From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
According to the BBC:
Species in the United Kingdom are under threat as they are “tricked” by our seasons shifting with the changing climate.
On average, key events that herald the start of spring are happening nine days earlier, external than a quarter of a century ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cly24dxeer1o
The only ones being tricked are the BBC’s licence payers!
According to HH Lamb, writing in 1982, the start of spring occurred later on average in the 1960s and 70s, thanks to global cooling, than it had done thirty years earlier.
“The mean date of onset of spring at Oxford has changed from 4th March between 1920 and 1950 to about 20th March between 1963 and 1980”
Climate, History and the Modern World- p274
In short, the climate now is pretty much back to what it was a century ago!
As seems to be the case most of the time, it is the relative absence of extremely cold weather which has pushed up average temperatures in spring.
The warmest Marches on record were in 1938 and 1957, and recent years have not seen temperatures get anywhere near those.
As for the idea that there is some sort of monolithic thing called nature with a biological clock, it is simply absurd. Nature does not do averages.
And as the above graph shows, averages mean nothing. Temperatures in March can vary by more than six degrees from one year to another, and variations of four degrees are common. Yet nature adapts with very little problem, or perhaps “ reacts” would be a better description.
It would not be a BBC article without the almost mandatory reference to extreme weather:
“Climate change will bring higher temperatures but also more extreme weather leading to confusion amongst some species.”
There is of course no evidence that weather is becoming more extreme in spring. Take rainfall for instance:
Since the dawn of civilisation mankind has celebrated the end of winter and the onset of spring. Only the BBC could turn it into some sort of calamity!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Story tip
or just plain off topic
Today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day
Authors/editors Robert Nemiroff (MTU) & Jerry Bonnell (UMCP)
found it necessary to genuflect to the Climate Crowd:
Methane Bubbles Frozen in Lake Baikal
The lake is also a vast storehouse of methane, a greenhouse
gas that, if released, could potentially increase the amount of
infrared light absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, and so increase
the average temperature of the entire planet.
Conveniently they don’t say how much the temperature of the
entire planet could be increased. That factoid is ALWAYS left out.
The concentration of CH4 in dry air is ca. 1.929 ppm. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.0014 grams (1.4 mg) of CH4. The reason for the low concentration of CH4 in air is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. Everyday there are several million discharges of lightning, especially in the tropics (cf. Wiki).
A light hydrocarbon gas, CH4 is readily oxidized by ozone.
Jet planes with their large engines are flying vacuum cleaners for CH4. Vehicles with
ICE’s burn up the CH4 present in the intake air as do thermal power plants and wildfires.
We really don’t have to worry CH4.
“We really don’t have to worry about CH4.”
_____________________________________
Same goes for CO2, N2O, SF6 and CFCs.
The BBC is not a trustworthy organisation, it is a lying left wing propaganda machine and a cover for pedocriminality. It should be defunded immediately.
The BBC once gave us their best of the truth via the many versions of it that lurked around.
Unfortunately the BBC has long been polluted by the same bad elements that have gained hold of most all of our centres of “knowledge”. Britain is not much better than most of the rest of the EU despite having supposedly left it behind in 2020 because the arrogant left and centre left have never really accepted our exit as a democratic truth and in essence are unable to be fair and without favour.
Unfortunately our pitifully poor and ancient electoral system does not deliver a true reflection of how voters feel with its first past the post bias meaning one vote is all it takes to dismiss a numerically strong ‘minority’. It has been argued that our system favours continuity but in practice it also appears to fragment opposition in order to do so.
Imagine having to pay an outfit that broadcasts pure propaganda; like it or not.
That is the BBC
-1
Scorchio.
Just cancel your TV License fee. Hundreds of thousands of Britons do it every year.
I would, but ‘she’ says no… Have you ever seen Italian TV?
It’s maddening.
Unlike almost all developed countries, in the UK you are not forced to pay for national broadcasting. You only pay if you choose to watch BBC TV. Radio is free.
