By Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter
According to several sources, #ShowYourStripes is a global campaign to spread awareness about climate change using warming stripes graphics. The iconic blue and red barcode will appear on landmarks, TV screens, magazines, and more as the world unites to show their stripes on June 21.
In essence, the world has gone nuts over this simple but misleading graphic. You can buy all sorts of merchandise to proclaim your stripe faith. For example:
This visual campaign was created by Professor Ed Hawkins to “start conversations about our warming world and the risks of climate change.” He’s done so, but like many climate alarmists, he’s only showing a tiny subset of earth’s temperature history.
Here is Hawkin’s stripes for the surface temperature record since 1850.
Looks ominous, right? Well that’s EXACTLY what they want you to think. This isn’t climate science, this is visual propaganda for armchair climatologists aka climate activists.
Two can play at that game. Now, let’s have a look at some stripes we created on a much longer time scale.
Lest you think we are doing something that is not “climate narrative approved” I’ll point you to these examples that have been done at Columbia University, University of California Santa Cruz, and University College, London.
The point of our Cenzoic Stripes is to show that it has been MUCH warmer in the past, and in the near present cool period we actually run the risk of falling into another ice-age. Note that in our Cenzoic Stripes above, we are in a cool period when geologic timescales are used. If we were to plot the few decades of surface temperatures in Ed Hawkins stripes on our Cenzoic Stripes at the far right, it would be so small a blip as to be invisible in the graphic. Ed’s stripes campaign suggest and support the conceit that humans can be in control of Earth’s temperature, if only we’d do something.
And here is the same Cenzoic stripes with Oxygen 18 benthic isotope data plotted on it that comes from Hansen et al., 2008. Note all of the Earth events that have been labeled.
Feel free to distribute these liberally, pun intended.
H/T Mumbles McGuirck
Speed matters, even I know that. Climate change over thousands or millions of years is not a problem. Over decades, it’s a different story.
A .1 degree C decadal trend is not “climate change.” It is: well within the bounds of NATURAL VARIATION.
There is little evidence that the observed change is within the bounds of natural variability, certainly not during the preindustrial common era:
“the bounds of natural variability”
Try defining that term. Seems your idea of it is ultra conservative. 🙂
Try thinking of it in a more liberal way. 🙂
Puns intended.
Sure, it refers to the range of natural temperature fluctuations that can occur due to natural factors (forced or unforced). Janice claims that the observed 20th century warming trend is well within the bounds of typically observed natural variability. I show unequivocally that the modern warming is actually outside of the range of natural variability observed across the preindustrial common era.
You showed (as in actually presented validated data-based graphics) nothing of the sort.
I show unequivocally that the modern warming is actually outside of the range of natural variability observed across the preindustrial common era…
Don’t think you have shown that. But that is not the fundamental question here. The fundamental question is what policies convinced activists advocate. And here is the problem. No-one outside the English speaking countries and Germany believes it. None of them are doing any energy transition.
But leave that aside too. If the activists want to reduce emissions even just in the West, what are they proposing?
Their proposals seem to be confined to advocacy of moving electricity generation to wind and solar, and electrifying transport and heating with EVs and heat pumps.
But the problem is, electricity generation does no more than about one third of emissions in these countries, but even getting that to net zero, useless as that will be in a global eontext, and little as that will do to get a country to net zero, is pretty much impossible and unaffordable.
See Gordon Hughes latest on why its not going to happen:
https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/labours-energy-promises-vision-and
And see the BP or now Energy Institute Review for why even if it did it would make no real difference if the US, UK etc succeeded:
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
We shall find out in the next five or ten years as the UK, US etc try to go down this disastrous route. By 2030 it will all be over one way or the other. But the key driver is not going to be whether or not there is a hockey stick in the climate data.
Its going to be whether modern industrial societies can work on wind and solar. The English speaking world, or most of it, is undertaking a sort of giant pilot project on this. Despite all the available evidence so far being that it cannot be done.
Hockey stick or not, it makes no difference, because if there is a hockey stick and a crisis coming, it will come whether they succeed or not.
This is a classic case of ineffective measures which are impossible of achievement being proposed to solve an imaginary problem on which even their achievement would have no effect. We just have to be patient, another 7-10 years and it will all be over. It will either be hotter or not, and either way, the West will either have given up on net zero or we will all be a lot colder and a lot poorer.
Meanwhile, stop worrying about hockey sticks. They are pretty much irrelevant to the real problems we are landing ourselves in.
“By 2030 it will all be over one way or the other.” – I am afraid you are wrong. The goal posts are very much movable. Not unlike “ice free”
The fact that you dislike proposed solutions to the problem of climate change means you need to propose solutions you think are better, it does not mean we don’t need to solve the problem of climate change. Unless, of course, you reject the science showing that anthropogenic climate change is real and a threat, but then we are back to arguing about the hockey sticks you are so keen to avoid discussing.
Its not that I dislike them, its that they are worse than useless. They are no better than asking the population of the US, UK etc to stand on their heads every morning.
First because they don’t work. Second because no-one else believes there is a problem and so they will not join to bring critical mass to the attempts. Third because even were there a problem they would not make any difference to it, because they only address a small fraction of the sources of emissions.
You notice that no-one proposing the most draconian reductions in national emissions ever, ever, says what effect their proposals will have if enacted. I mean, either in tons of CO2 or in degrees C. Its because they will have none. Classic example is net zero in the UK. Or when Thetford in the UK declares a climate emergency and proposes to become a net zero city. What effect will it have? Answer came there none.
There is nothing available to us which will make the slightest difference either to global emissions, or if these cause global warming, to global warming. We in the West are doing too small a proportion of global emissions to be able to materially influence them by direct action. And no-one who matters is listening to us.
If you really believe in a climate crisis and pending disaster, the only scientifically proper way to act is figure out how likely it is, how bad it is, and how to protect our own population against the worst effects.
Because its going to happen. Or, I guess, you could take to demonstrating outside the Chinese embassy in London or Washington. Good luck with that one!
You and I seem to agree that anthropogenic global warming driven by CO2 emissions is both real and a problem, which means you accept that the science I am presenting in this thread is valid and robust, so that is good to find agreement.
You believe the proposed policies are ineffective, what do you propose as alternatives?
What problems with climate change?
Nothing that has happened weather wise, in the last 100 years, hasn’t happened many many times before.
The tiny bit of warming the planet has experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age, has been beneficial for life on this planet.
As has the increase in CO2 levels. Indeed, the planet would be healthier if we could get CO2 levels up to 1000 or 1200 ppm. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, since most projections have us topping out closer to 800 ppm.
Your graph is a total fantasy.. It is meaningless and totally irrelevant.
And we know that you are well aware of that fact.
Yup. It’s a classic hockey stick graph.
Bogus Hockey Stick graphs are the only “evidence” climate alarmists have to show. If not for the Hockey Stick, they would have Nothing to use to try to fool people.
Hockey Stick graphs are climate alarmist propaganda. They don’t represent reality.
“Sure, it refers to the range of natural temperature fluctuations that can occur due to natural factors (forced or unforced).”
Nobody knows what that range is.
Well, the alarmists need 2 things: small fluctuations in the past (say the last 10.000 years) and large in the last 20. This to show the acceleration due to human caused Co2 emissions. You can easily produce a graph showing this.
The alarmists are linear thinking true Co2= big influence on temperature believers and so seems (to a lesser degree) the IPCC. They will not let that go. The models have been shown to run too hot but keep appearing in the reports. And alarmists now even consider scenario 8.5 too low! I mean you could not make it up…or so i thought.
Well, yes, because that is what has happened.
What empirical evidence shows that CO2 is the major factor causing the acceleration? How do you explain decades long periods with no change and rising CO2?
There are numerous lines of evidence confirming that CO2 is the primary driver of the modern warming period.
First, we know unequivocally that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that adding it to the atmosphere will force the climate to a warmer state. This fact can be derived from physics based on first principles, and is not remotely in question. You can play with a radiative transmission model like this one here and observe the change in radiant emission resulting from varying atmospheric CO2 levels. Not even ardent scientific skeptics disagree with this fundamental truth.
Second, perhaps obviously, we know the major drivers of climate on these timescales and we can estimate their forcing over the 20th century, and see quite plainly that they do not come close to explaining the observed warming, and that we can only explain the observed warming by considering GHG forcing:
Direct observational evidence of enhanced greenhouse warming comes from the observed cooling trend in the stratosphere, a direct, empirical observation of a fundamental prediction of greenhouse theory:
In fact, this pattern was predicted in 1967, before any satellite observations of stratospheric temperature trends had ever been made, by Syukuro Manabe, a pioneer of early climate modeling efforts:
And we can go on and on and on, from modeling studies to direct satellite observations of CO2 radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports the position that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are driving the modern warming trend. It would require a monumental discovery overturning centuries of scientific research to change this.
That is simple. CO2 is the driving the warming trend, but it is not the only influence on the climate system. Volcanoes, aerosol pollution, ocean oscillations all can produce a cooling effect that can temporarily obscure the underlying long term warming trend from CO2.
The thermal radiative flux to space has been analyzed and it showed that CO2 is essentially saturated so adding more has a minimal unmeasureable effect. Whatever effect it does have is in inhibiting tropospheric radiative cooling. This also explains why it is never 100% saturated because increased concentration raises the level at which its emitted IR becomes ineffective due to temperature.
CO2’s radiation emission is not “backradiation” as proposed in the AGW argument which would violate a number of physical realities, including Wien/Planck, 2nd law, etc. Unless magically atmospheric CO2 were warmer than the earth it loses energy by on balance radiating toward space.
On the other hand there are a number of studies which provide empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature and thus is not the cause for increased temperatures. In addition, statistical studies have found a lack of correlation between fossil fuel emission and temperature.
