By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2025
Alarmists claim that, due to anthropogenic climate change (AGW), the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening to the point that it’s on the verge of collapsing. It’s claimed this will lead to abrupt cooling and extreme weather in the North Atlantic region.
But the author of a new study points out that changes in sea level trends are a useful proxy for detecting AMOC variability over time.
Interestingly, from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or, specifically, from the coasts of New York to the coasts of France, mean sea level rise has been stable, not accelerating, since 1960.
This affirms the stability of the AMOC and contradicts the narrative that the AMOC is on the cusp of collapse.
“…a negligible difference in absolute sea level rise between these locations [The Battery, New York, and Brest, France] reinforces the stability of the AMOC within the period 1960 to 2024. These findings challenge claims of AMOC weakening.”
Image Source: Boretti, 2025
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
______________________________________________________________________
Is the sky falling too?
No – it’s actually rising – if you take the sky as the tropopause. With global heating the tropopause is increasing in height – a result which is predicted by the theory of GHGs and global heating.
theoryhypothesis
theoryhypothesisSpeculation
conjecture
erroneous imagination. 🙂
In your dreams.
And absolutely nothing to do with the highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2
The Tropopause can go up and down 10% or more on a daily basis.
https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=1990
That an unconfined gas will increase in volume when warmed is from the gas law so GHGs have nothing to do with it. They are a hypothesis about the warming which UAH indicates is false. Since 1978 all the atmospheric warming has come in a few small steps coincident with super El Niños. It looks like residual energy. There is no slow warming as predicted by GHG warming theory.
Given we just had another super El Niño, about like the 1998 event, it will be interesting to see if this warming pattern continues but in no case is there any evidence of GHG warming.
Here is an old picture of the pattern:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
Thank you David.
If you discount the El Nino spike/step changes in the UAH data…
there is NO DISCERNABLE WARMING.
(1989-1997 used as base period)
All the warming in the UAH data comes from non-human-caused El Nino events
Perhaps you should try to understand the mechanism of the El Niño/La Niña cycle!
It is an aperiodic oscillation in vertical ocean circulation. Just like atmospheric highs and lows but upside down.
Seems like we have hearing that AMOC is going to collapse for decades
Called the “Gulf Stream” in the UK, I recall in the 70s that it was about to collapse.
Seems to be taking its time
Here too. It’s only called AMOC when someone wants to sound like an ‘expert’
Well, it sounds like: running AMOK, so..
Called the “Gulf Stream” in the UK, I recall in the 70s that it was about to collapse. Seems to be taking its time.
This is true! Dr Spock said it . …so we were all expecting the next ice imminently 😅
IT wasn’t Dr. Spock. It was Commander Spock.
I think the whole system is the AMOC, bits of it are known as the Gulf stream and bits the North Atlantic Drift
Don’t know where you heard that misinformation from.
A flat temperature trend (1945-1975) doesn’t trigger AMOC collapse.
It collapses when freshwater from melting ice sheets (during warming trends) floods into the North Atlantic, diluting dense salty water and interrupting the sinking process that drives the circulation.
That is what we were told in the fictional movie, The Day After Tomorrow.
The exaggeration in the movie was how fast the changes happened. Not the underlying physics.
Under-LYING physics was also total nonsense.
Grimm Bros have done better, and more believable fairy tales
The established relationship between an object’s density and the buoyant force of the surrounding fluid is total nonsense?
The concept of freshwater diluting saline water when they mix is nonsense?
Melting ice contributing freshwater to the ocean is nonsense?
They way they used it in the movie was.. yes. !
Pure FANTASY..
The fact you didn’t know that it was FICTION, tells us all we need to know about what “science: is to you. !
The laws of physics are not fantasy. They apply whether used in textbooks, real world observations, or dramatized in a film.
“They way they used it in the movie was.. Pure FANTASY..”
Seem that you don’t understand enough basic physics to grasp that fact..
I’m not denying that the movie exaggerated the speed and intensity of the events (both AMOC collapse and superstorms).
What I’m challenging is your and Sparta Nova 4’s dismissal of density driven circulation.
jumping from that to claiming that that is what drives the gulf stream is nonsense. Just like jumping from the fact that CO2 is a radiantly active gas in the infrared to the speculation that it has a significant effect on the climate is nonsense.
“jumping from that to claiming that that is what drives the gulf stream is nonsense.”
I’m not claiming melting ice drives the circulation. I’m saying the opposite.
The melting ice does not mix with the primary current. There are separate flow streams and there are plenty of maps that show this.
It is not salt.
It is fluid dynamics. At the equator, the water is warm. Warm surface water flows towards the pulls. As this happens the underlying water is warmed by the sun and rises. As the water rises it creates a pressure differential along the ocean floor that pulls polar water to the equator.
As the was flows along the sea bed it creates a pressure differential that draws surface water down. It is a thermal engine powered by the sun.
How do you explain the Younger Dryas cooling event? The widely accepted mechanism is that a surge of freshwater from melting ice entered the North Atlantic, disrupted deepwater formation, and caused rapid cooling.
What does thermohaline circulation mean to you? Your explanation is missing that part.
Widely accepted is not proof.
I understand what thermohaline circulation is.
I also understand the the salt levels are insufficient to have an effect comparable to thermal effects.
