidence which totally support greenhouse gas warming.
Pretending otherwise is simply lying.
re: “SO2 is the control knob for Earth’s temperatures is falsifiable”
Yes, it is falsifiable. And it is false. SO2 has been confirmed as one control knob for Earth’s temperatures. But it is not a very significant one. The magnitude of the effect is simply not large enough. Nor is it long enough. “aerosols circling around the globe for a year or two before settling out” is nothing compared to greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, or orbital changes that last for thousands of years.
SO2 is most certainly not “the” control knob. Pretending otherwise is simply lying.
re: “there can be only ONE tested and validated explanation for a given problem”
What a laughably false claim. Here’s just one of countless, childishly simple examples which could be referenced, proving this claim to be SO utterly ridiculous:
The given problem: a hiker runs out of water before finishing his hike.
The causes (plural) were: 1- one of the water jugs he brought along leaked; 2- he got lost and so it took longer that it should have to finish the hike.
If only (1) happened alone, or if only (2) happened alone, he would not have run out of water. Running out of water prior to finishing the hike required both causes to occur.
In fact, this is just a simple AND logical statement: C is true if and only if both A and B are true.
It’s sad, it really is, to see such totally irrational “arguments” like what Burl has been spouting.
“For starters, no one ever “proves” anything in science. One only states that the evidence supports the hypothesis.”
Tell it to Gauss.
MGC:
The science commentator, Karl Popper, stated that a theory had to be falsifiable (empirically testable) and that reproducibility was the gold standard for its acceptance.
My SO2 hypothesis meets that criteria, Whenever global SO2 aerosol levels increase, temperatures decrease. And when they decrease, temperatures increase
Now, for the greenhouse gas hypothesis, tell me how it meets that criteria,.
Burl,
Your hypothesis that SO2 is the “only” control of global temperatures is most certainly not confirmed merely because “whenever global SO2 aerosol levels increase, temperatures decrease. And when they decrease, temperatures increase”.
This information only confirms that SO2 is one control of global temperatures. In fact, the data demonstrates that it is a small and, more importantly, temporary control only.
To pretend otherwise as you do, especially directly in the face of so much contradictory evidence, is a classic demonstration of willfully blind, pseudo-scientific crackpot behavior.
Fortunately, the worldwide scientific community just ignores such laughable crackpots.
MGC:
I am still waiting for you to provide ANY contradictory evidence.
re: “still waiting for you to provide ANY contradictory evidence.”
Burl,
My apologies for being so blunt, but seriously: are you blind or something? The Cretaceous period information already posted (high temperatures coinciding with intense volcanic activity) is clear contradictory evidence that totally refutes your pseudo-scientific crackpot nonsense.
See also the information posted a little further down in this thread concerning 20th century SO2 emissions, which increased 5 fold over a 70 year period, yet temperatures rose during that time frame. This result is in total defiance of your utterly ridiculous “SO2 alone controls climate” fantasies.
Both these pieces of information refute completely your crackpot SO2 claims. I can’t understand how any rational person could possibly continue to cling to what are so obviously pseudo-scientific falsehoods.
MGC:
I am still waiting for any contradictory evidence. Forget about the Cretaceous,I have already debunked your claims. Give ONE example in he last 175 years where CO2 has been PROVEN to have caused any warming..
Burl apparently doesn’t believe in Conservation of Energy.
It is a known, proven scientific fact that CO2 in the atmosphere retains IR energy that would otherwise just escape into space.
So Burl, please explain to us how retaining more energy in the earth’s climate system would “not” result in warming.
MGC:
“It is a known, well proven scientific FACT that CO2 in the atmosphere retains IR energy that would otherwise escape into space”
In your dreams!
Water vapor is what retains the warming. CO2 has no detectable effect.
Consider desert locations, where water vapor in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
Temperatures plunge at night because of the lack of water vapor in the air to retain the warming..
But CO2, being a well-mixed gas, is present at the same level at night, as during the day. IF CO2 had ANY heat-retentive power, temperatures would NOT plunge. Q.E.D.
MGC
You state “It is a known, proven scientific FACT that CO2 in he atmosphere retains IR energy that would otherwise just escape into space”
In your dreams!
Water vapor retains heat, but CO2 has no effect.
Consider desert areas, where the atmosphere is almost completely devoid of water. Temperatures plunge at night because there is no water vapor to retain the heat..
CO2, on the other hand, is a well-mixed gas, so that daytime and nighttime levels are identical. IF CO2 had ANY retention ability, temperatures would NOT fall. Q.E.D..
Burl says:
“Water vapor retains heat, but CO2 has no effect”
Obviously, Burl has never made any legitimate investigation of IR absorption by CO2 and H20. No one who has actually investigated these phenomena would ever make the ridiculously false claim that Burl just did.
Yet another tragic example of utterly inept pseudo-scientific crackpot behavior.
MGC:
You are such a LIAR
I made no false claim. I just gave an example which proves that CO2 has no heat-retention property, the same as dry air with little moisture in it.
re: “You are such a LIAR”
Every major scientific organization in the ENTIRE WORLD agrees with me, and they have over a century’s worth of overwhelming evidence backing their position. So now you’re calling them all “liars”, too, merely on the basis of your so easily refuted pseudo-scientific hand waving clap trap.
re: “I just gave an example which proves that CO2 has no heat-retention property”
You provided no such thing. If there were no CO2 heat retention, night time desert temperatures would fall even further. Your “example” proves nothing, except to demonstrate what willfully ignorant handwaving crackpot nonsense looks like.
MGC:
“If there were no CO2 heat retention, night-time desert temperatures would fall even further”
Ha Ha. Talk about hand-waving!
Prove it.
Again, it’s simple conservation of energy. CO2 is a proven absorber of infrared energy.
Please explain how absorbing infrared energy that would otherwise just escape into space, and retaining that energy within the earth’s climate system, would “not” act as a warming influence.
Oh never mind. It’s beyond obvious that such a notion is nothing but pure anti-science crackpot nonsense. Just like everything else you’ve been peddling.
Science is not done by concensus, only belief is done by concensus.
Yet another blind Gormanian parroting of this ludicrous lie that keeps bouncing around the so-called “skeptical” echo chamber.
Science is of course done by consensus. No single person’s say-so is ever accepted carte blanche as correct, no questions asked. Other scientists review and analyze the information, and perform their own studies to replicate the results, until yes, a consensus is reached that the information is indeed correct.
The reason that so-called “skeptics” falsely claim that “science is not done by consensus” is because they need a disingenuous excuse to accept the nonsensical pseudo-scientific phony baloney jibber jabber lies of climate “skeptic” crackpots. Phony baloney nonsense that will never be accepted by any scientific consensus, because overwhelming evidence demonstrates that it is just flat out wrong. Overwhelming evidence that so-called “skeptics” blindly and willfully ignore.
