by Javier Vinós
Part I of a three part series.
The Sun is a variable star and the amount of energy it emits varies from month to month, year to year, and century to century. One of the manifestations of these variations are sunspots, which are more common when the Sun is more active and disappear when it is less active. These spots follow a solar cycle of about 11 years, but sometimes there is a longer period, decades or centuries, when the Sun’s activity is so low that there are no spots. These periods are called grand solar minima. There are also periods of decades or centuries when the activity is higher. These are called grand solar maxima.
The Sun provides 99.9% of the energy that the climate system receives. So, there have always been scientists who thought that variations in the Sun were the cause of climate change. The problem is that they never had enough evidence to prove it. Until now.
- The IPCC and NASA say…
The IPCC and NASA are convinced that changes in the Sun have very little effect on climate. They rely on two arguments. The first is that changes in solar activity are very small. We measure them with satellites because they cannot be measured from the surface, and we know that the radiant energy coming from the Sun varies by only 0.1%. The magnitude of the changes is better appreciated when we use the full scale. Many scientists believe that such a small change can only produce small changes in climate.
The second argument is that the evolution of temperature does not coincide with the evolution of solar activity. Since the 1990s, solar activity has decreased while warming has continued.[i]
Actually, this argument is not valid because it does not say that the Sun does not affect temperature, but that it is not the only factor in doing so, something we already knew because temperature responds to many factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, the polar vortex, or changes in the Earth’s orbit. There are many natural causes that change the climate, and what we need to know is whether the Sun is one of the main ones.
To find out, we don’t need to care what the IPCC and NASA think, we need to ask the climate itself. It doesn’t matter how small the changes in the Sun are if it turns out that the climate responds strongly to them by causing big changes.
- Climate during the Holocene
And the best way to find out is to look at what has happened to the climate over the last 11,000 years, the interglacial period we call the Holocene. The advantage of doing this is that the Holocene climate changes could not have been caused by changes in CO₂. They must have been caused by something else.
To study the climate of the past, scientists use various climate proxies that they collect in different parts of the world. A major study published in Science used 73 of these proxies to reconstruct Holocene climate.[ii] I have used the same proxies, with a slight modification in the way they are mixed.
What we see, and what a large number of studies also support, is that there was a warm period of thousands of years, called the Climate Optimum, followed by a long period of cooling, called Neoglaciation.
How do we know that this reconstruction is correct? Another study reconstructed the progress of the Earth’s glaciers over the past 11,000 years.[iii] They divided the globe into 17 regions, and this graph shows the number of regions whose glaciers increased in size during each century of the Holocene.
Since glaciers grow when it is colder, we can invert their figure and compare it to the temperature reconstruction graph so that its meaning is the same. We find a high degree of agreement. The glaciers confirm what the temperature reconstruction shows. We also know that CO₂ has done the opposite of temperature, but that is a story for another day.
Note: y-axis is the Z factor, which is related to temperature anomaly.
Both graphs also show some severe cooling episodes that were accompanied by increased glacier growth. These abrupt climate events of the past have been studied and identified by paleoclimatologists. Of all of them, we will focus on four of the most important ones. The Boreal Oscillation, the 5.2 kiloyear event, the 2.8 kiloyear event, and the Little Ice Age.
The four are separated by multiples of 2,500 years and form a cycle that I have called the Bray cycle because that was the name of the scientist who discovered it in 1968.[iv]
Now that we know the climate of the past, we need to talk about the activity of the Sun in the past.
- Past solar activity
The Sun’s activity is recorded in the tree rings through the action of cosmic rays. A constant stream of cosmic rays from the galaxy reaches the solar system. Some interact with the atmosphere. Some collide with nitrogen in the atmosphere, converting it to carbon-14, which is heavier than normal carbon-12 and radioactive. This carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form radioactive CO₂, which is breathed by trees. The carbon is used in photosynthesis to make cellulose, which allows the tree trunk to grow in diameter. When the tree dies, the carbon-14 in the wood slowly decays over centuries and millennia. You just have to measure how much carbon-14 is left in the wood to know how much time has passed since the tree died.
Each growth ring of a tree records the carbon-14 that was in the atmosphere that year, and scientists have used millennia-old trees and preserved logs to construct a calibration curve that spans tens of thousands of years. This allows them to determine the age of any organic remains, even if it is not a tree trunk, just by knowing the carbon-14 it contains. This is known as radiocarbon dating.
The only problem is that the production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays is not constant. The Sun’s magnetic field deflects the path of cosmic rays, causing many to miss the Earth, and changes in the Sun’s activity affect its magnetic field.
As the Sun’s activity increases, fewer cosmic rays arrive, less carbon-14 is produced, and organic remains appear older because they contain less of it. When the Sun’s activity becomes weaker, more cosmic rays arrive, more carbon-14 is produced, and the organic remains look younger because they contain more of it.
This produces deviations in the calibration curve that allow us to know what the Sun’s activity was in the past.
- Spörer-type solar minima
When we analyze the radiocarbon curve over the last 11,000 years, we observe large deviations that indicate long periods of low solar activity. These extended periods of low solar activity are called grand solar minima and increase carbon-14 production by 2%. The most common ones last about 75 years, and there have been about twenty in the last 11,000 years. The most recent was the Maunder Minimum in the late 17th century. But there are other types of grand solar minima that are much more severe because they last twice as long, about 150 years. The last of these severe solar minima was the Spörer Minimum, which occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries.
There have been only four such Spörer-type grand minima in the entire Holocene. 2,800 years ago, there was the Homer Minimum, 5,200 years ago the Sumerian Minimum, and 10,300 years ago the Boreal Minimum. We know when they occurred thanks to tree rings.
If the dates sound familiar, it is because the four grand Spörer-type Holocene minima coincide exactly with the four major climatic events on the graph we saw earlier. We know that during each of these grand solar minima, when the Sun’s activity dropped for 150 years, the climate experienced a tremendous cooling that had a major effect on climate proxies around the globe.
We also know that low solar activity during the grand minima has had a major impact on human populations. Past human settlements and their component structures can be radiocarbon dated. When humans were doing well in the past, the population grew and they built more, and when they were doing poorly, usually because there was less food, the population decreased and they built less. Scientists have estimated the evolution of the human population of the British Isles by analyzing the radiocarbon dates of thousands and thousands of remains from hundreds of archaeological excavations.[v]
What they have found is that the population increased greatly with the advent of agriculture, but every time there was a severe deterioration in the climate, the human population suffered from diminishing resources. And the largest declines occurred when grand Spörer-type solar minima took place. Other population declines also coincide with other cooling periods, confirming our reconstruction.
This tells us that the worst climate changes in the past have been caused by changes in solar activity. It also tells us that what is bad for humanity is cooling, not warming.
Now we can respond to the IPCC and NASA. Never mind that solar irradiance changes very little, and never mind that temperature does not always do the same thing as solar activity. Clearly there are other factors at play. But we can state emphatically that changes in solar activity affect the climate because that is what the climate says. The study of past climate leaves no room for doubt. The Sun changes the climate. And if we don’t know how it does it, we should study it.
- The 20th century solar maximum
Since low solar activity causes cooling, it stands to reason that high activity must cause warming. Solar activity in the 20th century was very high, in the top 10% of the last 11,000 years.
If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.
Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.
- Conclusions
There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Sun’s activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.
In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.
The second piece of good news is that if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency. Believing that all climate change is due to our emissions is one of those errors that sometimes occur in science, like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that interplanetary space is full of ether, or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, not bacteria.
This article can also be
[i] NASA. Is the Sun causing global warming?
[ii] Marcott, S.A., et al., 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339 (6124), pp.1198-1201.
[iii] Solomina, O.N., et al., 2015. Holocene glacier fluctuations. Quaternary Science Reviews, 111, pp.9-34.
[iv] Bray, J.R., 1968. Glaciation and solar activity since the Fifth Century BC and the solar cycle. Nature, 220 (5168).
[v] Bevan, A., et al., 2017. Holocene fluctuations in human population demonstrate repeated links to food production and climate. PNAS, 114 (49), pp.E10524-E10531.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
Rather than variations in the warming rays of the Sun (as it is our understanding that solar radiance alone is not sufficient to explain climate change over the centuries), it is fluctuations in solar emissions of ionizing radiation — the so-called solar wind — that is the big decider. Associated with the ups and downs of the number of sunspots it now seems to be fluctuations in solar activity that explains climate change –i.e., the ionizing solar wind affects cloud formation and hence the temperature on Earth which is buffered by the effects of the huge water masses comprising the oceans that serve to delay the affects of fluctuating solar activity on the Earth’s climate.
If going from a -50°C to a -40°C at small spots in the coldest and most inhospitable regions on Earth — such as in the dry air of the Arctic or Siberia — and extrapolating that across tens of thousands of miles can be branded as global warming, then perhaps there has been global warming in the US; otherwise, adjusting for that kind of pseudoscience, and adjusting for introducing a systemic warming bias into the climate record by locating official thermometers at busy airports where the tarmac is continually swept clean of winter snow, and for putting weather stations where people live, knowing the UHI effect corrupts the data – “Only 1000 stations have records of 100 years,” notes Dr. Tim Ball, “and almost all of them are in heavily populated areas of northeastern US or Western Europe and subject to urban heat island effect” – there hasn’t been any significant global warming since the 1940s.
Couple of questions please.
The 20th century solar chart shows that the 1930/40s was a transition time of solar minima and maxima. I am confused; I have read many times that the 1930’s were far and away the hottest decade in the last century with 1936 perhaps being the hottest year. Are the data congruent?
With CO2 being cited frequently as the climate demon, I am surprised that more discussion isn’t centered on the logarithmic decline in the efficacy of CO2 as GHG. I have read that 87% of its impact on temperature has already been realized, and that an increase to even 800ppm in the atmosphere would raise the temperature only 0.7C.
Is this true, and if so, why isn’t this apparent bandwidth saturation of CO2 as an effective GHG not used as the linchpin argument to quell Climate alarmists? If CO2 has truly lost most of its um-mph in being able to raise atmospheric temperatures, why then not use this fact as a bludgeon?
Completely understood by scientific skeptics of AGW-
‘Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint.’ (Dr. Ball)
If CO2 actually had the properties that global warming alarmists claim, it would be used as an insulator in triple pane windows instead of argon gas.
Hi Ron Robins.
“With CO2 being cited frequently as the climate demon, I am surprised that more discussion isn’t centered on the logarithmic decline in the efficacy of CO2 as GHG. I have read that 87% of its impact on temperature has already been realized, and that an increase to even 800ppm in the atmosphere would raise the temperature only 0.7C.”
–
The CO2 in Earth’s thin atmosphere is a trace gas.
CO2 doesn’t play any significant and any measurable role in Earth’s Global Warming.
–
The Global Warming happens, but the Global Warming is caused by orbital forcings.
–
Please visit my site: The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ron Robins,
You have gotten two strong opinions on the “saturation” of the CO2 absorptions lines. Christos Vouras is sure that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do anything. Wagathon is equally sure there is so much that more won’t make any difference. Welcome to the wacky world of contrarians, where no one agrees on the science, but no one doubts their own brilliance or that climate scientists are leftists with an agenda.
I appreciate your honest question about saturation. I respect someone who knows he doesn’t have all the answers. An infrared photon in a CO2 absorption band starting at the earth’s surface indeed is likely absorbed long before it gets to outer space. But that is not the end of the story. The CO2 molecule that absorbs it reradiates, in all directions. After a multistep absorption/ reradiation process, some do get to outer space. The number that do remains sensitive to the CO2 concentration, even though getting from the surface to space in one shot is very unlikely. Check out Skeptical Science for more details.
A good place to start, though not for everybody nor depending on given sociopolitical circumstances (for instance, in the days of Galileo) may not be convenient, is to follow the science. The historical record shows that that atmospheric CO2 follows global warming- it does not precede it and therefore is not the cause of it.
Wagathon,
You write “The historical record shows that that atmospheric CO2 follows global warming- it does not precede it and therefore is not the cause of it.”
Let’s not talk paleoclimate, let us talk about the last century which is what matters. You should be aware that the increase in atmospheric carbon in that period has consistently been only about 45% of human emissions. In other words, natural carbon reservoirs like the biosphere and the oceans have been NET SINKS in the current era, not sources. The flourishing of the biosphere and acidification of the oceans in recent decades confirm that carbon put into the atmosphere by human activitives has leaked into these other reservoirs. Net changes in atmospheric carbon have not come from them. Humans are clearly responsible for the current increase. I will concede that human emissions were not responsible for occasional upticks during the age of dinosaurs. That tells us nothing about today’s increases.
This is nothing more than simple-minded ‘woke’ science, e.g., acidification of the ocean. That’s flat out ridiculous. The oceans are infinitely buffered.
“If CO2 actually had the properties that global warming alarmists claim, it would be used as an insulator in triple pane windows instead of argon gas.” It’s funny, some years ago, I did some analysis of chicken meat production. In production houses for chicken, the CO2 level can vary widely over short time spans, from a few hundred up to several thousand ppm. In my naivety, I suggested to the others in my working group, thinking that CO2 prevented heat from escaping, that producers should use less energy for heating when there is a high CO2 level in the production house. Doing the analysis of the data (several thousand farms), I found absolutely no effect of CO2 on the indoor temperature nor on energy use (for heating).
Like a greenhouse- it’s not the CO2 that is pumped into a greenhouse that literally makes it a ‘hot house.’ The warmth in a greenhouse comes from the lack of convection.
David Andrews,
“Christos Vouras is sure that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do anything.”
” An infrared photon in a CO2 absorption band starting at the earth’s surface indeed is likely absorbed long before it gets to outer space. But that is not the end of the story. The CO2 molecule that absorbs it reradiates, in all directions. After a multistep absorption/ reradiation process, some do get to outer space. The number that do remains sensitive to the CO2 concentration, even though getting from the surface to space in one shot is very unlikely. ”
–
The EM energy doesn’t consist from photons.
The CO2 molecule that interacts with EM energy, in the interaction process creates a photon, then, the photon gets transformed into the EM energy, which gets more likely reradiated in the opposite direction from which the EM energy has initiated.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wagathone,
“The warmth in a greenhouse comes from the lack of convection.”
