by Judith Curry
I have a new op-ed published in The Australian, here is the complete text.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new Synthesis Report, with fanfare from the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres:
“The climate time-bomb is ticking but the latest IPCC report shows that we have the knowledge & resources to tackle the climate crisis. We need to act now to ensure a livable planet in the future.”
The new IPCC Report is a synthesis of the three reports that constitute the Sixth Assessment Report, plus three special reports. This Sythesis Report does not introduce any new information or findings. While the IPCC Reports include some good material, the Summary for Policy Makers for the Synthesis Report emphasizes weakly justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emission scenarios, and politicized policy recommendations on emissions reductions.
The most important finding of the past 5 years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as “business-as-usual” scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible. These extreme scenarios have been dropped by UN Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Agreement. However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasize these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote:
“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”
The extreme emissions scenarios are associated with alarming projections of 4-5oC of warming by 2100. The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP27) is working from a baseline temperature projection based on a medium emissions scenario of 2.5oC by 2100. Since 1.2oC of warming has already occurred from the baseline period in the late 19th century, the amount of warming projected for the remainder of the 21st century under the medium emissions scenario is only about one third of the warming projections under the extreme emissions scenario.
The Synthesis Report emphasizes “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed. It is therefore difficult to overstate the importance of the shift in expectations for future extreme weather events and sea level rise, that is associated with rejection of the extreme emissions scenarios. Rejecting these extreme scenarios has rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade, that have focused on these scenarios. In particular, the extreme emissions scenario dominates the impacts that are featured prominently in the new Synthesis Report.
Clearly, the climate “crisis” isn’t what it used to be. Rather than acknowledging this fact as good news, the IPCC and UN officials are doubling down on the “alarm” regarding the urgency of reducing emissions by eliminating fossil fuels. You might think that if warming is less than we thought, then the priorities would shift away from emissions reductions and towards reducing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes. However, that hasn’t been the case.
The IPCC has been characterized as a “knowledge monopoly,” with its dominant authority in the UN climate deliberations. The IPCC claims that it is “policy-neutral” and “never policy-prescriptive.” However, the IPCC has strayed far from its chartered role of assessing the scientific literature in support of policy making. The entire framing of the IPCC Reports is now around the mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions.
Not only has the IPCC increasingly taken on a stance of explicit political advocacy, but it is misleading policy makers by its continued emphasis on extreme climate outcomes driven by the implausible extreme emissions scenarios. With its explicit political advocacy, combined with misleading information, the IPCC risks losing its privileged position in international policy debates.
The impact of these alarming IPCC reports and rhetoric by UN officials is this. Climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems—stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we solve the problem of burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these other problems. The end result is a narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as energy systems, water resources, public health, weather disasters, and national security.
The IPCC Reports have become “bumper sticker” climate science – making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus.
JC note: h/t to Dan Hughes for the “bumper sticker” line
Nice to read Judith in The Australian this morning. Big change in focus of the Blog past 10 years or so.
Her position has evolved greatly since I 1st visited this site in 2007. It has been nice to follow the changes.
Correction, I visited this blog from 2007. Never commented before, technically incompetent to do so, mere engineer, but interested in Judith’s opinion.
Most Aussies are f’g nuts when it comes to climate change.
I agree. The education system has been taken over by women of the left persuasion and all the kids are brainwashed and poorly educated. The people have been dumbed down by the the woke syllabus’. You can actually graduate from high school and not Bne able to read or write to a reasonable degree.
Starting with Andrew Bolt.
You might consider offering Donald Trump political asylum to raise the tone?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/04/tucker-carlson-interviews-coconut-coast.html
“a politically manufactured consensus.”
Consensus is a tool of politics. It directly discredits science.
I refer back to this notion:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
I refer back to this notion by Michael Crichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Compounding as it does tautology with a terminal appeal to authority, this may be the worst thing Mike ever wrote, including the speech Steve Koonin invited him to make at Cal Tech.
Bruce and Russell: In his great book “A Constitution of Knowledge. In Defense of Truth.” Jonathan Rauch explains where knowledge comes from. Science can be done by a single individual, but knowledge is the result of a continuing group conversation among experts. No one person or exclusive group has the authority to decide what is true. No consensus among the vast majority of experts is final: New ideas or new information may come along that changes everything. However, a single person doesn’t create knowledge.
Rauch says that we needs groups because the human brain is lousy at reasoning. For most of us, reasoning is dominated by emotion. Most non-scientists (and many scientists) would rather be wrong than publicly disagree with important beliefs of their peer group. For example, since the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of COVID first became known as a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump for political reasons, there wasn’t a compelling reason for most scientists to discuss this hypothesis until we failed to find infected animals connected with the Seafood Market. For scientists, confirmation bias is a more serious problem. Even the greatest scientists find it easier to find mistakes in the work of others than in their own work. Even the brilliant Einstein never accepted the reality of quantum mechanics.
Now, the IPCC consensus is not generating knowledge because they aren’t interested in having a continuing conversation with skeptical experts. They aren’t interesting in learning why they might be wrong, because they can’t afford to be seen questioning the consensus.
“Now, the IPCC consensus is not generating knowledge because they aren’t interested in having a continuing conversation with skeptical experts. They aren’t interesting in learning why they might be wrong, because they can’t afford to be seen questioning the consensus.”
What skeptical experts? You mean those that scour the IPCC report looking for discrepancies so they can make a mountain out of a mole hill? How about those with crackpot theories? Recently, someone claiming to be an expert in this venue insisted that greenhouse gases have no impact on the earth’s temperature. You think he should be taken seriously?
How about the guy who says CO2 has no impact on climate. It’s SO2 that’s the problem. His “proof” is that SO2 is decreasing and temperature is increasing and during periods of decreasing CO2 emissions the temperature doesn’t go down. He has no direct evidence for the former and direct evidence contradicts the latter. You think he should be taken seriously?
Most skeptics don’t want a conservation with real climate scientists because they know they’ll be exposed as frauds. They place their “papers” in “pay to publish” journals where the peer review is inferior. Then they troll sites like this one trying to drum up support from those predisposed to accept anything in opposition to consensus science on climate change.
The skeptics are few in number and their ranks are shrinking.
Intelligence is the ability to understand something so well you can explain it to a child or an academic of high esteem, often even at the same moment in time. A consensus can have no intelligence other than that of the individual whose idea is being aped by that consensus over and over again.
There was once an enormous consensus that the Earth was centre of the universe and that proved a lot of things and cost quite a few who thought differently their lives. Better to ape the guy with the gun than risk all, eh?
At times like this we as a species don’t seem to learn anything useful at all. In fact many would say we are going hopelessly backwards in time and they would be right wouldn’t they?
“the IPCC consensus”
I am curious though. When was the science “settled”? On what date did we know everything there was to know about the climate and there was nothing left to learn?
And how did we know there was nothing left to learn?
The scientists 30 years ago seemed pretty certain that we had 10 years left to act and that if we didn’t the Caribbean would be gone by now, the Artic free of ice, Egypt flooded and the American mid-west a dustbowl. It was all in the UN Environmental Programme’s 1989 report. Compiled by climate experts. Scientists no-less. But we didn’t act and none of that has happened.
Now scientists seem pretty certain that we have 10 years left to act and that if we don’t the Caribbean will go, the Artic will be free of ice, Egypt will flood and the American mid-west become a dustbowl.
“Now, the IPCC consensus is not generating knowledge because they aren’t interested in having a continuing conversation with skeptical experts. ”
Molecular biologists and viral epidemiologists in Wuhan aren’t much interested in a continuing conversation with Ivermectin salesmen either.
The good news is that the public is starting to catch on to the narratives. The bad news is that young people are increasingly depressed and unable to distinguish fancy from reality because they spend all their time in the on-line world.
But young Marxists aren’t having kids! Out of fear apparently. It’s a thin silver lining when the promise of consensus is anticipated to depreciate, eventually.
Not really! It’s the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and white supremacists that are dying out. In other words, base of the Republican Party is shrinking. That’s why the Party is busy trying to figure out how to maintain power with a minority of the population supporting their positions.
Conservatism is a collection of really bad ideas that are continually rebranded and recycled.
“Not really!”
Really wrong.
Hollywood, you can’t help yourself, you’re a B actor who only knows how to recite cheap manifesto woke script. Please peruse:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/climate-apocalypse-fears-stopping-people-having-children-study
Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study
Survey of 600 people finds some parents regret having offspring for same reason
http://www.theguardian.com
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/birth-rate-decline-ipcc-report-forecast-b1901490.html
Grim forecast on the climate crisis is putting people off having children, financial analysts warn
Morgan Stanley cited research that number of births in the US fell in the nine months after an extreme heat event
http://www.independent.co.uk
I’d say people having less children is a good thing. They are right to worry about what future generations will have to endure if we don’t do something about climate change.
Have you got no understanding of the temperature variation over the last 10k years? 1850 was chosen because it was the coldest period in the last 10k years. So we are now 1 degree above the coldest period in the lasts 10k years and 2 degrees below the hottest period. Man, such as for example the Australian Aborigine , lived through the whole period and they say +50k years before that, when it was 6 degrees above what it is now. We are still recovering from the last glacial period when the sea was 100m lower than now as proven by aboriginal middens found 30k to the east of Australia. That survived all of that with only fire and furs. And you talk of catastrophe? Are you completely mad?
The thermometer wasn’t invented until the 17th century. Measurements before then were just guesstimates based on inference.
All your saying is that man managed to survive a warm period. Do you know the percentage of people who made it through? Unless a nuclear war is triggered, I suspect some of humanity will survive AGW. The question is what percentage and at what cost.
There are 8 billion people on the planet now that need to be fed. Things will be a lot different.
JJ …
> In other words, base of the Republican Party is shrinking.
Actually, the base has been increasing steeply over the last 8 years. And, you could go back to the Teamsters’ support of Reagan to see the beginning of the working class shift to the Republican party, much to the chagrin of the old guard Republicans. The Democratic party has been hemorrhaging supports for decades. That’s why they are for open borders (some wealthy Republicans, as well) and laws that allow non-citizens to vote in elections. Don’t worry though, Democrats still outnumber Republicans … for the present.
LOL!
The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. The only way the Republicans can control the House is by extreme gerrymandering. The only way the can control the Senate is because the Senate represents geography and not people.
The Party has no policies that benefit the average American. What they’ve been selling since the 60’s is racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and white supremacy. That’s not working as well as it used to. Their current position on abortion and guns is a loser. They’re heading toward becoming a permanent minority party.
JJ … The Democrats have had a numerical affiliation advantage over Republicans for decades. However, even with that stated affiliation they have not won all the elections. Far from it. Why is that? Primarily independent voters (by far the largest political group), disaffected Democrats/Republicans and increasing/decreasing party affiliation all contribute to pendulum swings to the right or left.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx
@JJBraccili
The Democrats win the popular vote primarily because of California. California, because it is both “all or nothing” electoral votes” and dominated by 2 large urban areas – the Republican/conservatives in that state barely vote at all.
You are furthermore thinking the Democrat party of today is the Democrat party of say, pre-Bill Clinton.
Sorry, but that ain’t so. The Democrat party today is the party of the PMC – professional managerial class. The tenured professors, the mainstream media and Hollywood personalities, the CEOs and diversity/management consultants.
Not saying the Republicans are perfect – there are far too many dino-Republicans agitating for war and other such nonsense. But there’s no question whatsoever that the Republicans via Trump, JD Vance and others is far more populist than the Democrats are.
“Slavery could still make a comeback.”
Given the Demorats – the party of the KKK and that fought tooth and nail to prevent the emancipation in the 1960s – are currently in power, that wouldn’t surprise me.
You reckon?
You just keep right on telling yourself that, Sunshine!
JJB can’t seem to get anything right, nothing!!
Southern states wanted all the slaves counted as population so they could have more representatives. This was a huge point of contention. The 3/5th compromise actually diluted the power of slave holding states.
The id eee ot ic idea it institutionalized slavery is just that, id eee ot ic.
JJB’s comment – “The Party has no policies that benefit the average American. What they’ve been selling since the 60’s is racism,”
JJB – How can we believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of climate science when you are unable to grasp the political party consumed with racism and sees everything through the prism of racism is the real racist party.
MLK wouldnt tolerate the racism that permeates throughout the current democrat/socialist party.
This is a science blog, not a racist – socialist blog – take your race baiting arguments someplace else.
JJ … Yes you did. Everyone of your comments is laced with politics. Which is fine, but own it. And the only racist I see on here is you. No one gives a second thought to race, except those possessed by it. And you are possessed by it. No? Then why are you the only one to bring it up? My guess is you’re some privileged, self-hating white guy. Well, as they say, it takes all kinds to make a world.
No, I am one of the few on this venue who talks about the actual science and not pseudo-science laced with conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately, politics has infected climate science. It wasn’t the climate scientists who caused that, it was the fossil fuel industry to prevent any action on climate change. Until recently, they have been wildly successful. It is why we find ourselves in the position we are in — between a rock and a hard place.
JJB – blaming fossil fuel companies is so hypocritical of you. If you see fossil fuels as a problem, look in the mirror. It was you after all who wanted to heat and cool your home and make use of convenient ICE vehicles. The fossil fuel companies just gave you what you wanted. YOU are the problem! (If you see fossil fuels as a problem, which I don’t.)
The problem is not that people use fossil fuels. We used fluorocarbons for years to cool are homes. When it was discovered that they were destroying the ozone layer in the atmosphere, they were banned. Nobody, including industry, complained. Alternatives were found and we moved on.
The fossil fuel industry decided to fight back. They went on a disinformation campaign to attack the science. They sponsored “research” and paid any “scientist” willing to take issue with climate science. They paid front organizations like the Heartland Institute and GWPF to literally make up stuff to discredit the science. To this day they are pushing the BS that we are going to be able to adapt to what’s coming. Don’t worry — be happy.
The fossil fuel industry is at fault — not because they produced a product to meet a demand, but because when they found out that product was an existential threat to humanity, they tried to cover that up so that they could continue to profit.
JJB – the information oil companies had was highly speculative. Fortunately, they did fight the perception. It likely added trillions to the cumulative US GDP and enabled much progress and a higher standard of living.
In fact, the evidence for catastrophic global warming is still speculative as there is no falsifiable evidence for it. I will add I do believe CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I don’t believe it will result in catastrophe. And I don’t believe any weather phenomena today can be traced to the extra CO2. There is no evidence. If you think the evidence exists, provide links.
The warming so far amounts to about 0.5% from preindustrial times. How can you seriously believe it’s having much of an effect on weather?
Exxon was aware of climate change and CO2’s role.in the 1970. Knowing how Exxon operates, there is nothing that can impact their business that they don’t throughly study..
In the case of Climate Change, Exxon had a team of climate scientists who developed their own climate model. You can read about it here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
“I will add I do believe CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.”
This is more climate denier BS — CO2 only heats the atmosphere. It’s true, under the right circumstances, CO2 can warm the atmosphere, but the energy provided by CO2 is tiny compared to the energy CO2 exports as electromagnetic energy. That energy is absorbed by the earth and is what causes climate change.
What proof do I have that CO2 is the cause of climate change? I have irrefutable proof in the form of an IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant courtesy of NASA satellites:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.b2bcf2c4e72091890a4a3a0ef156d9ae?rik=x08IQqq3Rootqg&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
See the “pink” area under the CO2 label. That’s the amount of the earth’s radiant energy that CO2 is preventing from escaping the planet. That energy is about 8% of the solar energy the earth absorbs. That energy is more than enough to cause climate change and the rise in the earth’s temperature we are seeing.
That spectrograph ends the debate. BTW there never was a real debate. The science of climate change was settled decades ago.
JJB – Thanks for that Climate Doomer sciency BS. Not proof of anything other than run-of-the mill spectroscopy. It doesn’t prove there will be a CO2 driven catastrophe. Nice try, though.
“The thermometer wasn’t invented until the 17th century.”
Never heard of proxies, JJ?
Dear me!
Proxies are never as good as the real thing.
The real things aren’t much good either when the historic temperatures get readjusted at regular intervals because they don’t tell the story activists want.
Since there is no spot on the earth marked “average temperature insert thermocouple here.” Temperature data have to be statistically sampled and weighted — a degree rise in the ocean involves more energy than a degree rise in the atmosphere. There are always arguments over how this is done, and it leads to corrections.
That the corrections have some ulterior motive is another conspiracy theory and fodder for the climate denialists.
Your comments get more and more ridiculous JJ as you defend the impossible with stupid statements. Stop livng in that fantasy world if you want to stop shredding what little credibility you have left. Currently you are only just a little below Mr Appell.
The historical data from individual stations has continually been adjusted downwards over the years. Recent years have been elevated. This is often when there has been no station moves or other influences. But they don’t make a correction for UHI which has raised many temperatures without a climate change. The rural/ urban unadjusted comparison is getting wider.
That adjustment is why there are two data sets maintained. From these adjusted stations, they then calculate the “global” temperature.
The reason that the alarmist analysists went to anomalies is that the different models gave a wide spread of actual “global” temperatures (over 2°C if IIRC) that they were ridiculous. By going to anomalies, they could hide the embarring evidence.
The reason they use anomalies is because if you used actual temperatures the curve would be flat. Climate Change occurs slowly over a long period of time.
You do know that they also use satellite data to determine planetary temperatures? I presented a graph that had 5 or 6 sources for planetary temperature. You mean they are all in on the scam?
If you want the gold standard on temperature data, check out Berkeley Earth. It’s run by a former skeptic.
As Chris Morris states – “The reason that the alarmist analysists went to anomalies is that the different models gave a wide spread of actual “global” temperatures (over 2°C if IIRC) that they were ridiculous. By going to anomalies, they could hide the embarring evidence.”
Chris – My issue with anomalies is it creates difficulties in determining whether adjustments have been made to the prior year anomalies. If using actual temp, I can go back to prior year reports to see if the prior year temps have been adjusted, Cant do that with anomalies, at least not easily. Your point is valid
JJ That woosh noise in your ears is your credibility disappearing. It makes a lot of noise in an empty vessel.
” The reason they use anomalies is because if you used actual temperatures the curve would be flat.” Just how stupid is that. Have you never heard of scaling?
Berkeley Earth is not considered one of the 5 temperature series.
Here they are
http://climate4you.com/
And its developer was never a sceptic
Where would you like to start? How about economic policy.
The modern conservative movement started with the Harding administration. Until recently, the most corrupt and inept administration. He had Andrew Mellon of the banking Mellons as his Secretary of the Treasury. Mellon was the father of “supply side” economics. It was called laissez-faire back in the day. Mellon continued as Secretary of the Treasury under Coolidge and Hoover. His policy of low taxes and loose financial regulation led directly to the stock market crash 0f 1929, He advised Hoover after the crash to do nothing and let it all burn. That turned what should have been a bad recession into the Great Depression. His economic policies are still the bedrock of conservative economic policy. Saint Ronnie resurrected them as “supply-side” economics. It took 20 years for the conservatives to unwind all the regulations put in during the 1930s to prevent another Great Depression. By 1999 they succeeded. With the Shrub administration and Alan Greenspan refusing to enforce what little regulation was left, the stage was set for the Great Recession. We were lucky that Shrub was at the end of his term because he and the Republicans in Congress would have done what Hoover did and we would have been in Great Depression II.
Guess what? Those economic principles are still the bedrock of conservative economic ideology. Why? Because the polices don’t just cause economic instability, they result in massive income inequality which is the point. Protecting and promoting the interests of the wealthy has always been the organizing principle of the conservative movement. In fact, it is the only principle they always honor.
You think what I said is a good thing? Good luck with that!
JJ … What you, and the left, refuse to acknowledge concerning the Great Compromise, and all the other compromises, was that they enabled the Constitution to be ratified. If you read the Federalists’ Papers you’ll see that the Constitution was not a perfect document, but rather perfect for the time. As to slavery, the ratification of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, was one large step towards the end of slavery. About 75 years afterwards the Civil War was fought where over 600,000 white men died resulting in the end of slavery. The Constitution has always had issues, yet it seems to handle each in the due course of time.
Enjoy your evening.
Dr. Curry, it is good that you were able to present some facts countering the UN IPCC (and Western governments’) Leftist propaganda in a publication with general circulation. Was there any opposition in publishing it and has there been negative feedback to your op ed? Positive feedback?
Its not so much that governmental bodies shade the truth on climate science (although that’s criminal in and of itself) it is the fact that they publish and allow others to publish outright lies about worsening extreme weather events. We are bombarded on a daily basis with obvious and outrageous lies concerning extreme weather. Those, like Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. trying to publicize the truth are shouted down and de-platformed by Leftist politicians, Deep State bureaucrats, academics, NGO activists and media, and crony capitalist profiteers.
I’m hopeful that (soon) an International Truth and Reconciliation Tribunal will convene to name and shame all of the CliSciFi liars.
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
Glad I read it here as I refuse to buy “The Australian”, which is turning out like the Sydney Morning Herald and other publications that take a soft and poor intellectual stance on many issues.
When first beginning to follow Dr. Curry’s blog, I thought SMH was “Smashing My Head” (against the wall). The usage of SMH by the commentors implied that meaning. It was only later that I realized it referred to a Leftist newspaper.
Very well stated, Dr. Curry.
You nailed it with, “Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems—stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we solve the problem of burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved.”
You can substitute “burning fossil fuels” with “racism,” “guns,” or any other of a long list of leftist talking points. The public, led by the mass media, consistently swallows it hook, line, and sinker!
Its called “intersectionality,” Lynn. The Leftists like to tie all grievances (Marxist Critical Theory) together so that if somebody supports/agitates for one grievance they support all the other causes. If you support one Leftist cause, you automatically support all the others. Neat trick.
Yup!
“However, the IPCC has strayed far from its chartered role of assessing the scientific literature in support of policy making.”
Mission creep, as with the U.N.
And NASA.
Quoting here from J.C.’s article above:
“… the Summary for Policy Makers for the Synthesis Report emphasizes weakly justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emission scenarios, and politicized policy recommendations on emissions reductions.”
What I’m picking up on is the emphasis on weakly justified findings feeding into politicised recommendations. How extremely depressing, that this is how our elites abuse their positions of responsibility. I guess it’s the same as we’ve seen over and again for the past few years: a new, disorientating, total-control moral righteousness with its confected “narratives” supplanting the older generation’s liberal intellectual quest for truth. Their hubris will take us all down.
Great article titled (😄) “UN report is bumper sticker climate science”. As an Aussie geologist who follows your blog I feel privileged that you have written this article in our flagship paper. Mind you, I still think you give too much credence to man-made climate change but I sense you have to be careful not to be completely cancelled by the powers that be.
Judith, 246 comments on your article so far, all positive last time I checked. And you were cited in the lead editorial as well.
Delighted to read Dr Curry’s assessment of the reports in The Australian. Her balanced articles are refreshing in a pool of representations in most OZ Media.
Very good article trying to demistify the global warming climate change narrative. For many years I work on environmental side in industry and clearlly for me we have a resources problem and a pollution problem. To me I read some book like Freakomomics and I was not comfortable with this climate change growing voices and the super importance of CO2.
I have eard some years ago a Brazilian scientist criticizing climate models, he said there were lots of scientists from former nuclear industry that had no jobs and develop these models…
In the last year I’ve seen John Christy videos and clear position about climate facts using satellite temp data sets and… last but not least today I found about Judith Curry …and I was totally convinced my gut feeling was correct. This is all a political hidden agenda led by UN and by Antonio Guterres which by the way is Portuguese like me. He had a good position against Russia and Putin recently but on climate issues he is totally wrong trying to impose near true and scientific facts into an absolutely insane movement that … thank god some people are opposing and fighting against it !
Judith,
You wrote, “This Sythesis Report does not introduce any new information or findings.”
Shouldn’t that be the “Sisyphus Report?” :-)
Judith, here is one of my comments on your article and one in the Letters section replying to a rabid warmist:
“Judith is one of the best-informed, most honest and open of climate scientists. She doesn’t have an idee fixe to promote, and is driven by the facts rather than the partisanship and scare-mongering which so dominates debate on allegedly dangerous warming. I strongly recommend her blog Climate Etc to all interested in this vital topic in order to get a balanced view rather than one driven by vested interests.”
“Amy Hiller, I’m delighted to see an article by climate scientist Judith Curry in The Australian, and strongly recommend her Climate Etc blog to you if you have a genuine desire to understand the warming issue and the impact of alternative approaches. I first came across Judith around 2008. As an impeccable scientist, she accepted the global warming story told by other scientists and was puzzled as to why Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick argued that it had no sound basis. McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog opened her eyes, and led her to investigate further (her specialities being Arctic ice and North Atlantic hurricanes), then to start her blog in 2010. If you are open to facts and science, you should read her blog posts and those of many well-informed contributors to it, particularly those by energy industry experts.”
Here is Dr. Judith Curry given the floor at Climate Audit.org in Jan 2007 to post her case that tropical cyclone activity was increasing in that decade, presumably from increasing sea surface temperatures. It’s a fascinating read of one devoted to science, open to scrutiny and persuaded by factual argument. If only all scientists today were this curious to hear criticisms. https://climateaudit.org/2007/01/05/curry-on-landsea-1993/
Well said, Judith.
Ms. Curry wants you to believe that a 2.5 C rise in global temperature is not catastrophic. It is. It’s just nat as catastrophic as 4.5 C rise.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/
Alarmist dribble highlight worries about what could happen without reliable evidence that they will occur.