The melting ice does not mix with the primary current. There are separate flow streams and there are plenty of maps that show this.
Younger Dryas. So you admit CO2 from hydrocarbons and coal is not the cause. Copy that.
Put cold fresh water on top of warms salt water and what happens? The cold water sinks. The salinity is not the prime driver.
Seawater density is determined by salinity and temperature. You again simply ignore the former.
Much like I ignore claims the CO2 is the climate “control knob.”
The melting ice does not mix with the primary current. There are separate flow streams and there are plenty of maps that show this.
I do not ignore the science of thermohaline density.
It just is not the cause. It is not the “control knob.”
Fun movie, but all wrong…remember when you go to a movie that “the willing suspension of disbelief” is required to enjoy it, whether it be a crappy climate flick, Star Wars, or a Sherlock Holmes oldie.
So … are you for or against desalination plants? 😎
That is not what drives the circulation.
“A flat temperature trend (1945-1975) doesn’t trigger AMOC collapse.”
A “flat trend” from 1945 to 1975 doesn’t exist in reality. You must be looking at a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart.
According to the U.S. regional chart, the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C during that time period.
Hansen 1999:
Perhaps you should look at the global data instead of a location that is 2% of the total? I wonder why you don’t show that graph!
Yet it has around 50%-75% of the world temperature recording stations in that time frame.
As Phil. points out, the globe is only 2% of the planet.
Furthermore, this version of the US temperature record is outdated.
“As Phil. points out, the globe is only 2% of the planet.”
Your lack of attention to details is your own undoing.
And a recent paper in Science indicates that the Atlantification process is leading to a strengthening of the AMOC.
Atlantification drives recent strengthening of the Arctic overturning circulation
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu1794
The only thing collapsing is the climate worriers house of cards
The currents in the ocean basins are the result of the corriolis and the tilt of the earths axis to the ecliptic. Greenhouse gases cannot change those facts.
C’mon man, CO2 can do everything!
You’re absolutely right,
When CO2 was 380 ppm I was fine, since we’ve got to 420 ppm I’ve got an ingrowing toenail, false teeth & haemorrhoids !!! (:-((
Naw – that was caused by reading comic books too long on the John.
What? The false teeth? ;-))
You are right. Everything including a cure for ED, PE, cancer, unwanted pregnancy, and and and…..
I completely agree, and it’s worth reinforcing. There’s a large quantity of energy moving around with in the flow of ocean currents. The source of that energy is quite simple. Warm water rises ( cold water sinks), the earth is spinning, and the bulk of solar energy arrives near the equator. That makes the equator warm and the poles cold. This means that there is a net movement of water from the equator to the poles. There are complications due to thing like thermoclines and salinity, but the net movement is there. However the equator is moving at around 1000 mph, and carries the water with it. The water at the poles is simply turning around but once per day. It is these differences that drive the ocean currents. As long as the sun shines and the earth turns and warm water rises, the ocean currents will remain. They may move around a bit as continents move and planets circulate, they’ll always be somewhere.
“there is a net movement of water from the equator to the poles”
Wouldn’t this make levels at the poles higher and the equator levels lower?
Surely, there is equilibrium rather than a net movement one way or the other
It is a circulation.
Water at the poles sinks to the ocean depths. As warm water rises at the equator, differential pressure creates a deep flow from pole to equator.
Salt has nothing to do with it.
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) flow is typically measured in Sverdrups (Sv), with an average value around 15-18 Sverdrups, meaning it transports approximately 15-18 million cubic meters of water per second;
Newton’s First Law
According to Newton’s first law (the law of inertia), there must be a cause for any change in velocity (a change in either magnitude or direction) to occur. Inertia is related to an object’s mass. If an object’s velocity relative to a given frame is constant, then the frame is inertial and Newton’s first law is valid.
average speed of the Gulf Stream, however, is four miles per hour (6.4 kilometers per hour) => 6400 m / 3600 sec = 1.778 m/s
1 M^3 salt water = 1025 kilograms
16 Sverdrups /1.778 m/s = 900,000,000 m^3 sea water
If the mass has units of kilograms and the velocity of meters per second, the kinetic energy has units of kilograms-meters squared per second squared.
K.E. = 1/2 m v^2 => 1/2 (900,000,000 m^3/s x 1025 kg/m^3) x 1.778 ^2 = 922,500,000,000 Kg * 3.16 m/s^2 = 922,500,000,000 kj
which converts to 1,279,405 kw-hr for every meter of the Gulf Stream. Stopping all those Artesians going to heat up something.
It is quite the miracle that all those catastrophies are happening at the same time,
just when globalists need them for their Agenda 2030.
Must be the biggest streak of unlikely coincidences in the universe in the last 14 billion years.
Some guys are just lucky.
And catastrophic papers published just before another COP.
When they needed WMD’s they got WMD’s.
When they needed an incident in Vietnam – they got Tonkin.
When they needed an incident in Lybia – they got scorched earth.
When they needed an incident in Yugoslavia – they got the horseshoe plan.
Not a single of these things ever existed(or were false flags) – yet they happened exactly when they were needed.
Same with the climate.
Of course a few windmills and co2 molecules ain’t enough to subjugate on a global scale.
Here comes -story tip – a global financial crisis and most likely a war.
Yet again the saviour is just around the corner.