Consensus is OPINION, not science. There are enough unknown unknowns associated with our biosphere that nothing about the climate can be anything but opinion.
“Other scientists” review the math and decide if it is done correctly or not. They do *NOT*, at least in general, redo the data to see if the conclusion is supported by the data.
I can certainly say that I concur with the math that 3+2 = 5. But unless you can confirm that the two entries are actually 3 and 2 you *can’t* say the science is correct. Saying that the science is correct is an opinion!
It’s why saying that the climate models don’t agree with the real world observations *is* science and saying that the climate models *do* agree with the real world is an opinion!
re: “Consensus is OPINION, not science.”
And the Gormanian lies just keep on coming.
Consensus is a logical conclusion derived from the best available data. To claim it is only mere “opinion” is to flat out lie.
Consensus is of course not perfect science (nothing is) yet it is far, far, far closer to that target than all those entirely ludicrous “Nuh Uh because I say so” so-called “objections” we’re always seeing from so-called “skeptical” crackpots.
re: “There are enough unknown unknowns associated with our biosphere that nothing about the climate can be anything but opinion.”
And the Gormanian lies still keep on coming.
Yeah right, it is merely “opinion” that the seasons are caused by the earth’s tilt. It is merely “opinion” as to why the equator is warmer than the poles. It is merely “opinion” as to why we typically see short but distinct global cooling episodes following major volcanic eruptions.
You have no clue how ridiculously foolish you look, Gorman.
re: “They do *NOT*, at least in general, redo the data”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !! Of course they do! Replication studies are performed ALL THE TIME. Thanks for yet another abysmal display of such tragic scientific illiteracy.
You still have no clue how ridiculously foolish you look, Gorman.
Straw man argument. Seasons can be calculated down to the second, you see there is actual functional relationships whose math allows those calculations. Solar and earth orbits have actual mathematical formulas to use that show when insolation intersects the earth at maximum and minimum. How else do you think length of days are known exactly, by guessing, by gathering opinions? Actually predicting the cooling amounts immediately after an eruption is impossible because the amounts of various substances are not known.
Currently, the only predictions made by climate scientists are only based on trending and in models, the predictions turn linear after just a few years. This should tell you that the mathematical functional relationships have not been adequately developed to do objective predictions. Why do you think they insist the model outputs be called projections? At least financial folks are ethical enough to tell you that past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
Science is done by observing a physical result, creating an hypothesis as to why it occurs, developing the mathematical functional relationships to allow predictions to be made, then creating experiments to see if the predictions are correct. Climate science hasn’t progressed beyond the hypothesis stage after years and huge amounts of money. They are basically stuck at drawing correlations and claiming that “look, I’ve solved the problem”.
re: “Forget about the Cretaceous,I have already debunked your claims.”
Yet another truly tragic example of classic pseudo-scientific crackpot behavior. Burl imagines that just blindly pretending away the effects of intense volcanic activity during the Cretaceous period is somehow a “refutation”.
MGC:
As I have already informed you, there can be intense effusive volcanic activity which does not inject cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, allowing high temperatures to co-exist with volcanism. Are you losing your short-term memory?
A recent example is Nyamuragira, an effusive volcano in Africa, which has been regularly erupting as a VEI2 and VEI3 volcano without any climatic effects…
re: “As I have already informed you, there can be intense effusive volcanic activity which does not inject cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, allowing high temperatures to co-exist with volcanism”
You have a grand total of zero zero zero zero zero evidence that this was actually the case for all volcanoes all throughout the Cretaceous. If there’s lots of volcanic activity, it is almost guaranteed, just by random chance, that some of those volcanoes will inject SO2 into the stratosphere.
You’re just grasping at the flimsiest of laughably flimsy straws. Another tragic example of senile crackpot behavior.
MGC:
I have already made that point.
“This is not to say that there never were any eruptive volcanoes during that period, just that they were uncommon, with only an undetectable short-term climatic effect”.
If you insist that there that there was intense volcanism during the Cretaceous Period, it could only have been effusive volcanism, otherwise it would have been an Ice Age
re: “it could only have been effusive volcanism, otherwise it would have been an Ice Age”
False and false.
“only effusive volcanism” is nowhere near the norm, and you have zero evidence that this was actually the case.
“otherwise it would have been an Ice Age” is also false. There were much higher levels of known greenhouse warming CO2 in the air back then.
Everything you claim continues to be nothing but made up pseudo-science fairy tales. But what else is new.
MGC:
You keep insisting that massive volcanism during the high temperatures of the Cretaceous proves that my claim that SO2 aerosols cool the planet are false, even though I pointed out that effusive eruptions can co-exist with high temperatures, since they don’t put any SO2 into the stratosphere. .
The Cretaceous Period began 149 million years ago and ended 66 million years ago. Near the end of the Cretaceous, between 69 and 63 million years ago, flood basalts (from huge effusive volcanoes) began erupting and spreading lava over much of Northern India (The Deccan traps). These eruptions spanned a period of over a million years, and the analysis of marine shells showed that it was a very warm period.
So, the intense volcanism that you cite as disproving my claims actually occurred, but was effusive in nature, exactly as I had suggested, and disproved nothing.
Burl sadly continues to simply makes things up out of thin air. He claims the volcanic activity during the Cretaceous was “huge effusive volcanoes” but has zero evidence to back his make-believe fairy tales.
Typical pseudo-scientific senile old crackpot behavior.
MGC:
You say that I have zero evidence, making things up out of thin air.
Read up about the Deccan Traps…
Flood Basalts are lava flows from effusive volcanic eruptions, proving that I am right and you are wrong, as usual .
You’re now making believe that the Deccan Traps were the “only” volcanic activity during that time. Not only do you have zero evidence to back this claim, but the geological evidence clearly demonstrates the exact opposite: there was significant tectonic plate movement during the Cretaceous, resulting in volcanic activity in all kinds of locations worldwide.
Not to mention that you continue to ridiculously pretend away the known and well demonstrated warming effect of the high amounts of CO2 greenhouse gas in the air at that time.
You lose. Again. It is really so comical watching you try to “justify” what are so obviously nothing but pseudo-scientific fairy tales. A continuing classic example of senile old crackpot fool behavior.
Popper could not “falsify” Darwinism. But he thought that we should act upon it because:
. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added]
https://ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-about-evolution
Hence, with AGW….
re: “my supportive papers on Google Scholar”
Do you have a link, Burl? I could use a good laugh.
MCG:
I can give you a link, but from your comments, I doubt that you have the mental capacity to understand them.
Just type Google Scholar, and enter my name
Burl, I read your “Atmospheric SO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperatures” so-called “supportive” paper.
What a totally laughable, pseudo-scientific joke.