JJBdaccili,
You are misinformed.
Global temperature rises 4.8C from January to June and falls by the same amount from June to January each and every year.
This is because
(1) it is winter in one hemisphere when it is summer in the other,
(2) the N hemisphere is mostly covered in land and the S hemisphere is mostly covered in water,
(3) land changes temperature more than water with the seasons,
(4) so, the N hemisphere temperature varies more than the S hemisphere temperature with the seasons,
(5) and global temperature is the average of the N and S hemisphere temperatures at all times.
Nobody notices the variation of global temperature within each year and the smaller rises which worry you are not in global temperature, but are in global temperature ANOMALY which is an arithmetic construct with no physical reality.
Richard
Good answer! It is a sure sign that a person does not know what they are talking about when they refer to the global temperature anomaly (GTA) as average temperature.
Maybe you can help me with this: I work as a statistician (not in climate). I struggle to understand the rationale behind GTA; many statistical methods can analyze grouped time series data much more efficiently. GTA seems archaic and ad hoc. For example, as you alluded to, choosing a baseline period in the 1800s seems speculative. Why is it not discarded as the standard measure for temperature changes? Is it just too convenient?!
Another rocket scientist!
GTA is the deviation of the global average temperature from some fixed point. Why 1880 was chosen? It had to be some point in the near past where humans weren’t burning a significant amount of fossil fuels. At the beginning of the industrial revolution is as good a point as any.
PPM is a relative concentration and a bad measure of the greenhouse effect of CO2. Absolute concentration is a better measure. It just so happens that at current conditions PPM can be a proxy for absolute concentration. People understand what PPM means and changing now would be confusing. Nobody is going to change how we determine GTA for similar reasons.
JJBraccili | March 30, 2023 at 11:37 am |
YOu are sadly mistaken. There are two statistical distributions that make up a GTA anomaly. One is a monthly average at a station. The other is an average of a baseline at that station.
Notice the word “average” as in an arithmetic mean of a distribution. Each of those distributions are random variables having both a mean AND A VARIANCE. You never see the variance quoted. When adding or subtracting random variable means, the variance add. That is, Var(X±Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y).
Why is this never quoted, addressed, or mentioned?
Instead, climate science finds an average of the anomalies and then calculates the standard deviation of the anomalies. What a great method to hide the actual temperature variation that make up that number.
Figures lie, and liars figure!
ChrisH hit the nail on the head. Climate scientists started out using high school math and used basic arithmetic means as a simple calculation to find a value. They never progressed beyond that basic calculation into the statistical assumptions necessary to support their conclusion!
You want to know actual climate change? Get involved with Heating and Cooling Degree Days.
If pigs had wings, they could fly.
I’m not into how they figure out what the average temperature of the earth is, and I’m not qualified to critique it. I accept what the vast majority of climate scientists say.
There are thousands of scientists around the world that accept and have contributed to the IPCC’s report. Most of these scientists come from different countries with different political systems.
Why would a Chinese scientist agree with consensus climate science if they could prove it was wrong? The Chinese government would love to discredit western scientists, if they could. Yet, they accept what their own scientists tell them.
Why would the fossil fuel industry now accept that the planet is warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2? They spent 25 years denying it and spreading disinformation. They moved on claiming we will be able to adapt to the changing climate.
This NASA page is classic pseudo-science and narrative promotion. And what they do say is probably wrong. Severe weather will decrease in a warmer world because of lower temperature gradients. There is zero evidence that warming so far has impacted crop yields. Plants do better with more CO2 and become more drought tolerant.
Where at the beginning of the impact of climate change.
If you think more energy sloshing around on the planet is not going to cause more extreme weather events, I have a bridge for sale that I would like to talk to you about.
It is provably true that the Navier Stokes equations have no forcing terms involving the temperature itself, only the gradient of temperature. Thus lower gradients imply lower velocity solutions.
DPY6629;
Your statement that severe weather will decrease in a warmer world is historically incorrect.
See “El Nino in History” (subtitled “Storming through the Ages”), by Cesar N. Caviedes (2001) , University Press of Florida
Judith,
Quoting from your article, “The most important finding of the past 5 years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as ‘business-as-usual’ scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible,” for many sceptics this has been obvious for more than 5 years, as also for most of the other scenarios. The computer-generated climate models are almost useless for predicting climate. No predictions of doom have eventuated.
Our Australian politicians have given the reason for their climate legislation is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which will cause temperatures to rise. The first is untrue and the latter has not happened. There have been several global temperature pauses in the trend, while there has been continual rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. So these could be natural with CO2 having little effect. Yet it appears impossible to convince anyone that they have been mislead!
May I add that as this item has been published in “The Australian” newspaper – unfortunately pay-walled to non-subscribers – one of News Ltd papers which are about the only media group publishing climate sceptic views.
So there is no valid scientific reason to limit CO2 emissions. Real greenhouse workers and submariners work in ten times higher concentrations.
Pingback: UN’s climate panic is more politics than science - Climate- Science.press
The IPCC lost me when they ignored studies in IPCC5 that I had read but were against the preferred narrative. They did it again in IPCC6 by censuring any reference to contemporary and substantial literature about geothermal activity in Antarctica. A case could be made that those dynamics are not significant nor the crucial driver of WAIS instability. A scientific document would have explained in scientific terms why not, rather than omitting it, sort of Pravdaesque.
Just like the Kremlin, maybe they don’t want independent thought.
Another evidence-free claim …
Vanuatu, leading a core group of 18 nations, wants the International Court of Justice to issue its assessment of what countries are obliged to do in order to make sure that global temperature rise is kept below the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. While those who breach their official pledges will not be taken to court directly, the ruling would be the most authoritative legal voice on where they are falling short both in terms of emissions cuts and finance to poorer nations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/climate-vulnerable-vanuatu-takes-world-to-court-over-emissions
I’m thinking it’s the “finance of poorer nations” Vanuatu is actually interested in, not global warming. It’s just a chance to cash in for them. Just one more expense incurred based on a climate catastrophe Cimate Doomer nightmare. There’s no way “green” energy is less expensive than fossil fuels when you factor in nonsense like this.
Pingback: The Latest UN Climate Report Is Bumper-Sticker Climate Science – altnews.org
FAILED TO MENTION
(1) Every climate prediction in the past 50 years was wrong, consistently predicting much faster global warming than actually happened, and
)2) The global average temperature failed to increase from 2015 to 2023, despite the largest eight year period of manmade emissions in history. No climate model predicted that.
Grade = “F”
More like, F+ in that the hypocrisy of what they do is so much in your face that it’s obvious none of them actually believe anything they’re saying… that’s the politics of AGW, the science be damned!
The statement your are applauding is BS as is the rest of climate denial pseudo-science you find in this venue.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.4c95f61f2cfba6bd0ab8fa2b3110de30?rik=VHP0O%2fjFzEdiSg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fberkeleyearth.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2018%2f01%2fComparison2017.png&ehk=u0gxAzmCznt0Lr%2f01gbiXIjDMIYYpP1HYJJ1QzbjSb4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
Scientists didn’t make AGW political. That was the fossil fuel industry in the late 90s.
Oh dear…
Just in case I was misinterpreted: The “F” was for Ms. Curry’s writing. She is a nice person — so nice she allows me to criticize here hee. That’s really nice and unusual freedom of speech.
Ms. Curry thinks climate change is about science, and science is her strong point, so she has a focus on science. In fact, there is only a little science in climate change, about 10%, called AGW. Easily proven to exists and be totally harmless.
The other 90% is politics — the CAGW predictions of doom that have been wrong since 1979, along with every other long term climate prediction in history. Those CAGW predictions are used to create fear in the general public, People in fear allow their governments to seize more power, and control them. That is the politics of climate change.
One can not refute predictions thgt are not based on science by arguing the science. Ms. Curry does not get that. That strategy has been tried since 1979, and has consistently failed. Using it again, and expecting different results, is a layman’s definition of insanity,
One can ONLY refute predictions by clearly showing every prediction in the past was wrong — discredit the “authorities” that make wrong predictions
CAGW = predictions = no data = imaginary future climate
AGW = real science = with data = real past climate
In addition to the gift of 100% wrong climate and other environmental doom predictions for over a century, we have another gift:
The global average temperature failed to increase since 2015 despite the LARGEST amount of manmade CO2 emissions in any eight year period in history.
At the least that contradicts the CO2 is the temperature control knob theory. At best it contradicts every climate confuser game (aka climate model)
Failing to mention this lack of warming for the past eight years is so foolish that any Climate Realist who does not mention that FACT is a complete fool. And gets a grade of “F” from me.
Climate change is a propaganda battle. NOT A SCIENCE DEBATE
Our best ammunition is 100% wrong climate predictions and eight years with no global warming. Only a fool goes to the battle and leaves that ammunition at home.
Wagathon – I think the actually do believe everything they are saying.
Take for example the “science boys” at skeptical science or David Appleboy. The frequently post junk science (and borderline academic fraud level science. A good 10% of what they post falls into that bucket of junk science. They literally go DefCon 5 defending the junk science.
granted, not everything they post is junk science, but the failure and/or inability to recognize junk science by people claiming superior knowledge is scary.
Just like the Politburos of Russia, China, VP-Ms Harris and the Western schoolteachers of America now believe it is their duty to save the world by eliminating Amerianism. It’s a culture war between the Socialists’ collectivism vs the Founders’ individualism. It’s government programs vs the hard work of free enterprise. It’s Leftist Utopianism and hypocrisy vs self-actualization and the actual existentialism of overcoming superstition and ignorance through knowledge, respect for truth and personal responsibility. It’s helplessness vs reasoned and rational self-interest.
Pingback: Another “Final” Climate Change Warming Warning – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
To me Vanuatu= Maldives. https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/14/maldives-sinking/
If the Maldives don’t sink from the weight of all the new construction on the islands — resorts, buildings. airports and overweight tourists too — they will be lucky.
ha ha
Guterres is becoming increasingly hysterical as fewer rational people believe the UN doomsayers. I fear for the man’s sanity. His handlers should help him dial down the rhetoric, or he might blow a gasket. He reminds me of the stereotypical maiden aunt, afraid of everything, poorly informed by the media, and in a frenzy looking for her cat. The UN was created to keep the peace, and has clearly failed miserably to do so. They don’t even try anymore. Now the UN lectures the world about every perceived crisis except the ones they are responsible for. Time to wind them up and spend those billions on hungry kids.
If you abandon the scientific method, introduce the subjective element into scientific practice, apply your culture and rely on instinct then perhaps — for you — AGW (human-induced global warming) really exists…
AGW does exist and is being driven by the use of fossil fuels. There is too much evidence to deny it.
Ms Curry spends her time looking for anomalies and then literally makes a mountain out of a mole hill. Her current rant is on the accuracy of climate models. Climate modeling is like weather modeling — a work in progress. They’ll get better as scientists better understand the processes involved. What’s apparent is that AGW is occurring and increasing CO2 is the cause. When the atmosphere is treated like a toilet, there are going to be consequences.
If you want to argue about the amount of warming in the future, you’re on more solid ground. BTW A 2.5 C rise is a lot better than a 4.5 C rise but is still a catastrophe.
Not surprisingly, the fabrication of GCMs (General Circulation Models– the numerical models used by UN-approved global warming charlatans and climate change hoaxsters to simulate the laws of nature, the universe and everything to realize an ersatz digital reality they find useful to exaggerate the effects of CO2 on temperatures) to scare children, to stampede the superstitious and ignorant and to feather the nests of Leftist Western Academics in ivory towers who then spin prophecies of an impending Hot World catastrophe out of anti-science and hate-America babel, is not a productive activity in any economic sense. The global warming hysteria-Tower of Babel is useful only to help Leftists push their DC/Eurocommie political agenda.
Scientists aren’t exaggerating the impact of CO2 and I can prove it.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.036585a767159e25a7d1cbfbb28f8152?rik=cvJsmD682UuAfA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
What you’re looking at is a composite IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant courtesy of NASA satellites. The blue area is earth’s radiant energy. The pink area, under the CO2 label, is suppose to be blue. It represents the amount of the earth’s radiant energy that CO2 is preventing from leaving the planet. That’s what’s causing climate change.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant’s photosynthetic cycles.
The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.
So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.
Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better. ~Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer (In Defense of Carbon Dioxide)
That’s got to be the dumbest reason ever for claiming we need to increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Plants seem to be getting along fine at lower concentrations of CO2,
evilincandescentbulbEmerson would have had great respect for George Bush
Skip to content
Home
Nominally, It’s the Sun, Stupid
← Closed Door of Official Climate ScienceJC’s book shelf →
Nature and the Global Warming Holism of the Mind
Posted on 2014/10/29 by Wagathon
The Prism of Reality and Perception
A holistic approach to global warming looks to manage our understanding of reality using our minds to put all of the pieces together into some kind of meaningful whole. To look at nature objectively, making sense of reality is a scientific endeavor and one of humanity’s greatest challenges and its purest attempt at valuing truth for its own sake; and, the holistic perception of climate change to the modern mind is wholly irrelevant to that endeavor.
Looking at the scientific evidence, Daniel Botkin (Article) challenges all of our perceptions about global warming. Climate is changing. Is it our fault? (See provenance of graph above, Here)
As is well-known, we are blamed for causing a global warming mainly because our burning of fossil fuels is increasing the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere. Since this is a greenhouse gas, we must be warming the climate. ~Daniel Botkin (Ibid.)
What we actually know to be true about humanity’s impact on the world is not alarming. Only the allegations about humanity’s disastrous impact on the world is alarming. “What is the evidence,” Botkin asks, “that sea level is rising, that wildfires, drought, and episodes of very high temperatures are increasing, and what is the evidence that such changes are our fault?”
What we’re learning is being skeptical about what we think is reality is not natural at all. Scientific thinking is not holistic thinking. Thinking holistically has it virtues but its also an excuse for sloppy thinking, like adding shades of gray between the pencil lines to form a picture.
Sure, sure, temperatures may be warmer in an area where humans chop down shade trees, blacktop streets, park cars and barbeque sides of beef over a mesquite fire. But, that is not global warming. The heat resulting from that sort of human-contribution is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect –e.g., the heat from tailpipes, from motors that run air conditioners, heat generated by computers, fires in water heaters and fireplaces, blacktop streets that collect instead of reflect solar heat, buildings that block cooling breezes, etc. Heat due to UHI is only a local not a global phenomenon, despite a faintly irrational impulse to see examples of UHI and then label every inconvenient weather-related event an act of man, not God (especially for those who believe men are oil-driven evil doers whereas God is nothing more than a Judeo-Christian illusion).
Carbon dioxide is definitely continuing to increase in the atmosphere, but Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures aren’t tracking it. ~Daniel Botkin (Ibid.)
Looking at something holistically is our touchy-feely way of viewing reality. When, however, significant consequences are associated with our views, the holism concept with its bottom-up, sideways and backwards view of reality should not prevent us from taking on the rigorous and more skeptical approach of a scientific inquiry, beginning with a serious look at the facts. But we can always start by looking at the world holistically –e.g.,
Now, how about the facts. Let us leave the world of the mind. If we want to do more than just speculate, we must consider the history of the physical world around us before we can know the significance of our part in it. Depending on our holistic views you may not be happy with an objective evaluation of the facts if you secretly want humanity to have a starring role in climate change.
No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control… The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science. ~Dr. Will Happer
Coal, oil and natural gas (methane) are *not* fossils.
You repeat this “fossil fuel” label purely as a propaganda point – and you know you do.
So far, about a 1C increase in 150 years. Which molehill was it again ?
They are referred to as fossil fuels. I didn’t invent the term. How is using the term “fossil fuel” propaganda? If I didn’t use the term would that make them any less an existential threat?
It’s actually a 1.1 degree increase. Yes, that’s a big deal.
No doubt you can explain why the planet cooled for four and a half billion years – up to now?
GHE not working properly?
Since the planet started out as molten magma, it understandable that it would cool down.
CO2 isn’t the only thing that can control planetary temperature. During the history of the planet there were other sources that impacted the earth’s climate more than CO2. Over the last 150 years CO2 was mostly a bit player. In the aftermath of WWII, we started dumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 became the driver of planetary temperature.
Plants start to die at 200 ppm. I’m sure they are better off with the 400+ we have now.
We were doing just fine with CO2 at 280 ppm.
JJB seems to believe making life easy for plants is dumb. What’s dumb is killing plants. Our very lives depend on plants. So who’s the dumb person here?
JJ Hollywood: “During the history of the planet there were other sources that impacted the earth’s climate more than CO2”
Our erudite actor speaks. But really, like water?
Water vapor is the largest GHG. Water vapor and CO2 are two of the most essential ingredients for life. I’m surprised the woke community hasn’t labeled CO2 as racist yet. Oops, intellectually inbred wokers like JJ have already done this.
JJ
Your continued comments remind me of someone else on here from time to time. Inane. Substance free. Not current with the science.
I’m not sure if you’re a brother from another mother. If so, then the moniker 02/02 might fit. If there’s another nexus, then maybe Appell Jr. is more appropriate.
Either way, those who believe that every thunderstorm and every soft summer breeze is attributed to CO2, needs to do some more research and should at least fake it for awhile. Those views aren’t worthy of any street cred around here. They just generate more ridicule.
Describing JJ can’t make sense to a rational being.
JJB,
If climate modelling is a work in progress, why is it used to support extreme political decisions such as shutting down hydrocarbon fuel use?
Geoff S
This is a situation where if you wait too long nothing can be done about the consequences. It’s like being on the Titanic, seeing the iceberg, knowing it can’t be avoided.
No model I use doesn’t have uncertainty involved. You have to accept it and deal with it.
JJB has an unending list of unsupported claims.
Pingback: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The UN IPCC Reports have become ‘bumper sticker’ climate science’ – Report lobbies for ‘politically manufactured consensus’ | Climate Depot
Is it possible to sue the UN.
I notice Roger Pielke in his substack has specifically called out IPCC for its mis-information. He details and references the bad science. Another politics trumping science example
I never heard of Roger Pielke. I looked up what he has to say about climate change.
“As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!”
He tries to minimize the impact of CO2 and attributes the lion’s share of global warming to other “human activities”. What other human activities? He does not say. What could it possibly be?
The only major source of energy that could be a cause of climate change by human activity is energy production. When you burn fossil fuels you don’t just release CO2 you also release energy that can warm the planet. Here are all the possible source of energy that could warm the planet.
Solar Energy – 120,000 TW (Terrawatts)
Human Production of Energy – 20 TW
Geothermal Energy – 50 TW
Greenhouse gases prevent energy from the planet to radiate into outer space. There are not technically a source. The amount of energy that CO2 prevents radiating into space is 10,000 TW.
Energy from burning fossil fuels is too small to matter. So is energy from human activities.
“We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005. The IPCC models have failed to adequately simulate this effect.”
These are internal energy transfer that have no impact on planetary temperature. How do I know. Because from 1880 to 1960 planetary temperature tracked solar radiation. There is no indication that atmospheric and ocean circulation had any impact. If these were important, it would have shown up in the data.
Carbon dioxide is definitely continuing to increase in the atmosphere, but Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures aren’t tracking it. ~Daniel Botkin (Ibid.)”
Isn’t this a Popper/falsification of the CAGW theory?
Yiu can’t falsify the CAGW “religious” belief.
Don’t worry, any flat trend of the global average temperature will later be “revised away”, just like the 1940 to 1975 global cooling was revised away decades later
Inconvenient data always “disappear”.
Climate change is a leftist propaganda strategy to gain more government power and control, and truth is not a leftist value,
I already presented a graph that shows this statement is BS.
Here’s Tony Brown’s Long Slow Thaw CET temperature record showing 1940s’ 50s’ 60s’ – post WW 2 and post 1980s’ El Ninos.
https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/slide1.png?ssl=1
It’s probably a good idea to avoid ESG ETFs and other ESG funds.
If BlackRock Inc.’s largest ESG-labeled exchange-traded fund is a bellwether for the sustainable investing industry, it’s fair to say the US sector may be in for a bumpy ride.
The assets of the iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ticker ESGU) have dropped to $13.8 billion from a high of $25 billion as recently as a year ago. The slump occurred as shareholders pulled money from the ETF, but also as its investment performance trailed benchmark indexes, including the S&P 500, over the past two years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-30/why-esg-in-america-may-face-a-rough-road-ahead-this-year
Pingback: UN’s climate panic is more politics than science – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: UN’s climate panic is more politics than science – Watts Up With That? - USA weather forecast
Pingback: UN climate panic more political than science - Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: UN’s climate panic is more politics than science – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: UN’s climate panic is more politics than science – Watts Up With That? – The Insight Post
Now you went and done it Judith. Imagine what Sen Whitehouse would say to you now!
Senator Outhouse
Trying to reason with Braccili is fundamentally a waste of time and effort. He takes the position that all temperature measurements prior to the seventeenth century are merely “guesstimates based on inference”. This stance allows him to disregard any historical information that does not suit his conclusions. For example, he is free to question any suggestions that there even were ice ages.
He also makes the claim that the models are steadily improving, but once again offers nothing to support his position.
He speaks about the dangers of warming, but doesn’t seem to realize that the 1.5 degree number has no scientific basis, but was pulled out of thin air.
In short, there is no point in arguing with someone who seems to be working backward from conclusions.
You and the others don’t get it.
Climate change is all cause and effect. It doesn’t matter what happened in the distant past. It doesn’t matter what happened 10 minutes ago. The planet has no memory.
If solar radiation suddenly began decreasing significantly, the temperature of the planet would start falling regardless of what CO2 was doing. Right now, CO2 is the driving force, but it doesn’t always have to be.
The 1.5-degree C increase was a limit determined by experts as an amount of warming that the planet could tolerate without significant damage. The models predict how much warming will occur under different scenarios. Right now, it looks like we are going to blow through the 1.5-degree C limit without drastic action.
If you think you and the other knuckleheads know better than the experts, then go right ahead and keep making yourself look foolish. The science and the evidence are all on the side of the climate scientists.
Mr. Broccoli thinks always wrong wild guesses about the future climate are science. They become science to him because the predictions were made by scientists. That makes them the gospel. Never mind that every climate prediction has been wrong since 1979. And never mind there has been no global warming for eight years, from 2015 to 2023, despite the largest amount of manmade CO2 emissions in any eight year period in history.
Inconvenient data, Mr. Broccoli? Interferes with your coming climate emergency fantasy? If so, just ignore anything that does not confirm your leftist beliefs.
Oh dear…
You really haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about, have you?
Leftists represent half of the population.
The dumb half, brainwashed to fear the future climate.
With no understanding that today’s climate is the best climate in the past 5000 years.
And that from 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, the climate was better because it was at least +1 degree warmer than today.
That +1 degree C. warmer climate was called an Optimum.
An Optimum, because it was good news.
Today the Climate Howler Global Whiner’s are claiming that if the average temperature rises +1 degrees C. AND GETS BACK TO the Holocene Climate Optimum level, that would NOT be another Optimum
It would be a Climate Emergency.
A Climate Optimum temperature has morphed into a Climate Emergency Temperature.
An amazing leap of non-logic.
To repeat, if there are ay leftists reading this, who didn’t get it the first time:
A +1 degree warmer than today climate is called a Holocene Climate Optimum, because it was in the past.
And the CO2 level in the atmosphere was at least 25% lower than today.
A +1 degree warmer than today climate is claimed to be Climate Emergency, because it is in the future.
That can only make sense to leftists, because leftists have no sense.
Pingback: UN’s local weather panic is extra politics than science – Watts Up With That? - news page
Although I’m no doubt wasting my time, I note that invective is easier than reason. Perhaps you can give me the scientific references behind the 1.5 number.
By saying that what happened in the past is irrelevant, you are in fact declaring that there is nothing to be learned from looking at what might have caused temperature changes before 1850. Very shortsighted.
You might want to take a look at Vaclav Smil’s book “How the World Really Works”, although you no doubt would quickly call him a knuckle head even though he believes in AGW. In this book he makes the statement that “-non-carbon energies could completely displace fossil carbon in a matter of one to three decades ONLY if we were willing to take substantial cuts to the standard of living in all affluent countries and deny the modernizing nations of Asia and Africa improvements in their collective lots by even a fraction of what China has done since 1980”. Is this your preferred route?
“Perhaps you can give me the scientific references behind the 1.5 number.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
Not that hard to find. You could have easily done it yourself if you had cared to look.
“By saying that what happened in the past is irrelevant, you are in fact declaring that there is nothing to be learned from looking at what might have caused temperature changes before 1850. Very shortsighted.”
It’s not shortsighted at all. Unless you know all the conditions that existed at a past time, you can’t draw any conclusions as to what the contribution of CO2 may or may not have been. Yet, you have idiots who do precisely that. They look at graphs with 1000-year tics and divine what role CO2 played back then. Then they use that to try to refute the role CO2 is playing now. It’s ridiculous.
Yes, without a scientific miracle, there will be a substantial upheaval in the status quo that will require sacrifice. It a “pay me now or pay me a lot more later” scenario. The “it’s too much trouble” argument is not a very good one considering the consequences.
Aww, your link (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/)
seems to be based on outdated CMIP5 models, we know that those did not get the clouds right .. however we cannot be sure that the CMIP6 models, which seem better are good enough.
Either way, predictions based on old models seem quite pointless.
