Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist, is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate. In this 32+ years of singular pursuit, he seeks to understand the Sun-Earth relations in terms of not only meteorology and climate, but also in terms of orbital dynamics of Sun-Earth-other planets interactions, magmatic (volcanoes) and tectonic (earthquakes) activities. His discoveries challenge computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change. He has faced and risen above unethical and often libelous attacks on his research and his character, becoming one of the world’s most respected and influential voices for climate realism. In 2018, he founded the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-science.com) in order to tackle a wider range of issues and topics without fears nor prejudices.
Dr. Soon was an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, from 1991-2022. He served as receiving editor for New Astronomy from 2002-2016, astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory from 1992-2009. He is also on the editorial board of Geoscience, an MDPI publication since 2020 as well as serving as Review Editor of Frontiers in Earth Science starting 2022. Dr. Soon has also held the role of visiting professors at various institutions including University of Putra, Malaysia, Institute of Earth Environment of Xian, China and State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science at Xiamen University. Since September 2021, Dr. Soon is also affiliated with Hungary’s Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science.
Dr. Soon earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in science and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.
“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.’’ — Freeman Dyson in the Boston Globe, November 5, 2013
Slides for this presentation: https://tomn.substack.com/p/global-wa…
Here’s the Gavin Schmidt modeling talk mentioned by Willie:
Willie mentioned his “Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?” talk that has almost 1 million views: Global Warming: F…
About Willie’s April 2022 “Weaponization of Science…” Hillsdale College talk:
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/th…
Full Hillsdale College talk: https://vimeo.com/710864737/c408cafffe
Chris Morrison: “Sixty seconds later, the temperature fell to 39.7°C”: Background on the question I asked around the 32-min mark: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/02/m…
About Willie Soon: https://www.ceres-science.com/willie-…
103 of his peer-reviewed papers: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/
“How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate”: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10…
CERES news: https://www.ceres-science.com/news
Please help support independent science by donating to CERES-science.com:
https://www.ceres-science.com/support-us
——
https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1
Tom Nelson’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123
Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/
About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/0…
Notes for climate skeptics:
https://tomn.substack.com/p/notes-for…
ClimateGate emails:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/clim…
Global warming can have an upside
“”Price hike of 130% for electric vehicle chargers to press ahead
The plans to introduce the hike in prices was confirmed by Highland Council despite attempts to stop it by the Liberal Democrats.””
https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/price-hike-of-130-for-electric-vehicle-chargers-to-press-ahead-in-highlands
Oh dear
Price inflation for a subsidized product?
Shared responsibility through progressive prices (“inflation”) and availability.
One of the first slides in Willies deck shows the IPCC world temperature graphs decomposed into natural and human caused warming. The problem is the temperature graphs is a fraud. Anyone that has studied the data knows it is absurd to say 1921 was cooler than the 70s.
The average was too far from being global until the use of NASA satellite data in 1979 (the UAH compilation)
The numbers pre-1920 are almost worthless: Too few Southern Hemisphere data, and NH sea surface data are almost entirely in shipping lanes.
Not to mention the haphazard bucket and thermometer methodology, which changed several times. with no studies of how changes in sea surface measurement methodology affected the claimed warming trend.
Global average temperature data are not fit for science before 1979.
Detailed sea surface and depth temperature data are not fit for science until ARGO floats, about 20 years ago, and that’s only if you trust the people in charge of the floats.
Great post Richard. Credit where credit’s due.
Looking at the development from 1850, it looks natural to me, sort of like a sinewave.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Obviously, we have to think about error. Readings with mercury were going faulty because of the reaction of mercury with glass. Maybe the upswing is indeed largely due to the introduction of the thermo couples (70’s) & IR satellites (80’s) rather than anything else.
Anyway.
It looks to me the average is still about 1K since 1850 and since 2015 temperatures are falling.
Thanks HotScot, but I miss the good old days when we used to argue with each other about … whatever it was we used to argue about.
My goal is not to demonize CO2 or claim it does nothing.
Although CO2 can’t do much above 400ppm.
My goal is to demonize leftists who demonize CO2 to gain political power and control.
My goal is to study real s climate science:
Leading to celebrating more CO2, greening of our planet and global warming. Also understanding that “we don’t know” is the right answer to a lot of climate science questions.
