Climate Change Is Normal and Natural, and Can’t Be Controlled

by Frits Byron Soepyan

NASA claimed that “Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate” and “human activity is the principal cause.” Others proposed spending trillions of dollars to control the climate. But are we humans responsible for climate change? And what can we do about it?

“The climate of planet Earth has never stopped changing since the Earth’s genesis, sometimes relatively rapidly, sometimes very slowly, but always surely,” says Patrick Moore in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. “Hoping for a ‘perfect stable climate’ is as futile as hoping the weather will be the same and pleasant, every day of the year, forever.”

In other words, climate change is normal and natural, and you can forget about controlling it.

For instance, a major influence of weather and climate are solar cycles driven by the Sun’s magnetic field over periods of eight to 14 years. They release varying amounts of energy and produce dark sunspots on the Sun’s surface. The effects of solar cycles on Earth vary, with some regions warming more than 1°C and others cooling.

Climatic changes occur as a result of variations in the interaction of solar energy with Earth’s ozone layer, which influences ozone levels and stratospheric temperatures. These, in turn, affect the speed of west-to-east wind flows and the stability of the polar vortex. Whether the polar vortex remains stable and close to the Arctic or dips southward determines whether winters in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are severe or mild.

In addition to solar cycles, there are three Milankovitch cycles that range in length from 26,000 to 100,000 years. They include the eccentricity, or shape, of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun. Small fluctuations in the orbit’s shape influence the length of seasons. For example, when the orbit is more like an oval than a circle, Northern Hemisphere summers are longer than winters and springs are longer than autumns.

The Milankovitch cycles also involve obliquity, or the angle that Earth’s axis is tilted. The tilt is why there are seasons, and the greater the Earth’s tilt, the more extreme the seasons. Larger tilt angles can cause the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during summer and less during winter.

Finally, the rotating Earth, like a toy top, wobbles slightly on its axis. Known as precession, this third Milankovitch cycle causes seasonal contrasts to be more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other.

Moving from outer space to Earth, ocean and wind currents also affect the climate.

For instance, during normal conditions in the Pacific Ocean, trade winds blow from east to west along the Equator, pushing warm surface waters from South America towards Asia. During El Niño, the trade winds weaken and the warm water reverses direction, moving eastward to the American West Coast. Other times, during La Niña, the trade winds become stronger than usual, and more warm water is blown towards Asia. In the United States and Canada, these phenomena cause some regions to become warmer, colder, wetter, or drier than usual.

In addition to El Niño and La Niña, there is also the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is driven by low air pressure in the North Atlantic Ocean, near Greenland and Iceland (known as the sub-polar low or Icelandic low), and high air pressure in the central North Atlantic Ocean (known as the subtropical high or Azores High). The relative strength of these regions of low and high atmospheric pressures affects the climate in the Eastern United States and Canada and in Europe, affecting both temperatures and precipitation.

Similarly, Hadley cells are the reason Earth has equatorial rainforests that are bounded by deserts to the north and south. Because the Sun warms Earth the most at the Equator, air on either side of the Equator is cooler and denser. As a result, cool air blows towards the Equator as the warm, less dense equatorial air rises and cools, releasing moisture as rain and creating lush vegetation. The rising, drier air reaches the stratosphere blowing north and south to settle in regions made arid by lack of atmospheric moisture.

These and other phenomena influencing our climate are well beyond the control of humans.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Markets on March 30, 2024.

CO2 Coalition Research and Science Associate Frits Byron Soepyan has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Tulsa and has worked as a process systems engineer and a researcher in energy-related projects.

4.9 41 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
April 21, 2024 6:10 pm

Very nice Frits.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob
April 21, 2024 9:48 pm

Most definitely!
If Climate is an average of 30 years worth of weather data then before Mann can begin to control the climate, Mann must first, by extension, control the weather…which he can’t

Tom Halla
April 21, 2024 6:12 pm

And anyway, warming is beneficial. The Little Ice Age was an era of famine, plague, and war.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 21, 2024 9:51 pm

I don’t think Canadians much enjoyed the last deep glaciation either.
For that matter all the way down to New York had a nice cozy ice sheet… Kewl

Robertvd
Reply to  Bryan A
April 21, 2024 10:16 pm

Don’t forget Greta’s home!

1saveenergy
Reply to  Robertvd
April 22, 2024 3:19 am

Didn’t know she’d been away !!

Robertvd
Reply to  1saveenergy
April 22, 2024 4:07 am

She is always away protesting having a carbon footprint bigger than most girls of her age. At least that is a positive effect for plants on this planet.

Reply to  Robertvd
April 22, 2024 1:15 pm

Plus all the carbon dioxide that spews from her mouth. I swear it creates such a translucent miasma you can hardly see her. You can see carbon dioxide, don’t you know.

Reply to  1saveenergy
April 25, 2024 7:33 am

Even when she’s present, she’s “away”.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Bryan A
April 22, 2024 4:44 am

Hockey players and ice skaters loved the ice. Everyone else moved to Florida.

Someone
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 11:50 am

These days even hockey players like Florida. Two pretty good NHL teams there. I bet they also add to carbon footprint, as the whole sports and entertainment industry.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Someone
April 22, 2024 12:20 pm

They should ban hockey pucks and just have fights on ice like a roller derby, or a demolition derby.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 1:16 pm

I thought they already did. I was watching a fight on TV and a hockey game broke out.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 6:52 pm

That woulda put Don Rickles out of work

Mason
Reply to  Bryan A
April 22, 2024 11:53 am

My home in Kansas was at the leading edge of the glaciers before they pulled back.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2024 4:34 pm

I don;t think the citizens of Dubai are very happy about a ‘little warming’

Tom Halla
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 5:19 pm

Most of the minor warming was at high latitudes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2024 6:53 pm

And at night and in winter
And

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 23, 2024 6:56 am

The issue is not the local warming., Its the GLOBAL warming and the effect on weather patterns around the world. Including Dubai’s extraordinary floods.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 7:46 am

“The issue is not the local warming., Its the GLOBAL warming and the effect on weather patterns around the world. Including Dubai’s extraordinary floods.”

