The world of climate science is in shock following extraordinary findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations designed to help prevent global warming. The fantasy world of Net Zero is of course full of unintended consequences, but it is claimed that the abrupt 80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping in 2020 has accounted for 80% of global warming since the turn of the decade. Although the extra heat is described as “transient”, the warming is extraordinary and is expected to rise during the 2020s at a rate of 0.24°C a decade, 20% higher than the claimed warming trend since 1980.
The news is likely to cause considerable concern among the mainstream climate hoaxers in media, academia and politics. They have had a field day of late by pointing to rises in temperature as evidence for their evidence-free prediction that the climate is in danger of imminent collapse. But the NASA scientists, working out of the Goddard Space Flight Centre, predict a trend of rising temperatures due to the IMO2020 regulations going forward, and state, “the 2023 record warmth is within the ranges of our expected trajectory”.
The science behind the NASA findings, which have been published in Nature, is simple. Fewer fuel particles injected into the atmosphere reduce cloud droplet density and this leads to clouds that reflect less solar radiation back into space. As the scientists note: “IMO2020 effectively represents a termination shock for the inadvertent geoengineering experiment through a reverse marine cloud dimming through reducing cloud droplet number concentration.” In the course of their work, the team calculated large particle reductions in major shipping routes in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea and the South China Sea.
The NASA paper is likely to be fiercely contested, not least because it blows holes in all the attribution pseudoscience attempting to blame recent temperature rises and individual weather events on human-induced increases in carbon dioxide. Already the climate activists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact say the observation period is too short, and man-made greenhouse gases continue to play the decisive role in climate change. Much of this thinking, that provides the ’settled’ science base for the planned Net Zero collectivisation, is supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC promotes the view that almost all climate change since around 1900 is caused by the activities of humans. This unproven opinion looks shakier by the day. The NASA scientists have forced the issue of particles, or aerosols, to the centre of the climate debate, although there are other explanations for the recent rise in temperatures. These include a now departing strong El Niño, and possible changes in the upper atmosphere caused by the huge injection of water by the early 2022 Hunga Tonga submarine eruption.
The El Niño effect is well known and strong past oscillations, which involve global transfers of heat from oceans to the atmosphere, have shown short-term temperature spikes. As the current El Niño declines, to be likely replaced in short order by the cooling effects of a La Niña, there are signs that sea temperatures are falling. It will be up to the scientists to fight it out over what has played a more significant role in recent temperature rises – aerosols or El Niño – with some backing for third place Hunga Tonga. Moving further out in the betting – odds lengthening all the time, it seems – is the inventive notion that humans control the overall climate by burning hydrocarbons. What is clear, of course, is that climate is impossible to predict. The recent temperature rise is tiny and well within the natural variation seen across all known and reliable records. When it comes to making political decisions about human society, computer models that claim to replicate and forecast future climate trends need careful examination, while in the hands of powerful people with wrongheaded or even sinister agendas they are potentially dangerous.
The effect of the Hunga Tonga eruption continues to intrigue some scientists, although their curiosity is not reciprocated by the all-in mainstream CO2 promoters. Recently a team of Australian climatologists used the eruption, which increased the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere by up to 10%, as a ‘base case’ for further scientific work. Working out of the University of New South Wales, they reported that volcanoes blasting water vapour – a strong if short-lived ‘greenhouse’ gas – into the high atmosphere, “can have significant inputs on the climate system”. In fact they found that surface temperatures across large regions of the world could increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas could cool by up to 1°C.
Yet more fascinating, conflicting and debatable climate science that under no circumstances should be drawn to the attention of the general public.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry, but what the **** is a “high-powered scientist” ?
One that uses lots of fossil fuels, maybe!
Produces hot air from one end excessive methane from the other 🤡
If I knew how to do AI, I’d have it produce an image of Mickey Mann in a Superman outfit. He’ll be measuring tree rings in live trees with his X-Ray vision, pronouncing that the oceans will soon be boiling- while countless MSM “journalists” are watching him joyously with their frontal lobes turned off.
You’re too late. Scott Mandia donned the primary colour Spandex, boots and cape some years back.
Scientists powered by recreational drugs?
High consumers of beans.
“could increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas could cool by up to 1°C.”
That’s a pretty big barn… even using a scatter gun and blnidfolded. !
I done know what to think of Hunga Tonga. What are the physics of a sudden large spike of w/v at the Hunga Tonga level?
I don’t know why folk don’t think in terms of residence time. AFAICT there are only two ways to affect the energy content of a system in a radiation balance ( Atmosphere- Ocean – Land ) Either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of energy in the system.
Assuming steady state input ( which may not be accurate) then energy residence time is affected by a change in the materials encountered.
The oceans contain earth’s longest residence time from solar input. Solar input residence time into the earth system varies from nano seconds due to albedo refraction, to decades, possibly centuries for some solar input into the oceans up to 800 feet deep.
The oceans contain approximately 1000 times the energy content of the Atmosphere. For instance, in the Southern hemisphere summer the solar input is up to 90 watts per meter greater then the Northern hemisphere summer. That is massive, at least 22 times greater then any possible affect from a CO2 increase of 130 PPM. ( 410 PPM vs 280 PPM pre industrial. )
Yet the Atmosphere cools despite this massive increase in solar radiation as a result of the earth being closer to the Sun. Why? The basic reason is that a large portion of said Southern Hemisphere summer increased insolation, inputs into the oceans below the surface, and SH summer increase falls on far more ocean then the NH summer, and, so that increased input is lost to the Atmosphere for a time. This, plus the increased albedo of the NH ( increased Snow Cover) reduces atmospheric residence time of said input.
Part of the point I am making is that a sudden spike in atmospheric temperature, means very little to the long term energy content of our earth’s temperature.
Does the earth’s total energy content increase or decrease in the Southern Hemisphere summer? No one knows.Yes, the atmospheric T cools, despite a massive increase in input, yet the ocean energy content increases significantly. In order to know if the earth’s total energy ( land atmosphere and oceans) increased or decreased, and for what time period, one would have to know the amount of and residence time of increased solar insolation into the oceans during the SH summer. In order to know how much the oceans heat content increased, one would have to know the residence time of disparate solar W/L into the ocean. and the changes, not just in TSI, but the spectral solar changes which vary more than the TSI.
( We don’t know this)
So, atmospheric increases or decreases mean little long term, as our oceans are the greatest reservoir of solar insolation energy. ( 1000 times greater) The Atmosphere is less than .1 percent of earth’s energy content!
Thus traditionally the El Nino – LA Nina flux of energy from the oceans has the most rapid increase or decrease of atmospheric temperature. And the atmospheric flux means very little relative to earth’s ( Land – Ocean – atmospheric) energy content. In general earth’s total energy residence time is far longer for the oceans, far shorter for the Atmosphere, and in-between for the land.As such, determining if the earth is gaining or losing energy by measuring just atmospheric T, is a bit of a fools errand. Yet here we are.