When you evacuate the air from the greenhouse, it is still a warm greenhouse.
If you ventilate a greenhouse with the outdoors cool air, the temperature in the greenhouse inevitably drops.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Having published on albedo radiative forcing in Climatic Change and Nature, written on the climate wars in , Forbes , and The Wall Street Journal, and having long known variability enthusiasts ranging from Dick Lindzen, Will Happer and Sally Baliunas to Willie Soon, I think they, like you, grossly overestimate both solar and albedo variability , and that the instrumental record shows that anthropogenic CO2 forcing reckoned in whole watts/m2 is and remains the dominant factor in rising ocean heat content and global temperature.
Here is one explicit reason why :
https://twitter.com/_david_ho_/status/1781720695338373454/photo/1
The instrumental record is corrupt. Quote:
• Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects can raise city temperatures 6-9°C above the temperatures in surrounding rural areas. These significant biases are not sufficiently removed from instrumental records.
• Sea surface temperatures and land temperatures showed matching variations and amplitudes from 1900 to 1980. After 1980, the land surface temperatures rose substantially more, suggesting nearly half of the land temperature increase is non-climatic.
• Tree ring temperature reconstructions showed a strikingly similar pattern of amplitude and oscillation prior to the 1980s. After the 1980s, the instrumental record claims more than twice as much warming as the proxy records.
• Between 25-45% of the warming from 1940-’60 to 2000-’20 appears to be artificial, or non-climatic.
• Climate models overestimate the 1940-’60 to 2000-’20 climatic warming by about 40% in hindcasts.
(Scafetta, 2021)
“The instrumental record is corrupt.”
Stop being silly, man- do you really imagine the reading will change if you record them instead ?
It would be silly to place an official thermometer in a ’55 Ford with the windows rolled up, no?
This article can also be watched in a 13-minute video with English and French subtitles.
https://youtu.be/PNgOuROW2iw
This makes perfect sense. We Ham Radio Operators (Amateur Radio) experience the same variations when sending our low frequency HF radio waves around the world by bouncing them off the ionosphere. The sunspot activity for a given period of time has a direct impact on the ability for those radio waves to propagate. Increased sun spot activity creates a thicker or more dense ionosphere which greatly improves
our radio wave propagation.
Javier
Thank you for another important and informative article. I hope in the future there will be more open minded discussions about the role of solar activity instead of the one sided, obsessive diatribe by the IPCC and others who believe they know more than can be known.
Given all the processes and lagged influences on climate, I’ve never understood why the lack of instantaneous correlation between solar activity and temperature was such a big deal. I was pleased to see IPCC6 at least acknowledged the top decile of solar activity in 9,000 years. Maybe that is a starter to a more open dialogue about the possible solar role in climate, without the character assassinations of anyone who had the temerity to challenge the establishment.
Thanks, Javier, for a very interesting article. I missed a couple of things:
1. You say “solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum” – I didn’t see where this idea came from. Solar activity has been higher in the past, can’t it be higher again?
2. What was the purple line in the chart that had UK population in red?
One more thing: From 1983 to 2017, there was a notable decline in global cloud cover. It seems very likely that the sun was involved in that. Do you have any ideas there? 1983-2017 was the period of available data that I looked at in my paper (https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-0478.pdf), and I had to attribute the cloud decline to an unknown factor. It would be nice if there was something specific to attribute it to. It’s a much shorter time scale than this article, of course.
1. According to solar activity reconstructions, like Wu et al. 2018, solar activity has been as high as during the 20th century a few times in the past 11,000 years, but not higher.
2. The purple line is the actual radiocarbon calibration curve (IntCal13), copied and pasted. Here you have a blown up part of it from its original source with the Spörer Minimum indicated:
https://i.imgur.com/1qmracI.png
The Spörer-type minima are labelled with the blue ovals.
I would think that clouds depend on wind speed, which is a major factor in evaporation.
IntCal13 disturbances in the trail correspond to several proxies, but most of all between 2000bce and 6000bce they correspond to Eddy cycle inflection points.
This link gives some correlations, in my attempt to make sense of what I had at the time. That was before I discovered your Nature Unbound IX post.
Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/comparing-proxies/
Fast forward: 2346bce is the last major event of the Holocene (so far), and can be dated with some confidence. Obliquity tilt change ~14.5 to ~24deg, Precession change ~150degree. Central to Greek, Biblical, Sanskrit legends; plenty of info. Certain Kepler Trigons plus moon were a source of instantaneous dynamic instability of the earth. My feeling is that they are worse than solar changes, but that remains to be proven. The obliquity formulae we hold as dogma are worse than useless.
My suspicion is that it is mostly due to natural aerosol variability with some effect from biological responses to CO2.
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1768028430593864037?s=46
Between 1980 and 2016 we grew the terrestrial biosphere by 95Gt C and by about 3Gt C/yr since. This growth reduces dust and other aerosols. x.com/aaronshem/stat…
There is much more forest and vegetation now than the beginning of last century. Despite this growth in potential fuel, wildfire is down substantially twitter.com/aaronshem/stat…, so there are less aerosols from that.
CO2 uptake means much more photosynthetic efficiency and water efficiency; less stressed plants produce less cloud forming aerosols twitter.com/JennyR37094269….
Also, increased precipitation clears aerosols (dust, etc) and increased soil moisture means less aerosols from land.
There’s also been changes in the amount, location, and methods of biomass burning. Plus, we’ve reduced tilling for agriculture tremendously.
Some of this may be considered feedback to CO2 increases. I don’t know whether they are technically feedbacks because they are not physical responses to radiative forcing. Some are feedbacks in the sense that they are additional forcing as result of non-radiative responses to CO2 and other greenhouse gases (increased precipitation is the result of GHG forcing—it’s itself a negative feedback—and the resultant aerosol reduction is feedback to a that).
There’s probably a limit to how much these forcing can increase. Plants can only be so “unstressed”. Wildfire can only get so low and stay low so long. Moisture only reduces aerosols from land that’s dry.
I suspect a lot of the warming we’ve experienced may be due to increased biosphere growth.
I can’t quite understand why global atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping with all this additional biomass. Maybe it’s not terrestrial plant growth but algae and Phytoplankton are out of balance in our oceans (71% of the planet’s surface and the source of half all O²).
https://www.climatelevels.org/
That’s probably part of it. I think much of the CO2 uptake assumed to be land biomass (30%) is probably actually taken up by the ocean biomass. I think the power of the ocean biological pump is greatly underestimated. Probably part of the slow down of CO2 uptake growth in recent years is due to the pause in arctic summer sea ice decline.
Combustion also uses a lot more O2 than what ends up in CO2, there’s the SO2, NOx, and an equal amount in the H2O produced (roughly 12Gt/yr currently.) That part ends up in biomass when photosynthesized. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1709731711557214279?s=46
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8390
We’re only just finding out about the interactions between the sun’s radiation and ozone and ozone and atmospheric dynamics
Thanks, Javier.
Could you plz, give your estimate of the ratio of modern warming between nature/anthropogenic
I don’t know of any reliable method to do that. According to de Larminat 2016 “Earth climate identification vs. anthropic global warming attribution,” the unconstrained identification simulations attribute about 60% to solar activity and 40% to anthropogenic factors. I find that reasonable.
Thx much for your answer. I appreciate that this a not an easy task. Ziskin et al says 29% solar and 61% CO2:
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf
Thank you for your excellent and convincing post. Now, could it be that the anthropogenic contribution to warming has increased in recent decades due to accelerated population growth, economic activity, urbanization, etc.
Where have Javier, Joe & Clyde been for the past hundred and sixty-five years?
Do brush up on your Tyndall:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/climate-wars-salt-talks.html
And note that his results were experimentally corroborated by Wood half a century later- in 1909 !
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/03/cum-grano-salis.html
Russel,
“And note that his results were experimentally corroborated by Wood half a century later- in 1909 !”
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/03/cum-grano-salis.html
“Tyndall bought a 3,000 fold increase in his experiment’s thermometric finesse by the simple expedient of filling his rock salt windowed tubes completely with CO2 or hydrocarbon vapors instead of air.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tyndall’s first experiments with pure gases were a starting point. The GHE of GHGs at atmospheric concentrations has been demonstrated and quantified many times in the intervening century and a half.
“Tyndall’s experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall
Tyndal noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
–
So, what actually Tyndal said is that air is almost transparent.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
No, Tyndall said that the major components of air: O2, N2 (and Ar) are transparent, but that some of the minor components absorb strongly enough to make the (full-column) atmosphere opaque in (most of) the mid-infrared region of the spectrum, where surface thermal emission peaks. Can’t fix willful ignorance of simple physics, no matter how many times one tries. So I’m done, Bye.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
“… some of the minor components absorb strongly enough to make the (full-column) atmosphere opaque in (most of) the mid-infrared region of the spectrum, where surface thermal emission peaks.”
–
How much opaque the presense of CO2 in Earth’s thin atmosphere (1 bar at surface level), how much opaque “… some of the minor components absorb strongly enough to make the (full-column) atmosphere opaque in (most of) the mid-infrared region of the spectrum, where surface thermal emission peaks.” how much opaque the presense of CO2makes the (full-column) atmosphere opaque in (most of) the mid-infrared region of the spectrum, where surface thermal emission peaks.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
It 100% opaque in the region of the CO2 (and CH4) absorption bands. The CO2 absorbs aproximately 10% of the surfaces total thermal emission.
https://climatecite.com/the-absorption-of-thermal-emitted-infrared-radiation-by-co2/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129326_Absorption_coefficient_of_carbon_dioxide_across_atmospheric_troposphere_layer
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
“Christos,
It 100% opaque in the region of the CO2 (and CH4) absorption bands. The CO2 absorbs aproximately 10% of the surfaces total thermal emission.
https://climatecite.com/the-absorption-of-thermal-emitted-infrared-radiation-by-co2/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129326_Absorption_coefficient_of_carbon_dioxide_across_atmospheric_troposphere_layer
-”
You say that “The CO2 absorbs aproximately 10% of the surfaces total thermal emission.”
Do you mean “The CO2 absorbs aproximately 10% of the surfaces total thermal emission.” at the present ~ 400 ppm CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the last 50 years, almost all the warming has been anthropogenic. “Natural” warming has always been much slower. See the references linked, below the caption of this figure” :
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
Hermann Flohn found his comfort within Mein Kampf–as Polly does with his Skeptical Science bible.
“In the last 50 years, almost all the warming has been anthropogenic.”
Interesting hypothesis, but it lacks evidence. Beautiful hypotheses without evidence tend to be killed by ugly facts.
Javier,
I said:
“See the references linked, below the caption of this figure” :
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
Can you tell us what is wrong with the conclusions of those 12 peer reviewed papers, preferably with peer-reviewed references; instead of dismissing them out of hand.
You can see a breakdown of the evidence here (even though I’ll probably see the “messenger” logical fallacy):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
Tett et al. (2000) -> Model based
Meehl et al. (2004) -> Model based
Stone et al. (2007) -> Model based
Lean and Rind (2008) -> Calculation based on the unproven assumption that solar changes act only through TSI, ignoring evidence for indirect effects.
Stott et al. (2010) -> Model based
Huber and Knutti (2011) -> Calculation based on the unproven assumption that solar changes act only through TSI, ignoring evidence for indirect effects.
and so on…
They are not demonstrating anything except that we believe the warming is due to CO2. There is no evidence supporting this believe. Models cannot be considered evidence, because they are constructs of the human mind without connection to the physical reality. They can only demonstrate the internal consistency of a hypothesis according to our present knowledge, not that it is correct. And models are full of errors. Lots and lots of them.
There is a general believe that anthropogenic global warming has been demonstrated, but there is not a single piece of evidence that supports that most of the warming is due to the increase in CO2. So no, the hypothesis lacks supporting evidence that can be considered convincing. And you are unable to provide it, because nobody can provide it.
Einstein’s general relativity theory is supported by the evidence that light from stars is deviated by the Sun during eclipses. The CO2 hypothesis has no equivalent supporting evidence.
Seconding Javier Vinos comment
Model
Model
Model
etc
Was any actual field work done?
All desk research
Conclusion first – research
All the studies opening paragraph lead with an advocacy driven pronouncement
“‘Natural’ warming has ALWAYS been much slower.”
One should use the word “always,” very sparingly. Most reconstructions show the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum to have been very rapid, yet they may be an underestimate of the rapidity because time acts like a low-pass filter. Even with a constant percentage uncertainty in the independent and dependent variables, the absolute uncertainty increases the farther one goes back in time. Therefore, we can’t be certain that there haven’t been several episodes of natural warming much faster than what we are currently observing.
Creating models is what science does – they are generally based on data. Models are used for understanding and as mathematical treatments for (proposed) underlying physical causality.
People that think they can dismiss models because they are models, don’t understand science, and apparently can’t make sensible arguments.
Creating models is not a problem. They are a tool. An imperfect one, but a tool, nevertheless. The problem comes from believing what models show in the absence of evidence.
As George Box said: “All models are wrong, some are useful.”
Climate models, for example, are useful to scare people into accepting policies that will make them less affluent. Old George didn’t have that in mind, I am sure.
Clyde,
I don’t find “We haven’t seen it, but it could have happened” to be convincing – a lack of evidence is never convincing.
But yes, PETM is a fairly good “natural” parallel to what is happening now, but CO2 from volcanic activity instead human activities as the forcing. It was much slower that what is happening now, with ~15 gigatons released over 6000 years, while we are currently adding ~40 GT PER YEAR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
and references therein.
“We haven’t seen it, but it could have happened”
We see claims like that frequently from CAGW supporters. It “may” be the worst, or it “could” cause collapse, etc.
You ignored my remark about low-pass filtering. Low-pass filtering means the PETM reconstructions are a lower-bound on the magnitude of warming and an upper-bound on the duration. One rarely sees any attempt to correct for the smoothing. And enthusiasts like you uncritically accept Wikipedia claims. I find Wiki’ to be a good place to start on a subject that I have little expertise. However, I rarely stop there.
You complain about someone using units of “chopped liver,” but you have no problem claiming that “‘Natural’ warming has always been much slower,” without even providing any quantification, let alone units for rate of change.