I can understand Covid scaremongering working, when lots of old people were dying prematurely. That’s scary for older folks like me and the wife.
I can’t understand climate scaremongering working, when the climate has not even changed in the past 8 years (UAH data), and the slightly warmer climate since the 1970s is good news.
Here in SE Michigan, today will be only the third time our 100 foot driveway needs snow shoveling this winter. Last winter was also three times. I keep track of this because my wife does the shoveling, while I pretend to be having a heart attack like Fred Sanford on the old TV show.
That is so much less snow removal now, than in the 1980s, when once a week shoveling was required. And I often had to help. We lived in the same homes since 1987 so the warmer winters and less snow are very easy to track. From 1977 to 1987 the snow and cold here was even worse than in the 1980s, when we lived in an apartment four miles south.
“studies of how changes … affected the claimed warming”
Results to be accepted by whichever team that agreed before the first measurement.
Or reinterpreted.
Then rejected for data quality.
“Global average temperature data are not fit for science before 1979.”
And yet skeptics are so sure the MWP was warmer than today?
The Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago was most likely warmer than today.
In the past 5000 years the warmer periods were not warm enough to be confident they were warmer than today.
Averages of local climate reconstructions show warmer and cooler centuries, but the variations in an average are probably smaller than the margin of error in the reconstructions.
Definitely not a straight line “hockey stick” trend — our planet is always cooling or warming — no local reconstructions have a hockey stick shape.
“The Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago was most likely warmer than today.”
This article from phys.org would seem to say you are off the mark by quite a bit.
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
Forget it Simon, all the ‘data’ prior to the so-called global temperature record comes from a GCM, i.e., it ain’t real data.
Haha that’s an easy way out for your team. Call it fake without any semblance of support for what you are saying. Let me guess the election was stolen right…..
Global warming: Mostly human-caused or natural?
NO ONE KNOWS
AND NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW THE ANSWER
There are too many causes of climate change to know what each variable has done. (see my list below)
It is possible, but unlikely, that all the warming since 1975 was caused by natural causes.
It is also possible, but unlikely, that all the warming since 1975 was caused by manmade causes.
That means the right answer is “We don’t know”
A compromise answer: “Natural and manmade causes”
A better compromise answer:
Global warming has been good news,
so why should we care what caused it?
Climate change has been good news for the past 325 years, since the coldest decade of a low solar energy period called The Maunder Minimum.
For 325 years as the climate intermittently warmed, climate change was good news, and the subject of climate science was not important.
Any real problem in the world was more important than climate science for the past 325 years.
Money and labor hours used for climate science, when there is no climate problem to study, is mainly wasted money and labor hours.
There is no climate problem.
Weather knowledge and forecasting are both important. For farming, and for early warnings of severe weather.
But climate knowledge, which has regressed in the past 50 years, and climate predictions, 100% wrong for the past 50 years, are mainly a waste of money and labor hours.
We do not need to know a global average temperature.
We do not need climate confuser games.
We do not need always wrong wild guess climate predictions of doom.
We do not need Nut Zero.
We need to relax and enjoy the best climate in at least 5,000 years.
We are living in the best climate since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended 5,000 years ago.
The best climate is today, for humans, animals and especially plants … thanks to the global warming since the cold 1690s.
And at least half the population, the Climate Howler Global Whiners, will not let us enjoy our wonderful climate.
Because those leftists have found a way to use climate scaremongering to promote their century-old desire for more political power and control.
And, unfortunately, their climate scaremongering strategy is working.
Almost no one is enjoying the current, wonderful climate, where colder nations have milder winters, plants grow better than ever, and women wear fewer clothes to beat the heat (which accounts for 97% of my climate science research).
Scientific proof:
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: March 2023 Global Warming Fashion Show
So where is the bad news from climate change?
The bad news only exists in overactive leftist imaginations, not in reality.
Leftists control the climate narrative, and the wild guess predictions of climate doom, but they do not control the climate.
If you need to worry about the climate, here’s something you can worry about: Global warming stopped in 2015.
That could be bad news because historical anecdotes clearly show that people really like global warming.
The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
(aka planetary geometry)
2) Changes in ocean circulation
Including ENSO and others
3) Solar energy and irradiance,
including clouds, albedo, volcanic and manmade aerosols,
plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions
5) Land use changes
(cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional errors or deliberate science fraud)
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables.