Now we have the Hunga Tonga input into the Atmosphere, and a very large W/V input into an area of the Atmosphere that traditionally has little W/V! The increased residence time affect of any GHG exponentially declines as those GHG increase, due to saturation of said LWIR affected. And so a large increase of W/V into an atmospheric layer that is very dry, will have a larger affect then an increase into an already saturated atmospheric level. Depending on the saturation of those affected bands lower. Additionally this affect is primarily atmospheric only. Also the absorbtion bands of W/V are far broader then CO2.
And so, the increased LWIR affect of Hunga Tonga, along with possible atmospheric circulation jet stream affects, could be cause to a short term (several years) spike in .1 percent of earth’s atmospheric energy content, and yet mean little to nothing long term.
We can realistically eliminate CO2, as that LWIR affect is already saturated and each additional CO2 content increase has LESS affect. I agree we can possibly eliminate El Nino, as we have a good history to evaluate that affect, and this spike does not reflect past atmospheric T response to ocean surface T flux.
So we have an atmospheric only response, which can be dramatic, but possible mean little long term.
I encourage thinking in energy residece time from a continues input. After all, even the proposed warming from GHGs is, in essence, and increase of residence time, as increased albedo is reduced residence time.
What happens to the huge amounts of water and CO2 released by the large jet planes into the upper atmosphere?
And all those SO2 particles and soot particles of the dirty, low-cost fuel burned in jet engines.
All those contrails are highly reflective, because the water of combustion immediately freezes on these particles
After they disperse, they create layer after layer of crappola at 40,000 ft, already for many decades, with very little mixing.
No effect of that at all, NASA?
BTW, more CO2 near the earth surface is a blessing
From
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2
As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, flora CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels are a blessing.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, caused a 15% increase in greening, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, caused a 22% increase in greening
Increased greening produces oxygen by photosynthesis. It forms a filter in the upper atmosphere that absorbs harmful UV radiation, with wavelengths below 240 nm, 2) Increased world fauna, 3) Increased crop yields per acre, 4) Reduced world desert areas
.
Fossil fuel CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt
Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero
To oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
Mauna Loa curve shows an annual variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to: 1) seasonal absorption by photosynthesis, 6CO2 (from the air) + 6H2O (from the ground) + sunlight → C6H12O6 (glucose for flora energy) + 6O2 (to the air), and 2) ongoing decay
We need more biomass (plant more trees) that uses CO2 to produce O2
The Earth needs to have enough CO2 to survive the next Glacial Period when it gets colder and more CO2 can dissolve in the oceans reducing air CO2 levels.
Most land plants need at least 150 ppm of CO2 for photosynthesis and if plants die the animals die with them.
In the last Glacial Period, the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm only 30 ppm above the extinction level.
More CO2 is insurance against extinction in the next Glacial Period that may start at any time, they usually occur about every 10,000 years and it has been about 12,000 since the last one.
The Grand Solar Minimum may just be the trigger.
https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad
You are very optimistic
At 150 ppm, almost all plants will not develop, because they will not synthesize enough glucose to have the energy to live.
It is like putting a newborn or a population on a starvation diet.
The brainwashed Germans did the population starving thing during WW2
In European literature, there rarely is any bragging about the good crops they are having, because they did not.
The conditions were generally not good enough for robust crops, except during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period
Even at 280 ppm at that time, crops were not robust, so the slightest weather adversity, such as a week of drought, or heavily overcast weather for a week or more, or a pathogen, will reduce the quantity and quality of a crop.
Remember, the Irish potato famine?
There were many such famines for hundreds of years
Remember, when the farmers were hungry, Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat cake!”
Most of the rah-rah, high-growth flora data are from greenhouses with CO2 at 1000 – 1200 ppm and plenty of water, and nutrition, and near uniform conditions, 24/7
There is very little experimental data regarding starving various plants, i.e., steadily reducing CO2 and water, and then “shocking” them
Net Zero, or anything below 400 ppm, is a suicide pact, with 10 billion people to feed
The world’s fauna and flora need much more CO2 to increase greening, increase fauna, reduce arid areas, reduce desert areas
OFFSHORE WIND FIASCO OFF THE US NORTHEAST COAST IS GETTING WORSE
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-fiasco-off-the-us-northeast-coast-is-getting-worse
.
By Westwood, for The Telegraph
.
A slow-motion collapse in the offshore wind industry continues to grow as inflation and supply chain challenges force developers to delay or cancel major projects.
In particular, progress towards the Biden administration’s goal of building large amounts of OFFSHORE wind off the northeastern US coast is just about stalled.
“Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2”
Not great to start out with a completely false statement.
420 ppm of CO2 keeps 8 billion people and animals alive, proving that plants do not “require” 1000 ppm of CO2
At the current rise rate of +2.5 ppm of CO2 a year, CO2 rising from 420 ppm to 1000 ppm would require 232 years
“Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.”
Total human CO2 emissions were 4.8 ppm. not 7.06 ppm
Total energy-related emissions were 37.55 Gt / 7.821 Gt/ppm = 4.8 ppm
There are many other human related emissions
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
In reality, the fuel burned in jet engines is not “dirty”, and does not produce much SO2. Jet fuel is obtained from the kerosene fraction of crude oil, which has a lower boiling range and less sulfur than diesel fuel (although it has a higher boiling range and more sulfur than gasoline). Kerosene requires less hydrogen to desulfurize than diesel fuel, since the sulfur is not as tightly bound chemically as in diesel fuel, so that jet fuel is cleaner (from the point of view of SO2 emissions) than diesel fuel.
JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8 are great.
Sure, with about 15000 planes in the air at 40,000 ft, 24/7/365, for decades, the quantities of crappola are enormous
Sitting here on a beautiful, sunny day with many transpacific jet routes overhead, as well as north-south west coast jet routes, and not a contrail in sight. But there may be lots of stuff up there that we can’t see.
Plants
require requirethrive atleast1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhousesMinor correction.
A lot of the fine particle pollution inserted into the stratosphere by commercial airliners gets cleared out after a major volcanic event, along with the volcanic ejecta.
That is why , after the initial warming spike in TLS after Mt P and El Chichon there was a persistent drop to 0.5 degC lower than before the eruption. Sulphate aerosols also break down stratospheric ozone, also cooling TLS and warming the surface.
Clean Air Act plus those two events are what led to the late 20th c. warming. The recent marine fuel regs will ensure it continues. This is not an accident, they need to maintain the narrative.
Airliner turbine engines do not use water injection – what water is released from the engines? Oh, water that was already in the air.
The water in the jet exhaust is the result of the kerosene being burned.
High school chemistry, anyone?