In short, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is the global warming culprit.
On the contrary, CO2 is not close to being saturated, as you can easily see using the interactive radiative transfer model I provided above. Where is the source of the bad information you got on this topic? We can dissect it together.
Which studies? In the past there was no source of CO2 to the atmosphere that was not itself temperature dependent (i.e. ocean outgassing). This does not preclude CO2 from acting as a driver when there is a direct temperature-independent source of CO2 into the atmosphere (fossil fuel emissions).
You flatly ignored 80% of my comment.
80% of your post was scientific ignorance. !
“Where is the source of the bad information you got on this topic?”
It is the link given to well known paper by Wijngaarden & Happer.
“On the contrary, CO2 is not close to being saturated, as you can easily see using the interactive radiative transfer model I provided above”
“You flatly ignored 80% of my comment”
Because I addressed the key issues regarding AGW which you did not refute in a meaningful way.
If you believe that CO2 is not saturated then show where the W&H paper (see chart) is wrong. Perhaps you are right but so far nobody has published a rebuttal. Why not be the first.
The model you linked shows the same saturation, although W&H use a more precise analysis, but apparently you don’t understand what you are looking at.
The empirical evidence of CO2 following temperature goes back for decades covering both historical and instrumental periods. For example, Humlum et al., 2013; Toggweiler, 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Goldberg, 2008; Toggweiler, 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Goldberg, 2008.
Again, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is the principal GW player. This is confirmed by its saturation and empirical evidence that it is not the cause of increased temperature.
That link is also broken – too many extra characters. I didn’t use the link tool properly. Try this link.
“First, we know unequivocally that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that adding it to the atmosphere will force the climate to a warmer state.
BULL DUST !! You know no such thing !!
“we know the major drivers of climate on these timescales and we can estimate their forcing over the 20th century”
Yes.. we know the forcing is THE SUN. !!
Radiative transmission models do NOT model atmospheric energy movements.. period. !!
At a set height in the stratosphere it will always cool as the troposphere gets warmer.
No evidence it is human caused.
There is no evidence of any trapped energy at TOA..
In fact the very very tiny decrease in the CO2 frequency range is more than compensated by an increase through the atmospheric window.
Basically everything you have posted is contrived scientific gibberish.
The claim that we know all of the potential drivers of the climate and that we know them with great accuracy has got to be the biggest lie that AJ has spouted so far.
100% agree, of the many many many myriad of lies he spouts.
THere are zero lines of evidence, supporting the myth that CO2 is the driver of climate.
The fact that for a few decades CO2 and temperature rose together is meaningless for two reasons:
First coincidence is not proof.
Second, there are many other decades, centuries, and even longer, where CO2 and temperature moved in complete opposition to each other.
The only so called evidence are the models, and models aren’t data.
I am quite certain you will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on …
The preindustrial era is utterly irrelevant when it comes to determining what is or is not natural variability. Not when there are already known climate cycles that exceed 1000 years in length.
Those kyr cycles do not produce warming at the rate observed in the modern era.
And yet another lie from the master of lies.
The proxies can’t resolve short term movements.
If you were half the scientist you claim to be, you would know the danger of comparing proxies with centennial resolutions to yearly instrument data.
PS: You have yet to show that there is any problem with more warming, much less with the rate of the warming. Every day, the world goes through 10 times as much warming as has been seen since the bottom of the Little Ice Age, and nothing bad happens.
Scraping the barrel mate. In fact we don’t know that a half degree over a decade or two is ‘unprecedented’ because no proxy we have access to has that fine a granularity, and woolly mammoths didn’t wear thermometers…
You understand that the warming that you show is the annual thermometric temperatures from the 19th century added on to proxy data that is nowhere near annual data. A proxy point typically is an average of 300 yrs spread ! We need another 150 years of continuous annual temperature readings to average into a single data point to represent a rough estimate of a single point.
You seem a reasonable and thoughtful person not in an engineering or science field. Indeed, a scientist who creates a misleading product like this a disgrace to his profession. This looks like the Ozzie climate scientist Marcotte’s work. On being criticized, he did admit his work and his paper did not actually support this graph for the reason given above.
20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Aj has zero understanding of the mathematical absurdity of grafting manically adjusted daily urban temperature fabrications on to low resolution massively averaged propaganda driven fabrications.
Most of the reconstructions shown in the visual have annual resolution, but the graphic is showing the reconstructions and instrumental series with a 30-year smooth applied. It’s important to read the paper your are about to criticize before launching into your critique.
A smoothed 30 year graph still can’t be compared to a proxy with 300 year resolution. You are getting more desperate by the post.
Even if your chart wasn’t completely bogus, all you have shown is that the particular movement at the end of the period was larger than any other movement during the same period. That proves absolutely nothing regarding what is normal for climate.
What is it about climate alarmists and their complete inability to do basic science?
It proves that the warming we are seeing is not typical of late Holocene climate variability, which is what I stated in the very first comment.
You’ll need to read my comment again, ask clarifying questions if there is something in it you are struggling to understand.
So a bogus chart proves what you want it to prove.
I understood it perfectly, it’s just that understanding is not what you are after.
Your words did not reflect a perfect understanding of my comment, so you’ll forgive me thinking otherwise. The proxy reconstructions and the temperature series shown in the chart are displayed to the same resolution.
And yet again, when caught out in a lie, you just issue ever more prevarications, pretending that you are the offended one.
Your graph is a contrived load of anti-science garbage.
It proves absolutely NOTHING !
You can’t compare the precision measurements of today with the past, and especially not with climate proxies.
You have to compare growing season and crops, and location of such.
There is no data proving your assertion. None.
I provided the data, Janice, perhaps the image is not loading for you?
Your image is not data. Your image is a piece of NON-data based propaganda.
The source of the data used in the visual is provided in the image:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0
But I suspect you fully well know that and are being intentionally obtuse.
The link you provide is only for the last 2,000 years. The whole point of this article is how the perspective is changed if the entire post-asteroid apocalypse is considered. I would say that limiting one to the most recent 2,000 years to determine “natural variability” is classic cherry picking.
The claim Janice made is that the modern warming period is well within the range of typical natural variability. I show that this is not the case for at least the late Holocene. It might be that there have been comparable temperature excursions in the more distant past, but the modern warming is still unusual for the climate of the Holocene.
Nothing you have provided disproves Janice’s contention. Even with all your fancy dodges and equivocations.
As for the Holocene, the Holocene Optimum lasted from about 15,000 to about 5,000 years ago. For the entirety of that time, temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees C warmer than today.
Since the end of the Holocene Optimum, not counting the current warm periods, there have been 4 warm periods, all of which were warmer than today.
I’ve proved my contention, which is that the modern warming period is unique at least for the preindustrial common era. Janice or someone else would need to provide a counter point to this observation or concede the point to move this conversation forward.
This statement does not align with the research I am aware of, can you support it? For instance, it is at odds with Kaufman, et al., 2020, which states, “The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago when GMST was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century (median, 5th, 95th percentiles).”
[citation needed]
You have proven nothing, and your contention is silly nonsense.
Just because you want to limit the discussion to the one tiny portion of history that doesn’t refute what you want to believe, is no reason for anyone else to go along with your pathetic delusions.
As to what research you are aware of, when you limit your search to only those results that agree with what you want to believe, it’s not hard to “not be aware of” the rest of reality.
Either you can cite the research supporting your position, or you cannot. If you do not cite it, I will assume it is the latter case, and will accept your concession on the point.
That’s not how science work, I just have to show that your so called data is faulty and doesn’t show what you want it to show. Which I have done, over and over again.
“I’ve proved my contention, which is that the modern warming period is unique at least for the preindustrial common era”
Explain why the United States temperature chart shows today’s temperatures are not unique. The U.S. chart shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, as do other regional charts from around the world..
The U.S. chart (Hansen 1999):
You are moving the goal post. First, you provided a graph of the last 2,000 years. Then, you say, “I show that this is not the case for at least the late Holocene.” The Holocene is nearly 12,000 years in length, with “late” being, ambiguously, more than 5,800 years. Then, you shift to the ” preindustrial common era,” which is only about the last 175 to 275 years. Even the last 275 years is not a good sample of the variance for Earth climate. You are not fooling anyone (except maybe yourself) with your sophistry.
My very first comment in the thread references the preindustrial common era. The issue is that you are confused about where the goalposts have been all along, not that I have moved them. And my usage of that term echos the usage from the paper I’ve been citing this entire discussion, so there is no ambiguity as to its meaning.
There was no significant UHI in the Holocene until about the last 50-100 years – that’s the reason for the higher surface warming rates, not CO2. Of course, your model-driven mind will not accept that, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Anthony, the surface temperature products already account for the effects of urbanization. It is not insubstantial, but it does not remotely explain the observed 20th century warming trend.
Those plots come from Dr. Spencer’s UHI dataset. He has a blog post about it here. According to this dataset UHI accounts for around 0.05 C of the warming globally at most.
based on “temperature reconstructions”- which we know are hypothetical at best
“Simulations and reconstructions”. I know enough. And 20 years is NOT enough to spot a trend. Try 60. But ok, ill give you another 10 years (im feeling generous). If you promise not to cook the books and the warming has indeed accelerated i will change my view. Will you if the opposite happens? I mean, that’s only fair, right?
You were just told it was not data and you provide a source as some kind of proof it is?
I was told that the image was not based on data, so I provided the data it is based on, yes. Do you find this objectionable?
The data is bogus. Understand?
Oh, I reject this unsubstantiated assertion offhand. Nothing more needs to be said unless you or Janice wants to bring a single scrap of evidence to support your position.
It was published in 2019. A lot has been learned and updated since then, including a lot of fraudulent data.