So, where else on Earth were there extraordinary floods of the same type that Dubai experienced during the same less-than-a-week-long period . . . I mean, given that you assert the cause of such floods to be due to GLOBAL warming?

And need I recite the total square kilometers of Earth’s surface that are currently deserts and receive less than 25 cm (less that 10 inches) of rainfall per year?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 25, 2024 8:58 am

21 scientists and researchers, under the World Weather Attribution initiative, found that climate change was making extreme rainfall events in two countries — which typically fall during El Niño years — between 10 and 40% more intense than they would have been without global warming.
Over a period of less than 24 hours between April 14 and 15, the United Arab Emirates experienced its heaviest rainfall since records began 75 years ago. Dubai — a desert city accustomed to going months with no precipitation at all — experienced the equivalent of more than a year and a half’s worth of rain in that time, the analysis said.
They concluded global warming was the “most likely” driver of the record rainfall, because the atmosphere in a 1.2-degree warmer world can now hold 8.4% more moisture, which is making extreme rain events more intense. Changing circulation patterns driven by global warming are also increasing rainfall intensity, the analysis noted.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 12:50 pm

You would be advised to do some research into the WWA.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:49 pm

Oh? Do you think it’s another conspiracy? Perhaps Martians were involved?🤣

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 1:16 am

Not warming-related but the MJO forming a high moisture airflow from south to north from Yemen to UAE. The real reason, not climate change or cloud seeding bunkum. Oh, and add the massive amount of energy released by all that concrete known as Dubai, ruled by the most awful 2-faced regime in the Middle East if not the World.

Reply to  angryscotonfragglerock
April 23, 2024 6:57 am

Yes it is warming related — which has created the extreme weather patterns around the world, including Dubai’s flooding.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 12:53 pm

Dubai’s flooding…. debunked multiple times.
It rained. It was severe weather.

April 21, 2024 6:27 pm

“…are we humans responsible for climate change?

And what can we do about it?”

________________________________________________________________

A loaded question if ever there was one. It assumes something needs to be done, and also looks like Frits Byron Soepyan buys into the nonsense.

And what SHOULD we do about it? How ’bout nothing?

Maybe English isn’t Frits’ first language, but words have meaning.

Maybe I should read the rest of the post as I stopped reading at that point.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Steve Case
April 21, 2024 6:48 pm

 That appears to be a throw-away line attributable to NASA, not Frits.

His view is expressed 5 lines lower:
In other words, climate change is normal and natural, and you can forget about controlling it.

Reply to  John Hultquist
April 21, 2024 7:22 pm

Thanks for the reply, and I did read/skim through the article. Not much new information, but good to see a new voice willing to stick their neck out on a public forum.

I’m old enough to remember filling out job applications that asked, “Are now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?” I’m too old to be applying for jobs, but I wonder if some application forms ask about your contributions to tackling climate change.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 22, 2024 5:06 am

I bet that question doesn’t show up in forms often but in the interview- it will. And, I bet your social media posts will be reviewed prior to any interview and if you show any objection to “the emergency” in those posts, you surely won’t be interviewed.

Robertvd
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 22, 2024 8:04 am

Are most questions not about to find out if you are Woke enough? And if you are you must be a believer too.

Reply to  Robertvd
April 22, 2024 12:30 pm

I suppose if someone wants a job bad enough- they could fake being super woke. That would be soooo easy. 🙂 It’s all so simple minded.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2024 12:56 pm

I should have read all the follow-on comments before posting my grain of sand comment. Apologies. You are being reasonable.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 21, 2024 6:52 pm

He could been asking it in a rhetorical way??

But there is no evidence caused the slight and highly beneficial warming, except for localised urban/airport temperatures…

… and all of the idiotic Nut-Zero actions will have no effect on CO2 emissions, and will have no effect on the climate….

… the whole thing is just bizarrely stupid unless the sole aim is to degenerate western society.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 21, 2024 7:29 pm

There are lots of juicy quotes from left-wingers that say that’s exactly their goal.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 21, 2024 7:45 pm

Basically everything the leftists do seems to be aimed at degenerating western society…

…life-style, economically,, intelligence, and most importantly… morally.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2024 12:55 pm

You should.

Claiming CO2 is totally the cause of everything bad is like saying 1 hot grain of sand makes the beach at Miami too hot to walk on.

Chris Hanley
April 21, 2024 6:32 pm

Nice summary that of course doesn’t mention ‘the elephant in the room’.

Likewise whatever effect on the global climate that the increasing concentration of CO2 due to human emissions has is also largely beyond human control because fossil fuels are irreplaceable for the foreseeable future.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 21, 2024 6:56 pm

Your ‘elephant in the room’ seems more like a moth to me. The ‘summary’ describes climatic variations that have been actually observed, some for centuries and longer. CO2’s effect on climate is merely a conjecture, with little historical evidence. In fact, thermometer records show times when CO2 went up, and temperatures went down, and vise versa. An elephant, it is not.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tom Johnson
April 21, 2024 11:00 pm

You misunderstand my use of the metaphoric idiom ‘the elephant in the room’, I’m not referring to the effect or not of greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide on the climate but that the issue that is obviously the basis for so much scientific and political controversy division and angst has been completely ignored.

Reply to  Tom Johnson
April 23, 2024 5:59 am

CO2 is and has been a major driver of climate for as long as earth had an atmosphere

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 9:50 am

You made the claim, now prove it. What evidence is there that CO2 drives the Earth’s climate?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 12:58 pm

Even when the atmosphere was pure methane?

Love absolutes. Like being at a turkey shoot.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:47 pm

3.5 Billion years ago? Methane would have been the driver then. (both Methane and CO2 are greenhouse gases.)

April 21, 2024 6:47 pm

Good article… except…….

No-one has yet been able to provide scientific evidence of humans affecting the GLOBAL climate.