This plus the clean air acts following the cooling after WWII and the rise from the LIA could easily be the cause of our pleasant warming period
No. The cause is GHGs. Removal of aerosols removes an artificial cooling.
Saying doesn’t make it so.
The scientific research says so. All of it.
New scientific research shows that CO2 as the main cause of warming was mistaken.
The Earth was been cooled by particulate matter and sulfur from burning coal and other fossil fuels creating more clouds and reflecting sunlight into space, and as that was decreased the temperature warmed back up.
New research indicates that the decline in smog particles from China’s air cleanups caused the recent extreme heat waves in the Pacific. Scientists are grappling with the fact that reducing such pollution, while essential for public health, is also heating the atmosphere.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
Warming effects of reduced sulfur emissions from shippinghttps://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1428/
Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warminghttps://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
Atmosphere teleconnections from abatement of China aerosol emissions exacerbate Northeast Pacific warm blob eventshttps://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313797121
Your interpretation is mistaken. It only shows that the reversal of pollutions cooling effect is temporary.
It’s not at all clear that reducing emissions benefits health outcomes. Draconian regs have been in place since the early ’70s and since then rates of COPD and asthma have increased significantly– probably due to changes in diagnostic criteria & reporting, but rates of health outcomes are certainly not improving even with cleaner air.
This statement is so ignorant it almost needs no comment but I felt compelled to call it out.
All of it. Really?
All of it. Nor can you cite any research that contradicts the conclusion that mans activities , primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the cause of all warming since 1970.
ZERO evidence.. just blind anti-science AGW-cult conjecture.
Produce the actual scientific evidence…. or show that you have none.
No way I am going to bother. No matter what is presented, you will deny. You are a religious fanatic.
“No way I am going to bother”. That’s because you cannot cite any research that contradicts the conclusion that mans activities , primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the cause of all warming since 1970.
Nor can you produce experimental research to prove CO2 from fossil fuels is the culprit. Not models, not conjecture, not correlation, but actual experimental evidence.
Nor can you produce experimental research to prove CO2 from fossil fuels is the culprit. Not models, not conjecture, not correlation, but actual experimental evidence.
The experiments are conducted regularly in High school science labs across the US. When you are old enough to attend high school, you might ask a science teacher to demonstrate it for you.
Tests in a closed container are meaningless. You need to experiment in the atmosphere to make statements about affecting the atmosphere.
Incorrect. Tests in a closed container demonstrate the greenhouse warming effect of CO2. You might check out a high school science textbook if you don’t understand.
You keep trying to argue using the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. That is a fail.
To speak to the high school experiments you think so highly of:
Your attempt to debunk is laughable nonsense.
If it is laughable, then why don’t you answer the question?
The ONLY reason for a GHE is the “back radiation” that warms the surface beyond what the sun’s insolation does.
If the additional warming of the radiating element from back radiation was not measured, there is no proof of the GHE.
You didn’t ask a question.
The question was implicit.
If the additional warming of the radiating element from back radiation was not measured, there is no proof of the GHE.
Show op the evidence of the radiator warming. CO2 warming is evidence of nothing.
The global warming potential (GWP) of a gas can be measured by how much the gas in the closed container warms when the trapped gas is subjected to IR . Measurement of back radiation is not necessary.
Of course it is. The very definition of GHE requires knowing the value of “back radiation” and how it affects the radiating surface.
From:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/greenhouse-effect
This is from your favorite “scientists with authority”. Note how the GHE’s radiate heat back to the surface raising the temperature of the surface above freezing.
You might explain why your “scientists with authority” never mention how CO2 thermalizes N2 and O2.
Explain how the experiments you mention determine the heating of the radiating surface from back radiation.
Forget “GHE” — it’s already been proven by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. What is measured today is GWP, or Global Warming potential” of a gas. That’s a property of the molecule which can be determined by measurement of the heat generated in a closed container of the gas subjected to IR. And of course the source of heat generated is back radiation. And it’s measured.
In high school experiments? I doubt it.
Sure “back radiation” can be measured.
None of this answers the question I asked you.
Show us resources that have EXPERIMENTAL measurements showing how that “back radiation” warms the surface to a temperature higher than the sun’s insolation does.
How can you be so **** dense? Of course the GHE isn’t PROVEN in High Schools, it’s DEMONSTRATED. it’s MEASURED and PROVEN in scientific laboratories.
And I’m not your research assist. Get off your duff and enroll in a University if you want more details, or better yet get a job in a real lab and learn the ropes — if you can.
LOL! You said this previously.
As I pointed out before.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/greenhouse-effect
If “heat” is radiated back, the Earth’s surface should raise beyond what the sun’s insolation causes. You should be able to find resources that support your assertion.
YOU MADE THE ASSERTION NOT ME. IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORT FOR YOUR ASSERTION.
I continually show you resources I use when I make an assertion. You should learn that is how you make an argument when debating.
Lol! You dumb twit. You posted a scientific explanation of the GHE!.. Maybe physics isn’t your most pressing problem. It’s simply THINKING.
I posted what the GHE THEORY says. I didn’t say I believed it was a PROVEN theory, you did that. I am asking for a resource you have access to that EXPERIMENTLY shows “back radiation” heating the earth’s surface beyond what the sun’s insolation does.
Without that experimental data, you are simply regurgitating a theory you have heard about with nothing to prove it.
I Could care less what you ask me. The GHE has been proven hundreds of times by real scientists in laboratories around the world, beginning with Arrhenius in 1896. Your stubborn IGNORANCE doesn’t give you the right to insist I prove it to you. Find the proofs yourself.
If that is true then you should have no problem locating one that has experimental data showing that “back radiation” warms the surface to a higher temperature than the sun’s insolation.
Your lack of a response simply means there is none.
The GHE is as basic a science phenomenon as “resonance and hybrid bonding” in molecules. Why don’t you show us how the concept is proven in the laboratory?
In other words you can’t find ANY resource that has experimental results proving that “back radiation” heats the Earth’s surface beyond what the sun’s insolation does.
The only conclusion one can draw from that is that the “back radiation” portion of the GHE theory has never been proven.
It’s simply amazing that with the trillions being spent, there is no experimental data that proves the GHE.
Test in a closed container prove what happens in a closed container and nothing else. If you find something interesting you then look for evidence in the real world. You really should learn something about science and engineering before commenting here.
Incorrect. The greenhouse properties of CO2 and other gases are readily measured in a lab — and are. It’s done in labs around the world, and demonstrated in schools. Your ‘closed container’ argument is simply wrong
There is no research that shows any evidence of your conclusion. It’s all BS and computer simulations. Computer simulations are not research.
Incorrect. Verification of the scientific theory — that the accumulation of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is warming the planet — does not depend on computer simulations. The verification depends on DATA taken from the physical world that shows climate change is happening now due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The data can only show a correlation, and not a functional relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Show us the mathematical function that relates CO2 concentration to Global Average Temperature.
