The Independent’s recent piece, “Carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere climb at record rate to new highs in 2024”, is another fine example of what happens when journalists mistake short-term statistical noise for a planetary emergency. The article leans heavily on the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) annual bulletin, which reported a 3.5 parts per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric CO₂ from 2023 to 2024 — described breathlessly as the “largest increase since modern measurements began in 1957.”
But here’s the thing: when you actually look at the data — not the headlines — this “record” increase is barely a blip in the context of natural variability. In other words, it’s a minor uptick well within the statistical standard deviations of the long-term trend. The so-called “record” rise doesn’t signal anything alarming, except perhaps the media’s inability to resist turning every decimal point into a doomsday prophecy.
SPOT THE RECORD RATE OF RISE:
Atmospheric CO₂ levels have indeed been increasing — that’s not under dispute. But the rate of increase fluctuates year to year, depending on natural factors such as El Niño, volcanic activity, oceanic uptake, and vegetation growth cycles.
The Independent article itself admits this, though buried halfway down the text:
“The record increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2024 is likely due to a large contribution from wildfire emissions and reduced uptake by land and ocean ‘carbon sinks’ as the world faced its hottest year on record, with a strong El Niño weather pattern.”
In other words, natural processes — not industrial emissions — were the dominant factor behind the temporary bump.
We’ve seen this before. The El Niño of 1997–98 and again in 2015–16 produced similarly sharp, temporary increases in CO₂ growth rates. Those weren’t evidence of an out-of-control climate spiral then, and they aren’t now. Once those events subsided, the rate of increase returned to its mean.
The WMO’s reported “record” increase of 3.5 ppm sounds dramatic — until you remember that CO₂ levels have risen by roughly 2.3 ppm per year on average since 2010. A 1.2 ppm deviation over one year is statistically insignificant, especially when the Mauna Loa record has year-to-year variability ranging from 1 to 3 ppm depending on global conditions.
If we chart this in context, the 2024 “spike” sits comfortably within the historical standard deviation band of the dataset. Nothing about it suggests an accelerating “runaway” effect. To call it “record-breaking” is akin to celebrating a thermometer reading that’s one degree above last week’s high — technically true, but scientifically trivial.
WMO deputy secretary-general Ko Barrett told The Independent:
“The heat trapped by CO₂ and other greenhouse gases is turbo-charging our climate and leading to more extreme weather.”
This sort of language is designed to grab headlines, not convey nuance. It conflates energy balance physics — which are real but steady — with weather extremes, which remain highly variable and poorly correlated with incremental CO₂ changes on an annual basis. No physical mechanism supports the idea that a 3.5 ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ suddenly “turbo-charged” anything. That’s a sound bite, not science. Natural variability is not “Turbo-Charging”
El Niño: The Real Driver
The 2023–2024 El Niño was strong, marked by significant warming of the Pacific and widespread drought and wildfires — exactly the kind of natural feedback that temporarily boosts atmospheric CO₂. During El Niño years, tropical forests dry out, microbial respiration increases, and ocean outgassing spikes. When the pattern flips to La Niña, those processes reverse and CO₂ uptake increases again.
This natural oscillation can add or subtract roughly 1 ppm per year from the growth rate. The 3.5 ppm figure therefore sits perfectly within what the historical record predicts for a major El Niño phase. Blaming human emissions alone, as the Independent does, ignores half the equation.
The article warns ominously of a “vicious climate cycle” where warming reduces the ability of oceans and land to absorb CO₂. Yet long-term datasets show no measurable decline in the global carbon sink efficiency. Oceanic uptake continues to account for about 25% of emissions, while land biosphere absorption accounts for another 30%, remarkably stable over decades.
If anything, the biosphere has been greening — NASA satellite data show increasing vegetation coverage over the past 30 years, driven in part by CO₂ fertilization. That’s an inconvenient fact for the “vicious cycle” narrative.
Every few years, a natural fluctuation in CO₂ growth becomes the latest “record” for journalists to hype. Then it fades into the background as the cycle reverses. We saw the same media handwringing in 2016, when global CO₂ rose by 3.3 ppm during another strong El Niño. A year later, the increase dropped back to 1.9 ppm, and nobody reported a “record low.” Funny how that works.
This pattern of selective attention — celebrating peaks and ignoring troughs — is what drives public misperception. Real science tracks trends, not headlines.