CBDC’s,mass surveillance,social credit score…
All they need is a really huuuge asteroid to round it out.
Here’s a link to an interesting paper on this subject:
https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/is-the-latest-amoc-collapse-paper
Title: Is the Latest AMOC “Collapse” Paper Scientific Fraud?
The new threat: Anthropogenic Global Cooling. The pendulum has swung.
That should put a few journalists out of business since most of those stories were written back in the ’70s. All the journals have to do is pull ’em up and print them again.
Yes, global cooling was the idea of magazines, not scientists.
So Jim Hansen isn’t a scientist now?
How, when and why did Jim get excommunicated from the CAGW religion?
Hansen never published any research claiming global cooling. I won’t ask you to cite him, because Hansen never made such a claim
There were a small number of papers that analyses a short term trend of cooling due to pollution driven aerosols, but none predicted long term cooling
Hansen constructed a model in 1971 based on Venus which predicted a cooling cycle.
Other scientists used it to predict the same thing.
It was in all the papers, you couldn’t miss it.
If one ‘couldn’t miss it” then why don’t you link to the paper so we can both see it? (Otherwise I doubt it exists)
Even the CIA were in on the global cooling lark.
potentialtrends.pdf
Also
Present Climatic Cooling and a Proposed Causative Mechanism in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 61 Issue 11 (1980)
Gotta laugh at the part in the conclusion 🙂
Suggesting ADDING CO2 to the atmosphere to counteract the cooling.
Funny , to say the least 🙂
I remember that. I also remember an official from the UN Environmental group saying something to the effect that “we don’t know if CO2 is the cause, but CO2 is something that can be quantified and taxed.”
Do your own research for a change.
The story was covered by WaPo and NYT back in 1972.
Short term cooling trends covered by media are irrelevant. They are not long term and they are not science.
Your view of the temperature trend doesn’t represent reality.
Your Bible: The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart does not represent reality.
Going by the bogus Hockey Stick chart, there was very little cooling from the 1940’s to the 1980’s, something like 0.3C total. No climate scientist worth their salt, would get exercised over a 0.3C cooling of the temperatures, yet there was a Lot of consternation about the direction of the Earth’s temperatures at the time.
The reason there was consternation was because the temperature drop from the 1940’s to the 1980’s was 2.0+C degrees with the late 1970’s being as cold as the 1910’s, the last really cold period we experienced after the end of the Little Ice Age.
The fact that climate scientists would not get exercised over a 0.3C cooling is proof that the bogus Hockey Stick chart temperature profile is a fraud that doesn’t represent reality. For instance, since the high temperature point of early 2024, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C. Do you see any scientists fretting over the world plunging into another Ice Age?
UAH Satellite chart:
Here’s the real temperature trendline of the globe, the U.S. regional chart (Hansen 1999). All the historic, written, original, regional temperature records from around the world, are similar to the U.S. chart profile. None of them resemble the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart profile.
You believe in a fraud, that was created to fool people into believing humans are living in the hottest time in history, but it’s all a fraud perpetrated by Charlatans trying to sell the Human-caused Climate Change Lie.
Hansen 1999:
I guess it must have been one of these?
Hansen, J.E., 1971a: Circular polarization of sunlight reflected by clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 1515-1516, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<1515:CPOSRB>2.0.CO;2.
Hansen, J.E., 1971b: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part I. The doubling method. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 120-125, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<0120:MSOPLI>2.0.CO;2.
Hansen, J.E., 1971c: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part II. Sunlight reflected by terrestrial water clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 1400-1426, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<1400:MSOPLI>2.0.CO;2.
Hansen, J.E., and A. Arking, 1971: Clouds of Venus: Evidence for their nature. Science, 171, 669-672, doi:10.1126/science.171.3972.669.
A quick review of them doesn’t appear to predict a cooling cycle for Earth.
Jabberwocky
Ignorance. Lack of basic science. Repetition of propaganda.
You’re either ignorant or a liar. It absolutely was the idea of scientists. If you think otherwise your in denial, you denier.
Nope. Nor can you cite any. They don’t exist
Letters to the President.. already cited and posted
You really are a “climate DENIER” aren’t you.
You must be a young person. To not remember or even have the ability to research past climate scares makes you very well indoctrinated. The universities of my youth were full over CAGC (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling). I still remember my farming uncles trolling me over my generation’s belief in global cooling, versa Grandpa’s input about the CAGW scare of his youth. All well documented by Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines. All three generations (including mine) knew it was all a scam. At that point 75 years of “scientific” climate crap – and 50+ years more since.
I’m still convinced they were correct, despite them being uneducated farmers and me being a university educated physicist. Climate Science is NOT science. It is pure propaganda – or maybe just crap.
‘University educated physicists’ don’t read Popular Mechanics.
“‘University educated physicists’ don’t read Popular Mechanics.”
Wanna bet? A lot of them own cars and enjoy spending weekends tinkering on them.
Not this one. He;s proud of the fact he didn’t study climate science at his university. Ie, maybe he;s a blacksmith.
“Nope. Nor can you cite any. They don’t exist”
A basic tenet of science: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
More importantly: Your inability to cite a source you claim exists brings the a priori assumption that you haven’t a clue.
Your inability to present anything reflecting a basic understanding of any of the sciences involved demonstrates you are brainwashed.
