SUBSCRIBE to Climate Change Weekly
IN THIS ISSUE:
- Bad Estimates of Solar Activity and Temperatures Undermine Climate Change Projections
- Ocean Emissions Cool the Climate, Forests Also Cool Oceans Remove More Carbon Dioxide Than Previously Believed
- Greenhouse Gasses Are Saturated, Not Causing Warming, New Study Says
Bad Estimates of Solar Activity and Temperatures Undermine Climate Change Projections
The Heritage Foundation recently published a paper from the leading scientists at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) that argues the debate over the causes and consequences of climate change is not settled, in part because the climate models likely fail to account for problems with the temperature record and the influence of solar activity on climate.
Concerning the temperature record, the paper points out there are three principal sources of local temperatures that are averaged and combined to produce “global average temperatures,” surface stations, which include both land-based and ocean-based temperature readings, satellite measurements, and weather balloon measurements. The paper describes how average readings are determined and communicated. The problem identified by CERES, a problem others have pointed to previously, including repeatedly by Anthony Watts, is that the surface temperature record is beset by persistent the heat bias stemming from surface stations being improperly located.
CERES shows that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fails to adequately address this and other problems associated with the surface station record, as displayed in contaminated homogenized temperature datasets. CERES’ research suggests that the IPCC’s temperature “data” is as much as 40 percent warmer than it would be were the bias from the urban heat island effect and flawed homogenization properly accounted for.
Concerning natural factors that impact climate, the IPCC only modeled two natural factors, ignoring a number of others: volcanic activity and solar irradiance (solar activity). Interestingly, despite CERES identifying a minimum of 27 different estimates of long-term solar irradiance since 1850, the IPCC chose to only examine one estimate, one that just happened to suggest that the Sun did not play a measurable role in recent climate change. Other estimates show a larger impact on temperatures, both decadal and over longer time scales. As CERES writes:
We … have concerns about the IPCC’s handling of the ongoing scientific debate over the changes in solar activity (TSI) since 1850. The TSI estimate used by the computer model simulations that contributed to the IPCC analysis was guaranteed to show that global warming was “mostly human-caused.” However, we have identified at least 27 different estimates of the changes in TSI since 1850. Several of these estimates suggest that global warming is “mostly natural,” and several suggest that global warming is a mixture of natural and human-caused factors.
In the end, the IPCC’s claims that the science is settled and that human activity, not nature, is responsible for all or the vast majority of present climate change was seemingly pre-ordained by the data sets the IPCC chose. This indicates the IPCC knew the outcome it wanted and tailored its premises to produce it. Per CERES:
We therefore conclude that the IPCC was overconfident and premature in its detection and attribution statements. The scientific debate remains ongoing. In our opinion, the scientific community is not yet in a position to establish whether the observed temperature changes since the 1800s are “mostly natural,” “mostly human-caused,” or “a mixture of both.”
The scientific debate about how much global warming is manmade and how much is natural has not been resolved.
Source: The Heritage Foundation
Ocean Emissions Cool the Climate, Forests Also Cool
Two recent studies reinforce the fact that climate model simulations are wholly inadequate to project climate change and thus, policy makers should not trust such projections to shape policy.
It is widely acknowledged that climate models run too hot and have historically produced false impact projections. The simple fact is scientists don’t understand all the factors that impact temperatures and climate, which becomes more evident with every new journal publication.
I have written dozens of times describing research detailing factors unaccounted for by climate models that likely account for some of the discrepancies between model outputs and reality. Last week, in Climate Change Weekly, I discussed research suggesting that oceans remove far more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than previously believed, and assumed in climate models.
Two new peer-reviewed studies point to other factors impacting climate that models fail to account for.
Research published in the journal Science Advances quantifies emissions of sulfur gas produced by marine life that cools the climate more than previously believed.
The study produced through the collaboration of an international team of 14 scientists from universities and research institutes located in eight countries spanning three continents examined dimethyl sulfide outgassing produced by microscopic plankton living on or near the ocean surface. They found that the sulfur emissions were substantial and contribute to forming aerosol particles that directly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere and that contribute to cloud formation and brightening, which also reflects sunlight. This dual action has a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface.
Commenting on the importance of this study to an accurate analysis of climate change, Charel Wohl, Ph.D., lead author of the study from the University of East Anglia’s Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences said:
This is the climatic element with the greatest cooling capacity, but also the least understood. We knew methanethiol was coming out of the ocean, but we had no idea about how much and where. We also did not know it had such an impact on climate.
Climate models have greatly overestimated the solar radiation actually reaching the Southern Ocean, largely because they are not capable of correctly simulating clouds. The work done here partially closes the longstanding knowledge gap between models and observations.
Research published in the journal Nature indicates that models also fail to account for emissions from rainforests, which also tend to cool the climate.
The research by scientists from Finland in collaboration with 80 scientists from universities and research institutes in 11 different countries finds that rainforests emit chemicals that form isoprene-oxygenated organic molecules, with said molecules reaching the troposphere. The atmospheric gases were discovered by aircraft observations, and have been confirmed in laboratory simulations, and by global satellite measurements.
These particles grow and contribute to cloud cover and rainfall, especially over rainforests, ultimately regulating the regional and global climate. Based on laboratory experiments carried out in the European Organization for Nuclear Research’s (CERN) Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) chamber, the research team determined that isoprene emitted by rainforests drives rapid particle formation in extensive regions of the tropical upper troposphere resulting in tens of thousands of particles per cubic centimeter, and ultimately growth on the right atmospheric conditions. This is important because:
Aerosol particles are important for climate because they scatter and absorb incoming solar radiation and seed cloud droplets by acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). More CCN make clouds more reflective and may increase their extent and lifetime. Around half of CCN globally, and almost all in the upper troposphere6, arise from new particle formation ….
Commenting on the study in a news story, Marc Morano, who runs the popular climate change analysis site, Climate Depot, told KTRH 740 AM, Houston, “The amazon rain forests are essentially cloud machines … they’re pumping out clouds by releasing these aerosols from the forest.
“Which then create more clouds, which then cool the earth,” Morano continued. “Clouds are not accounted for well in the climate models, and this is what every skeptical scientist has been saying for decades.”