In the UK I never paid my licence fee.
In Australia, I was forced to pay in taxes. Now I’m retired so I don’t pay income tax any longer.
In Italy I have the option to get the fee taken off from my electricity bill. I can’t be bothered with Italian bureaucracy, however. But at least I have the choice.
Correction – page number is 251 (at least in the copy I have)
“The warmest Marches on record were in 1938 and 1957, and recent years have not seen temperatures get anywhere near those.”
Both of which were clear outliers.
The average across that time period was 1C cooler than the average over the last 30 years.
“The mean date of onset of spring at Oxford has changed from 4th March between 1920 and 1950 to about 20th March between 1963 and 1980”
So around 2 weeks.
I suspect because of the warm phases of the Pacific and Atlantic that also had a global response,
And the mean day of the onset of spring is coming a month earler
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spring-in-the-u-k-arrives-a-month-earlier-than-in-the-1980s/
“The study drew on more than 400,000 individual observations of flowering plants from around the United Kingdom, dating all the way back to the year 1753. These records, collected and organized by U.K.-based nonprofit the Woodland Trust, now constitute the United Kingdom’s largest database devoted to the study of seasonal changes in plants and animals.”
“After combing the database and analyzing hundreds of thousands of entries, spanning more than 400 different plant species, the researchers found a clear pattern. Since the mid-1980s, the average date of the first flowering has advanced by about a month compared with all the years before.
The researchers next compared their findings with historical U.K. climate records, including temperature and precipitation. They found that the changes in the spring bloom are strongly correlated with rising temperatures.”
Back to the future.
Nothing new
Oh look, Banton like the dank gloomy English winters.
Wishes they were longer. Suits him better
HATES Spring, and the growth it brings, with a vengeance. !
If we could make growing seasons longer, we would.
“They found that the changes in the spring bloom are strongly correlated with rising temperatures.”
You don’t say… they found the thing they were looking for… well I never.
Probably strongly correlated with the price of chips as well.
In 1980 (only two years after Leonard Nimoy told us we were heading for another ice age), CO² was 20% less than today and all was perfect in the world.
Dear god what a moronic response.
A was Oxy’s …. but that is to be expected.
Anything will do so long as a last kick is performed.
It only makes sense if your only motive is to vent anger at the world for not conforming to a particular ideological mindset.
I suppose it’s cheaper than seeing a trick-cyclist.
Is it effective though?
You can hardly say that the world “conforms” to your ideological mindset. It does quite the opposite. That must be extremely tiresome for you.
“…vent anger at the world for not conforming to a particular ideological mindset.“
Oh you mean like the disgraced editor-in-chief of “Scientific America” calling half of the country, I quote: “f–king fascists”.
“ if your only motive is to vent anger at the world for not conforming to a particular ideological mindset.”
Coming from you, that is funny.
Another load of incoherent, nonsensical kamal-speak from Banton.
Do you realise that not one thing you typed makes any sense.
Is the onset of spring defined by temperature for these arguments?
It is defined by the onset of the first bloom of a particular flower.
^^ self-righteous Wolf ^^
😉
Funny how data that goes against the narrative, is always an outlier.
On the other hand, no matter how anomalous data that fits the narrative may be, it’s never given that moniker.
Look it really is quite simple.
Look at the bloody graph.
they are both outliers as they are far above the mean.
It is just the same argument as you lot make when saying a particular current record warmth somewhere is an outlier.
But when it occurred in the past it suddenly becomes significant.
Well that was meaningless gibberish !
Hey Bantam, why did they choose 1980? Could it be that that year was colder than the 50’s, do ya think?
Yes it was.
By around 0.2C.
Whilst it is now around a whole 1C warmer than 1950….
Matched quite well to sunshine increase since mid 1980’s.