Lots of theories, conjectures, models and data manufacturing…. none of these are evidence.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 22, 2024 3:46 am

German, UK folks, and all other CO2-reduction/phobia fanatics have wasted many $trillions on hare-brained wind/solar/battery/EV/Heat Pump, etc., schemes
.
They have impoverished tens of millions of people in the process, because they are spreading THE TRUE FAITH, based on their science, to save the world
.
The elites have made oodles of $billions in the process, FOR DECADES.
You will NEVER hear of a halt for building private planes and yachts!!
.
Excerpts from:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption

Retained Energy in Atmosphere

Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = (1.006T) + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
About 16.1 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 6.3 kJ/kg by WV
.
2) Tropics, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air 
About 27.2 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 43.3 kJ/kg by WV
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat 
.
Worldwide, determine enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29 = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x
241 kJ/kg CO2) 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.
.
Retained energy, world: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air) x 1000j/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
.
Retained energy, Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1,448 x 10^4 EJ. 
.
The Tropics is a giant energy storage area, almost all of it by evaporating water.
CO2 plays a 100 x (0.155/70.655) = 0.219% role.  
About 35% of the Tropics energy is transferred, 24/7/365, to latitudes north and south of the 37 parallels, which do not get enough incoming solar energy.
Humans consumed 604/365 = 1.65 EJ/d, in 2022 

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
April 25, 2024 12:59 pm

We have our impacts and those have effects on the climate. But those effects are noise in the natural variations.

April 21, 2024 6:55 pm

I agree. Nothing happening now is out of the ordinary. Many who say otherwise base their claims from the IPCC; they claim radiative forcing of natural variations went negative while anthropogenic went positive. That’s conjecture arising from models claiming to possess the capability to model Earth in an unperturbed state.

Reply to  walter.h893
April 22, 2024 12:14 am

 “…the IPCC; they claim radiative forcing of natural variations went negative while anthropogenic went positive.”

________________________________________________________________

Excellent point, I’m adding it to the file

Stephen Wilde
April 21, 2024 7:00 pm

Where did he get the idea from that the solar effect is due to effects on ozone quantities in the stratosphere altering the shape of the jet stream tracks?
I’ve been promulgating that proposal here and elsewhere for the past 17 years but as far as I know it has not been accepted by the climate establishment.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 22, 2024 9:07 am

It is contrary to the initial conclusion decades ago the evil CO2 is the cause of all.
You are correct in your hypothesis.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 22, 2024 9:21 am

Astute of you Stephen, Ozone is in the middle of the IR atmospheric window and affects “back radiation” at city street level. CliScis aren’t real good at getting around to calculating it, having found reason to justify their paychecks and get university tenure by lip-flapping about CO2 and methane…

Edward Katz
April 21, 2024 7:12 pm

This is what the majority of the world’s population believes regardless of all the alarmism and doomsday scenarios that tax revenue-hungry governments and clean environment product peddlers feed them. People witness a fluctuating climate year-to-year and just as they adjust to the changing seasons, they see no urgency in being forced to make major and costly lifestyle changes to combat a non-emergency. This is the reason that fossil fuel use keeps rising and annual climate conferences like COP are consistent failures.

April 21, 2024 7:35 pm

story tip

In the last glacial period, the CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm and they had been dropping in the previous glacial periods.

At the atmospheric CO2 level of 150 ppm, photosynthesis stops and most land plants die and the land animals die with them.

The interglacial periods, like the present, usually last around 10,000 years. This interglacial period has lasted around 12,000 years so another glacial period may happen at any time.

The Grand Solar Minimum, which the Sun has just entered, may trigger another glacial period. Temperatures are forecast to drop by ! degree Celsius when the reduction in solar output is combined with the increase in high-level clouds from an increase in cosmic rays due to the Sun’s reduced magnetic field.
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

The Earth’s atmosphere needs all the CO2 it can get, a degree or two of warming is much, much, much better than extinction.

https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad

Richard Greene
Reply to  scvblwxq
April 22, 2024 4:59 am

Plants do not die at 180ppm CO2 and they did not die the last time at 180ppm CO2

C3 plant growth is under 10% of normal at 150ppm

C4 plant growth will continue down to 10ppm CO2

C4 plants include corn, sugarcane and grasses, and are about 20% of Earth’s vegetation

Interglacials are expected to last 10,000 to 20.000 years

There is no such thing as a grand soar minimum. No connection between sunspot counts and the global average temperature using satellite measurements of both

Every prediction of long term trends of the climate in history has bee wrong. Please don’t add your own prediction. We already have fa rtoo many climate predictions

Your conclusion about more CO2 is right so it doesn’t matter how yoi got there

Robertvd
Reply to  scvblwxq
April 22, 2024 8:17 am

And the higher up the mountain less CO2 you’ll find so plant life will start struggling sooner at higher elevations I suppose.

April 21, 2024 7:52 pm

Instead of trying to control the whole climate they should start small and work their way up.

Warming up the winters, outside of the Tropics, would be a much better first step and it would save millions of lives each year and trillions of dollars.

This study says that around 4.6 million people die each year from cooler weather compared to around 500,000 that die each from warmer weather. Where temperature is concerned, cold weather is the big killer of humans.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’ 
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

This study from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. When it is cool our blood vessels constrict to preserve heat raising our blood pressure and that causes more strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months.’Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

April 21, 2024 8:35 pm

NASA claimed that “Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate” …

Frank Lansner went through the Vostok ice core interglacials and measured the rate of each period of temperature increase. Lots of precedent.

comment image

Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 21, 2024 10:01 pm

Looks like it is pretty close to the mean…. doesn’t it ! 🙂

Reply to  bnice2000
April 22, 2024 4:42 pm

Plot the data for 1970-2024.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 5:33 pm

You want to plot the Vostok Core data through ’24?

(that sounds like a job for Mann … splice away)

Reply to  DonM
April 23, 2024 5:58 am

the rate of warming from 1970 to 2024 is the fastest in tens of thousands of years.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 9:02 am

You cant get any (reasonable) data out of the firn … you can’t ‘plot it’.

dumbass.

