Video shows why cooking on a gas stove wont affect sea ice. It reveals the critical climate dynamics of ocean currents that naturally transport warm warm water from the tropics into the Arctic causing very different local temperatures and sea ice extent. Transcript is available at:
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/02/average-temperature-anomalies-mislead.html
Nick, you should watch this and think about it.
How much is natural/cyclical, and how much can securely be attributed to CO2 rises? And how do we know?
Those are the key questions. Still unanswered, after all these years.
I wish the Alarmists would not interfere with the attempts of honest scientists to get a better grasp of how the natural systems work. We’ve much to learn. Al Gore’s petty stonewalling of Bill Gray’s research into the AMO was one of the really dunderheaded moves of our times. And there are other examples of funding being withheld from scientists because their research in some way could torpedo “the narrative.” I first ran into it due to studying the Greenland Vikings, and suddenly noticing certain things being “erased”.
Simply studying history reveals all sorts of fascinating shifts in the climate that likely are clues to how the greater system functions. Why erase things such as the Medieval Warm Period?
Pretty big storm has been shifting sea-ice up in Fram Strait, just to add another variable.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2023/02/09/arctic-sea-ice-fram-slammer/
Anything that undermines the “CO2 Boogeyman” will be memory holed.
Consider how much $$ Al Gore got out of the scam and them re-evaluate. How could honest data be compared to $300,000,000 personal wealth?
CO2 has negligible impact on Earth’s energy balance. Any real temperature rise is all natural. There are local effects around industry and built up areas that are human caused.
And the warming is mostly in the Arctic in winter. That is where and when the temperature has risen most. Greenland plateau January temperature increasing at 10C per century but also gaining in elevation as the snowfall overtakes the ice loss. Greenland will have 100% ice cover by the end of the century. Greenland is the canary for termination of the current interglacial.
This process is almost 2000 years into the cycle and started to accelerate about 600 years ago.
A large portion of the Atlantic Ocean will be getting up to 30C surface temperature in August before the snow fall really starts overtaking the melt. The warming of the NH has only just started. The cooling of the SH has only just started. Oceans have very slow response to the long term shifts in power input.
“CO2 has negligible impact on Earth’s energy balance. Any real temperature rise is all natural”
Not one person on this planet has the knowledge to make that statement. And that includes you. The very likely to be false claim that all climate change is natural undermines the important effort to refute CAGW scaremongering,
If you claim there is no AGW, then you are a climate science fool.
We will never refute CAGW with people like you claiming AGW does not exist. That is counterproductive.
NOTE: I do not censor myself to avoid comment down votes in 2023
“We will never refute CAGW with people like you claiming AGW does not exist. That is counterproductive”
That is one thing we can agree on.
I consider Mr. Steele to be a great writer on natural causes of climate change. There are far too few writers in that category. I believe your articles imply AGW does not exist, even if you don’t actually say that directly.
AGW is only a recent cause of climate change and not very important in my opinion.
But “climate change” actually means CAGW, which is a fantasy prediction, wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.
Too many Climate Realists seem to dismiss AGW as impossible, or too small to measure. Then they are not taken seriously when trying to refute CAGW. Conservatives dismissing AGW is bigger problem than I ever expected, and I decided to speak up this year. I know that will really annoy AGW deniers.
The strategy of denying ALL consensus climate science is a bad strategy for refuting CAGW. Consensus climate junk science is bad news, but not 100% wrong. We have to concede that leftists are right about something to refute the main propaganda, CAGW.
Let me define what I mean by AGW:
Honest Climate Science and Energy: Nine causes of climate change
All greenhouse gas emissions
Air pollution
Urban Heat Island effect over time at any land weather station — rural, suburban to urban
Land use changes
Inaccurate global average temperature statistics, both unintentional and deliberate inaccuracy causing more warming (to better match warming predictions). Repeated changes of ocean heat measurement methodology (sailors and buckets = give me a break!) This AGW could be larger than anyone realizes, because there are no accurate global average temperatures for the 1800s — just a lot of infilling and a few N.H. measurements.
