Fears are growing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could water down or even ditch its current finding that almost all types of extreme weather events have little or no sign of past human involvement, or any going forward to 2100.
The finding in its recent sixth assessment report is a major thorn in the side of alarmists since ‘extreme’ weather event attribution has recently risen to become the major scare tactic used to promote the Net Zero fantasy. The IPCC finding has been ignored and a large pseudoscience ‘attribution’ industry has been created within the Green Blob to feed improbable and uncheckable ‘scientists say’ stories into the mainstream. At a recent ‘scoping’ meeting to prepare for the IPCC’s seventh assessment report, the press release claimed, in direct contradiction of previous work, that a century of burning fossil fuels has resulted in “more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts”.
The position on not attributing bad weather directly to anthropogenic causes has been a great credit to the IPCC. It has often faced justifiable criticism in the past that it is a biased body highly selective in the science it highlights. Recent research from Clintel discovered that no less than 42% of its climate scenarios used worst-case ‘pathways’ of highly improbable temperature rises. Its ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM) is a political document and has to be agreed by politicians from all 195 subscribing countries. Curiously, the IPCC assessment statement that the high-temperature pathway was of “low likelihood” was missing from the more widely-distributed SPM.
Nevertheless, the IPCC in its original 1998 remit is mandated with acting on an “objective, open and transparent basis” when investigating human-induced climate change. It is also established that its reports should be “neutral with respect to policy”. All the evidence points to these instructions being often ignored.
The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. sees clear dangers ahead noting the comments of the new IPCC Chair Professor Jim Skea at the recent COP 29 in Azerbaijan which he said focused entirely on advocacy. “I want to focus most of my remarks on the opportunities – and indeed the benefits – of near-term action. But first a few words on urgency,” said Skea. It is not within the IPCC’s mandate to call for action or implore urgency, observes Pielke. “There are plenty of groups who play that role. There is only one IPCC,” he added.
Of course it has long been observed that the original IPCC remit to investigate human-caused climate change leads inevitably to a slanted narrative. It was never on the cards that the IPCC would find humans had a negligible effect on the climate since its existence would be called into question. Twenty-five years later and an elite global political movement funded by almost unlimited subsidies has arisen to capture the commanding heights of economic and social life. It needs the IPCC onside, and the IPCC, and thousands of grant-hungry scientists, need it to survive.
Looked at in these terms, it is obvious that there will be pressure for the removal of the IPCC’s irritating statement that humans have not been causing much of the weather to get worse. The press release provides further clues about the possible future direction of travel. “Impacts are to intensify with every fraction of additional warming, particularly for the most vulnerable communities, accounting for 3.3-3.6 billion people.” Such precision in some scary numbers – where do they pull these figures from? For his part, Roger Pielke notes that the statement reads like “boilerplate from any garden-variety climate advocacy group, and not what one would expect from a leading international scientific assessment”.
Meanwhile, the attribution forces continue to grow. Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the U.K. Met Office and recently appointed as a Special Adviser to the Climate Change Committee, recently said weather can only be attributed once all factors are considered and “human influence remains the only reasonable mechanism driving that change”. Just from these comments it might be understood why the IPCC has held back on attribution. Running a number of opinions about a chaotic, non-linear atmosphere full of complex natural variations through a computer model and concluding humans might be responsible is not science, it is pseudoscience since its findings cannot be checked or falsified.
Roger Pielke is particularly unimpressed with what he calls “weather attribution alchemy”. In his view, attribution science is a form of “tactical science”. Such science serves legal and political ends, and the work is “generally promoted via press release”. The IPCC itself has noted that the usefulness and applicability of available extreme weather attribution methods remain “subject to debate”. Unless scientists find a way to turn pseudoscientific opinion into scientific fact, it can only be hoped that the IPCC’s current stand against the attribution industry survives all the debate and political pressure in its forthcoming assessment review.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
They will change the narrative to whatever it needs to be regardless of the lack of evidence. That’s the way it’s been from the start.
You mean like changing from the original charter that stipulated understanding the climate to CO2 is the control knob?
Interestingly, the following chart does not imply that CO2 is controlling temperature. All it shows is that over long time periods CO2 reaches an absorption/desorption equilibrium, probably with SST, and the time frame of present human emissions is too short to reach equilibrium.
What it shows is that over the past 800,000 years, plant life has come close to extinction several times due to CO2 deficit.