You won’t because climate scientists do not want pauses to invalidate any function that is developed.
There is no research other than models to find a functional research by experimental means.
I love it when a random amateur think he’s discovered fundamental errors in 125 years of scientific research. The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is established Science and you’re no Galileo.
I love it when a rank amateur joins a cult of consensus. Show us a study that has EXPERIMENTAL evidence that CO2 back radiation reverses the temperature cooling gradient of the surface and makes the surface hotter than insolation does.
Omg! All scientists AGREE that human activities are the cause of ALL the current warming, and those POOR babies on WUWT are so upset that these scientists are independently arriving at the same basic conclusion! WHO knew?
Did you find some data floating around in the sky that is tied to warm molecules that says it is from CO2? You’re such an idiot.
It’s easy. ALL CO2 in the atmosphere exhibits greenhouse properties, easily verified in a simple lab setup, and CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because unlike water vapor, it doesn’t condense out. The math of rising CO2 (up 50% since 1750) , methane due to nat gas burning and ag (up180%) and N2O (up 20%) , and the measured greenhouse properties of those molecules, yields the warming seen since 1750.
Here is a question for you to answer.
Let’s say that all “back radiation” is absorbed by the surface.
Back radiation IR absorbed by the earth becomes part of the total IR emitted by the surface, which is a function of T^4th power. That total IR emitted from the earth is of course subject to being partially returned to the surface by the GHE.
Show us a resource that has measured a temperature increase at the surface beyond that caused by the sun’s insolation.
Theoretical radiation charts show an instantaneous increase in surface radiation due to back radiation. Where is the experimental confirmation of this? To increase the radiation beyond what insolation does requires an additional temperature increase.
So we have an inventory of every single molecule of those gases and whee they came from? You really need to take some engineering and science classes and learn that outside of the lab, scientists do a lot of guesswork, not real measurements on everything.
Yet you can never produce any of it. Why is that ??
Brain-washed mantra is not scientific evidence.
All of it? False. A lie.
All of it. Nor can you cite any research that contradicts the conclusion that mans activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the cause of all warming since 1970.
HeHeHe…..
Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows. Climate science is now where chemistry was 300 years ago.
That makes absolutely no sense Nick. You used to provide valid arguments, now you just talk smack and sound like an idiot.
Nick is explaining exactly what the paper says. CO2 acts to warm the planet, aerosols act to cool the planet. Some of the warming from CO2 was being offset by the cooling from aerosols (the net warming we observe is the sum of forcings, positive and negative). When the aerosols were removed, their dampening effect on CO2 driven warming was also removed.
It’s fine if folks here want to reject this idea, but that is precisely what the paper is claiming, so it’s a bit peculiar to embrace the paper but reject its primary finding.
Mr. J: Since the warming effect and cooling effect are known to you, why don’t you do the math and show how much more cooling? I’d enjoy one of Mr. Stokes’ charts better, but the b-team can do it too, right?
Mr. Courtney: refer you to the publication that is the subject of this post:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
These not prove that CO2 warming has been decreased or hidden by aerosols. It only proves that insolation was reduced.
Mr. Gorman: Thank you for doing the reading I refused to do. Somehow, I knew the Nature author didn’t do the math either, other than the usual CliSci math of made-up “quantities.”
Jim, it shouldn’t take this much hand-holding for you to recognize that negative forcing will offset positive forcing. That is what is stated in the abstract:
The authors quantify exactly how much forcing was provided by the reduction in aerosols (how much offset was removed):
The remainder of the paper lays out in painstaking detail how the authors arrived at this conclusion, and should serve as your primary point of reference going forward in the discussion.
That doesn’t prove that it “masked” warming by CO2. You also didn’t address the real issue. Increased insolation would cause warming all by itself regardless of the CO2 concentration.
None of the instruments used to measure, pyrgeometers, pyrometers, radiometers, etc. used to monitor weather/climate have such marvellous 1/10th watt/m^2 accuracy…so such a statement is meaningless, like saying you are “estimating” the speed of your car to the nearest 1/100th of a km/hr using your speedometer.
Mr. J: Thanks for the b-team response, we knew you couldn’t do it.
This is an unproven assertion. Your assertion ASSUMES the aerosols offsets CO2 warming. That has not been shown.
What has been shown is that the removal of aerosols allows more insolation to reach and be absorbed by the surface.
Two different things entirely. Your attempt to conflate them has not been shown scientifically.
This is not an unproven assertion, it is the finding of the research paper that is the subject of this post, which apparently none of you has bothered to read.
Mr. J: I don’t need to read it to know 1) Nature mag not credible source; and 2) you can’t do the math.
I still see a problem with their conclusion (which I **have** read). If removing the aerosols “unmasked” past anthropogenic global warming and is responsible for 80% of the temp increase since 2000, then only a maximum of 20% of the warming since 2000 is the actual rate of warming going forward. That isn’t much and certainly would not be catastrophic..
You mean since 2020.
But the authors do not suggest that this decrease in aerosols is responsible for 80% of the warming observed since 2020, they propose that the forcing from the decrease in aerosols is equivalent to 80% of the planetary heat uptake since 2020. They point to this forcing as being part of the explanation for the extraordinary level of warmth experienced in 2023-present.
It is the conclusion reached from information obtained from a model. Not convincing as experimental measurements.
Again, this shows increased insolation. That will cause a temperature rise regardless of what the concentration of CO2 is. It is also a permanent increase and will not follow CO2.
Nick didn’t explain anything. He made two statements with no reference to evidence or the paper.
Unproven.
Mr. Stokes: Huh. And whatever put aerosols in the air DIDN’T put CO2 in the air?? So that the “warming” from the CO2 was somehow overwhelmed by the aerosols?? Can you do the math for us?? Maybe have a chart showing the amount of CO2, and aerosols cancelling out the calculated warming effect?? Your comment indicates that all this is known to you, why not enlighten us?
We can agree that coming out of the LIA temperatures rose and continued to rise well into the 20th century.
We can agree the Industrial Revolution built steadily over the 18th and 19th centuries and burning coal to generate electricity when it became widely available would have caused a build-up of aerosols throughout the atmosphere.
We can agree temperatures dipped post-WWII.
We can agree air pollution was widespread in most of the developed world, which may have caused the dip in temperatures from the LIA recovery.
We can agree the very welcome Clean Air Acts helped to remove pollution in the air.
Is it just possible, just possible, that the removal of the aerosols which, as you said, are an artificial coolant could have allowed the recovery from the LIA to continue, or is your mind so closed that nothing other than CO2 could be the cause of the benign warming we are lucky to be experiencing?