Reply to  DonM
April 23, 2024 9:06 am

All scientific research shows the rate of global warming is 0.18C per decade — the fastest in tens of thousands of years.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 9:59 am

You need to check your weather history. It has warmed at the current rate several times in the recent past.

PhilJones-The-Trend-Repeats
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:26 am

Well Duh. Those periods are part of industrial age warming Im referring to as the fastest rate in millennia

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:23 am

You don’t have a clue, Warren.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 11:49 pm

talking utter BS as per usual!

It was up to 2C warmer in the MWP as well as 1st century AD
CO2 levels (0.04% of atmo inventory) have always, and always will FOLLOW global temps not CAUSE them.

On top of this, using Dendrochronology we have specialists now with large data bases (eg. Topham) who have dating and precise tree ring data going back to around 1350.

His methodology was able to ascertain whether a 1700s STRAD was genuine or not, by being able to ID 2 violins made from the same tree.

What is abundantly clear, even from the construction of a Chateaux like Chambord. It was significantly warmer than today in the 1400-1500s no sh..t!

After roughly 100yrs Chambord was unliveable because being impossible to heat.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228788074_Spatial_reconstruction_of_summer_temperatures_in_Central_Europe_for_the_last_500_years_using_annually_resolved_proxy_records_Problems_and_opportunities?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ

You can clearly see the peak of alpine tree ring growth which corresponds with Chambord construction, and provided wood to the Amati family.
Francois 1 stayed there just 42 days out of 32 years.

comment image

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225398553_Violins_and_climate

This paper explores the possibility of using ring-width measurements derived from string instruments as a potential source of palaeoclimate information. From a data-base of 1800 measured series, we have identified two sub-sets that compare well with living high elevation spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) chronologies from the Bavarian Forest and Austrian Alps. The problems of using historical tree-ring data for dendroclimatic purposes are addressed and by combining the living and historic ring-width data from these two regions, a preliminary proxy of past June/July mean temperatures is developed. This proxy summer temperature record shows striking similarities with a tree-ring based temperature reconstruction for the Central Eastern Alps, the CLIMHIST June/July temperature record from Switzerland and glacial records from the Austrian Alps. This explorative study demonstrates that ring-width series from string instruments may allow the identification of generalised source regions of wood used for instrument making and, most importantly, provide a new unique source for palaeoclimate information at a variety of both temporal and spatial scales for high elevations in central Europe.

Characteristics-of-the-BACC-Chronology-a-Nonstandardised-BACC-b-Standardised-BACC
Reply to  pigs_in_space
April 26, 2024 4:07 am

Chambord? You’re comparing localities or regions, some of which may have been hotter in the MWP. But the most up to date scientific studies conclude the world was overall cooler than today.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Warren Beeton
May 2, 2024 8:43 am

Unsupportable claim, since there is no global temperature.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 2, 2024 9:16 am

Your absurd claim is as supportable as the assertion that Man never landed on the moon. But of course you may believe that, too.

Editor
Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 22, 2024 12:12 am

Nice chart. If Greenland ice cores cover the Younger Dryas, I’d really like to see someone do the same for Greenland.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 22, 2024 5:15 am

Baloney chart

The temperature rise after 1975, which was at least partially manmade, would be among the faster warming rates compared with the approximate ice core proxies.

Manmade CO2 did not cause 1910 to 1940 warming

Manmade SO2 contributed to 1940 to 1975 cooling

Including the years up to 1975 confuses the subject and that’s why this chart is baloney.

I also believe the ice core data are more useful as a proxy for CO2 data than for a proxy for global average temperature

Proxies are local

Both the Arctic and Antarctica TODAY are far from having the global average temperature. The Arctic is warming faster than average and Antarctica is not warming at all. They seem to be the worst possible locations for a GAT proxy.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 2:15 pm

baloney and BS comment from RG

Since 1970.. massive urbanisation affecting land temperature fabrications

Atmospheric.. no evidence of human causation for the El Nino related step changes.

Apart from the 2016 El Nino, there has been no warming this century over the Arctic.

Try to get at least something correct !!!

Reply to  bnice2000
April 22, 2024 5:37 pm

He deleted the girly pics from his ‘science’ website … he got that correct.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 23, 2024 6:31 am

Utterly wrong. The Arctic is warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2, irrespective of El Nino

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:06 am

There’s no evidence for that.

Just saying it is so doesn’t necessarily make it so.

That’s one of the problems with alarmist climate science: All they do is make one unsubstantiated assertion after another, like this one.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:24 am

The evidence is overwhelming. Try the IPCc 6th Assessment. Or reports by the NAS. Or NOAA.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:27 am

“The evidence is overwhelming”

You keep saying that, but never provide an example. I would suggest that the reason you don’t provide an example is because you do not have an example to provide. You could prove me wrong by providing an example but I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to do so.

Speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about Earth’s climate and CO2, is all you have, Warren. None of that is evidence of anything.

Robertvd
April 21, 2024 10:22 pm

Earth’s declining magnetic field giving less protection from incoming solar energy and deeper penetration of that energy in the oceans = warmer oceans = warmer climate =

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Robertvd
April 25, 2024 1:05 pm

Possible.

Jan. 24 (I hope I got the day right) earth was at it’s closest to the sun in the current orbit and estimates reports an increase of 7% solar irradiance do to being 3 M miles closer.

I have seen no data indicating a declining earth magnetic field. It could be happening, just no verification.

Keitho
Editor
April 21, 2024 10:43 pm

Those alarmist chaps always start the warming measurements, such as they are, from the very depths of the Little Ice Age so exaggerating any temperature increase. Furthermore they claim that any inclement weather is caused by human generated CO2 but they never tell us where the, often, clement weather comes from.