Not sure why the downvotes.
The only thing wrong with that chart is it uses modern measurement technology and proxies without and clarification.
However, that is a tailored graphic and does not show the actual peak data.
Your implication that the timeframe is too short to reach equilibrium is inaccurate.(1) Atmospheric equilibrium is never achieved. Weather is the proof of that. (2) CO2 equilibrium is also never achieved. A change in water temperature and Henry’s law is proof.
However, my point was the UN and IPCC did a hidden course correction in the early years from a well intentioned scientific endeavor to a highly political mandate.
What it needs is the current temperature marked on it , showing that the temperature is not connected to CO2.
Good point Bnice. I thought I was making the point that CO2 is NOT a control knob, got downvotes…I’ll add your chart to my numpty- fighting file.
Yes declaring acceptance of some form of voodoo “attribution science” as “true science” to boost the urgency of syphoning rich countries’ money to spend on poor countries…. is just part of the IPCC political group’s plan for a COP or 2 from now.
Really? Not too long ago some here were claiming that because the multi-model average was warming faster than observations the models were clearly falsified!
Now that observations are running slightly warmer than the multi-model average, suddenly the models don’t count as evidence for anything anymore?
The quote you show says nothing about warming. You’ve injected that as a straw man.
TFN, like the IPCC, does advocacy, not science.
That’s just the one half of his cognitive dissonance. The suppressed half is the one that can never type any empirical evidence for anthropogenic CO2 having any measured effect on any global climate parameter.
Out of curiosity what would count for you as empircal evidence for “anthropogenic CO2 having any measured effect on any global climate parameter”?
Given that there is only one planet earth and we cannot rerun history to see what would happen if there was less CO2 in the atmosphere plus the fact that there are noisy cycles in the climate what would count as evidence?
Admitting that you are totally clueless what empirical science is…..
Great start, Izzy-dumb !
Then you go to meaningless Kamal-speak gibberish . d’oh !
We know that there has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet’s flora and fauna life flourished.
We also know that is CO2 levels drop too low, plant life disappears, taking everything other life form with it.
“. . . meaningless Kamal-speak gibberish.”
I love it! It’s an exact rendition of Kamala nonsense!
Empirical evidence of human-caused global warming is impossible for precisely that reason.
Would you say the same thing about evolution? After all there is no way to run a control experiment or to rerun history and see if life evolved in a different way? Historical sciences are still science even if there is no “empirical evidence” for something like evolution by natural selection.
Another totally IRRELEVANT and gormless comment from Izzy-dumb. !
All because he knows he cannot present any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
A petty and moronic attempt at evasion.
John McEnroe summed it up perfectly – “you cannot be serious”
Evolution is still considered a THEORY. As far as I know, there is no Law of Evolution that supercedes all other possible theories.
“As far as I know, there is no Law of Evolution . . . .”
What a stupid statement, and I’m a hard-core evolutionist.
Isaak, I am posting a table of specific heats of various atmospheric gases. A question.
If CO2 is responsible for 4-8 degrees of warming due to infrared absorption will the temperatures for dry air or CO2 shown in the table be wrong if the same amount energy is applied but no infrared is involved?
please explain your answer.
MKelly,
I really do not understand your question. What do you mean by the “temperatures for dry air or CO2 shown in the table be wrong”? The table shows the specific heat of different gases at particular temperatures. There is no way the temperatures can be wrong since that is a parameter in the experiment. No matter how much warming CO2 is responsible for it will always be possible to heat CO2 up to a particular temperature and then measure its specific heat at that temperature.
If I apply the same amount of energy but without an infrared component will the temperature be lower or the same?
What does “apply the same amount of energy” mean? How are you applying it and to what? Now if you were to shine a green laser through a container of pure CO2 then very little of it would be absorbed. But if you were to shine a 10 micron laser through the same container then far more of the energy would be absorbed. Does that count as “applying the same amount of energy”? What the specific heat measures is how much the temperature will rise if the gas absorbs a fixed amount of energy. If the absorption of the gas is 10% at one wavelength and 1% at a second then you would need to illuminate the gas 10 times longer at the second wavelength for it to absorb the same amount of energy but after that time the temperature change would be the same as in the first case.
You have just shown you have zero scientific understanding..
Well done Izzy-dumb !