Conclusion: A Molehill in a Mountain Range
The 2024 CO₂ increase is entirely within expected natural variation. There’s no sign of a “turbo-charged climate” or collapsing carbon sinks. What we do see, however, is the media’s unbroken commitment to amplifying every wiggle in the graph into a “record-breaking” emergency.
CO₂’s rise continues steadily, yes — but with no evidence that the Earth’s system is responding in a way that justifies alarm. As always, context matters. And when that context is ignored, what’s left isn’t science — it’s storytelling. The Independent’s “record rate” is a statistical blip dressed up as climate catastrophe. A little skepticism — and a glance at the Mauna Loa dataset — reveals a very different picture: the planet’s carbon cycle behaving exactly as it has for decades.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Strong El Ninos always give a surge in atmospheric CO2.
The natural step in atmospheric temperatures after a strong El Nino as energy is transferred around the connecting oceans (as shown by Bob Tisdale) gives an step-like in the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
El Niño is just a pattern of temperature observations. It “does” nothing.
Wrong.. ENSO is the pattern.. Learn the difference
How can a large release of energy from the oceans, and a surge of warmer water to other regions, NOT have any effect on the climate.
The BOM –
Your word salad does not change fact.
Is it really your position, that changes in ocean temperature and chemistry have zero impact on everything else?
Mark, you are trying to put words in my mouth, aren’t you?
Too scared to disagree with something I actually wrote?
I don’t have a “position” – apart from a physical one. I suppose your “position” is that adding CO2 to air makes the oceans warmer. That would be a pretty bizarre “position” to accept, wouldn’t it?
In the context of how you phrased it, it is equivalent to saying climate change does not cause anything.
However, El Nino is more than just a pattern of temperature observations. There is energy involved and the energy that is identified by the temperature observations does influence weather.
No equivalence – just fact. Climate is the statistics of weather observations. Always changing. Climate is just numbers, and “causes” nothing at all.
Heat kills. Cold kills. So do floods, winds, droughts and all the rest. As do earthquakes, tsunamis, disease and old age.
“Stop climate change!” is about as pointless as “Stop death!”.
In any case, there are still people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, even though observation and experiment demonstrate otherwise.
I refer to such people as being ignorant and gullible.How would you describe them? Quite mad, perhaps?
The head of the United Nations Antonio Gutteres has declared that forthwith no UN official will remain airconditioned on his watch. Back to the future like the grandparents day and in solidarity with all those who work in the great outdoors or under the iron rooves of the factories and workshops and all for the sake of the grandkiddies-
UN sees the world entering ‘extremely dangerous’ climate era as CO2 spikes by the most in the history of human civilization
No?
CO2 has been at levels of 7,000ppm and higher in the past with no damaging effects to the Earth.
Today, there is about 420ppm of CO2 in the air. Expecting a catastrophe at 420ppm of CO2 is a little ridiculous, don’t you think?
At 120ppm of CO2, all the plants on Earth die. Now *that* would be a catastrophe.
420ppm of CO2 is a good number. If it gets higher, that’s even better.
And there is no evidence that CO2 is, or can, cause the Earth’s weather to change to our detriment. No evidence whatsoever. The WMO doesn’t know what it is talking about.
Prior to plants learning to photosynthesize, CO2 levels were much higher. 20%???
The high CO2 levels of the past created the flora and fauna that ultimately produced fossil fuels; God’s hidden hand to help us when we finally were created.
CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:
1) increase command/control by governments, and
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for:
1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and
2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
One aspect rarely mentioned is the oceans, 70% of the worlds surface, contains many times the CO2 as the atmosphere. Remove CO2 and the ocean will refill it.
One way or another, CO2 will be in the atmosphere. The question is and always will be, what is the optimum concentration and that optimum is different for different areas of the planet.
Except for the C4 plants which will do well!
Seems CO2 measurements (Nicolas de Saussure) in the early decades of the 19th century are comparable to today.
https://fackel.substack.com/p/the-quite-unknown-story-of-co2-measurements-f6b
CO2 and other misnamed so-called “greenhouse gases” can not trap heat.
Nothing can trap heat. Heat is defined as the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient. If it is trapped it does not flow. If it does not flow it is not heat.
Control the language, control the ideas.
The continuing increase casts doubt on the reliability of the ice core based CO2 record.