Global SO2 emissions increased worldwide from around 30 megatons a century ago (1910) to over 150 megatons by 1980.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes?time=1900..1990
Yet you comically claim:
“The “Rule of Thumb”, or Climate Sensitivity Factor, for temperature changes due to changes in the amount of global SO2 aerosol emissions is ~ 0.02 deg. C. of warming (or cooling) for each net Megaton of change in global anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions.”
According to your laughable “rule of thumb”, temperatures should have decreased by a whopping 120*.02 = 2.4 degrees C over the time period 1910-1980.
We both know that, of course, no such thing actually happened. Temperatures increased by about 0.35 C over that time period. See accompanying graph attached.
You haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about. None. Your “paper” is a truly classic demonstration of anti-science crackpot behavior.
MGC:
The paper was published about 4 years ago,but I have since abandoned the Climate Sensitivity factor, for the same reason that you identified. It was “spot on” for decreased levels of SO2 aerosols, as shown in the paper, but failed for increased levels, as I examined more data.
So, I am in agreement with you, there, but it was just a “bridge too far” in attempting to understand the data, and has no bearing on the actual data presented, with respect the effects of Atmospheric SO2 aerosols.
You will need some other “killer” argument to refute the paper.
re: “It was “spot on” for decreased levels of SO2 aerosols, as shown in the paper, but failed for increased levels, as I examined more data.”
This makes zero sense. You’re just making up laughably ridiculous handwaving excuses. If SO2 is truly the “only” control knob, then it needs to work both ways.
Temperatures over the period 1910-1980 HAD to decline if your claims were “correct”. But they did not. Not even close. Your “SO2 is the only control” claim is SO obviously false.
So I’m sorry, Burl, but here’s the bottom line reality: while SO2, of course, does have some short lived cooling effects, the claim that it is the “only” climate control is nothing but utterly preposterous pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Any even halfway reasonably astute scientific person should be ashamed of making such a claim.
You seem like you could be a reasonably astute scientific person. I would have expected better.
MGC.
NO, temperatures over the period 1919 to 1980 did not have to decline to make my claims correct.
I have plotted a lot of graphs of Earth’s temperatures since 1850, and I have never seen ANY temperature change not associated with an increase or decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions. If there were any other factors, they would show up as something that could not associated with SO2
Some of the associations with SO2 are rather subtle:
American Business recessions/depressions, where the decrease in industrial activity reduces the amount of SO2 emitted, and temperatures rise.(34 instances since 1850)
Volcanic eruptions of VEI4 or greater intensity, which can initially cause cooling leading to a La Nina, and later, warming, frequently leading to an El Nino, after their SO2 aerosols have settled out of the atmosphere (32 El Ninos)
Volcanic “droughts”, where there have been no VEI4 or larger eruptions for about 3-4 years or more, where longer periods have higher temperatures (at least 7)
Man-made El Ninos, where Clean Air efforts have decreased SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere enough to form an El Nino (1 or 2).
The above are all temporary events, and should be excluded from Earth’s “Background’ temperature rise since about 1980, which is also caused on-going “Clean Air” reductions in SO2 aerosols of a more gradual nature, Plus a difficult-to-quantify amount of albedo change.
Burl bleats:
“temperatures over the period 1919 to 1980 did not have to decline to make my claims correct.”
Oh please. Per Burl’s “hypothesis”, an increase in SO2 emissions must result in a temperature decrease. SO2 is, after all, according to Burl, “THE” climate control knob.
But SO2 emission increased 5 fold from 1910 to 1980. Yet temperatures did not decrease. They increased.
Burl’s “hypothesis” is completely refuted. But Burl sadly continues to lie to himself and pretend otherwise.
Burl even continues to falsely claim “I have never seen ANY temperature change not associated with an increase or decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions” … even when direct, irrefutable contrary evidence stares him directly in the face.
It is difficult to imagine a more totally disgraceful example of playing the utterly delusional anti-science crackpot than what Burl has just shown us here.
I expected so much better.
MGC:
Staring me in the face is a graph where every temperature change since 1850 is due to a change in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels.
What other conclusion could any intelligent person come to?
Burl sadly continues to just flat out lie to himself. And others.
Burl claims that SO2 is “THE” climate control knob. Add SO2 to the air, temperatures fall. Stop adding SO2 to the air, temperatures rise. That’s his claim.
But we see in the record very obvious decades long trends of SO2 additions to the air not only increasing, but increasing tremendously. And temperatures NOT falling.
Yet Burl still continues to cling, like “guns and religion”, to his comically false claims.
“Utterly Delusional” doesn’t even begin to properly describe this kind of senile crackpot behavior.
MGC:
I am attaching a graph of average anomalous global temperatures 1850-2020, which shows the increase in Global industrial SO2 aerosol emissions (rising black curve), and temporary increases in average global temperatures due to decreased SO2 aerosol levels, primarily due to recessions (dated) and El Ninos.
Although .industrial SO2 aerosol levels increased, their cooling was offset by the frequent temporary increases, which accelerated after 1980 because of added Clean Air SO2 reductions, the cause of the global warming since then.
Your simplistic “if industrial SO2 increased between 1910 and 1980, temperatures should have decreased” ignores everything else that was happening in the interim
And don’t overlook the warming from Earth’s decreased albedo due to melting glaciers, etc, that also occurred.
(The “attach image” function is not working.but the graph is from my paper “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
Burl, your graph only further confirms that your SO2 hypothesis is pure nonsense. A total joke.
Look at the timeframe 1960-1980. This was the most massive and continuous SO2 emissions increase over the entire graph, yet temperatures remained stable or actually increased slightly during those 20 years, in direct opposition to what your laughably false hypothesis would require.
You sadly continue to provide a prime example of classic pseudo-scientific crackpot behavior.
Of course, rather than accept such blindingly obvious reality, one can expect that you’ll once again just make up some utterly ridiculous handwaving excuses in order to try to pretend away data that totally refutes your “argument”. That’s what senile old crackpots do.
Its all so shamefully disgraceful.
Proverbs 26:11.
MGC:
You continue to ignore the off-setting temperature increases that occurred in the interim. YOU are pretending away data that refutes your views.
Just as predicted. A totally nonsensical “reply” consisting of nothing but vague, completely nondescript, pseudo-science handwaving excuses.
What “off-setting temperature increases” ? Caused by what? In what “interim” ?
Yes folks, just another silly round of classic crackpot behavior.
Proverbs 26:11.
MGC:
Temperature increases between 1960 and 1980 due to business recessions, volcanic-induced El Ninos, and volcanic droughts Although industrial SO2 aerosol emissions increased, their cooling effect was less than the warming effects,and, as shown on the graph, temperatures rose.