Cite those learnings and updates, thanks.
From the paper you link to
“The largest warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer occur during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the unusual character of the warming in recent decades.” because it was directly matched
Which of course is not correct because it was directly matched in the first half of the twentieth century.
It was then followed by a steep decline in temperatures from the 1940s to the 1970s while man made CO2 continued to increase at an accelerated rate.
Just because you like the author, is not evidence that what the author provided is data, much less authoritative data.
Ah, yes. Nature magazine. Once a thought provoking science journal, now a tool for propaganda. No point going on with this thought. You will reject outright as it does not conform to your world view.
A Mannian type fabrication of total ignorance.
The best you can manage.
You KNOW it is FAKE.. but use it anyway..
Whoever FABRICATED that graph did so with the AGW propaganda agenda in mind.
It totally ignores the massive amount of proxy data showing the MWP being 2-3 degrees warmer than now.
If using tree rings, it is really a graph of available CO2 for plant growth.
What you provided is not data. It is nothing more than a small handful of carefully selected proxies (all others excluded) that was manipulated by a “novel” statistical technique, invented by someone with no background in statistics and which has been thoroughly refuted by people who do.
A statistical manipulation of a carefully chosen subset of available proxies is not data.
Especially when the statistical method used has already been refuted.
You provided only one of many graphs and no supporting data.
So the fact that 90% of the last 10 to 15 thousand years being warmer than now means nothing to you?
The fact that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian warm periods, all being warmer than now means nothing to you?
“that 90% of the last 10 to 15 thousand years being warmer than now”
Total BS
There is no evidence that any year in the past 5000 years was warmer than 2923
There is evidence that there were one or two heat spikes about 8000 years ago that were warmer than 2023. They are the only evidence of periods warmer than 2023 in the past 15,000 years. Those heat peaks were part of the Holocene Climate Optimum, back when warm used to be considered to be good news.
These statements require comparing averages of local reconstructions versus real time measurements in 2023. Averages tend of local proxies tend to reduce variations of individua local proxies.
It might be more useful to claim earth was a usually a greenhouse planet
For the majority of Earth’s history, the planet has been hotter than today. Hotter periods make up some 70 percent of the past two and a half billion years and are called Greenhouse Earth. They can last hundreds of millions of years, with CO2 levels 10–20 times higher than today, and no ice anywhere on the planet.
Considering Earth’s estimated climate history, we should be celebrating the current, pleasant climate.
So in your opinion none of the well known warm periods of the last 5000 years existed? Neither did the Holocene Optimum?
Glad to know that your opinion of what should have been trump’s actual data.
Richard is walking on two legs of a different length. Or i should say, hands. On the one hand he is against the alarmists, on the other he does not believe there has been any time warmer than today in the last 5000 years. This he seems certain off. Why? It puzzles me. Weighing the evidence makes a good case for it to be warmer in the past. Multiple sources combined. All circumstancial, true, but so is the evidence presented by the opposition.
He says that nobody knows the influence of Co2. That might be seen as fair enough yet he holds onto a principle of certainty about another factor which is at least questionable. Dubious is putting it mildly.
RG seems to suffer from a desperate need to be viewed by others as being an expert. It causes him to come across as both obnoxious and obstinate when challenged.
Classic megalomaniac.
Mr. Green, at times, seems to be trying to guide us into being reasonable and sensible in our arguments against the apocalypse, which he is obviously against that conspiracy.
He tends to get in the way of himself a lot of the time.
paul c. calls him “Janus”, it is quite apt.
He would argue its not opinion but fact for which he has not evidence.
More RG AGW cultism GARBAGE
MWP was warmer than now.
RWP was warmer still.
Holocene Optimum was MUCH warmer.
Stop supporting the AGW mantra.. It makes you look incredibly stupid.
The 1930’s and 1940’s were warmer than now.
The leftists are trying to change the data to support their ideology.
They are also subverting present day data by accepting UHI influenced siting and averaging the data with nonexistent weather stations. If you look at weather station data, about half of the “measurements” will be annotated with an E for estimate.
The scammers like tree ring data so much
Here is Briffa’s clearly showing the 1930s,40s was much warmer, and 1979 was comparatively much colder
I suspect that the local “know it alls” get their jollies by annoying. The more down votes the better.
Then you have a different explanation of:
** the tree stumps being uncovered by melting glaciers in Alaska, carbon dated to periods around 1000 and 2000 years ago, where it is still too cold for such trees to grow today;
** the archeological report published a few years ago reporting all the finds of extension human activity in the Rocky mountains at altitudes too high today to even attract very many wilderness hikers, that reported may dead trees 500 feet above today’s tree line. Those were also carbon dated to periods surrounding 1000 and 2000 years ago;
** the many plant remains found at various sites in Europe well north or where they can grow today, mostly around 1000 years old:
** the Alpine pass north of Rome, recently uncovered by melting glaciers, revealing many Roman artifacts that indicated it was probably a significant trading route?
I suppose you could go with “northern hemisphere anomalies, not indicative of global temperatures”, as if there was such a thing as “global temperature”.
Plenty of evidence from the southern Hemisphere as well. Posted several time.
RG just ignores it and prefers propaganda fabrications as all AGW cultists do.
Viking settlements in Greenland, with graves that are still buried in the permafrost.
We have yet to put a thermometer into anything in 2923.
Did you check with the Romans?
The black line seems to start about the time the Little Ice Age was ending.
Family lure is that that was not a good time.
Intriguing. Tell me John, do you find that you tend to always find missing items in the last place you look for them?
What a stupid comment !
He’s getting desperate.
Nice hockey stick.
Dork.
Sorry, Karlomonte, I’m already happily taken, your flirting is of no use.
Why continually post CRAP that you KNOW IS FAKE !
Who pays you to be so lying and deceitful.. or is it just who you are.
It’s amazing what people can make themselves believe, when paychecks are on the line.
I don’t think he does believe what he produces.
He is well aware it is propaganda pap non-science….
But he posts it anyway.
Seems like he is a paid troll.
I don’t know how he/she/it can rationalize being a useful idiot but, whatever floats its boat.
Remember, this is Mental Health Awareness month and he/she/it probably needs lots of therapy and drugs so needs an income.
FJB
The White House’s new director of internal communications is a “man” who last year created a stink by posting that we need to eliminate the capitalistic police state.
He’s also one of those nut jobs who believe that all police agencies grew out of organizations that were formed to hunt escaped slaves.
Wanting to get rid of capitalism and the police. All the better to completely collapse society.
I get a lot of mileage from informing people of color (is that PC enough?) that Juneteenth is commemorating when Abe Lincoln and the Republicans freed the slaves.
Actually, the Emancipation proclamation didn’t free any slaves.
It only applied to the states that the north considered to be in rebellion. It specifically excluded slave states that stayed in the Union.
In other words, Lincoln freed the slaves in states where Union laws were not in affect. Those slaves that he did have the power to free, he left in slavery.
It took the 13th amendment to actually end slavery.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/13th-amendment
The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union, and should have easily passed in Congress. However, though the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House initially did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming 1864 Presidential election. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.
On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states (three-fourths) ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Therefore my statement is accurate. It was Abe Lincoln and the Republicans that freed the slaves.
Historically correct.
However it is noted that June is NOT December. Therefore your statement about “Juneteenth is commemorating when” is inaccurate.
Juneteenth is the celebration of when the slaves in Texas learned about the Emancipation Proclamation. The 13th amendment wasn’t passed until much later. Therefore your original statement is not correct.
This is correct.
News of the Emancipation Proclamation on June 19 of 1865 reaching Texas precedes the 13th Amendment ratification by several months – true.
I apologize for screwing up the timing of history.
I believe the salient point is that it was Abe Lincoln and the Republicans that freed the slaves.
The “progressives” try to change history so much that a surprising number of low information/brainwashed voters think that Abe Lincoln was a democrat.
Thanks for that good history lesson.
When Texas was “liberated” the proclamation had not effect.
FJB
It’s all he’s got.
Utter BS proxy falsehood, equipped with a purported and absolutely ludicrous 0.1 C resolution.
Not even high quality laboratory 1C/division Hg thermometers have that resolution.
That plot displays the standard of professional ignorance practitioners in climate so-called science.
Also, Hi Janice! Nice to see you here and on-point as usual. 🙂
Aw… 😊
Alan why do you folks pick short time frames. What about the Younger Dryas?
“In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”
We are well within a change of 10 C in a few decades.
Also, I suppose it is possible to think up some really fanciful plot about how the many Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last glacial stage only occurred in Greenland while the rest of the globe remained unperturbed but it seems much more likely that similar large warming events happened at the same time over at least most of the northern hemisphere. That is rather likely to mean high temperatures far enough south of Greenland in the temperate zones.
Because that would destroy their thesis.
The warming at the end of the Younger Dryas (YD) was rapid but not comparable to today’s warming. Firstly, the YD warming was primarily focused in the Northern Hemisphere and driven by specific events like freshwater influxes into the North Atlantic. Secondly, this warming occurred as the planet was emerging from an ice age, not in the midst of an interglacial period. While the rate of temperature change might have been comparable to today’s in the Northern Hemisphere, the magnitude of the global temperature anomaly was much lower. Throughout the Holocene, we haven’t seen any excursions comparable to the modern era, and global temperatures comparable to today’s likely haven’t occurred since the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Funny how all available evidence shows that the Holocene Optimum was at least 2 to 5 C warmer than today.
Your earlier comment:”There is little evidence that the observed change is within the bounds of natural variability, certainly not during the preindustrial common era:”
You addressed natural variability. The YD shows that natural variability can be quite large and anything today falls inside the 10 C. I have seen nothing that says YD was not global.
I think you were wrong and now trying to throw up a smoke screen.