Wrong, as usual.
“Scientists” even wrote to the President about it.
“A scientist”. The scientific consensus was global warming.
YAWN..
Hundreds of “Scientists say” newspaper articles say differently
Your DENIAL of the “new ice age ” scare is hilarious….. and based on fear, rather than actual rational thought.
You haven’t cited any scientific research
“You haven’t cited any scientific research”
Neither have you….. You have FAILED totally at every point..
Warren’s denial is based on the bogus Hockey Stick global chart which only shows about an 0.3C cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.
Warren cannot admit there was a legitimate Ice Age scare because it doesn’t show up on the bogus Hockey Stick chart. If he admits to an Ice Age scare, then he repudiates the bogus Hockey Stick chart.
The Ice Age scare is proof that Phil Jones and the other Hockey Stick creators got it wrong.
Warren and the other Climate Alarmists want to erase past history. It doesn’t fit their “hotter and hotter and hotter” meme.
Here’s the visual difference. On the left is the U.S. regional chart, showing a 2.0C cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and on the right is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart which shows only a 0.3C cooling for this period.
The bastardizers of the Hockey Stick chart shaved 1.7C off the cooling of the 1970’s, in order to make the Hockey Stick chart look like the temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and hotter because of CO2, and that current temperatures are the hottest in human history.
The reality is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. There is no unprecedented warming today.
The U.S. regional chart was the only temperature chart available at the time and you can see what it says. It doesn’t agree with the bogus Hockey Stick chart.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick chart, the Climate Alarmists would have NOTHING to point to correlating CO2 with temperatures. CO2 and temperatures do NOT correlate going by the original, historic, written temperature records from around the world.
Believing in the Hockey Stick chart is believing in a Big Lie.
There is no peer reviewed science that supports your nonsense. Nor can you cite any.
“Scientific consensus” was not infented until the 1990s.
the concept was “invented” in the 16th century
“the concept was “invented” in the 16th century”
BS.
“The term “scientific consensus” is a modern concept, though the phenomenon of collective agreement among scientists has existed for centuries. The practice of a formal, public declaration of a consensus emerged more recently, with documented usage increasing in the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly in fields like climate change.”
So your argument is that because the term ‘scientific consensus’ became more widely used in modern times, the concept itself must not have existed before then? Brilliant logic.
I appears you did NOT read the first paragraph. The word, ‘conference’ shows up, as in, a gathering of those ‘scientists’.
One wrote the letter, a reproduction of which we see here.
And, just to elaborate on that, in one of the ‘global cooling’ articles, they quoted Dr. Reid Bryson (Wisconsin? I think?). I’ve heard this ‘it was just the media’ lie so often that I just expect some ne’er-do-well to pop up with it like clockwork (but not necessarily orange … ).
A stopped clock… that never gets anything correct..
Its a bizarre feature of climate trolls. !!
“Yes, global cooling was the idea of magazines, not scientists.”
Wrong.
Stephen Schneider was one scientist who promoted human-caused global cooling, when the temperatures cooled significantly down through the 1970’s, and then, after the temperatures started warming in the 1980’s, Stephen switched over to the human-caused global warming crowd. Stephen was wrong about both. There is no evidence humans can cause the Earth’s global weather to change.
https://www.masterresource.org/global-cooling-climate-change/stephen-schneider-and-global-cooling-an-exchange/
Stephen Schneider and Global Cooling: An Exchange
By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 11, 2022“The global cooling scare was real from some leading climate scientists and leading environmentalists. And it was promoted in the mainstream media heavily as is well documented
The scientific consensus was 90% global warming. Schneider corrected his initial paper that wrongly assumed a high concentration of aerosols would be a permanent feature of the atmosphere
Consensus is opinion, not proof.
No one said consensus was proof. Quit making things up. consensus is a measure of how many scientists come to the same conclusion from their research. 90% of thousands of scientist’s papers vs your zero published means you lose.
Al Gore:
“We have a consensus! Global warming is real!””
The 1960’s and 1970’s has a lot of published papers talking about the COOLING as shown here,
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1
LINK
Here is the GLOBAL chart you missed,
In your link, there is a paper from the CIA (!), many non peer reviewed papers, and a few that are peer reviewed but dont say what you claim. Keep searching, Your link doesnt support your claim.
The loss of Arctic seal ice will increase both evaporation and heat loss from the arctic oceans. This should cause the AMOC to accelerate.
What Arctic seaice lost? What are you talking about?
There is less sea ice today then there was in the 1970’s.
Don’t get so fixed in your positions that you deny the real world.
There was even less arctic sea ice just after the war with Napoleon ended according to the logs of the European fishermen who fished there then and the currents didn’t change then so far as we know.
Its a RECOVERY from the extreme high levels of Arctic sea ice in the LIA and in 1979.
Current extent is still in the top 5% or so of the last 10,000 years
As of October 18, Arctic sea ice extent is nearly 31% lower than on the same date in 1979. This October has been so warm in the Arctic, hence the very slow ice growth.
Lowest was 2007/2012 since then recovery.
No, the RECOVERY is from the extreme highs in the LIA, and around 1979.
Those period of extreme Arctic sea ice drove most Arctic sea life out of the region.