And we know the absolutely abysmal state of the UK temperature stations,
Totally unfit for the purpose of showing real changes in temperature over time, due to massive urban expansion and infilling, corrupted surface stations, faked station data, agenda driven adjustments etc etc etc
No evidence of warming by CO2 in that chart either, is there, unless Banton thinks CO2 only stated having an effect in 1984.
Funny that CET doesn’t show that increase starting around 1980
““The warmest Marches on record were in 1938 and 1957, and recent years have not seen temperatures get anywhere near those.””
Oh, look! The warmest Marches were in 1938 and 1957. How interesting.
You know the hottest times in the U.S. were in the 1930’s and 1950’s, too. March and all the other months.
Of course, Climate Alarmists would argue that the U.S. high temperatures in the 1930’s and 1950’s were just “regional” and didn’t extend to the rest of the world, despite the written temperature records from around the world proving them wrong.
Now we have a little more evidence that the warming was global. Even in the UK.
There is no unprecedented warming today. It was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. People claiming a cyclical warming spell is changing the Earth’s climate are looking at things all wrong. They need to get that bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart out of their heads. It is leading them astray from the truth.
As Lamb’s book ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ goes against all that the BBC holds dear, it should be banned before more people read it !!!
Maybe becauee it was written 42 years ago.
The science has come on a tad since then.
Also the forcing of anthro GHG emissions has increased from ~ 0.5 W/m2 to ~ 3 W/m2 subtracting -the ve driver of aerosol in that time.
Yes, further – I propose we only teach/inform science that is of the order of 42 years old.
Hell. why not ignore all science research from then in all disciplines for ever more
(sarc).
Do you want to ban the teaching of Newton? His work is way more 42 years old.
Try reading comprehension.
It usually helps both the reader and the poster.
unless it it deliberate of course (just asking).
I said the exact opposite.
In the hypothetical case you raise, it would mean…
Let’s ban all science progression SINCE Newton.
(If – in your case – it supports your argument).
It is sometimes difficult to interpret gibberish.
Which is the very definition of most of your posts.
Climate science hasn’t made any real progress since the erroneous Arrhenius.
And you STILL haven’t produced any empirical scientific evidence of warming from atmospheric CO2. !
Still haven’t shown the CO2 warming in the UAH data.
“Climate science hasn’t made any real progress since the erroneous Arrhenius.”
This is true.
I’ve been following the subject since the “Little Ice Age” era during the 1970’s, and to this very day, there is still no evidence showing that CO2 is doing what Climate Alarmists claim it is doing.
Alarmist Climate Science = Speculation, Assumptions, and Unfounded Assertions.
Climate Alarmists can’t prove one thing they are claiming other than that CO2 absorbs and emits energy. It’s what comes after that absorbing and emitting, that Climate Alarmists have no evidence for. They can’t tell you how CO2 interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere. All they have are guesses. Wild guesses. Unsubstantiated guesses.
Alarmist Climate Science is Pseudoscience.
I have seen your posts.
You regurgitate AGW mantra crap.. a sort of “made-up”, model-based non-science.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don’t know what science actually is.
Oh nice, nice man.
The “AGW mantra” is what climate science says.
That you don’t agree with it is obvious.
As is that you can only vent on here with demands of evidence when you would not accept it the proverbial “flying saucer landed on the White House lawn”.we’re to happen.
The ideological bigotry is that immense.
This is a blog. just a bloody blog and no-one outside it gives the slightest hoot that you vent away here. And I very much doubt that the science community knows it exists, still less cares.
The manically anti-science CO2 forcing is based purely on unscientific nonsense.
Pity you are too dumb to realise that.
Makes you chart totally meaningless.
You have proved yet again that you are nothing but a mindless regurgitating parrot.
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 just keep FAILING !!!
“Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.”
You are getting rather boring with the constant repeat of that Oxy.
The world’s climate scientists accept it.
That you don’t and never will, whatever.
It’s your problem not theirs.
It simply marks you out as an ideological bigot.