The climate system is highly interconnected, so changes in one region can have cascading effects on global climate patterns, even if the primary effects are localized. For the Younger Dryas, the cooling was most strongly expressed in the North Atlantic, although there is evidence of cooling across the Northern Hemisphere. In The Southern Hemisphere, the response was different, with some areas experiencing warming. The overall pattern of change across the globe was not similar to today’s warming in rate or reach.
Here is a good reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284868803_The_Younger_Dryas_Climate_Event
The Younger Dryas did not occur during the preindustrial common era, it occurred during the last deglaciation.
Which is why your insistence on only examining the period since the start of the industrial revolution is little more than scientific malpractice.
You and I were talking natural variability. You put the coma in there separating ideas. Again we talking the overall range of natural variability not cooling. Stick with the point. You were wrong about natural variability. 10 C is far larger than anything today.
Alan your reference and you use the terms northern and southern hemisphere so I am unclear how something can NOT be global yet covers both the north and south hemispheres.
You bit your own ass pal.
AlanJ marks his idiocy by posting Mannian type fabrications that bears zero resemblance to reality. !!
Even his massively fake graph shows warming started in 1900 LONG BEFORE human CO2 could have had any effect.
You are JOKE !!!
Steve McIntyre on PAGES 2K. The proxy is a methodological crock all the way down.
Apart from being physically meaningless. There’s no physical theory to covert a proxy metric to Celsius (Statistics is no substitute for Physics).
Nevertheless, presented with a ludicrously unprofessional claim of 0.1 C resolution.
This is nonsense that rather serves to expose your own ignorance of the subject. Proxies are based on well-understood physical and chemical processes that are temperature dependent. The isotopic composition of oxygen in ice cores or in the calcite shells of benthic foraminifera, for instance, is directly related to temperature at the time the ice or shells were formed. Tree rings are influenced by growing season temperature.
The fact that disparate proxy archives yield similar temperature reconstructions is proof of this, as is the close agreement between these proxies and the instrumental temperature record.
McIntyre doesn’t address the methodology of the reconstruction I cited at all in the links you present. If he has commented elsewhere, please point that out specifically and I can address it). He seems to be raising some minor nitpicks about specific records in the PAGES2k database (and most of his nitpicks are invalid to begin with – the few comments with any significance were independently addressed by the PAGES2k consortium before McIntyre even raised his objection).
Post a link to the physical theory of climate that allows conversion of a field 𝞭¹⁸O proxy to temperature, Alan.
I know about the empirical conversions. Proxy 𝞭¹⁸O depends on low-resolution calibrations, and assumes ideal seawater mixing and invariant monsoon tracks.
Low resolution does not permit graphics implying 0.1 C accuracy.
Problems include “Variations in speleothem oxygen-isotope values (δ18O) result from a complicated interplay of environmental controls and processes in the ocean, atmosphere, soil zone, epikarst, and cave system. As such, the controls on speleothem δ18O values are extremely complex.”
And “Oxygen isotopic values (δ18O) of MARGO recent fossil foraminifera are 0.2–0.8‰ higher than those of living foraminifera. Our results show that this discrepancy is related to the stratification of the upper water mass and generally increases at low latitudes. Therefore, as stratification of surface waters and seasonality depends on climatic conditions, the relationship between temperature and δ18O established on fossil foraminifera from recent sediment must be used with caution in paleoceanographic studies.” (my bold)
And 𝞭¹⁸O is the best of the proxies. Tree ring metrics have no direct physical connection to temperature.
Steve McIntyre’s “nitpicks” include inverted proxies. You missed that, did you? Or did you read his posts at all?
As usual, Alan, your confidence is a measure of your ignorance.
This is world salad. It is not a “physical theory of climate” that explains the relationship between temperature and oxygen isotopes. The conversion of δ^18O proxy data to temperature relies on well-established principles of chemistry and physics, particularly isotopic fractionation. This process is governed by the temperature-dependent fractionation of oxygen isotopes during the formation of calcium carbonate shells in foraminifera.
For a deeper understanding, you can refer to the foundational work by Epstein et al. (1953) and subsequent studies that establish the empirical relationship between δ^18O values in carbonate minerals and water temperature. These studies are grounded in geochemistry and provide the basis for using δ^18O as a paleotemperature proxy.
Here are a couple of key references to aid your continuing education:
Epstein, S., Buchsbaum, R., Lowenstam, H. A., & Urey, H. C. (1953). Revised Carbonate-Water Isotopic Temperature Scale. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 64(11), 1315-1326.
Shackleton, N. J. (1967). Oxygen Isotope Analyses and Pleistocene Temperatures Re-assessed. Nature, 215(5096), 15-17.
Please also learn the difference between speleothems and foraminiferal calcite (and to distinguish between benthic and planktonic varieties and the implications this has for ocean temperature estimates). I’ll look forward to a more thorough discussion after you are better informed.
So McIntyre is upset and throwing a tantrum because the authors corrected something in their database that he agrees should be corrected? And that’s what you find compelling?
You completely ignored my pointing out that none of McIntyre’s posts address the specific reconstruction I cited. I’ll look forward to you rectifying that omission.
“The conversion of δ^18O proxy data to temperature relies on well-established principles of chemistry and physics, particularly isotopic fractionation.”
The physics of isotopic fractionation is deficient in the field, where monsoon tracks change and varying rain-out impacts isotopic fractions.
One would, in fact, need a physical theory of the climate to reconstruct those precipitation patterns in paleo-climate.
I discussed foraminiferal carbonate 𝞭¹⁸O in detail in my “Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-Science” post. Unfortunately, the graphics didn’t survive WUWT’s server migrations. However, the T calculated from a given foraminiferal 𝞭¹⁸O‰ varied by 2 C, which sets a lower limit of accuracy.
Part of the problem is that marine 𝞭¹⁸O‰ varies with salinity as well as with temperature (excluding variations in stratification at any T).
The post included an assessment of Epstein’s 1953 calibrations. That work showed 2σ = ±1.6 C.
I also went through Shackleton’s work. His high-precision 𝞭¹⁸O analytical method was accurate 1σ=±0.14‰, which is equivalent to a minimum uncertainty of 1σ = ±0.61 C in any 𝞭¹⁸O temperature. And all that is under ideal conditions.
Your Re-assessed Nature, 215(5096), 15-17 dates to 1967. I have that paper. Figure 1, legend, says, “Analytical precision is ±0·30‰ (2σ)
for benthonic analvses...” which yields 2σ = ±1.3 C, slightly greater than his earlier work
There’s some better informed for you.
Also, like others, you focus on 𝞭¹⁸O, which has a nominal basis in physics, but remain silent on the kludge that is tree rings.
“You completely ignored my pointing out that none of McIntyre’s posts address the specific reconstruction I cited. I’ll look forward to you rectifying that omission.”
Steve McIntyre on PAGES 2K 2019 and 2024. A short quote reveals the truth of it:
“PAGES2K was supposed to be an improvement on Mann et al 1998 data, but, in many ways, it’s even worse. So It was very strange to observe the 2019 re-cycling of a TTHH version, previously criticized in 2003 as being already obsolete in 1998.”
Apart from the fact of methodological shoddiness, the PAGES 2K construction is physically meaningless. A problem that has never yet stopped you, Alan.
So it is revealed that you actually do accept that there is a physical link between the proxy value and temperature, and in fact are merely being a contrarian for the sake of it. This is something I will never quite wrap my head around about the WUWT set.
Here McIntyre is upset because he isn’t sure which version of a single tree ring chronology was used in PAGES2k(2019), no indication of what impact the use of this or a different version of the chronology would have on the actual reconstruction. This is the very height of a nitpick, but it’s even worse because McIntyre can’t or won’t say why it is supposed to matter to the final result (hint: it’s because it doesn’t).
I do appreciate you actually dredging up some garbage about the actual reconstruction I cited, though. That’s… progress?
“So it is revealed that you actually do accept that there is a physical link between the proxy value and temperature,…”
Big conceptual mistake, Alan. Assessing the accuracy of a mass spec calibration against a 𝞭¹⁸O carbonate standard is not acceptance of a direct relation between foraminiferal 𝞭¹⁸O and T.
My obvious point is that the calibration accuracy sets the 𝞭¹⁸O accuracy lower limit of the purported paleo-T reconstruction. You clearly have some training. Why didn’t you understand that?
“... and in fact are merely being a contrarian for the sake of it.”
An analytical critic, Alan, which general experience here very clearly shows is, “something I will never quite wrap my head around about the WUWT set.”
Your contrarian comment is very self-serving.
“Here McIntyre is upset because,,, etc.”
Shoddy methodology indicates shoddy methodologists no matter that the methodological result is physically meaningless.
“I do appreciate you actually dredging up some garbage about the actual reconstruction I cited,”
Unsurprising that you’d rubbish analytical appraisal. You merely spam supportive papers as talking points. You never do the work.
+1000 amen!
Consensus is no substitute for Science.
Was it Feynman who once said that if your experiment needs statistics, you need to design a better experiment?
Could well have been Feynman.
Might have been Boltzman. I think he also said that you don’t know something unless you can put a number on it.
Despite being long thoroughly put down by McIntyre and McKitrick and others the zombie graph keeps coming to life because it is such a useful tool for the crooks swindlers tricksters and shysters who at least for the time being are doing very nicely from the absurd ‘climate crisis’ hysteria.
That chart is utter nonsense.
Next…….
Alan J, you are a hockey fan
Your chart is garbage because you are using different resolutions onto a single chart.
A carefully manipulated subset of actual proxies is not data. Especially when the statistical method to manipulate the data has been shown to be bogus.
Your graph conveniently doesn’t go back far enough to show the very warm period of 6K and 1500BC, and somehow it also squashes down the very warm late middle ages, that were obviously warmer than now because of what they were able to grow and where and how high – all over the globe but especially Europe and China.