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
“Global warming: Mostly human-caused or natural?
NO ONE KNOWS”
Yes we do. It’s natural – unless you can prove otherwise…
Starting with a conclusion is junk science.
You are a CO2 denier.
You are an AGW denier
Therefore, you are a climate science denier
A three-yime loser !
Historical temperature data and reconstructions do not reflect much manmade causes of climate change, because they were minor before the 1940s.
So there is only a short period of time — about 82 years out of 4.5 billion years — when manmade causes of climate change could have had some measurable effect.
There IS strong evidence the greenhouse effect increased since the 1970s.
That does not have to be from CO2, but it is very unlikely that the +50% increase of CO2, estimated since 1850, had NO effect at all on the climate.
The effect of CO2 is well documented in lab spectroscopy experiments.
There is no evidence that CO2 behaves completely differently in the atmosphere, then it does in a laboratory.
Is that your proof that man changes the climate, then?
We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall).
The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).
Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation.
Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases.
Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
There are CERES data of increasing downwelling radiation
There are other measurements of increasing downwelling radiation
There is lab spectroscopy since the late 1800s
There is global warming after 1975, which is a symptom of rising CO2 emmisions
There is no warming of most of Antarctica since the 1975, which is also a symptom of greenhouse warming.
There is less warming of the more humid tropics than of the drier higher latitudes, except Antarctica, which is also a symptom of greenhouse warming.
There is no evidence of increased TOA solar energy measured with satellites, which eliminates direct solar warming (other than cloud changes or albedo changes)
There is the C12 to C13 ratio to prove the increase of manmade CO2.
Not that proof matters to you.
You have your anti-CO2 bias and ignore all evidence.
The climate has become warmer since 1975.
What is your alternate explanation, and proof you are right, other than a meaningless “because i say so”?
I’ll take that as a no, then.
Your weakness is that you demand to know the exact effect of manmade CO2 in the past 50 years.
in the absence of a precise answer, you declare CO2 had no effect.
That is a logical fallacy.
I’m not sure what the name is, but I will guess:
The Argument from Ignorance
The Argument from Ignorance (also, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false, or it must be true.
E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their crazy theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!”
This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence (also, “Whataboutism”; The Missing Link fallacy), e.g. “Some or all of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! What about that? That proves you’re wrong and I’m right!”
This fallacy usually includes fallacious “Either-Or Reasoning” as well: E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!”
A corrupted argument from logos, and a fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning. The recently famous “Flying Spaghetti Monster” meme is a contemporary refutation of this fallacy–simply because we cannot conclusively disprove the existence of such an absurd entity does not argue for its existence.
See also A Priori Argument,
Appeal to Closure,
The Simpleton’s Fallacy, and
Argumentum ex Silentio.
Your weakness is that you claim to know the exact effect of manmade CO2 in the past 50 years……
I don’t claim that at all, and never claimed that HotSpud
I present evidence that the greenhouse effect increased, which you are not capable of refuting, and I know added CO2 was one cause of that increased greenhouse effect. Therefore, manmade CO2 emissions did cause some warming in the past 80 years. The warming effect of CO2 was obviously overwhelmed by other climate change variables from 1940 to 1975 and from 2015 to 2023.
Another Argument from Ignorance — your specialty: The fallacy that since we don’t know exactly how much warming CO2 caused in the past 80 years, then CO2 must have done nothing.
You stand opposed to perhaps 99.9% of scientists in the world who recognize a greenhouse effect and know that CO2 is part of it. The most basic climate science. Supported by Will Happer and Richard Lindzen and every skeptic scientist I have read in the past 25 years except two frauds:
Ed Berry and Murray Salby,
who both falsely claim manmade CO2 only accounts for 3% to 5% of all atmospheric CO2, when the correct percentage is about 33%. Also basic climate science.
You stand with the 0.1% minority — the climate science frauds.
Quote:”You stand opposed to perhaps 99.9% of scientists in the world who recognize a greenhouse effect and know that CO2 is part of it.“
And you’re out. Science does not vote or deal in majorities.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand, is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual, Galileo, Galilei, father of modern science.”
Or you could read this book: 100 scientists against Einstein.