Well explain it to me then? What does MKelly’s question mean? How do you “apply energy” to anything? Does hitting CO2 with a cricket bat apply energy to it? You can add energy to something but what does “apply” mean in this context?
Poor Izzy.. doubling down on his dumb !!
Not for me to have to interpret a comment for you…
..pointless because you wouldn’t comprehend anyway.
Still waiting for your empirical scientific evidence of CO2 warming…
waiting… waiting !
Izaak, I was always under the impression that those making the claim – i.e. that human activities-generated CO2 was the SOLE cause of all detected warming in climates throughout the world – carried the obligation to provide the proof of their claims.
Watcha got?
You have accurately pinpointed the evidence that CO2 is not the main driver of climate.
In science, two things are deemed to be unrelated, unless they ae proven to be probably related.
In science, you cannot claim more knowledge than the evidence supplies.
In pseudo-science, things are assumed to be related – so we assume we know more than the evidence shows – unless it can be proven that they are not related.
AGW has abandoned science for pseudo-science. Why? Because the evidence that CO2 is the main driver of climate could not withstand scientific criticism.
The evidence that it’s junk science is the unscientific arguments put forward to try to defend it. Izaak Walton himself is good evidence that the argument has been lost.
What evidence would convince you? There is enough evidence that shows that rising CO2 levels raises the global temperate to convince almost all scientists. On top of that every theoretical model of the atmosphere that includes the radiative effects of different gasses shows that increasing CO2 levels raise the temperature.
Do you not believe in the greenhouse effect? Or do you not think that humanity is responsible for rising CO2 levels?
You have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
You have zero comprehension what empirical evidence is…
… you don’t even know where to start.
Theoretical models based on just radiation applied to a non-rotating 2D planet with a static atmosphere…. ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
Empty blether IS NOT EVIDENCE !!
But its all you have.
Show us a functional relationship between CO2 on the x-axis and absolute temperatures on the y-axis.
If you can’t do that, then there is no proof. Read up on Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac and how they found gas LAWS. Those are functional relationships that have withstood the test of time.
Linear regressions using sequential increments are worthless for proving a relationship. Climate science needs to end the pseudoscience where faith is needed to believe that a sequence of time, that is, a time series, can provide physical evidence of a relationship between two variables, CO2 and temperature.
Jim,
such a graph for the earth would be impossible to produce since CO2 isn’t the only cause of temperature rises and you cannot control everything else. How do you keep the sun constant to within a fraction of of a Watt while gradually raising and lowering CO2 levels while waiting for the earth to reach a stable temperature?
Now in the lab you can do a controlled experiment with a mixture of gasses but would that convince you or are you going to insist on doing an impossible experiment on the entire planet?
If you want to insist on an impossible level of proof then nothing is going to convince you.
That is your problem, not mine.
Your statement also proves that there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 is a large part of supposed increasing temperature to a catastrophic level.
Perhaps you should examine your faith in CAGW being caused CO2. Even you can arrive at a correct answer sometimes!
There it is.
“There is enough evidence that shows that rising CO2 levels raises the global temperate”
Yes, this is how this part of the comments section started. Don’t be shy, tell us what it is (the enough evidence) and please, in your own words. Doing the usual linking to your authority figures (e.g. almost all (unnamed) scientists) doesn’t cut it. The other half of YOUR cognitive dissonance might believe it, but nobody on here is going to click on a link to the usual suspects and expect the question to have been answered. Tell us what the “enough evidence” is.
No models either, no silly analogies, just empirical data please.
Also, please don’t waste everybody’s time with Feldman et al. That would also be a non-answer to the question tabled.
Izaak, let me give you a clue. You can’t give an answer because the “enough evidence” does not exist.
Another red herring. All kinds of experiments have been decided and implemented throughout history. They didn’t need another earth to play with.
With all the money being spent to erase CO2, some climate scientists should be able to create an experiment that would provide empirical evidence.
Your red herring is simply an appeal to FAITH, not to experimental science. BELIEVE ME when I tell you the truth! Experiments, sorry. Have faith that I am correct.
What sort of experiment are you talking about? What scale of experiment would convince you? Or would you insist on having a planetary scale experiment which is just not feasible.
Poor Izzy, IT IS YOUR FANTASY.
It is not up to us.
Real data has shown there is NO MEASUREABLE CLIMATE EFFECT.