It is very easy to demonstrate that sea level rise was several times faster during the last deglaciation for thousands of years. A lot more energy per unit of time had to go into melting that ice.
Clyde,
I didn’t ignore your comment about low-pass filtering – I agree with it. Doesn’t change the weakness of “We can’t see it, so it might have happened”. Instead, let’s look at the Holocene, where there is plenty of resolution to observe a temperature “event” similar to now, and also general conditions, except for GHG concentrations, are similar to now? Please tell, when in the preindustrial Holocene was there a “natural” temperature event even vaguely similar to the CO2 and temperature changes, and rates thereof, that are currently occurring?
“Please tell, when in the preindustrial Holocene was there a “natural” temperature event even vaguely similar to the CO2 and temperature changes, …”
Vinos has remarked about them as part of the support for his hypothesis for the sun controlling the climate. Inversely, when the COVID pandemic resulted in significant reductions in anthropogenic emissions, even at a granularity of monthly data, there is no evidence that decreased rates of emission resulted in any changes in the shape of the up-ramp phases in the seasonal behavior: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
There does appear to be a correlation between CO2 and El Nino events (see fig. 3 in the above link). However, no one is suggesting that CO2 is causing El Ninos! Furthermore, the shape of the ramp-up phase returns to normal after the El Nino event ends. That suggests that the warming is responsible for increased biogenic CO2 during the warm period. This is further demonstrated here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
You said, “I don’t find ‘We haven’t seen it, but it could have happened’ to be convincing – a lack of evidence is never convincing.”
The point is, you unequivocally stated “‘Natural’ warming has always been much slower.” In the absence of any proof that it is impossible for past warming to be as fast or faster than current anthropogenic-assisted warming, the fact that it is possible that it could have been as fast in the past does not allow you to logically claim that “’Natural’ warming has always been much slower.” We honestly don’t know what the upper bound is for ‘natural’ warming, and an honest broker would have said as much.
Clyde,
“You said, “I don’t find ‘We haven’t seen it, but it could have happened’ to be convincing – a lack of evidence is never convincing.”
The point is, you unequivocally stated “‘Natural’ warming has always been much slower.” In the absence of any proof that it is impossible for past warming to be as fast or faster than current anthropogenic-assisted warming, the fact that it is possible that it could have been as fast in the past does not allow you to logically claim that “’Natural’ warming has always been much slower.” We honestly don’t know what the upper bound is for ‘natural’ warming, and an honest broker would have said as much.
Clyde,
Science does not provide proofs, it weighs evidence. I have weighed the evidence and no other sustained warming faster than currently. At least not back until the Bølling ice sheet instabilities during the decline of the last glacial period 15 ka ago,
Thanks for sharing this article. If you are interested in upgrading your hot water system, then you can have a free consultation with our expert and discuss about government rebates.
Visit Cyanergy
Sounds more like a downgrade from my cheap energy, nat gas water heater. No thanks, I’ll pass.
Many thanks for the very interesting article.
I was aware that solar activity affects the influx of cosmic rays into Earth’s atmosphere. I am an amateur woodworker and I have a completely different appreciation of the timber I use. The timber has grown as a result of Carbon-14 being taken up by tree leaves. The C-14 has formed from cosmic ray interactions with Nitrogen.
I look forward to meeting you in London.
Could you please explain how reduced nitrogen availability contributes to timber growth , and tell us how much Carbon-14 a cord contains?
Equilibrium C-14:C-stable concentrations are in the range of 10^(-12). While carbon 14 is carried along with the stable isotopes, I doubt the timber grows because of it’s part-per-trillion presence.
It is almost trivial to demonstrate that a doubling of atmospheric levels of CO2 is incapable of creating a material increase in atmospheric temperature.
1. Specific heat capacity (“SHC)” is a defined term which means the amount of energy in joules required to heat one kilogram of mass of any matter by one degree Celsius. The SHC of dry air is 1,004 joules per kilogram.
2. A watt is a defined term in the SI measurement system equal to one joule per second
3. The atmosphere has a mass of approximately 5.248e18 kilograms (Trenbeth and Smith,2005)
4. The energy needed to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by one degree Celsius is equal to 1,004 x 5.248e18 joules = 5.169e21 joules
5. A doubling of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) increases the energy retained in atmosphere by 2.28 watts per square meter of Earth’s surface (Idso, 1980)
6. Earth’s surface area is approximately 510 million square kilometers (Weast, 1981)
7. The energy retained in atmosphere in equilibrium arising from a doubling of CO2 concentrations equals 2.28 watts per square meter x 510e6 sq. km x 1e6 square meters per square kilometer x 24 hours per day x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute = 100.5e18 joules
8. The increase in temperature of the atmosphere from retention of an additional 100.5e18 joules equals 100.5e18 joules divided by 5.169e21 joules per degree Celsius = .002 degrees Celsius
100.5e18/5.169e21 = .02
It is plain and obvious that a doubling of CO2 causes an immaterial rise in atmospheric. While IPCC reports disclose claimed ECS from 0.1 to 5 watts per square meter versus the 2.28 figure from Idso, the entire range does not produce a material increase in atmospheric temperature from a doubling of CO2 levels.
Thanks for the calculation, but 0.002 C/day in temperature increase (0.73 C/year) arising from energy imbalance of CC02 seems high – remember most of the excess energy is trapped in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Also, the ECS reported by IPCC-6, WG1 is:
“In summary, based on multiple lines of evidence the best estimate of ECS is 3°C, it is likely within the range 2.5 to 4 °C and very likely within the range 2 to 5 °C” (Table 7.13).
The lower limit you claim is 20x too low, and your value from 1980 is below the current likely range.
Whenever convenient, could you please report on wether you experience a material increase in warmth upon wrapping yourself in an electric blanket with a power density of 2.28 watts per square meter?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past - Climate- Science.press
“But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.
Now after 52 months of SC25 we see Javier swooping in to take credit for being in on the higher sunspot prediction bandwagon.
Javier Vinos had every opportunity to submit a bonafide smoothed sunspot number maximum numerical prediction for SC25 like others did before the cycle began, but asfaik he didn’t. Only Dr. Zharkova, and one other had predicted a lower cycle 25.
That the 25th solar cycle was to be stronger than the weakest cycle in 100 years, as Javier guessed it would be, was a very trivial prediction, having no bearing on any validity of his further and future guesstimations.
If he is still at it at the next solar minimum, maybe he could weigh in with a proper SC26 numerical sunspot prediction like others will, along with a rigorous physical mechanism prediction basis other than the cyclomania-based method he cheerfully uses now.
Nothing Javier has said here indicates he knows how the sun caused the 20th century warming, just more handwaving about sunspot numbers, not by showing any rigorously defensible mechanisms.
This is how we know the sun’s TSI changes caused climate change:
https://i.postimg.cc/769RYf0b/S-B-Equation-and-Sun-Climate.png
Dr. Vinos has completely missed this dominate connection between sunspot numbers, the sun’s energy output, ie, total solar irradiance (TSI) and it’s vital relationship to the climate’s past & future.
Russian astrophysicist Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov agrees with you.
I just want to remind folks of my simple empirical model which predicts global temperature from solar activity. It didn’t predict the current temperature spike, but then if the spike is not related to solar activity, it wouldn’t.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Spreadsheet version
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
If this model is correct, then temperatures will return to their pre-spike levels and remain there, or start dropping slowly over the next few years.
CO2 is not a factor in recent global temperature changes as CO2 variations lag temperature changes by approximately six months over time intervals from 1 year to more than 10 years. This was easy to show, and is all the proof I required.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
This was discussed in detail here:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
“If this model is correct, then temperatures will return to their pre-spike levels and remain there, or start dropping slowly over the next few years.
Welcome to the party Robert. Thank you for your contributions.
Javier has claimed the temperatures will fall in a few years from the declining water vapor in the stratosphere from the HT-HH eruption.
I agree the temperature will fall some in a few years, but it will be from following the upcoming solar cycle decline, not HT-HH water vapor. However, there will be a relative temperature increase by the next solar minimum compared to the previous minimum due to this solar cycle exceeding my 95 SN decadal ocean warming threshold.
In other words the sun continues to drive global warming.
“CO2 is not a factor in recent global temperature changes as CO2 variations lag temperature changes by approximately six months over time intervals from 1 year to more than 10 years. This was easy to show, and is all the proof I required. “ – Me too.
ML CO2 follows sea surface temperature ≥25.6°C by 5 months:
https://i.postimg.cc/qRDB86H9/12m-ML-CO2-lags-12m-SST-by-5-months.png
Bob Weber. The global temperature is not correlated to the 11-year sunspot cycle. However there is a strong correlation at ~22 years, suggesting solar magnetic fields play a role.
Regarding temperature lagging CO2, the problem with the time-domain graph you linked to is that it doesn’t allow for different processes to be resolved. My frequency-domain approach allows the delay to be measured as a function of frequency (or period). The 0.5 year delay is relatively stable for periods of 2-10 years. For seasonal processes (i.e. one year periods), the delay is much less — 0.15 yr.
Javier Vinós’s writing is always involving and is a pleasure to read.
One very simple explanation about the seasons was given to me as a very young kid – the length of daylight and the position of the Sun at midday with reference to its apparent height in the sky.
There followed a simple explanation that weather (and therefore climate) was created by energy and the constant battle between hot and cold air at different pressures. Made sense enough for me to read books about meteorology whenever the library had them.
I am really sad that the quality of meteorology has fallen so low over the years especially after Mann’s agenda of lies took top place on the IPCC list. We are lucky to have these alternative, more likely and much better explained theories.
‘…if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency.’
Popular alarm about human CO2 provides no gauge for determining the relative importance of things in ways normal people can readily appreciate. Climate change has become a manner of communication that is not so much calculated to provide meaningful information as it is to purposefully distract attention from a sleight of hand going on somewhere else. There’s a built-in basic inner dishonesty about global warming true believers’ true motives that amazingly they also seem to believe they are hiding.
Yes, solar cycles have a (minimal) effect on temperatures, particularly on the timescale of multiple cycles. They do not explain the divergence since ~1975 (second figure in the post, from NASA).
ganon
You’ve overlooked…..once again, the part about multi decadal above average solar activity during the 20th Century that is in the top decile for the last several thousand years. Surely, that has to count for more than chopped liver.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9
Parties to the Paris Agreement agreed to holding global average temperature increases “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. Monitoring the contributions of human-induced climate forcings to warming so far is key to understanding progress towards these goals.
Along with the other papers cited to by Un Skeptical Science
Conclusions first , Field work and data second. (desk research)
You’ve overlooked my first sentence. Sorry, I’m not familiar with the units “chopped liver” for quantifying variation in solar spectral irradiance, although I understand not wanting to express that variation in real units such as W/m^2, ECS in deg. C, or even %. You also overlooked my (and NASA’s) comment that temperature and solar activity have diverged since ~1975.
Thanks, Joe
From your first reference:
” Lastly, the method is applied to the linear trend in global mean temperature over the period 1951–2010. Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 +/- 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (.01 +/- .02 K).”
And from your second:
“… anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900, compared with an observed warming of 1.1 °C. Greenhouse gases and aerosols contributed changes of 1.2 to 1.9 °C and −0.7 to −0.1 °C, respectively, and NATURAL FORCINGS CONTRIBUTED NEGLIGIBLY. (my caps)
As I stated with the 2 links from “Not Skeptical Science”
“Conclusions first – actually field work second if at all .
Joe,
“Conclusions first, Field work and data second. (desk research)”.
Nothing wrong with that, although I think you confuse “conclusions” with “question and hypothesis”
So, do you have any comments about the content of the papers, besides the critique, of a non-scientist, on the style of scientific papers.
I
“They do not explain the divergence since ~1975 (second figure in the post, from NASA)”
The SATIRE TSI in the second post figure is a poor reconstruction in the first place, but as long as NASA (or Javier) is your chosen authority on climate change vis-a-vis the sun, expect to be under-informed. I will use it however to make a few points.
The SATIRE model is shown next as the Lean model in my 2018 plots, below, comparing it to the Svalgaard TSI model and my TSI model that I also used in my previously linked sun-climate image:
https://i.postimg.cc/tCDrySqx/Svalgaard-vs-Weber-TSI-models.jpg
It shows SATIRE as under-performing the other two flatter models.
The time TSI has spent above my red warming threshold line in those plots is the solar forcing for global warming, which has continued after 1975 all the way to the present solar cycle.
Each cycle having solar activity above this threshold will bump the ocean temperature higher via absorbed solar radiation.
The image I linked to in my first comment today indicates the ocean temperature changes in response to solar activity over an ~11 solar cycle period, that is, 109 years + an 11-year lag = 120 total years.
This is why under periods of declining sunspot activity the temperature can diverge with time, because the thermal inertia of the retained ocean heat content carries forward accumulating new net heat added from each solar cycle that has an activity level above the decadal sun-ocean warming threshold, even if it a small cycle like SC24. This builds the growing divergence.
And why hasn’t this happened before?
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
(no similar temperature signature)
BA-
That reconstruction is wishful thinking; it conflicts with so many other reconstructions, like Rosenthal et al 2013
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-2013.jpg
From your link
‘”This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we’ve seen in that same time,” said Jessica Tierney, a UArizona geosciences associate professor and co-author of the study.””
Sure, it looks speedy when you first flatline the Holocene using extremely dodgy data assimilation methods over 24K years.
Bob,
Thanks, but you didn’t answer my question. I gave you an example that disagrees with you, but you simply dismiss it as “dodgy” (what a surprise). Perhaps you could show/reference your chosen (peer reviewed) reconstruction of Holocene temperature changes and RATE of change, that is anything like that observed over the last 60 years. What is different now?
“And why hasn’t this happened before?”
Proxies, glaciers, treelines, and sea levels disagree with that statement. Our modern temperature records cannot be compared to proxy reconstructions, and offer ample opportunities for human bias. Essentially, we decide how much warming is taking place, as comparing different versions of the same temperature datasets demonstrates.
From 24,000 year paleo reconstruction study linked to by Ganon’s
” full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present at 200-year resolution.”
200 year resolution using low resolution proxies compared to hourly instrumental record of today?