We have great climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and William Happer on our side, telling us AGW is small and nothing to worry about. They do not say AGW does not exist.
Claiming there is no AGW is shooting ourselves in the foot and ought to stop. We do not have to refute AGW to refute CAGW.
I’ve been trying to refute CAGW for 25 years. Others since the 1970s. We face fact checkers (fact chokers) every day. Denying AGW is not a good strategy. I decided to speak up on the subject this year, definitely not to become popular!
Honest Climate Science and Energy
I think the conflict if it is conflict between you and Mr. Steele is largely due to some careless assumptions on your part, whereas you both tend to agree on the substantive issues. When you say:
”I believe your articles imply AGW does not exist, even if you don’t actually say that directly.”
You are stating your belief and interpretation (imply) of something that is not actually stated. I think it may be correct to state that when an honest scientist can point to provable and dominant causes of a climactic change it may well convince another that there is no significant impact from anthropogenic causes as no additional cause is required. That is not the same as saying humans don’t have an impact.
When we can identify natural causes now and in the past to explain the major trends we see in climate it leaves little room for a major or detectable effect from our own activities.
I am a physician and diagnostician. When I find a provable cause for a person’s symptoms and findings that explains their illness, I am also essentially ruling out other causes in my differential. That is generally a safe bet.
Because it is largely fruitless to convince those who believe in CAGW that CO2 is not the control knob on climate it seems very reasonable to do what Jim Steele does which is to show the known plausible causes of climate changes to those who are receptive to logical argument. I never read Jim saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that humans have no impact. did you?
Greeneboy, you bring me all of the numbers, the real numbers, unadjusted and non-homogenised, just the numbers, and the exact time and place you collected those numbers. Then we can analyse them together, and see what conclusions we can draw, see?
Until then, accepting the contention that humans are warming the planet, means I must concede an unproven point to my enemy. Here’s the problem with that:
Our enemy is misanthrope and hell-bent on dominion. He has been at it for many, many years, and he is very sophisticated. He uses psychology on mass scale, directly attacking our very consciousness, raising our children in his image. School, religion, Hollywood…
This very same enemy has repeatedly and publicly stated that he will not debate us, and he NEVER, EVER concedes a point, NEVER. As any corporate negotiator can tell you, the first step towards convincing an opponent, is to get him to concede to some simpler, less contentious issue, just so you can get the first “yes” out of his mouth, from there on, it becomes easier and easier to get consessions on larger, more important issues. I believe it is called the stepping stone approach.
Psychology is really just Black Magic, and the enemy is an expert at it. He got you to concede a point adjacent to the truth, but only just…what are you going to believe next? That gas ovens cause asthma? Have you not had enough lies about gas ovens?
So, publish your RAW data and process, so we can see if we can replicate, like real scientists, not opinionate like libtard internet trolls. Are you siding with the libtards, Greenie, or are you willing to come over to the Light, and fight the Good Fight?
We shall fight them on the beaches, in the troposphere, around the urban heat islands, we must never concede any of their lies! Agreeing to one of their stupid talking points is the first step towards accepting their dominion. Eff that!
The only data needed are lab infrared gas spectroscopy with artificially dried air and with water vapor too. CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in the late 1800s and there is no logical reason to believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
We also know that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, which is a positive feedback to any warming of the troposphere. If that does not convence you that adding CO2 to the atmosphere always impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself, by some amount, then you are a lost cause.
Because CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm, the actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere can not be measured directly — there are too many other climate variables. Climate change is the net change from ALL climate change causes. Temperature and CO2 do not always move in the same direction for that reason. Such as from 1940 to 1975, and from 2015 to 2023. And global warming can occur with little CO2 increase, such as 1920 to 1940.