This is similar to the “pause” after about 2006, when increasing Eastern SO2 aerosol emissions were offset by Western “Clean Air” decreases, and temperatures showed very little change.
Yet another round of truly disgraceful, outright lying nonsense. Proverbs 26:11 on woefully abysmal display.
Despite the existence of “business recessions” between 1960 and 1980, there are no actual SO2 emission decreases in the record during that time frame. None. SO2 emissions actually followed an intensely increasing trajectory the entire time. Thus zero, zero, zero, zero, zero legitimate reason to imagine any so-called “warming effects” associated with any SO2 emissions changes in that time frame.
Burl sadly continues to just make up pure, unadulterated, climate crackpot clap trap out of thin air, and pretends that it is “science”.
Burl’s lunatic ramblings are justifiably ignored by the entire worldwide scientific community. His comically cuckoo claims make for a good bout of laughter, yes, but nothing more.
MGC:
In addition to business recessions, there are Volcanic -induced El Ninos, and volcanic droughts, both resulting in reduced SO2 aerosol emissions.. Can’t you read?
And the utterly ludicrous Burlian lies sadly continue.
Not only was there continuous and rapidly increasing human SO2 emissions during the 1960-1980 time frame, there was also a significant increase in volcanic eruptions that reached the stratosphere during these two decades as compared to the prior two decades. See attached.
Burls’ claims of “volcanic droughts”, “reduced SO2 aerosol emissions”, and El Nino events supposedly “induced” by the [laughably non-existent] lack of volcanic droughts are all totally, totally, totally refuted by the evidence.
Everything Burl claims is SO easily proven wrong.
Burl the Climate Crackpot loses again. Not that this is any surprise.
Such a truly shameful disgrace. Proverbs 26:11 once again so tragically exemplified.
MGC:
You obviously don’ t understand what volcanic droughts are. They are periods where there have been no VE!4 or higher eruptions for 4-5 years or more, and temperatures always rise during such periods. Examples are 1846 -53, 1861-77, 1893-97, 1897-1902, 1919-24, 1937-42, 1968-73, 1994-97 (with 1968-73 also offsetting some of the increased industrial SO2 emissions at that time) .
Now, the only explanation for the temperature rise is that it actually takes 4-5 years, or more) for all of the SO2 aerosols from a VEI4 or higher volcanic eruption to settle out of the atmosphere
This is further irrefutable proof that SO2 aerosols regulate Earth’s temperatures.
You’re just making up total nonsense. As always. The graph just posted shows a long drought of stratospheric aerosols from the late 1930s to the early 1960s and then a significant increase beginning in the 1960s.
“Further irrefutable proof” that your claims are nothing but pure anti-science crackpot gibberish. As if any further proof were still required, LOL.
Burl sadly continues to exemplify Proverbs 26:11.
mgc:
You are alluding to INDUSTRIAL SO2 aerosols.
I was pointing out that when there are periods of 4-5 years between volcanic eruptions, temperatures ALWAYS rise ,obviously because it takes that much time for their SO2 aerosols to fully settle out of the atmosphere.
Again this is irrefutable proof that changing levels of SO2 aerosols affect global temperatures (which even you agree does happen).
re: “You are alluding to INDUSTRIAL SO2 aerosols”
Yet another indication that Burl has no idea what he is talking about. The graph just presented is of volcanic aerosols.
re: “changing levels of SO2 aerosols affect global temperatures”
Of course they do. But as you just admit, they are temporary. And to claim that they are the “only” control of global temperatures is nothing but an utterly ludicrous, pseudo-scientific fairy tale crackpot fantasy that willfully defies all evidence.
MGC:
To sum up our differences:
I claim that Earth’s temperatures are controlled by changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and I have provided a WoodForTrees.org plot where every temperature change can be attributed to a change in SO2 aerosol levels.No sign of any additional warming from greenhouse gasses
I have also pointed out that temperatures always rise when there have been no VEI4 or higher eruptions for 4-5 years, indicating that it takes that long for volcanic SO2 aerosols to completely settle out. There is NO explanation for the temperature increases other than decreased SO2 aerosol levels
YOU also agree that that SO2 aerosols cause temperature changes, but dismiss them as being only short-term events, insisting that increasing CO2 levels are the cause of our warming planet.
However, you, nor any one else, has ever provided any direct evidence that CO2 actually causes any planetary warming. It is just an unproven hypothesis that is destroying our world.
The fact that there is a supposed consensus among scientists means nothing, science does not work by consensus.
But hat is all that you have, nothing provable. Shameful!.
re: “I have provided a WoodForTrees.org plot where every temperature change can be attributed to a change in SO2 aerosol levels”
Your childish simpleton pretending is exactly like pointing out that temperature increases as the sun comes up and decreases as the sun goes down. “Therefore” the rotation of the earth, which is the basis of sunrise and sunset, is the “sole” cause of all temperature changes.
Such a claim is, of course, totally ridiculous nonsense. Likewise, so are your equally ridiculous SO2 crackpot claims.
Also, just this one example (among numerous others) further refutes, completely, your pseudo-scientific garbage: the timeframe 1960-1980, with higher relative SO2 emissions levels, from both natural and human sources, did *not* result in a lower temperature trend than other timeframes with less SO2 emissions, as would be required by your comically incorrect “hypothesis”.
You then go on to disingenuously ignore how simple conservation of energy dictates that CO2 must have a greenhouse warming effect, fundamentally no different than the water vapor greenhouse effect, which you admit exists. Instead you continue to blindly babble utterly ludicrous lies about “no evidence”.
And lastly, just to top it all off, you add on that tired old fairy tale talking point falsehood “science doesn’t work by consensus” that routinely bounces around the so-called “skeptical” anti-science echo chamber.
This all sadly remains such a tragically woeful example of senile old crackpot behavior. “Shameful” indeed.
Fortunately, the genuine scientific world justifiably ignores this kind of pseudo-scientific crackpot nonsense. As will I, and any other sane, scientifically literate person.
MGC:
Your calling a WoodForTrees plot of average anomalous global temperatures “childish simpleton pretending” shows how desperate you are to reject any real world data that your stupid little mind cannot grasp.
Just pretend that it doesn’t exist.
I have identified SO2 temperature increases that would offset industrial SO2 increases, and you ignore that data also. Talk about childish behavior!
And I have also provide proof that CO2 has no warming effect, which you also ignore, or are incapable of understanding..
re: “I have identified SO2 temperature increases that would offset industrial SO2 increases”
You’ve done nothing of the kind. The magnitudes of these supposed “offsets” are all mixed up and completely wrong.
If there were sufficient temperature increases to offset industrial SO2 increases within the 1960-1980 timeframe, then there would have had to have been massive warming during the prior two decades, which saw even less industrial SO2 increases and far fewer natural emissions.