You handily omitted the Roman and Medieval warm periods and use the adjusted tree-ring data from selected trees of Mann and the adjusted (homogenized they call it) surface temperature record which bears no resemblance to actual surface data. Utter nonsense.
Why the million years graph then? You should be able to find past examples of comparable warming within a 100 year timeframe,
To create an honest graph with a wide band of red on the left.
The credulity of luserName is absolutely astounding.
You want to use the coldest time in the last 15,000 years as the starting point for determining what is natural and what isn’t?
Almost certainly, the rise into the Medieval Warm Period.
Why Not check out the Younger Dryas?
“You should be able to find past examples of comparable warming within a 100 year timeframe,”
There was.. before the manic adjustments.
THere were 4 such periods since the end of the Holocene Optimum, Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian warm periods.
At one stage the warming up to the 1930’s’40s was much steeper.
But of course, that has all been “adjusted” out now.
Ah yes, the earth is only 100 years old.
“Speed matters”
That explains why all your posts are gobbledygook … you’ve consumed too much speed, you need to go back to rehab.
Panicking is for sissies.
As is running away from an inconvenient truth 😉
Which is what you have been doing with your many lies.
“an inconvenient truth”
Years before I found WUWT, I noticed Al’s claims (2007).
I found the records for each day for my little spot on the globe.
Most of the record highs were before 1950 and most of the record lows were after 1950. Inconvenient.
Not only that. They have managed to disappear temperature records fr the 1920s till the 1950s. People remembered their parents talking about heatwaves back then but no peaks showed up in official records. Then they went to old newspaper archives…and there they were, in black and white. I kid you not!
They asked others to check. Same thing. That’s 1984..the book i mean.
And talking about books:’grapes of wrath’ the dustbowl. Hard to wipe out. Some book burning perhaps?
Grapes of Wrath: Add this to your reading list.
The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl: A National Book Award Winner: Egan, Timothy: 9780618773473: Amazon.com: Books
Unlike going into full imbecile panic mode because of fabricated non-data!
The truth is, that the slight warming since the coldest period in 10,000 + years has been massively beneficial for all mankind. !
You are the one running away from the truth… like a headless chook !!
Additionally, the enhanced CO2 has been very, very beneficial for plants.
Both plants that we eat, and the plants that creatures we eat, eat.
Fear and panic are deliberately induced in the population by groups and people who wish to exercise control. Fear is a very powerful emotional response, that is well known by people intent on using propaganda to “Nudge” the population in the direction they want.
Not that old shiboleth again.
First off in the last 10 to 15 thousand years there have been many occasions where temperatures changed equally fast. Both warming and cooling.
Beyond that even you are you actually stupid enough to think that looking at proxies with resolutions of 1,000 to 100,000 years can be directly compared to daily temperature readings?
Finally, I can’t find any evidence that the very small amount of warming over the last 150 years or so has caused any problems. Indeed, life is flourishing everywhere.
So exhausting.
Adaptation is how humanity has always dealt with climate change and it remains the best solution now.
Climate activists are incredibly vain, believing they and fellow believers are smarter than everyone and they have all the answers. As like-minded people have said for centuries, “if only me and my friends were in charge.”
The hubris that humans can control the weather and thus the climate is over the top.
More BS from the luser.
It warmed much more quickly and for a much longer time 10,000 years ago
It warmed faster up to 1920
The current warming is absolutely minimal and totally beneficial to life on Earth…
… and no-body would even notice it were it not for the caterwauling for the climate cult..
Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in a much warmer climate than the temperatures outside of the Tropics. That is why cold is so deadly for them.
It will take 4C of warming just to get back to pre-glacial temperatures and the Earth will still be in its 2.5 million-year long-term Ice Age which won’t end until all natural ice melts.
Cold or cool weather causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 0.5 million deaths from hot weather.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Cold or cool weather causes our blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat raising blood pressure and making strokes and heart attacks more likely.
It is quite clear that the majority of stroke and heart attacks in the US occur during the cooler months.
Strokes by month in the US.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7249a7.htm
Heart Attacks by month
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.100.15.1630
Get lost, smelly troll.
Are you demonstrating the meaning of meaningless?
I complained to the BBC about their use of Hawkins’ Stripes and why they only go back to 1850. The first response I got was the usual waffle telling me what the stripes meant. The response to my appeal was that Hawkins said that’s as far back as reliable records go so including previous warm events was not possible.
Therefore what you claim is not supported by Ed Hawkins creator of these stripes.
This is what the BBC said
Just for your information, we asked Reading University why they started the ‘stipes’ project in 1850. They said that there is enough data to estimate the global average temperature back to 1850.
My take on that statement but no further and only estimate.
If they want “reliable” temperature data for the entire planet, they have to wait till the satellite era. Prior to then, we had enough data to somewhat accurately measure southern and central Europe as well as the east coast of the US and Canada. For the rest of the world and especially the oceans, we can do little more than guess as to what the temperatures might have been.
Speed matters. That is why most (NASA being exception) of those energy imbalance graphics use W/M^2 and ignore that electromagnetics move faster than ocean convection and thermal convection in the ground.
Energy is in joules. Energy is the substance.
At least NASA in their CERES brochure converted W/M^2 to percentages.
Heh. I will wear THIS T-shirt (Trump is highly likely to undo the solar/wind/EV scams promoted by the propaganda T-shirt worn by the science-ignorant):
Are you going to wear matching diapers too?
More projection from our resident troll.
Slimy, even for you, lusername.
Only citing his supporters
You seem to be unaware of the context of Biden shitting in his pants. But then again, a narrow mind already has the answer like a solution in search of a problem. Do you NOW get the picture?😄
The list of things that luserName is unaware of, is close enough to infinite, the difference doesn’t really matter.
People who are ideologically indoctrinated are seldom able to understand any information that is counter to their indoctrination. It causes cognitive dissonance within them, which they resolve by reinforcing their belief that the reality of the world is wrong and that their ideological belief is right, but the “enemy” (whoever that is) is making the reality of the world wrong. This allows them to morally justify to themselves basically any measure taken against the “enemy”.
Such ideological indoctrination can be entered into voluntarily, in the case where people voluntarily take up a belief structure, or it can be induced through propaganda. Often this is done during or in the lead up to a time of conflict. The target group is inundated with propaganda that indicates that the desired “enemy” is less than human. Propaganda known as atrocity propaganda is particularly effective. In war time, this is generally in the form of images or reports (which may or may not be true) of horrific attacks against innocent people (women, children, etc). In the Climate Emergency cult, this takes the form of photos of starving polar bears, or Koalas with no tree to live in, etc.
MyUsername cannot make the connection between opponents of Joe Biden wearing mocking diapers and Joe Biden’s rather obvious physical and mental deterioration. His mind forbids it.
Context requires sufficient brain power in order to understand.
That’s why luserName doesn’t do context.
Let me know what brand Brandon’s is.
When I get old enough to need them, I’d like to know what brand not to buy.
Please don’t bring Biden into the equation..😁
Poor Luser … highlighting Biden’s problems like that.
Another massive own goal !!
I don’t think she’s a Biden fan…
As much as I detest Trump’s personality, I’ll vote for him for this reason alone- as it’s critical to save the planet and our civilization from these climate whack jobs.
Those who’ve met him say that Trump is a very nice guy.
High school student body presidents are generally elected based on their popularity. One would hope that adults vote for a president that can effectively address the many problems that face the world. Popularity should not be a consideration. He can appoint diplomats that are the smiling back-slappers that negotiate things.
E. Jean Carroll would disagree. As would many of the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct.
That they encouraged. !
You don’t seriously think these females weren’t deliberately “putting it out there”, do you !!
It was their profession !!
Biden on the other hand preys on young innocent girls so he can sniff their hair… boys too, probably.
E. Jean Carroll’s story is indistinguishable from fantasy.
Scott Adams would not.
Accusations without substance.
The only accusation that included eyewitness testimony was a woman who accused Trump of attacking her during a plane flight. A British guy stepped forward, who said he was on that flight. He said the woman behaved obnoxiously toward Trump.
Really? How about Biden’s false accusation that a drunk truck driver killed his first wife? Etc.
E. Jean Carroll would also be mad as a bag of cats. She cannot remember even the year that the supposed event occurred. Were the defendant any other person in the country, that case would have been thrown out of court, instead the Judge precluded the introduction of evidence that would impeach the witness, preventing the possibility of a fair trial.
Just as the judge in the recent Trump trial allowed totally irrelevant testimony from Stormy Daniels, while excluding the testimony of a tax expert who was going to testify that how the laws in question are not applicable to the Trump case. Once again making a fair trial impossible.
The NYC court system is owned and operated by the Democrats.
She also could not accurately describe the changing room where this supposedly happened.
Nor could she explain how she managed to get unpinned and escape.
There was no contacting store management, store security, or law enforcement.
One would think a person escaping that situation would not merely stroll out of the store for fear of pursuit, which did not happen.
The New York State Democrat legislature passed a law that allowed E. Jean Carroll to file suit against Trump after the statute of limitations had expired.
New York Democrats are conspiring to get Trump and will go to any lengths to do so.
Just remember, if the Democrats can get away with doing this to Trump, then they can damn sure do it to you. If the Democrats retain power, don’t cross them, or you will suffer the consequences of getting in their way.
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/
“The law opened a one-time window for adult sexual assault survivors in New York to file a civil case against an abuser or institution that protected the abuser — no matter when the assault took place, even if it’s outside the statute of limitations. But that window expires in six months.”
end excerpt
So the New York Democrat legislature passed a law that allowed Carroll to sue Trump and then let the law expire six months later.
The Fix is In, in New York State.