All we know from the global average temperature statistics is that CO2 is NOT a global average temperature control knob. It is one of many climate change variables. Nothing to worry about. I favor a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere for better C3 photosynthesis plant (90%) growth. At least 800ppm would be a good start. Try telling that to a Climate Howler Global Whiner — it will make their head explode.
1) You say the world is warming up. I have no beef with your test tube, show me the real-world data!
2) You cannot ascertain your carb theory, because “… there are too many other climate variables” You do not worry about missing variables when punting your warming theory, then use random natural variation as excuse, when my only beef is that climastrology ignores many a variable I think of much interest, like geology and charges? You just made my point for me, albeit with excessive verbosity.
3) You avoid my only charge against you: you accept an unproven premise from somebody professionally bent upon convincing you about something you viscerally abhor, but have seemingly bought the first bait of, hook line and the lead thingey used to drag the bait down to bottom-feeder level.
Prove to me the earth has warmed significantly in a constant, long term, noiseless and never-inverting curve, and PROVE which human activity caused this.
Local atmospheric events are influenced by geology, the geology influences the electrodynamics, the electrodynamics influence the weather. If you want an honest discussion about climate and disasters and weather, you HAVE to start with sealed surfaces, poor runoff water management, crystal compression and weather modification. How can you use temperature data from under a Barium-seeded cloud? Where do you model that barium/ alluminium, cobalt, sulphur… What is the potential difference across the width of a hundred storey building resting on quartz? Just imagine how much tv you have watched, when you could have used your intellect on something interesting?
Richard Greene whines, “We also know that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, which is a positive feedback to any warming of the troposphere. If that does not convence you that adding CO2 to the atmosphere always impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself, by some amount, then you are a lost cause.”
Pleas Richard stop you rude remarks! Second you mindlessly repeat a factoid that is often irrelevant but that all the alarmist claim to attribute CO2 for making every flood worse. The Sahara or Death Valley exhibit some of the warmest temperatures yet those regions typically hold less than 10% of its water capacity, The key to understanding floods is dynamic air circulation, storm tracks, ENSO and atmospheric rivers. In California atmospheric rivers dump their water when the mountains force the air upwards into cooler temperatures forcing it to drop its water. So it should be no surprise to anyone who studies the flood history of California that the 4 greatest floods happened in the Little Ice Age like the 1862 flood. Clearly it is you Richard Greene who has lost his way.
BTW I am not being rude, just giving you the truth with sincere hopes it will help you face reality.
Anyone who takes the time to understand the way Earth’s energy balance is controlled appreciates that CO2 does nothing.
The energy balance is a function of temperature sensitive processes primarily around the formation of ice on land, on water and in the atmosphere. Once you understand that, you appreciate that CO2 can do nothing.
Climate models provide sufficient insight to prove that CO2 does not do what they think it does. Climate models have everywhere warming. That is not happening. The southern ocean is cooling, the Nino34 region of the Pacific has no trend.. The place that is warming the most is the Greenland plateau in winter; the opposite of what Antarctica is doing.
Anyone who looks at details of temperature records and understands the energy control processes can KNOW that CO2 does nothin because it has no role in these processes other than the imperceptibly small added mass to the atmosphere
Temperatures are not going to go up everywhere. The NH will continue to warm until the snowfall overtakes the snow melt and the SH will gradually cool from the south to the north as the average solar intensity shifts northward. I know this because it is the start of the same cycle that has occurred 4 times in the last 400k years.
Since atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically shown to drive the Earth’s temperature, and a good deal of empirical evidence suggests it does no such thing, I’d comfortably put it at 100% natural/cyclical, 0.0% atmospheric CO2.
Their hypothetical bullshit means nothing once you remove its foundational assumption, “all other things held equal,” from the “equation.”
” I’d comfortably put it at 100% natural/cyclical, 0.0% atmospheric CO2.”