“The world’s climate scientists accept it.”
This is called an “appeal to authority”.
This is not evidence of anything.
And what you and most others on here do is called denying authority.
As though you know better than the experts in their field.
(on the basis of the odd blogger or “expert” who due ideological motives chooses to be contrary) … or purely due having DK syndrome.
Did you go to Uni?
Did you take note/believe what your lecturors taught you?
Rhetorical question of course, as there would be no point in going to Uni if you did not.
That is the illogc of your assertion.
My talent is recognizing what is, and what is not, evidence.
You don’t have any evidence. You think an ECS estimate is evidence of something.
“The “AGW mantra” is what climate science says”
ROFLMAO..
so you admit is is all just fake and suppository driven nonsense.. OK !!
Just “believe” [spooky music] like a good little AGW cultist !!
Did you think The Twilight Zone was real, too?
^^ self-righteous Wolf ^^
More like a bumptious little prat, suffering from deep Dunning Kruger syndrome.
The mostly widely read science blog in the world.
Great place for you to show your true sickly green colours and ignorance and your brain-washed AGW-cultism, unsupported by any actual real science.
In that, you have succeeded !
Yet here you are, big man.
Just having some fun with you, little man.
A retired gentlemam has to have a hobby.
Liar.
Your religious attitude always pops out.
“The science has come on a tad since then.”
Lol The data torture and invention certainly has.
“Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. “
Best laugh of a bad year
Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. “
Best laugh of a bad year”
Another myth takes root, never to be expunged.
Indeed, just as the MetO says.
The MetO does not purely exist to provide historical, quality observations and leading NWP modelling.
It serves the public for their leisure activities.
Such was why the “over 100 non-existent weather stations” were created.
As the MetO clearly says.
Now how’s about putting up or shutting up.
Please provide evidence that they are incorporated into HADCRUT FI.
Another proven FACT.. Banton goes into catatonic denial. !
Hilarious!
Most of what is incorporated into HadCrud is urban affected junk data .. what’s a few fake stations extra. !!
Another Oxy rant.
As if that is proof of anything other than his manic ideological bigotry.
How does one plot Effective Radiative Forcing for 1850?
In a squiggly line with the same apparent “squigliness” across 250 years of “data”?
Wait is it 2100 yet?
Because we know what the atmospheric CO2 content was from ice-cores.
Then we have the CO2 monitoring station network established from 1958.
Same accuracy?
https://depts.washington.edu/fish437/resources/Week%2010/Etheridge%20et%20al.%201996.pdf
“Abstract.
A record of atmospheric CO 2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. has
been produced by analysing the air enclosed in three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica.
The enclosed air has m•paralleled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of
the high rate of snow accumulation at the ice core sites. The CO 2 data overlap with the record
from direct atmospheric measurements for up to 20 years. The effects of diffusion in the fun
on the CO 2 mixing ratio and age of the ice core air were determined by analyzing air sampled
from the surface down to the bubble close-off depth. The uncertainty of the ice core CO 2
mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm (1 o). Preindustrial CO 2 mixh•g ratios were in the range 275-284
ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global
climate. Natural CO 2 variations of this magnitude make it inappropriate to refer to a single
preindustrial CO 2 level. Major CO 2 growth occurred over the industrial period except during
1935-1945 A.D. when CO 2 mixing ratios stabilized or decreased slightly, probably as a
result of natural variations of the carbon cycle on a decadal timescale”.
There is no “radiative forcing” from CO2
Net radiative flux is determined by the temperature gradient.
CO2 does not alter the temperature gradient.
Radiative flux is determined by the rate of of TSI absorbed minus LWIR to space.
There is no evidence of any long term TSI increase but there is a GMAT
And OHC increase (~ 93% of warming is going into the oceans).
There just is.
So WV/clouds do not affect the net radiative flux?
I thought you maintained tht WV was the only agent at play in the GHE?