The planetary scale experiment has shown it is a FAKE conjecture.
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed anywhere on this planet or any other planet
YOU HAVE NOTHING
Those are questions you need to answer.
Your belief in published scientific papers should lead you proposed experiments. The fact that you have not presented any should give you pause as to climate sciences experimental expertise.
I’ll say it again. Using time series with different scales for the dependent variables of CO2 and temperature is nothing more than curve fitting in order to present a correlation as a cause and effect. That isn’t science.
Hi Jim,
I am just curious. I would like to know what experiment would convince a skeptic like yourself that rising CO2 levels are responsible for causing global warming.
So for starters do you accept that the greenhouse effect is real
and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Or do I need to design an
experiment that demonstrates both of those things as well?
So Izaak, you make a statement of claim, then fail at providing any empirical, observed, tested, evidence-backed support of your claim, then ask the unconvinced audience what tests they would make to have them BELIEVE your claim.
Question:
Did you ever serve as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s department, per chance?
Again I am curious to know what you mean by “empirical, observed, tested, evidence-backed support”. What exactly do you mean by “empirical” in this case?
Now the thing is that there is no way to create a second earth with a different atmosphere and use it as a control. Which appears to be what you want as evidence for human caused climate change.Now there is only one earth, and we cannot rerun the past to see what the temperature would be like without the historical emissions of CO2. However it is clear that temperatures have risen along with CO2 emissions. Does that count as “empirical, observed” evidence? Or do you not accept that global temperatures are rising?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
em·pir·i·cal
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
But this is not proof that CO2 is the cause. In fact some proxies say rising temps cause rising CO2.
Because the variance in temperature of the entire globe is so high, a global average temperature will never be proven through a average anomaly.
I do not accept that. Look at this graph and tell us why temps in summer months have not risen along with increasing CO2. There are many other locations and regions that have little to no increased temperature. How can the “globe” be rising if not all locations are? You need some proof that everywhere is rising.
“How can the “globe” be rising if not all locations are? You need some proof that everywhere is rising.”
Jim,
an average can increase even if some of the individual components in it remain constant. The fact that the average temperature of the earth is rising doesn’t imply that the temperature everywhere is rising. What do you make of the UAH satellite temperature data that is shown here every month? The current trend is about 0.15 degrees/decade which clearly shows global warming.
You don’t even know what the temperature values are for the globe. UAH provides an anomaly value. That is a change in temperature. What is the absolute value that goes along with that anomaly?
I will tell my speed has increased 20 mph. Now tell us from speed?
Then tell us what the standard deviation of the absolute temperatures actually is. Also include the Degrees of Freedom for that SD. Is the distribution normal or some other probability distribution. Without this info you can’t know what is happening.
I’ll repeat my question that you totally ignored. Can’t answer it can you?
Look at this graph and tell us why temps in summer months have not risen along with increasing CO2.
This graph and many others do not follow as a normal distribution. They show no warming.
Jim,
the absolute temperature is easy to find. For example Dr. Spencer wrote in 2023 “Sure enough, this July set the global “absolute” temperature record at 266.06 K in the 45 years
of satellite data, overtaking the previous record of 265.80 K in July 1998.” (https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/July2023/GTR_202307JUL_2_RAJ.pdf)
But why do you need the absolute temperature? The rate of temperature change is 0.15 degrees per decade and that is the same whether you are talking about an absolute temperature or an anomaly.
Any given how complicated the earth’s climate is there is no reason why temperatures in Kansas should move in lockstep with the global average. Most of the warming is happening in the arctic while the trend in Antarctica has been essentially zero. None of this means that the earth isn’t warming it just means that it isn’t happening uniformly.
You didn’t even look at the graph and think about it did you? That is 124 years of data. It is not some 10 year comparison. Saying
“move in lockstep” is quite the understatement.
You are your own worst enemy. That graph is not anomalous. NOAA graphs from a number of states all over the U.S. are just like it. Why does CO2 not cause the same radiation back to the surface and warm it the same as the average?
If the warming isn’t uniform just where are the locations that bring the average up? Show us some graphs where the growth is large.
Lastly, you do realize that 266K is below freezing, right. That means a good portion of the earth is damn cold. Where is the 33°C of warming from GHG’s? It is supposed to raise the average to 288K. Your assertion is about 22°C short.