So, to sum up, three studies published in just the past month have suggested separate factors that impact temperatures, moisture, and climate change more generally – with none of those factors being accounted for by climate models, which have persistently failed over the decades to accurately reflect temperatures. Based on this alone, not even considering the solar irradiance issues raised by CERES discussed above, it is fair to say the science is not settled concerning causes and consequences of climate change.
Sources: University of East Anglia; Science Advances; Climate-Science Press; Nature; Science Direct
New Study: Greenhouse Gasses Are Saturated, Not Causing Warming
In a recent study published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Michael Simpson from the University of Sheffield, points out that the goal of hitting net zero emissions is a political one, that was undemocratically adopted by the U.K. government. It is not grounded in science.
Simpson’s study goes through the chemistry and physics of greenhouse gases, arguing that there is no climatic reason for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to net zero. Even if that goal is politically possible, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), are saturated in the atmosphere. As a result, per Simpson, “[a]dding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate.”
Simpson first explains the mechanism by which net zero was adopted by the U.K. government and what it would mean for its economy. He writes:
The economic consequences of pursuing Net Zero are thought to be devastating for the UK with estimates of costs up to £1.4 trillion for the UK alone offset by £1.1 trillion potential but dubious savings giving a net cost of £321 billion (385.2bn USD) or a cost of £10bn a year rising to £50bn a year according to the UK Climate Change Committee (https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/). Recent reports (NESO, 2024) clearly show that Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b) and is likely to cost each household in the UK £78,000 to decarbonise power generation and £58,000 to decarbonise road transport between now and 2050. With investment costs alone of £40bn per annum to 2050. All this expenditure, ~£300,000 per household in total, will be paid for by taxpayers, consumers, and businesses or through national debt for future generations to pay for (Sasse, 2021). This will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable in society the most, increasing household bills by several thousand pounds a year.
Yet all of this pain would produce no gain in terms of benefits to the U.K. or the world. As Simpson points out doing a brief literature review, there is no evidence that climate change is causing an increase in extreme weather events or making such events worse, more severe, of greater duration, or more powerful. In short, there is no evidence that human greenhouse case emissions are causing dangerous climate change.
And, indeed, Simpson notes, they shouldn’t be because scientific theory and experimentation show the vast quantity of naturally occurring water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere covers the radiation absorption band of solar radiation. Additions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from humans don’t significantly alter the amount of solar radiation that can be absorbed and retained. On this point, as with others, Simpson contributes no original research. Rather, he gathers and nicely summarizes the research conducted by scientists such as physicists Will Happer (Princeton) and Steve Koonin (New York University), and geologist Ian Plimer (University of Melbourne).
Instead of simply appealing to authority on this point, Simpson also goes through the “ideal gas law” in detail, showing mathematically why additional greenhouse gases can’t have the climatic impact attributed to them by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on these facts, since greenhouse gases aren’t producing runaway temperatures or worsening weather, they can’t be causing a climate crisis in need of a big government fix. As a result, Simpson concludes:
There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases.’
Sources: Government of India; CO2 Science
Recommended Sites
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sure we’ll see this stated in the mainstream media very shortly.
/s
National Weather Service on X: “Happy Winter! Almost. 4:20am Eastern Time will mark the Winter Solstice, when the Earth’s northern hemisphere is tilted furthest away from the Sun in its yearly orbit around it. This also means that tomorrow is the shortest of the year for those of us north of the equator. https://t.co/sB2z66KNTT” / X
Bad estimates…
6th mass extinction update
Blob-headed fish and amphibious mouse among 27 new species found in ‘thrilling’ Peru expedition…
The findings are particularly surprising given the region’s high human population density
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/20/blob-headed-fish-and-amphibious-mouse-among-27-new-species-found-in-thrilling-peru-expedition
In other news, the RSPCA is nowhere near radical enough for St. Christopher
BREAKING: Chris Packham Resigns From The RSPCA
Chris Packham has been a vocal critic of the RSPCA Assured scheme
https://plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/chris-packham-resigns-rspca/
Typical Vegan.
After many years of recommending almost every Burnett article at Climate Realism that I could find, he has morphed into a person desperate to exaggerate any possible cause of global warming other than CO2 emissions.
Burnett has zero science education.
Credentials · Ph.D., Applied Philosophy, Bowling Green State University
This week he is pumping studies that:
Grossly exaggerating the urban heat island annual increase that does not affect 71% of the planet and also not every land weather station
The silly study about ocean aerosols that were already including in the UAH ocean temperature data and were merely data mined wild guesses relying on a computer model of a tiny climate variable.
Any discussion of solar energy based on sunspot counts grossly exaggerates tiny changes i TSO.. The satellite data since the 1970s proved that
And the ridiculous false claim that greenhouse gases are saturate
The implication of all these weak studies is everything the IPCC says is wrong. Not true.
CO2 causes global warming and was an important reason for some of the post 1975 global warming. The IPCC got that right.
Unfortunately, there is not much money to study natural causes of climate change. Which the IPCC seems to have little interest in. But there is no evidence so far that natural causes are responsible for a majority of warming since 1975. Burnett wants to ignore CO2 warming evidence, He is biased.
“Burnett has zero science education.
Credentials · Ph.D., Applied Philosophy, Bowling Green State University”
And that’s more of YOUR exaggeration. I suspect he took some science courses. You don’t need a PhD in physics or chemistry to comment on the climate issue, intelligently. You can read published science, especially being open minded to those scientists not pitching the “consensus view”. You can also read what engineers and energy industry experts have to say.
Alex Epstein is also a philosopher and he makes a lot of sense about the climate issue. When he testified to Congress once- a politician blasted him for not being a scientist implying he had no right to discuss the issue.
Burnett shows a lack of science knowledge and is anti-CO2 biased in this article. Alex Epstein articles I have read, mainly on energy, have been very good. If he has no science education, then he was self taught, and did a good job. I wish I could find more free Epstein articles.
The actual climate science consensus since the 1800s is there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions increase it. The IPCC consensus goes far beyond that, so is just speculation. Very few scientists disagree. I have found only one, Tim Ball of Canada, who denied the greenhouse effect. And my 28 years of climate reading is almost entirely of writers and scientists who try to refute CAGW. I ignore the CAGW scaremonger scientists.
Consensus is NOT science
I know its a futile effort expecting you to present actual real evidence, but
Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
“Burnett shows a lack of science knowledge”
He is far more knowledgeable and open-minded than you are.