The correct answer is “No one knows”
Suggesting you know is counterproductive in the difficult effort to refute CAGW scaremongering.
If you claim there is no AGW, then you are a climate science fool.
Ten yard penalty for inviting Nick
This is excellent. I wish more rebuttal approaches were like this level of detail. I think most people can handle a few minutes of their time for this if they have any concerns for the current disaster movie approach to climate debate and agenda news coverage.
“…most people can handle …”
I would be inclined to agree, but I came across a few posters on Bartbreit recently (other platforms are not really available…) who firmly believe that they can make any statement, claim or allegation, and that it is up to the reader to ‘google it’. You want evidence or a source? You go search for one.
This is indicative of where education/indoctrination has/is taking us. Ten years ago most people could handle it. Now, I’m not so sure.
Unfortunately it is always just preaching to the choir, on both sides of the question.
I don’t know why, but I wondered what the climate whiz kids at SKS had on the ITCZ, they came up trumps.
“Increased extreme swings of Atlantic intertropical convergence zone in a warming climate
Here using state-of-the-art climate models under a high-emission scenario, we project a more-than-doubling increase of extreme northward swings. This increase from one event per 20.4 years in the twentieth century to one per 9.3 years in the twenty-first century is underpinned by a mean state change of sea surface temperature, with faster warming north of the Equator. “
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01445-y
https://skepticalscience.com/new_research_2022_34.html
I hope you find that one amusing, Jim. I did.
Ugh. I don’t find anything from the cynically misnamed “skeptical science” amusing.
That’s kind of like finding Jim Jones’ ranti g amusing as they pass out the Kool-Aid.
Long ago, I lasted for one comment at Skeptical Science, which was removed within hours, and I was blocked from further comments.
I merely stated that I loved global warming here in Michigan and wanted a lot more global warming. Also stated my plants loved CO2 and wanted a lot more CO2. Liking CO2 and global warming is not acceptable to Climate Howler Global Whiners. For a moment I though the Skeptical Science website was about science.
Heretic!
A useful illustration of natural modes of variability, but it does not describe why cooking with gas cannot melt remote Arctic sea ice.
This requires describing why the fictitious virtual radiating temperature 255K, emitting from a fictitious height representing the center of the bulk emission layer, is irrelevant and imaginary.
Flux density (power) has many modes of transfer, it is not limited to radiation within the atmosphere.
The turbulent soup of fluid mass could care less about hypothetical trace changes to IR ‘darkness’.
Future generations will be shocked we’ve run with such a primitive description for so long.
The fact that it has gained such currency underlines how poor western education has become. It is nothing short of indoctrination.
Glad to see Jim Steele continuing with his videos. He does a great job calmly explaining the the climate system’s operation in non-ideological terms.
thanks jim for another excellent example of how things in the ocean work. you are a treasure to all of us here at wuwt.
Nice that he agreed with me – a warming atmosphere is a cooling Earth.
C’mon peeps, how can *anything* else be true.
But somewhere in there, about 9 or 10 mins i, he used the word ‘complex’
i.e. Complicated and when someone says that, They Haven’t Got A Clue
Tom Karl knew exactly what was going on. It is why he changed the temperature of the ocean to be that the temperture of the engine intakes on large ships.
Watch The Pea: Everyone thinks that Large Ships sail around in Large Oceans and so his premise of ‘maybe OK’
But large ship call in at large ports, attached to large cities almost always situate at the mouths of Large Rivers which in turn get their water off Large Areas of farmland.
a lotof that land is tilled by farmers and aks any farmer why he does tillage or uses a a plough, he will say :To warm the soil up so my seeds grow faster’
And how many large ports and large rivers are there up the East coast of the US, funnelling that warm water, also off the cities and their UHI, funnelling it into the Gulf Stream which promptly whisks it away to Norway. as we’re informed.
But water is leaky stuff and some oozes out past Greenland and Iceland and gets into the Artctic Ocean.