Federal Courts will slap all this down eventually.
That leftists tell lies about those who oppose them is not surprising.
Many people seem to be repelled, not by Trump’s personality, but by the media portrayal of Trump’s personality. Something that they falsely presume to be an accurate portrayal.
Smear propaganda is the political literature of our day.
It’s the Caricature of Trump created by the radical Democrats, that repells people.
The radical Left has been demonizing Trump since he stepped on the political stage and the lies and distortions the Left constantly tells about Trump are bound to have an adverse effect on gullible people.
I imagine that Joe Biden will spend the whole time in the debate this coming Thursday demoizing Trump. And even though Biden is mentally diminished, he hasn’t lost his ability to be a nasty, partisan, lying Democrat. As long as he can keep his words straight, he can distort the truth with the best of them.
The big question of the night is going to be, can Joe Biden think and talk straight for 90 minutes?
Glad to hear you’re voting for Trump despite the fact that he probably won’t receive any of MA’s 11 electoral votes. I am curious, however, about which of Trump’s personality traits you find detestable in comparison to those exhibited by other office holders.
Personally, I think some of Trump’s economic policies, i.e. tariffs, are silly and I believe some of his personnel choices contributed to his getting repeatedly rolled by the Democrats, but the fact that he’s willing to take a serious run at the Federal bureaucracy is all I need to know.
I detest his constantly insulting people. It’s not “presidential”. In recent years I’ve been reading a great deal of American history, especially biographies of presidents. No doubt they all did a lot of insulting in private conversations, but not publicly. It’s not a way to “bring Americans together”. Perhaps 4 years from now the parties will wise up and choose younger candidates.
The Left has a near total lock on information / media in this country. People like us might be able to get the information we need to make decisions, but a vast percentage of the electorate doesn’t bother. If Trump has to bite, kick and scream to punch through the filter, so be it. Remember Mitt Romney? Supposedly a nice guy and family man, but the only thing that our media let you know about them was that they went on vacation with their dog in a crate on the luggage rack of their car.
The Fox Network usually backs Trump and dumps on Biden.
You might have a point if we weren’t engaged in a battle for the future of not only our country, but our entire planet. The opposition is literally demonic. We are at war. I’m afraid the time for pleasant “presidential” niceties is long past, Joseph… that sort of behaviour simply isn’t going to get the job done. It never has in the past either, as far as I can tell.
The final stages of “bring[ing] Americans together” will come later. Right now is the “awakening”. That has to happen first.
Trump is on the wrong track with the tariff proposals. He can’t replace the income tax.
We do need to counter China’s threat. China wants to be the dominant world superpower. China does not support freedom of any kind, including free trade. China has imperial ambitions.
Yes, tariffs are taxes, and they typically reward politically powerful crony capitalists at the expense of consumers. If Trump really wants to promote domestic manufacturing, he should rein in the regulatory state. Assuming we stop hamstringing American ingenuity, we have no reason to fear Chinese competition – they haven’t invented anything since the bottle rocket.
Personally I do not like Trump. This is due to his need to be the center of the room, but mostly due to his inability to filter his thoughts when posting on social media.
When it was Clinton and Trump, I could not distinguish the lesser of 2 evils.
When it was Biden and Trump, I voted for Trump because the idea of Biden as president scared the crap out of me. My fears came true in spades.
The nighttime TV comics love to trash Trump. Most of it is funny. They also sometimes trash Biden but not so much.
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane.
Biden campaign promise: I will not run for re-election. I will be a transition President.
Check.
Biden campaign promise: I will reunify, bring Congress together, and end divisiveness.
First day in office trashes Trump. Check.
Biden campaign promise: Mine will be the most open and transparent administration in history.
Hur audio tape. Congressional subpoenae and requests for information. Check.
I’ve lost count, but there are more.
Then there was the election interference in 2020 ala the laptop. Biden did not even quote the plausible deniable wording. He out right said it was Russian Disinformation.
I detest all politicians other than a few dead ones: Washington and Lincoln. I like Churchill too, though he was a rabid imperialist who said he didn’t become prime minister to oversee the end of the Empire.
Creepy Joe is wall-to-wall lies, he lies so much he no longer knows what is truth.
Well, no, they are merely data visualizations depicting how the climate is changing (and it’s unclear why you find that objectionable). Understanding what is driving the change depicted requires knowledge of the physical mechanisms that force changes in earth’s climate.
Here. Watch this. Especially starting at 16:34. Key take-away: atmospheric CO2 is saturated to the point that additional CO2 (human or natural) will have only a NEGLIGIBLE effect).
Dr. William Happer (Institute for Public Affairs , 2023)
In the video Happer makes a rough guesstimate that each doubling of CO2 produces about 0.75 degrees of warming absent any feedbacks (in his written works, he has more precisely calculated the figure around 1.5 degrees per doubling absent any feedbacks). So you’re saying you agree with Happer and with the IPCC about the causes of the modern warming?
I don’t think anyone should say they agree with any such claims because the fact is that nobody knows- one way or the other. And since we don’t know- most of the human race isn’t ready for drastic, radical changes to our way of life.
Happer in the video says the question is settled beyond reasonable debate. Yet another point you all need to raise with him.
No evidence of CO2 warming anywhere on the planet.
Happer only works in the radiative field., ignores the real controls on the atmosphere.
As usual.. you have NOTHING. !
So you’d say you reject Happer’s conclusions as presented in the video and in his other publications, then.
Nobody knows for sure but some know more than others.
The problem is that out here in the real world, climate is dominated by strong negative feedbacks. What CO2 does without feedbacks is little more than a meaningless academic exercise.
You’ll want to take up with Will Happer why he wanted to talk to his audience about no-feedback sensitivity when doing so is highly misleading. The existence of negative feedbacks does not preclude the existence of positive feedbacks. The question we want the answer to is, “when all feedbacks are considered, how much warming results?”
The better question would be why the hell you think that slightly milder winters and nights coupled with booming agricultural output would be anything but beneficial.
The greening of the planet from more plant food in the air with a world population of 8 billion that must eat every day, why is this a bad thing?. Plants have already evolved to use 4 times the amount of CO2 in the air and its a good thing they have.
People who talk about “natural” always ignore this fact. It’s as if mass starvation is their special friend.
Since the alarmists worship Mother Nature, they hate to see changes, other than defacing her with hideous “renewable” energy. This is another example of people looking back to a golden age that never really existed. They think the climate of a few centuries ago was just right- before the nasty naked apes ruined it. These apes need to be herded into a socialist Utopia to save Mother Nature.
Zero thoughts or comprehension of your own.
Certainly nothing to do with any real science.
Now, where’s that scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2… still waiting. !
Feedbacks, just one more layer that is not well understood. So, speculation can be had over this topic but still, it’s all poorly understood. How can any theory on climate feedbacks be proven? Much of chemistry and physics can be clearly shown in a lab- climate science cannot. In a lab you can isolate variables- but the climate is extremely complex and you can’t isolate variables- and most likely, many are unknown. So, it does seem that the Earth is slightly warmer, on average- but nothing to panic over. We can keep studying it for another century before deciding to change our entire energy system at immense cost and disturbance of society and the environment.
This statement is overly broad. Many feedback mechanisms are understood very well (e.g. ice-albedo feedback), while others are understood less (e.g. cloud feedback). And while significant uncertainty exists for some of the less well-understood feedback processes, there is strong evidence that their net contribution is positive, so in the end we are talking about details of exactly how much warming to expect, not whether to expect significant warming at all.
What actions to take in response climate change is a social and political decision, not a scientific one. And we can keep studying climate change until the decision has been made for us, or we can decide what actions we will take based on the best information we have available. The evidence we have now strongly indicates that inaction carries significant cost and disturbance to society and the environment. So this stance that “the best course of action in the face of any degree of uncertainty is to carry on as though we are living in complete darkness” is not the neutral position so many on this forum think it is. In fact, rather than a neutral position of inaction, it is actually the conscious decision to not take action in the face of contra-evidence.
They are somewhat understood in a broad sense, but in detail, not at all.
Considering your example of ice-albedo feedback.
For example, ice is rarely pure, and the longer it exists, the more it gets covered by other things. This impacts the albedo, when the ice melts, what’s under it? That impacts how the albedo changes as ice melts.
Once the ice has melted, things start growing in the soil that is uncovered, that also impacts albedo. Until you can detail all of those things, you can’t say that you understand changes to albedo caused by ice melting.
And yet another lie, there is no evidence that clouds are a strong positive feedback, all the evidence is towards either a weak positive, or a weak negative, with much disagreement amongst actual scientists.
Even the claimed water vapor feedback has been disproven by measurements of the actual planet, rather than predictions by models.
If you want to do things that are proven to be harmful, such as replacing fossil fuel power with wind and solar, you damn well better have strong proof that the problem you want to solve actually exists.
To date, none of you alarmists have anything better than projections from models that completely fail when trying to predict the past.
From the IPCC AR6: “The combined effect of all known radiative feedbacks (physical, biogeophysical, and non-CO2 biogeochemical) is to amplify the base climate response, also known as the Planck temperature response (virtually certain).” And “The net effect of changes in clouds in response to global warming is to amplify human-induced warming, that is, the net cloud feedback is positive (high confidence). Compared to AR5, major advances in the understanding of cloud processes have increased the level of confidence and decreased the uncertainty range in the cloud feedback by about 50%. “ So, yes, there is some uncertainty related to feedbacks, and greater uncertainty with some than others, but the overall contribution from feedbacks is to amplify anthropogenic CO2 warming, even from clouds.
IPCC is NOT a science body.. they are a political propaganda body.
Even a moron like you must know that.
It will say what the AGW scam needs it to say… science be damned. !!
That would be the executive summary, that was written by politicians. There is no truth in it.