That paper was to show where the 1.5 dec C warming limit came from. It wasn’t something that was pulled out of thin air.
JJB,
That NASA report that you linked is merely a what if? exercise.
A report with rigour would chart the changes that have actually happened by now.
There is little calue in projecting what might have happen4d, because that type of projection is not science. It is belief in the wisdom of experts.
Would you care to show a report that shows only the changes to date, with evidence for whether they are anthropogenic or natural, or a split of the two?
My bet is that you cannot, because there is no alarm to be seen in events to date.
Geoff S
You want absolute proof that increases in CO2 will causes the changes that are being predicted. I can tell you one thing raising the temperature of the planet is not a good thing. That means there is a lot more energy sloshing around on the planet to cause mischief and it will.
By the time it becomes evident to someone like you that Armageddon is at hand, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The chance of a scientific miracle that will get us out of this mess is slim to none.
There is plenty of evidence that the planet is warming, and CO2 is the cause. Even the fossil fuel industry admits it. The problem is people like you won’t accept it. That’s how it works with climate deniers. The only thing they are willing to believe is junk science and conspiracy that affirm their beliefs.
“There is little calue in projecting what might have happen4d, because that type of projection is not science. It is belief in the wisdom of experts.”
Whose wisdom should we believe in? Yours? LMAO!!!!
JJB wrote: “Unless you know all the conditions that existed at a past time, you can’t draw any conclusions as to what the contribution of CO2 may or may not have been.”
This is exactly what the senior climate scientists like Chris Folland and Phil Jones, representing the IPCC in 1999, set out to do by influencing a young eager newcomer to do with the science. Here is the story that followed.
https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ
Awesome video @Ron Graf.
What an indictment of the IPCC and all others involved. I’ve read a lot about this sorry episode in climate science but this little video is the most concise and most damning. The IPCC is still doing backflips to not dilute the message.
A person has to be brain dead to believe the hockey stick scam.
Yet the term climate change brings fear to most of the world’s population and has captured the fancy of our president
Smil book [s] are excellent reads on basic history background on a variety of subjects , especially energy.
One significant point is that human life expectancy took a quantum leap starting in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s . The conventional wisdom is that improvements in sanitation and medicine were responsible. What is overlooked is the significant increase in productivity which began with the use of fossil fuels. As a result of the massive improvements in productivity, farming, manufacturing, etc, the industrialized world was able to shift from a subsistence existence to creation and innovation, including improvements in sanitation and medicine. It was the fossil fuels and energy that gave mankind the free time to make those improvements.
In early 1800’s it took 20+ minutes of human time to plant, weed, harvest, mill the grain, bake the bread, to make a single loaf of bread. 10 minutes in 1900 and today approx 2 secs to make one loaf of bread.
California drowns in Global Warming!!!
Severe storms that battered California this winter are set to continue into spring.
Atmospheric rivers and cold fronts have brought near-record rain and snow to areas that have been battling drought-like conditions for many years. More storms are predicted to make landfall in coming weeks.
The storms have led to flooding, road closures, power outages and fatalities. They have caused billions of dollars in damages.
Gov. Gavin Newsom last week eased some drought restrictions after the three driest years on record. He didn’t declare the drought to be over because water shortages remain in parts of densely populated Southern California.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-winter-storms-25-atmospheric-rivers-near-record-snow-billions-in-damages-2a4bd219
Jim2:
You might be interested in my article “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
Those that are currently afflicting California are man-made
This was approved very quickly Burl. Reading the abstract you appear to be suggesting that these rivers are man made due to LACK of industrial activity by man. Is that correct?
tonyb
Tonyb
You said that reading the abstract I appear to be saying that the current atmospheric rivers are due to a LACK of industrial activity by man.
That is essentially correct.
They are normally caused by an absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, due to an absence of volcanic eruptions, for a period of 4-5 years, or more. This leads to a drought because of the absence of SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere.
Our current drought began in 2000, and there have been no periods of 4-5 years, or more, between eruptions since then.
.Since droughts are caused by a decrease in SO2 moisture nucleation sites, their decrease was largely due to global “Clean Air” efforts to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, and more recently, Net-Zero efforts to ban the burning of fossil fuels, which also produce SO2 aerosols.
It appears that they are now at a level where Atmospheric Rivers and droughts are more common, and if they are reduced even further, more can be expected.
I looked at your bibliography of papers. You have produced 11 papers. All your papers are about the impact of SO2 on climate. It seems SO2 is responsible for climate change. CO2 has zero impact.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342217251_Experimental_proof_that_Carbon_Dioxide_does_NOT_cause_global_warming
In that paper you claim that during the 1990-1991 recession and others that followed, CO2 emissions fell but it had no impact of global temperatures. What you missed is that CO2 emissions can fall and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can rise. That because the “fall” in CO2 emissions is not enough to decrease CO2 emissions below the CO2 removal rate. CO2 in the atmosphere actually increased during these periods. Warming will slow but it will not decrease.
Analysis of the impact of CO2 before 1960 is meaningless. From 1880 to 1960 planetary temperature tracked solar irradiance — not CO2 or SO2 concentrations. After 1960 it closely tracks CO2 ppm. I have already posted graphs showing this earlier in this thread.
As for the “CA SO2 atmospheric river theory.” It’s complete BS. Wildfires release significant quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere. CA has had a continuous string of large wildfires over the last several years. I doubt the atmosphere was lacking d aerosols from SO2 over that period.
Early in this thread I post IR spectrographs of the earth’s radiant energy. The impact of CO2 is clear. To say that it has no impact is nonsense.
SO2 aerosols is a regional phenomenon. That because the aerosols don’t last in the atmosphere very long. CO2 is a global phenomenon because CO2 stays in the atmosphere a very long time and the concentration is fairly constant worldwide. Another reason this theory is BS.
It has been proposed to combat global warming that SO2 based aerosols be sprayed into the atmosphere. That will have to be done continuously by a large fleet of plane. That because the aerosols don’t last in the atmosphere for long. Another crackpot idea along with these theories.
JJBRACCILLI;
You say that my CA SO2 Atmospheric river is complete BS.
No, it is 100% correct. The problem is that you appear to be incapable of understanding what I have written.
WHENEVER SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites decrease, the air becomes drier and temperatures rise. This is especially observed during stalled high pressure weather systems, where temperatures soar to disastrous levels, after a week or less , because all of the dimming atmospheric SO2 aerosols within the stalled area have settled out, cleansing the air, and increasing the intensity of the Sun’s rays striking the Earth’s surface within that area.
Read my article “Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”
What is BS is your unprovable theory of climate change
No, your theory is BS.
Did you take into account the release of SO2 by the wildfires in CA. By your lack of addressing it, the answer is NO. You have no idea if the levels of SO2 in CA are increasing or decreasing, but you are sure SO2 is responsible for the atmospheric rivers in CA. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
I have to assume you are unaware that you can reduce CO2 emissions and still have CO2 increase in the atmosphere because the remaining CO2 emissions are above the CO2 removal rate. That destroys your rationale for CO2 emissions being benign.
Your “theory” is not gaining traction in the scientific community — not because they’re trying hide something — it’s because your theory is junk science. If you believe your “theory” is true, take it to a company like ExxonMobil and see what they say. I’m sure their scientists could use a good laugh.
“What is BS is your unprovable theory of climate change.”
The CO2 theory is not unprovable. You can prove it with an IR spectrograph of earth’s radiant energy like this one:
https://chaamjamal.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/quora-5.png
The pink area under the CO2 label is the amount of earth’s radiant energy CO2 is preventing from leaving earth. That about 9000 TW or 8% of the radiant energy of the sun that earth absorbs. To say that increasing CO2 has no effect on climate defies reality.
Do you something similar for your BS theory? NO!
JJBRACCILI:
There is a long article on Google titled “What is in the air after a wildfire depends on exactly exactly what is burned”
The major components are CO2 and black carbon, with NO mention of SO2 anywhere in the article, which negates your assertion that I ignored SO2 emissions from the CA fires. There were none!
All that I am saying is that the reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosol moisture nucleating sites in the atmosphere results in drier air, which leads to droughts, wildfires, Atmospheric Rivers, heat waves, more intense tornados, etc.
And there is nothing special about CA, these weather events are occurring around the world.
Atmospheric Rivers are very real, and have been around for centuries. What alternate explanation do you have for their existence?
With respect to my theory not getting any traction, it was only published on March 1 of this year..
And in light of my findings, the graph which you provided HAS to be BS .
Really?
https://cpo.noaa.gov/Divisions-Programs/Earth-System-Science-and-Modeling/CVP-News/ArtMID/8295/ArticleID/2817/Quantifying-Sulfur-Dioxide-Emissions-and-Understanding-Air-Quality-Impacts-from-Fire-Activity#:~:text=Smoke%20plumes%20from%20wildfires%20and%20other%20biomass%20burning,and%20affect%20air%20quality%2C%20human%20health%2C%20and%20climate.
What is this amateur hour?
How convenient! Atmospheric rivers is in the news lately and here you are. It’s all caused by a lack of SO2 aerosols. You’ve “published” 10 papers on this subject before this one. None of them gained any traction. Newsflash! This one isn’t going anywhere either. Take a hint.
Exactly what “evidence” do you have? Only that SO2 was declining and temperature was increasing. Then there was the bogus argument about CO2. What direct evidence of you have? NONE! There is direct evidence of what increasing CO2 can do.
Consider Venus that has clouds of sulfuric acid that are highly reflective. They reflect 90% of incident solar radiation. Venus absorbs less solar radiation than the earth. Based on its distance from the sun, Venus should have a temperature 60 deg C. According to your theory with CO2 being benign, Venus should have a temperature less than 60 deg C. The temperature of Venus is 460 deg C. What’s causing that is the massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your theory doesn’t work on Venus and it doesn’t work here because it’s BS.
My spectrograph is BS? Here’s where it came from:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/
The only thing that smells of BS around here is your theory
JJBRACCILI:
You are making a fool of yourself, ranting that I haven’t considered the effects of SO2 aerosols from the CA wildfires (your first reference).
I am speaking of DECREASES in global SO2 aerosol emissions that lead to temperature increases. As stated in the abstract, Atmospheric Rivers occur when there are droughts preceding them. (And quite probably, also during the droughts).
In the Discussion section, I identify the cause of the droughts as being due to a decrease in the amount SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere, due to extended periods without any volcanic eruptions.
[Because of the lack of preceding volcanic inactivity, the current global 23 year drought HAS to have been due to global “Clean Air” efforts to reduce SO2 aerosol emissions. (That is, man made)].
You say that I have no evidence. I have abundant historical evidence where Atmospheric Rivers occurred during or after drought conditions.
Again, as a result of my findings, the GISS/NASA graph that you refer to HAS to be pure BS.
Burl
I am not saying I agree or disagree with your hypothesis. However “Deluges”, “Cloudbursts” “raining cats and dogs”, (aka Atmoshperic rivers) are all apparent in the English records of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Century when industrial activity was also noticeable by its absence.
tonyb
Tonyb:
As I observed in my article, Atmospheric Rivers are NORMALLY caused by a near absence of SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere, due to periods of 4-5 years or more between volcanic eruptions. No industrial activity required.
For the 13th-15th centuries, I count 25 such instances, so it is not surprising that some appear in the records.
For our current situation, there were no extended periods without volcanic eruptions within the past 22 years, and yet we have a had a drought that began in 2000. Under drought conditions, SO2 moisture nucleation sites are greatly reduced, leading to Atmospheric Rivers and other adverse weather conditions, such as heat waves. .
The reduction in SO2 aerosol levels causing the drought was due to the global “Clean Air” efforts to reduce Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, and now, worsened by Net-Zero efforts to ban the burning of fossil fuels.
And all of the above comments apply globally
Great article Judy. FYI there was a response printed in today’s edition of the Australian on the Letters Page.that in my view is highly defamatory and you might like to reply to the paper.
The letter reads…
“I assume Thursday’s letter writers (“Curry injects much-needed realism into climate debate”, 30/3) have done their research to match that of thousands of scientists around the world who contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. This work is done on a voluntary basis. None of them is paid by the IPCC, unlike Judith Curry, who receives funding from a fossil fuel company. If you are prescribed medication that is recommended by, say, 2 per cent of clinicians but the overwhelming majority of clinicians judge it was harmful, based on hundreds of clinical trials, would you take it?
Fiona Colin, Malvern, Vic”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/letters/voice-opposition-points-out-the-fears-of-interference/news-story/ce9875544e73e7f791a6498c2702ca30
My post in the Oz today. There were several more pro-Judith posts:
Fiona Colin, Judith Curry’s hurricane forecasting company CFAN is not dependent on commercial funding. Her clients include many major US government bodies such as NASA and NOAA, and state and local authorities, because CFAN is the best in the field. I’ve been in contact with Judith for about 15 years, and she is one of the most upright and honest people I have ever encountered. She entered the warming field because, being totally honest and upright herself, she wondered why people queried the claims in that field; and her eyes were opened.
Oops, online, not in the paper.
My letter to the Australian… Dear Editor,
The accusation that Dr Curry’s views on climate change are shaped by payments from fossil fuel interests is a nasty slur on her character, completely baseless and highly defamatory (Letters 31/3). Using similar reasoning those promoting alarm and fear and “action” on climate change must only be doing so on the basis of continuing their financial gains and privilege through government grants and funding from the so-called renewables industry. If there is no emergency then there is no funding – so best to keep the crisis going. Hoping that Dr Curry is provided space to respond.
Curry Fruitcakes are tasty.
Braccili offers me a bulletin from NASA as an authoritative scientific response about the 1.5 degree increase. NASA is a government agency bound to reflect the policy of its master, the US government. As such, it is as far from a peer reviewed scientific article as it is possible to be. I have to assume that it is the best he can offer. I did note while looking at this reference that it suggests a significant increase in special weather events. This is pure speculation, as there have no increases over the last century.
I note that he accepts the forecast of Smil about the economic costs of avoiding a temperature increase. I can only assume that he has already begun to reduce his standard of living by a factor of ten in support of the Asians and Africans who will have no hope of economic progress.
I would also note that, while he is completely dismissive of any temperature or other data prior to 1800, he seems happy to accept US temperature data, notwithstanding that the vast majority of their sites have been compromised for many years.
us
Turbulence plays an essential role in weather and climate, and correctly representing its effects in numerical models is crucial for accurate weather forecasts and climate projections. However, the theory describing the effect of turbulence has not changed since its conception in 1950s, despite the fact that it is not representative for the majority of the Earth’s land surface, especially over mountains and polar regions. The Innsbruck meteorologist Ivana Stiperski has now extended the turbulence theory to complex atmospheric conditions. The researcher thus paves the way for the first generalized turbulence theory over complex terrain.
https://phys.org/news/2023-03-turbulence-theory-complex-atmospheric-conditions.html
Turbulence may play a role in weather, but it doesn’t impact climate in any significant way.
How do I know? Because the temperature data tracks changes in solar radiation until 1960 and then it tracks changes in CO2 ppm. If turbulence were a significant factor that wouldn’t be the case. Internal energy flows have zero impact on the energy on the planet.
After 1960 the temperature data also tracks the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Sorry bud, but your ignorance is extreme.
There can not possibly have been any type of global turbulence data prior to satellites; it is debatable just how much the satellites can capture it today.
Equally, the notion that CO2 tracks temperature is nonsense – there was global cooling in the 1970s to mid 1980s even as CO2 continued to increase.
But the biggest part of the nonsense beliefs that you have clearly not critiqued are the economic models postulating climate doom if X is not done by Y date – X and Y constantly changing over time. The reality is that the temperature shifts every 24 hour period by far more than the amount of the worst case global warming.
There can be no tipping points, the net negative impact is very unclear (i.e. climate doomers discount the positive impacts of CO2 and temperature on things like food production) and therefore the reasons to implement draconian policies to fight very murky outcomes are extremely weak.
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Wednesday requesting that the International Court of Justice offer the world guidelines on what legal responsibilities countries have to fight climate change.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1135142
This ought to be interesting …
Probably none.
Pingback: İklim Paniği Politik Çıkarlara Dayanıyor – AntiAnaAkım
Planet Earth is very slowly getting warmer. It is happening due to orbital forcing.
It has been calculated by Milankovitch.
–
The Milankovitch cycle shows for current time Earth being in a slow cooling trend.
–
Milankovitch simply assumed the glacial periods should be associated with North Hemisphere’s cooler summers. Which what happens in our time.
–
Actually when North Hemisphere is in cool summers, the South Hemisphere is in very Hot Summers.
–
Earth’s surface thermal energy reservoir are Earth’s oceans. There are much more oceanic waters in Southern Hemisphere, compared to the North Hemisphere.
–
In our time Earth accumulates much heat in the Southern Oceans during those very hot summers. That is why Earth’s Global temperature rises!
–
The Milankovitch cycle is very precisely calculated. Only it has to be read reversed.
When we look at the Milankovitch cycle graph reversed, it becomes very much obvious, Earth is going thru a very slow and naturally caused warming trend!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is some
+0,4 oC.
–
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect was very mistakenly estimated as being
+33 oC which is very much wrong !
–
The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing, the additional CO2 cannot be considered as warming Earth’s surface by +1,5 oC, because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thus, the current observed GLOBAL WARMING cannot be attributed to the fossil fuels burning.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Just the facts, ma’am …” Sgt. Joe Friday.
An article about the debate in Nature and Nature Human Behavior about Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden.
https://quillette.com/2023/03/29/the-state-of-nature/
> If scientists are sidelined in policy decisions that get the science wrong, then correcting the record would be a matter of merely sticking to science, and would fall cleanly within the ambit of scientific expertise. Alternatively, if scientists are sidelined in policy decisions because they have some reason not to express moral or political views overtly, or aren’t given an opportunity to do so, that doesn’t seem to “sideline” them any more than it would sideline an ordinary citizen.
> Further, scientists don’t have any special expertise on questions of values and policy. “Sticking to the science” keeps scientists speaking on issues precisely where they ought to be trusted by the public. Mucking around in the messy business of political compromises and calculations puts them at a distance from what they really know.
Big news!
Proposed House Resolution calls for offshore wind moratorium
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2023/03/31/proposed-house-resolution-calls-for-offshore-wind-moratorium/
The beginning: “A proposed Resolution in the US House calls for the Congressional investigation of a comprehensive list of potential liabilities arising from offshore wind development. Offshore wind work is to stop as the probe proceeds. The broad scope of the inquiry is clearly stated in the resolution’s summary statement:
“H.Res.239 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that offshore wind projects along the Atlantic coast require more comprehensive investigations examining the impact to the environment, relevant maritime industries, and national defense before being leased or constructed.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/239/all-info”
The long list of offshore wind liabilities that the Biden Admistration ignores is well worth investigating.
The track record of investigations by House Republicans is not good. It looks like the Keystone Cops are running things. It will go nowhere, and they will look like the fools they are. The Democrats are going to move forward with renewables and you and them can do nothing about it. The money has already been allocated.
Those off-shore wind projects need an extended environmental impact study!!
The problem with climate models isn’t that they’re wrong, all models are approximations. It’s that they aren’t even wrong (w.p.)! For the climate scientist, it is a tenet of canonical faith that temperature gradients are induced in gases at equilbrium by gravitational fields. This notion was launched by Kelvin in 1862, scuttled by both Maxwell (kinetic gas theory) and Boltzmann (statistical mechanics) shortly thereafter, only to resurface a century later, unheralded, within the U.S. Weather Dept. By definition, equilibrium systems are non-dissipative and thermal gradients imply entropy creation and the dissipation of energy fluxes.
The academe appears to have painted itself into a corner of no escape save by refutation of the 2nd Law. It’s perhaps about time to heed Eddington’s admonition, “… if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
April 1 – RR THE WORLD WONDERS
That was mostly a word salad that says nothing.
CO2 induced Climate Change does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. How charlatans usually make the argument that the law is violated is by saying the atmosphere is colder than the planet therefore, heat cannot flow from the atmosphere to planet only the other way around. BTW the one-way direction of the heat flow is why entropy change is either 0 or increasing.
Sounds plausible. Here’s what the frauds aren’t saying. The 2nd Law applies to the net flow of heat. In the case of Climate Change, it’s still outward to space. CO2 recycles a fraction of the energy the earth is radiating into space. The 2nd Law is not violated.
Here’s another example the earth radiates energy to the sun and the sun radiates energy to the earth. According the the fraud’s logic, that’s impossible because the earth is colder than the sun. The sun radiates a lot more energy to the earth than the earth radiates energy to the sun. The 2nd Law is not violated.
Quondam: Even after one averages the annual cycle, the Earth may have a steady-state temperature, but is not in equilibrium. Some energy from a 5800K sun’s surface makes a detour through the Earth’s atmosphere on its way to empty space at about 3.5 K. There is nothing “equilibrium” about this flow of energy.
Others probably understand this better than I. Hopefully they will comment further.
Wind industry is killing more whales than died when people depended on whale oil for light…
In case, anyone has missed it, there may be new evidence linking the Wuhan Seafood Market to the origin of the COVID pandemic. The zoonosis hypothesis has long been missing the “smoking gun” that pointed to the origin of the SARS1 outbreak: infected animals being sold in wild animal markets. Matt Ridley’s blog (he wrote a book on the origin of COVID in 2021) claims that none of 18 species tested from the market were infected, while US researchers have said no animals were found in the market when researcher came to test them. However, some swabs from the walls, floors and cages tested positive for SARS2 RNA and did so more often in the areas near where wild animals were sold.
Now a researcher has discovered that the same samples that contain SARS2 RNA also contain DNA from a number of animals known to have been sold in the Market, especially raccoon dogs. This observation might be meaningless if it weren’t for the fact that infected animals (and people) shed large amounts of virus in their feces, which might also help protect the viral RNA from degradation. If it can be demonstrated that raccoon dog DNA and SARS2 RNA were found co-localized because both were originally in feces, then that adds up to infected animals in the market – the missing smoking gun. If animal DNA and SARS2 RNA can co-located without both having been in feces, then their co-location doesn’t mean anything significant.
https://zenodo.org/record/7754299#.ZCkpOi-B1Gx
https://www.science.org/content/article/do-three-new-studies-add-proof-covid-19-s-origin-wuhan-animal-market
Testing comment lost in moderation.
According to Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, the claim that humans contracted the virus from raccoon dogs sold for consumption in a Wuhan wet market is “pseudoscientific nonsense,” peddled by “stooges who have been peddling pseudoscientific nonsense for three years.” The researchers based their claim on data from Chinese scientists, which they have not made available for independent or peer review. Nor have they published the text of their study, choosing instead to send their findings to the Atlantic, which on Thursday declared the unvetted study “the strongest evidence yet that an animal started the pandemic.”
Former National Security Council official Jamie Metzl told Yahoo News that there’s a “zero percent chance that the evidence released so far constitutes a smoking gun proving a market origin of the pandemic,” and that anyone pushing the raccoon dog claim as proof of such “is engaging in fraud.”
The trio of lead researchers on the study —Scripps Research Institute virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Arizona evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey, and University of Sydney biologist Edward Holmes—have a history of pushing sensational claims to the media designed to detract from the lab leak theory.
Ron: I said that we would have a “smoking gun” IF experiments demonstrated that SARS2 RNA and animal DNA were found together because they were deposited together in fecal matter. That would demonstrate infected animals were present in the Seafood Market just like infected palm civets showed us how the SARS1 began. However, if aerosols or sprayed droplets from infected humans could have been deposited on top of fecal contamination and preserved virus until testing, then there will be no smoking gun.
Ebright has been sounding off on the risks of lab experiments with potentially pathogenic viruses for years. Metzl has been a broken record on the lab leak hypothesis since 2020. I doubt any evidence would change their minds on this subject. The best evidence of the lab leak hypothesis is that SARS2 was found first in Wuhan, far from bat infested Southern China. However, SARS2 traveled around the world to France at the end of 2019, infected two patients and apparently died out, without anyone knowing how it got to France. SARS2 traveled from China to the West Coast of the US several times in January 2020 without anyone noticing EVEN THOUGH DOCTORS KNEW WHAT SYMPTOMS TO LOOK FOR. And it crossed the Atlantic to the East Coast a number of times in February without being detected. The failure of SARS2 to be identified first in bat-infested Southern China is relatively meaningless when we know if has traveled UNNOTICED much further than a few hundred miles to Wuhan when we were alert and knew what to look for.
I presume you are aware all of the first 150 cases in Wuhan were clustered within a few miles the Seafood Market and half of them patronized the Market. The non-patrons could have caught COVID from their neighbors who who did patronize the Market. None of the cases clustered around the WIV which is about 10 miles away. RaTG13 apparently isn’t close enough to have served as the precursor to SARS2. I haven’t heard any plausible experiments that could have been done with an unknown closer precursor to SARS2, so the best lab escape hypothesis I can come up with is SARS2 evolved in the wild, was collected by a WIV researcher and escaped relatively unchanged. Sure a furin cleavage site could have been engineered into RaTG13 or smoother precursor, but a genetic engineer would have used a consensus cleavage site, not the inefficiently cleaved site found in SARS2 (and which has mutated to a better cleavage site in more transmissible variants).
Looking forward to the declassified intelligence. Best
Frank, I appreciate your measured approach to this issue. Indeed, so little is known due to Chinese stonewalling. Did the dogs get the virus from humans, or the other way around. Which came first . . . Still one thing we do know: Fauci is “The Science.”. By that he meant he controls taxpayer dollars for medical research to command studies saying want he wants. Who benefits from the raccoon dog theory?