Ganon’s repetitive comment ” that is anything like that observed over the last 60 years. What is different now?”
As is well known, the resolution of the proxy data is too low to reach that conclusion with any level of scientific validity.
BAB doesn’t care if the science is bad as long as it is peer reviewed. Much of mainstream climate science is peer reviewed propaganda.
Joe:
“Ganon’s repetitive comment ” that is anything like that observed over the last 60 years. What is different now?”
As is well known, the resolution of the proxy data is too low to reach that conclusion with any level of scientific validity.”
So your argument is “something may exist, maybe we just don’t see it. So focus in on what we can see – how about the last 2000 years, there is plenty of resolution to see a 1+ C rise over 60 years.
I still don’t see one. For proxy resolutions See Fig 1. of:
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
And yes, even with 100 year resolution (binning, as in Fig. 8) the current temperature “jump” is clearly visible, but nowhere else.
I have not been answered, but still ask, what is different now?
Ganon – you are refusing to acknowledge the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to reach the proported accuracy of the paleo reconstruction.
Rob Starkey,
“BAB doesn’t care if the science is bad as long as it is peer reviewed.”
As usual, you don’t know, and don’t get to specify what I care about. Doing so says a lot more about you than me.
I do care if it is not peer reviewed. If you don’t understand the difference, your problem.
JoeTNCS said:
“Ganon – you are refusing to acknowledge the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to reach the proported [purported = reported] accuracy of the paleo reconstruction.”
That’s right, I refuse to acknowledge “resolution of proxy data is insufficient to reach the proported [sic] accuracy of the paleo construction”. I gave reasons and a reference to available resolution – you did not. There is no reason to acknowledge something you have said just because you said that something.
I’ll repeat. Many of the proxies have resolution of less than a year, and even if resolution is only 100 year, they are capable of a detecting a temperature “event” like we have been experiencing for the last half century.
Javier,
Sure, tell me in what century(ies) the temperature events similar to current occurred. You’ll forgive me, if I don’t just take your word for it.
As I said, we cannot compare instrumental records to proxy records, so the question is moot. However if we accept that the 8.2 kyr event was huge, as proxies indicate, and the HCO returned afterward, we have all that cooling turned into warming.
And the only place we can be pretty sure we can compare old temperatures to recent ones is Antarctica, and it is not showing anything unusual taking place.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05411-8
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology/article/holocene-temperature-variations-inferred-from-antarctic-ice-cores/4615D12D0C046B19397D1E9BF4F2A641
Javier,
Of course we can compare instrumental and proxy temperatures – it is done all the time, particularly for calibration and evaluation of proxy methods. It is not for you to say which comparisons can or cannot be made.
Javier,
However, we know what caused the 8.2 ka event. Switching off/on of the AMOC by glacial melt flooding. Its temperature profile (apparent rapid cooling in the north Atlantic followed by rewarming after a couple hundred years), is nothing like what we see now. Although we may see it again as the AMOC slows.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X17303205
But enough, you have made your understanding and biases clear – thanks for that.
“However, we know what caused the 8.2 ka event.”
You and others think you know as you all think you know all recent warming is anthropogenic. Such confidence is not appropriate for a scientist, particularly when it rests on ignoring all contrary evidence.
“The climate deterioration of about 8.5–8.0 kyr BP is part of a repeating pattern of longer-term anomalies during the Holocene, with its most recent manifestation during the Little Ice Age. It seems related to solar output fluctuations. Climate models for evaluation of the impacts of small reductions in solar output indicate notable impacts on the meridional structure of the atmospheric circulation [43,44], in broad agreement with the changes inferred from proxy data, but completely independent from any changes in NADW formation.”
I could have written that myself, but it is from:
Rohling, E.J. and Pälike, H., 2005. Centennial-scale climate cooling with a sudden cold event around 8,200 years ago. Nature, 434 (7036), pp.975-979.
I guess you mean citing and showing studies from other scientists that contradict the consensus you embrace. How inappropriate from me to contradict a scientific dogma!
🤣🤣🤣
I didn’t say that. I showed you a paper that says solar activity changes before, during and after the 8.2 kyr flooding are likely to have been responsible for many of the effects attributed to the flooding. No guessing on my part.
And if the Sun has changed the climate in the past, I don’t see why it cannot change it also in the present.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 19, 2024 at 5:09 pm |
“I’ll repeat. Many of the proxies have resolution of less than a year, and even if resolution is only 100 year, they are capable of a detecting a temperature “event” like we have been experiencing for the last half century.”
Ganon – The citation you gave was for the study covering 24,000 years –
How many of those “many ” proxies covering those 24,000 years have annual resolution?
How many of those long proxies showing no comparable warming or cooling event over the last 24,000 years (or even the last 6,000 years or even 1,000) years also show the current warming?
Joe,
My citation was just an example of many reconstructions that show no features similar to the current event during the Holocene. However, they all seem to show the present event, many showing the overlap of instrumental records and proxies, as long as the proxies extend into the present/recent (50 yr) past. As for the Holocene temporal resolution – read the original paper(s), it is covered in detail (see extended data Fig. 1) – that’s why I give references. I don’t need to defend the papers – they do a good job on their own. OTOH, you should read (and understand – if you can) a given paper before you attack it.
What we need is a proxy that records with annual resolution the temperature now and in the past thousands of years. We have two: Ice cores in Greenland and ice cores in Antarctica. And they are perfect because, according to theory and models, CO₂-induced warming should be more intense at the poles due to changes in feedbacks. Something known as polar amplification.
So, what is the result that these best possible proxies available show? Nothing unusual is going on. OUCH!!! 🤣🤣🤣
So much for the faster than ever warming.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 22, 2024 at 10:02 am |
Joe,
My citation was just an example of many reconstructions that show no features similar to the current event during the Holocene
BaB – By now I would have expected you to be aware that those multitude of reconstructions are heavily dependent on long proxies with no blade and short proxies with a blade and too short of time coverage to have any handle. The long proxies without a blade are indication of much lower resolution than professed in the studies.
A- You cited a study for 24,000 years with 200 year resolution.
Nothing you have subsequently cited (or claimed to have cited) even remotely supports the claim which you made that nothing has happened that compares the last 150
Even in the much shorter time coverage studies you claim to cite to defend your 24000 year claim, there remains Lots of criticisms of the underlying proxies:
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/03/gergis-and-law-dome
Joe,
“BaB – By now I would have expected you to be aware that those multitude of reconstructions are heavily dependent on long proxies with no blade and short proxies with a blade and too short of time coverage to have any handle. The long proxies without a blade are indication of much lower resolution than professed in the studies.”
I don’t really care what you expect from me – I expect nothing from you. I think paleoclimatology is instructive for understanding climate in general, but it is not definitive as it mostly deals with climate prior to large human influences, not current processes. The long proxies without a major rapid change of rate (slope) are most likely that way because there are no events similar, not lack of resolution – even a resolution of 100 years would be more than sufficient to detect a perturbation like the current one. Where is it?
Frankly, in the current context, I find deflecting to the deficiencies of proxy measurements on the past to be a red herring, avoiding what (ever improving) instrumental measurements have to tell us about the last couple of hundred years. However, the agreement in the overlapping regions increases confidence in both.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 22, 2024 at 11:42 am |
Joe,
“BaB – By now I would have expected you to be aware that those multitude of reconstructions are heavily dependent on long proxies with no blade and short proxies with a blade and too short of time coverage to have any handle. The long proxies without a blade are indication of much lower resolution than professed in the studies.”
I don’t really care what you expect from me – I expect nothing from you. I think paleoclimatology is instructive for understanding climate in general, but it is not definitive as it mostly deals with climate prior to large human influences, not current processes. The long proxies without a major rapid change of rate (slope) are most likely that way because there are no events similar, not lack of resolution – even a resolution of 100 years would be more than sufficient to detect a perturbation like the current one. Where is it?
BAB – You are not grasping the obvious.
If the long proxies are not picking up the current warming, why would you expect them to pick up prior warming.
Think through it, not ignore the limitations,
Joe,
The study that I quoted showed that the long proxies do show the current event – it’s in the figure – as long as the proxy includes data up to present. . It is easily observed, but nowhere is there a similar event earlier in the same reconstruction.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 22, 2024 at 1:33 pm |
Joe,
The study that I quoted showed that the long proxies do show the current event – it’s in the figure – as long as the proxy includes data up to present. . It is easily observed, but nowhere is there a similar event earlier in the same reconstruction.
Bab – Which individual long proxies in the 24,000 year study show the a current uptick.
Joe,
The “most reliable” proxy – the ice cores – show the “uptick”, even though they only go up to about 1970 and miss most of the increase of the last 50 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
In spite of the best efforts of whitewashing problems with paleo climate reconstruction, there is literature that says otherwise.
“The reconstruction of past large-scale temperature means would be a comparatively easy task if proxies were good measures of the local temperature and if the large-scale mean was well represented by the local temperatures. Unfortunately, as we will see, neither is the case. Proxy records are instead far from perfect temperature recorders with often only a weak and unstable climate signal. The temperature field has a complicated spatial covariance structure which depends strongly on the considered time scales (e.g., Jones and Briffa [1996], for further references see section 19) and which may also be nonstationary (see section 24). The consequences of this are enhanced by the fact that the network of proxy records is sparse and spatially heterogeneous. Also, proxy records can have coarse temporal resolution, temporal correlations, and dating uncertainties. Another problem is the brief period of overlap between proxies and instrumental observations which furthermore is dominated (at almost all locations) by a strong warming trend. One consequence is that the relationships between proxies and temperatures are often poorly constrained. Another consequence is that the critical assumption of stationarity in the proxy–temperature relationship is difficult to test [Evans et al., 2013]. When using such imperfect climate recorders, the resulting reconstruction will naturally be pestered by errors to a larger or smaller extent.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016RG000521
“ Visual inspection of Figure 1 indicates that many reconstructions reach their highest temperatures during the twentieth century, while others show the highest temperatures during intervals of the Medieval Warm Period. More quantitatively, we find that 9 out of the 16 reconstructions have their warmest single year in the twentieth century, six in the Medieval Warm Period, and one [Schneider et al., 2015] in the beginning of the fifteenth century. Considering 30 or 50 years means the numbers change only little: 11 have the warmest period in the twentieth century, four in the Medieval Warm Period, and one in the fifteenth century. ”
“ The full range of error sources in different types of proxy records is poorly understood. Attempts to provide quantitative error estimates for individual proxy records usually only include some of the many potential uncertainties [see, e.g., Moberg and Brattström, 2011]. A major obstacle is the limited knowledge of frequency-dependent characteristics in the different types of records.”
“ Dating uncertainties in proxy records—a problem especially related to sediment archives—can also result in an increasing underestimation of variability back in time.”
Christiansen et al 2016
“ We saw in section 21 that the relation between proxies and temperatures is weak in general, with a typical correlation of only around 0.3. We also observed in section 18 that there are serial correlations in both proxy data and instrumental temperature data. These serial correlations often correspond to temporal decorrelation times longer than 5 years. Moreover, many proxy records have less than annual resolution and/or contain dating uncertainties.”
“ Even the best proxies are imperfect recorders of temperature and include an amount of noise.”
Christiansen et al 2016
“ Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process.”
“In addition to the paucity of multi-millennial TRW (tree ring width)datasets from upper or northern treeline ecotones, subjectivity in site and series selection, correction for biological age trends in raw TRW measurements (hereafter referred to as detrending), and the climate calibration procedure, can have substantial consequences for the reconstruction of regional-scale to large-scale climate variability. The degree of biological memory in TRW chronologies may also affect the reconstruction’s accuracy on interannual time scales7,8. This year-to-year bias is less pronounced in maximum latewood density (MXD) chronologies9, but only one MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction—from northern Scandinavia—has so far been developed for the entire Common Era”
“ Relatively warmer measured temperatures prior to circa 1850 CE are possibly biased by the low quality and quantity of early instrumental observations19, whereas relatively cooler reconstructed temperatures after circa 1990 CE are symptomatic for the ‘Divergence Problem’ in dendroclimatology20: the apparent decoupling between TRW chronologies and rising temperature measurements since around the 1970s21. Recent investigations suggest that methodology-induced challenges of proxy-target calibration, proxy network size, end-effects in time-series composition22, as well as industrial pollution23, or a combination thereof20, can explain the ‘Divergence Problem’.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23627-6
“ •Global and hemispheric temperature reconstructions provide context for recent trends and extremes, but substantial uncertainties persist after more than two decades of research
•The IPCC AR6 WG1 did not adequately convey uncertainties in reconstructions of hemispheric and global temperatures over the Common Era”
“Large-scale temperature reconstructions are nevertheless created almost exclusively from proxy data – including tree-rings, corals, ice cores, speleothems, and marine and lake sediments – each of which contain various biases in how they record temperatures, are heterogeneously sampled through time and space, and need to be statistically calibrated against instrumental data to provide estimates of past climate. These factors infuse Common Era temperature reconstructions with uncertainties that are inherent to the indirect representation of past climate by imperfect biological, physical, and geochemical archives, as well as from specific seasonal biases in proxy sampling of past climate, the relatively sparse availability of proxies in both space and time, and the wide range of statistical methods and assumptions used to transform a diverse set of proxy data into quantitative estimates of past temperatures.”
“ Despite the knowledge gained from these statistical experiments on both real and simulated paleoclimate data, many of the methodological decisions made in the process of developing a reconstruction remain only weakly constrained”
“Recent studies confirm that even for identical or similar networks of proxy data the differences resulting from statistical and methodological choices and assumptions make both reconstructions and non-trivial climate inferences drawn from them ‘fragile’”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379122001688#bib85
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 19, 2024 at 4:00 pm |
Joe,
“Conclusions first, Field work and data second. (desk research)”.
Nothing wrong with that, although I think you confuse “conclusions” with “question and hypothesis”
So, do you have any comments about the content of the papers, besides the critique, of a non-scientist, on the style of scientific papers.
BAB – I gave you my thoughts on the content of the papers – “conclusions first”
BaB – As you stated “Nothing wrong with that, although I think you confuse “conclusions” with “question and hypothesis””. ie Nothing wrong with conclusions first.