Being warm water will float on the top and melt the ice.
From underneath.
How many times have we heard that
How may people listened
Patently, none.
‘cept Tom Karl knew.
See why he had to scuttle away and hide, while everyone was watching the big ships out there on the big ocean.
The Pea was in port at New York, keeping warm in preparation for its journey North and East
(if it knew it was going to Norway methinks it would have stayed put in Big Apple)
“”how can *anything* else be true.””
Depends which dimension you’re in
“”In a first for India, trans man gives birth to baby in Kerala””
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/in-a-first-for-india-trans-man-gives-birth-to-baby-in-kerala/ar-AA17hhlZ
“Nice that he agreed with me – a warming atmosphere is a cooling Earth.”
That makes both of you wrong/
Richard and Peta both misrepresent my statements. There is no argument that El Nino ventilates heat and create warming spikes in the globally averaged temperature. Likewise for heat ventilating in the Arctic, but I never claimed all warming is cooling as Peta claims. Richard is also just arrogantly riding his high horse
I made the bad assumption that Peta was correctly stating what you said. Looks like I was wrong, Your temper is showing! I did not read the entire transcript and assumed that claim came later. I don’t ride horses either
“Being warm water will float on the top and melt the ice.”
Fridtjof Nansen decribes in the first volume of Farthest North , the account of the Fram expedition to find a route to the North Pole, the temperatures of the sea water he sampled in the Arctic –
“This series of temperatures, of which an extract is given here, were taken from the 13th to the 17th August
These temperatures of the water are in many respects remarkable. In the first place, the temperature falls…… from the surface downwards to a depth of 80 metres after which it rises to 280 metres, falls again at 300 metres then rises again at 326 metres…..then falls to rise again at 450 metres then falls steadily down to 2000 metres, to rise once more slowly at the bottom. Similar risings and fallings were to be found in almost all the series of temperatures taken………..Occasionally the temperature of the warm strata mounted even higher than mentioned here” (page 262)
Thanks for this Dave, I have yet to read Farthest North but it seems to be a wonderful source that I must read!
Does Nansen offer his explanation for those layers?
So the “climate non-crisis” is caused by natural fluctuations in the oceans and atmosphere. Kind of makes me wonder what the fuss is all about. Oh yeah – money and control. When did the proponents selling the climate chaos pyramid scheme lose their integrity, dignity and humanity?
I would suggest Jim Steele deserves a Nobel prize if it weren’t for the fact that particular “honour” has become a mark of idiocy and deceit in recent years.
” Kind of makes me wonder what the fuss is all about. Oh yeah – money and control.”
You wondered right.
The actual climate is the best climate in at least 5,000 years, and has been getting better with the addition of CO2, and the global warming from 1975 to 2015. This can’t be about climate change, which has been good news since the late 1600s.
Great explanation of the ocean based circulation systems and how they create regional climate variability.
But what is driving the natural climate variability?
There is the paper by Jialin Lin & Taotao Qian ‘Switch Between El Niño and La Niña is caused by subsurface ocean waves likely driven by lunar today forcing’ 2019, published by http://www.nature.com/scientific reports that attribute these fundamental shift to the changing declination of the moon over its 18.6 years cycle.
There is much to consider regards drivers of natural variability, and I’m sure there is a tidal influence. I am also sure there is a solar influence from variable irradiance to orbital cycles affecting the trade winds. ENSO activity was scant during the Holocene Optimum, then increased as the ITCZ migrated southward and temperatures cooled.
Illustration from El Niño–Southern Oscillation extrema in the Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum_Koutavas_2012.pdf
So increasing ENSO frequency results in cooling.
I will have to read the Jialin Lin & Taotao Qian paper. Until I am convinced otherwise, there is no reason to think the ENSO step-changes in the eastern tropics aren’t synchronized by solar cycle activity. The following plots depict asymmetric ~1°C step changes over 9 solar cycles:
The odds are 1.9×10^11 to 1 against this pattern recurring 9 times in a row w/o solar forcing.