The come back and bow your head in shame.
You will be welcomed as an equal who has finally seen the light. The scientific method is the best we have.
Democracy by popular vote is merely the least worst.
Your last statement would only be true if you could reproduce the atmosphere in the laboratory.
The CO2 is placed in a controlled atmosphere, with and without water vapor, in a laboratory.
It is not studied in a vacuum.
You are a CO2 denier.
Anti-science.
What temperature gradient is used? How about pressure gradient and the effect on spectral broadening.? Does the “atmosphere” thin. Do they monitor the almost total energy transfer from the CO2 molecule to the surrounding air molecules or are the CO2 molecules allowed to re-radiate their IR obtained kinetic energy? The major effect in the real atmosphere is black body radiation of kinetic energy from all molecules, is that true in the lab?.
CO2 had it’s day.
Irrelevant chart
The fact that climate confuser games are programmed to predict a fast rate of global warming, except the Russian INM game, does not refute my claim that CO2 is one of many climate change variables.
There are ZERO measurements of how much temperature changes due to changes in CO2
“There is no evidence that CO2 behaves completely differently in the atmosphere, then it does in a laboratory.”
That may be the most anti-science statement we see on the Internet today.
I note that you have failed to provide any evidence, but you did provide a character attack. Character attacks refute nothing.
Ahem……..
There is no actual evidence that human CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.
RG, is a “believer” in non-science and superstition/baseless conjecture.
Along with 99.9% of scientists on the planet.
Including Will Happer and Richard Lindzen.
We are all wrong, and you are right?
ha ha … don’t make me laugh
A consensus is NOT science. It is a vote.
The warming due to CO2 is mostly by the first 20 PPM. After that it decreases rapidly. At 400 PPM nobody has measured it. NASA/NOAA know that but keep pushing the fiction.
A person that denies that CO2 has any effect on the climate is accurately described as a “CO2 denier” HotSpud.
That is not a scientific statementas usual.
Ice core data says that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle at all time scales.
Very happy to see you “arguing” as you do. You are doing more than many to expose the baseless speculation of the AGWists and to undermine what scant credibility they had.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Greene.
Ice core data do not include manmade CO2 emissions as a cause of climate change
In ice core data, the ocean / atmosphere CO2 ratio is CAUSED by changes in ocean temperatures, from ANY cause of climate change EXCEPT CO2 emissions because there were NONE.
.The ocean / atmosphere CO2 balance is determined by Henry’s Law, with a long lag between ocean temperature changes and dissolved CO2 changes, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Henry’s law – Wikipedia
It is you who have a lot to learn.
Do you realize that you are claiming to be smarter than about 99.9% of actual scientists in the world, and that includes so-called skeptical scientists such as Will Happer and Richard Lindzen?
If you deny that there is a greenhouse effect, and manmade CO2 is a part of it, then you are a true science denier in the 0.1%: The boozers and the losers.
The burden of proof is on the AGWists to provide compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are “a meaningful part of it.”
Define “meaningful”
The AGW believers have plenty of evidence for some amount of AGW. Obviously harmless so far.
But they predict CAGW, for which they have no evidence, and about 42 years of wrong CAGW predictions.
Climate scaremongering is about CAGW, not AGW. And CAGW predictions are for 200 to 400 years in the future.
Predictions for 70 years in the future. using the more reasonable RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, using the existing climate confuser games, are roughly half of the well publicized ECS with RCP 8.5 RCP global warming rate prediction.
While I do not take climate confuser games seriously, or any other climate predictions, the IPCC hides the more reasonable TCS forecast using RCP 4.5. They let people assume the ECS they publicize is for the next 50 to 100 years, rather than being a wild guess for the next 200 to 400 years.
IPCC defines CAGW as roughly 2x AGW to 4x AGW, which is meaningless, because there is no precise measurement of AGW.
Your bolding your first line about no human CO2 in ice core data indicates that you missed the point.
The point is: CO2 does not cause surface temperature to rise. Temperature causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.
I use bold font because I have a serious vision disability and regular font is hard for me to read. I type my entire comment in bold font and then change most of it to regular font before publishing it.