Nothing wrong with conclusions first seems to be the gold standard in climate science. That of course explains your willingness to accept dubious conclusions with doing a minimum level of due diligence.
Joe, if “conclusions first” (which is normal in abbreviated form) sums up your thoughts on the content of the papers, we don’t have much to talk about.
hypothesis first – yes
Conclusions first – no
Much of climate science operates on the later.
A summary of conclusions at the beginning, is normal in almost all scientific writing – it is nice to know where you are going. Like I said, if that’s all you’ve got to say about the contents, then I think we are done.
joethenonclimatescientist | April 19, 2024 at 4:36 pm |
hypothesis first – yes
Conclusions first – no
Much of climate science operates on the later.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 19, 2024 at 4:51 pm |
A summary of conclusions at the beginning, is normal in almost all scientific writing
Bushaw
Are you trying to be funny or serious? Your response is not even remote relevant to the series of commentary on the topic
Yes I’m serious. Try reading a bunch of introductions and see how many include summaries of the conclusions.
BTW, how many scientific papers have you composed?
1) Writing a research proposal staying with the mainstream herd. No new stuff, don’t upset the old apple cart!
2)Getting a grant from the mainstream (German) bureacrazy
If not 1 than unemployment.
In particle physics too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8
In another branch of physics as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXFYxgQGvZs
A human signal does not exist at all without manipulating the data and pointing to statistical models that real world observations invalidate altogether. The only correlation observed between increased CO2 and global warming, is the other way around: the historical record shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow periods of global warming. The lag time is measured in centuries — 1000±500 years (e.g., see Wahlen et al. 1999).
There is not any atmospheric +33C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have examined every centennial solar minimum back to 4700 BC, and I cannot find any which are more than five solar cycles long.
The Sporer minimum did not last into the 16th century, Europe had lots of hot weather from the 1480’s to 1542. There was in fact another shorter centennial solar minimum from 1550.
Your Bray cycle correlations entirely miss the greater grand solar minima and aridity events of the last 7000 years. The 4.2 and 3.2kyr events, and the Early Antique Little Ice Age from 350 AD.
There are other grand solar minima, but the profiles I show for the four Spörer-type solar minima are taken from IntCal and clearly support a 200-year event, with 150 years of greatly reduced solar activity, as the graph shows.
The weather is not cold all the time during a grand solar minimum, nor it shouldn’t. It didn’t happen that way during the LIA.
The Sporer minimum was the longest of the LIA series, but it was over by the 1480’s. The 5.2kyr GSM was also five sunspot cycles long, that’s as long as they ever get.
The Bray cycle misses more than it captures, because GSM series occur on average every 863 years.
Inceoglu et al. 2015 give the Spörer Minimum a central date of 1450-63 and duration of 160-167 years according to 14C and 10Be. And Usoskin agrees.
Inceoglu, F., et al., 2015. Grand solar minima and maxima deduced from 10Be and 14C: magnetic dynamo configuration and polarity reversal. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, p.A20.
Take a look at my work, and see why centennial minima occur, why they vary in length over an 863 year cycle, and why they are never longer than five sunspot cycles.
So, you think 14C and 10Be data is wrong, don’t you? Problem is auroral records say the same. The Spörer Minimum was over 150 years long.
https://i.imgur.com/EWcYohh.png
So, I guess your work is wrong.
Your guess is wrong, and my work can show exactly where the data is wrong.
F. Inceoglu et al,
Fig 1 shows slightly higher levels during the Late Bronze Age collapse GSM’s from 1365 BC and from 1250-1195 BC, but lower levels just before that. Then much lower levels around 750 BC, but much higher levels during an actual GSM series from 500 BC.
The Early Antique Little Ice age GSM from 350 AD is nowhere to be seen, and the following extreme low in the 700’s AD makes no sense at all.
It’s not the tool for the job.
Javier, your aurora chart is at the highest levels during the very deep centennial solar minimum of the early 1100’s. The following meandering decline from 1150 to 1350 does nothing to reveal the following centennial minima from 1215 and from 1315, and after the late 1300’s high values, the drop into the Sporer minimum is 30 years too early.
Again, it’s not the tool for the job.
1. What the IPCC said, correctly, is that solar activity has had only a small effect on recent climate changes, and that the overwhelming factor is increase in co2 (also, rather obviously, to anyone who is not willfully blind, 100% absolutely, indisputably correct).
2. You are showing changes over a thousand years that are comparable is magnitude to changes we have seen in 40 years, so clearly the impact of factors other than co2, even in combination, are not nearly is potent is the greenhouse properties of a co2-enhanced atmosphere.
3. Are you seriously suggesting we’re supposed to accepted temperature reconstructions based on proxies now? after 40 years of wild, insane outrage over the use of those worthless proxies that produced the hockey stick?
whatever.
i have to say, i used to have some respect for dr. curry as one of the skeptics with whom one could reason, but increasingly i am seeing total nonsense on this blog, including her gross mischaracterization on the previous post mortality due to extreme weather, completely misreading an article to claim that deaths due to extreme weather have fallen by 99% in the last 100 years, when that have not fallen at all. sad when pure ideology destroys such a good mind.
1. What the IPCC says is based on what they think. They have a long history of anti-solar bias.
2. We don’t know that because nobody was there recording the changes with modern instrumentation. In any case if the changes were due to solar activity changes, then our theory and models are wrong irrespective of the magnitude of the changes recorded.
3. Accepting the reconstruction is not a requirement, since each of those events rests on abundant scientific bibliography. You need to reject those events and radiocarbon dating to deny the correlation. Nevertheless, this particular reconstruction was accepted in Science journal.
Dan, I am not looking at the statistics and maybe I missed the context, but it seems your disagreement on the accuracy of the 99% statistic, is based on a narrow view of extreme weather. In 100 years there were significant advancements in accurate prediction and forewarning of extreme weather events. Tornado producing storm forecasts, Hurricane forecasts, flooding, and even heat wave forecasts have led to great reduction in extreme weather deaths. Forecasting improvements and warning systems make a 99% figure plausible. Did you consider the 100 year increase in population? Especially the population densities in areas with greatest exposure to extreme events.
1, is incorrect, the warming of the AMO is an inverse response to changes in the solar wind strength, via negative NAO, while rising CO2 forcing should increase positive NAO. Obviously the solar forcing is overwhelming the CO2 forcing.
DanB,
Re your “the overwhelming factor is increase in co2 (also, rather obviously, to anyone who is not willfully blind, 100% absolutely, indisputably correct).”
Given the importance that the CO2 control knob theory has now reached, one might wonder why there are not any much-quoted examples of confirmation of it by associated experiments. The control knob claim arises from the difference a model of temperature change with and without a modelled CO2 contribution, a technique that cries for confirmation.
There are papers that claim that the CO2 effect is now maxed out in its capacity to produce more warming. Is this outcome simply ignored? There are papers about which comes first in time, CO2 change or temperature change. Is this argument settled, if so, link please?
There are papers attempting to calculate how much energy CO2 can hold and contribute to T change and where in the atmosphere this might happen. There are papers challenging the residence time and related endurance factors of CO2 in the atmosphere, which appear to be still at the argument stage.
There have been some attempts to use modern methods to actually shine light of different wavelengths into different gas mixtures to detect heating. Is there a definitive one on which you rely, or do we need more of this type of study?
I do not have my eyes closed, but after watching CO2 control knob developments for 30 years, I am remain unconvinced as a straight scientist that science has finally dominated over belief on this topic.
When I ask for evidence of the CO2 control knob, I typically get answers like “read IPCC AR6”. Not helpful, already done a lot of that.
If you had to choose a single paper that is really convincing you about the CO2 control knob, what would it be?
Geoff S
there are all kinds of papers claiming all kinds of things. that does not mean they are worthy of serious consideration and it does not mean they have not been effectively refuted. we are now warming at leat fifteen times faster than every previously measured. this was correctly predicted due to the increase in co2. a rather astonishing prediction to accidentally be correct, when based on an incorrect theory, no? kind of a one-in-a-million lucky guess? also, there is no explanation for why the known laws of physics would be defied and that atmosphere would not warm due to the ghg properties of co2. so…the answer is in. it’s over.
you mention “There are papers challenging the residence time and related endurance factors of CO2 in the atmosphere”. really? do these papers actually look at the extremely steady year-over-year increase of co2 in the atmosphere? the rate of increase is not slowing. there is not the slightest indication that we are reach an equilibrium, which you would expect if a meaningful percent of the co2 in the atmosphere was decaying, as the amount decaying would increase as the concentration of co2 increases.
Dan
Isn’t the IPCC more politically driven organization than a scientifically driven one? Shouldn’t their conclusions be viewed with caution?
You can read the statements of scientific organizations and academies here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific_consensus/
All conclusions should be viewed with caution – critical & impartial evaluation of evidence is important.
Intergovernmental PCC, not Interscience PCC, so yes. You want the research money? Write us what we like to hear!
Your opinion is discounted as having no value.
Appell
“ This is just pure, amateurish science.”
Translation “I hate it when Javier and Judith write stuff that I don’t have the chops to refute and all I can do is whine about how things aren’t fair. Oh, how I wish I knew enough about climate science to write a book.”
Now, 02, I understand how things seem to be getting out of control and you are losing the narrative, but at some point you have accept the science is moving on without you. That sinking feeling in your gut must be similar to what Roberto De Vicenzo felt a few minutes after finishing the final round of the 1968 Masters thinking that he was going to be in a playoff and then learning he had signed for an incorrect scorecard and would no longer have a chance to be champion.
I empathize with your sinking feeling. That was what I had when during Basic Training I wasn’t looking where I was walking and fell into a foxhole. My DI got a big yuk out of that.
It’s not all without hope, though. We will all still be here anxiously waiting for your next inane comment.
Clyde,
“You complain about someone using units of “chopped liver,” but you have no problem claiming that “‘Natural’ warming has always been much slower,” without even providing any quantification, let alone units for rate of change.”
That’s right, I have no problem claiming that because nobody seems to be able to provide adequate counter examples to disprove it. Appropriate units for rate would be something like temperature change per decade (or century). Current warming is roughly 15-times faster than the steepest section of the warming during the last deglaciation: about 1 C in 1500-2000 years, compared to about 1 C in the last 50 years for the current warming.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation
Phillip Stott warns us that actually attempting to bring stability to the world’s complex, coupled and chaotic climate system by singling out a single factor like atmospheric CO2 levels, “may even trigger unexpected consequences.”
‘Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.’ ~Philip Stott
Good re-post by Judith on X about Africa and how they are being prevented from developing through fossil fuels.
https://x.com/curryja/status/1781323010697515376
Bill
And Africa needs all the benefits of fossil fuels it can get.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLjYuYnXsAAzt0L?format=jpg&name=medium
kid … True. What’s amazing is that we keep meddling in their affairs.
Looks like they would benefit more from birth control.
A study out of Cornell University found that, ’85 percent of what people worried about never happened.’
It is the Higher Latitudes Temperatures Amplification Phenomenon.
Because the warming is an orbitally forced process.
But there is also the transportation of the accumulated at the equatorial areas heat by winds and oceanic currets towards the globe’s higher latitudes.
–
CO2 is a very insignificant for the global temperatures, because the CO2 is a trace gas and its participation is infinitesimal.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, most people fail the realize that arctic amplification is a negative feedback. The actual albedo decrease in the region is negligible and the warming is mostly in the winter when it is not a factor (clouds mostly offset sea ice decline in the region.) What we are actually seeing is temperatures rising far above what is necessary to balance forcing when it cold. The extra shortwave radiation is tiny compared to the increase in outgoing longwave radiation from heat transport and reduced insulation from thinner sea ice.
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1786506551420666337?s=46
Dear author,
These solar activity tendencies and their effects on terrestrial climate are highlighted in the blog including the global warming and occurrences of little ice ages and explained in our website https://solargsm.com.
Here are some recent papers :
Grand solar minima and Mini ice ageshttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
Solar orbital motion, Hallstatt’s cycle and global warminghttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
The summary can be found herehttps://solargsm.com/the-modern-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2053-versus-global-warming/
Kind regards
Valentina Zharkova
Professor of Mathematics
Dear Valentina, thank you for commenting. I am aware of your work. I am of the opinion that we are not headed for a grand solar minimum in the 21st century. My method is different to yours. I do cycle analysis, because solar activity has a cyclic behavior. Mi projection for cycle 25 turned out to be more correct than yours. Cycle 26 should definitely settle the question.
Javier,
Why don’t you publish your method and results in a scientific journal (like Valentina), where they can be vetted by the skepticism and testing of the scientific community?
Because it doesn’t happen that way. Most published papers are not read or discussed and get very few, if any, citations. The way I have chosen I get many thousands of readers. I do not discard publishing scientific articles when I consider that the effort will pay off in terms of readership and impact.
BAB – Judy’s is a public blog. Any scientist anywhere around the world can read it and post a review. The “it isn’t peer reviewed” non-argument is bafflegab. It doesn’t address any of the points Javier has brought to the fore.
Thanks, that is the answer I expected. “It” [scientific publication] doesn’t happen that way” – maybe not for you; It does happen that way all the time for people that actually publish in scientific journals. Apparently you don’t appreciate my encouragement to publish your ideas in the scientific arena.
“Most published papers are not read or discussed and get very few, if any, citations”.
That’s correct, only important papers are widely read and cited. But, If they are important, citations can be over a thousand and 10s of thousands of reads. E.g.: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
Numbers for your books can be compared at ResearchGate. I wish you success (citations and readers) via your chosen path.
“only important papers are widely read and cited”
Popular and important is not the same.
Fleischmann and Pons 1989 cold fusion paper has been cited 1975 times, according to Google Scholar, yet it is wrong.
Clearly, popularity it is not a good way of judging scientific importance.
Javier said:
“Popular and important is not the same.”
I never said anything about “popular”. So I’ll just take that as a deflection to something so obvious that it really needs no comment.
“I wish you success (citations and readers) via your chosen path.”
I doubt it, because my success would come at the expense of your beliefs. But in any way, success is determined by how one defines it. I have already been very successful.