The current ephemeris for the sun is wrong. it was generated for a point mass of the sun, which is wrong for an enormous mass so close to the barycentre. Any accurate motion analysis of the sun must include rotational inertia about the sun’s own axis. Once that is done, the Sun is observed to move in a more circular orbit.
The actual orbit of the sun is generally in opposition to Jupiter but it varies due to the influence of the other planets. Most significant is the conjunction with and opposition to Jupiter and Saturn; just under 10 years (not 11.8 years of Jupiter’s orbit). The radial acceleration of the sun toward and away from the due to the changing pull generates the Coriolis forces that produce sunspots.
The end result is that the solar power at the top of the atmosphere varies considerably more than what would be caused by Earth’s orbit perihelion and aohelion, which are based on the barycentre not the sun. The Sun’s orbital radius adds plus or minus 0.005AU to the distance from Earth. The 11 year beat of the sun rotation on Earthy’s solar power is evident on surface based solar monitors.
The satellite based TSI measurements are corrected for distance to the sun so useless for looking at the top of the atmosphere solar power.
The most recent orbital conjunction of Earth and Sun was in early 2020. That meant SH summers in 2019 and 2020 were intense. The NH will experience more intense summers and cooler winters mid decade because aphelion will be less than average and perihelion more than average.
These changes do not appear to drive ENSO but if an El Nino occurs when the solar power is near the peak of the Sun’s beat then it will be more intense. If one occurs mid decade it will not get above the 2016 level but the one after could.
“The end result is that the solar power at the top of the atmosphere varies considerably more than what would be caused by Earth’s orbit”
NASA claims that statement is false. They claim. and own the satellites, TOA solar energy has declined slightly in the past 50 years. Very little change, They claim there is no evidence solar activity caused any of the global warming from 1975 to 2025. I have no logical reason to doubt NASA on this issue. Prove NASA wrong.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
What they are claiming correctly is that the radiance of the “solar constant” does not vary much.
The processing to derive the power flux constant corrects for Earth-Sun distance:
You only need look at any surface based solar data to observe the 11 year beat of the Sun orbit. The attached shows a decade for a region in the eastern Pacific just south of the equator that is usually clear sky. You can see the dip to 2008.
The same beat shows up in the moored buoys but the data has lots of gaps.
Surface solar energy is affected by clouds and albedo, which are two different causes of climate change. I just mentioned TOA solar energy measurements as a proxy for blaming the sun itself for the 1975 to 2015 global warming.
I do not believe there is any 11 year cycle visible in any global average temperature statistic.
Once again it is your belief and it is provably wrong. I have shown using actual data that the 11 year beat is evident all regions but most noticeable in the Nino34 region per attached.
Or orbital changes/interactions perhaps.
Nope! Not allowed to discuss that. All planetary orbits are perfectly stable, in one single plane, and no planet has any influence on any other planet. Sunlight and CO2, the only variables in the universe, and the sun is too far away to have any serious influence.
At least, that’s what I was told last time I aired the orbital changes aspect..
Orbital changes are not going to affect a 50 to 100 year period enough to be measured. They are 10,000 year cycles, at a minimum, 100 years would be 1% of a full cycle, at most.
I shall limit my response to this: Consider the meaning here of the word Cycle. It returns to some original condition periodically, yes? It tells you nothing about the actual waveform, yes?It does not even tell the polarity at any one instant, yes?
Just because a thing takes a long time to happen, does not mean it is gradual or even just a smooth curve. It does not even tell the polarity at any one instant. Think sawtooth wave, ramp, triangular, square, an audio signal with a slow bass backbeat…
Once again, your warmunist theory accepts ‘ turning points’ and ‘triggers’ while every other theory has to restrict itself to some smooth linearity. Regardless of 10ky cycles, chaos theory teaches us that all oscillators have attractors, but some of them mothers sure are strange!