But nothing of the kind actually occurred, of course. Your claims are so obviously wrong.
re: “I have also provide proof that CO2 has no warming effect”
Sorry to see that you remain tragically unaware that such claims were proven entirely false even way back in the 19th century, by the likes of folks such as Nobel Prize winning scientist Svante Arrhenius.
MGC:
The WUWT post of July 3 titled “Cold, Wettest, Stormiest” confirms that increased SO2 aerosols during the 1970’s DID, indeed, cause temperatures to drastically fall, as I have maintained.
The problem appears to be that the data for the graph has been “adjusted” to support the global warming due to CO2 agenda.
I hope that you like the taste of Crow. You have a LOT of it to eat..
Burl so sadly continues to disgrace himself. There has never been any disagreement that a large infusion of SO2 aerosols into the air will indeed temporarily lower temperatures. Duh. Why is Burl pretending otherwise?
However, the rest of Burl’s handwaving nonsense about “temperature offsets” and the like has easily been demonstrated, over and over and over again, to be all completely bogus, as is his entire “SO2 exclusively controls climate” tragically failed hypothesis.
re: “the data for the graph has been “adjusted” to support the global warming due to CO2 agenda”
And now that all of Burl’s other “arguments” have been so thoroughly refuted, it’s now time to break out the zero evidence, totally-made-up-out-of-thin-air, “adjusted data” last gasp desperation crackpot conspiracy theories.
Such a truly embarrassing disgrace.
MGC:
I have compared Hadcrut4 and GISS temp.plots and the GISS plot is substantially higher, possibly due to adjustments. (I have been using the Hadcrut4 data)..
However, the GISS surface temperature maps clearly show large areas of reduced temperatures for the years leading up to 1980, and increasing temperatures thereafter.
You keep stating that my claim that SO2 aerosols exclusively control the climate is bogus. However, on a plot of 1850-2020 average anomalous global temperatures, EVERY temperature change can be associated with a change in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, and the greater changes cause greater temperature changes.
No one, including you, and your ranting, has ever DISPROVED my claim by offering an alternative explanation for the correlations..
“President Biden’s Social Cost of Carbon rule … will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States.”
Um, that is the point of it. Those harmful effects are the purpose, not a side-effect.
Of course it’s scientifically invalid and every single person on this Earth knows it
For the very simple reason that Everybody on This Earth has eyes and that they are romantic sorts of creatures.
They attach all sorts of lovely ideas to gazing into the rising and also the setting sun.
And gaze they do
Yet they don’t, for pretty obvious reasons, gaze at the mid-day sun. Why exactly is that.
Does not very simple and basic observation tell anyone the Earth’s Atmosphere is absorbing huuuuge anoints of solar radiation?
And when it does so and because the sun is hotter than the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature of said atmosphere rises.
For those who think I’m now talking complete bollox (everybody **knows** that Earth’s atmosphere is transparent to solar energy) and demand to see pictures or scientific proof, simply find out about the Wunderground Personal Weather Stations. There are 10’s thousands out there on teh interweb, gotta be one near you wherever you are
Attached is a screenshot for mine from Solstice Day of 2022
Sunrise that day was at 04:38 local time (British Summer = GMT+1)
See how temperature drifts slowly down through the night and there is no wind.
Then at the instant the sun comes up, temperature skyrockets and almost at the same time, the wind starts picking up.
IOW Convection starts
And when that happens, see the solar graph deviate from waht should be a perfect half sine-wave and then gets missing bits.
IOW Clouds start forming
And clouds work to reduce the incoming solar energy and thus have a cooling effect.
Thus:
Earth’s atmosphere is the temperature it is because the sun heats it directly – only the most crazed arm waving, ad-hominems and scientific garbage could get ‘green houses gases‘ to create a picture like that.
As happens every day 365 days per year and is played out live, at 5 minute intervals and simultaneously recorded
And what you also see there, is that the atmosphere works to cool the Earth, NOT warm it up as the Green Gas Theory states.
Why:
Because the atmospheric gases (Oxygen and Nitrogen) in combination has very low thermal conductivity and also vanishingly small emissivities
So at night, heat loss to space is minimal
But the instant the sun comes up, heat losses accelerates hugely because convection starts.
IOW The atmosphere remains stratified unless it is actively heated and while stratified, loses minimal heat.
I could, often do, go on for ever and ever but those Scientifically Enquiring Minds should be able to grasp what I’ve put here and build on it.
And when they do realise just what a huuuuuge humongous monstrous and epic lie we’ve been told about Green House Gases.
But, as we all know, the bigger the lie, the more likely that is will be believed
They don’t come much bigger than that. Ozone Hole was a nice little teaser tho- They proved it would work and so went for The Biggie.
And just like the used-car salesmen, keep telling their audience how ‘clever’ ‘bright’ intelligent’ and ‘well educated’ they are – that they are all the sorts of people who would **never** fall for any sort of scam.
now would they
(how many are taking a dip in De Nile right mow?)
OK you say, why are observed temperatures seemingly rising, are green house gases not doing that?
Well yes they *might* be but a much more likely expanation is that us humans, in the sahpe of farmers cultivatiing sugar are raining epic and ever larger clouds of dust.
And that dust is absorbing an ever increasing share of the solar energy and hoisting atmospheric temps.
OK then you say, why are temps close to the ground rising so much.
Again = simples.
The farmers are routinely lowering the Albedo of the Earth’s *actual* surface so that what solar energy does make it down to the ground has a much larger effect.
Gold old Auntie Beeb provided some nice evidence of that only very recently..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-61856676
And interestingly when I visted Auntie’s explanation of the Green House Gas Effect, was told that ‘The Gases’ do what they do by intercepting **solar* energy.
Funny that innit, I thought the Green Gas Effect was caused by The Gases intercepting (trapping) Out-Going Infra Red radiations – not incoming solar.
Peta of Newark::
NASA’S Fact sheet on Atmospheric Aerosols: “Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They and Why Are They SO Important?” provides the major reason for surface warming, although changing albedo could also have some small effect.,
Peta sadly ploys all kinds of long known to be laughably false pseudo-scientific hand waving nonsense, too ridiculous to even bother responding to, and Burl piles on with another attempt at laughable misrepresentations of NASA facts.
Fortunately, the genuine, legitimate, professional scientific world just ignores these shameful displays of long refuted crackpot nonsense.
I support Dr. Happer’s and Dr. Lindzen’s efforts, as CO2 is no danger to the climate.
The truth is obviously painful to many, such as, CO2 significantly lags SST by 5 months.
It means CO2 isn’t forcing the SST, so it can’t be controlling the climate, the sun does.