Rod Evans
April 21, 2024 11:54 pm

One of the most puzzling features/question of the modern day climate scare movement, is how did they persuade people, a cold climate is better than a warm one?
All of history has shown warm times are better for all concerned, than cold times.
We have an average lower troposphere i.e. the habitable bit of the atmosphere below ten thousand metres of around 15 deg. C.
If we had that average up at 17 deg. C fewer people would die from hypothermia and cold places would become habitable once again. Taking a summer holiday in Greenland was quite popular back in Viking times …apparently.
How do the Alarmists hold onto and promote the belief that cold is preferable to warm?
There is a reason the majority of the Northern hemisphere is unpopulated. Most of Canada, Russia, Scandinavia and Mongolia are uninhabitable because it is too darn cold to live there, most of the time.

Reply to  Rod Evans
April 22, 2024 12:30 am

“[H]ow did they persuade people, a cold climate is better than a warm one?”
____________________________________________________________

Another excellent point.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 22, 2024 8:54 am

It seems like the major persuader is “sea level rise” and the vision of millions flooded in Bangladesh, and South seas islands inundated…But actually is only about 250 mm per century, and coastal cities generally already have sea walls much higher anyway, not to mention the life of salt air cement buildings is only a couple of hundred years at best…so what we have today can be rebuilt on higher ground over the next couple of centuries at essentially zero incremental cost…but the hope that Exxon will compensate building owners or cities seems alive and well….

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 25, 2024 1:07 pm

The majority of islands, as measure by NASA, show increase in land surface area.

How does a rising ocean cause that?

Someone
Reply to  Rod Evans
April 22, 2024 11:31 am

A lot of people live at the land/ ocean boundary. One of the biggest scares is the accelerated sea rise that would flood a lot of cities and low plains.Coincidence. They had little choice. When it began warming, they had to go with warming.They have not figured out how to create something similar to carbon tax around cold climate scare.They have not necessarily persuaded thinking individuals, but those a rare and endangered species. Masses accept dogmas out of complacency.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Someone
April 25, 2024 1:08 pm

And of course they want to scare people into believing it will all happen overnight, no warning, no prep time, no time for adaption.

Sean Galbally
April 22, 2024 1:42 am

NET ZERO FOLLY

As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it.  In the Ordovician ice age atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. We have no control over the climate. The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, Net Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will do nothing to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.

Reply to  Sean Galbally
April 22, 2024 4:41 pm

Actually no self respecting scientist believes what you posted — because it’s dead wrong and contracted by all scientific research.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:08 am

He asserts.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:09 pm

“All scientific research”

The B.S. clarion is sounding at high decibel levels.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:43 pm

So far I haven’t seen any citation of any science from you that contradicts the universal conclusion of all scientific research on climate change regarding its cause.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 26, 2024 12:20 am

Apart from the fact Co2 levels have been FAR higher in the past, *(eg our local Jura region limestone cliffs) and that causation of increasing CO2 levels over the past century is warming not the reverse.

I get tired of reading your constant loud mouthed BS and claims.

FACT
The oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface, leaving just 29% over.

The total land surface area of Earth is about
57k square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous.
57% is largely unuseable which leaves less than 15% total useable of which most is in the NH where CO2 levels change with the seasons.

So you want us all to believe this utter Bollox?
-human sources of CO2 maybe 3-5% of global total, (termites produce more!) from 15% of global area can somehow make a tiny trace gas 0.04% of inventory make the “oceans boil”!

Reply to  pigs_in_space
April 26, 2024 4:02 am

Yes, CO2 levels were far higher in the past. And the sun was much weaker, And the climate was much hotter due to those higher CO2 levels, in spite of the weaker sun.
The rest of your post, is as you say, utter Bollocks (not Bollox)

Ron Long
April 22, 2024 3:11 am

Climate Change? Don’t forget Plate Tectonics. The wandering continental plates block or modify ocean currents and induce profound climate changes. Additionally, if there is not a continental mass in a generally polar region you can’t stack up enough glacial ice to affect sea level, and changing sea level changes climate. The reality is that geologists feel dizzy from their awareness of the ground moving under them, and not from the beer they drink.

Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 4:40 am

Another dingbat AGW denier

Mentions M Cycles which have no effect on climate in a 50 to 100 year period

Confuses weather events with climate

A total waste of bandwidth here.

The mantra of AGW Deniers:
There’s no evidence of AGW because we completely ignore all evidence of AGW.

Leftists used the same smarmy strategy for 2020 election fraud:
‘We refuse to investigate the “fair” 2020 election … so there will be no chance of discovering election fraud.’

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 8:26 am

Some advice Richard –

your rants about “AGW deniers” would have more recognition and perhaps agreement if you stopped mindlessly repeating this moronic language that alarmists hijacked.

Instead, you should craft your own terminology to differentiate those who accept (as I do) that land clearing and urban development have influenced many climates but CO2 has not made the ambient temperatures increase, and those who maintain that no human activities at all have affected climates.

You’re welcome.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mr.
April 22, 2024 12:31 pm

There are readers here who deny all manmade causes of global warming = AGW deniers

You self-identified as a CO2 Denier

Contradicted by almost 100% of climate scientists, including the skeptics, but you don’t care. You think you know better.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 1:50 pm

Contradicted by almost 100% of climate scientists

If you buy that mate, you’re as gullible as Greta.

Something for you and your “100% of climate scientists” to answer –

if we have observed weather events and climate conditions in the past when CO2 levels were “acceptable”, and we observe the same weather events and climate conditions in rural regions when total CO2 has increased some 40% all over, how can CO2 be assigned as the climate changer?

But change the surface make-up of localities by replacing flora and water with asphalt, concrete, glass, heaters, etc and it’s a no-brainer that that locality is gonna get warmer.

CO2 has got bugger all to do with it.

Reply to  Mr.
April 22, 2024 4:39 pm

Richard is correct. There is no research that disputes that man-caused emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of the fastest warming of the planet in millennia.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:21 pm

When you read only that supports your religion, all you do is reinforce your beliefs.

There are tons of research that identify that CO2 is not the primary mover and shaker in climate.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:24 pm

There is no research that contradicts the scientific finding that man-caused emissions of CO2 are the cause of industrial era warming. NONE.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 2:20 pm

Your puerile 100% claim is nonsense for a start…

…and certainly not evidence of anything.