I’ll repeat my question that you totally ignored. Can’t answer it can you?
Just for grins here are a couple more graphs for you to explain.
Jim,
have a look at
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ks/#:~:text=Temperatures%20in%20Kansas%20have%20risen,been%20below%20average%20since%201990.
It states that “Temperatures in Kansas have risen about 1.5°F since the beginning of the 20th century” so there is warming but given the scale on your graph it is not apparent. It is also clear from their graphs that the warming has been mostly in the winter and spring months but they do state that “Summer temperatures have been near or above average since 2000”
And I never asserted that the global temperature was 266k. That was a direct quote from Dr. Spenser. You asked what the actual temperature was for the UAH series and that is the answer. The reason that it is so low is that it is measuring the entire atmosphere and not just the surface temperature.
“What do you make of the UAH satellite temperature data that is shown here every month? The current trend is about 0.15 degrees/decade which clearly shows global warming.”
NONE of the warming is from any human causation.
In fact, between strong El Nino events, THERE IS NO WARMING.
There is no evidence of any human causation of the warming in the atmospheric data.
If you think there is.. produce it….. or just stop blathering like a demented Kamal.!!
Not even close Izaak.
Historic CO2 emissions have risen and fallen along with temperature movements since the dawn of time, for all sorts of reasons.
Currently, there’s nothing happening that hasn’t been seen before in the geological footprints (they’re set in stone, not models).
So wouldn’t a null hypothesis for AGW start with something like –
“CO2 and temperature movements have been observed many times previously without human activities. So any movements with CO2 and temperatures cannot be assigned solely to human CO2 movements.?
?
But that is not what is happening. Humans are burning a lot of fossil fuels and as a result CO2 levels are rising. Claiming that rising CO2 levels have nothing to do with our actions is wrong. One has to start with the facts that (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (b) human activity is causing CO2 levels to raise at rapid rate and (c) global temperatures are also rising.
Give us attribution percents for H2O and CO2. Which absorbs and emits the most IR?
Rising CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature, even to spikes and step increases in the rate of increase of CO2 at EL Nino events.
CO2 CANNOT be driving temperature.
It isn’t me that needs convincing. It is you. It is up to you to find support for your CAGW belief and assertions using physical experimental measurements. Surely after 40+ years there exists peer reviewed studies with data taken from actual physical experiments that you can use to validate your belief in CAGW and that will withstand the scrutiny from the folks here.
Your use of greenhouse illustrates your belief in heat radiation from CO2 as the cause of increasing temperature at the surface. Planck id experiments like this in the early 1900’s, so there is no reason they can’t be redone today so his theories of heat radiation can be invalidated. Planck developed detailed functional relationships using data from his experiments. Why hasn’t climate science done the same with all the money they receive?
Again I am just curious. Now if your disbelief in global warming is rational then there must be an experiment that you can think of that would cause you to change your mind. And I am curious to know what that if.
And it should be obvious that the climate is a lot more complicated than black body radiation. And again there is only one planet and we have no way of controlling the inputs while measuring the outputs so that a functional relationship could be developed. Plus of course there is a question of time-scales. The deep-water ocean circulation has a period of several thousand years so any experiment would require the inputs to be held constant for at least 10 000 years while the earth settled back into an equilibrium before an observation could be made.
No, you are just very very ignorant.
Do you want to try to produce evidence, rather than your perpetual non-science blather…
… or continue to be an ABJECT FAILURE
There is NO EVIDENCE of CO2 causing warming in the atmosphere.. period.
The fact that you are totally incapable of presenting any, should wake you up to that fact.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
The onus is on you to prove it, not me.
It should be telling to you that you can not find any published paper proving this empirically, and that you can use as a reference.
Quit whining about not having another earth. That is a cop out that you can’t figure out a way to prove it. Be happy, you are not alone. 40+ years of climate science and still no empirical evidence. Thank God climate science wasn’t running the development of the nuclear bomb or the development of rocket launch and recovery!
How can I prove anything to you if you can’t tell me what you would accept as proof. 40 years of climate science has produced enough evidence to convince the overwhelming majority of scientists and every major political party in the world apart from the Republican party. 196 countries in the world were all convinced enough that they signed the Paris agreement.
Now clearly you don’t accept all that evidence so I would like to know what would convince you to change your mind? Can you describe an experiment whose result if positive would convince you to change your mind?