Arctic sea ice extent remains very high, compare to the rest of the Holocene…
… but the slight decrease from those extremes is now allowing some of that Arctic sea life back into the Arctic.
Hardly a ‘slight decrease’!
About half the average of 2004-2013.
That’s because 1979 was an EXTREME high extent, up there with the LIA.
The “normal” Holocene extent is much lower than the current levels.
The number of months above an average pa extent of 10.6 km² is above all the rest of the Holocene
Still one heck of a lot of sea ice up there.. !
As usual you quote data for one location not the whole Arctic and don’t include data from the last 8 years!
“Arctic sea ice extent is nearly 31% lower than on the same date in 1979″
This is a very good thing for the Arctic.
Sea creature not seen since the end of the LIA as extreme amounts of sea ice drove them out, are starting to come back to the Arctic ocean.
Don’t hate on Arctic sea life by wishing for TOO MUCH sea ice
(like in LIA and 1979)
Seal ice is 15% cover so the seals have rest stops where those Canadians can club them…
Damn those seals!!!!
Seals? I think MarkW meant sea lice, because, you know, when they’re gone……it’s over!
What is seal ice? How do seals increase evaporation from the oceans?
When you say “accelerate” by what order of magnitude? And if it slows less heat goes to the poles (not sure where that heat will go). Then the poles will cool. And then the AMOC will speed up again. And so on, and so on.
Contrasting Rahmstorf’s recent realclimte post https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/high-resolution-fingerprint-images-reveal-a-weakening-atlantic-ocean-circulation-amoc/#comments
“””A recent paper by van Westen et al. (2025) has shown that the much-feared tipping point where the AMOC breaks down (first demonstrated in a simple box model in 1961) is also found in a high-resolution (eddy resolving) ocean model – destroying any hope that it might be an artifact of too coarse and simple models”””
With his post there on Jan 26 2025
“””Of the 24 CMIP6 models, a full 23 underestimate the sea surface cooling in the ‘cold blob’. And most of the CMIP6 models even show a strengthening of the AMOC in the historic period, which past studies have shown to be linked to strong aerosol forcing in many of these models”””
Which seems to indicate that for CMIP6 models a very careful tuning is required to show his pattern.
Without that modern models seem not able to proof this cold blob. Perhaps we only see masterful tuning rather than underlying physics at work here, the assumption that these are not artefacts of the modeling seems contradicted by the apparent ease they can be switched on and off in modern models
Cycles in Atlantic are well studied and Artic patterns forming and weakening as a result have happened in the recent centuries without tripping any tipping points.
AMOC break down is Rahmsdorfs obsession since years, at least since appearence of “The Day After Tomorrow”.
IMHO he can obsess all he wants and even share his believes about it, but as soon as he starts to omit any counter arguments his work becomes unscientific, but rather religious.
He seems unable to make up his mind if modern models are good or bad for his cause..
Stephan was only 23 and in his master’s studies when that movie came out…and the imprinting deeply scarred his psyche. You gotta feel sorry for him…
Quite.
What Rahmstorf’s posts show is that any variations in the AMOC in the CMIP6 model outputs are artefact of the parameter tuning.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
~ John von Neumann, attributed to by Enrico Fermi.
All you need to know about the author: https://www.desmog.com/albert-parker/
Graham Readfearn – Desmog Blog.
Wasn’t he the climate catastrophist who tried to publicly debate Christopher Monckton in Brisbane in 2010 and left the stage in tears?
Your link to desmog shows that Boretti has MANY TIMES the science based education and IQ than you will ever be capable of.
A place on desmog indicates that you are well versed in the actual science and reality of climate.
You seem to be totally incapable of putting forward anything to counter the actual article… no surprise there.
Kenneth Richards — The guy who invented the Great Air Pump in the Sky as an explanation for the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. He’s probably found a number of followers on WUWT — including Pat Frank, Eric Worrall, and even Anthony Watts himself. Quite a stew of Deniers and believers in various forms of witchcraft
“He’s probably found a number of followers on WUWT — including Pat Frank, Eric Worrall, and even Anthony Watts himself. Quite a stew of Deniers and believers in various forms of witchcraft”
Probably Tony Heller as well:
….. and he drops another “clanger”
Data represents a real problem for you, doesn’t it. !!
Tony Heller – the guy who alone has found a hundred+ official MSM articles
about the ice age scare while your religious outlet Scientific American says that the whole cooling scare was based on a single Newsweek article.
The same Scientific American that told its readers to vote for a totally demented guy for president.
People who don’t know what a woman is but can tell you how the weather will be in 50 years and that “tipping points” that never happened in all of history will now happen by the dozen.
What an incredible coincidence that you Messianic guys were born in this 0.000001% timeframe when this impossibility occurs.
It’s because you are the lucky chosen guys born to save us all and not because you are a bunch of selfcongratulating virtue signalling opportunists who are trying to sell their narcissism as humanism .
“MSM Articles”. Yep. Lots of media clamor, but the scientific consensus was always global warming.
Tony Heller doesn’t need a fact check. He needs a straitjacket and a padded room!
Poor clanger..
Tony Heller has so much more scientific knowledge and acumen that you will ever be capable of.
Try not to be jealous. !
Tony Heller thinks the former NY governor grouped COVID patients with nursing home patients to intentionally kill them.