This is a truly empty-headed post
“This is a truly empty-headed post”
Great description of what you typed. Well done.
Try buying Epstein’s latest book. I’m sure you can afford it.
Article says:”… net zero emissions is a political one, that was undemocratically adopted by the U.K. government. It is not grounded in science.”
This is the money quote. Is it your contention that net zero is grounded in science?
Net Zero is a complete waste of money
177 of 197 nations don’t care and the other 20 will never reach net zero electricity. much less net zero primary energy.
It is my opinion after 17 years of experience designing engineering project plans that net zero is a fake engineering project. It is merely a leftist Trojan Horse strategy for controlling the private sector to advance leftist style fascism.
CO2 causes global warming and global greening. Both are beneficial, so net zero is counterproductive.
“CO2 causes global warming”
You have absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to back that up.
It is a fake AGW conjecture.
It’s well established in the scientific literature. Since 1896.
That it was written does not make it correct.
Measuring the specific heat capacity in a fixed volume is not the same as atmospheric physics. Those early experiments were in sealed tubes and boxes with glass lids and involved thermal energy not electromagnetic infrared radiation.
So we have an entire body of scientific research built on foundations developed by 19th century researchers and repeatedly validated and replicated by numerous researchers from the 19th century, up to the present day. And here, on wuwt, we have a non scientist DENIER (actually several, including BNICE) claiming he’s discovered fundamental errors in the work of thousands of dedicated PhD scientists working in every country of the world over the last 130 years.
This Denial of Science mentality is astounding in its uninformed hubris and utter lack of scientific knowledge.
CO2 causes global warming – where is the empirical evidence to support this claim? Increases in temperature (since the LIA) have increased CO2 is, I believe, just as valid an argument.
I have, for some time, tried to establish the ‘base’ temperature (1850) to record annual increases since then, but, for some unknown reason (probably Confidentiality) the Hadley Centre will not publish or release the data only saying the data are from established institutions! It’s like saying trust me I’m a Politician!
The time from 1850 to 1880 was the coldest stretch in the 19th century and had the lowest CO2 levels as well. CO2 was measured but multiple scientists in 1820 at levels comparable to today.
CO2 is a minor, trivial contributor, not the control knob, of the climate.
It is my opinion after over 48 years of engineering experience in a breath of areas that include every field related to climate research, net zero is a political experiment that is doomed to fail and attempts to implement it are destroying the economies of major countries.
Modest warming and moderate increases of CO2 up to levels of 1000 ppm, minimum, are beneficial.
And your credentials are what, exactly?
I disagree with almost everything BeNasty2000 writes here using my BS detector skills from my BS degree.
Oh dear, dickie says he has zero qualifications, and fails his own BS detection.
Now, where is that empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Sterling has far more intelligence that you do
Urban warming makes a very large amount of the surface data. even near pristine rural stations (of which there are very few) suffer because of the homogenisation farce… Sterling is probably close to actual value.. you are certainly wrong.
You have not been able to produce one single bit of empirical evidence of warming by CO2.. either the band is basically saturated or it has no effect whatsoever. Sterling is correct, you are wrong.
There is no evidence that CO2 caused post 1970s warming.. you are mistaking CO2 warming for URBAN warming as you always do…. Sterling is correct, you are wrong.
“Burnett wants to ignore CO2 warming evidence.”.
What evidence.. you have strenuously avoided ever producing any. !!
You aren’t just wrong.. you are totally empty.
8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
Assume +1.9F degree global warming in past 150 years
Assume increasing UHI caused 0.76F degrees, or 40% of that 1.9F degree warming
Land is 21% of Earth’s surface
How much warming of 21% of Earth’s surface would be required to cause +0.76F degrees C. of global warming?
The answer is +3.6F degrees of UHI
(0.76 / 0.21)
All land weather station since 1850 would have to average +3.6F degrees of UHI warming to be responsible for the alleged 40% of global warming Burnett thinks was caused by UHI.
There is no evidence to justify such a large estimate of UHI warming
BeNasty2000: I typed this comment slowly so even you could understand it
ASSume.. great start , dickie. !!
You still don’t realise that URBAN data makes up most of the land surface measurements, especially after bogus homogenisations..
… That is quite ignorant of you. !
Urban areas are often several degrees warmer than the surrounding area.
And of course, you have totally ignored the effect of the El Nino events.
But a great attempt for a 12 year-old. !
Now , where that empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
“Which the IPCC seems to have little interest in.”
Wrong. Studying natural causes is not even in the IPCC charter.
“But there is no evidence so far that natural causes are responsible for a majority of warming since 1975”
That is just plane nonsense.. Plenty of evidence it from totally natural El Nino events, powered by changes in cloud cover and albedo
Absorbed solar radiation continues to increase.
“And the ridiculous false claim that greenhouse gases are saturate”.
CO2 band is essential saturated. Sterling is correct.. you are wrong.
This is all very interesting, although papers from CERES will never be taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream until there’s a change in the mechanisms that allow studies such as these to come to the fore.
In the meantime, the earth continues to warm. Whatever the views are on what is causing the warming (and I know that there are several that oppose the mainstream science), the warming cannot be refuted. Much of commentary here takes a very dim view of me pointing out very clear observations.
For example I’ve explained how the British climate has changed subtly over the last few decades. I have observed sadly, the changes that have resulted in milder winters and the demise of Scottish skiing, since the late 1980s. This is an irrefutable observation. Due to my keen interest in winter weather, I also take a keen interest in meteorology. And it has become abundantly clear to me that winter synoptics have changed in a subtle way in the last few decades. Because the British climate has always dictated that colder winters in the UK are marginal affairs, there was prior to 1988, more often than not, enough cold air mass and lack of sustained warm air mass over Scottish high ground, to establish a winter long snowpack that would gradually build with a net gain until the spring thaw – often well into April or even May.
Since 1988 however, the chances of a full season winter snowpack building until spring have become increasingly rare, to the point that now it’s we might expect it once every 8 years on average. Prior to 1988, we would have expected around 8 out of 10 winters (on average) to produce full season snowpack. This observation of course, is the result of the phase of AMO and probably many other well known oceanic and atmospheric processes. However, as an open-minded, enquiring student of earth sciences, I must ask the very straight forward and simple question: why have those processes conspired in such a way as to cause more Atlantic warmth and less Arctic cold?