In science, as in many things in life, it is the trip of discovery, not the destination of recognition what makes it worth it. I don’t expect to overturn the climate dogma, I just expect to be mostly right. Time will say.
Your response does not sound very meaningful, sorry.
First point. My analysis include the detection of solar cycles of about 11 years and grand cycles of 330-380 years from the full disk magnetic field of the Sun, which are the own (natural) oscillations of solar magnetic field. And our results for 25+ cycles are compared with the averaged sunspot numbers in recent MNRAS paper 2023 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/521/4/6247/7109272?searchresult=1&login=false.
Second point. The Spoerer minimum we have shown in the paper of 2017 is the artefact in timing detection from C14 isotope produced by the very strong increase of the background radiation because of the explosion of the supernovae Vela Junior at the distance only 600 light years https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04482. see also our reply to objections by Usoskin published in JASTP in 2018https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/zharkova_reply2usoskin_jastp17.pdf.
The current assessment of timing for C14 abundance used the averaged background of cosmic rays applicable to the current century while in the 13-14 century the gamma ray emission from Vela Junior increased this background by thousand times. Vela Junior shows even now, 500 years later the strongest gamma ray source as detected by space instruments. But 500 years ago it was nearly fatal for the Earth. This radiation awaken all frozen bacteria on Earth and caused series of deadly epidemics all over thee world well recorded by the history.
Libby who invented this method ot time measuring from C14 abundances and the background cosmic ray intensity warned people from doing this mistake.. But evidently in vain..
Read the paper and comparison of the temperature measured eat the same time which was maximal while during solar minima it haas to be minimal. Plus compare the ice parameters in Greenland and Antarctic – the latter was affected by the Vela Junior explosion as it happened sat 55 degrees of souther latitude while Greenland was showing usual ice patterns for solar maximum without any signs of minima..
This is a very interesting discussion, but not only for what info it provides, but also for questions it raises. To point to a couple of questions raised:
a) From historical perspective the rise and fall of civilisations appear to be in line with the peaks and throughs/roots of the Eddy cycle. Example: the Greek/Phoenician peaked around 800bce (Homeric min – ? ) and collapsed around root at 300bce.
This link: https://tinyurl.com/3sxsbs7u at fig6 shows increased glacier ablation and lake sedimentation at ~800, and dropping at ~300bce. Similarly for RWP peaked at 173ce (coinciding with minor earth orientation disturbance – measured)
b) Going back in time to 2346bce there is similar but major disturbance (plenty info on this in ancient texts). There is no hint of this in Usoskin “Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints” at that date in fig3,4. This date is a major change in earth orientation (tilt and precession abrupt change) [A precession change/jump from Dec10 2347bce to May 10 2346bce, – meaning sown crops that sprouted in Dec in hours came to harvest climate in May, = major famines, probably what really led to the 4k2 major event.]
A change in tilt to lower, as per before ~3550bce will bring cold the higher latitudes, but great heat (a burning zone) to inter-tropic regions – also referred to in ancient texts.
The sun is important but may not be the one that dictates human fortunes.
Correction to earlier post – sorry.
Not ‘as before 3550bce’ but ‘at 3550bce’.
Thank you, Dr. Zharkova, the talk “Climate and Energy Realists” was fascinating.
Your science has produced observational results. Your sunspot/solar cycle analysis is fascinating. It’s not often we hear evidence for supernovae effecting Earth’s climate directly, it’s disruption of the solar minimum, to Earth’s climate—it’s mind blowing, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMK2QIw-YE
I intend to review your other materials.
Climate science needs more infusion from other scientific disciplines; more solar study should be at the top of this list. I respect your contributions and appreciate your time here in CE, hopefully you will continue to weigh-in.
Centennial solar minima are a product of the synodic cycles of Earth and Venus versus Jupiter and Uranus. This cycle slips slowly over a 1726.62 year cycle, producing two series of grand solar minima, on average every 863.3 years.
When the Earth-Venus inferior conjunctions are in better alignment with Jupiter-Uranus inferior conjunctions (on either side of the Sun), the centennial minima have to be shorter. And when the two pairs are in poorer alignment, the centennial minima have to be longer. It’s that simple.
My discrete modeling shows the current centennial minimum to concern solar cycles 24 and 25 only, but with the next two centennial minima from 2095 and from 2200 being majorly long. The best heliocentric analogue for these two coming GSM, is 3453 years back, from 1365 BC and from 1250 BC, i.e. the late Neolithic collapse.
Excellent post, and links.
I’m particularly enjoying this presentation you made, the meeting of “Climate and Energy Realists”. We need MANY more “energy realists” in this world.
Woke is antithetical to realism, it’s a religion that is destroying cultures, much like fascism did in the early 20th century. Woke religion is a more mighty existential crisis of our time; it’s a righteous religion on a global crusade, it leaves destruction in its wake.
One of the first illustrative points you make leading into this particular discussion is that millions more marginally existing people will die from cold rather than heat waves, the historical record demonstrates this realism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMK2QIw-YE
You cover many subjects that Dr. Curry has presented on CE over the years. Perhaps you would consider a blog post here sometime?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past – Watts Up With That?
Great article. Looking forward to the next two parts. You might also like https://alchristie.substack.com/p/past-climate-extremes
Pingback: Past – Watts Up With That? - News7g
The Scottish Climate and Energy Forum says, “the IPCC do not understand noise or natural variation.” They also have no use for “the null hypothesis” in science. Let’s look at an example. Whether your AGW hypothesis is that humans or aliens cause global warming (Anthropogenic or Alienpogenic theory), the null hypothesis is still the same. Fact: the null hypothesis of AGW — that that all global warming can be explained by natural variation (that all observed climate change is natural) – has never been rejected.
As Einstein would say, on just one experiment can prove it wrong but… ain’t happened yet. Nothing is happening now that hasn’t happened before…
Even if California was hit by catastrophic storms and flooded Sacramento and the population road boats down the streets, you couldn’t blame it on climate change. It already happened,- in 1862. But, what if San Diego flooded in mission valley Rin deep from bank to bank flushing houses and cattle downriver and into the ocean? That already happened- the infamous ‘Hatfield’ flood of 1916?
A devastating Class 5 hit New Orleans, a city that is below sea level and killed thousands. Were those deaths the result of hurricane Katrina or the Bush administration and/or… global warming?
This paper talks about CO2 saturation. Definitely above my pay grade, but I liked the suggestions on physically testing whether CO2 has reached a saturation point. One would think that’s actually what scientists do … experiment, when able, to prove or disprove ideas.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
The saturation idea doesn’t fly because you can always add more CO₂ on top and make the atmosphere more opaque to IR all the way to Venus.
Javier,
Maybe our preferences are shaped by past personal experience. I did a lot of spectrometry, where Beer-Lambert was adopted as the main way for light absorption and a lot of radioactive decay, similar non-linear relations and some heat flow with e^-KT type relationships. I assumed from the start that CO2 absorption of UV was not linear for concentration because I saw no alternative for the accuracy required. I am not sure of which aspect of this saturation you doubt. Geoff S
If you make the atmosphere more opaque to IR (say spectral filling in the water window with increasing CO2 wing absorption), then the atmosphere will get warmer.
As you can see in Fig.1, the absorption is saturated on line-center, but a somewhat larger (2-3x ?) area of the relevant spectrum – in the wings – there can be strong, but not saturated, absorption. Accumulated warming potential will increase well after saturation is reached on line-center. All of line center is absorbed – max spectral GHE, but absorption in the tails continues to grow with increasing CO2 concentration.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
As I said, I’m more interested in the sketch they gave for some experiments to see the actual absorption/saturation of CO2.
But, this is interesting, as well …
In the study (Humlum et al., 2013), the authors demonstrated that peaks of cyclic changes in air and water temperature globally precede peaks of cyclic changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Fig. 12). This finding supports the hypothesis that, as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature. Instead, it suggests that an increase in temperature likely leads to the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans.
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past. | ajmarciniak
Re BA Bushaw (ganon1950)’s posts. As an economist and economic policy adviser, I first used a computer (almost room-sized) for economic modelling in 1966, at the University of Essex, later in UK and Australian governments. For economic issues, we always considered a model to be indicative, rather than definitive. We never looked more than ten years ahead, too much uncertainty. We might say that Option A would be better than B&C, but that was a relativity, we didn’t consider the figures as projections of actual values in, say, ten years.
I was engaged in the warming issue from the 1980s, and the approach was similar – indicating relative possibilities rather than definitive outcomes. I’m now old and decrepit and lack my former skills, but I think that the same cautions apply.
Yes, models (and science) are informative, not definitive. People that think models should be able to predict the future, don’t understand the functioning of climate models, nor non-linear chaotic systems, nor the uncertainty of the future in such systems.
Javier said:
“So, what is the result that these best possible proxies available show? Nothing unusual is going on. OUCH!!! 🤣🤣🤣
So much for the faster than ever warming.”
The best proxies for what is “going on” (present tense) are historical records of temperatures measured with thermometers. And yes, something unusual is going on.
“historical records of temperatures measured with thermometers.”
Thermometers record temperature. Proxies record biological, geological, or chemical processes that are sensitive to temperature in a convoluted way and require the assumption that nothing else unknown affected the recording process.
This assumption is known to be untrue and that is why different proxies are mixed to reduce the impact of the unknowns.
They are two completely different type of data. Their comparison is not conclusive of anything. Plenty of papers discuss the conclusions from proxies on account of seasonality or other changes. They are truly inhomogeneous.
Ice cores are among the most reliable proxies and they say nothing unusual is going on. They record previous changes as big or bigger than the present one, and according to models and theory, they record at the most sensitive place for CO₂-induced warming.
Your favored theory has a serious problem with that, and it cannot explain it.
I’m sorry. When did a prior event place, that had similar growth rate and time signature (and physical causality) as the current event. Your deflections do not change the fact that you can’t identify one. I’ll go with the evidence, or the lack thereof. Thanks for your thoughts and behavior.
Vinther et al. 2009 Renland ice core reaches 2000 and shows that the latest warming is big, but not unique, and there are some bigger ones.
test: pasting a reply did not work. here below:
“Ice cores are among the most reliable proxies”.
Agreed, but very ambiguous. However comparing proxies, eg from polar and equatorial ice is revealing. The inflexion points in the changes show abrupt and opposite changes polar from equatorial. That indicates it cannot be the sun’s doing in big changes to climate. A second point is that the inflection points from ice cores correspond to Eddy cycle inflection points.
But take that further. In the RWP, Eddy peak at precisely 173CE, glacier melt and corresponding abrupt increase in lake sedimentation, corresponded to a Chinese measurement of obliquity that indicated an obliquity disturbance. At that point the ice proxies of Vostok, Gisp2 -and also Kilimanjaro- show a same sudden change, an increase in trend before turning to a sudden fast decrease. However it is so abrupt that the ice proxy cannot tell what it was. In such -and for such – instances the ice proxy is totally blind.
The Chinese measurements were made in just 24 hours, near a summer solstice peak. Unfortunately that record was ignored as an outlier, in favour of one of C Ptolemy’s who had greater clout at the time (now considered faked – its not a new thing).
We have temperature records for central england which tell us the rate of warming was common over the past several centuries, before the GHE was substantial.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Javier Vinós | April 22, 2024 at 11:06 am | Reply
“historical records of temperatures measured with thermometers.”
Thermometers record temperature. Proxies record biological, geological, or chemical processes that are sensitive to temperature in a convoluted way and require the assumption that nothing else unknown affected the recording process.
javier – That is a concept that proponents who are enamored with proxy reconstructions cant seem to grasp.
Proxies that are “high resolution” compared to other proxies remain low resolution compared to instrumental data.
simply cant compare with any degree of confidence
Joe,
I agree. Proxies are interesting and often instructive, but not definitive. So yes, let’s concentrate on what the instrumental record has told us about the present and last couple of centuries.
The instrumental record is not definitive either, it keeps changing from version to version, introducing big increases in temperature from changes in the algorithms used to compute the data. The Pause that resulted in so many scientific studies no longer exists, making those studies and articles worthless.
The instrumental record – values recorded by the instruments – remain unchanged. It is the analysis of that data that changes as further information becomes available.
We have our planet Earth and our Moon orbiting sun.
Earth receives per square metre 28% less solar energy than Moon because of Earth’s higher than Moon’s Albedo (0,306 vs 011).
Yet Earth is on average +68C warmer than Moon.
It looks like a scientific paradox, since Earth’s atmosphere is thin and doesn’t support on average surface the +68C difference.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explains the difference of +68C between our Moon and our planet Earth.
We have consolidated that difference – it is not a scientific paradox any more.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
When comparimg Earth with Moon it is 22% less.
When comparing Moon with Earth it is 28% more.
So it should be read above:
Earth receives per square meter 22% less solar energy than Moon, because of Earth’s higher than Moon’s Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68C warmer than Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Kid, I agree. Instrumental measurements are much better than proxies, which have less accuracy and confidence. But proxies are better than nothing when/where there are no measurements.
Javier,
” The instrumental record is not definitive either, it keeps changing from version to version, introducing big increases in temperature from changes in the algorithms used to compute the data.”
You sure about this??? I am not aware of this happening at all. Big increases in temperature do to reanalysis of the instrument record???? what are you talking about???? There was one method proposed in Cowtan and Way that somewhat eliminated the so-called pause but it actually produced only a very small change, and what’s more, all the other instrument methods remained, are still used, and still show the pause. Also, the satellite data has needed corrections due to orbital shifts, but this is not the instrument record.
Past temperatures keep getting lower.
Absolutely sure.
This is the change in GISS from 2000 version to 2015 version. 0.4°C of warming were introduced between 1880 and 2000.
https://i.imgur.com/8TQRmcB.png
That way it is much easier to reach +1.5°C.
And this is the change between 1997 and 2013 from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT5.
https://i.imgur.com/uwAWI59.png
The instrumental record is anything but stable, which means it is not reliable scientific data. All the hundreds of papers on the pause are now worthless. Wasted time and resources from researchers that trusted the instrumental record as having scientific value.
We do know how human warming looks like.
It’s telling that these “climate change” charlatans only go back to 2011 in search of “extreme” climate events. It’s very convenient to exclude some of the greatest heat waves in recorded history. It’s difficult to trust “scientists” when they pull stuff like this BS out of their arse.