Bob Weber wrote, “CO2 significantly lags SST by 5 months… means CO2 isn’t forcing the SST, so it can’t be controlling the climate…”
My snarky side was tempted to respond, “SSTs significantly lag CO2 by 7 months, which means SSTs aren’t forcing CO2.” But, of course, that would be silly.
Anyhow, it’s a non-sequitur. CO2 seasonal cycles and SST seasonal cycles vary drastically from one place to another, but the fact that they are both seasonal (as are many other things) has absolutely nothing to do with the effect CO2 on climate. The fact that peaks in one lag peaks in the other by 5 months or 7 months is not evidence of anything of consequence.
A proper graph of CO2 trend will eliminate the seasonal signal, either by plotting full year averages, or else by a 12-month running mean:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html
Some people think that the ongoing rise in CO2 levels is due to ocean outgassing, due to global warming. They’re wrong:
https://sealevel.info/atmospheric_co2_increase_is_not_from_ocean_outgassing.html
Yep, Bob Weber’s claim is just another sorry spew of easily refuted pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Your comment was a sorry excuse for commentary.
You didn’t and can’t refute what I said anymore than Dave Burton.
Weber, your pseudo-scientific clap trap has been refuted countless times already.
“The ocean via the CO2 solubility curve regulates the atmospheric CO2″
The oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2 out of the air. Yet CO2 in the air is currently increasing 100 times faster than at any time in millions of years. Sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.
re: “The sun controls the climate, absolutely”
Its been known for decades now that solar irradiance variations have been far, far too small to have caused the observed warming trend.
Again, sorry, but you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.
I thought your earlier comment was great Dave, but not on this issue.
You’re exactly the person, Dave Burton, I was thinking of when I wrote,
“The truth is obviously painful to many..,”., thanx for not disappointing.
“A proper graph of CO2 trend will eliminate the seasonal signal, either by plotting full year averages, or else by a 12-month running mean:”
Why are you criticizing me for what is already encapsulated in my plot?
You should already know the 12-month change plots I made of CO2 and SST eliminated the seasonal signal. You should already know this, so why do you think my plot needs correcting? Your conceptions are what needs correcting.
The results were >99% significant , so why should I care about your opinion.
The ocean via the CO2 solubility curve regulates the atmospheric CO2.
Outgassing does not supply all the atmospheric CO2 . The division of warm to cold SST makes the difference, and has changed in time. My model explains the CO2 trend too.
The entire ocean surface conforms to the CO2 solubility curve.
As far as I’m concerned Dave Burton you are again gaslighting and grandstanding both me and the readership with your baseless claims.
That means you’re lying about what I said Dave Burton, whether intentional or not..
I know why you can’t wrap your mind around this, because you don’t want to, you’re hyper-motivated to ignore what you don’t want to hear. No one here including you have refuted my claim.
Knowing you, you will go on doing the same thing over and over again – insane.
Bob wrote, “You should already know the 12-month change plots I made of CO2 and SST eliminated the seasonal signal.”
Sorry, I did not realize you’d done that.
Frankly, the graph made no sense to me, but on the basis of the annotation on it I wrongly assumed you were doing the same thing that Salby does:
The graph still makes no sense to me. You show CO2 level rising a grand total of only about 2 ppmv from what appears to be 1960 to 2020. In reality, the annual average CO2 level at Mauna Loa rose by 97.33 ppmv (from 316.91 to 414.24) in that time period, or about fifty times as much as you show in your graph:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html
So I don’t know what you graphed. It looks like perhaps you removed most (but not all) of the overall trend?
Did you graph some sort of smoothed year-over-year increment?
But that makes no sense to me, because it’s the total CO2 concentration (well, the logarithm of it!) which determines its so-called “greenhouse effect,” not the year-over-year increment.
I really do not understand what you’ve done. One of your new graphs is labeled, “ML CO2 is driven by Outgassing.” That’s just plain wrong. That graph shows CO2 (the correct values this time, and starting in 1959 this time) vs. OHC and India Grain Yields. What do those things have to do with outgassing?
I’ve had to work on this very issue for oil and gas NEPA. When I raise the reasonable request that the analysis include the social benefit of carbon if they’re going to do the social cost of carbon (i.e. cost/benefit, not cost/cost) it’s basically laughed off. NEPA outlived it’s usefulness years ago, and has become a mechanism for graft and lawfare. It should be repealed (ha, I crack me up!).
William Happer is the smartest and most well informed human on the planet concerning the effects of CO2 and CO2 emissions on the climate. If he gets to testify, he will destroy the government’s top witnesses. It won’t be a fair fight. What chance is it that the main stream media covers the court case? I am guessing slim and none, and slim just left town.
And Professor Happer, please remember to tell them, It’s the sun stupid!
Happer can’t predict the future climate.
No one can.
It does not matter how smart he is.
He has a reasonable guess based on what
we know about the climate in the past 100 years.
I can almost guarantee Happer is wrong.
He might be close, or maybe not.
No one knows is the right answer.
All we have is educated guesses and
a lot of wild guesses. That’s not reality.
You miss the whole point of the lawsuit. Happer is not trying to predict 100 years in the future. The case is with observable measurements not mathematical models, what effect has CO2 have on the climate at this current time.
And we don’t know what the effects are to date, except we can be sure its not what the climate scientologists say.
Upvoted for “climate scientologists.” Nice!
I’ve been calling them “climate eschatologists,” which I cribbed from a guy named Mark Douglas Miller, on Twitter.
An overdose of common sense. Can US courts digest this?
Not any judge appointed by Obama or Brandon.
I searched for the amicus brief but couldn’t find it. Anyone???
looking now
I have a pdf but don’t know how to share the document.
Where did you get the pdf?
Dave Burton posted the link above at 3:07 PM.
Here it is again:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CO2Coalition-Happer-Lindzen-Amicus-Brief-Filed-1.pdf
More CO2 during the past 40 years has made the planet greener. More vegetation means that more light energy is absorbed and transformed in nutrients by photosynthesis (this process is itself enhanced by the CO2 concentration increase from which a portion is absorbed by the vegetation) thus less heat is absorbed by the surface (which by the way – all other things being equal – should be expected to radiate less in the infrared spectrum).
Is there any study that has evaluated :
re: “climate forecasts generated by computer models have regularly failed the test of real-world observation”
Really? This same tired old so-called “skeptical” talking point falsehood? Again?
Here’s reality:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model ProjectionsGeophysical Research Letters Oct 2019
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.
The data says that the climate models are UNSKILLED. Not fit for purpose.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-1/
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-2/
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-3/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-4/
Gee, which to believe?
1- Research published by scientific professionals in some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the entire world
or
2- the pseudo-scientific agenda-driven ramblings of an amateur blogger?
Tough choice. Not.
Not to mention that all of those references, Janice, are from well over six years ago … just before the massive warming trend which brought global temperatures right back in line with projections. The most up to date data demonstrates that those references are all flat out wrong.