Ron: Thank you for your kind reply. You are correct, of course, that the raccoon dogs could have caught COVID from people. Likewise, the palm civets could have caught SARS1 from infected humans two decades ago, but no one raised that objection back then. However, I presume that scientists eventually produced an evolutionary tree for SARS1 that showed that the earlier common ancestor for SARS1 viruses most closely related to those that infected humans diverged before any cases had been identified in people. We might be able to do the same thing with the viral variants in raccoon dogs, perhaps even the samples from the floor. In fact the advocates of the zoonosis hypothesis have shown that there were two different variants of SARS2 from the first days of the pandemic and they hypothesize SARS2 crossed over to humans twice in the Seafood Market.
If the Chinese government were willing to open the WIV’s lab notebooks to inspection by foreign scientists and let them supervise re-sequencing of all of the viral samples in their collection, the world would have proof that COVID was or was not the result of a lab leak. I’m not sure such international scrutiny would take place if a pandemic began in the US, especially given the threat of litigation. Worse given popular disdain for experts these days (especially among Republicans), would a thorough investigation actually make a difference to public opinion? Most people believe what their social group believes and would be ostracized for listening to heresy.
Of course, the Chinese government is worse; the only truth allowed there is the “truth” that benefits the Communist Party, and that is all the people are likely to hear. The Communist Party looks bad whether the pandemic started in what should have been a highly safe laboratory or in wild animal markets that should have been closed or better regulated after SARS1. So China claims SARS2 came from outside their country. Advocates of the zoonosis hypothesis claim that all of the animals were gone from the Market when scientists came to sample them and that wild animal farms have been closed or placed off limits.
Speaking of people believing what their peer group believes, I think that applies to Dr. Fauci too. The NIAID has a budget of $6B and hands out 10,000 grants a year. Anyone with an open mind shouldn’t be trying to blame Fauci for the grant to the WIV through the EcoAlliance and how it was supervised. Grants are reviewed for merit by committees of young professors, assigned a priority score, and funded from most to least meritorious until the Congressional appropriation runs out. The NIH listened to complaints about research on viruses with pandemic potential, suspended research while they studied the issue, came to a consensus about risks and benefits, and made appropriate rules. After seeing a special on Fauci, it because clear to me that fundamentally, Fauci is a doctor first and an administrator second. He was still seeing patients in person and the AIDS activists (who once hated him) are still “his patients”; we all are. The doctor-patient relationship isn’t a democratic one. It was Trump’s job to decide how to balance the cost in lives with the cost to our economy, and education of our children and the mental health of our citizens. Rather than face the problem head on, Trump wanted to discredit Fauci and consensus epidemiologists and replace them with others who were mostly proven wrong during the pandemic. IMO, we have become spoiled by a success at defeating many pandemic diseases (thanks to mandatory or coerced vaccination). Historically, more people have died of pandemic disease than war and we have given our government sweeping police power to fight both.
You might want to remember that the origin controversies BEGAN with Dr. Andersen bringing concerns that the genome of SARS2 might have been engineered to Fauci, who organized a Zoom conference with a dozen experts. Those discussions changed Andersen’s mind and he and several other participants rushed out a scientific paper, but it wasn’t “commissioned” by
Fauci or Collins. The scientific method is based on trying to disprove hypotheses and that is what I see Andersen doing. The opinion piece in Lancet originated by the conflicted Daszac is a different story.
Thanks for that additional information. I am not as forgiving as you regarding Fauci’s role in all this. As you say, Fauci doesn’t “commission” studies. But there is evidence that he rewarded researchers afterward.
Johns Hopkins professor and surgeon Dr. Marty Makary testified before Congress on Tuesday, (Feb. 28, 2023) saying that two top virologists who initially supported the lab leak theory changed their stances before receiving major grant funding.
Dr. Martin Makary testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, claiming it was a “no brainer” that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He was responding to a question about grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit organization that funneled American taxpayer dollars to the WIV.
Makary eventually focused on an early 2020 exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and two leading virologists in the United States — Scripps’ Institute immunologist Dr. Michael Farzan and Tulane University’s Dr. Robert Garry. Both men raised a high level of concern about a potential lab leak to Fauci, but soon changed their stories, since-revealed emails show.
“Two leading virologists, maybe the two top virologists in the United States … told Dr. Fauci on his emergency call in January of 2020, when he was scrambling soon after learning the NIH was funding the lab, they both said that it was likely from the lab,” Makary explained. “Both scientists changed their tunes days later in the media, and then both scientists received $9 million subsequent in funding from the NIH.”
And as you say, the Lancet disgraced itself as well.
As far as I can tell, the most important pointer to the source is that of the SARS2 virus contains a Furin cleavage site, something never observed previously in any known virus and an almost certain indicator of gain-of-function modification.
“…
This insertion could have occurred by random insertion mutation, recombination or by laboratory insertion. The researchers say the possibility of random insertion is too low to explain the origin of this motif.”
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2-furin-cleavage-site-remains-a-mystery.aspx
Yes, CDC Director Robert Redfield also had reasons to suspect a Wuhan lab leak
Redfield began criticizing gain-of-function research, saying, “I think it probably caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen.” He then explained what the lab did months before the virus began rapidly spreading.
“In September of 2019, three things happened in that lab. One is they deleted the sequences. That is highly irregular, researchers don’t usually like to do that. Second thing they did was they changed the command and control from civilian control to the military control. Highly unusual,” he said. “And the third thing they did, which I think is really telling, is they let a contractor redo the ventilation system in that laboratory. So I think, clearly, there was a strong evidence that there was a significant event that happened in that laboratory in September.”
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/08/former-cdc-director-lays-out-three-red-flags-point-lab-leak-robert-redfield/
Cat- excellent points succulently stated.
The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. A 12-nt insertion at S1/S2 in the spike coding sequence yields a furin cleavage site, which raised controversy views on origin of the virus. Here we analyzed the phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins and mapped furin recognition motif on the tree. Furin cleavage sites occurred independently for multiple times in the evolution of the coronavirus family, supporting the natural occurring hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33340798/
Catweasel wrote: “As far as I can tell, the most important pointer to the source is that of the SARS2 virus contains a Furin cleavage site, something never observed previously in any known virus and an almost certain indicator of gain-of-function modification.”
Correction: Three of the four major families of coronaviruses have some members with a furin cleavage sites between the S1 and S2 subunits of their spike proteins. SARS2 was the first member of the beta-coronavirus family to have one. The presence of furin cleavage sites in the other three families proves that families can gain furin cleavage sites by: a) recombination between major families (assumed to be harder than within a family) or b) by independent evolution of a novel function – ability to be cleaved by furin – multiple times. This is called “convergent evolution”: Random mutations converged on the same new function three (and now possibly four) different times. IMO, the furin cleavage site is NOT an “almost certain indicator” of gain-of-function modification.
The furin cleavage site is provided by a 12 nucleotide/4 amino acid insert. Normally this would occur by adding exactly the 12 nucleotides need to make four new amino acid, but in this case, the 12 added nucleotides were one base out of phase with the nucleotide triplets that code for amino acids. Inserting one nucleotide into a sequence is harder than inserting three, because everything downstream from a single base insertion changes every amino acid downstream and produces an non-viable intermediate. When you insert three nucleotides, you have an extra amino acid in your spike protein, but all the other amino acids downstream are unchanged. So more than one change has to occur to add a furin cleave site in this way.
One the other hand, the furin cleavage site found in the early variants of SARS2 was not an optimal sequence that would be chosen by a genetic engineer. And the furin site has mutated to a more easily cleaved consensus site in later variants including Delta and Omicron. So the furin site doesn’t look properly engineered or easily produced by evolution.
A furin cleavage site has been genetically engineered into a number of coronaviruses, including the deathly, but marginally transmissible SARS1 around 2010 in the US.
Frank, I am not as forgiving of Fauci as you. For example:
The paper, later published in Nature Medicine, argued that Covid had “mutations” that supported the explanation that it had been transmitted to humans from animals.
One of the four authors, Dr. Kristin Andersen, admits in a cover email sent to Nature that Fauci “prompted” the paper’s drafting in order to “disprove” the lab-leak theory.
“There has been a lot of speculation, fear-mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space. [This paper was] Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins,” Andersen wrote in the email, released Sunday by the House committee.
https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-prompted-scientific-paper-purporting-210709941.html
Thanks for alerting me to the testimony of Dr. Makary. I find his assertions that Andersen and Garry (and Farman?) were paid off for changing or suppressing their views about the origin of COVID with $9M grants absolutely absurd. Teams of younger professors discuss and rate research grants on the basis of merit and track-record and they are normally funded from best to worst until all available funds have been allocated. (See link below.) If Fauci over-rode these recommendations, there will be a record, (He may have moved funds from one scientific area to another due to the pandemic.) On the other hand, as an idealist, I can’t see Makary surviving at JHU if his allegations are false. Trump can get away with spouting such nonsense, but not a professor testifying to Congress. I’m stunned either way.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-no-evidence-scientists-received-grant-for-changing-opinion-on-pandemic-origins-contrary-to-claims/
Thank you too for Redfield’s testimony. Deleting sequences is suspicious, but there is nothing earth shattering in the sequences that have been recovered so far. Putting the facility under military control also sounds suspicious. Finally I think there were need to be a major interruption and decontamination if the entire ventilating system were being replaced. I suppose we will hear more when the IC reports.
However, as best I can tell, September is too early for Patient Zero and the virus we know of as SAR2 beginning in January of 2020 with a reproduction rate of about 4. This produces a doubling of cases every 2.5 days, about 4000-fold a month. If the pandemic started in September, there would be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times too many cases by 2020 – unless the virus then was a less-transmissible, less deadly precursor to SARS2 that would be hard to distinguish from a common cold. Furthermore, donated blood has been throughly tested for the earlier signs of SARS2 and non were detected until late December? Finally if there were a crisis big enough to bring in military supervisors and take these other steps, I can’t see the authorities not warning local hospitals about what to be alert for. SARS1 was barely contained the two times it crossed over (and the six lab leaks). One mutation could have made it more easily transmitted. I don’t see the Chinese making such an enormous error when containment was essential to success with SARS1.
Best
Ron: The Chinese paper reporting on the swabs from the Wuhan Seafood Market finally appeared and resolved by confusion over whether any animals from he market had or had not been tested. The answer is both! The Market was closed on January 1 and scientists were testing and disinfecting for 2 months. All the live animals for sale had been removed, but they found meat from 18 different kinds of animals in freezers and none were positive for SARS2. I don’t know how to interpret that data, but these were not nasal swab like we use to detect human infection. Stray animals (cats, a dog, weasel, and rats). The authors didn’t mention that SARS virus in feces could provide proof of infected animals. All of the sequenced virus samples came from lineage B except one from lineage A that had been infecting people, with no earlier variants.
By the way, the “Seafood Market” has about as much floor space as 10 typical US supermarkets and has 678 stalls. 10 stalls sold at least 16 different animals ranging from snakes, to small deer porcupines to crocodiles. It makes more sense to think of it as an exotic food emporium in a city with twice the population of NYC. It likely had live animals from all over China, which could explain how SARS2 got from bat infected Southern China to Wuhan.
Frank, yes it’s out, and as you suggest more questions than answers, even as media jumps the shark to the preferred conclusion.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/chinas-flawed-covid-analysis-bizarrely-suggests-pandas-were-in-wuhan-market/
‘The analysis cannot determine if the animals were infected with the pandemic virus, or, if they were, whether any animal-to-human or human-to-animal transmission occurred. Thus, it can’t conclusively determine how the pandemic began. However, as many virologists and infectious disease experts have since noted, if a natural spillover event did spark the pandemic, this close mingling of genetic material in a suspect market at the epicenter of early cases is exactly the type of genetic evidence scientists would expect to find after the fact. Such markets, with a menagerie of wildlife in close, crowded conditions with humans, are known to act as hotbeds of risk for viral adaption and spillovers.”
Frank, I find your faith in the peer review system absurd. I’ve participated in this system for 40 years. It’s a self re-informing system that empowers senior researchers and can actively suppress dissenting views. The soft money system supports a corrupt edifice that discourages honest science and encourages bad science.
For Ron and Frank I’ll relate an experience in CFD that shows how the scientific “system” can distort findings and results in scores of at the best misleading and biased papers remaining uncorrected.
Tony Jameson was one of the founders of modern aeronautical CFD and made many very strong contributions in the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, he became embittered by Boeing’s paid use of his codes in designing the 767 and 757 and the fact that he didn’t become rich as a result. His later career was dominated by marketing of his codes and consulting business. In 1992 when CFD optimization was a hot topic, with numerical optimization experts and software dominating the field, Jameson published a paper developing and arguing for his “continuous adjoint” method. In this method, Tony developed the adjoint operator in continuous space and then separately discretized it. Every numerical optimization expert realized that they had tried this in the 1970’s and it was a poor method, plagued by non-convergence and a tendency to get “stuck” far from the optimum. The vast majority of methods and codes used the discrete adjoint method in which the discrete operator was simply transposed.
Yet, there was only a single paper contrasting the two methods and finding the usual result. It was by Frank and Shubin and was correct even though having some issues. No one else dared to publish their findings even though scores of researchers initially tried the continuous method and universally found it wanting. Meanwhile Jameson has perhaps 40 papers out there advocating the flawed method with demonstrably false claims about its efficiency and robustness.
We finally published a paper for the AIAA Design Optimization Workshop where we ran off Jameson’s codes (run by one of his apostles) against our more traditional methods. Our codes clearly won by a wide margin. However Jameson’s apostle who I won’t name late in the process claimed he had a “new” design that he wanted to appear. I began plotting up results and it became clear that this “new” design was essentially identical to one of our earlier designs. I confronted him about this and he admitted that his “new” design used our design as a starting point. Our paper did have a very clear and repeated discussion of this and that the later design was not a good test for comparison, but our co-author insisted it appear.
A couple of years later Jameson gave a big invited talk on his method and he presented these designs (omitting the key fact about the last minute design) and appearing to show his code gave a better design. That was a lie.
In any case, for at least 20 years, progress was impeded by Jameson’s influence and fear of him by junior researchers. To this day, none of the incorrect papers have been retracted or corrected.
Thanks for the sad story about CFD. Biology faced a similar problem for several decades: Predicting the three-dimensional structure a protein would adopt from the sequence of the amino acids it contains (ie the DNA sequence). Getting crystals of proteins with high enough resolution to solve by X-ray crystallography was a huge bottleneck. With at least two rotatable single bonds in each amino acid residue (usually with three local minima) and perhaps 100 amino acids, trying all of the possible conformations one at a time was impractically slow. If proteins folded by randomly trying all of the possibilities and settling on the best one, folding would take longer than the lifetime the universe. This meant there must have been a rational path by which proteins folded. Every year or two, a competition was held to see whose methodology would give the best 3D structure for 5-10? new proteins whose structures were being solved by X-Ray crystallography. The results were pretty bad for a long time, with at best half of the structures having some resemblance to the real thing. Then one year, the alpha-fold(?) program got every structure correct. And did so the next year. Google has produced it own version of this software and recently produced folded structures for all known proteins. Cyro-electron microscopy is producing structures as good as X-ray crystallography with the need for crystals.
BTW, the first X-ray crystal structure of a protein was solved in 1958 in the same group where Watson and Crick devised a structure for DNA with hints from crude X-ray crystallography studies. IF only we could solve the Navier-Stokes equations this easily.
Because of Chinese (and US) opaqueness, we’ll likely never have ‘proof.’
But we do have:
* proximity ( two Wuhan labs experimenting similar viruses )
* precedence ( doing so before the outbreak )
* plausible theory ( lab leak )
* Fauci emails panicked that this would be public indicating that HE thought the labs were the source.
Frank wrote: “That would demonstrate infected animals were present in the Seafood Market just like infected palm civets showed us how the SARS1 began.”
It is a little reported fact that the palm civet theory for the origin of SARS1 was on the ropes in the years leading up to the SARS2 outbreak. The first problem with the theory was uncovered by Daszak’s EHA, finding in 2005 that palm civets neither carried coronaviruses in the wild nor in captivity on farms. Only illegally smuggled animals were found with the virus. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-020-01503-x
Ralph Baric, the most noted coronavirus expert in the world, by <a href="https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-364/"this 2015 podcast disbelieved (5 min in) that SARS1 originated from civets. This is because he found that SARS related viruses could directly directly bind to human ACE2 receptors, as proven in Menachery et al (2015) and (2016), the later titled SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence This was the paper attached to the infamous email from Kristian Anderson to Fauci at midnight on Jan 31, 2020, stating there appeared to be evidence showing the virus was engineered.
The reason Anderson attached the paper was because it NIH funded experiments in Wuhan were making viruses to infect mice engineered with human ACE2 receptors in their lung tissue, viruses very much like SARS2. But one of the specific research aims was to confirm that civet cats and racoon dogs were infected by a common antagonist that infected humans but that each was only an incidental reservoir for infecting the other. In other words the human outbreak in happening in the animal market was either coincidence or there were horseshoe bats infecting people and animals directly.
This theory was further supported by EHA authored 2018 study, where individuals living near a Yunnan bat cave who were found to be seropositive with SARS related antibodies. This area near a cave in Kunming, Yunnan, China was found in 2013 to have bats with viruses 95% similar to SARS1.
In fact, we know now the most important piece of evidence for direct bat to human infectivity of SARS was found in 2012 when 6 miners clearing bat guano in Yunnan, very near where Daszak’s team found seropositive residents in 2018, were hospitalized with an atypical pneumonia. The the eldest workers succumbed to the illness but not before sinus fluid samples were sent to Zhengli Shi, the bat woman and director of the WIV. Shi immediately organized and expedition to the Yunnan town 1000 miles south of Wuhan and collected samples from the mine, repeating this trip six more times over the next 5 years. Shi withheld from the outside world the atypical pneumonia, and we only found out about it in June 2020 when a Twitter persona pointed to the discovery of a translated China masters thesis outlining the case. (Oddly, the head of the China CDC, George Gao, the one who ordered the Wuhan market samples taken, did his doctoral thesis on the same sick miners 2012 incident.) When SARS2 broke out and Shi published the viral sequence and that of 96% similar RaTG13, she forgot to mention that this closest known cousin of SARS2 was collected in 2013 from that same copper mine where the miners got atypical pneumonia and George Gao’s these speaks of strangely opaque chest scans, very familiar with the China doctors treating atypical pneumonia in Jan 2020.
Fast Eddy wrote: “Because of Chinese (and US) opaqueness, we’ll likely never have ‘proof.’”
Would anyone’s mind be changed if we did have proof? The origin of COVID is now a political issue and deeply held political beliefs aren’t changed by scientific “proof”. We’ve had Jim Jordan bring in a highly respected doctor to testify that Fauci bribed two scientists with large grants so they would publicly oppose the lab leak hypothesis.
Fast Eddy continued: “two Wuhan labs experimenting similar viruses.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology specializes in viruses that cause disease, especially coronaviruses (the biggest pandemic threat to China). The Wuhan Center for Disease Control deals with all kinds of infectious AND NON-infectious diseases. They aren’t doing the cutting-edge virus research that the WIV does. This is why all of the attention is focused on the WIV, even though the Wuhan CDC is only a mile from the Seafood Market.
Fast Eddy continued: “But we do have proximity.”
The Seafood Market is about 10 miles from the WIV across the Yangtze River. One analogy might be that the Seafood Market is in Newark, NJ and the WIV is in Manhattan. All of the first 150 cases lived in New Jersey and half of them patronized the Seafood Market. This is an imperfect analogy, since the Yangtze was halfway between the two and some cases were on the far side of the river from the Seafood Market but not closer to the WIV. Wuhan (11M) and NYC (9M) are roughly the same size cities.
Many don’t understand what kind of place the Huanan “Seafood Market” was: A shopping emporium with 678 stalls with goods from all around China that has the floor space of 10 US Supermarkets including a thriving wild animal trade. Meat from 18 different species (including snake and crocodile) was found in the freezers when scientists arrived, but none of the live animals that were known to be sold there remained when scientists arrived. The appropriate question probably not: “Did ANY animals for sale come from bat-infested Southern China, but HOW MANY did?” For centuries, Chinese and Asian cuisine has included many exotic foods. Korean “H-Marts” in the US have vastly more things for sale than a US Supermarket.
Fast Eddy continues: [There is a] plausible theory ( lab leak).
BOTH the lab leak hypothesis and the zoonosis hypothesis ASSUME the existence of a naturally-occurring coronavirus more similar to SARS2 than any we know about today (RaTG13 or BANAL-52). In the zoonosis hypothesis, this coronavirus had become adapted to mammals in some intermediate species and then spilled over to humans from the intermediate species or from bats. (At least one naturally-occurring coronavirus isolated from bats was able to invade cells through the ACE2 receptor that is not used in bats, so bats have become infected with mammal-adapted viruses. Spillover can be a two-way street.)
Likewise, the lab-leak hypothesis requires an unknown coronavirus much closer SARS2, because there are 1000 nucleotide changes between RaTG13 and SARS2. That many changes would normally take about 50 years of evolution in the wild. That unknown virus could have infected a WIV employee collecting samples in Southern China, or been collected in samples of bat feces and later infected an employee in the Wuhan lab. In both these cases, this is equivalent to zoonosis, a spillover of a naturally-occurring virus to humans. The alternative is that some experiments were done at the WIV that intentionally or unintentional made a collected naturally-occurring virus more capable of living in and being transmitted between people. Both the lab leak hypothesis and zoonosis absolutely require starting with a coronavirus much closer to SARS2 than any we know today.
Even if the WIV had done dangerous gain-of-function experiments on a couple of dozen coronaviruses to assess their “pandemic potential”, the odds are still against these experiments having been done on a naturally-occurring virus close enough to SARS2 to have become SARS2. the Ecohealth Alliance did draft an unfunded proposal to assess the “pandemic potent” of known coronaviruses using methods some might call GoF, but that work was supposed to be done in the US using the WIVs viruses.
This is where nature has a massive advantage over humans in causing pandemics: Nature is constantly “experimenting” with hundreds or thousands of coronaviruses: Swapping large segments of RNA by recombination and making individual changes by mutation. Every bat can be a separate experiment, thought recombination requires a bat co-infected with two species. Nature cranked out SARS1 in 2002 and SARS2 or its “lab-leak-precursor” in 2019 – though both may have been present for decades waiting for the opportunity to make the jump to man.
The index case in humans probably occurred from Mid-October to Mid-November 2019:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abf8003
If so, all the suspicious September events cited by Redfield occurred too early to be associated with the index infection. Furthermore, if these events were in response to a known lab leak, it would take time for officials to investigate, figure out what had happened, make decisions and implement those decisions. For example, the military wouldn’t be able to take over control of the lab in a few days. That decision would be made in Beijing and it would take time to identify, approve, and transfer an officer capable of running the WIV. A mid-August accident might result in a mid-September takeover by the military, a replacement ventilation system and removal of sequence data. And if they were doing all that in response to an accident or leak, why wouldn’t they be alerting and surveilling all nearby hospitals for pneumonias of unknown cause? Redfield’s aversion to GoF experiments may be distorting his judgement
Thanks for the references Ron Graf. I was aware of the possibility that the palm civets could have been infected by humans in the wild animal trade. And those humans could have been infected first by some other wild animal. The paper you linked with Lee as the first author and Danzek as the last concludes: “Our findings further support the importance of ending the trade in wildlife globally.” In other words, they still believe in the zoonosis hypothesis for SARS1. Intermediate species link civets and pangolins are logical sites for bat coronaviruses to pick up the ability to use a mammalian receptor like ACE2 for gaining entry to mammalian cells, but it is now likely that bats had been “re-infected” coronaviruses with the ability to use such receptors. Spillover between species can be a two-way path.
Shi obviously kept back critical information about RaTG13 (which was claimed to have been identified by sequence fragments, but never isolated so that it could be used in experiments) and the miners.
The Republicans are making a big deal out of the fact that Andersen “changed” his mind about features inconsistent with evolution after the Feb 1 Zoom call. Groupthink, confirmation bias and party loyalty mean politicians immediately know what they believe about new information. Scientists should work that way. The first sequence of SARS2 had been available since 1/12/2020 and a little more than two weeks later he emailed Fauci about his concerns. The Andersen gets exposed to the ideas of a dozen of his peers, collaborates with about 3 of them and produces a paper three weeks later reaching the opposite conclusion. There is nothing strange about that to me. If the reasoning in the paper he published were obviously weak (as some claim), then I’m not sure why he would rush out a paper, but I can’t independently evaluate the quality of his reasoning. As I read the paper, a lab leak was the least favored three scenarios – scenarios we still think are viable today.
As for Fauci and Collins, they may have hoped that China would be more cooperative in investigating the origins of SARS2 if US scientists weren’t unnecessarily supporting the conspiracy theories of the orange blowhard about the “Chinese Virus”. A discussion among a dozen experts might keep Andersen or others from rushing out to publish something unsound. Fauci claims that half the participant shared concerns that the virus looked engineered. One person took notes during the meeting, but they weren’t declassified.