London’s Great Stink of 1858
The Great New York Heat Wave of 1896 – When 10 days of relentless heat baked the Big Apple in August 1896, these abysmal living conditions went from an uncomfortable reality to a death sentence for an estimated 1,300 New Yorkers.
The North American Heat Wave of 1936 – By summer’s end, upward of 5,000 Americans and 1,100 Canadians had died from heat-related causes or drowned while trying to cool off in rivers and lakes.
The Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 – But in the summer of 1995, the Windy City lost approximately 700 residents in just five humid and sweltering days–a staggering mortality rate that exposed the city’s inadequate response system while debunking common assumptions about which groups are most susceptible to heat-related death.
https://www.history.com/news/heat-waves-throughout-history
Researchers first classify a weather event as extreme by putting it in the context of observations of the same type of event in the same area, ideally over a long period of history. Weather can be capricious, so just because an event is extreme doesn’t mean humanity’s greenhouse gas pollution played a role. A possible connection is assessed by using computer models to create two virtual worlds. One of them, the so-called counterfactual world, is built by keeping carbon concentrations constant at a level in the past before people began burning fossil fuels. In the other, actual concentrations are plugged in. Then researchers compare the weather event in the two scenarios. This methodology doesn’t determine whether global warming caused the event — but rather whether it made it more likely, more severe or both. One of these three was the determination in 71% of the more than 500 extreme weather events or trends reviewed by researchers since 2011, according to a count up to August maintained by CarbonBrief.org, a UK-based nonprofit that covers developments in climate science.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-05/how-scientists-link-climate-change-to-extreme-weather
This 1852 article chronicles some extreme events from hundreds of years ago. It’s only common sense that what we are experiencing today has been experienced before. The media make some of their coverage laughable.
These kinds of articles are endless.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017_07_21_20_20_35-down.gif
The national media would be apoplectic covering 300+ heatwave deaths in Michigan today. Proof positive of AGW.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Image1595_shadow.png
There is nothing like A/C to help survive a hot day, preferably run by cheap electricity from cheap natural gas.
Hydro power is nice.
Yep, if you can get it.
In the last 50 years, almost all the warming has been anthropogenic.”
Javier says : Interesting hypothesis, but it lacks evidence. Beautiful hypotheses without evidence tend to be killed by ugly facts.
If nobody looks for evidence other than CO2, we will never find it. Until now, there are no ugly facts and there is no explanation for the recent temperature peak. Not the sun, not CO2, then what ? Intensification of human activities since the 1950’s cannot possibly have an effect ?
The bizarre world of Western academia’s Hot Eorld alarmists simply ignores The human experience. Let’s remember back on the birth of Western knowledge in the context of the most recent hot and cold climates on Earth—e.g., there was an 800-year warm period that peaked about 2100 years ago. The peak was a couple of centuries after a number of Jewish families led by Moses fled Egypt (the Exodus), maybe… 1,313 years before the birth of Christ (BC). After warming peaked there was about 500 years of cooling until the average global temperature would have been about what it is today. After that, cooling continued for another 250 years; and, then temperatures rose over the next 250 years, to about what they are today.
I have a question for Dr. Zharkova, hopefully she’s still following the discussion; about the Spoerer minimum and the extended effects of Vela Juniors gamma rays.
You described the profound effects Vela Junior’s gamma rays had on the Spoerer minimum, it dramatically diminished its temperature curve. I’m interested in the extended effects this supernova’s gamma rays had on Earth’s temperature leading up to the Industrial Revolution.
Within your talk, “Climate and Energy Realists”, you stated that the gamma rays from Vela Junior, while greatly reduced today, are still the highest source of measurable gamma rays from space. While I presume its effects today are negligible relative to Earth’s temperature, there must be a certain period beyond the Spoerer minimum where Earth’s temperature remained demonstrably affected? Is there a calculation for the duration of its effect on Earth’s mean temperature beyond the Spoerer minimum?
The trace gas CO2 cannot warm Earth, because Earth’s atmosphere is a thin atmosphere, and because Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t act as some kind of a warm blanket.
CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s thin atmosphere.
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect (because theoretically there should be some, since Earth’s atmosphere consists from substance, but it is very rare and thin substance)
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is something about
0.4 degrees Celsius.
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is some ~ 400 ppm, a very small content. For comparison it is 1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Apples and oranges: “air” (O2, N2, A) do not absorb infrared; CO2, water, and other greenhouse gases DO absorb infrared radiation. A book or class on molecular spectroscopy might help.
Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History
https://rclutz.com/2024/04/05/our-weather-extremes-are-customary-in-history/
Jim2,
“Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History”
Yes, but the question is frequency and intensity.
The point is all of the known excursions must be included in any analysis.
If the Earth has experienced heat waves before 2011 that were as bad or worse than anything happening today, that blows a hole in the hypothesis that additional CO2 is making heat waves worse. Of course, we face a quality-of-data issue for periods before 1900 or so, but any analysis of heatwaves should at least mention notable heat waves of the past and attempt to quantify them. This is just an aspect of honest inclusion of data that may counter the hypothesis.
Jim2,
“If”- LOL.
1936
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 24, 2024 at 6:46 pm |
Jim2,
“Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History”
Babs response to Jim2 – “Yes, but the question is frequency and intensity.”
Its worth noting that after adjusting for observational deficiencies, there has been no discernable change in trend of extreme weather over the last 150 or so years. 150+ years of warming with no discernable trend in frequency or intensity of extreme weather, yet climate scientists predict an increase in both frequency and intensity. empirical evidence in question
Joey,
Is that just a personal made up delusion, or do you have some evidence?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
“Over the last decade, the world warmed by 0.25 °C, in-line with the roughly linear trend since the 1970s. Here we present updated analyses showing that this seemingly small shift has led to the emergence of heat extremes that would be virtually impossible without anthropogenic global warming. Also, record rainfall extremes have continued to increase worldwide . . . ”
The increases have been predicted and OBSERVED, and with little doubt, they will continue to increase – that’s science (not unsupported denial).
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 25, 2024 at 9:47 am |
Joey,
Is that just a personal made up delusion, or do you have some evidence?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
“Over the last decade, the world warmed by 0.25 °C, in-line with the roughly linear trend since the 1970s.
BABy’ scientist – cherry picking start dates again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change#/media/File:1951+_Percent_of_global_area_at_temperature_records_-_Seasonal_comparison_-_NOAA.svg
from
“Mean Monthly Temperature Records Across the Globe /Time series of Global Land and Ocean Areas at Record Levels for October from 1951–2023”. NCEI.NOAA.gov
BABy
1) your second time citing a study using cherrypicked start dates
2) two studies with weak adjustments for observational deficiencies.
1936 redux.
BABy-
Oops – We were discussing changes in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events
Did you change the subject to hide the fact you were wrong on that subject?
Joey says:
“BABy’ scientist – cherry picking start dates again.”
You’re just deflecting now. You have nothing – where are your references? I did no cherry-picking; I referenced a paper and quoted from its abstract. And since added more relevant references, You might try it, otherwise, you are an ignorant waste of time that thinks name-calling is good argumentation.
Except for responding to your idiocies, I have been addressing climate change and temperature extremes – you are the one deflecting to personal attacks and name-calling. It is no surprise that you dismiss reviewed papers from Nature and datasets from NCEI, while you can’t provide any of your own. I understand your apparent objective to attack my comments wherever you can, but you’re not very good at it.
BAB
I am reposting my original comment on the subject and your response.
joethenonclimatescientist | April 25, 2024 at 9:18 am |
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 24, 2024 at 6:46 pm |
Jim2,
“Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History”
Babs response to Jim2 – “Yes, but the question is frequency and intensity.”
Its worth noting that after adjusting for observational deficiencies, there has been no discernable change in trend of extreme weather over the last 150 or so years. 150+ years of warming with no discernable trend in frequency or intensity of extreme weather, yet climate scientists predict an increase in both frequency and intensity. empirical evidence in question
BaB:
Below is your first response which includes the first insult in the thread, along with your intentional change of subject to hide the fact that you were wrong.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 25, 2024 at 9:47 am |
Joey,
Is that just a personal made up delusion, or do you have some evidence?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
“Over the last decade, the world warmed by 0.25 °C, in-line with the roughly linear trend since the 1970s.
Your subsequent responses continued with your typical insulting comments.
BAB – with all your insulting comments – not once did address the substance of the original comment
Joe,
Your chronology interesting, but falsely described. This thread started with (notice the – Reply – who you are replying to, to stay within the thread):
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 24, 2024 at 2:28 pm | Reply
Apples and oranges: “air” (O2, N2, A) do not absorb infrared; CO2, water, and other greenhouse gases DO absorb infrared radiation. A book or class on molecular spectroscopy might help.
The first reply (and obviously your first reply) was the deflection:
“jim2 | April 24, 2024 at 6:20 pm |
Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History
https://rclutz.com/2024/04/05/our-weather-extremes-are-customary-in-history/”
Like I said, you’re not very good at it – you hijacked my comment on atmospheric photophysics.
As for: “Is that just a personal made up delusion, or do you have some evidence?” Apparently, you don’t have any evidence, so . . .
PS – In review, the first insult/name-calling was “Babs”.
Bab – Crosscheck your chronology – you responded to Jim
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 25, 2024 at 12:52 pm |
Joe,
Your chronology interesting, but falsely described. This thread started with (notice the – Reply – who you are replying to, to stay within the thread):
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 24, 2024 at 2:28 pm | Reply
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 24, 2024 at 6:46 pm |
Jim2,
“Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History”
Yes, but the question is frequency and intensity.
Joe,
“BAB – with all your insulting comments – not once did address the substance of the original comment”
I addressed Christos’ comment about CO2 only being a trace compared to the major components of air. If you didn’t understand it, and deflected to something else, that’s your problem.
Joe,
That’s right – you just quoted jim2’s deflection, and gave your opinion on it.
Bab – is there a course taught in climate science dishonesty or does it come natural to you.
its the 4th or 5th time you denied responding to Jim2.
Same with your citation of the deceptive data from table 3A by claiming it was from table 3B. did you forget your dishonesty from that discussion.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 25, 2024 at 2:26 pm |
Joe,
That’s right – you just quoted jim2’s deflection, and gave your opinion on it.
BaBy – Why do you such a problem telling the truth?
I quoted your comment to Jim2 – and included jim2’s comment so that my response would not be misinterpreted. ( I prefer full disclosure and honesty).
My comment directly addressed your comment, not jim2’s. You chose to dispute my analysis with two non relevant links which did not dispute my points (ie your typical behavior when you are wrong). You have yet to provide any studies, research or other data to support your response to Jim2,
Joe said:
“My comment directly addressed your comment, not jim2’s. You chose to dispute my analysis with two non relevant links which did not dispute my points (ie your typical behavior when you are wrong). You have yet to provide any studies, research or other data to support your response to Jim2,”
My comment (the subject of the thread) was:
“Apples and oranges: “air” (O2, N2, A) do not absorb infrared; CO2, water, and other greenhouse gases DO absorb infrared radiation. A book or class on molecular spectroscopy might help.”
That was my original comment. Deflect all you want. Anything you have said has been about Jim2’s deflective comment:
“Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History”
Both of you are deflecting from my comment on how the GHE works. Nonetheless, I responded to your deflective comments with references relevant to them (try it). As for not responding to you – quite often nothing to respond to – just personal opinions without supporting evidence.
No more time for angry and insecure non-scientists that don’t/can’t support their opinions. Bye bye Joey.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
“Apples and oranges: “air” (O2, N2, A) do not absorb infrared; CO2, water, and other greenhouse gases DO absorb infrared radiation. A book or class on molecular spectroscopy might help.”
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climate models , scribble scribble.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/climate-models-epic-fail.png
Get ready for your energy costs to go up. Thanks, Biden!
Overall, the measure could further drive the nation toward emission-free renewable power and hasten coal plant closures at a time when artificial intelligence, data centers and vehicle electrification are driving up demand. Consumption at US data centers alone is poised to triple from 2022 levels, to as much as 390 terawatt hours by the end of the decade, according to the Boston Consulting Group. The dynamic has prompted warnings that electric reliability is at stake.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-25/biden-s-power-plant-pollution-rule-collides-with-soaring-demand
My electricity cost has been .06¢ KWh since 2012. It will still be .06¢ KWh in 2032 no mater how much the AI data centers and crypto miners suck out of your pocket. Thanks solar power!
I’m happy it worked out for you. I wonder what your fellow citizens had to on installation and now have to pay for your solar power?
Vote for jim2 !
He will abolish the EPA all Public Utility Commissions and let the free market rule.
or
Vote for jacksmith4tx !
He will support cutting edge technologies that will free the common man from the slavery of centralized power systems and the elites that own them.
Microgrids for everyone.
Jack
Answer Jim’s point. How much of the system cost was subsidized including installation?
Rob, I documented the whole thing on this blog several times since 2012 so go check it out. Yes I did get a income tax credit. Do you deduct mortgage interests? Using the same logic I guess you like seeing poor renters getting screwed?
Jack
Nice deflection. Worthy of BABy. You wasnt me you search years of this blog vs you answering in a paragraph.
After years of debate about what is causing the problem, solar or CO2, the real culprit is coming to light.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMAfS9LXoAAipjk?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
BA Bushaw,
“…“air” (O2, N2, A) do not absorb infrared; ”
–
Interesting!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As an indication of what science is up against these days, I posted a link to this article on my Mastodon account, and within 24 hours my account was suspended.
“Reason: Content violates the following community guidelines
Do not share information widely-known to be false and misleading”
What could be false and misleading about solar dynamics?
The true cost of roof-top solar …
A couple of weeks ago in Australia the chief of Alinta Energy admitted in a big speech that the industry needs to be honest with the public about the costs of the transition. This marks a big shift from the “cheaper and cleaner” misinformation which the renewables industry was practically built on. Jeff Dimery had a stark warning — his company bought a large old coal plant in Victoria for a billion dollars in 2018, and it powers one fifth of Victoria. But to replace that today with renewables would cost $10 billion.