(1) Natural causes of climate change that warm oceans will cause atmospheric CO2 to rise by about +15ppm to +20ppm per a +1 degree C. warming. That effect can happen at the same time as the next cause of climate change
Manmade CO2 emissions impede Earth’s ability to cool itself, making the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
You are conflating two different causes of atmospheric CO2 increasing. Even with warming oceans outgassing a small amount of CO2, however, they are still net CO2 absorbers.
Happer also claims that any warming caused by CO2 is meaningfully over now.
The more CO2 added to the atmosphere, by whatever means, will make little to no material difference to any warming theoretically induced by it.
“He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.” (Wikipedia)
Happer claims the effect of more CO2 will be small
I agree.
That does not mean no effect.
Whatever effect CO2 has is amplified by a water vapor positive feedback.
It can not be assumed that Will Happer knows the exact ECS of CO2 and no one else does. In fact, no one knows the exact ECS of CO2
Yu are confused about water vapor.
Water vapor accounts for about 60% to 70% of the total greenhouse effect, including clouds
But the greenhouse effect can not be increased directly by adding water vapor to the atmosphere.
The percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by the average temperature of the atmosphere.
That means water vapor is a feedback to any cause of atmospheric warming or cooling.
“Bigfoot isn’t real”.
Oops, that is junk science. You are a Bigfoot denier.
Quote:”There IS strong evidence the greenhouse effect increased since the 1970s.”
Nope. there is not. Zero, zippity zilch. Please provide that evidence.
Quote:”That does not have to be from CO2, but it is very unlikely that the +50% increase of CO2, estimated since 1850, had NO effect at all on the climate”
Untenable claim. Figures are not substantiated, let alone then claim itself/ New claim: CO2 is merely plat food. No effect on climate.
Your turn.
Quote:” The effect of CO2 is well documented in lab spectroscopy experiments”
Again wildly unrelated speculation. Spectrum is irrelevant for energy transfer and thus temperature. What university is teaching this nonsense?
You’re talking about the null hypothesis. *Hypothesis.* The null hypothesis for climate change is ignored by the mainstream climate science. It’s neither been proven or disproven.
It remains the null hypothesis
Most people who know what a null hypothesis is don’t know what a null hypothesis is.
It’s a dull hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is always stated in the negative. This is because you have to be able to prove something is indeed true. Technically speaking, the word “hypothesis” is a Greek word that means “an assumption subject to verification”. The null hypothesis is what we test with statistics.
In the 1980s I was involved with double bind audio component testing that got nationwide attention. The null hypo. word was used frequently. Even though many participants were audio engineers and equipment testers, that null hypo. word confused just about everyone and I vowed to never use it again.
Surely science functions on the principle that there is no ‘Truth’, only a theory which is subject to the next challenge.
You disregard all evidence that CO2 is a climate change variable, while 99.9% of scientists do not.
You are in the uneducated minority.
Your 99.9% have not done the work.
In scientific research, the null hypothesis is the claim that no relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed. The null hypothesis is that any experimentally observed difference is due to chance alone, and an underlying causative relationship does not exist, hence the term “null”.
“Science relies on data to build hypotheses and then seeks more data to test the hypotheses. In analyzing data, it has been most common to have a ‘null hypothesis’ and then perform statistical analysis on the data to either reject or accept the null hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is a prior or a statement that assumes that there is no effect of a particular phenomenon or action that is being tested for in the data. For example, the impact of humans on extreme weather. The null hypothesis can be that humans have no impact on extreme weather in which case, data or models must prove the existence of human impact to reject the null hypothesis.
This often leads to two types of errors in the absence of sufficient data or reliable climate models. A type I error is made when a null hypothesis ends up being rejected despite it being true. A false positive finding is the result in this case.
A type II error occurs when a trivially false hypothesis cannot be rejected; again due to a lack of data or models that are unable to capture the essential processes to accept the null hypothesis.
These errors haunt the climate community now in the context of human impacts on the severe heatwaves, floods, droughts, cyclones, etc.. Because the null hypothesis essentially determines who will bear the burden of proof.
The IPCC has generally operated under the null hypothesis that humans have no impact on extreme events. All efforts are then focused on quantifying human impacts to disprove the null hypothesis. Science and the peer-review system are generally biased towards accepting the null hypothesis in the absence of extensive proof to the contrary even if the null hypothesis is trivially false.