CO2 is also a GHG, and as such it’s presence MUST also attenuate LWIR flux to space.
Where temperature does come in is that of the height of most LWIR escapes upward due the presence off CO2.
As CO2 increases (280ppm pre-industrial > 400+ now) it does so less efficinetly due colder temperatures via your “temperature gradient” as that emission height rises.
BTW: still haven’t told me what profession you were in – so I can rubbish it as you do me via mine.
The atmospheric “temperature gradient” is determined by the relation -g/Cp (accn due gravity divided by the specific heat of the atmosphere)
More science -free gibberish… pertaining to absolutely NOTHING.
The oceans are warming, but its not from CO2.. that is total nonsense.
“The atmospheric “temperature gradient” is determined by the relation -g/Cp (accn due gravity divided by the specific heat of the atmosphere)”
And that is totally unaffected by any tiny change in trace CO2
Yes WV does effect the net radiative flux.. CO2 DOESN’T
There is no lapse rate formula with CO2 concentration in it, only WV
Now pick yourself up from your faceplant in your own ignorant BS. !
Your ignorance of the nature of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric energy transfers in the general, is your problem to fix… You have to un-learn all your ignorance first, though.
“as that emission height rises.”
As the the emission height rises, the area of emission increases by the power of 2.
Seem you don’t even grasp basic geometry.. that is really sad. !
I can rubbish you because you keep writing arrant rubbish..
Not my problem to solve…. . Yours.
AKA techno-handwaving.
If you ever read them – that is what you would find in climate science papers.
Explains, in part, how you remain ignorant.
“More science -free gibberish… pertaining to absolutely NOTHING.”
Well of course mr niceman.
It would be to you, as you have always demonstrated.
There are peeps on here reading who do not post and that is who my posts are aimed at. An escape from your rabbit-hole of reflexive ideological denial.
Plus of course it’s amusing to rile you and destroy your bollocks and by corollary, damage the credibility of, err, “sceptics” as you post your thread-bombing rants.
You wouldn’t know anything of what I post if it was stuck to a wet fish and slapped into your face.
“There is no evidence of any long term TSI increase “
Of course there isn’t… /s !
Please stop displaying your ignorance.
Not only that, There has been a marked increase in absorbed solar radiation this century.
No evidence of any human causation, though.
Err, see above … again a fail.
You really are in the wrong job Oxy:
Let me explain what it shows, as we wouldn’t want you to misinterpret it would we?
It shows a total variation of mean TSI of ~0.5 W/m2
And that is at TOA – not ASR – for which you need to divide by 4 and then x by 0.7.
That amounts to less than 0.1 W/m2 absorbed at the surface.
Sorry but enormous fail.
Which is unmeasurable inside the uncertainty intervals of radiometric instrumentation.
Fantasy conjecture forcings from ASSumption driven non-science.
Well done. !
You are really making yourself look incredibly STUPID !!
You’re the one looking stupid oh nice one.
And please continue as you are doing a better job than me in undermining the “sceptic” cause on here.
Another FAIL from Banton.
If you don’t know the graph is based on modelled, conjecture driven fallacy….
….you have again proven you are nothing but a regurgitating parrot.
Anthony has it all figured out. He thinks.
No, science has it “all figured out” to an uncertainty that is100% for it’s causation.
In that human emissions of GHGs are attenuating Earth’s LWIR emission to space and via SB law it has to warm to shed the conserved heat
(hence why LWIR is seen to be increasing in wavelengh when seen from space).
The BBC report refers to “spring” and to “the United Kingdom”.
The author of the above article truncates this to ‘March’ only and to ‘England’ only for the temperature chart he supplies.
Why does he do this?
Maybe because spring 2024 was the warmest on record for the UK as a whole and because the 6 warmest UK springs on record have all occurred since 2007.
Seems he doesn’t want you to know this.
The only reason why the spring of 2024 was recorded as record warm. Was largely because of the unusual mild nights mostly during May.