It seems likely that atmospheric CO2 varies naturally far more than previously thought.
The real driver being the effect of centuries long solar variations in the El Niño/La Nina balance.
That variability not being captured in ice cores.
Yes there is buffering in the ice core records, they are open to the atmosphere for a number of years after they are laid down .
Not to mention melt, sink, and refreeze.
Agree entirely.
CO2 growth has been fairly steady, even through the COVID foofraw. So no big deal.
We live on a planet that once had a 20% co2 atmosphere (some,unlikely, claims go even as high as 80%).
How the hell could we end up up with a scenario where 0.04% are any problem, or that a 0.0001% increase is relevant.
And on top of that the same people who have massively(and undemocraticaly) forced the green new deal onto the entire west (fascinating that the Apex of low IQ AOC came up with this complicated trillion dollar plan)
and telling us how phantastic the green transition is(as effective as the vaccine it seems)
are telling us that the era of the greatest green transition results in record increase in co2.
This should be absolutely impossible and if it happens than it means that the green transition has the opposite effect of what the claim.
Try to get MSN to make that point.
There is a bull in the China shop….
Complete nonsensical word salad, by yet another ignorant and gullible true believer.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. As a matter of fact, the Moon’s surface temperatures in excess of 125 C, show the cooling effect of Earth’s atmosphere, where the surface temperature does not exceed 90 C.
More CO2 results in slightly lower maxima, as it prevents more sunlight from reaching the surface.
Oh dear, reality can be a bitch sometimes, can’t it?
Your lack of understanding of how doubling of CO2 results in a little bit of IR to be emitted down from the sky and reemitted up again from surface (a phenomenon called “temperature”) means that any scientifically trained mind would consider your statements to be not worth listening to….
On the other hand, your objection to the CO2 turbocharging BS is “right on”.
Except instruments designed to measure in the CO2 frequency show a big dip in that range of downward radiation.
There is actual hardly any downward radiation from CO2, because CO2 hardly ever gets a chance to re-emit in the lower atmosphere..
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232 – YouTube
Heat is the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient.
Anything trapped does not flow.
One cannot trap heat.
The conflation of IR and KE is the attempt to make them the same. IR is electro magnetic energy and that is not kinetic energy. Eunice Foote in 1850 discovered this.
Michael,
I wish it were that simple. It isn’t.
Nor is it so simple that CO2 is “the control knob.”
I agree. CO2 does not trap heat. I agree. CO2, if any, has a miniscule impact on temperature.
Sparta, it seems simple to me. Adding air to CO2 to air does not make it hotter. The ignorant and gullible believe that it does.
The only aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere is a miniscule change in the specific heat capacity. It is trivial, but not zero.
<i>“Carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere climb at record rate to new highs in 2024”</i>
Would it help if I stopped lighting my farts? Come on baby, light my farts…
2024…wasn’t that the same year China’s CO2 emissions topped 31% of total global emissions?
Now they’re over 33% and approaching 34%
I think you got it wrong twice.
There is actual data suggesting such a decline in CO2 sinks. It is even an outspoken trend over the last 10 to 15 years. However, that is just the official version, and there is something wrong with it.
For a while now CO2 emissions are systemically underreported, and there are well motivated reasons for it. China emits like crazy and they are not backing down. All CO2 reductions in the west were more than overcompensated by transferring production to China. All these efforts are actually in vain, if not counterproductive with regard to reducing global emissions. That is something you can not communicate without breaking the agenda.
So what happens is likely a massive underreporting of Chinese emissions. They are burning ridiculous amounts coal (>5Gt p.a.), while claiming that coal was different, containing far less carbon. Also land use emissions are inexplicably going down. It is all necessary to keep up the narrative of policy efficiency.
Since CO2 sinks are just the difference between atmospheric accumulation and our emissions, underreporting these emissions will make sinks seemingly be failing as a side effect.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.83 g of CO2 at STP.
In air at 70° F and with 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 17,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.20 kg and contains
14.3 g of CO2 and 0.77g of CO2. To the first approximation and all things equal, the fraction of the greenhouse (GHE) due to H2O is given by:
GHE=moles H2O/(moles H2O+moles CO2)=0.79/(0.79+0.018)= 0.98
This calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and a molecule of CO2 each absorb about the same amount of long wavelength IR light. Actually, H2O absorbs much more IR light than CO2.