Of course it still snows in the Scottish mountains, quite heavily at times. But where there’s been a change, is in the duration and intensity of milder airmasses. In the past there were always brief periods of partial thaw on high ground and this actually helped stabilise the snowpack, especially after a refreeze. This would be followed by blizzards and partial thaw etc with general net gain over the season. But the norm now is 4-6 days of intense thaw before the refreeze, which usually strips snow in the mountains to a bare patchwork cover.
Now, the point of all of this is that this is evidence of a subtle change in the UK climate. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand and claim that there has been no warming, as some here would claim. No, that doesn’t mean that I’m claiming this is necessarily to do with CO2….. but by the same token, let’s not discount the possibility! Yes, it might be just a regional change, but with my enquiry head in mode, it’s interesting to observe that it’s often the regions on the margins that are affected. These are the areas to observe closely for subtle change…. surely?
And unfortunately for the skeptical camp, at least for now, all the available to evidence continues to point to a warming world. As long as this continues, it will be difficult to obscure the mainstream CC narrative. I would love to see more in the way of skeptical views gain greater media coverage but unfortunately, the way the system works, that just won’t happen until either: nature has its say; or the system changes…..or both! As things stand the IPCC rules, while CERES, is a marginal virtually unheard of entity outside of skeptical sites such as WUWT.
Hmmmm. It’s been warming since the Little Ice Age. Scottish skiers are suffering mightily, while millions of people no longer die of cold.
Obviously we must have caused it. All the warm periods in history are utterly different.
Oh, I forgot. No actual attention must be paid to any issues that CERES are pointing out. That would be sceptical, and we shouldn’t tolerate sceptics!
Every generation of humans has to have some evil to point to. Few people now believe in Satan, and there is now little threat from communism, so we now can accuse CO2 of being the great evil to fear. People need a great evil- rather than just grow up and realize life is full of problems.
The more secure our lives get, the more we need great crusades to give us meaning. Not so long ago, the greatest challenge was living through winter.
Many do believe that mainstream Net Zero science is a big fat lie. If Satan is described in the Bible as the “father of lies”, could he behind this one too? The way many behave on this forum, with belief in all sorts of conspiracy theories, I’m not sure why more of them don’t just come out openly, and blame Satan outright as the manipulator of what many here believe to be the great AGW lie and conspiracy!!😆😉
While I don’t necessarily believe there to be a conspiracy, I do believe that the developed world wants to protect its own interests. Historically, every powerful empire has consistently done so. After all, let’s face it, Anglo- America and close allies have already had to contend with the rising economies of the Middle East, China, and Russia – together posing geopolitical challenges.
So, it stands to reason that trying to limit the development of rival powers by demonising fossil fuel based development, works to consolidate power with the already developed nations.
Unfortunately, for the time being anyway, the rising powers aren’t playing ball! As a result the powerful developed world has kind of shot itself in the foot, and has invested too heavily it AGW to backtrack too quickly. Chief agent of the developed world is of course the UN. As the proud sponsor of the IPCC, with the “holier than thou” image , the “champion of the oppressed, peace bringer” banner, who will stand against such an honourable champion?
Such has been the power afforded this particular institution, that it now threatens to bite the hands that feed it. I fear a horrible outcome.
All of that said, I don’t maintain that this is actually the main motive behind AGW…. but that it it wouldn’t surprise me to discover it to be so. The science behind AGW, I believe has been carried out by scientists initially at least with fairly unbiased motives. However, I do believe, at least in the possibility that political interests have cherry picked the scientific narratives that might otherwise not have gained so much wide acclaim.
Could I order another plate of waffles , please.
So said the waffler in chief😂
Admitting you are only acting neutral.. well done.
If only you knew the truth bnice. Yes, I AM neutral, whether you want to believe it or not. As such I weigh every opinion against reason and available evidence…. something that I don’t see happening from many of the clearly biased contributers on this site. Even some of the articles are heavily biased, sadly. Some are of genuine interest however.🙂
No, you only pretend to be neutral.
You are only fooling yourself.
You actually mindlessly “believe” every facet of the AGW scam.
It is Satan or, in more modern parlance – human genetics.
BTW I come on here a lot, but I don’t remember ever seeing anything on any conspiracy theory. Did you keep the links?
Not openly stated conspiracy theory…. but nonetheless conspiracy theory in all but name…..eg socialist/left wing/ communist agenda. I’m afraid I don’t buy any of that. As I wrote earlier, I wouldn’t be a all surprised to learn there might be some “Green Colonialism” on the part of the established powers that be. For me that’s as close as it gets to hidden agenda.
I do also believe there to be the possibility of “closed courts” as regards open and honest review of prevailing AGW theory. Any hypothesis must withstand proper testing in order to become well-evidenced theory. I don’t believe there to be enough testing currently. Perhaps AGW science is resting on its laurels to an extent, as the available evidence continues to show warming?
But I certainly don’t believe that there’s any kind of conspiracy to manufacture data in order to maintain the narrative. Yet, we do read of many such claims on WUWT. There will certainly be errors in the data, especially to do with poorly sited surface stations but that’s where it ends. Bottom line is that the satellite record also shows a warming trend, albeit not as extreme as the surface record.
The reason I visit this site is to read about science that does challenge the mainstream on AGW. To that end, I do often find some very interesting and thought provoking content. Andy May’s work in particular, I find very constructive. But there’s also an awful lot of other political nonsense and pseudo science that just completely misses the mark.
The whole AGW cult meme is based on politically motivated nonsense and pseudo-science.
Don’t you know what the “I” in IPCC stands for ?
And how the SPMS are created. !
Great waffle though. !
BTW.. satellite records show warming only at El Nino events.
There is no evidence of any human caused warming in the satellite record.
If you think there is, then please show us where.
Shared ideology requires no conspiracy. When enough people, including scientists, are raised with the idea that humans are separate from nature and have an outsized impact on Earth, they will instinctively ignore or reject any evidence that nature is powerful on its own and can cause major changes. That’s just one example, but there are many others in politics and other areas.
And prior to the LIA, it was warm enough that Vikings settled Iceland and journeyed to Greenland and Newfoundland until the climate got colder and the Northern polar Tree Line moved southward.