The mean daily maximum temp for Spring of 2024 was not even close to beating the record set in 1893 of 14C.
In fact since 2000 the spring of 2024 was only the 7th warmish spring for recording the mean daily maximum temps.
There are 14 summers in the record where that temperature (1893) has been exceeded in a UK summer.
11 of them came in the last 30 years.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/date/UK.txt
We are discussing the Springtime here not the summer and also mean daily maximum temps rather then just average temps.
The spring of 2024 was recorded a record high due to its mild nights and not due to the number record highs during the day.
And its daytime high temperatures that is what the climate lobby claims to be a major threat to humans not milder nights. So surely tracking mean daily maximum temperatures will be a better guide to follow to measure that threat
So when recording springs that have recorded the warmist mean daily maximum temps, the spring of 1893 has been the warmist by a wide margin at 14C.
“And its daytime high temperatures that is what the climate lobby claims to be a major threat to humans not milder nights. So surely tracking mean daily maximum temperatures will be a better guide to follow to measure that threat”
Heat related deaths/migrations due to that and drought surely are a threat to mankind …. but the greater long-term threat is that to the biosphere eg. ice melt and sea-level rise (yes we are talking of time scales of centuries). That is more a function of average global temperatures.
No evidence that droughts are increasing, nor ice-melt nor sea-level rise changing from its linear trend.
The only threat to humanity and human civilisation is the moronic net-zero crap that goes along with the climate scam that you worship.
Low-IQ AGW scumbags like YOU, worshiping the fake climate agenda that are the problem…. not climate.
It is not so much heat that kills, Deaths are 10:1 in favour of cold and rising
Cold Weather Deaths In U.S. Soar, Doubling In Two Decades – Climate Change Dispatch
Meaningless numbers.
Then why are they so close each month – and UAH as well?
They are quite obviously meaningful in that they compare apples to apples over consecutive months, and the variation shows quite readily in NV events such as ENSO. (spikes)
Which are of course just overlaying the upward trend in “average global temperature”.
Climastrology invariably ignores the uncertainty inherent in temperature measurements.
“nd its daytime high temperatures that is what the climate lobby claims to be a major threat to humans not milder nights. So surely tracking mean daily maximum temperatures will be a better guide to follow to measure that threat”
I agree with that. Alarmist Climate Science is all about high temperatures, so that’s what we should be measuring.
Tmax charts from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
If it was just as warm in the recent past with less CO2 in the air at that time, and it is no warmer today than then even though there is more CO2 in the air, this must mean that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere because more CO2 does not mean measurable higher temperatures.
So what!!
The UK being a tad warmer than when there were Ice Fairs, is in what way a bad thing?
And of course zero evidence of CO2 warming…
… just urban expansion/densification, weather site corruption making them “unfit-for-purpose” and lots of fake and mal-adjusted data.
Last 11 years have had a lot more sunshine, too.
Any sane pommie (ok, that’s not going to be easy to find), would think that was probably a good thing.. but not Banton.
Trolls like it dank, cold and wet… cannot abide the sun.
“The UK being a tad warmer than when there were Ice Fairs, is in what way a bad thing?”
Ice fairs in London as the Thames froze were a function of the old London bridge drastically slowing the river flow, as must as to the severe winter temps. It would never happen now, even if with did have a winter like 1683/4.
“Trolls like it dank, cold and wet… cannot abide the sun.”
The only “Trolls” on here are those that give hand-waving evdence-free assertions and ad homs.
Now let me see, mmm ..
And, sorry but there is zero doubt.
That would be you.
Someone such as me that engages the subject (I may be naive but I assume it is still a climate science discussion blog?) is not being a “Troll”.
“An internet blog troll is someone who posts or comments online to deliberately upset others.
Trolls may:
Post anonymously or under a fake name
Say things they don’t believe
Discredit, humiliate, or punish others
Encourage others to join in the attack
Downplay the impact of their behavior”
More projection.