No, it shows that any recent warming attributable to CO2 was negligble to zero. It strengthens the saturated CO2 OLR hypothesis and at todays levels the CO2 sensitivity must be very low.
If this is cause, then the NASA scientists should look at ALL of the SO2 emissions in the world. This should include the reductions in SO2 from the CAA (good one, Redge), global shutdowns of coal units and global increases in SO2 emissions from new power plants in Asia. I don’t know the answer, but limiting the sources to one particular scope limits its value.
This is much bigger than just cleaning air and getting warming. Potash was produced on a large scale in Europe, Russia, and America America and resulted reduction in forest cover, notably in Germany and Sweden. Use for fertilizer was known to the Chinese before the Common Era and in Europe in the Middle Ages. Highest production began just before and into the the industrial revolution, when burning of coal also added to the smoke.
This this is a teaching moment, but past performance of wokey post normal climate science teaches us it won’t be exploited by the consensus. We have inadvertently discovered a few earth-shaking things that should shift things out of alchemic climate science at least partly.
1) We have a plausible cause for the LIA!!
2) clouds are decidedly net negative so we’ve rid yourselves of something on the prayed-for, but wrong list.
3)The 35 year “Ice Age Cometh” cooling period period began with the destruction and war industry smoke, followed by an economic boom, smelters at capacity, smoggy cars multiplying like rabits all dumping uncleaned exhaust into the atmosphere… something far worse than the recent bunker C situation. The globe warming dramatically jumped up in a bigger way with drastic regulation by EPA and other govmnts’ abatement edicts. The clouds cleared and the end of century warming that all the fuss was about, turns out to be … gov regulations as the cause.
4) GISS and then HadCRUT and then Best massively jiggered the T° data, pushing the 30s to early 40s T° highstand down over 1°C and reduced the big cooling that followed. Before Hansen’s handiwork the 1998 super El Niño had not set a new record! This was changed by Hansen in 2007 on the eve of his retirement.
5) If we correct the T° climate back with what we’ve just learned from this excellently designed cloud experiment, we will have a modest warming above the late 1930s of less than half a degree! Probably the dust bowl era, with drought, airborne dust and much bigger fires was even cooled from what it might have been!
“The NASA paper is likely to be fiercely contested, not least because it blows holes in all the attribution pseudoscience attempting to blame recent temperature rises and individual weather events on human-induced increases in carbon dioxide.”
That is a heavy spin. What they say, quite clearly, is that the warming is due to anthropogenic GHGs. What they also say is that this had been masked by marine aerosols, which have now been reduced.
They say:
“Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols.”
The whole of the AGW scam is “heavy spin”
You must be really, really dizzy by now.
Yes. They say humans reduced the masking, you are correct. Ergo humans caused the temperature rise.
I doubt you meant to be correct, but by George, you did it!
“Ergo humans caused the temperature rise.”
I doubt you meant to be correct.
Only warming humans cause is in urban areas.
I’m sure you meant to be an idiot.
No it it isn’t, what Chris Morrison posted is perfectly accurate.
For heavy spin see the WMO: ‘Climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023 …
… The state of the climate in 2023 gave ominous new significance to the phrase “off the charts”‘ or UN Secretary-General Guterres: “Sirens are blaring across all major indicators… Some records aren’t just chart-topping, they’re chart-busting” or WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo: “The WMO community is sounding the Red Alert to the world”‘.
It is perfectly clear that the 2023 jump in the global average temperature due to a combination of natural factors is being shamelessly exploited to intensify absurd climate alarmism that is totally unwarranted.
By an El Niño, rated strong, which receive extra energy from a volcanic area north of New Guinea (where Biden’s uncle was eaten by cannibals?), followed by a major eruption (Hunga Tonga) in the same area.
Both caused increased water vapor, which increased weather events, and increases of atmosphere temperatures during 2023.
A 0.3 C increase causes retained energy to increase by about 4000 EJ
Total human energy consumption was about 610 EJ in 2022.
Nothing that “Lord” Monckton ever says is correct. A classics and journalism major, he should stay in his lane.
Prove it by showing your analysis of his math.
I don’t waste my time trying to correct a deluded classics major who thinks he’s a Lord and Galileo
LOL. You keep using an argumentative fallacy – Ipse Dixit – because I said so. Look it up.
You can’t win a debate or argument by simply saying “You are wrong because I say so”!
You lose.
Monckton is a clown. He claimed to be a Lord, but the house of Lords wrote a letter denying his claim. He also wrote nonsense articles and published worthless YouTube videos claiming to debunk the work of thousands of PhD Scientists, and failed completely. And worse than that, he distorted the data, and lied about its meaning. He;s untrustworthy as well as a failure.
You poor ineffectual wastrel !
You have zero to offer in the way of science, maths, or…… anything.
Yet his scientific acumen is several magnitudes more than a mindless beetroot like you.
He would run rings around you in every science subject on the planet
LOL! – Unlike – ‘We are heading for a mass extinction!‘ or ‘We have entered the era of global boiling’ Or countless other fear mongering rubbish and catastrophic predictions spewed out by the human hating climate change loonies for decades.
Cue, Stokes panic……
I went to the psychologist for my climate anxiety, she told me to build a windmill and a solar panel in my backyard.
I also went to my psychologist for my climate anxiety, he told me to stop being an arse and enjoy the weather
Water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas.
That is not what it says. It says there will be an increased forcing due to increased insolation reaching the surface.
That is not the same as masking CO2 warming. The increased insolation would raise temperatures regardless of the concentration of CO2.
“ increased insolation”
But it isn’t increased insolation. It is just removal of an anthropogenic reflectiveness.
As the authors say, emission of aerosols is a kind of geoengineering. The cooling will last as long as the supply of aerosols is maintained. But the shipping would probably have reduced the emission anyway with more modern engines.
Would these aerosols also mask natural warming, or do they interrogate each packet of energy and only mask those which are the result of Man”s activities? This research only makes a complicated issue more complicated, which we all knew to begin with.
Reduced sulfur in ship bunker fuel has lowered cloud cover, hence caused warming, since 2020. Effect was delayed by pandemic related reduction in shipping.
Clouds used to follow ship tracks. S created cloud condensation nuclei.
The sad thing is that the media will simply ignore this and move to the next weather related highlight put in context w ‘climate change’. The ignorant public will still be unaware and doubts surpressed. But i still hope that at some point a pivot towards realism will happen. We are too far off atm. Unsettled times makes people hanging on to certainty even if that certainty might be false. They want to feel comfortable and trust the majority, or ‘settled’ science..
I had a skim-read of the paper, and took a look at the credentials of the authors. I cannot judge the detail, but it looks pretty legit to me. Whether or not it is right is another matter. But the authors seem to have extensive experience in different areas of science, notably in the effects of pollution reductions. They are generalists, not “climate scientists.” That is very encouraging.