The above empirical data and calculations show that the claims by the IPCC that CO2 cause “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate” are fabrications and lies. The purpose of these lies is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution of funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with the alleged harmful effects of global warming and climate change.
There is just too little CO2 in air to have any effect on weather and climate. Covering 71% of the earth’s surface, H2O is the main greenhouse gas by far.
Now how do we inform everybody of the above, and the greatest scientific fraud being perpetrated by the PCC and unscrupulous collaborating scientists since the Piltdown Man?
The fact of the matter is that ALL efforts to fight climate change by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere for the last 40 years has resulted in NOTHING. NADA.
Instead of wasting time, money and energy on NOTHING, it should all stop immediately. People who continue fighting haven’t learned a thing.
It was not NOTHING.
Quite the opposite as it resulted in a record increase.
Following their traditional Orwellian scheme, that whatever these dogooders do, the results are always the opposite of what they promise.
And this is not the worlds longest unlucky streak but fundamental part of their strategy.
There has been a record increase in $$$$$s funneled from western taxpayers via the UN to shithole countries.
So there is that . . .
Funny how the USA is the evil demon in all of this when the USA has shown the greatest reduction of CO2 emissions of all countries on the planet.
The Independent is just reporting a statement by the WMO, who give this graph of annual increases (greyish bars):
So yes, there are spikes with El Nino events, although 2024 was not a strong El Nino. But the thing is, the rates are increasing on any count. 2024 is certainly the highest. The spikes are getting higher too.
The 2023/24 El Nino was more extended than both the 1998 and 2016 El Ninos.
(graph brings the three to the same start level)
If you look at the graph I posted further up, you can see the step up in the rate of CO2 increase after the 1998 and 2016 El Ninos. A similar graph can be found at Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
Other than that, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to the planet’s plant life, that ALL animals, including humans, rely on totally for their very existence.
There is no scientific evidence of any “down-side” to increased atmospheric CO2.
Did you read my comment? As I stated, There is too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on weather and climate, and it can’t cause any global warming.
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of the average annual temperature in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m.), and by 1999, it had increased to ca. 370 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.), but there was no increase in air temperature. Instead there was a slight cooling. This plots shows that CO2 does cause not warming air. The average temperature from the chart in 1999 was 16.7°C
To get more recent temperature data on Adelaide, I went to:
https://extemeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. Here is recent selected temperature data:
Year—-Tmax °C—-Tmin °C—-Tavg °c
2024—-22.6———12.2———17.4
2023—-21.7———12.1———16.7
2022—-21.3———12.5———16.9
2021—-21.5———11.8———16.6
2020—-21.6———11.8———16.7
1999—-21.7———12.1———16.9
1999 the concentration of CO2 it was 370 ppmv and by 2024 it had increased to ca. 423 ppmv, but this increase did no cause any significant increase in air temperature.
I recommend that you should not waste any more time and effort with this CO2 nonsense.
PS: The chart was taken from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john.daly.com.
From the home page down and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on ” Australia”. Finally, click on “Adelaide”.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the
“X” in circle to return to comment text.
Henry’s Law.
Same woke mindset as the vaccine-pushers and the rest…Never mind science…We say do it…
Acid rain. Ozone hole.
All part of the master plan.
I think this article misses the opportunity to make a very important point.
Based on IPCC literature:
In 1957 CO2 was roughly 280 ppm and an increase of 3.5 ppm = 0.066 w/m2.
In 2024 with CO2 ~ 420 ppm and an in crease of 3.5 ppm = 0.044 w/m2
Even if this portends some permanent long term acceleration in CO2 increases, it doesn’t matter. 1 ppm of CO2 in 1957 packed a wallop 50% greater than 1 ppm of CO2 today.
We have weak CO2 and getting weaker every year. At 560 ppm it will take two CO2 molecules to have the same effect now as one did in 1957.
Which brings up an interesting question. If a molecule of CO2 in 1957 had 50% more impact than a molecule today, shouldn’t we have seen the biggest changes in climate back then? Did we not live through them? Why, when the effect of additional CO2 today is 1/3 less than it was in 1957, should we expect greater changes today? Shouldn’t we expect less change than in 1957? Should we not expect the rate of change to diminish as CO2 increases?
We should. CO2’s effects are logarithmic, of this there is no doubt. The argument should have ended right then and there.