Frank wrote: “Both the lab leak hypothesis and zoonosis absolutely require starting with a coronavirus much closer to SARS2 than any we know today. ”
Nobody is disputing the natural threat of pandemic potential viruses. In fact, virologists widely accept that bats are the ultimate source of all coronaviruses, including one that causes the common cold. But crossover events are very rare. Viruses are very host specific. When zoonosis does occur from large exposure with an infected animal a virus unadopted to the new host cannot then propagate without learning to turn off immune responses and gaining the genetic key codes for easy cell entry. As far as finding the virus precursor to SARS2, we know the China military were using the WIV and collecting SARS viruses. Two of SARS2’s closest cousins after RaTG13 were collected by the PLA in 2018. These are the published ones but we know that even the civilian Chinese virologists were not publishing everything they found. It was not until 11 months after the pandemic outbreak before Shi admitted there were 8 more SARS strains that came from the same mine related to the 2012 incident that had been submitted for publishing just prior to the outbreak and would appear soon. This is at a time when all journals had lifted their sequesters on any SARS relating publishing yet these remained unknown to the world until 2021. Shi claimed that RaTG13 had remained sitting in her lab unsequenced for years because she lacked the equipment. But she did not publish when it got sequenced either, which we can see was 2018 from the raw reads. When she published it in Feb 2020 the paper said that it had just been sequenced in review of viruses similar to SARS2. Again, no mention was made of the atypical pneumonia that brought her to the location to find the virus and its cousins 2012-2018.
Frank: “Nature cranked out SARS1 in 2002 and SARS2 or its “lab-leak-precursor” in 2019.”
We don’t know where SARS1 came from. That mystery re-opened and was under investigation and debate when SARS2 appeared. That fact I have not seen reported to the public. Instead, the unquestioned civet cat origin for SARS1 is repeated.
Frank, I agree with your point about the leak needed to be earlier than September 2019 if that is when we see the Chinese government reacting. As you found over a year ago, sewage surveillance showed the SARS2 in Italy and Spain in 2019. Italy in particular has confirmed SARS2 strains found in January were circulating months earlier in Lombardy with medical samples taken for measles surveillance.
NIH funded virologists, Kristian Anderson, Michael Worobey and Eddie Holmes, pointing to the Wuhan wet market is ridiculous when the Chinese, the ones supplying their data, are pointing at Italy now.
Frank, remember, the Wuhan wet market was cleared as being the origin by the Chinese CDC director, George Gao, in spring of 2020 because earlier cases unconnected to the market had been found. The cases connected to the wet market were in December and January but we have cases now known in September in Milan, Italy.
frank, how do you and Fauci’s virologist square your logic that cases connected to visiting a Wuhan live animal market in December explain cases in Italy in September?
My concern here is that we will never know for sure how Covid19 started due to the fact that the CCP has created in China the kind of totalitarian state control of “information” that many of our elites not to mention Putin only dream of. We do know that China’s travel restrictions inside China while allowing international flights to leave virtually guaranteed this would become a worldwide pandemic. Likewise given what we now know about the Twitter files and the Russiagate hoax thanks to Musk and Gerth, I don’t trust much that I read in the American corrupt media. It’s a real problem if citizens are not allowed to see all the information and make up their own minds. That is the end of Democracy, not a President disputing the results of an election.
On a side note, Matt Tiabbi has a great muckraking post on substack about MSNBC where he gives all the quotes from that network that reference the fraudulent Hamilton 68 dashboard over many years. It is literally a couple of hundred!! How can anyone trust anything said on that network given that they have not corrected the record or apologized? They are now well known propagandists for massive disinformation campaigns in collusion with the deep state and big Tech. They don’t even try to hide it or explain themselves. They just hope most people won’t go to substack and read about their utterly shameful lies.
Be very very skeptical of anything you read in the media or see on social media. Even worse, Ioannidis has several great essays going through how corrupt and full of fraud and bias science became during the pandemic. Hopefully, Judith and I will have a post soon with all the references. For now just google Tablet and Ioannidis and you will find 2 of the essays.
Given this sea of nonsense we swim it, I have given up trying to assess this issue. Just like whether the Maine was sunk by a partisan or if a magazine accidentally blew up, we will never know for sure.
DPY, I believe the answers to the origin of SARS1 and SARS2 are important and knowable. But unlike in our millions spent searching for the origin of SARS1, being confined to the assumption that it was a natural spillover and that the Chinese were eager and cooperative partners, we need to revise those earlier assumptions.
We know now that the Chinese were not sharing the most important clues relating to SARS1 and they were using the missing links to string the NIH and Pasteur Institute along to give more bioengineering technology and money in exchange for answers they were never going to supply.
Frank and the Fauci virologists are correct that SARS was poised for natural spillover. As Frank pointed out, the WIV had found SARS viruses that could utilize the human ACE2 receptor even though this did not come from bat host evolution.
A plausible explanation could be infected bat fecal contamination on crops and infected human manure used as crop fertilizer that then fed bats contaminated dung beetles, a favorite food for horseshoe bats, including the ones that carried SARS.
However, this scenario does nothing to explain the infection of smuggled civet cats over crop fed farmed civet cats, or people in a live animal market versus anywhere people might buy food crops. One theory that might fit is the sale of lab animals to smugglers. Holding that thought for a second, would also allow and explanation for a lone pangolin to have its own uniquely adapted SARS virus that could only occur outside of a lab in a very rare circumstance of multiple recombination events.
Though after must searching in 2020, EHA was unable to find any corona viruses of any type in any pangolins in the wild or on farms, only smuggled ones. Alina Chan of Harvard and MIT, noticed that the multiple cases reported of pangolin cov were in fact falsifications using the same “raw reads” sequencing data from the lone, original case from March 2019. I recommend her 2022 book, Viral, coauthored with Matt Ridley.
This fact pattern would lead a reasonable investigator to ask the questions that could quickly solve this mystery if that were allowed.
Ron Graf asked: “Frank, how do you and Fauci’s virologist square your logic that cases connected to visiting a Wuhan live animal market in December explain cases in Italy in September?”
I don’t understand why scientists haven’t commented more on the early positives in Italy and possibly elsewhere. In the case of PCR, there is always the possibility of contamination from current infections while handling these older samples, especially when PCR is run to high cycles (not mentioned). (The CDC contaminated their early tests before shipment.) However, PCR plus antibodies seems pretty solid. However, without sequencing data to put these samples on an evolutionary tree Italy can’t tell us anything.
First, I’ve been recently reminded that superspreaders are critical to pandemic spread and IIRC most infected people don’t pass the disease on to anyone. That means that there are a lot of dead ends on the evolutionary tree of SARS2, which are important early in the pandemic. And if we are dealing with a pre-SARS2 that is less transmissible between humans, there could be a half-dozen dead end before the pandemic finally got started for good.
Second, we don’t expect zoonosis to result in a single crossover to humans. If it happened once in a place like a wet market, it can happen against. There were at least two independent crossovers with SARS1, the second two years after the first and after the first had finally been stamped out. MERS has crossed over multiple times. I’ve read the same is true for various influenzas.
Now let’s postulate a wild animal farm with raccoon dogs infected with SARS2 or, if you prefer, a sample of feces with SARS2 in the WIV. The virus infects a few people without causing a superspreader event and the chain of transmission dies out in less than a month. One branch ends up in Italy in September and dies out. Perhaps, this pre-SARS2 needs one more mutation to become as transmissible as the December2019 SARS2. Now another batch of infected wild animals leaves the farm and end up in the Wuhan Seafood Market. By this time there is an A and a B lineage and both crossover to humans. Or you can postulate multiple lab leaks. Then the Chinese government goes around shutting down all of the wild animal farms that sent animals to Wuhan and kills destroys all of the animals. No more crossovers to man, though SARS2 may survive in the vicinity in squirrels or cats or…
Obviously, there is some wild speculation above. However, what we do know for sure is that half of the first 150 cases were patrons of the Seafood Market, lived relatively nearby and not near the WIV. The other half were neighbors of those who patronized the Seafood Market. In the case of SARS1, the first human cases handled wild animal in markets and were likely first infected by the animals they handled, even if we can’t be sure which animal infected people first and which animals were infected by people second. Now the wife of an infected WIV employee could have worked in the Seafood Market and caused a super-spreader event there (but not with both the A and B lineages). However, that wife could have worked in 100,000 other businesses in Wuhan. There apparently were only FOUR sites in Wuhan selling wild animals. THE FACT THAT THE HUANAN SEAFOOD MARKET WAS AT THE GEO-CENTER OF THE EARLY PANDEMIC MEANS THE DISEASE WAS MOST LY BROUGHT THERE IN AN ANIMAL, NOT A PERSON WHO COULD HAVE WORKED ANYWHERE. Similarly, the work done by the initial victims of SAR1, pointed to animals as the source that infected them.
If I were Xi, I would tell George Gao to look everywhere for the origin of SARS2, but not to find it at a source of wild animals that could have been supplied to the Seafood Market. As I see it, a leak from one of the safest labs in the world doing cutting edge research funded by the US is not a black eye for the Communist Party. If the lab did unnecessarily dangerous experiments, that would be had to blame on the Communist Party. A repeat of the SARS1 pandemic because they failed to learn its lessons is a black eye.
Some of the above thoughts may have been appropriated from the article below featuring Michael Worobey. IIRC, he wasn’t invited to Fauci’s zoom meeting, wasn’t on the early record for supporting zoonosis, signed the letter in early 2021 calling for paying more attention to the lab leak hypothesis and THEN did important work that lead him to strongly advocate for the zoonosis hypothesis. (Those being criticized most by the Chinese and lab leak supporters may be those doing the strongest work.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751272/striking-new-evidence-points-to-seafood-market-in-wuhan-as-pandemic-origin-point
Best
Ron Graf wrote: “Nobody is disputing the natural threat of pandemic potential viruses. In fact, virologists widely accept that bats are the ultimate source of all coronaviruses, including one that causes the common cold. But crossover events are very rare. Viruses are very host specific. When zoonosis does occur from large exposure with an infected animal a virus [unadapted] to the new host cannot then propagate without learning to turn off immune responses and gaining the genetic key codes for easy cell entry.”
I’d say that crossover events are threatening to occur all of the time, but rarely succeed in causing pandemics. In the paper below, 12% of people in Myanmar working in logging, hunting and forests tested positive for antibodies to sarbecoviruses. I’ve read that American pig and chicken farmer (and presumably their Chinese counterparts) are screened every so often for antibodies to influenza and occasionally test positive to a new strain that can infect a human who has been exposed to large quantities of virus, but which can’t replicate to high enough numbers in the farmer to be transmitted to others. Each exposure provides another opportunity to pick up another needed mutation on the road to a new epidemic flu and that mutation can be shared with the gene pool in pigs or chickens. If I understand correctly, this monitoring is how we know that there are new strains of influenza on the verge of breaking out that the general public has never seen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971223000644
To successfully break out, a virus needs genes for: a spike protein that can gain entry to cells in a new host, a series of “non-structural proteins” (nsp’s) needed to “take over” host cell machinery and devote it to viral replication, and another set of non-structure protein to neutralize the innate immune system (interferons). Some of these genes work better in different species than others. When bats (or animals or even people) are co-infected with multiple coronaviruses, they can swap these genes by genetic recombination and try many more possibilities than any lab in Wuhan. I read one paper where scientists in the US made a chimeric virus that incorporated the spike protein from Omicron (which is faster at transmission) into the original variant (which is more deadly). Oh no, GoF! This chimera was more deadly in mice expressing the ACE2 receptor. At the same time, they were looking for such chimeric viruses among the hundreds of thousands of SARS2 samples we have sequenced – and finding candidate chimeras.
Frank, you have only seen the half of my long comments. The others never made it out of moderation. So I will try to shorten a comment here. First, as a scientists I’m sure you don’t support the reporting of only facts that are compatible with politically acceptable narratives. All should make a point not to discard inconvenient facts. Are you unhappy with the scientific peers that remain silent when they see misleading narratives reported to the public because they are fearful they will be blamed for undermining public trust in their institutions? I assume that’s a yes. Then I think you agree there is no good reason for the lab leak origin possibility to have been labeled a conspiracy theory by the scientists who admittedly privately felt there was a very good chance of it. Do you also agree that the science reporters had no good reason to go along with a fake narrative? For example, the NYT justifies their reporting by being forced, like all respectable people, to naturally claim the opposite of Trump the racist.
When you talk about the frequency of SARS spill overs you are assuming that China was completely open when we know that’s not true. We know the science was not settled on civet origin of SARS1 but the science is pretty much settled on the date of appearance of SARS2 as being most likely in the summer of 2019. Yet neither of these facts are widely reported or used for assumptions for current investigators like Anderson, Morobey , Gary and Holmes, (the Fauci squad). Even you forgot to mention that the 2004 SARS1 epidemic (the third and last one) was caused by a Beijing lab leak which narrowly escaped causing a pandemic. You instead included it as another example of natural spill over.
OTOH, Nov. 2022, Neil Harrison and Jeffrey Sachs replied to Garry claim of natural SARS 2 origin:
Reply to Garry: The origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unresolved
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215826119
There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (1). We recently called for an independent inquiry (2). Garry has commented (3), as quoted, and we respond briefly here.
“No accusation was made (2). EcoHealth Alliance (EHA)–WIV–UNC have had a strong interest in protease cleavage in enhancing coronavirus infectivity (7), as expressed in the DEFUSE proposal (8) to insert FCS into novel viruses (2).”
“We know little about unreported viruses available to EHA–WIV–UNC (2). Concerns about these should be clarified by release of databases, laboratory notebooks, and electronic communications (2).”
“We did not use “allege,” “suppress,” or “conspire” (2). We believe that EHA, NIH, and others have not been transparent (2, 9), and that the origin of the virus remains “unresolved (1).
Further to Ron Graf’s comment above April 11
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb061521dAPR20210614094505.jpg
Just wanted to thank Frank and Ron, and all the others, for the great back and forth on the covid origin issue.
An unusual bout of learning from mistakes. Highly unusual in this day and time of fantasy politics.
After a boom in wind and solar generation, regulators in the nation’s top energy-producing state are pushing ahead with a plan that would incentivize more natural gas plants on the power grid.
The new framework could remake Texas’ electricity mix for years to come, clouding the outlook for renewable energy even as federal incentives are pushing those sources onto the grid.
The plan won approval from the state Public Utility Commission last week, setting terms for how the electricity market may change. The structure — which passed the PUC unanimously almost two years after winter blackouts crippled the state — is designed to aid reliability while retaining some of Texas’ unusual electricity system.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-texas-electricity-plan-could-change-the-grid/
What is the greenhouse effect?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.”
“Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse.”
The UN’s climate panic focuses entirely on the least important part of the science, and portrays it as controlling heatwaves which the Sun discretely drives. And it lets CO2 take certain credit for global warming driven by weaker solar wind states driving a warmer AMO, which then reduces low cloud cover. That’s a real panic spoiler!
CNN Technical director, Charlie Chester, in undercover video reveals what to expect from CNN for their next big push once they are rid of Trump. It will be climate change. “The climate thing is going to take years so we are probably going to milk that quite a bit.”
He takes a sip of beer while his flimer says, “So climate change overload.” [chuckles]. Chester: “Be prepared, it’s coming.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1642103222000144385
Pure propaganda. The good news is that few watch CNN.
I listened to a Brookings Panel on the Social Cost of Carbon with some people who were working with the administration. A higher price for the SCC is going to be given to all administrative agencies.
Pingback: The IPCC is Promoting a Left-Wing Political Agenda Masquerading as ‘Science’ – The Daily Sceptic
Pingback: The Latest UN Climate Report Is Bumper-Sticker Climate Science – Menopausal Mother Nature
So disappointing to see the comments drift off into name calling about Republicans and Democrats – there is a world outside American political partisanship. It’s also disappointing to see so many points made without really providing a solid basis – for example when somebody says the oil companies knew about CO2 in the 70s and covered it up – as if he was making some profound point that settles the matter, newspapers in Australia reported the effects of CO2 in the 1890s, so it’s hardly as if the scientific community were hiding evidence. I thought the reason we spent all this money on the IPCC was so we could establish and agree an understanding of the scientific basis of atmospheric changes due to CO2 rather than have these unintelligent repetition of nonsense heard on TV current affairs and carry on like drunks having an argument in a pub about football teams.
Right! It’s as if the left believes the oil companies held Arrhenius hostage in the basement. Whatever knowledge the oil companies had was already public.
This entire effort to smear the oil companies is just one more example of “lawfare,” where the left utilizes its people in power to abuse the legal system to criminalize or otherwise hobble opponents.
@ jim2 | April 3, 2023 at 8:14 am in suspense.
Pingback: The IPCC is Promoting a Left-Wing Political Agenda Masquerading as ‘Science’ | FREE the WORDS
IPCC Climate Science has been precisely summarized by Nancy Pelosi:
“Mother Earth gets angry from time to time, and this legislation will help us address all of that.”
IPCC Climate Science has been precisely summarized by Nancy Pelosi:
“Mother Earth gets angry from time to time, and this legislation will help us address all of that.”
I have to say that I don’t think that ‘climate scientists’ are regarded as rigorous scientists by many any longer. There are of course the sheep who believe everything they are told in church on Sundays, which is remarkably similar to what CNN and the BBC tell you all about climate every day of the week.
My prediction for 2030 is that the reputation of scientists will drop precipitously, which will lead to a fundamental shake out of pseudo-science, science engaging in ‘pay to play’ politicsetc etc. It’s not just climate, it’s all the Covid fiasco and the attempts to use gene editing, mRNA vaccines in food etc etc. People have had enough of it all and although it may take a few years for that exasperation to achieve organised resistance, I don’t think science has a chance to redeem itself in several branches.
I can foresee several Silicon Valley ‘investors’ being regarded as climate terrorists before the decade is out and they may be lucky to escape with their lives. The climate is not for sale and nor should weather engineering be the domain of risk-capital-backed unaccountable ventures, nor should it bethe domain of the military.
As for the prostitutes in Western politics, their reputation was pretty much never there to be lost in the first place. They are pork bellies bought and paid for by commodities traders trading in political decision-making.
Yes Rhys. In the first decades of the 1400s, the Chinese built an enormous fleet of treasure ships that traveled the Indian Ocean (including to Africa) collecting tribute. The first trip had more than 300 ships and 25,000 crew. Some voyages lasted two years. The biggest Chinese ships probably displace about 10-fold more water than Columbuses Santa Maria. Then, just as the Age of Exploration would cause Western Europe to zoom past what had been the most advanced country in the world, the navy fell out of favor with the new Emperor and was disbanded. By the time Europeans reached China
No, you Luddites aren’t going to do the same thing to the US.
I’m not ranting. Where in your paper did you talk about wildfires and the impact on SO2? NOWHERE! You never considered it. Just droughts and volcanoes.
Your “conclusion” is drawn from your observation that temperatures increased when SO2 in the atmospheric decreased. You have no direct evidence of this except for the lack of volcanic activity. Then you come to the idiotic conclusion that because during recessions CO2 emissions fell but global temperatures didn’t, CO2 is benign. It never occurred to you that you could drop the CO2 emission rate and still increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because the reduced emission rate is still greater than the CO2 removal rate. That’s exactly what happened. That blows a gigantic hole in your theory from which there is no recovery.
Then there is the situation on Venus which destroys your idiotic theory. Funny that you failed to mention that.
“I have abundant historical evidence where Atmospheric Rivers occurred during or after drought conditions.”
Between 1880-1960 global temperature tracked solar irradiance. Conveniently your paper does not take into account solar irradiance. That could easily be the cause of atmospheric rivers. In case you didn’t know it, the sun is the earth’s largest source of energy. Solar irradiance is not constant.
“Again, as a result of my findings, the GISS/NASA graph that you refer to HAS to be pure BS.”
Your findings are BS. I think NASA knows how to take an IR spectrograph from space. They’ve been doing it for years. You can read about the CERES project here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/
Who to believe? You or NASA? Not a hard choice is it? NASA!!!
More argumentum ad verecundiam*…
Credulous little person, aren’t you?
Have you ever tried thinking for yourself?
* Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
JJBRACCILI:
You say that “Your “conclusion” is drawn from your observation that temperatures increased when SO2 in the atmosphere decreased. You have no direct evidence of this except for the lack of volcanic activity”
You need to Google NASA’s fact sheet on on Atmospheric aerosols “Atmospheric Aerosols: What are they and why are they so important”. They state that SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) are reflective and cool the Earth’s surface by reflecting away some of the incoming solar radiation.
If there are fewer of them, temperatures will naturally increase.
Also, during stalled weather high pressure systems, after a week or less, temperatures soar to disastrous levels because all of the atmospheric SO2 aerosols within the stalled area have had time to settle out, leaving no moisture nucleation sites, and dry, cloud-free conditions (nicely shown on maps showing relative humidity
levels)
So, I have abundant proof that decreased SO2 levels DO cause temperatures to rise.
Regarding the CO2 comments, they were not mentioned in this paper, which is all about the effects of changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere
“Between 1880 and 1960 global temperature tracked solar irradiance. They could easily be the cause of atmospheric rivers”.
Not so. The mechanism is the decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere, which leads to increased temperatures and increased evaporation and loads up the atmosphere with water vapor, which would normally rain out, otherwise, not in occasional torrents around the world.
And your NASA/GISS IR spectrograph chart is BS because it totally excludes any of the major effects of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
Your theory is based on two premises. That SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight. That’s true. The second premise is that CO2 is benign because during recessions CO2 emissions fell and temperatures didn’t. That false because the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere— ppm— was rising. The amount of the emission reduction didn’t reduce the emission rate below the removal rate.
Premise 2 is key to your “theory”. If it’s not true, you have no way of separating the SO2 effect from the CO2 effect. That’s because the SO2 effect mixes in with the albedo effect. It is indistinguishable.
The albedo effect has two parts — surface reflection and cloud reflection. The SO2 effect can be lumped in with cloud reflection. The total albedo effect is about 30% of solar irradiance. Cloud albedo is 50% of that. You might have a case if clouds were made up of sulfuric acid like they on Venus. They are not. They are made up of water vapor. As you yourself said, increasing temperatures means more water vapor in the atmosphere. That means more clouds and a higher albedo. That offsets the SO2 effect and probably neutralizes it. In other words, the SO2 effect is small and doesn’t have a significant impact on climate.
Then there is Venus which destroys your theory. It has sulfuric acid clouds that reflect 90% of solar irradiance. That’s why Venus is the brightest planet in our solar system. Yet, instead of the temperature of the planet being lower than expected, it is astronomically higher. That’s due to the CO2 effect which you claim is benign.
It’s true. The IR spectrograph I use does not show the impact of the SO2 effect. That effect occurs at much larger wavenumbers than the spectrograph covers. Even if it did, it would be impossible to distinguish the SO2 effect from the albedo effect. The point of the spectrograph was to shown CO2 is significant player in climate change — not the benign actor you claim. It does that quite nicely.
If you want to disprove scientific consensus on climate change you need a new theory. How about little green men firing a heat ray at the earth? It’s as good as your theory.
Pingback: The IPCC is Promoting a Left-Wing Political Agenda Masquerading as ‘Science’ – David Icke
Pingback: The IPCC is Promoting a Left-Wing Political Agenda Masquerading as ‘Science’ - All View News
Pingback: BBC Goes into Antarctica Climate Meltdown – But Ignores Data Showing No Loss of Ice – The Daily Sceptic
Pingback: BBC Goes into Antarctica Climate Meltdown – But Ignores Data Showing No Loss of Ice | FREE the WORDS
JJBRACCILI:
I looked up information on the atmosphere of Venus, which you say destroys my theory.
Quoting: “The atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide, 96.5% by volume. Most of the remaining 3.5% is nitrogen. Early evidence pointed to the sulfuric acid content in the atmosphere, but we now know that it is a rather minor constituent of the atmosphere”.
With only trace amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of the intense solar radiation that it reflects away is incapable of making much difference, if any, in the temperature of Venus.
“As you yourself said, increasing temperature means more water vapor in the atmosphere. That means more clouds and a higher albedo”
No, I said that temperatures increased BECAUSE there were fewer clouds in the atmosphere. This was because of the reduction in the amount of SO2 moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere at higher temperatures (those of El Ninos and business recessions)
This means fewer clouds, and a lower albedo. just the opposite of what you maintain.
“Even if it did, it would be impossible to distinguish the SO2 effect from the albedo effect”)”.
Possibly true, if your measurements were not made under drought conditions, with their low albedo.
And you agree that your CO2 spectrographic chart does not include the huge effect of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, , which makes it both misleading and useless.
You had better duck, your little green men are shooting at you
“Early evidence pointed to the sulfuric acid content in the atmosphere, but we now know that it is a rather minor constituent of the atmosphere.”
Do you just make this stuff up?
“Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (75–96%) of sulfuric acid droplets.[48] These clouds obscure the surface of Venus from optical imaging, and reflect about 75%[49] of the sunlight that falls on them.[1] The geometric albedo, a common measure of reflectivity, is the highest of any planet in the Solar System.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#:~:text=Venusian%20clouds%20are%20thick%20and%20are%20composed%20mainly,highest%20of%20any%20planet%20in%20the%20Solar%20System.
The sulfuric acid clouds blanket the planet. It rains sulfuric acid on Venus. Hardly a “minor constituent.”
“With only trace amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of the intense solar radiation that it reflects away is incapable of making much difference, if any, in the temperature of Venus.”