On another tack, I noticed that major reductions in SO2 emissions have already been made over the decades. In the UK, for example, ultra-low-sulphur diesel came in back in 2000, triggering a major drop in SO2. One of the reasons for reducing SO2 is that, when you look at the facts (rather than the hype) about major air pollution episodes of the past, they have always required both particulate matter (PM) and sulphates to be present. Yet the WHO, and those that follow it (including the UK government) continue to maintain that “all PM is equal” in toxicity, thus grossly exaggerating the reality of any air pollution problems today.
It seems to me that this paper has the potential not only to blow away the attribution of recent warming to CO2 emissions, but also to spark interest in assessing the effects of past SO2 reductions (beyond shipping) on the climate. So, in the best of all possible worlds, it could have the potential to blow away both the “climate change” and “air pollution” issues together! We can, therefore, expect it to be affected by a very strong degree of political resistance from the enemies of humanity. I hope the authors will be strong enough to deal with that.
It should be sent to Trump, so he can use it as ammunition to make the EPA disappear, and clip the wings, redefine the mission, of NASA
Trump doesn’t read.
Except for mein kampf which he quotes occasionally.
Trump said the other day he would do away with the Department of Education, allowing States to do the educating.
He also didn’t have much good to say about the Interior Department, although he didn’t say he would do away with it.
So, the EPA could be on Trump’s list.
I would have thought that Trump saying he would do away with the Education Department would spark a furious backlash from the radical Democrats. I haven’t heard a peep out of them on this subject yet.
Probably because Trump has a track record of lying and never doing what he says he will.
Good point. He didn’t get the New York City skating rink fixed.
“Donald J. Trump refurbished the Central Park -skating rink two and a half months ahead of his own speedy six-month schedule and $750,000 below his own projected $3 million budget, having taken over the project after the city spent six years and $12 million unsuccessfully trying to get the job done.”
He didn’t do this did he Warren?
Well local skating rink management appears to be his strength. Leading the nation, avoiding prison, following the Constitution and the Rule of Law not so much
In those regards he’s done infinitely better than Biden, and he wasn’t declared unfit to be prosecuted, like Biden.
Did he pay back his so-called “fraudulent” loans?
As President, did he:
Lower taxes,
reduce regulation,
increase median income,
reduce illegal immigration,
keep inflation low,
decrease unemployment in minority communities,
increase minority median income,
make NATO countries pay more of their share,
negotiate the Abraham Accords that Biden killed?
You know he accomplished these things, why do you deny them?
Admitted he knew the coming pandemic would be deadly, but refused to do anything to prepare and actively undercut public health measures; the deepest economic recession since 2008; abandoned the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Syrians; separated 1000s of migrant children from their parents with no method of locating them later; attacked minorities, referred to dead American war heroes as “suckers and losers”. Horrendous leadership
No contest. Biden was far, far worse. More died of covid under democratic rule than Republican, a result of decisions starting at the top. Public health measures initiated by the democrats did great, unnecessary harm to the country. Migrant children problem has been exacerbated by biden’s open border policies. Unrest in the ME resulting in the killing of hundreds and thousands of women, children, and aged because of biden’s funding of iran. Afghanistan lost because of biden’s ego. The country and the world are now far worse because of democratic policies.
“The country and the world are now far worse because of democratic policies.”
That’s right. That’s what happens when delusional Democrats get political control. They screw things up every time, and they are doing it again now, although Biden and his puppettmasters have taken destructive actions to a new level since Biden took office.
Joe Biden is the worst president evah! Everything he does harms the United States.
Wow.. all the out of context lies of the far-left MSM..
Trump was block by the far-left swamp at every stage.
He wanted to close the airports… blocked
He wanted the use of Ivermectin and other medicines that helped enormously in other regions.. blocked
If only he had woken up to Fauci’s treason against humanity earlier.
lol! Ivermectin! Parasite medicine for HORSES! Never worked on COVID. You’re living your fantasy. Keep enjoying it.
for HORSES!
You still believe that bs? You might want to do a little research – it’s not only for horses.
You replied to the wrong person, Tony G. You meant to reply to bnice2000. FYI, see my reply to bnice2000. She (or HE) is a piece of work.
I quoted who I was replying to, Warren. I notice that you are unwilling to correct your statement. Why am I not surprised?
Sorry. I see now that you are repeating the same conspiracy theory about Ivermectin as bnice2000.
Exactly what “conspiracy theory” am I repeating? The fact that Ivermectin is approved for human use? What is false about that? Please be specific.
Or are you claiming that Ivermectin is NOT approved for human use, but only for veterinary use?
You are engaging in a misleading lie. Ivermectin is approved for treatment of malaria in humans. But as you well know, it’s not approved for treatment of COVID.
Your use of strawman arguments proves nothing.
Off label examples:
Should doctors be prevented for doing all these and others?
First, you now agreed you lied and that Ivermectin is NOT approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID!
Second, the FDA does not APPROVE off label uses of drugs, by definition!!
caught you again.
“First, you now agreed you lied and that Ivermectin is NOT approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID!”
Please point me to anywhere in this thread where anyone made that claim. I’ve read it over a few times and I appear to be missing it.
the FDA does not APPROVE off label uses of drugs
Again, please point me to anywhere that anyone made that claim.
Are you a straw farmer? Because you have an awful lot of strawmen.
I never said it was approved for use in COVID.
Neither are the ones I listed. You didn’t answer my question. GOTCHA!
Should doctors be prevented for doing all these and others?
Warren,
First of all, thank you for admitting that Ivermectin is approved for human use. You left that out of your initial statement calling it “horse dewormer” that I was responding to.
Second, if you are going to accuse me of lying, please be specific as to exactly what that lie was. QUOTE the false statement that I made. Or apologize for calling me a liar.
(I’m not expecting you to do either. Prove me wrong)
Do you or do you not admit that Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA as a treatment for COVID in humans? Yes or No. And a refusal to answer is a YES.
(I’m not expecting you to do either. Prove me wrong)
And a refusal to answer is a YES.
I notice that you didn’t actually address my second point (i.e. YOU refused to answer).
Please show me WHERE I MADE THAT CLAIM or apologize for calling me a liar.
It’s obviously pointless to continue a conversation with someone so devoid of basic critical thinking skills, but thank you for proving to the rest of the readers how incapable you are of applying basic logic.
You just answered YES, you admitted that Ivermectin is NOT APPROVED by the FDA for treatment of COVID in humans.
lol
But, and it’s a big but, it is not DISAPPROVED either! Therefore, under existing law, doctors may prescribe it as they see fit. FDA approval is not needed.
Your whole argument is moot., as usual.
You lost the argument long ago. But apparently you don’t realize it. So here to help you in your state of ignorance — from the FDA website:
Also note that the FDA has worked to remove some unsafe drugs from the market — but does not “disapprove” drugs.