“shouldn’t we have seen the biggest changes in climate back then?”
Obviously,because we were emitting a lot less then. in 1957 world emitted about 10 Gtons CO2 a year. Now it is over 35. Increase in quantity swamps the log factor.
Yes, and P=(5.67*10^-8)*T^4
So the cooling response of the planet is exponential in addition.
But lets put that aside for the moment. The increase of CO2 per the graphs above is not linear, but pretty close. Its not the emissions rate that matters, its the rate of increase in the atmosphere, which has been pretty steady. I don’t care if our emissions rate was 1X, 3.5X or 100X, its the concentration in the atmosphere that matters, which gets us right back to my argument.
So once again NICK, nice try to deflect from the metrics that matter.
If the increase in CONCENTRATION scaled linearly with emissions your point would matter. But it doesn’t. And what pisses me off the most about you NICK is that I know that you know this.
Really Nick, if you really wanted to help you would go argue with Harold.
“If the increase in CONCENTRATION scaled linearly with emissions your point would matter. But it doesn’t.”
It does. This is the point of the constant airborne fraction. I explained the reason for this here
Here is a plot of the MLO concentration increases per year. Much less in 1959.
And to complete the matter, here are the MLO increments in log([CO2]):
The real question is, who cares? Its now obvious that the world is not going to do anything to reduce or even limit global emissions. Its also obvious that the net-zero program for power production is both impossible, unaffordable – and ineffective in reducing emissions were it possible and affordable.
CO2 rises don’t matter one way or the other. They are real, have some effect, probably not dangerous, but either way they are coming. 40 years of effort has not made any progress in reducing them, and the next 40 will not either. Paris is dead, the COPs are just jamborees.
The time, effort and money would be better spend in adaptation. Well, first quantification of what is actually likely to happen locally, then local adaptation if any is required.
The classic example of political-class idiocy on this is the UK, diverting money from flood defense schemes, health, education etc into wind and solar generation, which will only produce expensive and unreliable power without in any way affecting UK weather, or indeed the weather anywhere.
“The real question is, who cares?”
I was going to ask the exact same question. 🙂
As if a few ppm of CO2 is going to make any difference to us at all.
You have to understand Nick’s motivations.
Some 6 years ago (I do not remember specifically) not noted a serious error in a WUWT article. It was real. He was right and receive all sorts of kudos for pointing it out.
He is pursuing his next big find. So he finds a nit and pulls that thread hoping to have it reveal a major discovery.
If he does, all the better. Until then, we must be patient with Nick like we are with Greta and just grin and bear it.
Yes, there is more atmospheric CO2…
.... and the planet’s plant life LOVES it.
That plant life sustains ALL LIFE on the planet.
There is no measured scientific evidence it has any effect on the weather or the “climate”
Well whaddya know, Nick wins this one. Maybe. I have to do the math and don’t have time for it at the moment, there are other factors involved.
Note the dip in 2020. We shut down the global economy for covid and CO2 still increased. To get to net zero we’d have to lock everyone down even more. Not happening.
Shown the chart (See below) are plots of average seasonal temperatures and plot of the average annual temperature for Brisbane. No warming for Brisbane.
The chart is from John Daly’s website.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to
return to comment text.
There is no measured scientific evidence that CO2 emissions have any effect on the weather or the “climate”
Actual lab measurements how the absorption actually levels off around 280-300ppm.
True. However the experimental set up does not accurately represent the atmosphere. It is significant in and of itself. How it applies to the atmosphere is the question.
FYI, IR absorption and emission by valence electrons has nothing to do with KE, heat, temperature. Also a quantum emission by a valence electron is a spherical EM field and power density decreases by 1/r^2. When one takes into account altitude and earth being an oblate spheroid, less that 40% of the emitted IR reaches the surface with the curvature of the earth causing higher levels of reflection as well as diminished power density due to 1/r^2.
Nonsense, the IR absorption has nothing to do with valence electrons, it’s the vibrational/rotational motion of the covalent bonds! The absorption of the IR causes the bonds to bend, this excited state then returns to the ground state by emitting a photon or by collisional deactivation which increases the kinetic energy of the surrounding gases.
what is the link to lab measurements showing the CO2 saturation threshold of 300 ppmv?
A guy called Leckner did a whole heap of emissivity measurements. Eggert then used them to calculate the absorption.