Such climate warmth is:
1) Cyclical
2) In a declining warmth interglacial.
3) Doomed to get colder as the millenniums pass.
A) One also notes that CERES is as accurate as world science can achieve today.
If one disputes that, let them cite the data directly and demonstrate that CERES is not.
I think you’re misinterpreting the essence of my message. Never mind, it’s a regular occurrence on this site.
1. I never alluded to Scottish skiing being more important than people dying of the cold.
2. I never once stated that I agreed that this subtle change in the Scottish climate was caused by CO2
3. I did say that I would love to see more skeptical science being more widely publicised
4. I didn’t say that CERES studies were to be dismissed BUT, I did allude to the likelihood that most will dismiss CERES….. until either nature has its say or the system changes…or both.
Please don’t infer anything else from my contribution. If you do, then your bias is at least equal to those who you yourselves accuse of bias😉
Oh dear…so sad😌😌🥴😭 more thumbs down simply setting the record straight on what I actually wrote. Some on here really don’t like it when their sad, tired old rants and accusations are clarified. You only get thumbs up here if you unreservedly agree with skeptical views on AGW….. how dreadfully scientific and open to enquiry can it get? Oh no, I don’t think I’ll be able to sleep tonight 😭
Do you need a tissue ?
If we as rational adults were honestly curious about our world, we would start with the fact that there is not just one climate for all of this planet, and take it from there.
I support your approach of focusing on the climateS that prevail around the various regions of Scotland.
Scotland’s climates have little in common with say South Africa’s. So why would we be “averaging” the observations of these climates and expecting to understand anything sensible about their behaviors?
To sum up – there is no THE climate or THE science that tells us how the legions of climates around this planet work.
I think I did hint at this. If we study those regions where cold winters for example were always marginal, we in effect have a more defined sample. There are other regions that will be similar, eg Pacific NW America. Have regions where the polar front meanders back and forth during winter been affected by the polar front generally starting to reside further north or south for more of the winter? Southern hemisphere climates are obviously going to produce a completely different set of observations, mainly because there is much less land area within the southern hemisphere that the southern hemisphere polar front interacts with. Our findings in N Europe have definitely been of the polar front migrating further northwards for more time each winter than was the case prior to late 1980s. This is a subtle climate shift. Whether it is to with rising levels of CO2 is for others to conclude. This is simply just an observation.
Tree lines were much further north in the MWP and before. !
Tree stumps and medieval artefacts found under retreating glaciers.
Viking burial sites in Greenland still in permafrost.
Arctic sea ice extent way above what it has been for most of the Holocene.
Greenland ice area only a bit down from its maximum in 8000+ years.
We are still very much in a colder period of the last 10,000 years.
There is no “we”.
“the warming cannot be refuted”
Yes, some warming. But what is often refuted is that for much of the world, a slight warming is a good thing.
The local news made a big deal yesterday that Denver was warm for the date (68F) but to their credit they pointed out that it was still below the record high for the date (69F) that was set in 1894.
Urban heating is definitely in effect around here, natural warming not so much.
Wow, 68 deg. How horrible. The poor suffering people of Denver. It’s a catastrophe! /s
Agreed 👍👍
Ahhh. the pretend Mr Neutral outs himself as an AGW apostle, yet again. !
Question is, how did he get so good at making waffles. !
Again, so said the waffler in chief, who repeats his challenge time and again to prove that CO2 causes warming. Like a stuck record, you lose credibility every time you repeat your challenge because the onus is on skeptical science to overturn the established science on CC -not the other way around. I would be 100% behind any published science that was able to overturn the status quo. But to date, all I see is you and your biased buddies shouting at the referee because the other team has the ball. Grow up and try to bnice😁
Every comment you make marks you as a rabid AGW-cultist pretending to be neutral.
I wouldn’t have to repeat the challenge if someone was able to answer it.
BUT THEY CAN’T!
Care to try ??
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
For an AGW stall-wart like you, it must be easy.
It is THEIR credibility that drops every time they fail to produce anything remotely scientific.
They are the ones overturning their own hypothesis, by not being able to support it.
That is how science is meant to work.
People notice you have no answer.
Bullshit.
Do you drive a battery car yet?
“Do you drive a battery car yet?”
While wearing a covid mask ! 😉
How do you know this?
Neutral1966, the 1970s were probably the coldest decade of the 20th century, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Using that (or the decades on either side of it) as a baseline is therefore misleading, but unfortunately, most people alive now can’t remember back much further than that. Have you checked the Scotland snowfall records from the 1930s or 1940s for comparison? At that time, Greenland and arctic ice were melting rapidly, as recorded in the scientific literature.
In addition, there could certainly be land use changes in the area that could result in lower snow accumulation, such as deforestation and increased urbanization.
““The amazon rain forests are essentially cloud machines”
Sound like the Smokey Mountains in several SE states would also form into that category.
“….. the surface temperature record is beset by persistent the heat bias stemming from surface stations being improperly located.”
Err, no.
At least in the US:
Further data here:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2020/03/usa-temperatures-comparison-of-moyhu.html
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Climate%20Reference%20Network,%2C%20soil%20conditions%2C%20and%20more.
“The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites across the conterminous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These stations use high-quality instruments to measure temperature, precipitation, wind speed, soil conditions, and more. Information is available on what is measured and the USCRN station instruments.
The vision of the USCRN program is to provide a continuous series of climate observations for monitoring trends in the nation’s climate and supporting climate-impact research.
USCRN stations are managed and maintained by the Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division of the Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. The National Centers for Environmental Information maintains and distributes the USCRN observations and derived climate products.”
As the man said (Brandolini) …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law#:~:text=Brandolini's%20law%2C%20also%20known%20as,it%20in%20the%20first%20place.
My version …..
The effort required to counter contrarian myth is of orders of magnitude more than that required to create it.
Once created in fact it liveth forever.
El Ninos in 2016 and 2023 are well documented.
Were you unaware of them?
Do you have any evidence of human causation of these El Ninos ?
Actually, no warming from 2005 until the 2016 El Nino,
Then Cooling from 2017 until the start of the 2023 El Nino
” El Ninõs in 2016 and 2023 are well documented.
Were you unaware of them?”