Sure, on Halloween I could envy someone who looks at the sky and sees orange but day to day, there’s no real envy of him from him.
Do you really DENY that Covid patients were sent into nursing homes ???
Or are you saying that the NY Governor didn’t realise the effect it would have… 😉
Seem you are as ignorant of history as you are of everything else.
You, and the NY Governor that did that, are equally ignorant.
Heller was kicked off this site because of the tantrum he threw after I told him he was wrong about CO2 freezing in Antarctica! (I was proved right by some independent experimental results which were sent to Anthony) Heller went by the pseudonym of Steve Goddard then.
“scientific consensus”
lol.. the fact that you use those words tells us all we need to know about your scientific understanding. basically zero.
Dude please – You are also the low IQ who can not read and understand the most simple text.
In a post above someone even posted the WHOLE DOCUMENT
of 42 !!!!! top scientist who wrote an open letter to the US President.
A freaking 42 experts who met at Brown University for the sole purpose of
telling the US President to save us from global cooling – and your comment,
“A scientist” – ignoring the remaining 41.
42 – how much more consens can there be?
Especially for a person who believes in every shit experts tell him.
And almost ALL THOSE ARTICLES on Tony’s website are directly quoting or referring to experts. and direct Government statement up to the CIA.
You can even find the Pioneers of global warming Paul Ehrlich and Obamas Climate tzar John Holdren promoting the Ice Age Scare.
just as Orwell predicted – Ignorance is strength.
And you white western leftie fagots are so full of shi… strength in every domain.Be it ignorance,lying,fakery or denial.
And it does not matter how many times you’ve been lied to by your priests,how many wrong predictions they came up with or that they even got caught rewriting history ( climate gate and getting rid of MWP, )
And you are so lost that you need your substitute religion and so narcissistic
that you think that things that happen once in an aeon like the disappearing of the arctic, collapse of gulf stream, end of ozone layer (or things that neve happenedr , like co2 runaway effect)
will all happen in 0.00000001% of earths history – your century.
Can someone be even more pathetic than you selfcentered clowns?
But here is a thing that can show you how dangerous warming actually is.
Take a look at the populations of Europe and China BEFORE the MWP.
And then take a look at the population numbers after the start of the MWP.
And what happened to them after the end of MWP.
The letter from the 42 scientists did not warn of CO2 runaway warming scenario. That is your misconception. They were referring to the cooling trend observed at the time driven by aerosols.
But, in the peer reviewed literature of that same decade, the majority of papers were projecting future warming of increasing CO2, not cooling.
“A freaking 42 experts who met at Brown University”
The answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything … was always 42
“Insolation and glacials – KUKLA – 1972 – Boreas – Wiley Online Library”
Bnice just keeps missing Warren’s point about scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is a totally MEANINGLESS concept.
If you had ever done any real science, you would know that.
” Quite a stew of Deniers and believers in various forms of witchcraft”
You describe YOURSELF very well …..
What a devastating blow! I’m sure Warren is absolutely finished now! However will he recover from that one!
Nope. I agree and accept the body of peer reviewed research. That’s ACCEPTANCE not DENIAL
Yet you cannot present anything to counter the article of this thread.
We are waiting !!
Let’s be honest. You accept the body of peer reviewed research that fits your belief system and shun that which doesn’t. Consensus on simply aspects of climate can be achieved. Yet, when you get past those simply aspects the consensus disappears.
Let’s be clear. All peer reviewed science on climate science either concludes, affirms, or is consistent with, the scientific theory that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are the cause of all global warming since 1970. I accept all of it.
Yet you have consistent been INCAPABLE of producing anything remotely scientific….
Its almost as if your comment is one you read somewhere and keep repeating.. with zero clue what you are talking about.
“Its almost as if your comment is one you read somewhere and keep repeating.. with zero clue what you are talking about.”
He is adhering to the Greta principle.
Hmmm … I seem to recall a Climategate email about changing the peer review process because a paper they didn’t like was published.
There is so much out there, sir. You choose to ignore it. Peer reviewed paper on UHI can explain more than half of the increase. Reduction in earths albedo over the last 15 years. Differences in the temperature records themselves. (Garbage in; garbage out).
You rely on papers written by individuals seeking tenure, or those required by their institutions to publish. With this they use worst case scenarios as business as usual cases so that they can discern CO2 induced changes from natural variations in climate, making it easier to get published. It’s called bias. Human nature. Can’t escape it.
Those that don’t have this requirement strung around their neck draw different conclusions yet for doing this they are labeled. That is a political consequence not a scientific one.
Incorrect. The IPCC 6th Assessment concludes that the effect of anthropogenic forcing is 109%. — 100% warms the planet above baseline and 9% offsets earths natural cooling cycle. It’s all man-caused
Is this where I retort, again, that you choose to ignore peer reviewed material that doesn’t fit into this box you operate in?
Is this where I point out what peer reviewed material exists since the 6th assessment was published?
Is this where we discuss all of the unknowns that the IPCC admits are incapable of being known?
You need to broaden your information sources so that you can draw your own conclusions, otherwise you’re just carrying water for your favorite institution.
Rabid IPCC activists uses models that bare zero resemblance to this planet’s atmosphere.