I might as well take a leaf out the warmunist tract and declare one hundreth of a degree tilt is as much as we can handle before we all curl up and dieee!! My guess is at least as good as any Mann’s.
The cyclical movement of planets is very gradual and can not be blamed for global warming from 1975 to 2015..
El Nino episodes typically occur when the solar wind is weaker, so they are usually more frequent during centennial solar minima, and also following major tropical volcanic eruptions.
Weaker solar wind states => negative Northern Annular Mode conditions => slower trade winds.
I didn’t watch the video but did read the transcript. Excellently written. I am impressed!
Using linear trends on a system with so many oscillations and natural variations just won’t cut it.
We are fast approaching a point where climate scientists need to integrate different measurement schemes in order to begin designing a better hypothesis on how climate changes.
It is obvious to me that temperature and CO2 doesn’t come close to providing the necessary inputs to model the control systems involved.
Magnificent Jim.
Brilliant, Dr. Steele!
Jim Steele is biased in favor of natural causes of climate change. Of course they were dominant for 4.5 billion years and did not disappear in 1975 as the IPCC suggested in 1995, calling them “noise”. But manmade CO2 was a new cause of climate change that likely caused some of the global warming from 1975 to 2015. Mr. Steele prefers to ignore CO2 AS GREENHOUSE GAS, and he goes wrong there.
Actual climate change is the net result of many causes of climate change, local, regional and global, which include natural and manmade causes. People who promote all natural causes, and people who promote all manmade causes, are BOTH likely to be wrong.
The correct answer is no one knows the percentages of natural causes and manmade causes of the warming from 1975 to 2015. But very few people will admit that.
We do know the actual warming from 1975 to 2015 has been beneficial along with more CO2 in the atmosphere. So there is no logical reason to want CO2 enrichment and global warming to stop. And it does not matter how much of the warming from 1975 to 2015 was caused by CO2. The correct number is between zero percent and 100%. Even if 100%, the rising CO2 is still harmless.
I recall from past comments like this one that Jim Steele has responded with rude remarks, and I am prepared with a bicycle helmet on. In the past his comments made Monckton seem polite, by comparison.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
Again you incorrectly describe my arguments, saying “manmade CO2 was a new cause of climate change that likely caused some of the global warming from 1975 to 2015. Mr. Steele prefers to ignore CO2 AS GREENHOUSE GAS, and he goes wrong there.”
First where you “go wrong” is claiming I ignore CO2. What you call my bias towards natural climate changes is a absolutely critical to provide the baseline or control data from which to evaluate how much CO2 is affecting our climate.
Second, I have never argued there is no greenhouse effect. Check out my earlier video “How CO2 Saves the Earth: Greenhouse Gases have Vital Warming & Cooling Effects”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H47-2DnnNw&t=130s
In this video I stated the Hudson Bay temperature of -33C was in part due to greenhouse gases. Do you disagree?
On the other hand I do not believe CO2 is warming the ocean as described in my previous video Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=1125s
What alarmists and fence sitters as yourself have totally ignored is the sun’s dynamical warming simply arguing solar radiative heating is too small. Solar ponds disprove that. In contrast, IR from CO2 only penetrates a few microns into the ocean’s cool skin layer and is the immediately radiated back to space, while only solar heating penetrates deeply enough to be stored. Can you refute that Richard?
So, instead of trying to smear me again with personal attacks as you’ve done before, by now tossing out I’ll respond with rude remarks, I suggest you display some personal & scientific integrity and try and refute the science I presented, and avoid such petty tactics.
Your articles consistently give the impression, whether deliberate or not, that natural causes of climate change are important and manmade cause are not important.
I read up to 48 climate science and energy articles every morning as a blog editor. I recommend the best articles to others. I reject articles that imply natural causes of climate change are not important, and I reject articles that imply manmade causes of climate change are not important. I know the difference.