The past 6 years has only further confirmed Bob Tisdale’s (and many others’) analysis (see, e.g , that of John Christy and Jim Steele and Will Happer and Richard Lindzen and Pat Frank).
When you, too, provide evidence and analysis which proves your assertions, they will be more than what all your comments so far have been:
hot air.
+++++++++
Lol. A liar (or recklessly asserting as fact what you know you have no evidence for) AND rude. No WONDER you don’t want us to know who you are.
Sorry, Janice, but I am most certainly not the one “lying” here.
The past 6 years have seen a massive warming episode that has brought global temperatures right back in line with projections. You haven’t the first clue what you are talking about.
re: “recklessly asserting as fact what you know you have no evidence for”
The evidence backing my statements was already posted in the supplied references. But you blindly ignored them, preferring to remain wallowing in willful ignorance instead. See in particular the very first reference, posted again here:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
re: “John Christy and Jim Steele and Will Happer and Richard Lindzen and Pat Frank”
Roll call of Pseudo-Science Central.
Isn’t it fair to say the removal of the past three el ninos would leave a flat temperature over the past twenty years?
Why would any unbiased, rational person remove only El Nino warming episodes from the record? Why not La Nina cooling episodes as well?
No rational, unbiased person would ever do anything like that. It would be as ridiculous as removing bank deposits from an accounting ledger but still including all bank withdrawals. Utterly ludicrous.
What Robert is trying to do here is to falsely and disingenuously pretend that perhaps the warming trend is just “natural” … but of course it isn’t.
Robert apparently doesn’t understand that much if not most of the heat released into the atmosphere by those El Ninos that he wants to disingenuously pretend away was actually accumulated because of human influences on the climate.
Horse hockey. Human generated CO2 from burning fossil fuels DO NOT warm the ocean. El Nino’s and La Nina’s are periodic, cyclical phenomena that have occurred for a far longer time than manmade CO2.
Including these phenomena in an anomaly trend that is USED TO DETERMINE WARMING FROM HUMAN INFLUENCE is inappropriate. Their inclusion destroys any assertion that anomalies indicate the growth due to human influence. You might ask why so much energy is devoted to creating new information for the temperature databases in order to remove UHI effects which ARE CAUSED by human influence.
re: “Human generated CO2 from burning fossil fuels DO NOT warm the ocean.”
Gorman, yet again, sadly bleats typical anti-science nonsense:
The warming caused by human CO2 emissions has most certainly been warming the oceans. In fact, about 90% of the human induced greenhouse gas warming has accumulated in the oceans. Pretending otherwise is nothing but outright lying.
re: “UHI effects”
And here we go again with this tired old, laughably lame “skeptical” excuse.
The Arctic is the region of the world warming the fastest. Yeah, it must be all those “urban heat islands” up in the middle of the Arctic Ocean that is creating all that warming. Not.
So-called “skeptics” like Gorman really have no idea how tragically ignorant their foolish and long refuted “objections” make them look.
“The warming caused by human CO2 emissions has most certainly been warming the oceans. In fact, about 90% of the human induced greenhouse gas warming has accumulated in the oceans. Pretending otherwise is nothing but outright lying.”
Ahhh…. The old “the heat is hiding in the deep ocean” argument that has been debunked over the past two decades.
The data analyses which indicated this conclusion ignored the uncertainties associated with the data. When the uncertainties are considered properly the uncertainty outweighs the differences attempting to be identified.
re: “The data analyses which indicated this conclusion ignored the uncertainties associated with the data … When the uncertainties are considered properly the uncertainty outweighs the differences attempting to be identified.”
More ridiculously false anti-science Gormanian nonsense.
The decades long trend in accumulated ocean heat content is quite obviously highly statistically significant. See reference below. Pretending otherwise is simply lying. But what else is new of Gorman and other fellow so-called “skeptics”.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Yet another totally laughable Gormanian fail. So tragically typical.
(You are getting too personal again….) SUNMOD
What is the dominant cause of Ocean warming?
re: “(You are getting too personal again….) SUNMOD”
Thanks for the reminder. 🙂
Your reference is not a paper, it is a news article! No data, no measurements.
How can any rational person possibly claim that the provided reference contains “No data, no measurements” ?? This is utterly nonsensical.
That reference is not only chock full of data and measurements, but references to where the data originated are also supplied.
SMH in disbelief.
“The warming caused by human CO2 emissions has most certainly been warming the oceans. In fact, about 90% of the human induced greenhouse gas warming has accumulated in the oceans.”
And we are supposed to believe you and your assertion! WHY? You are never going to win an argument without a reference, MonkeysGoChattering. Give us a paper that shows the mechanism whereby CO2 warms the ocean.
See the following paper that disputes your assertion.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
I didn’t say anything about the arctic warming did I? Fail again! Why do you try to refute my assertion about replacing measured data with created new information so as to exclude UHI with some deflection. Excluding non-CO2 caused warming should be done equally in all cases or not done at all.
re: “I didn’t say anything about the arctic warming did I?”
You trotted out that tired old “UHI” excuse, which has long been completely refuted by an examination of Arctic warming. Sorry that you were unable to understand this beyond obvious connection.
Keep on trying to spin what I said.
I didn’t say anything about the arctic warming did I?
Answer the question.
And seriously, Gorman? How can you try to “refute” human greenhouse gas emissions as a cause of ocean warming, when the very first sentence of the paper you reference is this:
“Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities”
We then find this shortly thereafter:
“The objective of this study is therefore to understand and provide an explanation of how increasing levels of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere, which raises the amounts of incident longwave radiation on the ocean surface, causes the upper ocean heat content (OHC) to rise.”
They then go on to explain in detail this ocean warming mechanism, concluding with this: “Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases”
(incident IR radiation increase that, as already stated in the paper, is caused by human emitted greenhouse gases).
That’s right, Gorman: the paper you just cited demonstrates “the mechanism whereby (human emitted) CO2 warms the ocean.” Thanks for doing my work for me!
The paper you cite also corroborates my 90% statement:
“Ocean warming has been shown to account for over 90% of the increase in energy accumulated in the climate system between years 1971 and 2010”
That paper also makes statements like this:
“The effect of this increase of GHGs on the climate system has a 95–100% probability of causing the currently observed and unprecedented warming of the climate since the mid-twentieth century. Emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes are most disconcerting, contributing to about 78% of the total anthropogenic GHG increase from 1970 to 2010.”
How can any rational, scientifically adept person possibly imagine, as Gorman does, that this paper “disputes” the human caused ocean warming assertion? How?
SMH in disbelief again.
You didn’t read the paper with understanding did you? So like you.