Try again… once you figure out what scientific evidence actually is.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 22, 2024 2:29 pm

Hey. That was the word of the day, yesterday. Puerile. I love it. Childishly silly, trivial. Perfect word for ol’ RG.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 25, 2024 1:20 pm

There are no degrees in climate science offered. Studies in climatology related subjects, yes.

Everyone who claims to be a climate scientist is actually and factually a climatologist or a computer software programmer.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 26, 2024 12:29 am

Apart from Greenland was inhabited by the Vikings with a real growing season about 1000yrs ago.

Britain was so much warmer 2000 years ago they grew wine grapes nr Scotland, and the Romans put up nice villas all over Gloucestershire.

This warm/cold oscillation is entirely natural, and CAUSES CO2 levels to change – as 0.04% of atmo inventory is incapable of heating up anything as has been demonstrated countless times in labs.

The point you always throw at people with common sense, is somehow “the science says” – ie, religious cult crap.

Following on the cult crap comes more crap about it never having been warmer,
?what you mean in the 1930s when the NWP was open, and which encouraged Hitler to invade Russia on the basis a cold winter was totally improbable according to his weather services and the 1930s warm period!

The result for both Napoleon and Hitler were defeats by the weather and starvation.

Another fact,-
unlike your crap assertions.
More German soliers died from cold in the Moscow suburbs that they did from Bullets.

People die from COLD and FAMINE not from warmth.

Reply to  Mr.
April 22, 2024 4:37 pm

Utterly wrong. Man-caused emissions of 40 gigatonnes of CO2 annually are the primary cause of the fastest warming of the planet in millennia.

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 5:25 pm

I hear ya, scooter.

All you need to do now is show your work as to how you arrived this conjecture.

Reply to  Mr.
April 23, 2024 5:14 am

Not my work. It’s the work of thousands of scientists researching and publishing their work in 10s of thousands of scientific papers and summarized by the IpCC, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, and reports from many other scientific institutions. All available to you online. If you care to do your own research.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:16 am

We’ve already done our research and don’t find any evidence that CO2 is doing what climate alarmists claim it is doing.

That’s why you keep getting asked to provide evidence. We are skeptical you have evidence.

Convincing yourself of something may not necessarily qualify as evidence, as people can talk themselves into believing some extraordinary things that don’t really exist in reality.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:19 am

In what peer reviewed scientific journal does your ‘research’ appear? Or University textbook?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:37 am

You don’t have an answer to my criticism that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate, so now you want to change the subject.

How many research papers have you written on the subject?

You know, there are a lot of climate alarmists who have written research papers on CO2 and the Earth’s climate and they are just as dead wrong as you are about it.

Writing research papers does not automatically mean you know what you are talking about. Sometimes, writing research papers exposes your ignorance.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2024 1:17 pm

Maybe we should steer this into the abuse of the peer review system and the overthrow of objectivity in several prominent science journals.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:16 pm

Have you personally read all of those “110s of thousands of scientific papers” or even the summary in the IPCC?

I guess since you can’t quote a thing from any of them you require us to do your work. Sorry. No thank you.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:31 pm

If there is a well-established consensus in the scientific community in the field supported by a body of peer reviewed research, I accept the findings. I am not qualified to judge the work of thousands of PhD specialists in the field, nor are you — unless you happen to also be an expert who has dedicated his career to learning that field of Science. But I suspect you haven’t.

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 6:12 pm

Wazza, I also understand that it is a fundamental tenet of scientific research that –

” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” .

Watcha got?

Reply to  Mr.
April 23, 2024 5:15 am

See my response to “Mr.” who asked the same question

Reply to  Mr.
April 23, 2024 6:54 am

What’s extraordinary is that there are 10s of thousands of research papers that affirm AGW — and none that dispute it.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:18 am

How about providing one of those research papers as proof of your assertions? Just one would suffice, assuming it actually shows evidence of what you claim.

Sometimes people have a difficult time determining what is actually evidence and what is not. I think this is the problem you are having.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:22 am

You can find summaries of the research in the IPCC 6th Assessment. Or in reports by the National Academy of Sciences. Or reports by the Royal Society.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:40 am

I’ve read all that. I didn’t find any proof there. Perhaps you could point out specifics?

Don’t bother. I know you can’t. You are just blowing smoke and expecting people to be convinced by your say-so. You came to the wrong place for that.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2024 4:40 am

Since you reject basic physics, mounds of evidence, the findings of thousands of the worlds top researchers, and the conclusions of every scientific institution in the world, (and likely everything you were taught about science in high school or University), there’s not much anyone can do for you and your colleagues.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:14 pm

Except your absolutes are not absolutes.

And, I know something about the various sciences involved and I can tell you it is not what main stream media is pushing.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:18 pm

All science is about probabilities, not absolutes.
What ‘main stream media pushes’ is irrelevant to the conclusions of scientific research –which universally finds that (paraphrasing) ‘earth is warming, man is the cause, and the net effects are strongly harmful’.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:13 pm

None that dispute it?

You can not prove that.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:21 pm

It’s well known in the scientific community. But of course it’s easy enough if you want to disprove my claim — find just ONE PAPER (out of the 10s of thousands published) that disputes AGW. Except you won’t find even ONE.

Federico Bar
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 5:54 pm

Humans are able to obtain incredibly brilliant results, but the mere idea that we [they] can have the slightest influence on the climate of a planet with a surface of 500 million sq.km (five hundred million, no typing error)?
I heartily agree with the scientist – I regret to have forgotten his name, who has called that: arrogance.
.&

Reply to  Federico Bar
April 23, 2024 6:52 pm

Humans are already influencing the climate — through the burning of fossil fuels which emit 40 billion tonnes of CO2 annually worldwide. Those emissions have caused a nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and a corresponding increase in the greenhouse effect, driving the fastest rise in global temperatures in millennia.
Thats the conclusion of enormous volumes of scientific research conducted over the last 50+ years.
If you believe there’s a different explanation for the indisputable rise in global temperatures since 1900, I suggest you cite the textbook, scientific paper or source that supports your theory. I can assure you there aren’t any such sources, textbooks, or research papers showing a different cause, but you can have a go if you want.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:12 pm

Tons of science and evidence.