No manmade causes of climate change was true for 4.5 billion years. But giving that impression for climate change after 1975 is misleading.
I truthfully referred to your rude remarks made to me in your past comments, in prior articles, as an attempt to prevent more rude remarks today, and it almost worked.
LOL The root of your arrogance is that you think because you give natural and human warming equal weight your beliefs are superior and your tactic is superior to others. But you provide no evidence to support your weighting of the factors.
Your articles consistently give the impression, whether deliberate or not, that natural causes of climate change are important and manmade cause are not important.
My research does indeed conclude there’s little evidence to support CO2 has caused warming to any significant extent since 1970, once we subtract natural causes.
I asked you to refute my claim that CO2 is not warming the ocean. Alarmists say 90% of CO2 warming goes into the ocean and have totally ignored is the sun’s dynamical warming simply arguing solar radiative heating is too small.
Solar ponds disprove that. In contrast, IR from CO2 only penetrates a few microns into the ocean’s cool skin layer and is the immediately radiated back to space, while only solar heating penetrates deeply enough to be stored. Can you refute that Richard?
Telling us you read 48 blog articles each day and given your self assessment that you are the Honest Climate Science and Energy is not proof of anything.
I truthfully referred to your rude remarks made to me in your past comments, in prior articles, as an attempt to prevent more rude remarks today, and it almost worked.
No! You were acting on hurt feeling and throwing that out as your personal vendetta to maintain your delusion of the only person taking the high road. You didnt smell your own stink then or now. If you wanted to prevent rude remarks, then avoid your petty personal attacks, and debate the science.
This article is about how ocean circulations has warmed the Arctic. You dont refute a word Ive said, but ride in on your high horse of arrogance interjecting your pet peeves.
But you havent and clearly you cant. Until you provide me with a mechanism of how infrared warms the oceans, I’ll have to agree with a previous poster you have succumbed to the brainwashing of the alarmists.
Richard you said this earlier, “The strategy of denying ALL consensus climate science is a bad strategy for refuting CAGW. Consensus climate junk science is bad news, but not 100% wrong. We have to concede that leftists are right about something to refute the main propaganda, CAGW.”
So, your political communication strategy is built on ‘leftist’s bad junk science’?
The only thing we have to concede are the very basic science premises, and no one has to bully us to do it, that is: the temperature has increased with CO2.
Beyond that, your reading of X number of articles a day has only made you a Stockholm syndrome victim, as you are literally captive to what you’ve read.
I have never seen you present any actual climate data to make a science point, as everything with you Richard is purely cutesy manipulative political rhetoric based on your apparently blind faith in AGW.
Others of us who have taken time to do empirical studies instead of just reading AGW papers then testing the wind to see which way it’s blowing politically like you, have found numerous scientifically valid ways to invalidate the AGW case.
AGWers have no idea at all what natural climate change is, how it happens, or how to evaluate it, yet you are all so offended when someone knowing of natural climate change discards AGW as being so negligible an effect as to be for all practical purposes nearly zero, due to absorption saturation after 280 ppm.
Then, “But giving that impression for climate change after 1975 is misleading.”
You’re wrong. The Great Climate Shift after 1975 happened due to strong solar cycles #21-23. After the 70-year Solar Modern Maximum ended in 2004 after SC #23 maximum, the first Monckton pause ensued, caused by the solar minimum, followed by the solar maximum warming of SC #24 until 2016, followed by solar minimum cooling until now, causing the second Monckton pause.
The monotonically increasing CO2 did not have a warming effect during the two pauses, or during the 1970s, nor anytime before/after, despite it’s level or trend.
CO2 climate theory is dead Jim, bury it.
Negative NAO/AO conditions drive a warm AMO, but rising CO2 forcing is expected to drive increasingly positive NAO/AO conditions. Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum. It’s as simple as that.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html