Some have argued that since global warming is now established with a very high confidence and all weather events are forming in a warmer world, the null hypothesis should be flipped. In other words, the null hypothesis should be that all extreme events have an anthropogenic fingerprint. This would put the burden of proof for rejecting the null hypothesis on climate skeptics.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
Climate Change, Type II Errors, and the Precautionary Principle (umd.edu)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional errors or deliberate science fraud)
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables.
Could these 4 separate categories be reduced to a smaller number? Should they be split into a larger number?
I was trying for ten and stalled at nine.
To figure out exactly what manmade greenhouse gases do, you’d have to know what the other nine do.
That seems like an impossible task with the current state of climate science. It seems hard for people to admit there are many variables and possible interactions among them
Also that AGW is more than CO2
Also air pollution
Also UHI
Also land use changes
Also bad measurements, which could account for a portion of the claimed warming since 1850, since no one knows the average temperature in the 1800s, or even in the early 1900s.
“The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional errors or deliberate science fraud)”
Measurement errors or fraud do not affect climate. They affect perception of climate.
The global average temperature, used as a proxy for the climate, is not actually the climate.
It is a statistic that is alleged to represent the climate.
If that statistic is wrong, then manmade observations of the “climate change” are wrong. If that statistic is revised to create more warming, then it becomes “manmade global warming”.
It is possible that a large portion of the warming claimed since 1850 is just from poor data, infilling and adjustments.
If you measure the 1930s in the US and find it was very hot, and later adjust the numbers to cool off the 1930’s, which has been done, you have created some “manmade” US warming.
I think you knew what I meant, but just felt like giving me a hard time, which is okay online.
I am not trying to give you a hard time, I am only asking you to use words for what they mean in a dictionary to call things their own name.
If you find hard to do, it is not my problem.
Climate is climate, warming is warming, and fraud is fraud.
No amount of wrong use of statistics, errors in measurements, errors in interpretation or outright fraud can change climate in literal sense.
They can only produce imaginary “manmade warming” in a figure of speech way.
I disagree mixing of literal and figurative meanings as this impedes clear thinking and ultimately prevents us from reaching correct conclusions.
BTW, deliberate mixing of literal and figurative meanings sometimes is good for humor and works great in poetry and art. But if stick here to rational discussion, we should avoid it.
Define ‘Climate’ please.
30 years or more of averaged weather
If an adjustment is made to historical temperature data, and that adjustment increases the statistical rate of global warming, then there was manmade global warming caused by the data adjustment.
I can not be more literal than that.
You are a nitpicker.
“The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables.”
Known or unknown, 6 and 9 are essentially same. There is no need to define and multiply additional subjects and matters.
“It is also possible, but unlikely, that all the warming since 1975 was caused by manmade causes.”
A lot of unmentioned things affect climate, such as volcanoes, Earth’s magnetic field, Solar system position in Milky Way (cosmic radiation) etc.
However, the main point is that the Earth’s climate has always been changing. Since it has been changing before humans ever evolved and before industrial age, any claim that human contribution to climate change is more than infinitesimal and trivial is extraordinary and requires an extraordinary evidence.
Climate change happening before manmade CO2 emissions does not mean that manmade CO2 emissions are not a new, additional cause of climate change. For CO2 deniers, no evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect, such as CERES data, is ever good enough evidence. It would be easier to teach my cat geometry than to change the minds of CO2 deniers.
I am only claiming CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas ABOVE 400PPM. So weak that here was no global average temperature rise in the past 8 years, even with the largest eight years of CO2 emissions ever. That should prove CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm.
CO2 is such as weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm that I advocate double to quadruple the current CO2 level to optimize C3 plant growth (85% of plants). That would feed more animals and people because CO2 is the staff of life for our planet.
“Climate change happening before manmade CO2 emissions does not mean that manmade CO2 emissions are not a new, additional cause of climate change.”
Climate change happening after manmade CO2 emissions started, the very change we observe at mundane typical rates that happened many times previously, does not call for any additional explanations. Occam’s razor eliminates any need for this until something extraordinary is observed. Occam’s razor is the foundation of science. Introducing needless additional assumptions is anti-science.
“For CO2 deniers, no evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect, such as CERES data, is ever good enough evidence. It would be easier to teach my cat geometry than to change the minds of CO2 deniers.”