You are genuflecting at the alter of the UN One World Order.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:38 pm

So you believe in avoiding science and evidence? That’s quite impressive . (NOT)

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:11 pm

Thank you. You should marry St. Greta.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:41 pm

Sounds like you prefer someone who either lacks an understanding of Science and evidence or doesn’t believe in it. Quite impressive. (NOT)

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 2:17 pm

Poor RS.. his tiny brain-washed mind is stuck in a solid AGW-lukewarmer mode.

And he still can’t present any evidence to back up his claim of CO2 warming

Just a general brain-washed AGW-CULT-NUTTER, who’s comments are a drain on bandwidth.

April 22, 2024 4:48 am

hang about! A few days ago you claimed cloud seeding caused the catastrophic rain in the UAE – do this over the world and you change climate!!

Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 5:45 am

“In other words, climate change is normal and natural, and you can forget about controlling it.”

Climate change is normal

It was natural for 4.5 billion years but manmade causes were added in the past 80 years

Humans can make small changes to the climate by adding a lot of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, or polluting the atmosphere with SO2 and other air pollution.

The warming from more CO2 is beneficial and very gradual.

The cooling from air pollution is harmful but would be much easier to implement than faster CO2 emissions.

The global cooling goal would be urban pollution equal to the large cities in China and India. New slogan: Pollute the air to cool the planet.

The evidence of manmade causes of warming after 1975 is stronger than the evidence of natural causes. The post-1975 warming rate is faster than a typical natural warming rate, especially if it continued for another 48 years.

Unfortunately there are some dimwit readers here who completely ignore all evidence of greenhouse warming and warming from reduced SO2, because their confirmation bias leads to never investigating all the evidence.

AGW deniers will never find evidence to refute their warming is 100% natural delusion, because they will never look for such evidence. They prefer to remain perpetually deaf, dumb and blind.

They are the mirror opposite of the IPCC who treats natural causes of climate change the same way.

Make the middle of the road claim that there are a variety of natural and manmade causes of the post-1975 warming, as I claim, and you get run over by uncompromising traffic on both sides of the road

Us versus Them With No Compromise climate “science” is politics, not science, and participants are like patients in a lunatic asylum.

Climate change is 100% manmade
No, 100% natural –you’re a fool

Climate change is 100% natural
No, 100% manmade — you’re a fool

Repeat endlessly!

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 8:38 am

Ah, the sagacious Mr. Greene, honoring us once again with his erudition on both sides of the issue

Richard Greene
Reply to  slowroll
April 22, 2024 12:36 pm

In your opinion it seems that 100% manmade and 100% natural are the only two sides of the “what caused the warming after 1975” answer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 25, 2024 1:23 pm

We have been programed to only respond in binary.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 9:15 am

IMHO you nailed it.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 22, 2024 12:38 pm

Next week I will present my new theory that global warming was caused by Donald Trump colluding with Russians.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 2:27 pm

And it will be just as much nonsense garbage as the above rant.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 25, 2024 1:25 pm

And I will then prove it is a hoax perpetuated by H. Clinton.
Did you know that in 2008 Trump supported H. Clinton but in 2009 he changed parties due to Obama’s economic policies. H. Clinton never forgave him pulling his support.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 2:26 pm

Just another non-science rant from an open closet AGW apostle. !

because they will never look for such evidence.”

I have asked you many times for evidence of CO2 warming.

You have failed completely at every instance.

There is no evidence of human causation of the El Ninos that provide the only warming in the atmospheric temperatures… period.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 22, 2024 4:36 pm

There is overwhelming evidence. You just aren’t looking

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 5:22 pm

Well, I’m sitting here right now ready and waiting for your presentation of incontestable evidence that man’s 3% or whatever the claimed contribution to atmospheric CO2, is what determines whether the air around us is gradually but infinitesimally warming up.

Nothing else is contributing, just our CO2 from meeting our modern living needs.

Reply to  Mr.
April 23, 2024 5:10 am

The evidence is overwhelming and can be found in reports by Americas premier scientific institution the National Academy of Sciences, the IPcC Assessments, NASA’s Earth Sciences Division reports or in the tens of thousands of scientific papers referenced in these and other reports.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:22 am

Keep telling yourself that.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:27 am

All one has to do is read those reports. If reading is your problem, I can’t help you

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:47 am

I’ve been reading climate alarmist scaremongering since the Human-caused Global Cooling claims of the 1970’s. You?

Some people in the 1970’s sincerely believed the Earth was headed into another Ice Age, but they turned out to be wrong, didn’t they.

Today, some people sincerely believe the Earth is overheating because of CO2.

Sincerity does not necessarily equate with what is actually happening.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2024 1:28 pm

Brother, so have I.

Funny. In 1976 an official (forget his name) with the UN Environmental Agency stated that he did not know if CO2 was the cause (of cooling, which was the suspect at the time) but CO2 was something that could be quantified and taxed.

QUANTIFIED AND TAXED. The rest is history.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:26 pm

How many have you read?

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:32 pm

How many have you read?

April 22, 2024 9:11 am

“Climate Change is normal and can’t be controlled”

You don’t know your definitions. UNFCCC clearly says, as UTube often tells us about videos linked from WUWT

“2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. “

Once you accept this definition, knowing CC has nothing at all to do with natural temperature variations by definition, media influencers can write pretty much any speculative bullshit they “heard” that is “attributable” to the weather..

Someone
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 22, 2024 11:57 am

This is their trick. If you are not aware of their definition, you are with the 97% consensus. Otherwise, you are a climate denier.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 22, 2024 12:40 pm

Why is human activity unnatural?