From the above Wikipedia reference the concentration of SO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is 150 ppm. Here’s data on the SO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere:
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends
From the chart, the concentration of SO2 in earth’s atmosphere is currently about 20 ppb. That’s right parts per BILLION. So how is that in the Venusian atmosphere the 150 ppm of SO2 is too small to matter but in the earth’s atmosphere 20 ppb of SO2 has a significant impact?
Next time check this stuff out before you stick your foot in your mouth.
“No, I said that temperatures increased BECAUSE there were fewer clouds in the atmosphere. This was because of the reduction in the amount of SO2 moisture nucleation sites in the atmosphere at higher temperatures (those of El Ninos and business recessions)”
I thought the reason clouds form is because of particulate matter. That dust, soot, smoke, etc. I suspect there is a lot more of that in the atmosphere than SO2. I doubt SO2 reduction has any impact on cloud formation.
“And you agree that your CO2 spectrographic chart does not include the huge effect of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, , which makes it both misleading and useless.”
No, the spectrographic chart proves CO2 is a major player in climate change. It is not benign as you have claimed.
I gave you a direct quote from my reference, and the percentages are the same as those listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
It said that “Early evidence pointed to the sulfur dioxide content in the atmosphere, but we NOW know that it is a rather minor constituent”.
How current is your information?
But be that as it may be, the condition of the Venusian atmosphere has NOTHING to with the cause of Atmospheric Rivers here on the Earth. which are caused by decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere.
You say that the concentration of SO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is only 20 parts per billion. But SO2 AEROSOLS are highly reflective, and have a major effect on Earth’s temperatures. If I were to stand under an umbrella on a sunny day, it would be cooler underneath, but it would only amount to a part per trillion or less of the “atmosphere”. Same principal.
Yes particulate matter can initiate cloud formation, but liquid droplets of sulfuric acid attract water molecules FAR more readily, and they are FAR more plentiful than dust, smoke, etc (see NASA’s “Fluid” maps of atmospheric SO2 aerosols)
The spectrographic chart proves NOTHING. It would be totally different if it also included SO2 aerosols.
“I gave you a direct quote from my reference, and the percentages are the same as those listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
Please provide a link to your reference.
You should have read further into what the Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about the Venusian atmosphere. It says clouds mostly composed of sulfuric acid droplets at least 30 miles thick envelop the planet. Those clouds reflect 75% on incident solar radiation. Hardly a “minor constituent” It’s your theory on steroids, but it can’t cool the planet. That’s because CO2 — that you claim is benign — is causing a massive greenhouse effect on the planet — driving the planet’s temperature to 460 C. How wrong can one person be?
From Wikipedia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Atmosphere_of_venus.png
SO2 is 150 ppm of the Venusian atmosphere. On earth it’s 20 ppb. The effect, whether it’s the CO2 or SO2 effect is dependent on the absolute — not relative – concentration. They depend on the actual amount of CO2 or SO2 in the atmosphere. Since there is much more mass in the Venusian atmosphere than the earth’s. The difference in relative concentration understates the difference in the actual amount of SO2 in the Venusian atmosphere. The Venusian atmosphere contains a lot more SO2 than the earth’s atmosphere.
You’re claim that the amount of SO2 in the Venusian is too small to have an impact on the climate. That means that the SO2 in earth’s atmosphere must have even less impact.
“Yes particulate matter can initiate cloud formation, but liquid droplets of sulfuric acid attract water molecules FAR more readily, and they are FAR more plentiful than dust, smoke, etc (see NASA’s “Fluid” maps of atmospheric SO2 aerosols)”
Do you have a source for that? The only thing I could find was that dust and sea salt aerosols are mostly responsible for cloud formation. The “fluid maps” show SO2 aerosols are regional and are mostly around the source of SO2. I seriously doubt that SO2 has the impact you claim.
“The spectrographic chart proves NOTHING. It would be totally different if it also included SO2 aerosols.”
No, it would not. Whether SO2 aerosols are included or not, it would have no impact on showing that CO2 and greenhouse house gases are a significant player in climate change. The spectrograph PROVES CO2 is not benign. That destroys one of the pillars of your idiotic theory.
Speaking of your CO2 theory, there is another reason why you can reduce emissions of CO2 and the temperature will continue rising. There is a lag between when energy is absorbed by the planet and when the planet responds by increasing the temperature. If you cut emissions, and even if emissions are less than the removal rate, the temperature of the planet will increase for a time before it levels off and starts decreasing.
JJBRACCILI:
The reference was “The Environment of Venus”, on Google
You say that the CO2 is causing a massive greenhouse effect on Venus, but that is just a hypothesis. It is much closer to the sun than the Earth, and if its atmosphere were all Nitrogen, it might still be just as hot.
You mentioned that I have 11 papers on Research Gate. All of them support my claim that SO2 aerosols are the Control Knob for our Climate. In none of them do I find any evidence of any warming from CO2, outside of the Laboratory and Greenhouses. I am not aware of any evidence that it actually warms our planet. That, too, is just a hypothesis. Apart from your questionable spectrographic chart, can you provide any other actual PROOF?
See my article “The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino Events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
All temperature changes associated with them are due to increasing or decreasing levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. Four causes of warming due to their decrease.are identified. They are proof that SO2 aerosols are the control knob of our climate.
Nasa’s “Fluid” maps, which are derived from multiple satellite inputs, are a bit difficult to find. If you haven’t found them, go to the GMAO Modelling and Assimilation Home page. Select Reanalysis. Go to GMAO Reanalysis. Select Reanalysis visual. At left select Chem Analysis. Then “global total column SO2”, or other pollutants.
SO2 aerosols (small droplets of sulfuric acid) are probably the major cause of cloud formation, since they strongly attract moisture. Among other uses, H2SO4 is used as a desiccant.
As I have observed, when their concentration in the atmosphere decreases enough, clouds disappear, evaporation increases, and we are subjected to Atmospheric Rivers, droughts, heat waves, floods, etc. And as I mentioned earlier, the high temperatures associated with stalled high-pressures systems are also due to the settling out of SO2 aerosols within the stalled area, providing proof that my analysis is correct..
The climatic effect of SO2 aerosols is so large, that if included in your chart, CO2 would have no detectable effect. It is akin to the IPCC’s diagram of radiative forcings, which shows aerosols having only a negative effect, and, yet, temperatures SOAR when they are removed.
“The reference was “The Environment of Venus”, on Google”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solar/venusenv.html
I found it! Some reference. It looks like the work of a college freshman. I saw where it said sulfuric acid was a “minor constituent” It doesn’t say that “minor constituent” is responsible for reflecting 75% of the incident solar radiation.
“You say that the CO2 is causing a massive greenhouse effect on Venus, but that is just a hypothesis. It is much closer to the sun than the Earth, and if its atmosphere were all Nitrogen, it might still be just as hot.”
The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Venus is fact. It is closer to the sun than the earth, but absorbs less solar radiation. Because the sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the solar radiation away.
You can read about it here:
https://www.britannica.com/list/5-weird-facts-about-venus
N2 doesn’t absorb solar radiation. It can’t heat anything. Here’s a spectrograph of the sun showing the various absorption bands of atmospheric gases:
https://images.topperlearning.com/topper/tinymce/imagemanager/files/dd656228b6f87d2f5ca14ad0031408f35c0d892aa69486.54491060fig2.png
N2 is nowhere to be found.
“All of them support my claim that SO2 aerosols are the Control Knob for our Climate. In none of them do I find any evidence of any warming from CO2, outside of the Laboratory and Greenhouses. I am not aware of any evidence that it actually warms our planet. That, too, is just a hypothesis. Apart from your questionable spectrographic chart, can you provide any other actual PROOF?”
So, your “papers” support your claims? Really? I don’t see direct evidence of anything. All you have is data that shows temperature declining as SO2 declines. That could be a coincidence. SO2 may have some effect, but that doesn’t mean it’s the dominate effect. Then you have data that shows during recessions CO2 emissions decline, but temperature does not. I already proved that is a bogus conclusion for two reasons.
So, you aren’t aware of any evidence that CO2 emissions don’t warm the planet? Take your head out of the sand. They do experiments in high school science class that show the impact of CO2 when exposed to sunlight. My spectrograph is only questionable to you because it disproves your idiotic theory.
Your papers don’t prove a damn thing because you provide no direct evidence. It’s just inference from the fact that SO2 has declined over the past 40 years and temperatures have gone up. How much energy does SO2 deflect? You have no idea. At 20 ppb in the atmosphere, it’s not much. It’s why this theory is junk science and not even good junk science.
JJ:
You say that CO2 is responsible for the high temperatures on Venus, without providing any direct evidence, it is just someone’s hypothesis. Since I have found no evidence that CO2 is responsible for any warming on Earth, it is inconceivable that it is the cause of the high Venusian temperatures.
I don’t understand why you provided a spectrograph of the Sun. I just said that IF the atmosphere on Venus were Nitrogen, it could be just as hot, because of its closer proximity of the Sun, than Earth, meaning that there is no additional “back-radiation” warming from CO2.
I (and NASA) do agree with your comment that “sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the solar radiation away”.
This means that you are in agreement with me, since the foundation of my conclusions regarding Earth’s climate is that it is
controlled by changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity.
You said “All you have is data that shows temperatures declining as SO2 declines”
NO, I said temperatures INCREASE as SO2 declines.
And “This could be a coincidence”. I have looked at hundreds of instances where SO2 levels have decreased, and have NEVER found an exception, decreases always cause warming.
“Then you have data that shows during recessions CO2 emissions decline, but temperature does not” This is exactly what one would expect if CO2 has no climatic effect.
You also say that at 20 ppb in the atmosphere, SO2 can have little effect. It is NOT its concentration in the atmosphere that matters, it is its reflection from diffuse layers of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity (as shown in the Fluid maps).
The scientific philosopher, Karl Popper, held that any scientific theory must be falsifiable (that is, empirically testable) and that predictability was the gold standard for its acceptance.
Warming and cooling episodes due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere have been verified countless times, as predicted, thus meeting the gold standard for its acceptance. as being correct.
None of the above can be accomplished for CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently the theory of planetary warming due to the accumulation of “Greenhouse Gasses” is just “Junk Science”
JJ, you seem to be intelligent, but confused. Why not switch sides and deny the Greenhouse Gas hoax?
“You say that CO2 is responsible for the high temperatures on Venus, without providing any direct evidence, it is just someone’s hypothesis. Since I have found no evidence that CO2 is responsible for any warming on Earth, it is inconceivable that it is the cause of the high Venusian temperatures.”
Want direct evidence? How about a spectrograph of Venus.
https://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/venus-co2-spectrum-lg.jpg
There CO2 has 3 IR absorption bands. They correspond to the 3 highest peaks shown on the spectrograph. Notice that all 3 absorption bands are fully saturated. That means they are absorbing all the IR available in the band. Notice how the two absorption bands on the left straddle the peak of Venus’s radiant energy curve. That’s exactly what you would expect to happen if CO2 were driving Venus’s temperature.
What now? Are you going to call it questionable? You don’t accept any evidence that disproves your idiotic theory. That means you are in a constant state of denial.
You have found no evidence? Really? What makes you an expert? I love your circular logic where you quote yourself as proof of your idiotic theory. You have NO direct evidence that SO2 is the dominant source of temperature change on the planet. There is evidence that CO2 is the dominant source of temperature change.
“I don’t understand why you provided a spectrograph of the Sun. I just said that IF the atmosphere on Venus were Nitrogen, it could be just as hot, because of its closer proximity of the Sun, than Earth, meaning that there is no additional “back-radiation” warming from CO2.”
The purpose of the spectrograph is to show N2 doesn’t absorb solar radiation or the earth’s IR radiation. It can’t possibly be the cause of the temperatures on Venus. I already addressed your clueless proximity to the sun argument and provided references. Let me repeat myself. The sulfuric acid clouds on Venus reflect 75% of the incident solar radiation. VENUS ABSORBS LESS SOLAR ENERGY THAN THE EARTH DOES. Even if that were not true, Venus’s proximity to the sun could only drive the temperature of Venus to 60 C — not the actual temperature of 460 C. If not CO2, what’s causing the excessive temperature on Venus? If you don’t have an answer, it proves your theory is junk science.
“I (and NASA) do agree with your comment that “sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the solar radiation away”.
This means that you are in agreement with me, since the foundation of my conclusions regarding Earth’s climate is that it is
controlled by changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity.”
I’m not arguing that SO2 aerosols reflect solar radiation. What I’m arguing is that currently SO2 aerosols are not the dominant force behind climate change — CO2 is.
“You said “All you have is data that shows temperatures declining as SO2 declines”
NO, I said temperatures INCREASE as SO2 declines.”
My bad!!!
“And “This could be a coincidence”. I have looked at hundreds of instances where SO2 levels have decreased, and have NEVER found an exception, decreases always cause warming.”
Really? On Venus SO2 levels aren’t decreasing. In fact, I would say that SO2 aerosols are at their maximum impact. Yet, the temperature of Venus is much much higher than it should be. How does your theory explain this?
I won’t dispute the fact that there may be some periods when SO2 was the dominant factor in climate change. It’s not true now. Since SO2 is not the only thing that can impact climate, a good scientists would eliminate all other possibilities. You are not a good scientist.
““Then you have data that shows during recessions CO2 emissions decline, but temperature does not” This is exactly what one would expect if CO2 has no climatic effect.”
You have a bad habit of ignoring inconvenient facts. First, during these recessions the decrease in CO2 emissions was not enough to lower the emissions below the removal rate. So, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continued to increase. Secondly, the earth has inertia to change. There is lag in temperature response to changes. The earth’s temperature won’t immediately start to decrease with a decrease in the CO2 emissions rate.
“You also say that at 20 ppb in the atmosphere, SO2 can have little effect. It is NOT its concentration in the atmosphere that matters, it is its reflection from diffuse layers of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity (as shown in the Fluid maps).”
No, it’s the quantity of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and at 20 ppb, it’s not much. Most of the albedo effect in the atmosphere is due to clouds that are NOT made up of SO2 aerosols.
“Warming and cooling episodes due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere have been verified countless times, as predicted, thus meeting the gold standard for its acceptance. as being correct.”
SO2 can impact climate. It’s not the dominant factor right now. Just like it’s not the dominant factor on Venus.
“None of the above can be accomplished for CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, the theory of planetary warming due to the accumulation of “Greenhouse Gasses” is just “Junk Science””
Your analysis is the junk science. CO2 and its impact on climate have been well known for decades. Spectrographs show its impact.
“JJ, you seem to be intelligent, but confused. Why not switch sides and deny the Greenhouse Gas hoax?”
Because it’s not a hoax. Why not try publishing your theory in a widely accepted journal which has rigorous peer review and see what happens? Who knows? You may win a Nobel prize next year. I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
JJ:
I see that I was not as clear as I meant to be. I was not questioning the fact that the major component of the atmosphere of Venus is CO2. What I was questioning was whether it was responsible for the high Venusian temperatures, and whether Venus’s temperature would be just as high if its atmosphere were Nitrogen, instead, both being transparent gasses.
And the answer is “YES”
We have black metal patio furniture, and on a hot, sunny, summer day, it becomes too hot to touch, for an hour or two after noon. And, of course, you have heard of frying eggs on concrete sidewalks.
Venus rotates very slowly, once every 243 Earth days, so that anything on its surface would be exposed to its blistering sunshine for about half of that time. And this has been going on for probably a billion years, or more. No wonder Venus is so hot!
Furthermore, its SO2 clouds undoubtedly have their origin in volcanic eruptions (one recently observed on Venus). On Earth, volcanic SO2 aerosols settle out within 24-36 months, and they should also settle out on Venus, resulting in periods with no reflective SO2 aerosols in its atmosphere, and more intense surface warming.
So, CO2 is NOT driving Venus’s temperature. It is its slow rotation rate. (My answer proving that my theory is not junk science)
You say that I have no direct evidence that SO2 is the dominant source of temperature change on Earth.
Temperatures are always changing, and every TEMPORARY change (due to volcanic eruptions, El Ninos, La Ninas, industrial activity, etc) can be correlated with an increase or decrease in the
amount of SO2 aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere. No exceptions!
Apart from the temporary changes, temperatures have been rising because of the decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions due to global “Clean Air” efforts to reduce their concentration in the atmosphere, because of acid rain and health
concerns.
There is NO evidence that CO2 is responsible for any of the warming. For example, a WoodforTrees.org plot showing the curves of rising CO2 levels and average anomalous global temperatures show that they have significantly diverged since about 1980, with temperatures no longer rising in parallel with the rising CO2 levels (which,in 2014, amounted to an increase of > 35 billion metric tons), a necessity if there were any correlation.
You say that most of Earth’s albedo effect in the atmosphere is made up of clouds that are NOT made up of SO2 aerosols. No, but they are made up of moisture attracted to SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites. When enough of those sites decrease enough, clouds disappear, and temperatures rise, leading to Atmospheric Rivers, heat waves, etc.
Regarding publishing in more widely accepted Journals, I have gone that route, but anything contrary to the greenhouse gas meme is rejected by the editors, and never sent out for peer review.
“We have black metal patio furniture, and on a hot, sunny, summer day, it becomes too hot to touch, for an hour or two after noon. And, of course, you have heard of frying eggs on concrete sidewalks.”
Let me say this again. Apparently, it hasn’t sunk in. Between the sulfuric acid clouds and the surface, Venus reflects 90% of incident solar radiation. IT ABSORBS LESS SOLAR ENERGY THAN THE EARTH. Without the CO2 greenhouse effect, it would be cooler than the earth.
“Venus rotates very slowly, once every 243 Earth days, so that anything on its surface would be exposed to its blistering sunshine for about half of that time. And this has been going on for probably a billion years, or more. No wonder Venus is so hot!”
LOL!!! Spinning a planet does not change the amount of energy the sun radiates to it. Spinning a planet cannot create energy. There is a poster on this board who had a planet rotation theory along the same lines. You can disprove the planet rotation mathematically. Here’s how I did it:
“When I use the symbol T. Take it to mean. T to the 4th power. Let the sun’s temp be Ts. let the hot side surface temperature of the planet be Th. Let the cold side surface temperature of the planet is Tc. k is the Stefan-Boltzmann x emissivity x area. Assume the sun irradiates half the planet so the hot side, cold side areas are the same. Start with a non-spinning planet with no atmosphere and at steady state.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted by the planet = kTc ( no energy is being radiated to the cold side of the planet).
At steady state heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet. k(Ts – Th) = kTc or Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun.
Heat absorbed on the hot side is k(Ts – Tc)
Heat emitted by the planet kTh.
Since Tc = Ts – Th, make the substitution for Tc
heat absorbed by the planet = kTh
heat emitted by the planet = kTh
Heat absorbed = heat emitted. The planet will remain at steady state. Rotation doesn’t impact planetary temperature no matter how fast you rotate it. When the planet returns to steady state, the hot side and cold side temperatures will be identical to the value they were before rotation. Take the ultimate case where you spin the planet so fast that surface temperature is uniform. That what we assume when we calculate an average temperature for a planet by making spherical corrections. There will be no change in planetary temperature as a result.
The only effect of rotating the planet will be to speed the return to steady state. Double the rotational speed of the planet, it will lower surface temperature and speed up the absorption of heat. There will no change in the final steady state.”
BTW Venus rotates in the opposite direction of the Earth. That doesn’t impact planetary temperature either.
“Furthermore, its SO2 clouds undoubtedly have their origin in volcanic eruptions (one recently observed on Venus). On Earth, volcanic SO2 aerosols settle out within 24-36 months, and they should also settle out on Venus, resulting in periods with no reflective SO2 aerosols in its atmosphere, and more intense surface warming.”
Even if that BS is true, and you took all the SO2 aerosols out of the atmosphere, based on its distance from the sun, Venus would be at a temperature of 60 C — not its current temperature — 460 C.
“So, CO2 is NOT driving Venus’s temperature. It is its slow rotation rate. (My answer proving that my theory is not junk science)”
The slow rotation rate is not causing Venus’s temperature. Your theory is still junk science.
“Temperatures are always changing, and every TEMPORARY change (due to volcanic eruptions, El Ninos, La Ninas, industrial activity, etc) can be correlated with an increase or decrease in the
amount of SO2 aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere. No exceptions!”
Even if that BS is true, it doesn’t prove SO2 aerosols are the DOMINANT factor causing global warming. The sun puts a lot more energy into the earth’s energy balance than anything else and it’s not the DOMINANT factor impacting planetary temperatures.
“There is NO evidence that CO2 is responsible for any of the warming. For example, a WoodforTrees.org plot showing the curves of rising CO2 levels and average anomalous global temperatures show that they have significantly diverged since about 1980, with temperatures no longer rising in parallel with the rising CO2 levels (which,in 2014, amounted to an increase of > 35 billion metric tons), a necessity if there were any correlation.”
I don’t know where you get your data, but here is a widely accepted plot that shows the relationship between increasing CO2 ppm and global temperatures:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c7026e30a59f548716f0f2667ee5d51b?rik=DMKhDpsahZ5NhQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fcdn.zmescience.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f04%2fAtmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png&ehk=lAY3zSftbUrnFWUctayvNNd5yAfxntmPDiEAWZmZ7Cs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
You should read your own sources. From woodfortrees.org under the heading Personal Note:
“I started this site in 2008 because I wanted to dig underneath what seemed like extreme claims and counter-claims in the “Global Warming Debate”. Ten years on, it now seems clear to me that CO2 is indeed the primary driver of global warming, which is proceeding at roughly 1.5°C per century, but with some interesting short and long-term cycles overlaid. These cycles can produce shorter-term periods of both flatline and rapid increase, which get both ‘sides’ over-excited.” LMAO!!
“You say that most of Earth’s albedo effect in the atmosphere is made up of clouds that are NOT made up of SO2 aerosols. No, but they are made up of moisture attracted to SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation sites. When enough of those sites decrease enough, clouds disappear, and temperatures rise, leading to Atmospheric Rivers, heat waves, etc.”
I don’t think clouds are disappearing. Dust and sea salt are perfectly capable of supplying nucleation sites.
“Regarding publishing in more widely accepted Journals, I have gone that route, but anything contrary to the greenhouse gas meme is rejected by the editors, and never sent out for peer review.”
The reason your papers are rejected are because they are bad junk science. Good junk science sometimes gets through peer review, but never gets widely accepted. Eventually, even good junk science gets exposed for what it is.
I must say that graph makes me scratch my head. First of all it’s in Fahrenheit which magnifies the “anomalies”. Most science uses the metric system for obvious reasons. Second, “temperature anomaly” is plotted against CO2 in ppm. They don’t use temperature because anomalies scale more to their liking. The start date is about 1880? Which is about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? when mean earth temperature was guessed to be about 57.6? and supposedly the base from which we should start to panic if it is surpassed. Between 1880 and say 1910, the negative anomalies are increasing so temperature is falling, while CO2 is rising, so damn, it was getting colder during the Industrial Revolution until it managed to claw its way back up to the base temperature in about 1960, give or take a decade or so, cooling by a half a degree during the IR and regaining it around about WW2. Since then it’s risen a half a degree Fahrenheit and we are carrying on like pork chops about the end of the world as we know it! I clearly remember in the 70s the same cadre of “scientists” and media was warning us of impending doom as the next ice age was bearing down on us. There’s a whole industry out there beavering away at this subject spurred on by inexhaustible research grants funding their careers and their little areas of research that are so important to them because that’s what they’ve devoted their lives to and it can’t be in vain, otherwise what has their life meant? And then we have the media who salivate on tales of woe and impending doom and can’t dramaticise it enough to win in their little fields of polls and followers. And we have the politicians who can’t believe their eyes. Here is a disaster we can save the punters from by taxing them to the hilt and they won’t mind. In fact they will urge us on and re elect us over and over because the default mode of the human is fear and survival, no matter what the cost. My take on this is we don’t realise how well off we are. Our lives are much better than in 1880 or even 1960 by almost any measure and if climate change is our biggest worry then thank God we didn’t live in medieval times.
Let me answer you. Before 1960 planetary temperature change tracked solar radiation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2167/
We didn’t start dumping CO huge amounts until after WWII. There is some capacity for the CO2 removal processes to adapt to this dumping. You see the CO2 ppm slowly rise until 1960 when it accelerates. That when CO2 becomes the dominant force in driving temperature and solar irradiance becomes a secondary influence.
The temperature scale is irrelevant. Sometimes the graphs use F other times they use C. It doesn’t make a difference. The point is that the temperature is rising.
As for your conspiracy theories, there would have to be a huge cabal of scientists. Most of the climate scientists know each other by reputation and don’t communicated with each other. They come from different political systems. Why would a Chinese scientist care about a research grant given to a western scientist. The Chinese would want nothing more than to prove western scientists wrong. They’d revel in it.
If you know how to get in touch with this cabal of climate scientists, please let me know how. Being part of a cabal that wants to dominate the world is on my bucket list.
BTW if you live long enough, you’re going to wish you lived in medieval times when climate change gets through with the planet.
You guys fool around with ppms of a trace gas to explain temperature change of a fraction of a degree over a century but blissfully ignore the enormous change of temperature between summer and winter due mainly to a minuscule change in distance from the sun due to Earths axis tilt. Talk about can’t see the wood for the trees😂.
I thought it was now proven CO2 rise follows temperature rise?