This different experiment says 400ppm
As the science says, each additional ton of CO2 has less impact than the earlier tons.
“As the science says”
Your phraseology seems to come straight out of the Climate Alarmist Dictionary.
“Experimental results indicate/suggest”
We, all of us, can and should do better. The more we use the Climate Liar’s phrases and hijacked vocabulary, the more we give them credibility boosts.
If Q = Cp * m * dT and we are told Q (solar input is constant) the 35 gigatons requires some 30 trillion joules to increase that mass 1 C so how does this happen?
We are told solar input is constant, except it isn’t.
Obviously you missed the point that davidnhoffer’s calculations took into account the mass.
Increase in quantity swamps the log factor? Really?
We should expect the pace of climate change to slow down, not speed up.
There is no such phenomena as climate change because most of the earth is water, rocks, sand, snow and ice. Activities of humans can have no effect the climate of the vast Pacific ocean, the Andes mountains or the Sahara desert.
Activities of humans in urban areas can alter local climates due to the UHI effect. In some countries, the gathering of plants for food and for animal feed has led to desertification
Climate change is a statistical calculation of how weather has changed over a 30 year (or other timeframe) period. Climate change indeed is not a phenomenon.
Arguments NEVER end and one can simply deny the x influence of an element in atmospheric science by stating another equation.
The main issue is that there is no zero point of departure, that the elements which play a role in the ‘climate’ whatever that means are interactive and impossible to pin down.
I am skeptical about people claiming that they have solved the puzzle. Because one slight change in one variable and the outcome of any equation changes. This is a moving target. It is the opposite of settled science. One can only use the scientific method to point out the anomalies of one or more variables in an equation such as stated by known laws of phyics. That’s all. No ‘solution’ to anything. No equation that settles the issue. No ‘problem’ to solve.
The rest is politics..
The key to evaluating the usefulness and effectiveness of a model is to challenge all of the assumptions. Some are stated up front. Others are unintentional (we are human) and others are intentional but not disclosed.
In 1957 the concentration of CO2 in dry pure air containing only N2, O2 and Ar was 315 ppmv (0.62 g CO2/cu. m) not the preindustrial level of
280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m.) Once again note how little CO2 there is in the air
Yes, and as CO2 levels increased from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C.
Hansen 1999:
That by itself it the null hypothesis test.
That’s what I think, too.
We rarely disagree. Nice to find intelligent life on this planet.
“turbo-charging our climate“
A complete lie. There is no way they can truthfully say such a thing. They have no evidence for any CO2 effect on Earth’s weather. None. That being the case, they are despicable liars, scaring the kids, and gullible adults. Which is their purpose.
One World Order.
The Population Bomb.
“We own the science”
“It is not about the environment. It is about reshaping the world’s economies.”
“You will have nothing and you will be happy.”
I understand that the (over-) use of the term is by analogy but:
“in an internal combustion engine, a turbocharger is a forced induction device that compresses the intake air, forcing more air into the engine in order to produce more power for a given displacement.”
it feels like an awkward fit that hinges on buying the conclusion. If you actually flesh out the analogy by describing how CO2 could give storms more power, you get people pointing out the lack of evidence.
“Spot the record increase”…
I can barely spot the Great Recession, the Pandemic, or the post-9/11 slowdowns. There did seem to be a slowing down around the time the Cold War ended. If it takes global economic upheavals to barely budge the rate of change in a trace gas that’s beneficial to plants, then perhaps we should just promote business as usual. It’s good for business.
But there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty of scientific rationale to conclude that the climate sensifity of CO2 is zero. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science.
Why the emphasis on ‘evidence’? Science is what people have decided it means, including evidence. There is the scientific method but that is seen as old science because people working in ‘climate’ organisations have deviced new methods and new insights which they claim is far superior. And hence they ‘recalibrate’ old data to be more inline with those new ‘insights’. And therefor they claim to prove whatever they say it proves.
Do you see what i mean?
I recently came across a guy working for a climate group affiliated w a University ( Richard Tol) who did just that and was proudly claiming superiority, and of course dismissing people like Happer, Curry, Lindzen et al as being the old scientists, stuck in their old ways, instead of the new hip climate crowd who know better. Given the fact they get ALL of the funding it seems to me they have something to brag about. Everything is going their way..
Yes, Climate Alarmists have to ignore the scientific method in order to hype a non-existent CO2 climate crisis.