Oh look, fungal has forgotten that the recent El Nino event affected the whole globe.
Also one that likes the dank, cold winters, and HATES Spring and flowers and plant growth.
And still no evidence that humans have caused any of this highly beneficial warming.
And we all know how the Met-Office measures temperature.
Much of it fake,
… and much of it from places totally unsuitable for measuring changes in temperature in time, because they are so contaminated.
Air pollution vanished in the UK, leading to more sunshine.
And guess what more sunshine does?
And pollution is man-made.
You were not thinking linearly, were you?
It was masking the true potential temperatures – which have risen due to increased anthro GHGs.
And you were just not thinking.
Some pollution is man-made … the rest is produced by nature.
So, to ‘fight any climate crisis, emergency, catastrophe,’
let’s just ban nature, that’ll sort it.
“And you were just not thinking.”
No it is you who are not
“Some pollution is man-made … the rest is produced by nature.”
Yes it is, like pinatubo and other major volcanic ash eruption.
Point is it rains/snows out quite quickly.
You know preciptiation removes it?
And therefore aerosols need to be constantly produces – and they are – by humans
You do know of the dark surfaces over the Greenland icefield that accelerate melting summer (another example of anthro warming feedback).
Again:
Try looking and studying it.
The pink is anthro and it has a permanent presence.
The light blue is natural and hovers around zero forcing apart from said major eruptions (black).
A classic piece of assumption-driven fantasy non-science.
It’s not of course but it was predictably followed by the usual classic piece of Oxyman’s valueless reflexive brain-fart.
Oh bless … I just spotted the ass.
How adult of you, but then you act like a 5 year old having a tantrum most posts
You spotted the ass?? have a double mirror do you. !!
Do you like watching yourself smile from your rear end ??
The “effective forcing” is nothing but modelled assumption drive nonsense.
If you don’t know that, you have proven your parrotness.
Philosophical tangent: why do people consider humanity unnatural? I don’t see how a glass building is different from a bees nest except who built it for whom. It’s difficult to phrase a definition of natural that excludes one without excluding the other.
“nat·u·ral /ˈnaCHər(ə)l,ˈnaCHr(ə)l/
adjective
Oxford dictionary deals with it in the expedient way – semicolon stands between man and nature, separating them into opposite categories. I bet the editor is an atheist. Do they see the irony?
According to the left, any change that has been caused by man, is evil.
Change caused by nature is always good.
Fascinating how you completely ignore how the alarmists have been proclaiming that almost all, if not all, warming is being caused by CO2.
Remember the global cooling scare?
“which have risen due to increased anthro GHGs.”
Just make it up, a funny little fantasy world of made-up science.
You are not thinking at all, are you.
Actually I very much am.
It’s called scientific training employed with following of current research of the field.
It obviously beats mindless knowledge denial as exhibited by your nice self.
No, you are mindlessly regurgitating AGW mantra nonsense. Research just not just “make stuff up”
It is what you do. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
“It’s called scientific training”
lol.. then why aren’t you showing any evidence you know anything about science.
FAKER. !!
You haven’t posted any “knowledge”.. just rampant parroting of AGW-mantra.
Care to try again.. or just FAIL again.
“lol.. then why aren’t you showing any evidence you know anything about science”
Dear, oh dear.
Oxy, my ideologic blinded old chap.
As I keep saying – you don’t recognise/understand any science.
That is not a consideration for you.
You have quite clearly decided that the world’s climate scientists are either incompetent, or fraudsters.
I maintain the common-sense view, that they simply know more than you.
That fact is constantly hammered home by your posts.
Thumping your own chest again.
No. Climate science’s chest.
If you are interested (sarc)
You will find all details in the IPCC AR6.
Driving a battery car yet, blanton?
May 2024 was a record breaking hot May .The Met Office says ‘May 2024 set a new record with an average mean temperature of 13.1°C for the UK, surpassing the previous record of 12.1°C set in 2008.’