Another point is that the alarmists usually claim that melting sea ice is a strong positive feedback. That’s not true, it is actually a strong negative feedback.
The claim is that melting ice allows sunlight to penetrate sea water, resulting in the water warming up.
Unfortunately for them, the reality is that at the low angles that sunlight hits water in the polar regions, most of the energy from the light is reflected, not absorbed.
Beyond that, ice is a good insulator, as a result, less sea ice means that more of the relatively warm sea water comes into contact with much colder air. This results in the sea water losing huge amounts of heat to the air, and because cold air holds little water vapor, it’s a straight shot for that heat to escape into space.
So much for you claims that ice-albedo changes are well understood.
Is there anything you know, that is actually true?
No need to take it up with Happer, since nothing I said contradicts anything he said.
He made a claim about what the ECS would be in a no feedback world.
I pointed out that the real world is dominated by negative feedbacks.
You would be able to see that there is no contradiction there, if you weren’t so emotionally wedded to your need to support the alarmists position.
“The question we want the answer to is, “when all feedbacks are considered, how much warming results?””
So you don’t know. Don’t feel alone. Nobody knows.
The science isn’t settled.
Claiming CO2 is overheating the Earth yet you can’t tell us by how much.
More BS.
Happer actually overestimates because he bases it on radiative theory only
Feedbacks are NEGATIVE and have always been.
Now.. show us any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You know you don’t have any…. because IT DOESN’T
I haven’t looked a the science of feedbacks in nature- other than nature always seems resistant to change. You push it in any way and it pushes back. Of course major changes have occurred over the eons due to slow geologic and astronomical causes- all vastly greater than how much of a certain gas is in the atmosphere.
“atmospheric CO2 is saturated to the point that additional CO2 (human or natural) will have only a NEGLIGIBLE effect).”
CO2 is not nearly saturated, but the effect of CO2 depends mainly on a positive water vapor feedback. that no one, including Happer, knows. There are a huge range of guesses and no logical reason toi assume Happer is right, while everyone else is wrong.
Refuting the CO2 is saturated myth, with an article I wrote for my blog, with over 800,000 lifetime page views:
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: The Greenhouse Effect: The CO2 is Saturated Myth
Regarding whether or not the current CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated- for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is- but then if we add more CO2, can’t that new CO2 also “hold” some heat? Not saying it does as I have no clue- just asking a question.
The heat it can hold is on a logarithmic scale meaning it would have to double to gain a small amount above the present small amount.
CO2 warming is indistinguishable from random noise.
Let’s not forget that it is a lagging indicator meaning that temperature increases then CO2 increases in response probably due to the oceans not being able to absorb as much when warm.
CO2 doesn’t “hold” heat. You can think of it as being more like a partially silvered mirror. Some of the heat passes through, some of it is reflected back.
The more mirrors you stack up, the more heat gets reflected back.
Literally nobody cares about your “blog.”
Ive read it a few times now. Ive now read so many hypotheses about the role of Co2 on temperature that i think it is safe to say the error bars are huge. For current times say the last 10.000 years, let alone millions i don’t see any influence of Co2 on temperature. The attribution is per definition problematic. Hell, the whole GHE is problematic! I actually think, dare i say it, that Happer et al are overestimating the effect of Co2. That does not stop anyone from speculating and that’s fine. Hypothise away! It will never reach the level of an actual theory.
My own conclusion is that IF Co2 has a big effect on temperature we would see a very different set of graphs, not only for the last 150 years or so but for the last 2000 at least. Therefor the current alarmism is completely unwarranted.
On a side note: i also think natural Co2 levels before 1850 are estimated too low. Too complicated for me to get into now but it has to do with the way it is measured. Like so many things: we have one way of measuring compared to another or by looking at proxies. And ‘smoothing’ of data to get a nice graph casts a whole series of related issues.
Just too much politics involved..
That an awful lot of people made “more dumb” !!
Your Billy Madison emulation continues.
Most of those “views” are probably yours. !
[Deleted]
💩
Apparently, you have faith that climate science is “settled”.
So you don’t mind meaningless propaganda, so long as it supports your paycheck?
Your 2000-year graphic says nothing about the climate. It’s physical nonsense.
You don’t seem to have any objections to the 65 million year graphic that Anthony posted.
It is the best estimate we have for long-term variations, and before humans became a potential influence.
The 2000 year graph AJ posted is certainly total nonsense.
So what? We’re discussing your graphic. Own it.
So why don’t you raise any objections to it?
A rather pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your claims.
Most likely because even you know you can’t defend them.
It’s not being used to foment the ruination of lives. Yours is so used. So are you doing, in fact, with your adherence to the cant.
So you tacitly confess that you reject or accept scientific data because of what you think it implies about your politics, and not because you think it is scientifically robust. That is quite telling, Pat, but unsurprising.
The graph you presented is absolute garbage, and you are well aware of that fact.
The ludicrous aspect of the thread is that you think that chart is scientific data, Alan.
So, you think the ruination of lives is politics, do you. How telling is that?
Your chart is nothing but a subjective narrative decorated with mathematics. Its use is for ill, nothing more. And you tout it.
It would be interesting to know what makes scum like AlanJ support a fake science that is being used to bring down Western Civilisation.
Everything in AlanJ’s world is there because of fossil fuels and their bi-products.
But he wants to DESTROY it.
I can’t imagine such degrading self-loathing !!
Sad, pathetic and degenerate.
Once again, you see what you want to see, not what is actually there.
The problem is that you make posts like this implying your acceptance of proxy based data and then make posts like this implying your rejection of it. Which is it Pat? Do you think proxy derived temperatures are physically meaningful or not? Do you think they can be used to draw conclusions or not?
You assume too much, bdgwx.
The thermal excursion of the Medieval Warm Period is most clearly shown by the latitude attained by the northern tree line.
Such evidence is not a proxy.
The problem is that you never know what you’re talking about, and your critiques display that lack..
So are you saying you accept the northern tree line as a measure of the temperature of Earth? What term other than “proxy” do you use for this type of measure?
No he’s not saying this, can’t you read?
karlomonte is right. I’m not saying what you presume (as usual).
The latitude of the northern treeline is a general indicator of climate warmth. You know that, no matter your cavil.
What word do you use to describe something that is an indicator of climate warmth?
An indicator of climate warmth.
Would you describe tree ring growth rates, δ18O, etc. as indicators of climate warmth?
bx-what dips back into his enemies’ database…
It is objectionable because it is classic cherry picking to support a story line.
“Understanding what is driving the change depicted requires knowledge of the physical mechanisms that force changes in earth’s climate”.
I totally agree. Why don’t you try it? I mean, this site is supposed to be a gateway. There are enough links to educate yourself..
Nobody is listening to you alarmists. You’re talking to yourselves. Nobody cares.
More mindless gibberish from the superdope.
You have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what has driven the absolutely beneficial warming since the LIA.
The graph since 1850 is a very stupid way of presenting the natural warming, because the planet is still barely a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
It should all be shades of blue .
We are still very much in a COOL period of the Holocene.
Heatwave made THIRTY-FIVE times more likely. Where to next with the exaggeration?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno
Could be true — if a heatwave is .00000001% likely, then .00000035% is 35 times more likely.
Heat waves are always possible. All you need is for a high pressure dome to pause over your city for a few days or weeks.
The claim that CO2 means heat waves are either more or less likely is laughable. However to scientifically ignorant find such lies to be politically useful.
If it’s not 42 times more likely, it’s the wrong answer. 😎
Excellent, with your permission, I’d like to use those graphs in an upcoming lecture.
of course
I’d prefer one that starts with the beginning of the Holocene Optimum, it makes the time scales a little more comprehensible to the average viewer.
Would still be blue at the end.
I wonder if any other WUWT readers had the same first thought that I did upon reading “show your stripes day” — I thought of this:
Me too. And you know what? I wonder how many people understand the connection between the title:
“Global temperature change – Cenozoic to Near Present”
and what the orange, black, grey & blue stripes represent?
I fly mine everyday when weather permits.
Every day, Janice
Does a Pride rainbow t-shirt count?
Let me thinkNO!
Somewhere I have an old {40 years} horse blanket or sarape with those colors. I could run it up the flagpole but in my neighborhood of cattle and farming folks, they wouldn’t have a clue.
I just did a quick scan of the record highs for each day for my little spot on the globe.
Strange how many were set in the 1930’s rather than recently.
Just an impression, but I doubt if they were trended they’d look like a hockey stick as a graph or colored scale.
I’d invite others to look at their own little spot’s records.
Even Briffas tree rings showed that to be the case…
Of course, they never showed up in Mickey graph !!
Looks like the color scheme of well-known Mexican blankets. Or serapes…
Inaccurate reconstructions of past climates that include NO manmade CO2 emissions are worthless for evidence of the long term climate effect of adding +4 to +5 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions to the atmosphere every year for several centuries
Most charts in this article do not even define the vertical axis, which is anti-science
Your evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 is worthless…
…. because you don’t have any !
What is worthless are tree-ring proxies that go back before the industrial era.
CO2 has been a constraint to growth for a long time.
What evidence supports the assertion that human-generated CO2 emissions have a significant impact on the radiative imbalance? Present it here so we can scrutinize it.
He just likes to pontificate, not substantiate.
There is no hope of educating stupid people who believe they are smarter than nearly 100% of scientists since 1896, who recognize the greenhouse effect, and that manmade CO2 emissions increasing that effect.
Whether the CO2 emissions are significat or not depends on how you define significant.
I consider manmade CO2 emissions to be very significant and very beneficial for our planet, as most plants prefer about 1000 ppm CO2
The internet is filled with scientific studies explaining the effects of CO2 emissions, including studies and articles by “skeptic” scientists.