You also happily ignore the fact temperature has been higher in reasonably recent times, like a couple of thousands years, and mankind thrived. So in you last post you really put your credibility on line forecasting climate doom for me within my lifetime. You’re more deranged than I thought. Not one of Al Gores or Hansens et al predictions has come to pass in the timeframe they predicted. Not one! And you still believe that rubbish? I’ve lived long enough to see your type come and go from predicting ice ages in the 70s to the earth cooking by 2020. You are one of the Cabal of doom whether you are aware of it or know the others. I’ve had too much experience with researchers to give them the credit for being good guys as you do. After all it’s their career at stake and they need a job. Any one of them who doesn’t toe the peer line will lose their job and career. It’s despicable imo.
The change in temperature between summer and winter has zero impact on planetary average temperature. Neither does the temperature difference between the sunny and dark sides of the earth.
What happens in the past has zero impact on what is happening now.
I didn’t ‘predict climate doom in your lifetime. What I said if you live long enough you’ll wish you’d lived in medieval times. If we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate, that’s an understatement.
Global cooling was put forward in the 70s by a small group of crackpots. It was never consensus science. Climate denial is put forward by small group of crackpots and charlatans.
All you proved is that you are clueless.
Your inane analysis of Venus’s temperatures does not change anything that I have said.
“Between the sulfuric clouds and the surface, Venus reflects 90% of its incident solar radiation”
You have NO way of knowing how much solar radiation is reflected from the SO2. What you say might have been true at the time of the last visit, but between the reported sulfuric acid rain reducing the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and the high winds whipping around the planet, SO2 aerosols could even be absent until the next volcanic eruption replaces them.
“The slow rotation rate is not causing Venus’s temperature”
The surface of Venus facing the Sun bakes constantly under the incoming solar radiation for months, getting hotter and hotter as time goes by, thus maintaining its current elevated temperature.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether its atmosphere is CO2 or nitrogen, the results will be identical.
“The slow rotation rate is not causing Venus’s temperature”. In your dreams!
“What I’m arguing is that SO2 aerosols are not the dominant force behind climate change–CO2 is ”
CO2 is obviously NOT the cause of Climate Change. It is climbing at one rate at Mauna Loaa, and average anomalous gloBal temperatures are rising at another rate, as I have mentioned before. A good graph showing the differing slopes can be viewed at Climate4you. The best one is the center of 3, 7th row down.
“Here is a widely accepted plot that shows the relationship between increasing ppm and global temperatures”.
NO, instead it shows the relationship between DECREASES in SO2 aerosol levels and global temperature increases.
You CANNOT show how CO2 caused temperatures to increase in the 30’s and 40’s, and other intervals up to 1975, so that had to be due to another cause.
The actual reason for the increases was that SO2 aerosol levels decreased because of idled industrial activity during the 1930’s, and periods of no volcanism (1937 May-1943 Feb), (1956 Mar-1963 Apr), (1968 Jun-1973 Jul), and fell by 22 Million tons between 1980 and 2010, due to global Clean Air efforts.
These facts explain why the warming has been occurring, with no sign of any additional warming from CO2.
“I don’t think clouds are disappearing. Dust and sea salt are perfectly capable of providing moisture nucleation sites”.
Clouds disappear during droughts, although dust and sea salt are always present. So why aren’t they providing the needed moisture nucleation sites?
The answer is that as temperatures rise, the warmer air (from El Ninos and recessions) contains fewer SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation .sites, resulting in extended droughts, heat waves, and torrential rainfalls around the world from Atmospheric Rivers.
“Your inane analysis of Venus’s temperatures does not change anything that I have said.”
Let’s face it science is not your thing. You have no idea what I did. Trust me. It’s correct and it proves a spinning planet can’t increase planetary temperature. Think about it. If spinning an object in the sun can heat it up past what the sun can do without spinning, you’ve found a new source of energy. Does that make sense?
“You have NO way of knowing how much solar radiation is reflected from the SO2. What you say might have been true at the time of the last visit, but between the reported sulfuric acid rain reducing the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and the high winds whipping around the planet, SO2 aerosols could even be absent until the next volcanic eruption replaces them.”
I don’t, but NASA sure does. All you have to do is send up a spectrometer and measure the radiation coming from the sun then measure the radiation in the same band coming from the surface and you have the albedo of Venus. NASA has been sending probes to Venus since 1962.
You don’t get it. Venus is not like the earth where the surface is cooler than the boiling point of water. The temperature of Venus is a lot hotter than the boiling point of sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid rain on Venus never hits the ground. It evaporates in the lower atmosphere rise to where it condenses and feeds the cloud cover. The cloud cover is total and persistent.
https://sciencing.com/planet-acid-rain-fall-3700.html
“CO2 is obviously NOT the cause of Climate Change. It is climbing at one rate at Mauna Loaa, and average anomalous gloBal temperatures are rising at another rate, as I have mentioned before. A good graph showing the differing slopes can be viewed at Climate4you. The best one is the center of 3, 7th row down.”
I did find this graph on Climate4you:
http://climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
That’s pretty good agreement. If you vertically displace the temperature plot. It’s excellent agreement. Do you have a similar plot for SO2. I think that’s a NO. You just assume SO2 is having an impact.
“NO, instead it shows the relationship between DECREASES in SO2 aerosol levels and global temperature increases.”
You can’t read!
“You CANNOT show how CO2 caused temperatures to increase in the 30’s and 40’s, and other intervals up to 1975, so that had to be due to another cause.”
You’re right, I can’t. That because CO2 wasn’t driving temperatures at that time — solar radiation was. CO2 started driving temperatures higher around 1960.
The rest of it is your standard BS. You have no direct evidence that SO2 is doing anything. There is direct evidence that CO2 is currently warming the planet.
BTW SO2 stands at 20 ppb. How much lower does it have to go for the warming to stop?
I NEVER said that spinning a planet would cause its temperature to rise. That is a product of YOUR fevered brain.
I said that slowly rotating a planet under constant solar radiation will inevitably cause its surface temperature to rise (just as constant heat applied to a bar of iron will eventually cause it to glow, or a rotating spit will cook food) This is just basic physics, and has probably been going on for the life of the planet.
You are probably correct that the SO2 rain never reaches the surface of the planet. At least not during current temperatures. I had not considered that.
Regarding the Climate4you graph, you say that there is excellent agreement if the temperature curve is displaced upward. Not so. the curves still have different slopes.
For the NOAA/NCDC graph from your previous post, I gave you factual information showing that the isolated temperature rises in the 1930’s, and later, were due to decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels (13 million tons between 1929 and 1932) during those intervals. You say that solar radiation was the cause.
In a way, that is true. There was increased surface heating because of less SO2 aerosol pollution of the atmosphere.
“There is direct evidence that CO2 is warming the planet”
The above graph showed that it was actually due to reduced SO2 aerosols. What other evidence do you have?
“BTW SO2 stands at 20 ppb. How much lower does it have to for the warming to stop?”
STOP?
This demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the role of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. Historically, decreasing SO2 aerosol levels have ALWAYS caused temperatures to RISE. as during the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm period, and the MWP, when there were very few volcanic eruptions, and any shorter intervals, such as during American business recessions.
In your most recent post state “The only thing that could drive the temperature of Venus that high is the greenhouse effect of CO2. It’s not the loss of SO2 aerosols”
Earlier in this post I gave the reason for the high surface temperature of Venus. It’s not CO2 and it’s not SO2 (which I have never claimed). And it’s not junk science, unlike your “Greenhouse Gas” hypothesis, which has never been proven outside of a laboratory or a greenhouse.
“I said that slowly rotating a planet under constant solar radiation will inevitably cause its surface temperature to rise (just as constant heat applied to a bar of iron will eventually cause it to glow, or a rotating spit will cook food) This is just basic physics, and has probably been going on for the life of the planet.”
The problem is you don’t understand basic physics or, for that matter, any physics.
We can calculate what the temperature of Venus will be with or without an atmosphere.
Let’s start with Venus with no atmosphere. We need the solar irradiance incident on Venus.
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/solar-radiation-in-space
That is 2611 W/m2. We need to apply the spherical correction to get the energy Venus must radiate into space to be in energy balance with the solar radiation it/s absorbing. That value is 652.75 W/m2. To calculate the temperature of Venus, use the Stefan – Boltzmann equation:
652.75 = 5.6697E-8 x T**4
The temperature of Venus (T) is 328 K or 55 C
Now let’s use an albedo of 0.75 to simulate Venus’s atmosphere.
163.1875 = 5.6697E-8 x T**4
The temperature of Venus (T) is 232 K or -41 C
You can spin the planet at any speed clockwise or counterclockwise or not spin it at all. There is no way Venus can get to its current temperature — 460 C — by energy from the sun.
What your next explanation? Are we at your fallback position? Little green men firing a heat ray at Venus? It’s as good as any of your other explanations.
“You are probably correct that the SO2 rain never reaches the surface of the planet. At least not during current temperatures. I had not considered that.”
Not “probably.” Throwing something out and then insisting its right does nothing for your credibility.
“Regarding the Climate4you graph, you say that there is excellent agreement if the temperature curve is displaced upward. Not so. the curves still have different slopes.”
That graph has better resolution than the ones I normally use. The differences you are seeing are the result of the earth’s inertia causing a lag in the temperature response to changes in CO2 ppm. The temperature will rise more slowly than the temperature.
“For the NOAA/NCDC graph from your previous post, I gave you factual information showing that the isolated temperature rises in the 1930’s, and later, were due to decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels (13 million tons between 1929 and 1932) during those intervals. You say that solar radiation was the cause.”
What I said is that from the period from 1880 – 1960 temperature tracked solar irradiance. That does mean other factors during that period could have a short-term impact on temperature. You have no direct evidence that SO2 impacted anything during that period. You can’t just assume that because SO2 goes down while temperatures go up that is proof that SO2 is causing the temperature change.
“The above graph showed that it was actually due to reduced SO2 aerosols. What other evidence do you have?”
I have an IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant which is more than what you have which is nothing.
“This demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the role of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. Historically, decreasing SO2 aerosol levels have ALWAYS caused temperatures to RISE. as during the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm period, and the MWP, when there were very few volcanic eruptions, and any shorter intervals, such as during American business recessions.”
Let me say this again. What happened in the past means nothing. You have no evidence that SO2 caused anything. Correlation does not prove causation. Just because something can do something doesn’t mean it does.
“Earlier in this post I gave the reason for the high surface temperature of Venus. It’s not CO2 and it’s not SO2 (which I have never claimed). And it’s not junk science, unlike your “Greenhouse Gas” hypothesis, which has never been proven outside of a laboratory or a greenhouse. ”
At one point you claimed it was SO2 aerosols which H2SO4 is a member. You claimed H2O4 rain was depleting H2SO4 in the atmosphere and that was a cause of the high temperatures.
I just proved that the reason you now give for the high temperatures on Venus is bogus. I guess you could and probably will say that is junk science. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation comes from blackbody radiation theory and Planck’s equation — an important branch of quantum mechanics. It’s been around for about 100 years and is widely accepted. Only a fool would call it junk science.
JJ:
Temperatures on Mars can reach 35 Deg. C. at its equator during its summer.
http://www.Planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-climate
The highest temperature ever recorded on Earth (57 Deg. C.) occurred at Death Valley on July 10, 1913, during the 1913 Jan 10-1914 Dec American business recession, which lowered SO2 aerosol emissions and enabled the record temperature increase.
In your post, you state that “the temperature of Venus (T) is 232 K or -41 C.
I find it difficult to believe that Venus could be colder than Mars or Earth. I would appreciate clarification of your statement.
Regarding your comments4you graph, you say that “you are seeing the result of earth’s inertia causing a lag in the temperature response to changes in CO2 ppm. The temperature will rise more than the (sic) temperature.”
Utter nonsense! Both points are fixed data points, measured CO2 level for Jan 2023, and the temperature estimate, also for Jan 2023. There can be no lag involved.
“What happened in the past means nothing. You have no evidence that SO2 caused anything. Correlation does not prove causation”
Here are some instances of SO2 causation:
Warming during the MWP, and prior warm periods, occurred because there were very few SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, due to a lack of volcanic eruptions. For example, there were only 31 VEI4, or larger, eruptions during the 300 year MWP. The clean air resulted in higher temperatures.
Decreased temperatures during the LIA correlate exactly with the injection of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere from known VEI4 or > volcanic eruptions.
Decreased SO2 aerosol emissions from idled foundries, etc. during American business recessions always cause temperatures to rise.
All La Ninas are caused by increased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels from volcanic eruptions, which causes temperatures to decrease. Satellites now measure the amount of SO2 emitted by each eruption, which averages 0.2 Megatons for VEI4 eruptions.
All El Ninos correlate with decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, either from recessions, the settling out of volcanic SO2,aerosols, extended periods (>4-5 years between eruptions), or to global Clean Air efforts.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Temperatures have risen since circa 1980 due to the Clean Air efforts noted above to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.
And more examples can be cited.
SO, I have provided proofs of the MAJOR role of SO2 aerosols in Earth’s climate, which you said did not exist.
“Correlation is not Causation”
There HAS to be correlation when a cause is correctly identified.
Up until about 1980, there was excellent correlation with the rising slopes of CO2 and temperatures, but after then, their slopes began to diverge, destroying the correlation..
Paraphrasing JJ, only a fool would not cause the greenhouse gas hypothesis “junk science”.
“Temperatures on Mars can reach 35 Deg. C. at its equator during its summer.
http://www.Planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-climate
The highest temperature ever recorded on Earth (57 Deg. C.) occurred at Death Valley on July 10, 1913, during the 1913 Jan 10-1914 Dec American business recession, which lowered SO2 aerosol emissions and enabled the record temperature increase.”
So what? We are not talking about energy maldistribution that occurs across a planet. We are talking about AVERAGE planetary temperature. Right know the dark side of the moon is a lot colder than the sunny side of the moon. It means nothing.
“In your post, you state that “the temperature of Venus (T) is 232 K or -41 C.
I find it difficult to believe that Venus could be colder than Mars or Earth. I would appreciate clarification of your statement.”
I said no such thing. The current temperature of Venus is 460 C. I did two calculations. The first was the temperature of Venus without the albedo effect of sulfuric acid clouds and no CO2 greenhouse effect. That temperature is 55 C. The second was Venus with an albedo of 0.75 caused by sulfuric acid clouds and no CO2 greenhouse effect. That temperature is -41 C.
What? you don’t understand your own theory? Let me explain it to you. SO2 aerosols reflect solar radiation and cool off the planet. That’s exactly what would happen on Venus sans a CO2 greenhouse effect.
You are CLUELESS on how a planet’s temperature is set. It’s easier to explain it in terms of energy. Temperature is a measure of molecular kinetic energy. All planets radiate energy into space and the amount of energy radiated into space is a function of its temperature. The higher the temperature, the more energy a planet radiates into space.
Let’s start with a planet hovering around absolute zero and suddenly a star radiates energy toward it. The planet absorbs the energy and the energy of the planet increases. The temperature of the planet increases because temperature is a measure of the energy of the planet. The planet increases the energy it’s radiating into space. The temperature of the planet continues to rise and the amount of energy it radiates into space also continues to rise. Eventually, the planet attains a temperature where the amount of energy it radiates into space is equal to what it absorbs from the star. The planet stops accumulating energy and the temperature stops rising. The planet is now in energy balance and will continue to maintain a constant temperature until the energy balance is disturbed.
Let’s disturb the energy balance. The star starts radiating half the energy it was radiating to the planet. What happens? Initially, nothing. The planet radiates energy into space based on its temperature, but now it is receiving half the energy from the star. There is an energy imbalance and energy starts draining from the planet lowering its temperature which causes it to radiate less energy. Eventually the temperature of the planet is low enough that the energy it radiates into space is equal to the energy it absorbs from the star. The planet is in energy balance and the temperature of the planet is constant until the energy balance is disturbed.
If you don’t understand that, you have no business writing papers on the source of climate change.
“Utter nonsense! Both points are fixed data points, measured CO2 level for Jan 2023, and the temperature estimate, also for Jan 2023. There can be no lag involved.”
Your lack of understanding of science has no bounds. Of course, there is a lag. You have oceans storing energy, water evaporating at constant temperature and ice melting at constant temperature. That is part of what makes up the inertia of the earth to temperature change. The lag will be nonlinear.
“Here are some instances of SO2 causation: …”
Joke! You have no direct evidence that SO2 aerosols caused any of that or how much it contributed to what did occur. None of that has anything to do with what is happening right now. At 20 ppb in the atmosphere, it is doubtful SO2 is having any impact.
LMAO! The article you cite is by YOU! Do you have any source other than by you, published in journal that does rigorous peer reviews, that make your claims? I don’t think so.
“Temperatures have risen since circa 1980 due to the Clean Air efforts noted above to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.”
Once again, you have no direct evidence of that.
“SO, I have provided proofs of the MAJOR role of SO2 aerosols in Earth’s climate, which you said did not exist.”
What you have provided does not rise to the level of scientific proof. Not even the climate deniers on this board are willing to back your BS. They’re usually willing to back just about anything that attributes climate change to anything but CO2. You can’t even come up with a coherent reasoning to explain the temperature of Venus.
“Paraphrasing JJ, only a fool would not cause the greenhouse gas hypothesis “junk science”.”
You certainly do not suffer from an inferiority complex. You think that whatever you say must be scientific fact. It is anything but. That why your “theory” can’t gain traction and never will. It’s complete BS.
JJ:
Thank you for detailed explanation of Venusian temperatures. I have never considered planetary temperatures, have just been trying to make sense of what has been happening on Earth
The earth’s temperature is set the same way. The situation on earth is not as extreme as the situation on Venus.
I gave a detailed explanation in this thread of how the greenhouse effect impact the earth’s energy balance so that when the earth is in energy balance at TOA the earth’s radiant energy equals the incident solar energy even though the temperature of the earth would indicate a much high radiant energy at TOA.
“The surface of Venus facing the Sun bakes constantly under the incoming solar radiation for months, getting hotter and hotter as time goes by, thus maintaining its current elevated temperature.”
What are you doing writing papers about the causes of climate change when you are CLUELESS about the basic science?
The sun radiates energy to Venus. Venus absorbs some of this energy. That causes the temperature of Venus to rise, and Venus radiates energy into space. As the temperature of Venus continues to rise, it radiates more and more energy into space. Eventually the energy the planet absorbs is equal to the energy it radiates into space. Venus’s temperature stops rising. The planet can sit there for centuries, and the temperature won’t change unless the energy balance is disturbed. We can calculate what the temperature would be for Venus with no atmosphere based on its distance from the sun. That temperature is 60 C. Venus has a large albedo. That would cause the temperature ot Venus to be less than 60 C. Venus absorbs less solar energy than the earth. That means the temperature of Venus should be less than the temperature of the earth — not its current temperature of 460 C.
The only thing that could drive the temperature of Venus that high is the greenhouse effect of CO2. It’s not the loss of SO2 aerosols. That means your “theory” is junk science.
Because there is not a 33°C (59°F) greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
A planet surface in radiative equilibrium with the sun has NOT any resemblance with the radiative equilibrium in the cavity with a small hole.
–
The planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is not a blackbody’s temperature.
–
Planet does not have a blackbody temperature, because planet has not a uniform temperature, and because planet is not a blackbody.
******
When based on the blackbody-planet theory, it was wrongly calculated:
“The earth’s surface uniformly absorbs 240 W/m² from the sun. ”
–
Also it was very much wrongly concluded:
“Without greenhouse effect, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.”
*****
No, the Earth does not uniformly absorb 240 W/m² from the sun. Earth is a planet. A planet is irradiated from one direction only, and a planet rotates.
–
No, without greenhouse effect, Earth’s surface would NOT be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.
–
Because there is not a 33°C (59°F) greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
When solar irradiated, a planet surface does not absorb the entire not reflected portion of the incident solar energy.
What planet surface does is to INTERACT with the incident solar flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar energy a planet surface absorbs in inner layers.
***
*****
The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m² from one direction.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Quite a few different versions of the history of TSI
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APwXEdduXmJonaH0ZfPpJl1_ix7xtonN7A:1681348058135&q=total+solar+irradiance+graph&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=AGbD5hQOxzcRuM%252CgOPzVhz6zjCgfM%252C_%253BandVa69fm4oKyM%252CXO-JXQFWKTD81M%252C_%253BAzG_leWPqSDxCM%252CXhZQ-bv5G4WvkM%252C_%253BRki7Jn8NdLT31M%252CHGMEOXOD1T6_5M%252C_%253BxYnMwTFZD-s2-M%252COQ6gIxlBe6X6yM%252C_%253BLPd4u-Equ9UPsM%252C7VSCWfXDp1s8lM%252C_%253BXb2Ps7eSoAnElM%252CPYMoI1hfatQmKM%252C_%253BEKgd_QTy8Qj5rM%252CrjPtCbi-i7ZxMM%252C_%253Bh5RjXWwRfcn0EM%252CWE1yCv9AHKnIrM%252C_%253BMLQLEhmfBuwl1M%252CH_ypgx4DLlSHKM%252C_%253BupwYtN2jnbPjOM%252CHfbRNmyvUq7zwM%252C_%253B5OEmHJ0nM31tpM%252CHGMEOXOD1T6_5M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTZ0UFAwVQUYApBWoD6ThGNzrFr1g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0sf7N1aX-AhUakmoFHctuDckQjJkEegQIEhAC&cshid=1681348159256991&biw=1536&bih=696&dpr=1.25
JJB provides this link to Nasa’ solar irradiance – JJBraccili | April 12, 2023 at 8:32 pm |
Let me answer you. Before 1960 planetary temperature change tracked solar radiation:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2167/
Here is another version of Nasa’s solar irradiance
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/
Which one is correct –
They’re pretty much the same thing. On the one I use, the bright yellow line is an 11 year moving average to smooth out the solar cycle. The light yellow line is the raw data. If you compare the light yellow line on my graph with the data on the other graph, they are about the same.
Genius,
Your graph doesn’t go out as far, The trends are the same. Both plots would show temperature tracking solar radiation before 1960 and not tracking solar radiation after 1960. That was the point that you didn’t get. DUH!!!
JJBraccili | April 13, 2023 at 9:51 am |
They’re pretty much the same thing. On the one I use, the bright yellow line is an 11 year moving average to smooth out the solar cycle. The light yellow line is the raw data. If you compare the light yellow line on my graph with the data on the other graph, they are about the same.
Hmm – JJB’s version has the present day down from the 1880’s
All the others have the present day higher than the 1880’s.
JJBraccili | April 13, 2023 at 10:30 am |
Genius,
Your graph doesn’t go out as far, The trends are the same. Both plots would show temperature tracking solar radiation before 1960 and not tracking solar radiation after 1960. That was the point that you didn’t get. DUH!!!
JJB –
No – the graphs are not the same,
No the graphs dont show the same trend
The point which you chose to ignore ( or falsely claim isnt true ) is that the nasa graph you link conflicts with the Nasa graph I linked and your nasa graph conflicts with numerous other graphs of tsi.
Really?
Here are the graphs I found of TSI by year:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1896
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.ee1de3b603bf6179e836114f071c5202?rik=tfkSmNW86WQOYA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d2290b220b3b74b77363ea52e708ccba?rik=wFMjjv2%2f2UvVcg&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
There aren’t numerous graphs of TSI. Most of the graphs are the same data ploted on different scales or oriented differently.
If you plot temperature change on any of those plots you get the same result. Which was the point,
JJB –
The graphs conflict
Graph #1 – is the same one you keep showing
Graphs #2 & #3 are the graphs that I previously linked
Note*
Graph #1 has a negative long term slope from 1880’s
Graphs #2 & #3 remain positive since the 1880’s
Also note worthy is how the Nasa Graph #1 conflicts with the NASA graph #2 (several sources with the same graph #2)
Let me get this straight. You drew a straight line from 1880 to 2020 on graph #1 and a straight line from 1880 to 2010 on graph #2. One line slopes up and the other slopes down and that’s your basis for invalidating the data?
First thing I’d say is that graph #2 needs an 11 yr moving average line to dampen the noise. On the moving average plot on graph #1 between 1880 and 1920, if you draw a straight line, the line is flat.
I don’t get what the significance is. From 1880 to 1960 solar irradiance was on the rise and so was planetary temperature change. After 1960 solar irradiance was flat or declining and temperature change was still increasing. That says that something else other than solar irradiance is driving temperature change. That was the whole point and in that regard the graphs say the same thing.
JJBraccili:
“That says that something else other than solar irradiance is driving temperature change.”
–
I think it is the Milankovitch Cycle which describes the Earth’s Global Warming trend. (The original Milankovitch Cycle shows a Global Cooling trend), but what I insist on is that Milankovitch Cycle to be read REVERSED!
–
The REVERSED Milankovitch Cycle clearly shows Earth currently being in a constant multimillennial Global Warming pattern!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: David Staples: “Hydrocarbon must go away,” said star NDP candidate. But is that the right plan for Alberta? | Edmontonpedia
Pingback: La BBC habla sobre el derretimiento de la Antártida mientras ignora los datos que no muestran pérdida de hielo - Trikooba
Pingback: On RCP 8.5 IPCC Exaggeration - Master Resource
“ Only 38% of Americans would be willing to pay $1 per month to address climate change, according to new polling released Tuesday.” According to a Time magazine twitter release.
And with inflation, $1 isn’t even what it was 2 years ago. Sounds like the skeptics message is resonating.