> Now that observations are running slightly warmer than the multi-model average
Now that the multi-model averages have been adjusted to match observations
Fixed that for you.
You are funny. The models are junk.
models hypothetical outputs are not data and therefore are not evidence.
Get lost, stinking troll.
Some of us falsify the models based on the fact they have fitted components and therefore are not physics based projections.
Some falsify based on the fact they don’t have the resolution to determine climate change.
Some do it based on the fact they’re modelling a chaotic system known to have natural variability beyond what the models can produce.
On the other hand some advocates believe the models because they believe in the “scientists” who naively use them without wanting to understand them.
Hind casting is purely and simply curve fitting.
A spike due to the 2023 El Nino+ HT effect takes it somewhere towards the meaningless model mean.
As the effect of the El Nino + HT subsides, models will look like the TOTAL CRAP they are.
And of course, Absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation.
You have proven that time and time again.
“suddenly the models don’t count as evidence for anything anymore”
Models have NEVER counted as scientific evidence…. period.
Don’t worry, proper attribution science is on the way.
It be witches that done it, some say.
CO2 = witches
Same playbook, and it will have to end the same way – – – fade away.
After killing many people.
The world killed over 50,000 witches during the little ice age for weather cooking and what happened? The world warmed up.
That’s solid Isaak evidence that more witches should solve global warming.
Yet no government financially sponsored witch schools exist anywhere.
From the article: “Meanwhile, the attribution forces continue to grow. Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the U.K. Met Office and recently appointed as a Special Adviser to the Climate Change Committee, recently said weather can only be attributed once all factors are considered and “human influence remains the only reasonable mechanism driving that change”.”
What change?
The weather is no different than it was in the past. The temperatures are no different than they were in the past. What change?
Climate Alarmists see things that are not really there. It’s a tactic for some, a delusion for others.
If Climate Alarmists didn’t have lies to tell, they wouldn’t have anything at all.
No science here in weather attribution. It’s all speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. The Climate Alarmists can’t prove one thing they claim about CO2 affecting the way the weather unfolds. They got nothin’!
What has changed is an increase in the number of observations and the instrumentation used to make those observations.
FYI, satellites making temperature readings is indirect, which means some kind of conversion algorithm. Satellites to not touch the air they are measuring.
“weather can only be attributed once all factors are considered and “human influence remains the only reasonable mechanism driving that change”
Kamela Harris would be proud to own that word salad.
Ah yes, lousy weather is the wages of sin. Why doesn’t this pseudoscientific announcement come as a surprise? Because climatistas lead a religious movement, not a scientific one.
“3.3 billion people (give or take a few hundred million) are going to suffer more, because of the wickedness of a few. Ahhhh, what’s a sinner to do? What’s a moral paragon to do? Let’s reach out and persecute someone.”
Don’t forget the tithing and indulgences.
From the article:”pseudoscientific opinion”
That’s exactly what weather attribution science is. It’s an opinion not backed up by any facts.
Climate Alarmists are desperate to keep the scam going so they pretend to be experts on Earth’s weather.
Weather history debunks the claim that CO2 is causing more extreme weather. There is no unprecedented weather today. Every time the Climate Alarmists make such a claim, weather history shows the weather was just as extreme or more so, in the past, when CO2 amounts were not an issue.
What’s changed is the near instantaneous digital media reports we are bombarded with. This creates a perception of crisis when in reality it is merely duplication and multiplication of reporting.
…. and, unfortunately, this is how many AI searches work. Probably deliberate by the small cabal of puppeteers who use the entire US Democratic Party as their useful idiots.
Too true. Sadly very few are willing and capable of challenging the software to provide a valid response.
The less influence they have, the more shrill their screeches become.
With DOGE on its way, hopefully it really will turn into a dog whistle.
Apologies to dog owners on here, but I’m sure you avoid them anyway.
“The position on not attributing bad weather directly to anthropogenic causes has been a great credit to the IPCC.”
Maybe.
But it has been a dismal demerit for the IPCC to have confidently attributed ANY of the reported warming to the computed incremental static radiative effect of increasing concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O. Why do I keep saying this?
Because observations from space (GOES band 16) and computed estimates of energy conversion in the atmosphere (ERA5) make it screamingly obvious to me that:
1) The incremental radiative effect cannot be isolated for reliable determination of a climate system response.