The scientific method does not support the claims of a CO2 Climate Crisis, so the Climate Alarmist fall back on “attribution studies” and other speculative fantasies.
Climate Alarmists are not dealing with reality.
Climate Alarmists? Nope. Climate Liars!
As my archaeologist friends like to say; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Among those who don’t have a scientific mindset, there is a tendency to assume that if something can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist.
While it can be treated as if it doesn’t exist, the absolute claim that it doesn’t exist is not a scientific view.
There is also the tendency to assume that anything that is small, can’t possibly have any impact.
Small, can’t have any impact.
People need to think. How small is a Covid or influenza virus?
Absence of evidence is just part of the arguement.
There is no global climate system.
We have multiple coupled energy systems that result in weather and micro climates.
Global is bogus.
That nit aside, spot on.
Everybody should go to Wikipedia and learn about the Köppen Climate Classification System. Wladimir Köppen (1846-1940)and his colleague Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) were metrologists and the first climate scientists.
Were it not for Wikipedia being under control of activists, I would use it more frequently.
I think you mean “meteorologists”, but maybe not.
There are no such things as “climate scientists”, because climate is just the statistics of weather observations. “Climate scientist” is just a term to defraud the ignorant and gullible public, used by delusional self promoters.
Even less “scientific” than “social science” or “political science”!
I have yet to discover any college or university on the planet that offers a degree in “Climate Science.”
If there were such a thing, it would take a lifetime to master all of the science and engineering specialties needed.
You can’t have tried very hard, there are plenty of them!
No. All of the parts of the system fits together. It is global.
Maybe plot a chart of daily readership of the Independent? In the UK, where it was founded as a radical independent voice of journalism (founded by eminent journalists, after all), readership has been declining steadily for 20 years. Maybe their digital version has been attracting on-UK readers?
There’s only one crisis out there for MSM crisis actors, and that’s the continuing decline in interest from the world’s people to read the dross and propaganda that such vehicles have been spouting the whole of the 2020s.
Could also be an outcome of my observation that generally, people today don’t really read anything of import or substance.
A prime example is the ~ 80% of housing association property owners who don’t read the maintenance or financial reports produced for them that are going to directly impact the levels of fees they have to pay, sometimes proposed levies in the $’000s.
And then when the shit hits the fan (as it always does), they cry – why wasn’t I warned,
Burning North American forests in Yorkshire to make steam likely isn’t helping much either.
Such a ridiculous idea!!!
It took a real genius to dream this one up.
You have a coal-fired power plant (DRAX) sitting on top of a coal mine where abundant coal is available, and the Genius in Charge decides it is a good idea to turn the coal-fired power plant into a wood-burning power plant that has to get its wood fuel from the United States, and the burning of the wood produces more CO2 than the burning of coal!
Did Mad Ed have something to do with this? It sounds like something he would support.
Groupthink is entirely uncoupled from rationality.
This reality is evidenced on so many fronts.
The classic parable being “The Emperor Has No Clothes”.
Wood pellets are made from wood waste. No standing trees are used for the manufacture of wood pellets.
Wood pellets have an enormous carbon foot print. Heavy machinery with big Diesel engines log the forest generating wood waste. Timber is taking to the mills by trucks with big Diesel engines where wood waste is generated. Wood pellets are taking from the factory to the sea port for export by trucks with big Diesel engines. A cargo ship with a large marine engine takes the pellets to England where the pellets are off loaded and taken to power plant by trucks with big Diesel engines. Ash from the power plant is taking for disposal by trucks with big Diesel engines.
How much in subsidies does Drax make from this wood pellet scheme?
I’ve been to Georgia, USA and watched all the logging trucks with freshly felled trees from clear cutting on the way to the pellet mills. Not wood waste wood. Wood that could be lumber or paper
Completely off topic, but amusing nonetheless.
Secretary of War Hegseth has ruled that in the military, men and women must meet the same physical standards.
The same people who have declared that being male gives men no noticeable advantage when it comes to sports, are of course, having hissy fits.
ja
Mauna Loa move the lab from the big island some 200 miles away due to volcanism in close proximity.
I recall that new automatic instruments where installed sometime after the eruption near the original site.
If you go to NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, the CO2 concentration are reported from the Mauna Lao Obs.
Perhaps. I have not kept up.