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1646015789277880323
The silent majority. Not the noisy ones.
Far too easy to skew polls with biased questions. Example is the poll that showed 87% of republicans are in favor of banning the “pollution” causing global warming.
In the USA Joe Biden and democrats have control of government and the nearly baseless fear mongering on AGW is the norm. Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot so we may have 5 more years of the same type of government implementing the climate change agenda.
Pingback: No, Antarctica Ice Isn't Melting Into Oblivion; + Shiveluch Erupts (Again) - Electroverse
Pingback: Lessons of the energy crisis - Invito Energy Partners
Katrina wiped out low-lying homes, only to have the id eee ot Brad Pitt rebuild them in the same place. Guess he isn’t worried about sea level rise.
For the impacted homeowners of New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward, the August 2022 announcement that they were one step closer to being made whole — with relief coming in the form of a $20.5 million settlement — was long past due.
Hurricane Katrina made landfall 17 years earlier, devastating their neighborhood. But that was just the opening chapter of their misfortune. Their homes had been rebuilt, only to give way to rot, mold and structural defects. Their 2018 class-action lawsuit seeking damages against their original benefactors, the Make It Right Foundation and its leading man, Brad Pitt, languished in Orleans Parish court for years as their properties decayed.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/brad-pitt-charity-mess-katrina-victims-stranded-1235371222/
The lies from the ICCP just get worse !
In my comment above, I meant ‘IPCC’ . .
memory problems ha! ha!
I think JJB makes a great point about Venus. It has a much, much bigger problem than Earth. The IPCC should move there and solve that bigger problem first.
It would be a lot easier to solve earth’s CO2 problem.
Probably not a good idea to send people to a planet that’s at 460 C and 90 atmospheres and rains sulfuric acid. If you want to volunteer to go, I’ll whole-hardily support your efforts.
Earth doesn’t have a CO2 “problem.” It has a CO2 blessing. CO2 – it’s a good thing.
If believing that makes you happy, you keep believing it. Leave dealing with reality to the rest of us.
You got a big wad of nothing to support your hysterical climate beliefs, JJB.
That’s a great example of your typical response.
If believing that makes you happy, you keep believing it. Leave dealing with reality to the rest of us.
If JJB would check all the evidence before he spouts off, he would see that a reduction in SO2 probably caused the increase in temperature. His beloved NASA states SO2 cools the atmosphere, so there’s that. Maybe he could check up on that and report back.
SO2 began to decline around 1975.
https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
Following up on Jim2’s comment – JJB presents a NASA graph of TSI which declines below the 1880’s average tsi starting circa 1960. Convenient that it matches the CO2 is the primary (sole) cause of the warming post 1960.
On the other hand, multiple other sources show the TSI increasing through the 1960’s and beginning a slow decline, though still above the 1880’s level by large margins (large margin by TSI change levels)
the point being that there is a legitimate scientific debate on the level of TSI while JJB picks the one that suits his bias.
“On the other hand, multiple other sources show the TSI increasing through the 1960’s and beginning a slow decline, though still above the 1880’s level by large margins (large margin by TSI change levels)”
What all the graphs show is that from 1880 to 1960 solar irradiance mostly increases and so does temperature change. After 1960, solar radiation declines then levels out. My graph shows a further decline in solar irradiance after 2010. Your graph stops at 2010. Regardless, temperature continues to rise and no longer tracks solar radiation. It’s tracking something else. There is a very small possibility it’s a coincidence, but it closely tracks the increasing CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.
You’re trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and are doing it badly.
JJB – you still cant grasp the inconsistencies in your beliefs
A) even though there has been a decline since the 1960’s , the trend remains positive (with the exception of the one NASA graph)
B) you make the false assumption that the TSI is a near instantaneous thermostat/heating mechanism.
C) you ignore the other natural mechanisms such as the oceans and the related storage of heat. The TSI graph depicted in the NASa graph ignores (or pretends) the oceans play no role with respect to TSI, with is in direct conflict with the theory espoused for co2 increases.
Consistent theories have not been the forte of climate activists.
A. Stars get hotter and emit more radiant energy as they age. That the long term trend trend in solar irradiance is positive is not relevant. After 1960, solar irradiance is not the driving force of temperature change.
B. I make no such assumption. Before 1960 temperature change lags changes in solar irradiance. Nothing can be said after 1960 because solar irradiance is not driving temperature change.
C. Irrelevant. Are you seriously saying that the rise in temperature over the last 60 years is due to a temperature lag due to retained heat in the oceans? The lag is not that long.
All those graphs prove is that currently solar irradiance is not the driver of temperature change. They don’t prove thst CO2 is.Solar irradiance has to be eliminated because it is the earth’s largest source of energy.
JJB – the theory you are relying on or indirectly implying ( at least the warmist version theory) is that the TSI has near immediate effect and that the ocean heat sink lack doesnt exist for the TSI – where as the ocean sink lag is prominent with co2.
Back to your links of the three tsi graphs.
The first shows a very pronounced negative decline after 1960 with a decline falling below the 1880’s
The second two graphs show a modest decline after 1960’s yet still well above the 1880’s either way you cut it – smoothing averaging etc.
cross your your math – the second two graphs dont reflect what you claim they reflect –
I’m relying on no such thing.
Chose any graph you like. They all say the same thing. After 1960, TSI is flat or declining. Planetary temperature is rising. For the temperature to continue to rise, there must be an increasing source of energy. The graph shows TSI is not it. It’s something else that on the increase. That’s the point.
BTW over 60 years is not an instantaneous response.
How many times do I have to say that this phenomenon is all cause and effect? What happened 10 minutes ago doesn’t matter. What happened in 1880 definitely doesn’t matter. You can’t go back and say that 200 years ago CO2 was decreasing, and temperatures were rising therefore, CO2 can never impact temperature. That phenomenon occurred because CO2 was not the driving force at that time. A more powerful driver was impacting temperature.
I never said SO2 aerosols didn’t cool the planet. What I said was that SO2 is not the dominant factor in climate change right now. Neither is the sun, which is much more important in setting the temperature of the planet.
The poster who started this nonsense proof is based on his claims that CO2 has NO effect on planetary temperature. That is complete BS.
CO2 is a GHG, to what “degree” is the question. Does water effect climate, JJ Hollywood? Can you provide the conclusive esposé between both CO2 and H2O’s relative effects on climate?
You can figure it out from the IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy that I have already provided numerous times.
H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas, but it is temperature limited. As CO2 increases, temperature of the atmosphere increases and it can hold more water vapor which increases the greenhouse effect of H2O.
CO2 indirectly controls the greenhouse effect of H2O.
What about albedo; snow, clouds? Oceanic circulation? Even the ebb and flow of algal blooms. Blooms not only pull CO2 from the atmosphere, sequestering it upon death, but blooms also effect the proportional footprint of oceanic albedo, between dark water/bright water, they can be immense. Consider that volcanic activity not only creates cooling from aerosols, but volcanoes also create albedo by promoting algal blooms. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/kilauea-lava-phytoplankton-bloom/ Imagine a period when volcanic activity increases, creating a timing point. These are just the “tip” of the proverbial iceberg, touching on certain natural climate variability influences effecting episodic causation of cooling and warming. Your problem is that climate moves much slower than your ideologically paranoid imagination.
Infrared spectroscopy doesn’t measure tipping points, JJ Hollywood, it provides an IR snapshot of a micro period in geologic time. It’s relatively new technology that provides inferences of proof to climate surfing showboaters, such as yourself, that the world is coming to an end.
There remains more questions than answers about climate. BTW, most people on CE acknowledge that humans have contributed to some portion of global warming over the last 150 years, but most scientists don’t believe that CAGW is the future, JJ; perhaps you need to school the worlds scientists about IR spectrographs.
Your one of those people that takes the “let’s throw whatever we can think of against the wall and see if any of it sticks.”
If any of the things you mention has any impact, it is small. Maybe, someday, if the stars align, something could happen is not an argument. It’s a prayer.
Do you have any evidence that any of what you talk about is having a significant impact on planetary temperature right now? The answer is NO!!!
“… but most scientists don’t believe that CAGW is the future,”
That should say “few scientists” — not most.
BTW infrared spectroscopy is not a “new” technology.
JJ, you conflate the understanding of AGW to mean CAGW.
And I said spectroscopy was “relatively” new, first used on a satellite about 50 years ago, but satellites were first used to take precise measurements of climate only about 20 years ago.
If AGW continues, CAGW is inevitable.
Twenty years ago is not “new.”
Hollywood just keeps spattering about in his showboat.
Climate is measured in decadal increments, 20 years doesn’t make a trend in climate; therefore the data gathered by IR spectroscopy for climate is “relatively” new.
JJBraccili:
“Rotation doesn’t impact planetary temperature no matter how fast you rotate it.”
–
There is the POWERFUL “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
–
Please visit my site,
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili:
“Think about it. If spinning an object in the sun can heat it up past what the sun can do without spinning, you’ve found a new source of energy. Does that make sense?”
–
“you have found a new source of energy.”
–
No, it is not a new source of energy. It is not a source of energy either.
It is the way a faster spinning planet “manages” to accumulate by far larger amounts of the incident solar energy, than a slower rotating one.
–
I am explaining all about it in my site.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When a planet rotates faster something very interesting happens! When faster rotating the temperatures on the dayside are lower and temperatures on the dark side are higher.
Example
A planet for N1 rot/day has dayside temperature 200K and nightside temperature 100K.
So the Tave = (200K+100K) /2 = 150K
The same planet for N2>N1 rot/day has dayside temperature 199K and nightside temperature 107K.
So the Tave = (199K+107K) /2 = 153K
Thus when rotating faster the planet average (mean) surface temperature is higher.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJ:
Thank you for your detailed explanation of Venusian temperatures. I have never considered planetary temperatures, have just been trying to make sense of what is happening on Earth.
So, I had to a bit of research regarding them.
An important consideration regarding a planet’s temperature is the amount of solar radiation received at its surface.
According to NASA, the incident solar radiation at the surface of Venus is 2,601.3 Watts per square meter. (This compares with Earth, which is given as 1,361 Watts per square meter)..
For Venus, the length of its day is 2,802 hours.
With its high incident solar radiation, and 1,401 hours of “bake” time each day, over millions of years, a high surface temperature is exactly what would be expected.
So, my initial explanation turns out to be correct.
“Of course there is a lag”
Your thinking is wrong. There may have been lags prior to making the measurements, but the reported data is what it is at the time of the measurement.
Here are some instances of SO2 causation:
“Joke!” You have no direct evidence that SO2 aerosols caused any of that or how much of it contributed to what did occur”.
Actually, I DO know how much SO2 was involved for many of the instances. For much of the warming, there were little or no dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, as for the earlier warming periods, locally, during stalled high pressure weather systems, and when there are periods of 4-5 years between eruptions.
For cooling, the amount of volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions injected into atmosphere has been measured by satellites since late 1979 or the early 1980’s. Prior to the satellite data, the annual tonnage of industrial SO2 aerosol emissions were available from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), of the University of Maryland, and are available through at least 2016.
“None of that has anything to do with what is happening right now”
What IS happening right now is that SO2 aerosol emissions are decreasing because of Net Zero activities to ban the burning of fossil fuels, and continued global “Clean Air” efforts to lower industrial SO2 aerosols, and the expected warming is taking off, rising 0.34 Deg. C. since January.
See: “Net Zero Catastrophe Beginning?”
https:doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035
And: “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
“You think that whatever you say must be scientific fact. It is anything but.”
I try to have data to support everything that I say, and my conclusions regarding SO2 aerosols meet Karl Popper’s criteria for a validated scientific fact.
“With its high incident solar radiation, and 1,401 hours of “bake” time each day, over millions of years, a high surface temperature is exactly what would be expected.
So, my initial explanation turns out to be correct.”
LMAO!!! You still don’t understand. You have the mistaken idea that energy just keeps accumulating on the planet. “Bake time” has nothing to do with it. It’s all about what Venus absorbs from the sun and what it radiates into space.
You don’t even understand your own theory. Only 25% of incident solar radiation is absorbed by the planet because of the reflecting sulfuric acid clouds. That reduces the amount of solar energy absorbed by the planet to 653 W/m2. Then there is the problem that the sun radiates to the surface of a circle — not a sphere. If you take that the sun radiates to half the planet at any time, you have to divide by two. That means the surface of Venus is absorbing 326 W/m2. Compare that with the earth. The earth absorbs 70% of incident solar radiation. That reduces the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the planet to 953 W/m2. Dividing that by two for the spherical correction and the surface of the earth is absorbing 476 W/m2. The earth is absorbing more solar radiation than Venus. Do you see anywhere on earth that is at a temperature of 460 C.
Don’t start that BS about Venus is rotating slower. Rotating a planet has NO impact on the planet’s average temperature. For some reason, you can’t comprehend the fact that as Venus or any other planet is absorbing energy from the sun, it is simultaneously radiating energy to space.
Let’s face it, you can’t admit that the high temperature on Venus is due to the CO2 greenhouse effect. If it did, your theory is wrong because it relies on CO2 having no impact on temperature. I suspect every source you checked says that CO2 is causing the 460 C temperature on Venus. That means you have to make up some BS that proves everybody else wrong.
“Your thinking is wrong. There may have been lags prior to making the measurements, but the reported data is what it is at the time of the measurement.”
That’s ridiculous there is always a lag. They account for it in climate models.
The rest of your post is your standard BS. Your “sources” are your own papers. Do you have anything written by anybody else to back up your claims? I suspect the answer is NO.
It’s one thing to make an honest mistake and be wrong. It’s quite another to insist your right and makeup whatever you need to “prove” it — science be damned.
Unless you have something new to contribute, this conversation is over. I hate to repeat myself.
JJBraccili:
I am confused.
NASA reports that the solar irradiance at the surface of Venus is 2,601.3 watts per square meter.
You say “that reduces the amount of solar energy absorbed by the planet to 653 watts per square meter”. WHO am I to believe? Ha Ha
On Earth, when a warm El Nino occurs, it raises temperatures around the world.
But you deny that the hot Venusian surface causes any warming of its atmosphere. Instead you claim that all of the warming is caused by the magic molecule CO2.
What a dim bulb you are!
I checked Google Scholar, and as expected, I found no papers by JJ Braccili.
I have 11 papers on various aspects of our climate, all of which show NO evidence of any warming by CO2 (and if not on Earth, what matters what happens on Venus?)
You classify my papers as “BS” without pointing out any errors that I may have made, as any competent scientist would.(probably because you are incapable of doing so, having a closed mind)
When I asked you for proof that CO2 actually causes any planetary warming, you provided a plot that proved that the warming was actually due to decreased levels of SO2 in the atmosphere.
You also offered as proof a spectrograph of our atmosphere, , but one that totally omitted the effect of millions of tons of dimming industrial SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, making it useless and misleading.
You claimed that I had no idea how much SO2 was involved in instances of climate change that I attributed to SO2. When I identified the amounts of most of the instances, you said that it did not arise to the level of scientific proof, which was a lie.
You are obviously desperate to defend the “greenhouse gas warming” hoax , and as a result have lost all creditability.
“You say “that reduces the amount of solar energy absorbed by the planet to 653 watts per square meter”. WHO am I to believe?”
Both of us. The sun radiates to the surface of a circle. The earth radiates from the surface of a sphere. To find out how much energy the earth has to radiate to space to be in energy balance. The solar irradiance must be divided by the ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circle of the same radius. The ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circle of the same radius is 4. The solar irradiance must be divided by four.
Here’s a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0T179YxLo8
“On Earth, when a warm El Nino occurs, it raises temperatures around the world.”
It doesn’t change climate. The only thing that can change planetary temperature is an energy imbalance at TOA. That’s from the First Law of Thermodynamics.
“I have 11 papers on various aspects of our climate, all of which show NO evidence of any warming by CO2 (and if not on Earth, what matters what happens on Venus?)
You classify my papers as “BS” without pointing out any errors that I may have made, as any competent scientist would.(probably because you are incapable of doing so, having a closed mind) ”
None of which have been published in a journal that does actual peer review. Any competent scientist wouldn’t be spreading manure that couldn’t pass rigorous peer review.
You’re BS theory has to work on Venus. It doesn’t.
“When I asked you for proof that CO2 actually causes any planetary warming, you provided a plot that proved that the warming was actually due to decreased levels of SO2 in the atmosphere.”
I already answered this and I’m tired of repeating myself.
“You also offered as proof a spectrograph of our atmosphere, , but one that totally omitted the effect of millions of tons of dimming industrial SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, making it useless and misleading.”
It omits nothing. if there were any SO2 effect — there isn’t — it wouldn’t show up on an IR spectrograph. It wouldn’t show up in any spectrograph because it couldn’t be distinguished from the general albedo effect. At 20 ppb SO2 isn’t capable of influencing climate.
“You claimed that I had no idea how much SO2 was involved in instances of climate change that I attributed to SO2. When I identified the amounts of most of the instances, you said that it did not arise to the level of scientific proof, which was a lie.”
Saying that SO2 goes down and temperatures go up is not scientific proof. That’s why your BS will never pass rigorous peer revies. What a surprise! You don’t get it.
JJBRACCILI:
WHO am I to believe.
“Both of us”
This shows a complete lack of critical thinking on your part. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any surface to receive different amounts of watts per square meter at the same time.
“The only thing that can change planetary temperatures is an energy imbalance at TOA”
More of your BS! All that it takes is an intervening layer of some dimming substance, such as SO2 aerosols, to change the amount of watts per square meter striking the planet’s surface.
If that layer is removed, or decreased, then the amount of watts per square meter at the surface is increased. And it that layer is increased, then the amount of watts per square meter are decreased.
Which is ALL that I have been saying with respect to my claim that SO2 aerosols are the Control Knob for Earth’s temperatures.
I have looked at multiple instances of our changing climate, and I have never found an instance that could not be explained by a change in SO2 aerosol levels.
This includes the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period
JJBRACCILI:
JJBRACCILI:
WHO am I to believe?
“Both of us”
This shows a complete lack of critical thinking on your part. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any surface to receive different amounts of watts per square meter at the same time.
“The only thing that can change planetary temperature is an energy imbalance at TOA”
True, but all that it takes is an intervening layer of some dimming substance, such as SO2 aerosols, to change the amount of watts per square meter striking the planet’s surface, and to change its temperature.
Which is ALL that I have been saying with respect to my claim that SO2 aerosols are the Control Knob for Earth’s climate.
I have looked at multiple instances of our changing climate, and I have never found an instance that could not be explained by a change in SO2 aerosol levels.
This includes the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, American Business recessions, Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems, La Ninas and El Ninos, Heat waves, Atmospheric Rivers, the cause of the high temperatures of the 1930’s, Etc., Etc.
And nowhere do I see any evidence of any additional warming due to CO2. Temperatures quickly respond to changes in SO2 aerosol levels, but large changes in CO2 levels, such as during the COVID lock-downs, or during business recessions, have no climatic effect.
Give it up, JJ. Your CO2 horse is dead. Stop flogging it.,
I don’t know why the link from the video didn’t make it. I’ll try again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0T179YxLo8
It does appear on the JC site.
Dear Professor Curry,
Thank you for being a voice for truth and reason in today’s often misinformed and hostile climate debates.
Am eagerly anticipating the publication of your book Climate Uncertainty and Risk, which I pre-ordered months ago.
Also thought you might appreciate a copy of my recently published article “Climate Change and National Security” that appeared in the journal Comparative Strategy last month.
The article is available but behind a paywall here: https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2023.2182108
Wanted to send you a PDF and link to a free copy of the article, but did not have an email address for you.
I do hope you will be doing a book tour once your book is out.
With sincere respect and congratulations on your forthcoming book,
Mark A. Bucknam, PhD
Rm 143 Roosevelt Hall
National War College
Ft McNair, Washington, DC
mark.bucknam@ndu.edu
“This shows a complete lack of critical thinking on your part. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any surface to receive different amounts of watts per square meter at the same time.”
You didn’t understand a thing I said. This is why people like you should not be commenting on climate change pretending to be an expert.
When NASA reports a solar irradiance of 1200 W/m2 at TOA. The m2 is the area of a circle. That’s what the sun is radiating to. To determine how many watts the earth is absorbing, multiply the 1200 W/m2 by the area of a circle with the earth’s radius. The earth is radiating this energy into space from the area of a sphere. To get the W/m2 the earth is radiating into space, divide the watts we caclulated by the area of a sphere. The ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circle is 4. That means to get the W/m2 that earth is radiating to space divide the 1200 W/m2 by 4. The earth is radiating 300 W/m2 to space. The problem is the sun is radiating to the surface of a circle and the earth is radiating from the surface of a sphere. Both numbers are correct.
“More of your BS! All that it takes is an intervening layer of some dimming substance, such as SO2 aerosols, to change the amount of watts per square meter striking the planet’s surface.”
Say the earth is at steady state. That means the energy the earth is absorbing is equal to what it radiates into space. Use a mirror to reflect some of the energy the earth is absorbing into space. The earth is at the same temperature and is radiating the same energy into space but it is absorbing less energy. There is an energy imbalance and the earths energy will drop causing the earth’s temperature to drop until the earth is radiating into space what it is absorbing.
“I have looked at multiple instances of our changing climate, and I have never found an instance that could not be explained by a change in SO2 aerosol levels.”
TRY HARDER!!
I’m not here to give you science lessons. Before you keep pontificating on climate change, try learning the basics.
JJBRACCILI:
“You can’t see the forest for the trees”
The real issue is not what is happening on Venus, or the amount of solar radiance striking the Earth’s surface, Etc.
The issue is WHY are Earth’s temperatures rising?
And the answer is very simple. EVERY instance that I have examined has been due to a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere, with no hint of any additional warming due to the accumulation of “Greenhouse Gasses”. With less pollution of the atmosphere, temperatures will naturally rise.
Warming due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is an obvious HOAX. A CO2-warmed atmosphere is akin to an oven, with no fluctuations of temperatures inside. And yet, our temperatures, apart from daily and seasonal changes, are constantly changing up and down, with no corresponding changes in CO2 levels, as would be necessary, if they were related.
Instead, observed temperature changes are in total agreement with changing atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, from volcanic eruptions, or industrial activity.
See, for example, “The Definitive Causes of La Nina and El Nino Events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
QED
“The real issue is not what is happening on Venus, or the amount of solar radiance striking the Earth’s surface, Etc.
The issue is WHY are Earth’s temperatures rising?”
Not winning? Time to change the subject? That not going to work.
Venus is important because a scientific theory has to work everywhere. Your “theory” doesn’t work on Venus. In fact, if I use the same line of reasoning you employ, I could argue that Venus at 460 C instead of 60 C, with a large amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, proves that SO2 aerosols do not impact temperature.
“Warming due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is an obvious HOAX. A CO2-warmed atmosphere is akin to an oven, with no fluctuations of temperatures inside. And yet, our temperatures, apart from daily and seasonal changes, are constantly changing up and down, with no corresponding changes in CO2 levels, as would be necessary, if they were related.”
Really? then why is the temperature on Venus 400 C higher than it should be? it’s not due to solar or SO2 aerosols. Maybe, it’s the energy fairy who magically appears when a climate denial theory falls apart.
“Instead, observed temperature changes are in total agreement with changing atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, from volcanic eruptions, or industrial activity.
See, for example, “The Definitive Causes of La Nina and El Nino Events””
Using your own paper as a reference again? You can’t find anyone who believes in your theory? That is AMAZING!!
“BTW how low does the SO2 aerosol concentration have to be before the SO2 aerosol effect is trivial? It’s at 20 ppb right now. Twenty parts per trillion?
I think if just two molecules of SO2 aerosols existed in the atmosphere you still attribute any warming to SO2 aerosols.
“QED” LMAO!!!!!!!!
JJBbraccili:
You say that a scientific theory has to work everywhere.
My claim is simply that, on Earth, if atmospheric SO2 levels are reduced, temperatures will rise because the cleansed air allows solar radiation to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity, causing increased warming.
It would also work on Venus, except that, as you pointed out, because of Venus’s high temperatures, the descending SO2 aerosols can never reach the surface, because they evaporate and return to the clouds.
“I think that if just two molecules of SO2 aerosols existed in the atmosphere you still attribute any warming to SO2 aerosols”.
You are pathetic! I have NEVER attributed any warming to SO2 aerosols. The warming is caused by DECREASES in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
NASA”s”Fluid” maps show the amount of SO2 aerosols currently in our atmosphere. Decreases in those amounts will inexorably cause temperatures to rise, as I have observed for every instance examined (listed in my April 22 post).
Again, Q.E.D.
So true and well written 👏👏. A relation of mine is working on a research project on climate change and the UN security council and she wants your opinion on whether it should be regarded as a security issue and if the council should handle it. Please would you like to get in contact with her?
Shedrackamy – GW a security issue?
The global warming advocates and the current woke military have global warming rated as one of the primary causes of the next global and regional war conflicts.
Victor Hanson has a excellant book on the second WW. the first chapter goes into quite a bit of detail on the history of the geopolitical causes of war. A basis understanding of the geo political history demonstrates the belief that GW will be a factor in future wars is a delusional woke joke
Pingback: IPCC Admits Many of its Gloomy Climate Forecasts Are of “Low Likelihood” – The Daily Sceptic
Pingback: IPCC Admits Many of its Gloomy Climate Forecasts Are of “Low Likelihood” - The Truth Central