Tell us again how this study proves your point that CO2 IR radiation heats the ocean.
re: “Tell us again how this study proves your point that CO2 IR radiation heats the ocean.”
Another tragic demonstration of willful Gormanian ignorance.
It is all explained in the study that you referenced.
Who is the one here who hasn’t read it?
This is just the argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. You were challenged to show how the study proves your point. You FAILED!
Sorry to see that neither one of you Gormans are able to read a scientific study and accurately understand its contents and conclusions.
What part of:
“Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases”
were you unable to comprehend?
What a disgrace.
And if you want the fully detailed explanation, then read the paper. Stop expecting me to be your remedial science tutor.
Where do you think the quoted section I put in the post came from? It was from the study I referenced.
If you can’t read with understanding, you shouldn’t be calling others names and making aspersions.
J. Gorman, not surprisingly, did not understand this quote he referenced within its full context. When the authors said:
“It is, however, not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean, etc. etc. “
they were talking about what was not clear prior to their study. They then explain that the objective of their study is to make clear this heat uptake mechanism … which they then do.
“If you can’t read with understanding, you shouldn’t be calling others names and making aspersions.”
Must I copy appropriate sections of this study in order to teach you?
These pieces of the study tell you that IR from GHG’s DO NOT heat the ocean. As the study says, the TSL modulates the loss of heat from the mixed part of the ocean. This is no different really from GHG’s playing a part in modulating the heat loss from land surfaces. The primary phenomena heating the ocean at depth is short, visible wavelengths.
My only criticism of this study is that they don’t recognize that fully 50% of the sun’s insolation consists of near IR, of which, H2O absorbs a goodly amount. This means that not all of the warming of the TSL occurs from far IR emitted by GHG’s.
You would do well to not cherry pick pieces of paper’s, texts, and blogs to try and back up your assertions.
Finally, lest you try to spin or dodge, here is what you originally stated.
Again, J Gorman, what part of:
“Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content”
were you unable to comprehend? How much more clearer could these authors possibly make their conclusion? And how much more ridiculously dense could you possibly be?
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating that you have zero interest in any legitimate, rational scientific discussion. You’re here for one and one reason only:
to just blindly babble “Nuh Uh because I say so”.
MGC:
The arctic is warming because the dispersion of dimming SO2 aerosols rarely reaches into the arctic reasons.
MGC:
Robert is correct, except that the heat was not “accumulated” , it was caused by a reduction in the amount of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution.
MGC:
The massive TEMPORARY warming of the 2014-16 El Nino was caused by a 29 Megaton decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions from China, due to a State-ordered directive to reduce pollution from the production.of steel.
This warming was ended by the SO2 aerosols from the eruptions of 3 VEI4 volcanoes in 2015..
Yet; you stupidly assert that the warming was due to greenhouse gases.
YOU ARE THE LIAR.
Yet another shameful reference to this same tired old, laughably pseudo-scientific, totally proven false crackpot “SO2” claim.
I’m not a religious man, but Proverbs 26:11 comes to mind.
What role do you think the two el Nino’s had on that rise?
I recall that in 6th grade (Grade School!) we were taught that plants breathed in CO2 to give us oxygen so we could breathe AND they took the carbon from the air to chain it with other minerals to make their bodies AND all the food that life as we know it uses to live. IF there ws no CO2, ALL life on earth as we know it would die! The more CO2 the more lush & strong the plants can grow. Perusal of geological records demonstrate this relationship, as well as that CO2, increases AFTER warming & not before. The One World power scam to gain control over ALL energy use, & consequently all aspects of people’s lives, is bogus at its foundation. The Greenhouse THEORY is based upon computer models using GIGO. It is the sun & the various cycles of the earth’s distance from it that cause the CYCLE of warming & cooling. BTW we are coming out of the Little Ice Age which would require some warming. There will be warming & cooling as these cycles do not produce straight lines. ALL geological records show constant ups & downs in temperature with an overall rise or fall as the various cycles coincide to add up to a cumulative result.
Going back to basics, i think everyone agrees that the earth has warmed since the LIA and thank goodness for that.
Broadly, everyone agrees we have warmed ~1.1C since then?
After that its all conjecture.
I maintain that if i follow what the scientologists say, it has warmed 1.1C but they also say the high latitudes (above and below 50 degrees) have warmed 2-4x faster but that is a huge part of the planet and if it has warmed 2-4x faster, then the areas between the 50s where 99% of humans live has warmed 1/4-1/2, based on simple math and looking at the average (yes that is ridiculous).
So if the areas of human habitation have only warmed 0.25C in 200 years, i don’t believe anyone who says they have noticed a difference over that time scale, they are frauds.
That is exactly why the warmists should be forced to begin quoting the variance in the temperatures that make up the “average”. Not just the variance in the final average, but the variance in the daily average from all stations.
Yes, if they want to claim the north is warming faster, then everywhere else must be warming less.
And if we had the heat dome OMG in the NW last year and other heat waves elsewhere in the world but they also state 2021 was only “the 7th warmest EVER” then clearly it was much colder elsewhere.
If they are going to throw this supposed average world temp around as though it means something, then they have to deal with the logical inconsistencies of their idiocy.
That is why math is now racist, so when i point out the mathematical implications of their statements, they can then proclaim me a racist instead of answering the question.
Yes! Why does well mixed CO2 heat differently in different places. It is more than just “natural” variation. The correlation that is always shown fails as you look at the details.
oh, what a surprise! CO2 Coalition is a known climate denial organization funded by international (i.e., not American) fossel fuel corporations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
Oh what a surprise, a climate fraudsters like yourself not able to debate the merits of the lawsuit, reverts to ad hominem attacks. Typical. And using wikipedia as a source is laughable at best.
“oh, what a surprise! CO2 Coalition is a known climate denial organization funded by international (i.e., not American) fossel fuel corporations”
Let me fix that for you:
“NOT a surprise! That an organization, which objectively analyzes the role of CO2 in our biosphere and on humanity would have this view”
Thank heavens that we have these two knowledgeable, honest, principled and experienced senior scientists to carry the banner for truth and scientific observation. There will be a lefty media backlash against them now – how can we support them?
🤣
THE Top authority on the planet when it comes to the affects of CO2 on plants.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
“The present study addresses this deficiency by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct
monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global
crop production. The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew
from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion
over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality
forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production
between now and 2050″
In my life time the worlds population has gone from less than 2.5 billion to close to 8 billion
Without nitrogen fertilizer and fossil fuels the present world population would never survive .
If the world stopped using fossil fuels I would predict that at least half of the worlds population would perish in a few years .
I am convinced that this is the agenda that the architects of this global warming scam are aiming for .
Fewer people on this earth
You forgot the “but”
courts should force people to pay for “Green” stuff anyway so we and the ‘Big Man’ can get our cut.