It was so hot that I had to take a blanket off the bed.
Honest truth. I am not exaggerating. I was lucky to survive in one piece.
A lot of people in Britain were surprised just how hot May was.
The Met Office even had to ask ‘But what could cause such a disconnect between perception and statistical reality?’
Statistical reality is much more real than people’s eyes….
“It was so hot that I had to take a blanket off the bed.”
No one said it was “hot” – except you just now.
The MetO said, as it was a “new record” for mean May temp.
Just that and abBig difference.
The mean is max + min/2.
There can be a relatively high ave min and a relatively cool ave max.
‘No one said it was “hot” – except you just now.’
Global warming does not make things get hotter.
But why does the Met Office want to examine why there is such a gap between what people experienced, and what their official statistics say?
“But why does the Met Office want to examine why there is such a gap between what people experienced”
You do not experience the whole world, nor are you sensitive enough to the slow changes over time, certainly over the whole globe but also locally.
Only measured observations do that PLUS evidence from the biosphere of increasing energy being stored in the oceans and melting of glaciers et cet.
It’s like we only remember a small subset of things from our past, especially from our weather past. It’s human nature to remember only what we what to remember.
Another load of manic incoherent gibberish.
Measured observation ???? .. at urban , unfit-for-purpose surface sites are as meaningless as your petty brain-washed yapping !
No evidence of atmospheric warming from CO2 whatsoever
Urban warming is the only measurable human impact, and it is a tiny part of the globe, just homogenised into the meaningless surface data crap.
The absolutely beneficial warming of the globe has no other human causation… certainly not CO2
You continue to prove that by your total inability to produce one bit or real evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Evidence shows the plant is far cooler than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Seems to be your nature to be a brain-washed idiot. !
“Evidence shows the plant is far cooler than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”
Still not groked what Milankovitch cycles do I see?
Why am I not surprised?
Researchers from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group at Imperial College and Climate Central said the study shows…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg8dg3ke40o
Whatever the claim de jour might be
Weather Attribution = Climate Alarmist Pseudoscience
This is what Alarmist Climate Science is reduced to: Claiming they know how CO2 affects the weather.
There is no evidence backing up any of their claims. They might as well be attributing the weather to the Weather Gods. That would be about as credible.
Yes, Alarmist Climate Science is reduced to reading entrails.
A great resource for studying the progress of spring during the first half of the 20th century are the books ‘Weatherwise’ by John Willis and ‘Seasonable Weather’ by Lionel Smith.
For in them there is a photographic record of the same clumps of flowers and branches of trees taken at fixed dates during the spring between the years 1914 to 1942.
So there is direct photographic evidence to compare the progress of spring back then to what it is now.
Weather History is not kind to Climate Alarmists.
Here in NE Wales in late November-mid December we had a period of very cold weather and then snow that turned to ice and stuck around for almost two weeks.
Subsequently with milder weather many of the bushes and even some of the smaller trees in the garden have begun to bud obviously thinking winter is over.
I’m trying hard to work out what that tells me about climate change 🙂
Very nice Paul. The other side has nothing, they are reduced to scaring the crap out of people, their primary target, children. It is despicable.
Excluding the environmental alarmists who are always looking for some weather event to claim it’s proof of an imminent climate disaster, who really loses sleep over the annual fluctuation of the seasons? Some years it’s earlier, some later, some spot-on. Whenever they occur, that’s good enough and no one should attempt to attach any precise dates to them and start panicking if they’re earlier or later. Only when we see a regular serious, consistent, long-term change in their arrival do we have to be concerned and even then we’ve proved creative, adaptable and resourceful enough to deal with the situation. It’s only the cry-wolf crowd that tries to make a big deal out of the issue.
How dare the natural seasons not conform to the artificual Gregorian Calendar. Another case of Human Induced Climate Hysteria