You didn’t answer the question. Why are you dodging it.
But, and it’s a big but, it is not DISAPPROVED either! Therefore, under existing law, doctors may prescribe it as they see fit. FDA approval is not needed.
Do you think doctors should be forced to stop off label prescribing? You obviously do for ivermectin. How about all the other uses?
Therefore, under existing law, doctors may prescribe it as they see fit.
I think the funniest part of this exchange is how WB managed to totally undermine his own point. NOBODY claimed that the FDA had “authorized Ivermectin for COVID” or even brought that up until he mentioned it, after crying about it being horse dewormer. Then he goes and posts something that basically says that doctors can prescribe it for off-label uses.
Well that’s the dumbest comment from you yet. ANY drug can be used off label if a physician is incompetent enough to prescribe something that’s been proven not to work. Eg, horse dewormer.
The valid statements from the FDA are far from the initial claims of Ivermectin being “horse wormer”. That is but one of the veterinary uses of a very useful chemical.
btw,
is a generic cya statement.
It’s a generically correct statement.
Give or take a bit. It’s also a cya.
So is “don’t use medication prescribed for another person”.
As an aside, the wikipedia summary seems quite reasonable.
The FDA “horse wormer” thing seems quite inappropriate, unless people were overdosing by using large animal versions and unscaled dosages. Horses and cattle are an order of magnitude heavier than humans.
Let me add this: You have steadfastly avoiding answering any of my questions, so why should I bother answering yours?
You just did.
Really? Do you remember the furor from Democrats about blocking flight from countries like China.? Who managed the expedited development and start of production of a vaccine?
Really? I don’t suppose the pandemic had anything to do with it. Plus, it is just now coming out about how badly our fine science bureaucracy screwed up masking, distancing, closing schools, closing businesses, etc.
I’m glad you are a war hawk just like other Democrats. Let’s keep overseas wars going so Democratic donors can make more money from the Defense Department.
Obama created the cages where migrant children were held, not Trump.
Those are misinformation. Why would I expect anything else from you.
COVID infections came to the US from Europe, not China.
The pandemic was indeed the cause of the recession –due to Trump’s horrendous lack of attention to public health mitigation and his active undercutting of public health officials.
I believe in a robust defense of US interests in the world, Trump is a chicken –who avoided the draft with a phony letter from a phony Doc (remember ‘bone spurs?) — and will let Putin invade our Allies.
Trumps own chief of staff, John Kelley, whose son died in Afghanistan, verified Trump’s horrendous statements about dead American war heroes . Trump is an immoral narcissist and a pos.
All leftwing propaganda/lies.
The Left can’t tell the truth about Trump. The Trump the Left sees, doesn’t exist.
It is the Department of Education in the UK, also, that sets the curriculum and dictates what should be taught about climate change. The exam boards then set the exams based on that curriculum. Teachers may have their own views about climate change, may even discuss it with some pupils, but if the pupil does not give the ‘correct’ answers in the all important end of school exams they threaten their future life chances and the teachers are well aware of this.
There are correct answers to history, math and science. Denial of Climate Change is not one of them.
Bring back Sooty!
Right that does it. I am going to break out my old diesel gen set and fire it up. We need more SOX and NOX pumped into the atmosphere if we are to ‘save the world’. Thank you NASA, I will also now feel even more smug (Jeremy Clarkson face) when I drive around in my diesel SUV. I knew I was saving the planet but couldn’t quite put my finger on how.
NB Where do I buy that traditional bunker fuel to squeeze into the tank?
Bunker fuel needs to be continuously heated, otherwise it would be thick like molasses
Don’t forget the reduction of sulfur dioxides caused by the mandated low-sulfur diesel fuel for trucks and cars.
Right. It would be much better to keep polluting so we wouldn’t have to replace dirty fossil fuels with clean energy. Life would be soooo good!
….
Do you know how solar panels are manufactured, mainly in China?
Has nothing to do with the topic of aerosols and GHGs
It has everything to do with your supposed “clean energy”
Wind and solar are far more environmentally polluting than coal, gas, oil will ever be.
They are not “clean” energy by any measure whatsoever.
It’s the lack of volcanic eruptions letting us down. When Tambora erupted in 1815 it led to the dark summer of 1816 in England which Jane Austen commented upon. We just don’t know how lucky we are.
Baloney
A one time 30% decrease in SO2 emissions in 2020, mainly by the shipping industry, would have caused some warming, mainly in the NH, from 2019 to 2020, where most SO2 emissions are located.
The decline of SO2 emissions in 2020 did not explain the warming after 2020
SO2 had been declining since 1980. That should cause warming every year if SO2 was a climate control knob. But there were flat trends (pauses) in those years and there was warming from 1975 to 1980 as SO2 was rising, which should have caused cooling.
A comparison of CO2 and SO2 shows why CO2 is more important for AGW:
Manmade CO2 annual emissions
37 million gigatons
Lifetime in atmosphere 300 years
(IPCC claims 300 to 1000 years)
Manmade SO2 annual emissions
69 gigatons
Lifetime in atmosphere 10 days
“Lifetime in atmosphere 300 years”
Wrong again.. falling, as you so often do, for IPCC AGW-cult propaganda mantra.
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere – ScienceDirect
Many others agree that residence time is a maximum of 10-12 years
Table – PMC (nih.gov)
Residence time is not lifetime for CO2 and SO2
With respect to greenhouse gases, residence time refers to how long on average a particular molecule remains in the atmosphere. For most gases other than methane and carbon dioxide, the residence time is approximately equal to the atmospheric lifetime.
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they are simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries
The annual carbon cycle removes CO2 from the atmosphere. There is absorption and emissions. You just look at the emissions, and ignore the larger absorption, because you are a nitwit.
I always give you an opportunity to learn climate science, but you prefer tossing insults and remaining deaf, dumb and blind. Mainly dumb.
RG fails to take any notice of actual science.. yet again
Went with the AGW-zealot mantra as usual.
No surprise there.
Baloney
Mr. 2000: All posters on the site should be on high alert- Mr. Greene read something, so we’re all wrong. Again.
Probably so.
Mr. Beeton: Just want to confirm that you consider yourself in Mr. Greene’s corner.
I accept the Peer Reviewed Scientific Research — all of which confirms AGW.
Wrong again, but at least you’re consistent.
You are wrong. Because you have not nor cannot cite any research that contradicts the conclusion that man’s activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the cause of all warming since 1970.
This is a strawman argument. How do you prove something that isn’t happening!
Research is not evidence especially when the research only has incorrect models and correlation to rely on.
Climate change is happening. And the overwhelming evidence for it is the basis for the science, not models, which are merely the output of the science.
Show us the research that has experimental evidence that incontrovertibly proves that anthropogenic CO2 has caused all warming. Correlation just doesn’t count!