I ask this question of college graduates often. The only answer available is divine intervention, but when that is pointed out to them they deny that as well.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 25, 2024 1:30 pm

Well that clarifying of the definition is a game changer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 25, 2024 1:33 pm

Except the IPCC ruled out studying natural variation and has claimed since early on that it is all anthropogenic.

In one of the first IPCC reports, the scientists wrote that there was no signature suggesting anthropogenic effects. A high official (I forget his name) from the Obama administration went over and rewrote that to state the signature was clear. A lot of scientists were furious. So the IPCC rewrote the rules. If the summary report contradicted the science reports, the science reports had to be re-written. Fact.

April 22, 2024 4:31 pm

Bottom line.
If Man isn’t causing bad weather (now labeled “Climate Change” with “climate” being redefined as just the last 30 years) then, there is no excuse to control Man via restricting reliable energy (but only in western nations. The rest get a pass.).

April 22, 2024 5:30 pm

The author omitted a major driver of the earths climate ever since the planet had an atmosphere — the greenhouse effect. This omission is a fundamental flaw in his essay.

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 22, 2024 6:43 pm

I was given to believe that the mis-named “greenhouse” was an EFFECT of Earth’s atmospheric composition and fluid dynamics, rather than a “driver” of anything in the coupled non-linear chaotic system” (as the IPCC describes Earth’s climates).

Reply to  Mr.
April 23, 2024 5:06 am

The misnamed greenhouse effect is indeed a phenomenon or effect of the earths atmospheric composition and is a major driver of earths climate.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 23, 2024 10:28 am

There is no evidence that the greenhouse gas, CO2, is a major driver of Earth’s climate.

Asserting this claim until you are blue in the face, won’t make any difference to the reality.

You don’t really have any evidence you can point to specifically, or you would already have provided it, so you are just parroting the alarmist climate change narrative.

That won’t get you very far around here.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2024 10:32 am

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming and can be found in the peer reviewed literature. But I’m sure that won’t carry much weight among the Neanderthals that deny basic physics.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 24, 2024 3:56 am

Your assertions don’t carry any weight. You are not convincing anyone of anything by pointing to peer-reviewed literature.

The Neanderthals around here see all the peer-reviewed literature as it is published, and discusss it, and have found them insufficient to prove the case that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.

My question is: Who are you trying to convince? Us, or yourself?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2024 4:22 am

.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2024 1:49 pm

I think he is just amusing himself by arguing or trying to raise his self-esteem by supposed besting us in a debate.

I am a rocket scientist, not a psychologist, so do not take that opinion as fact.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:48 pm

So the red flag goes up when someone starts using insults rather than data, or links to sources.

Never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. They never know when they have lost.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:47 pm

Wrong. The earth climate system, which include land, the oceans, and the atmosphere is driven by the laws of thermodynamics. Climate is the long term average of weather. Weather is nature attempting to bring differential energies into equilibrium.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 1:56 pm

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect , like any other phenomena, conforms to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Yes, climate is the long term average of weather, and weather is caused by nature trying to bring energy differences within the earths atmosphere into equilibrium
And climate change is driven by the differential in the energy entering earths system from the sun, and energy leaving earth’s system, not by internal energy differences.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 25, 2024 1:39 pm

The planet’s atmosphere does not reside in a glass box. There is no greenhouse effect. That is a misnomer from 19th century scientists (Arrhenius and others) who measured a temperature rise in a box with a glass lid.

They did not know about specific heat not the 2 versions Cv and Cp.

Most of them did not know IR and heat were different forms of energy, something Foote discovered.

Tyndall did not prove CO2 was a misnamed greenhouse gas. He proved the Cv of 100% CO2 was different than air and also humid (1% to 5%, unspecified) air had the same Cv as 100% CO2.

His detector was a thermoelectric pile. A heat sensor. He used steam as the energy source. The Wine displacement peak at 100 C is nowhere near the 14.9 um absorption band of CO2.

Although Calendar did his thing, he started at 1850. As a point in fact, the recorded temperature in 1830 was the same as in 1960. https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2history.htm

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 25, 2024 3:29 pm

The analogy implied by the term ‘Greenhouse’ is of course not accurate. But the phenomenon is real, and was discovered by Tyndale, confirmed by Eunice Foote, among others. Arrhenius quantified the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1896, not too different than today’s more refined estimates.
The average temperature of the earth was not accurately known in 1830.
The average temperature of the earth started rising about 1900, and after 1970, achieved a rate of rise of 0.18C per decade, the fastest in millennia.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
April 26, 2024 12:44 am

There is NO SUCH THING as “average temperature of the earth”.
WTF! didn’t you study science in school?

You can’t take a chaotic seasonal system
-50C at one pole and -20C at the other with equatorial temps reaching monsoon conditions/water vapour saturation and even measure decimal places of a degree using temperature records which are inaccurate using different measurement methods over 150 years….what?

-To make an average at what altitude (?)without heat islands and wtf knows else which didn’t exist 150yrs ago??

You are showing yourself here to be an ignorant childlike lunatic who can only attempt to quote hearsay.

Reply to  pigs_in_space
April 26, 2024 3:52 am

Incredibly brilliant! Why I’ve never read or heard such amazing insights before! Have you published your discoveries in Nature or Science, or other scientific journals? They will be astounded to find out there’s no such thing as an ‘’average’, or that thousands of PhD researchers around the world have wasted their lives trying to analyze the climate, only to find out the climate can’t be studied because it’s ‘chaotic’!
It’s not often that we run across someone with such a complex understanding of Science and Math. Congratulations!

JC
April 23, 2024 12:59 pm

Geez, I thought us humans were at the center of all causation. We think therefore for it is?

Corrigenda
April 24, 2024 8:30 am

At last we have some reason and truth. If the results of an hypothesis do not agree with observation or with experiment (and remember that no models of ANY sort are experiment) then it is wrong.

Terri Buck
April 29, 2024 6:49 pm

OMG Finally! Thanks so very much to the author. This is the definitive approach to the multitude of lies pushed on all western countries regarding the climate change lie.

No amount of taxes will alter global climate. Now if we can help people wake up to reality we can move forward.