But, do not volcanos emit CO2 and other gasses even when not actively erupting?
Exactly!
The warming period following the Younger Dryas climate interval (a period of about 1,300 years that ended about 11,600 years ago) had an associated large sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 content (from about 210 ppm to a high of about 280 ppm, a 33% increase), and this obviously happened without any mankind-related burning of fossil fuels or other mankind-related release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Anyone who has dared to visit the message section of the Independent will tell you it’s a vile hateful hard left cesspit.
Maybe this is slightly off topic but I thought GROK was better than this. I just had a simple question and look at the spew “it” gave me…
“what is a good analogy to 420 ppm for the layperson to understand” – Me
GROK response:
A good analogy for 420 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is to think of it like a giant bowl of soup with 1 million spoonfuls. If 420 of those spoonfuls were a specific ingredient—like, say, hot sauce—it would be a tiny fraction of the total soup, but enough to noticeably change the flavor. In the same way, 420 ppm of CO₂ is a small fraction of the atmosphere, but it’s enough to impact the climate, like warming the planet or making weather patterns spicier.
“How come you assumed I was talking about CO2 and are you confident, with scientific proof, that it makes wather patterns spicier?” – Me
GROK response:
Why I Assumed CO₂I assumed you were referring to CO₂ because 420 ppm is a commonly cited figure in discussions about atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, especially in the context of climate change. As of recent data, global CO₂ levels are around 420 ppm, a significant threshold often highlighted in environmental science for its implications on global warming. Without additional context, this was the most likely interpretation, but I acknowledge you might have meant something else. If you were referring to another substance or context, please clarify, and I’ll tailor the analogy accordingly.
Does CO₂ at 420 ppm Make Weather Patterns “Spicier”?The term “spicier” in my analogy was a simplified way to describe how increased CO₂ levels contribute to more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns. Below, I’ll address whether there’s scientific proof linking 420 ppm of CO₂ to changes in weather patterns, focusing on evidence and mechanisms.
Scientific Basis
Addressing “Spicier”The term “spicier” was a colloquial way to convey that weather becomes more intense or variable (e.g., stronger storms, more extreme temperatures). Scientifically, this aligns with increased variance in weather patterns and a higher likelihood of extreme events, as evidenced by:
“This warming is well-documented through global temperature records,”
If GROK went by actual temperature records, it could not correlate temperatures with CO2 levels.
The written, original, regional temperature records all show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, but with much less CO2 in the air in the recent past, that there is in the air today. So CO2 levels do not correlate with temperatures.
GROK should be asked how the “global” temperature records it refers to was created. The answer is regional temperature data from around the world was put in a computer, and out came the bogus Hockey Stick chart that fraudulently creates a correlation between CO2 amounts and temperature.
GROK should be asked where the data to correlate CO2 with temperatures came from since the written, historic temperature records show just the opposite, that CO2 and temperatures are not correlated.
GROK should be asked how a non-correlated temperature record is honestly turned into a correlated temperature record. What magic sauce was added to the uncorrelated written, regional temperature data that would produce a correlated temperature record?
The general answer is: Fraud is involved in the global temperature data. Will GROK reach the same conclusion? If it had any brains, it would. 🙂
I had a brief conversation with Google AI.
I asked if there was a climate crisis.
It said yes and went on to explain that the sun’s heat was trapped by CO2 making the atmosphere warmed.
I pointed out that the energy from the sun was electro magnetic not thermal and the definition of heat was the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient.
It continued to spew forth with one change. It used “trapped” (trapped with quotation marks).
Google is under agreement with the UN to promote UN climate propaganda just as YouTube is under agreement to include the UN definition and link on all climate related videos.
Control the language, control the ideas.
Of course this means that any student or even journalist trying to do honest research is going to be presented with hockey sticks every time.
Is there a graph showing change of CO2 concentration from 1800 to 2025? Preferably zero ppm to 500 ppm.
Here it is.
The entire 19th century is missing. The request was from 1800 but the chart starts at 1900.
the labeling of the x axis is erroneous and only displays the data from Mauna Loa which spans from 1958 to present. Sorry. that was not explained.
It was the best I could do.
Thanks John, one of the reasons I asked was I wonder how far back CO2 has actually been measured and how reliable are the early measurements. I have always been suspicious of the 1850 start date for the CAGW sermons.
I did more work.