2) There is no good reason to have ever expected those non-condensing trace gases to “force” energy absorbed from the sun to accumulate in the land + ocean + atmosphere system as sensible heat – most certainly not to any harmful extent.
I have been posting about this via very short time-lapse videos with a full explanation in the description text of each video.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
Agreed. Further, CO2 has near zero emissivity at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.
I’ve long argued that the insistence on demonising CO2 has nothing at all to do with climate and everything to do with the Neo-Luddites’ determination to “unpick the Industrial Revolution” and take us all back to that mythical cleaner, greener age … blah, blah!
The aim is to end the use of fossil fuels and the simplest way to do that is to demonise CO2 as the one emission the use of these fuels has in common. If the climate activists genuinely wanted a cleaner environment they would be fully supportive of nuclear power for electricity generation. The fact that they aren’t gives the game away. Their target is modernity itself; climate is merely an excuse and, as they will find when this current warm period goes into reverse, not a very good one!
The aim is to socialize the world under the One World Order and eliminate excess population as defined in The Population Bomb.
CO2 actually only slows the passage of infrared by being somewhat opaque to that form of radiation, .similar to window glass. It does not actually emit any original heat.
True. I never said it did.
It does not slow the passage. It scatters the IR waves.
Absorbs in a tiny thin band and thermalises to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere where it is dealt with by the CONTROL of the gravity thermal gradient.
CO2 does not thermalize IR. That is a bogus claim.
There is a small amount of kinetic energy exchange via wave front momentum, but that only counters a bit of the incoming wave front pressure.
The absorption is in the valence bands and that energy ultimately is emitted in accordance with quantum mechanics probability.
Not sure that is totally true. CO2 can vibrate . That vibrational energy can be transfered to N2 or O2 increasing their kinetic energy, i.e., temperature.
Suggest you listen and learn.
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232
Can anyone explain to me exactly how this works? “To study the makeup of the atmosphere, scientists collect some air in a container and then shine what looks like a laser through the sample. When measuring the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are causing climate change, such as carbon dioxide and methane, the “laser’s” beam is made of infrared light, which has a slightly longer wavelength than the visible light our eyes can see.”
Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
Nothing is “trapped” by CO2.. period.
H2O is the main greenhouse gas by far. Check out the IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia city air. Integration of the spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%. Since the air sample was inner city air, it likely that concentration of CO2 was much greater than that of remote location such the open ocean or countryside.
CO2 absorbs only very small amounts of IR light. The Fig. 7 was prepared by the Australian sherro01.
H20 has a dipole moment and interacts with the EM field. This is basic to microwave (aka radar range) cooking.
“H20 has a dipole moment and interacts with the EM field.”
Then thermalises to the surrounding material.
The chart lines are “ATM-feet” The atmosphere is oh so many feet thick while the chart was designed for combustion gases that were about a foot or less from the furnace wall, and at partial pressure of tenths of an atmosphere rather than the tenths of a thousandth of an atmosphere of CO2 in the atmosphere. The X-axis is in degrees Kelvin and Earthly temps are way off-chart to the left, again because the chart was designed for combustion gases at 1000+ degrees…and it is a very broad-band emissivity that is being charted rather than narrow band wavelengths of actual atmospheric CO2. So a chart of this type is inapplicable to CO2 at atmospheric temps and pressures. Modtran or Hitran are required to do the job at the appropriate emission temperature.
“inapplicable”
Agreed.
If you are talking about the table mkelly posted, the temps are Rankine, “R”.
500R is about 40°F. 550R is about 90°F. The range is pretty compressed.
Yes, it was big of them summarising it into one table on page 1856 of the physical basis assessment report.
And of course the “journalists” that amplify the climate situation as a crisis never read that far.
Be fair – some of them manage the first 6 pages 🙂
The last bastion of real news is the internet and the Marxists are working hard to silence it. The EU should have been a wake up call instead it has become the Trojan horse.
If they blame humans for bad weather, they must also blame humans when the weather is good. We all know they will try to blame good weather on Mother Nature, so the fighting has to begin now on public forums
It would take a witch to determine the human influence on weather events out of the thousands of other influences. In other plainer words attribution science is witchcraft with no relationship to science. To call it science is an insult to actual fields of science.
Climate science is not much better. The only actual scientists in the climate study field are geologists and their work is largely ignored by the climate mob.