I’m not your research assistant. So get off your duff and read summaries of the research and evidence in reports by the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the Royal Society (UK) or the US National Academy of Sciences.
Nor am I yours. You are the one making the assertions. In debate, it is your responsibility to present the information that support your position.
Have you never had any debate classes in high school or college?
I’m not your research assistant. So get off your duff
Translation: I don’t actually have any evidence to provide so I’m going to deflect and put the onus on you.
You neglected particulate matter which has also been reduced and blocks the Sun’s rays.
Unlike global SO2 emissions that have declined significantly since 1980, global particulate matter kept rising until about 2011. and has not fallen as much since then, compared with the decline of SO2 emissions since 1980.
Baloney.
Baloney.
Slow global warming
by increasing air pollution!
Nut Zero is for losers
Already the climate activists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact say the observation period is too short, and man-made greenhouse gases continue to play the decisive role in climate change.
Well you do have to contextualise and cherry pick these highly technical matters with the dooming-
“Australia didn’t have a particularly interesting summer this year, but in Africa it’s just day after day after day of climate change just beating down on that continent.”
As 12 months of record heat stack up, scientists unpack the impacts around the globe (msn.com)
Africa doesn’t look all that much warmer than Australia this summer, according to UAH charts.
November possibly, but then Australia was maybe warmer in January.
Given the parlous state of UK, Australia and US surface stations…
… one can only wonder at the state of surface sites in Africa.. if any actually exist.
It’ll likely be more than offset by new SOx emissions from Indian coal plants with no emissions controls.
What is funny is how the warmists tout NASA as a group of “experts” that should be trusted without any doubt. Funny how some of their scientists are now hypocrite know-nothing pseudoscientists and without any evidence that this study is wrong!
What’s your evidence that this study is wrong?
They’ll probably just claim that global warming would’ve been even higher before were it not for maritime emissions.
It’s a claim.. and a fact
….
No, little monkey. It is an excuse….
They know they have no evidence that CO2 causes warming..
So had to invent some other cause for natural warming that does not have any human causation.
Particulate emissions like smog also block the Sun and induce cloud formation and most countries have been reducing them for decades as well.
New research indicates that the decline in smog particles from China’s air cleanups caused the recent extreme heat waves in the Pacific. Scientists are grappling with the fact that reducing such pollution, while essential for public health, is also heating the atmosphere.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
Interesting morning read. The ban on leaded gasoline back in the 70’s had a big
effect on air quality. I remember the smog in Denver during the winter back in
the ’60’s and in LA the 1st time I visited. Just a heavy dense nasty cloud..
I now wonder what might be the impact of wildfire smoke
compared to the emissions from older cargo freighters. Back in the late ’70’s wood
stoves came into use in the N Rockies from the oil price hike
and the smog from that led to a ban on the
“air tight” units and the newer units having catalytic devices. Some towns made
regulations to prohibit wood burners during winter inversion in the valley’s.
The smoke from wood stoves is nothing compared to the smoke from wildfires
from my experience. The smoke from the those is awful, eyes burning, no sense
of smell for weeks or months on end.
There’s a planned burn of 40K acres in my area, I haven’t seen anything from
the enviros on that project as of yet…
The news is likely to cause considerable concern among the mainstream climate hoaxers in media, academia and politics.
I doubt it because it’s time to fire sale the ski gear according to the tree rings or tea leaves or something-
An increasingly snow-less ski season is in Australia’s future (msn.com)
Interesting that NASA is now attributing some warming since 2020 to an 80% reduction in SO2 emissions from international shipping.
Reducing SO2 emissions is inherently good for the environment. During the 1970’s, people started worrying that SO2 in the air could react with rain water to produce sulfurous acid (H2SO3), which was then called “acid rain”, which could adversely affect tree growth rates.
There was a concerted effort in the USA during the 1970’s to reduce SO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, and later from diesel engines in trucks and freight locomotives (by removing sulfur from the fuel), which spread to Europe in the 1980’s. Coincidentally, a period of declining temperatures from 1944 through 1974 reversed in 1974, and global average temperatures have been increasing since 1974. While “correlation is not causation”, there could be a relationship between a reduction in SO2 emissions and warming temperatures.
Container ships at sea usually use “bunker fuel”, which is heavier, has a higher boiling range, and contains more sulfur than “ultra-low-sulfur diesel” used in trucks and freight trains on land. If there has been an international effort to reduce the sulfur content of bunker fuel since 2020, this could increase the amount of sunlight reaching the ocean surface.
Although the net-zero advocates sometimes complain that increasing CO2 in the air would cause “acidification” of the oceans (rendering them slightly less alkaline), sulfurous acid is a much stronger acid than carbonic acid (H2CO3) produced by reaction of CO2 with water, so that reduction of SO2 emissions over the oceans would have a greater effect on maintaining the pH balance of the oceans than reducing CO2 emissions.
Even if it can be demonstrated that lowering SO2 emissions result in warming temperatures, we should not be fooled into deliberately emitting more SO2 in order to “prevent global warming”. Sulfur dioxide is toxic to human and animal life, while CO2 is normally exhaled by humans and animals, and is essential to plants. In a pristine environment without use of fossil fuels, SO2 is not normally present in the air, except in the event of a volcanic eruption.
Chopping down trees to build solar farms also adversely affects tree growth rates.
The point is, zeroing in on one thing and declaring victory is bogus and dangerous.
The atmosphere, ocean, land, and space interactions are highly complex and relatively not well understood.
SO2, for example in minute ppm is not dangerous to life.
Acid Rain was a hype.
Eliminating lead and asbestos and smog are all proven good things.
What is lacking in the climate debates is balance. All there is are absolute claims and attempts to silence the opposing perspective.
We really do not know enough to make any kind of determination what the long term effects and short term goals should be and policies pursued to date have been entirely devoid of analysis of alternatives and short/long term consequences.
I recall bunkers being as much as 4% sulfur. There would inject a neutralizing lube into the combustion chamber to scavenge the acid
How can the study period of 1980 onwards be too short if the event they are studying (80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping) was in 2020.
Every modern environmental disaster is the result of a government policy.
In the 1970s the scare was an impending mini ice age. In 1970, the US passed the Clean Air Act and as smog and other pollution was reduced, the chilling subsided ultimately replaced with a mild, comfortable warming.
Apparently lessons learned are not. Those that forget or choose to ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Acid Rain scare. Ozone Hole scare. The list goes on and on and on.
Recently we were told that the Tonga volcano was responsible for all the warming since its eruption and will continue until who knows when. Now it’s the reduction of sun blocking aerosols as the cause of warming which will continue through the 2020’s.
Add it all up and we should be well on the way to the next ice age. Personally I think it only proves the experts really don’t know what is going on.