Yet more droning on of your tiring old challenges bnice. I’m not surprised Banton completely ignores you because you’re verging on irrelevance!
But I’ll indulge you for a change. Let’s assume you’re theory on El Ninõ has some credence. Please tell me why the theory hasn’t been accepted by mainstream CC. Also, if Los Ninõs are predominating more than Las Ninãs, then why is this the case? If we are indeed seeing more so-called “Super El Ninõ events, then where is the extra energy coming from to drive those events? If those events do indeed have a lasting impact on global temperatures, why should this be the case and the heat balance eventually naturally restored?
Yes, of course there may well be a natural cycle explanation for all of this but as ever, the onus is on the skeptical camp to produce the evidence, have it published and to generally upset the apple cart. Until that happens, expect the prevailing view to continue to prevail 😌.
Another El Nino denying AGW-cultist.
Unbelievable !!
All you have to do is look at the UAH data to see that El Ninos provide the only warming in 45 years..
At which point did I deny El Ninõ?🤔
C’mon bnice learn to read…🥴
Your empty waffle indicates you are denying the action of El Ninos since 1979
Please show us warming in the UAH data that is not related to El Nino events.
Try to type something that isn’t mindless kamal-speak waffle.
“you’re verging on irrelevance!”
You mean like everything you type ? Basically just empty waffle.
Thanks for admitting that Baton runs away from answer the question..
At least you realise that.
NOAA before 2005 is highly agenda adjusted to remove the 1930/40 peak
But you knew that.
Why post data you know is FAKED?
NOAA before 2005 is highly agenda adjusted to remove the 1930/40 peak
Someone asked earlier where there was evidence of people sprouting forth conspiracy theories….well here’s an example from bnice, claiming hidden agenda by NOAA. I’m sure NOAA gets things wrong and probably has huge inefficiencies in data production but to claim it’s deliberate, is just a bridge too far.
So you actually DENY (or are ignorant) that data has been adjusted.. !!!
You really are a rabid AGW-cultist aren’t you. !
Here is just one of many examples.
Oh no, so adjusted data is now deliberately contrived data is it????…you rabid conspiracy theorist😆
Oh dear, so lacking in scientific integrity that you accept manic data adjustment.
You must be an AGW-cultist !
Keep showing everyone your true colours.. good little “they/them”
Ah yes, the newly minted troll outs himself as a Fake Data Fraudster.
Didn’t take long.
Yep, Its pretence of “neutrality” is totally busted.
And it seems just too dumb to realise that fact.
Your effort failed. !
In what way in the real world did it fail? Get real bnice, to any neutral onlooker Banton wipes the floor with most of you every time. Raise your game and I might start to change my mind 😉
You are not a neutral onlooker.
Banton uses data he knows is fake.. and AGW-cultist like you, lap it up.
Time and again I’ve observed Banton set the record straight on claims being made by some of you conspiracy cultists. The data may well be wrong and the warming may well be temporary but to claim conspiracy and fake science, you need to produce evidence in a world that (for now at least) continues to warm. When, or if you start turning the wagon around, changing the prevailing view, in combination with data clearly showing a trend towards the restoration of global heat balance, then and only then will anyone take you seriously.
What you fail to recognise bnice is that I’m perfectly open to the possibility that for instance: the lack of certain types of cloudiness; or solar cycles; orbital cycles; ENSO cycles; oceanic/atmospheric cycles; etc might well be th
And more waffle. !!
No, you are not remotely open to reality… you keep showing that.
What you fail to recognise bnice is that I’m perfectly open to the possibility that for instance: the lack of certain types of cloudiness; or solar cycles; orbital cycles; ENSO cycles; oceanic/atmospheric cycles; etc might well be the cause of current warming. But I’m also open to the idea idea that mainstream CC might also be at least partly correct. I observe, I wait, I inform myself as best I can.
My own experience is at the very least, of observed, first hand experience of failing ski seasons, not just in the UK but also in lower lying Alpine resorts since the late 1980s. This has happened over a period that matches almost exactly the satellite warming trend era, as well as the surface record.
If mainstream AGW science says it’s caused by an additional 0.02% CO2 in the atmosphere, I actually want to find and be satisfied with evidence to the contrary. Andy May does provide some quite compelling reasoning. So too Willie Soon, and quite a few others. But what you do, with your constant crying conspiracy is to discredit your own reasoning, and to an extent tar more balanced opinions with your own rhetoric. No wonder, mostly your comments are ignored.
Odd that the only person using the word “conspiracy” is YOU.
Just another AGW nutter.
“says it’s caused by an additional 0.02% CO2 in the atmosphere,”
Without the tiniest bit of empirical scientific evidence to support that claim.
wow.. just close your eyes and swallow. !!
“I inform myself as best I can”
Yet you seem totally un-informed about the lack of scientific evidence behind your AGW-cultism.
More meaningless waffle… seems to be your MO.
So many words to say absolutely nothing.
The fact that you are willing to accept massive data adjustment…
… shows just how far down the AGW-cult rabbit hole you really are.
You also use cheap, short, abusive sound bites like this…as if that somehow enhances your reasoning. Like Banton does, henceforth your points will be ignored as irrelevant. I think actually that you might be impossible to reason with.
In your whole waffle-loaded presence you haven’t produce one thing remotely resembling science.
Why is that ?
Do you actually DENY the massive data adjustment exists
…or are you perfectly OK with it. !
Licking Banton’s feet… how cult-apostle of you.
Unlike you bnice, I don’t pretend to be a scientist. What I have done is to produce first hand evidence and experience of the impact of warming winters in Northern Europe. You can research this for yourself from a number of sources. This isn’t faked data, it’s real observed phenomena. To deny this is to bury your head in the sand. The warming trend is very clear. Whether it’s caused by CO2 is what I’m interested in establishing one way or another. Various alternative explanations might well have credence but don’t deny the obvious. The current data supports what has been observed in warming N European winters. Therefore, while I don’t believe that the data is perfect, neither do I believe it to be faked.
“I don’t pretend to be a scientist.”
That is very obvious. You do pretend to be neutral, though.
Lets look at raw, unadjusted data from around the Arctic shall we..
Ooo look , someone doesn’t like raw data .