Their attribution is like the rest of the scam.. PURE FANTASY
Show us the CO2 based warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
So far, you have produced absolutely nothing remotely resembling real science
“Rabid IPCC activists uses models that bare zero resemblance to this planet’s atmosphere.”
Lol, you position yourself as an authority on what the atmosphere should resemble in models, yet you call the greenhouse trapping effect pseudoscience in your comment below?
[i’ve given you double your daily allotment of replies to an individual in this thread -mod]
If I am blocked from responding to his idiotic and ignorant statements, he should be blocked from responding to my attempts to correct his ignorance.
“greenhouse trapping effect pseudoscience”
It is. First IR is not heat. Second heat cannot be trapped.
IR most certainly is heat. And secondly heat can be trapped. Are you a human?
“IR most certainly is heat. And secondly heat can be trapped. Are you a human?”
Oh boy. You are so wrong on fundamental physics.
IR is electro magnetic radiation.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy (aka kinetic energy) across a temperature gradient.
If you “trap” heat, it is not flowing and by definition it is not heat.
You said “heat” not “heat flow” Heat is internal energy. Heat flow is flowing heat. You’re really screwed up..
Heat is definitely NOT internal energy. Heat is kinetic energy. Internal energy is potential energy.
Your lack of science fundamentals is astounding.
lol!, The change of Internal energy of a system is proportional to the change in T , Ie, a change in the kinetic energy of the molecules in the system. So yes, internal energy is kinetic energy. You are still screwed up.
Modelling molecular interactions on a 25 km grid.
More Emerson Climate Tech spin mantra ?
“All peer reviewed science on climate science either concludes, affirms, or is consistent with, the scientific theory that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are the cause of all global warming since 1970.”
First point, “all” is an absolute, so all it takes to disprove your assertion is one that does not. This has been done many times over. Even if one accepts the 97% that leaves 3% that do not and that disproves your nonsense statement.
So the question is:
Have you have personally read each and every one of those research reports, cover to cover, and personally verified the math and the data?
The proof you have not read those 10s of thousands of papers is:
You have time to post here.
Poor Beetup.. You have never produced a single bit of real science to counter anything that is based on reality.
As you obviously don’t understand how the atmosphere works, you should probably avoid commenting.. to avoid making a fool of yourself.
And there’s that petty and childish “denier” word again.. yet you cannot produce one thing anyone here “denies” that you can actually back with solid real science.
You and your ilk are the ones believing in witchcraft, and things that just aren’t real.
It is noted that yet again, you have ZERO SCIENCE to counter the actual post. !!
Ahahaha…
If there’s no GHE, explain why nights are consistently warmer under cloudy conditions if not due to infrared back radiation. What alternative physical process would be responsible?
What’s clouds got to do with CO2 ???
H2O slows the lapse rate, weren’t you aware of that ?
It is noted that yet again, you have ZERO SCIENCE to counter the actual main article of the post. !!
Warren was referring to the full greenhouse effect, which includes CO2, water vapor, and clouds, and you responded by claiming he doesn’t understand how the atmosphere works.
That’s why I brought up cloudy night warming. It is a real world demonstration of the GHE.
Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in both clear and cloudy conditions, so its effect on lapse rate is also always present. Thus, lapse rate alone cannot explain why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights in the same location.
Yes it does.. The slowed lapse rate and retained latent heat holds the energy in the atmosphere.
Do you really think its something to do with CO2? … that is just ridiculous.
No. There is no GHE or GH gasses except in a physical green house.
A green house does not depend on oceans or clouds. The Green House Effect is simply containing warm air preventing it from dispersing heat to the environment outside of the greenhouse.
It is a climate control system to establish temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels optimized for plant growth.
The earth is not a greenhouse. There are no glass walls or glass ceiling.
Proof? Wind.
Jabberwocky
Ow…. That hurts.
Not.
Try this instead: A nonsense word salad showing your utter lack of scientific chops.
Those definitions are straign out of physics text books.
Internal energy is the total energy contained within a system at a microscopic level, including the kinetic energy from particle motion and the potential energy from molecular forces. It is a property of a system’s state, not a transfer, and its change is determined by heat added to the system and work done on or by the system, as described by the First Law of Thermodynamics
What internal energy includes
You left out a key word, “closed.”
Heat, thermal energy flowing hot to cold is a function, not a system.
Internal energy only applies to a closed system. The atmosphere is not closed.
That you resorted to Google AI shows how scientifically uneducated you are.
You might try reading a textbook on Thermodynamics rather than depending on Google AI. I understand Thermodynamics for Idiots is on sale at Amazon.
You have received an award: Sophistry, 1st Class.
Just send in 10 box tops and $2.95 (S&H) to get your medal.
You shifted the context of the discussion from heat to closed systems only so you could score ego points and claim how badly you trashed a “climate denier.”
You are a science denier and a climate liar.
Of course thermal energy flowing from hot to cold is not a system. I certainly wouldn’t call it a ‘function’, either. ‘Process’ might be more apt.
Id say you dont understand very much, and when you run up to the limits of your education, you lash out That’s not uncommon among Deniers.
A physical greenhouse limits heat loss by restricting convection, while the atmospheric greenhouse effect limits heat loss by trapping infrared radiation. Different mechanisms, same outcome: reduced heat escaping to space. An analogy doesn’t have to be mechanically identical to be scientifically valid.