Even the term “climate science” has only recently been added to our vocabulary.
Short term trends in weather phenomenon does not in any way indicate a significant change in climate, and the current 30 year criteria is in itself insignificant,. It is just long enough to leave the publics memory a little fuzzy.
Hell, I can look at the data myself and see that extreme weather events are not getting worse!
They will cave.
You can bet on it.
I have my own take on sever weather, “no measurable change”. It seems to be common knowledge that polar temperatures are increasing more than tropical temperatures. Winter temperatures are increasing more than summer temperatures and night time temperatures are increasing more than daytime temperatures.
This leads to lower differentials. Differentials are the food of weather events. Differential temperatures lead to differential atmospheric pressures, the cause of air movement or winds. You can see where this chain of events leads; mixing different temperatures with different dew points.
When the differentials are smaller, the chaos for development of weather events declines. Relatively the differentials of all parameters of weather are so small the effects have no measurable effect on severity or occurrences of sever weather.
Why just blame weather with volcanos and earthquakes left on the side.
It will be fun to watch when the next significant cooling trend happens.
The world an ice ball and they will bring back the “runaway greenhouse effect.”
Story Tip
Is this the explanation for all the drone activity? A CEO of a Drone company says they are “sniffing” for something on the ground….nuclear material perhaps?
TRAITOR Quid Pro “Pardon Me” Joe Biden’s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Releases Report Confirming Radioactive Material Lost in Transit — Shipping Container Arrives Damaged and Empty in New Jersey
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/u-s-nuclear-regulatory-commission-releases-report-confirming/
#gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit
“Don’t ask me, I was too busy stealing ladies’ luggage to worry about Nuclear materials getting hijacked to make a dirty bomb to interrupt the Trump inauguration so Biden can declare a state of emergency and cancel the transfer of power.” ~ Biden Admin Nuclear Waste CZAR Sam “The Dog Fetish Pervert” Brinton
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/invasion-drones-breaking-truth-behind-mystery-drones-new/
X-P4 drones ….US Navy equipment
Question: Could the IPCC mission be amended?
To answer questions like
What climate do we want?
What are all the causes of climate change?
How much of warming is caused by increased CO2?
If global warming true, then which parts of globe will warm by how much? Will equator heat by more than a couple degrees?
If earth continues on long-term global cooling path, then when is next glacial likely to arrive?
Etcetera
Story tip: in relation to Co2 and absorption, sinks, natural and human emissions ( Tom Nelson podcast).
Playtip: the poster is German who speaks slow english, tgerefor play at 1.5 speed.
https://youtu.be/8STsRV4CKWw?si=ZVCo09vz8ErCEVXf
The IPPC needs to be disbanded and let scientists get back to unvarnished science research free of politics.
A new video on Tom Nelson podcast is very germane to this discussion. It Tom Shula soundly rebuts the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis by describing the actual interactions of the IR and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtvRVNIEOMM.
If the CO2 doesn’t do what the models are told it does the whole attribution thing is a waste of breath.
This was always going to happen. As with all of the alarmist claims, they don’t have to be true. Pure idle assertions, slogans and catch phrases that have become household familiar, are now routinely trotted out. The vast majority of people don’t delve much into what ”the experts tell us” It’s accepted at face value and becomes established as fact, with them.
Not attributing every bad weather event, to the dreaded climate change, by the main authority on the subject, was just not sustainable. Now, the crisis will have the official stamp of approval it needs to fly.
In my experience, the only way to fix this is to fire the miscreants. If the DOGE people are really getting into this situation, then maybe these people will be “putting their heads above the parapet”.
I hope they’re increasing their chances of hearing “You’re fired”. That will solve the problem.
An obvious example of the tail wagging the dog. Even though it is proper to point out that the IPCC doesn’t say what the CAGW activists say I always felt a little uncomfortable when we did that. The IPCC can and will change what it says anytime it wants. It is a political organization not a scientific organization. Even though it had plenty of scientists in it, the IPCC is proof that science can and has become political. Unfortunately we will always be remembered for looking to the IPCC for one reason or another. It may come back to bite us in the butt.
IPCC rules require science reports to be rewritten if they are contrary to what the politicians want in the summary report.
Narrative control does not like the public recitation of IPCC WG1 data that Roger keeps refreshing. So it is demanding it go away