You and BeNasty resort to childish “You can’t prove it” tantrums.
Science does not prove anything.
Scientists collect evidence to support a theory.
There is 127 years of evidence about the effects of CO2. I can’t force you to read or understand the evidence.
If you want to believe that 97% of CO2 is natural, as many conservative believe, I can’t stop your desire to be perpetually ignorant on why atmospheric CO2 increased +50% since 1850.
How do you know how informed I am about the enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis? By ‘significant,’ I mean strong enough to be a dominant cause of long-term warming.
You disagree with the great Richard, therefore you must be extremely ignorant.
At least that’s what the great Richard keeps telling us.
You have once again demonstrated that while you may read a lot of articles, you apparently don’t really understand how the Scientific Method works.
What is important is NOT that some gases absorb IR, but what the net quantitative result is of the numerous feedback loops interacting in a dynamic system.
Might explain why so few people bother responding to you anymore.
100% of CO2 is natural. Unless you believe in the super natural, there is no other way for it to exist.
Poor RG another mindless rhetorical rant..
.. to cover the fact that he HAS NO EVIDENCE.
Present it if you have it.
Getting pathetically hilarious. !
Yes dickie.. Human emissions are some 4-5% of the natural CO2 flux.
Get over it, little child-mind !!
It may be only 4-5% of the natural emissions, however it is still more than enough to explain the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
A small change in the natural flux would totally hide human’s small contribution.
A warming climate always enhances the carbon cycle.
“There is no hope of educating stupid people”
How very INTROSPECTIVE of you. !
Your ‘facts’ are wrong. Even now, the typical net gain for CO2 is less than 3 PPMV annually, except for El Nino years where it has gone over 3 PPMV. The anthropogenic contribution was negligible before the 1950s.
The anthropogenic contribution was negligible before the 1950s.
Even now, human emissions are only some 4-5% of the total CO2 flux, and because nature can’t tell the difference, nearly all that “human” CO2 is absorbed straight away into the expanding carbon cycle.
CO2 levels rose at less than a 2 ppm per year average rate from 1975 to 2023, reaching about +2.5 ppm a year in recent years. Entirely from manmade CO2 emissions.
Before significant manmade CO2 emissions, the CO2 level rose from about 280 ppm in 1850 to about 316 ppm in 1959. Up only 36 ppm in 109 years, or about +0.3 ppm a year. Entirely from manmade CO2 emissions.
That is the point of disagreement. As it warms, biogenic CO2 emissions increase and out-gassing increases. There is no definitive proof that the increasing CO2 is anthropogenic. The best potential evidence would be isotopic ratios, but the extant studies don’t account for isotopic fractionation of CO2 when it out-gases from the oceans or when trees respire, particularly in the Winter when they are dormant and the atmospheric CO2 is experiencing the seasonal increase.
It takes many years, up to 1000, for increases in air temperature to significantly penetrate the oceans. That’s why changes in CO2 levels usually trail changes in temperature by 900 to 1000 years.
After only a few decades, the oceans would not have warmed enough to produce more than a trivial amount of additional CO2.
While the deep waters coming down from the poles may take 1,000 years, where they are up-welling, typically at the equator and along the western coasts of major continents, more CO2 will come out as the surface waters warm, for a fixed concentration of the deep water CO2.
There’s that scientifically unsupportable AGW cult mantra again.
Out of the closet, RG !
No isotopic evidence of much human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Because it is only 4-5% of natural flux, it all gets absorbed into the expanding carbon cycle very quickly.
Still, you have FAILED to produced any evidence that this enhanced atmospheric CO2 has caused any warming.
That runs counter to everything that I have read.
It is your belief that natural sinks expanded by exactly enough to absorb CO2 from fossil fuels, but didn’t expand enough to absorb any of this increased CO2 from some unknown natural source? That’s highly unlikely.
If the increase is substantially less than natural variation, it will be impossible to prove.
“ it will be impossible to prove.”
And he keeps proving he can’t. !
No CO2 warming signal anywhere. !!
“That runs counter to everything that I have read”
There was a recent study that showed there is no isotope signal for human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Can you point us to that study?
The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years.
For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years.
What was the temporal resolution of those ice cores?
Great article clearing demonstrating the clueless hype mentality of climate alarmism which is nothing but politically contrived propaganda from the “Ministry of Truth.”
This page has an extensive examination of the HADCRUT4 record compared to ice core proxies over different time scales.
The main issue w icecore proxies is that even at small scale they present an average over a few thousand years so only show those timeframes and not small timeframe fluctuations. I would not trust icecore ‘data’ for 100 years( not enough compression).Or sediment. Same issues. How far back go those HADCRUT records? However, they are a good guide into looking at various temperatures throughout the millenia. We are in a cold phase but in an interglacial, lucky us.
Wake me up when it gets cold..
I agree.
They said they wanted a debate. They said let’s do “science.”
They lied, and they are losing badly. It’s hilarious.
Politicians always lie. It IS what they are famous for.
Do not confuse politics with science. No one ever got elected using the scientific method.
The Cenozoic stripes graphic is missing a label for opening of the North Atlantic Igneous Province (NAIP), which occurred at -56 to -52 Ma during the breakup of Greenland and Eurasia (which began around -66 Ma).
This event poured out some 8 million cubic km of basaltic magma across about 4 million years. About 3.5 million cubic km of that was oceanic. The thermal impact on the climate was undoubtedly huge.
The Miocene Climate Optimum at -15 Ma coincides with the Columbia River Flood Basalt.
Also, Hansen (2008) provides deep ocean temperatures, not surface temperature.
Sea surface temperature across the Cenozoic is in Figure 4 of Hansen (2013). The SSTs are warmer — about 15 C added to the head graphic.
The graphic is also missing a label for the closing of the Panamanian Seaway, which was when NH temperatures really fell off a cliff.
Very true.
I still like this graphic depicting ice core data from the current interglatial that indicates the climate changes frequently and rapidly.
Off topic but after just paying an absurd amount to add freon to my home ac unit – is there any concrete evidence that reducing CFCs has had a significant impact on reducing the size of the hole in the ozone layer?
No.
An Ozone “Hole” was a media/Al Gore misrepresentation.
Seasonal thinning at poles, but no “holes” and no data to prove that thinning was CFCs rather than the seasonal lack of direct Sun light.
As I recall, the convincing proof was finding stratospheric fluoride. The thought was such fluoride could only come from CFCs. No other source was then known.
Later it was discovered that volcanoes produce fluoride. There went the proof. Oops.
But so far as I know, the Anthropogenic Ozone Crisis (AOC, appropriately) assertion was never amended or withdrawn. But I could be wrong.
As I recollect, more than one of the major Antarctic volcanoes produces unusually high concentrations of hydrofluoric acid.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth-sciences/an-antarctic-volcano-caused-rapid-climate-change-at-the-end-of-the-last-ice-age/
If you go to this link — https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ — you will see that the last few years have been very similar to the 1990s, just after the Montreal Protocol was approved. See the section called “Annual Records” on the left, near the bottom of the page. One of the more significant reductions (2019) was a warm year where the circumpolar polar vortex was anomalously weak.
It’s probably an embarrassment to official score-keepers that the ozone hole hasn’t “recovered.”
Also, UV-blinded Argentinian rabbits never turned up. We can guess they’re in hiding with the climate refugees.
One of my complaints about the ‘AOC’ is that ozone has been used as a proxy for the potential damaging effects of UV, with few actual UV measurements over the course of a year.
Years ago, I built a computer model to predict surface UV based on TOMS ozone data that basically suggested that the Winter surface UV flux was increasing slightly over several years. (It took into account solar altitude/slant range through the seasons, sunspot activity, orbital eccentricity, and ozone measurements.) However, that was a minimum value, well below what life had evolved to tolerate. During the Summer, when UV becomes more problematic, there was nothing to suggest that there was any systematic increase. That is, animals and plants were presumably already adapted to the Summer UV levels, which were not increasing.
It’s a personal strain, isn’t it, to know and have to see the destructive foolishness.
In the 40 years since CFCs were banned, there has been no change to the size of the so called Ozone hole.
What!!
No “Green” stripes?
I’m sure the Irish must have effected something!
(Says someone with over half Irish ancestry.)
I like it.
Judging by where the zero is located on the timescale of the second chart, there have been about 1,000,000 years since ‘present’.
As I understand it, the convention is for ‘before present’ to be represented by pre-1950, unless otherwise specified.
So the scale seems to be off by around 999,925 years, give or take.
Well.. that was gibberish.. even worse than your usual attempts.
What would be your explanation as to why the ‘before present’ zero on the x-axis is placed around a million years ago, on that scale?
“Note that in our Cenzoic Stripes above, we are in a cool period when geologic timescales are used.”
To be factually correct, we are in the interglacial period of an Ice Age. The Earth is currently in an ice age.
And if one were to translate the 173 year timeline of the Earth’s 4.6 Billion years in existence to a human lifetime of, say, 100 years, that 173 year timeline would be less than 2 seconds in the life of Earth. 173 years is way too small of a timeline to conclude anything.
The implication behind the alarmisism is climate isn’t supposed to change. Why else the fear mongering over climate change?
Who, I ask, are the real climate deniers?
The changing climate has nothing to do with weather. It has everything to do with freedom and lifestyle which people are too willing to give up when running scared.
Go outside and look. The weather is no different than it ever was. The same cannot be said about public policy.
I’m very surprised that many people believe that a colder climate will be better.
Most people believe what the MSM spoon feeds them.
While Meteorology is the explanation for the climate, it is
Hydrology that is the measurable consequence of climate.
The propaganda campaign of the “ShowYourStripes” day is a perfect illustration of the hallmarks of climate alarmism “science” – Deception, Distortion and Dishonesty.