There is no basis for call me a CO2 denier. I am a CO2 agnostic, if you wish calling names. 🙂
More seriously, adding CO2 to a perfectly dry and clean of other trace gases atmosphere of N2/O2 may produce those small tenths of a degree increases at the surface per doubling CO2.
In the real Earth atmosphere, with other LWIR gases and particular with water and all of latent heat transfer/mixing, adding CO2 has an infinitesimally small effect that should be equated to zero until it is unmeasurable within measurement uncertainty.
There you go with your petty insults again.
No one denies CO2. Why would you think that?
Denying CO2 as a climate change variable is CO2 denying.
“It would be easier to teach my cat geometry than to change the minds of CO2 deniers.””
Only if you had a clue about either !
Your cat is probably more intelligent.
Did you know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
But just “believe” [spooky music]
May as well say that you can’t change the mind of an “easter bunny” denier.
You would need actual evidence to do that.
I list evidence in my comments
All evidence is ignored
I am character attacked, rather tha refuted
I only have 99.9% of scientists on this planet on my side.
Character attacked by the CO2 deniers.
Never debated
Never refuted
Just a victim of leftist style character attacks made by conservatives !
How can you ever hope to refute CAGW scaremongering with character attacks? You won’t get any attention by denying AGW first.
(6) is unknown DIRECT causes of climate change
(9) is INDIRECT causes of climate change, some unknown.
At least the water vapor positive feedback is known, but here may be other feedbacks that indirectly cause climate change, perhaps more clouds result from more water vapor in the troposphere.
”It is possible, but unlikely, that all the warming since 1975 was caused by natural causes.
It is also possible, but unlikely, that all the warming since 1975 was caused by manmade causes.”
So both natural and manmade warming since 1975 are unlikely are they? I put my money on giant space ants myself… (hang on, is that a natural cause….?)
To be 100% natural climate change, there would have to be NO effect from CO2 emissions, air pollution, UHI, land use changes or historical temperature data adjustments.
To be 100% manmade climate change. all natural causes of climate change, in progress for the past 4.5 billion years, would have to combine for no net effect. Which is almost what the IPCC claims.
Both possibilities seem unlikely to me.
Richard, you might enjoy this thought. Some believe that the affect of CO2 on warming is saturated. Given number of CO2 molecules about 10^21 and photons in the CO2 band of a similar number, how likely is it that the measurements or mathematics are precise enough to limit the onset of saturation to say 400 ppm CO2. Would 350 or 300 ppm also not satisfy the evidence or equations? In fact if saturated now wouldn’t it be likely that it was already mostly saturated at 280 given the less than one order of magnitude change?
“In 2018, he founded the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-science.com)”
What is it with making acronyms that match other well-known acronyms??
I think educated people in all disciplines independently make acronyms that make allusion to well-known historical or literary themes.
e.g. In ancient Roman religion, Ceres was a goddess of agriculture, grain crops, fertility and motherly relationships.
This same group of people have made the NGO acronyms EPA and GAO, maybe more. It’s not by accident, and it’s silly.
The question implies that humans are not natural.
John Kerry isn’t
John “Why the long face?” Kerry
Al “the climate blimp” Gore
Greta “thundering” Thunberg
They are The Three Stooges of Climate Science
With Jumpin’ Joe Bidet as Shemp.
Humans are excess deposits of carbon pollution and water (Greenhouse gas). Abort.
I find that the science of global warming is less interesting now that the primary absorption band of CO2 is saturated and only insignificant future warming from increasing CO2 concentration will come from saturating the secondary CO2 absorption bands.
I would call future expected warming “harmless”
I’m not sure “insignificant” is right when you include the water vapor positive feedback. I think the global warming since the 1940s was insignificant, so maybe we have different definitions of insignificant?
The Climate Howlers need a new boogeyman
“when you include the water vapor positive feedback”
ROFLMAO !
You really are a die-hard AGW fanatic, aren’t you !
AMOST EVERY CLIMATE SCIENTIST
ON THE PLANET BEIEVES THERE IS
A WATER VAPOR POSITIVE FEEDBACK.
It is governed by this law:
Clausius–Clapeyron relation – Wikipedia
You have a lot to learn about climate science.
Your character attack refutes nothing