Must be an AGW-cultist
https://www.carbonbrief.org/recent-alps-snow-cover-decline-unprecedented-in-past-600-years/
Try this for starters bnice. This matches my experience of skiing in the Alps over the past 30 years exactly. Please spare me the “Carbon Brief” fake science rhetoric. I would be happy to consider this with some other potentially dodgy studies but this particular study reflects exactly what Alpine skiers have been experiencing. Definitely not faked evidence, so time to pull your head out of the sand before you suffocate😅
If you want, I’ll also dig out snow cover records from the Scottish Avalanche Information Service archives, which again shows a marked decline in Scottish mountain snow cover since 1990. Oh no… maybe they faked the data too🙄😯
Did you know that NH winter snow extent has been increasing ?
Sorry you think your diminutive little corner of the world has any meaning. !
And your decreasing since 1990.. you mean during 3 major natural El Nino events and the peak of the AMO cycle ?
All those wind turbines are bound to have a bad effect on snow. !
And just to complete the picture, all long-term computer forecasts showing yet another mild winter on the cards for Western Europe, including the UK. What has become a pretty constant feature dominating European weather, the Azores High Pressure system looks set to establish itself very firmly this winter yet again, with only the prospect of brief weakening from time to time. Only Sudden Stratospheric Warming/Polar Vortex disruption being the only real chance of significant pattern change. Even then, lack of intense cold pooling in nearby continental regions might well render any any PV disruption quite impotent, at least over the UK.
This isn’t “just weather” as many would contend. It’s a decades long observed change in “weather type”. That makes it climate change. The jury might still be out as to the cause but don’t deny the observed effects.
Oh, another piece of waffle..
.. talking about WEATHER not climate..
Do you even know the difference.
“all long-term computer forecasts”
You do know these are totally useless and meaningless, don’t you.
Why only start in 1990… meaningless…
Why not go back to the 1930s when the Arctic region was in a warm period.
Well actually for the past 3 consecutive winters they’ve been pretty good at predicting the general strength, dominance and location of major high pressure cells such as the Azores high. Obviously detail is impossible more than a few days out but they’ve been pretty successful at general trends.
See notes by Ulric below, maybe if you open your mind, you will gain some meagre understanding of why Scottish snow has dropped since the 1990s.
It is nothing to do with CO2.
“uses ring-width records from juniper shrubs to assess snow cover duration”
You mean the period when CO2 was much lower, making tree rings meaningless.
And starting in the depths of the LIA well before any human CO2 could have any warming effect.
Thanks goodness it has warmed since then.
Now…. evidence it is caused by human CO2 ??
The LIA was limited to Northern Europe, not tied to changes inatmospheric CO2 concentration
BTW little AGW-cultist,
I have never said it has not warmed since the LIA, to the great benefit of most people in the world.
You need to come up with some thing that proves its because of CO2.
And did you know that many retreating glacier are revealing stumps and artefacts that go back to the MWP ??
Treelines that were significantly further up slopes and further north.
Viking burial site in Greenland still permafrost, when they weren’t when buried.
You seem totally unaware of most of climate history..
Are you still in high school ??
And yes, If you frequent Carbonbrief, you will end up being a totally un-informed AGW-cultist..
… not dissimilar to what you currently are .
And if you are going to point to data, (rather than make spurious empty claims), please don’t point to data from European surface stations, most of it is highly tainted by urban expansion and densification.
Or are you totally unaware of the effect of urban heat effect on temperature stations?
You seem totally unaware of lots of things. !
“What I have done is to produce first hand evidence”
I’ve looked back, and you haven’t produced anything but waffle !!
Nothing…. an abyss. !
Actually first-hand experience and observation certainly does count as science. I have produced a fair bit actually. But where’s yours 😂
That’s hilarious…
.. you really have ZERO comprehension what constitutes scientific evidence, do you !!
Banton uses FAKED data…. he deliberately LIES as he tries desperately to support bogus claims.
“The data may well be wrong “ yet you continue to just gobble it up.
The rest of your comment is just more empty waffle.
You could feed a battalion by now. !
Time to stop responding to the attention seeker methinks 🥴
Admission you have nothing.. OK
You seem to be the one desperately seeking some relevance.!
and failing !
Banton the King of the Inappropriate Analogy is quick on the draw with a hockey stick.
Very nice Sterling.
The elephant in the room, the AMO is colder when the solar wind is stronger, and the AMO is always warmer during each centennial solar minimum, when the solar wind is weaker. In the space age, the solar wind was the strongest in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980s, and early 1990’s, exactly when the AMO was the coldest. The current warm phase of the AMO began 1995, from when the solar wind weakened. The warmer sea surfaces drive a decline in low cloud cover, giving for example the UK an 8% increase in annual sunshine hours since the 1970’s.
Solar wind temperature and pressure:
UK annual sunshine hours:
And the absorbed solar radiation continues to increase, providing energy to the Tropical Oceans.
Thanks for this. When I posed by he question earlier in the discussion, where is the extra energy coming from… ?although I was aware of the cloud cover theory, you could have chosen to answer as you have done here. That would have been the “bnice” thing to do!
I do understand that this is an alternative explanation to that of the mainstream CO2 control knob. Time will tell I guess? If solar wind eventually peps up again, cloud cover increases and cooling follows, I would like to believe that the AGW theory would start to die a slow death. But reality tells me that some scientists are very protective of their work maintaining its status.
There is no empirical scientific evidence to back the CO2 warming conjecture.
The fact that every AGW-cultist runs away without producing any should gradually bring you to that realisation.
Time to wake up to reality.
UK sunshine record. Yes, striking similarity with the increase in mild winters over that same period.
And mostly due winter sunshine ….
UK.gif (1500×900)
UK.gif (1500×900)
Partially correct, there are also post 1995 increases in sunshine hours in the Spring and Autumn seasons.
Which is when most of the warming is, and less snow.
Thanks for the assist. ! 🙂
Indeed.
Just as David Viner said.
There does appear to be a correlation there. However did Lief Svalgaard not have something to say the effect of solar wind on climate? I don’t see him commenting here often these days. I have read about this theory before and it does seem to make sense. So, if the solar wind starts to strengthen, we should see an increase in low cloud and therefore more energy reflected back to space, followed presumably by cooling. It will be interesting to see if this does happen and whether or not that AGW proponents accept it.