Not understanding the basics while claiming superior knowledge to climate scientists is exactly what puts you in the denier camp.
Well said.
A nonsense word salad showing your utter lack of scientific chops.
Infrared radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Kirchhoff’s Law. You cannot trap energy.
I fully understand the contrived expression “Green House Effect” and the social, context driven definition used. It is not a scientific definition and its origins come from a mid 19th century experiment where the results were “similar to what happens in a green house.”
Every one of those early experiments were performed in closed containers. So of course the results would be similar to a green house.
And, by the way, the energy output of the earth into space is not just IR and it is energy, not heat.
1) IR is indeed an electromagnetic wave — and converts to kinetic energy when it encounters and excites gas molecules.
2) Yes, you can trap heat energy in an insulated box
3) The atmospheric greenhouse effect was, and is today, readily demonstrated in tabletop experiments in high school laboratories.
4) There are three methods of heat exchange — thermal radiation, convection, and conduction. The last two methods require the interaction of matter. Since there is essentially no matter in space, the only mechanism that can transfer heat away from planet earth is thermal radiation emitted from the earths system.(Which is IR)
As CO2 is said to be ‘well mixed’ and pretty much the same level wherever you are on the planet, a better question might be, ‘why does the dry air of deserts cool to below freezing at night’? You figure it out.
You don’t know?
Clouds are not well mixed globally. Deserts have no cloud cover at night so they lack additional greenhouse trapping.
On the driest nights the lapse rate over deserts is close to the dry adiabatic lapse rate..
So they cool much more rapidly.
The idea of “greenhouse trapping” is basically pseudo-science.
You don’t get much love around here for correctly explaining the physics of a problem.
Makes it all the more fun.
When he actually, accidentally, is correct, we shall applaud.
So far, he’s batting 1000
Nah, you’re thinking of Keith Richards.
Aka “Keef”.
This is from the actual report:
“Our novel approach here to determine probability estimates of an AMOC collapse before the year 2100 starts from recent modelling work [4] that has shown that an AMOC collapse does occur in the CMIP5 version of the Community Earth System Model (CESM)”.
You see this all the time. The old ways of measuring are replaced by new, modelled versions which, quel surprise, DO exactly what it is intended to do: supporting a narrative with a desired outcome.
They even brag about it sometimes as in a recent interview w Richard Tol, who works in a ‘climate’ department of a UK University, as an economist mind you.
Well, they should be happy. They get ALL the funding. Id be happy too. And dismissing and insulting other scientist who do not agree is part of it. They positively encourage it, without consequences. Sad..
To clarify: from the original report, NOT the 2nd one stated in the above article..
More good news, it must suck to be the other side.
There’s been a fairly large number of alarming studies (‘coral reefs collapsing worldwide’ comes to mind … ) just within the past couple of months.
It pays to remember these famous words, especially in the ramp-up to each and every COP(out):
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and, hence, clamoring to be led to safety) with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
I thought these alarmists had given up on the global cooling/new ice age narrative some time ago. Except now that no one’s listening to the old warming/climate crisis refrain, they’re trying to revive what failed to materialize a half-century ago but shouldn’t be surprised when everyone ignores this song-and-dance also.
Mid century cooling was driven by aerosol pollution. AMOC slowing is an entirely different mechanism involving changes in ocean circulation and salinity.
Also, AMOC slowdown isn’t proposed to cause global cooling, just regional cooling in the North Atlantic while global temperatures keep rising.
The AMOC isn’t slowing to any measurable extent. It is fantasy, as shown by this article.
As for the SO2 issue, let’s look at SO2 measure over the USA , compared to temperature trends.
(ppb numbers are estimates from the chart below, amounts added from data from someone else, I can’t remember who).
From 174ppb in 1980 to 89ppb in 1998, (a decrease of about 14.7 million tons)
UAH USA48 shows no warming or cooling
.
SO2 dropped from 79ppb in 2005 to 24ppb in 2015.. (a decrease of about 8.1 million tons)
According to USCRN and UAH USA48 there was no warming or cooling.
—-
The SO2 cooling conjecture is not supported by measured evidence over the USA.
You could provide some counter evidence.. waiting…… or not.
From January 1980 to December 1998, the trend is 0.02C per decade, but the p value is 0.1472. Meaning the variability is too high to statistically distinguish the trend from zero.
That doesn’t mean there is no trend; it means the period is too short or noisy to detect one with confidence.
The same is true for January 2005 to December 2015 (p-value 0.65): the timespan is too brief relative to natural variability.
LOL.. December 1998 includes the 1998 El Nino event.
.. did you do that intentionally.. or are you just being disingenuous.
Not even you are dumb enough to say that was caused by CO2.
If you want to look for the trend due to CO2 you have to stop before the 1998 El Nino… ZERO TREND
I used the time interval you selected.
And I counted five other El Niño events during that period: 1982-1983, 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1991-1992, and 1994-1995.
What’s so special about 1998?
Your comment is bordering on the totally idiotic.
LOOK AT THE UAH DATA !!!
Can’t you see the 1998 El Nino standing out like a skyscraper.
(surely I am allowed to respond to such an idiotic comment !!)
I believe the word in vogue today is “jaberwocky.”
Applied to Eclang.
UAH global data is not USA48.