“So, if the solar wind starts to strengthen, we should see an increase in low cloud and therefore more energy reflected back to space, followed presumably by cooling. It will be interesting to see if this does happen and whether or not that AGW proponents accept it.”
I believe you are referring to Svensmark’s theory.
Leif was adamant the the Sun had a small and cyclic effect on Earth’s temperature (contemporaneously).
See this thread: https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/
Sven’smark proposed that cosmic rays created more low clouds.
Trouble is they increase as the Sun’s output does and so go counter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682611002227
“AbstractA search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.”
Of course he is not referring to Svensmark’s ideas. Stronger solar wind states would mean fewer galactic rays, which according Svensmark would mean less cloud cover. Changes in cloud cover are predominately driven by changes in sea surface temperatures, with less low cloud cover during the warm phase of the AMO. As i noted in my original comment.
Ulric, this is definitely an area that deserves more study. Along the journey to understanding why my sunspot model worked I took a little side trip. I found that I could easily separate the sunspot signal into two signals which I simply called x1 and x2 where x1+x2 is the sunspot signal. The interesting thing is that x1 looks a lot like interplanetary magnetic field reconstructions (Lockwood 2022 shown), and x2 like some TSI reconstructions (there are many). I have no explanation other than the reconstructions are starting from the same sunspot data. So for now I can only describe this result as an interesting coincident.
Because my sunspot model is linear, I can show how x1 and x2 contribute to the temperature prediction. What this result suggests is that the IMF is responsible for for the temperature increase since the 1970s and that TSI isn’t changing in recent times.
I spent some time trying to find research on the role of solar magnetic fields on climate, and there’s not very much beyond Svensmark’s work on cosmic ray flux and cloud.cover.
That is not following when the solar wind was stronger, in the mid 1970s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s.
CERES is nothing more than 3 Science Deniers — Willie Soon and the Connollys — so when the article quotes CERES , it’s only quoting those guys. Notice when you read the basis for their claims there are no calculations of any merit, merely assertions without supporting details. Unfortunately this is typical Willie Soon (who was fired from the Smithsonian for lying about taking payments from fossil fuel companies).
the other giveaway is that this is a self published article. No reliable scientific journal would touch this drivel.
Any one of those scientists has several magnitude more scientific understanding, integrity and knowledge than you would ever be capable of in several lifetimes.
And the LIE about the Smithsonian.
… you really do dwell in the lower reaches of the sewer, don’t you. !
Noted again, your total inability to argue using anything remotely related to science.
You remain a totally empty sad-sack !
My post was accurate. Try lifting your mind out to f the sewer and check the facts of Soon’s Smithsonian debacle .
No, It is a baseless lie.
Noted again, your total inability to argue using anything remotely related to science.
As reported at InsideClimate News, emails and related documents regarding Willie Soon’s funding were obtained by Greenpeace through a Freedom of Information Act Request. Communications show that Soon had called a number of his research papers “delieverables” and had received funding in return from fossil fuel companies.
InsideClimate News details “11 times Willie Soon failed to Disclose Fossil Fuel Funding”, with the primary contributor being Southern Company, which generates power for nine states (largely from coal).
And On April 2, during his lecture in Madison WI Soon became defensive after receiving the following question regarding his funding by fossil fuel interests:
“You have received over one million dollars in funds from coal and oil interests. The last grant you received from a funder with no ties to the energy industry was in 2002. That’s over a decade ago. So Dr. Soon, why should we trust someone without credentials in climate science whose work is only funded by coal and oil interests?”
View his response below:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WgTq57XQno?feature=oembed%5D
Video highlights:
The final quote shows Soon did nothing wrong.. Well done. 🙂
And not a word about the absolutely MASSIVE funding to alarmists to create fake propaganda pap…. from renewables and other climate troughs.
And STILL your total inability to argue using anything remotely related to science.
What’s wrong with this statement by Soon? The man has to live and support his family. Science is his trade. Surely scientists have the right to receive funding from whomever they so choose, so long as they carry out their research openly, and without bias? The real question is, why did the Government stop funding his research? Might it have been because he wasn’t falling into line and not giving his unconditional support to AGW narrative? Those scientists who risk their careers and their livelihoods in order to tell what they perceive to be the truth are to be admired, not demonised. The system is completely screwed up if it won’t allow the hypothesis to be rigourously tested, through work from people like Soon and others.
Conflict of interest.
NONE. !!
You are the one with the “conflict of interest”
Every cent you make comes from pushing AGW-garbage. !!
You cannot allow yourself even a glimpse of reality.
You have zero credibility.
Oopsie, bnice has the receipts again.
If it’s impossible to receive Government or Government backed Educational Institution funding to study science that doesn’t conform with the narrative, what other sources of funding are available? Are scientists like Willie Soon supposed to do their research without funding just because they don’t agree with prevailing scientific narrative? So what if he received funding from fossil fuel companies, with their vested interests? Doesn’t Government also have vested interests?
Willie Soons work is incompetent. And he receives money from fossil fuel interests to publish his fraudulent work as propaganda for his masters.
Beetroot’s comments have absolutely zero credibility.
He is a known proven LIAR .
Why won’t any “serious scientific journal” at least consider alternative explanations, eg solar winds etc?
Scientific journals publish papers that show how an hypothesis presented in the paper is supported by evidence and data. The authors decide what hypotheses to consider. Thousands of scientists working around the world have examined many hypotheses, including solar winds. None of the alternatives, including ‘solar winds’ , explain the rapid warming since 1970 — but the effects of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1750 do explain (fit) the global rise in temperature.
The only atmospheric warming since 1970 has come at El Nino events.
Your comment hold zero credibility because it comes from a brain-washed moron who cannot present any evidence of the very basis of his cult-religion.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Or continue to FAIL UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY
Interestingly, I don’t see much in the way of challenges to the “Solar Wind driver of warming theory”. I’m interested to learn from those who feel the theory has been debunked and on what grounds?
It seems to have credence and I believe even some scientists from mainstream AGW science have conceded that not enough is known about cloud cover and what controls it.
So far, AGW supporters on this site seem unusually quiet on the subject. If you believe it to be a non-starter please explain why? Or is it something best just brushed under the carpet? Or will it create too big a bump under the said carpet? Perhaps concerned it might hand possession to the opposing team? At risk of now being slated as just another closet denier, please AGWs explain your reasoning…