But he also laid bare the crushing effect subsidized rooftop solar PV panels are having on the transition. No news outlets seemed to appreciate the implications of this. Fully one in three Australian homes now has solar panels, but they are all dumping power on the grid at the same time pushing wholesale prices into negative territory that burns the other generators. The midday solar glut, as he calls it, means no one wanted to invest in large scale renewables. But as night follows day, surely that which ruins the market for large scale renewables would also ruin it for large scale fossil fuel plants too? The subsidized solar panels are vandalizing the whole market.
Skeptics who have been predicting this all along, note that the same people who cheered every time a coal plant was struck down are now wading through an impenetrable swamp of their own creation. The same subsidies that hurt coal and gas power, now wipe out the large (subsized) wind and solar plants too. It’s takes some chutzpah to complain about solar subsidies ruining the market for other generators which are also subsidized.
Someone let a plague of solar-locusts on our grid. They eat the profits out of all the reliable providers, which close down. We are actively sabotaging the entire grid — killing off the parts that made it work.
This from Jo Nova’s site.
The site addr is joannenova dot com dot au .
Hi Javier. Thank you for your very interesting articles. How can I contact you? Are you able to share the data of your temperature reconstruction from Marcott proxies?
My contact address is in my books.
Of course I’ll share my data. It is a scientific duty so others can replicate the work.
Javier,
Let’s put measured data aside for a moment.
Observations of weather/cimate on people are sources of data to distinguish if causes were linked to solar or something else.
Jim2 (above) mentioned the deadly 1896 New York heatwave (August 4 to 14). That year also saw perhaps Australia’s strongest heatwave, in January in the S-E of the country.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-21/1896-heatwave-killed-435-climate-scientists-cant-compare-today/11809998
We have two major killing events in one year, 8 months apart on different sides of the globe, to raise interest. What mechanisms can we propose to explain this? How can we validly compare these events from a time when data are sparse, in 1896, to (say) the heatwaves of 2023 -4?
Incidentally, both places were in major droughts at the time. What other observations or deductions can be invoked?
BTW, the Australian historic data on measured temperatures has been severly adjusted by the curator, BOM, who are now using adjusted temperatures to arrive at their conclusions, long favouring CO2 control knob ideas and allowing researchers everywhere to arrive at findings that conflict with the raw data picture. Geoff S
“What mechanisms can we propose to explain this?”
Rossby waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSNllMdW84w
4-minutes video
Javier … can you give a brief description of Rossby, planetary and gravity waves? Their similarities and differences? Or will you be doing this is the next two parts? Thanks.
I will not be getting too much into waves because they are too complex for the level I am making these articles/videos. I will be mentioning them in the third one.
There are many types of waves attending different criteria to classify them. All of them are the product of a force and a restoring mechanism.
In the case of gravity waves, the restoring mechanism is the gravitational field. In the case of Rossby waves the restoring mechanism is the gradient of potential vorticity, which is the result of the Coriolis effect and potential temperature, which is the temperature that a parcel of air would have if brought to 1000 hPa. I try to explain this in my books but it is not possible in a video for the masses.
Planetary waves are a special kind of Rossby waves that have a huge size. Their wavenumber is very low (1-5). This number indicates the number of peaks and throughs they have in a circle around the planet. Planetary waves tend to be fixed or stationary, while other waves tend to be transient or traveling ones.
Atmospheric blocking, which is the cause of most major extreme weather events, is the result of Rossby waves impacting the jet stream.
A possible relationship between a solar effect on climate and planetary waves goes back 50 years.
Thanks. Yes, “Solving the Climate Puzzle”, Chapter 14, Box 10. Atmospheric Waves. Waves and the QBO are a critical puzzle piece for the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis, as shown at the end of the chapter. Very interesting, Javier.
“Atmospheric blocking, which is the cause of most major extreme weather events, is the result of Rossby waves impacting the jet stream.”
That seems to be an overly broad claim based on the evidence.
“That seems to be an overly broad claim based on the evidence.”
Are you aware of the evidence presented by Nakamura and Huang?
Nakamura, N. and Huang, C.S., 2018. Atmospheric blocking as a traffic jam in the jet stream. Science, 361(6397), pp.42-47.
“Atmospheric blocking due to anomalous, persistent meandering of the jet stream often causes weather extremes in the midlatitudes. Despite its ubiquity, the onset mechanism of blocking is not well understood. Here we demonstrate with meteorological data that there exists a close analogy between blocking and traffic congestion on a highway, and that they can be described by a common mathematical theory. The theory predicts that the jet stream has a capacity for the flux of wave activity (a measure of meandering), just as the highway has traffic capacity, and when it is exceeded, blocking manifests as congestion. Stationary waves modulate the jet stream’s capacity for transient waves and localize block formation. Climate change likely affects blocking frequency by modifying the jet stream’s proximity to capacity.”
When the flux of wave activity exceeds its limit the jet stream develops blocking, and waves also decide where the blocking takes place.
Javier,
In simple terms, would it be correct that the high temperatures in 1896 at New York and S-E Australia would be offset by cooler temperatures elsewhere because a Rossby wave mechanism does not involve short term overall energy change?
So can we further assume that heatwaves can and do happen with mechanisms unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Geoff S
Yes. An atmospheric blocking means the weather stops changing, so whatever you were having can build up to an extreme weather event. If it rains it floods. If it is hot it builds up to a very long heat wave. Plenty of opportunities to blame climate change.
Pingback: Woher wir wissen, dass die Sonne Motor des Klimawandels ist. Teil 1: die Vergangenheit | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Tony B. was a fount of historical weather information. I haven’t seen him around lately, but he probably has more historical instances of heatwaves.
@Javier Vinós Pl remind me when you post parts2 & 3
A CME (coronal mass ejection) traveling towards Earth at over 900 miles per second, August 2012, delivered the kind of punch to the Earth’s magnetosphere that can have big effects on Earth’s climate.
‘In 2012, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average annual temperature of 55.3°F was 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and was the warmest year in the 1895-2012 period of record for the nation. The 2012 annual temperature was 1.0°F warmer than the previous record warm year of 1998.’ ~NOAA, Jan 8, 2013
(Annual 2012 National Climate Report)
The glass thermometer wasn’t even invented till the mid 16th century. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that, ‘methodical thermometer-based records began.’ Unfortunately but very obvious to all, the modern instrument record has been corrupted by the North bills was tarmac and uhi effects as a result of locating official thermometers at places such as airports and big cities.
It has just recently become more obvious, although obvious all along to scientific skeptics of global warming alarmism, that Western academics are not anti-intellectual, nor even anti-modernity- they’re anti-American.
The climate crisis has long been defined by its lies: From the original sin of science denial, to Tony Abbott’s confected carbon tax panic, to the latest yellowcake straw man. But the most damaging porky of all might be that the transition to renewable energy will be easy.
Government messaging has propagated this myth, vacillating between the torpid technocracy of targets, acronyms and megawatt hours and the sunny spin that promises “a cheaper, cleaner energy future!”.
Both gloss over the hard truth that fundamentally changing the way Australia produces, shares and uses energy is hugely disruptive, particularly in the regions where new infrastructure is earmarked for land and sea.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/23/renewable-energy-transition-australia-labor-government-net-zero
By night (without the SUN) it’s cold… By day (with SUN) it’s hot!
Simple. This is how SUN affects the “climate”.
‘This reductionist approach [of government scientists] is misguided since the model [climatists’ General Circulation models] will never be able to be correctly evaluated. To overcome such a paradox, we followed a holistic approach that analyzes the Sun, atmospheric circulation, Earth’s rotation and sea temperature as a single unit (ut unum sint): the arrival on the Earth of fronts of hydrodynamic shock waves during epochs of strong ejection of particles from Sun gives rise to a squeezing of the Earth’s magnetosphere and to a deceleration of zonal atmospheric circulation which, like a torque, causes the Earth’s rotation to decelerate which, in turn, causes a decrease in sea temperature. Under this holistic approach, the turbulence of solar wind and the zonal atmospheric wind behave cumulatively rather than instantaneously, where energy inputs are first conveniently accumulated and then transmitted…’
(Adriano Mazzarella, Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 181-184)
Wags – From your link:
“Application of this holistic model allows us to predict a gradual decline in global warming starting from the current [2008] decade.”
Let’s see how that worked out:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly
It has been warming since 1860 (i.e., since the end of the, Little Ice Age).
More and more weather stations consume electricity to trnsmit data, so they rise the temperature; even more, if microwave (cellphone) is applied
We have our planet Earth and our Moon orbiting sun.
Earth receives per square metre 28% less solar energy than Moon, because of Earth’s higher than Moon’s Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68°C warmer than Moon.
The air (O2, N2, Ar) do not absorb infrared; only water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and some other, some other even more minor greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation.
This looks like a scientific paradox, since Earth’s atmosphere is thin and transparent and cannot support on average surface the +68°C difference.
And this is NOT a violation of the 1st LOT (the First Law of Thermodynamics), because NATURE does not violate the laws of physics.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explains the difference of +68°C between our Moon and our planet Earth.
We have reconciled that difference – it is not a scientific paradox any more.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Needed for EVs, the grid, and AI; Dr. Copper is soaring. Could hobble the entire “green” energy show.
Copper’s surge to $10,000 a ton just days after the bombshell news that BHP Group is trying to buy Anglo American Plc is highlighting a core disconnect at the heart of the industry: miners just aren’t building enough mines.
The biggest producers all want to increase copper output to take advantage of rising demand in electric vehicles, grid infrastructure and data centers. BHP has made its $39 billion proposal to buy Anglo American in large part because the world’s biggest miner wants to grow in copper.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-28/bhp-mega-bid-and-10-000-copper-expose-mining-s-biggest-problem
That’s all but impossible to reach so efficiency, recycling and substitution will all play a role, though supply will still have to rise sharply. CRU, a metals consultant, sees demand increasing about 40% by 2050 even if cleaner technologies aren’t rolled out aggressively.
All that expected growth has made copper more expensive. Prices are 50% higher today than they were before the pandemic. To avoid even more steep increases and the clean energy bottleneck that would come with them, there’s been a rush to find new technologies that can either boost the supply of copper or reduce its use.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-26/bhp-bid-for-anglo-american-shows-copper-demand-will-rise-need-for-solutions
During the Great Stink of London, temperatures hit 118 °F (48 C). This occurred when CO2 levels were around 285 ppm. Any attribution of heatwaves to CO2 levels must take this fact into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
For context, this is comparable to the much ballyhooed “heat waves” in Pakistan and India.
jim2,
“During the Great Stink of London, temperatures hit 118 °F”
This is the actual wikipedia sentence: ” In June 1858 the temperatures in the shade in London averaged 34–36 °C (93–97 °F)—rising to 48 °C (118 °F) in the sun.”
IN THE SUN.
let me repeat: IN THE SUN.
so no, the temperature never came close to 118 because, as we both know, temperatures are always measured in the shade. and you complain about cherry-picked data when you just blatantly fabricated a pants-on-fire falsehood?
by the way, i went to the link because anyone with common sense should know the temperature in london never reached 118. In fact, it’s all time high temperature was in 2022, and was 104, thanks, as we now know, to increased co2 in the atmosphere.
DanB | May 1, 2024 at 11:26 pm | Reply
by the way, i went to the link because anyone with common sense should know the temperature in london never reached 118. In fact, it’s all time high temperature was in 2022, and was 104, thanks, as we now know, to increased co2 in the atmosphere.
Dan- All to increased co2? no attribution to UHI? Not much concrete in London in 1858, 3x population increase?
No attribution from increase warming from the end of the LIA?
Massive new nuclear power plant finally comes on line. WSJ free article from my subscription: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/a-massive-u-s-nuclear-plant-is-finally-complete-it-might-be-the-last-of-its-kind-0c0f6e44?st=wyho37ljhlsinkc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
More heatwaves before 1960.
1540 European drought – Extreme drought and heatwave lasting 11 months in Europe.
July 1743 heatwave in China – Beijing reached 44.4 °C (111.9 °F) on July 25, higher than any modern records. 11,400 people reportedly died.[1]
July 1757 heatwave – Europe, hottest summer in Europe since 1540 and until 2003.[2][3][4]
1808 United Kingdom heat wave
1881 North American heat wave[5]
1896 Eastern North America heat wave – killed 1,500 people in August 1896.
1900 – historical heatwave of the center of Argentina between the first eight days of February 1900 known as “the week of fire” affected the cities of Buenos Aires and Rosario with temperatures of up to 37 °C (99 °F) but with a very high index of humidity that elevated the sensation of heat to 49 °C (120 °F) severely affecting the health of people and causing at least 478 fatalities.
20th century
1901 – 1901 eastern United States heat wave killed 9,500 in the Eastern United States.
1906 – during the 1906 United Kingdom heat wave which began in August and lasted into September broke numerous records. On September 2 temperatures reached 35.6 °C (96.1 °F), which still holds the September record, however some places beat their local record during September 1911 and September 2016.
1911 – 1911 Eastern North America heat wave killed between 380 and 2,000 people.
1911 – 1911 United Kingdom heat wave was one of the most severe periods of heat to hit the country with temperatures around 36 °C (97 °F). The heat began in early July and didn’t let up until mid-September where even in September temperatures were still up to 33 °C (91 °F). It took 79 years for temperature higher to be recorded in the United Kingdom during 1990 United Kingdom heat wave.
1911 – 41,072 deaths were reported during a heat wave in France.
1913 – in July, the hottest heat wave ever struck California. During this heat wave, Death Valley recorded a record high temperature of 57 °C (134 °F) at Furnace Creek, which still remains the highest ambient air temperature recorded on Earth.[6][7]
1921 – Hottest July on record across Eastern Canada and parts of the Northeastern US, part of a very warm year in those places. Parts of the United Kingdom also saw recording breaking heat, also part of a very warm year. The Central England Temperature for July was 18.5 °C (65.3 °F), which was the 8th warmest since records began in 1659, and the warmest since 1852. The year of 1921 was the warmest on record at the time but has since been eclipsed by 15 other years.[8]
1923–1924 – during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, the Western Australian town of Marble Bar reached 38 °C (100 °F).[9]
1930s – Almost every year from 1930 to 1938 featured historic heat waves and droughts somewhere in North America, part of the Dust Bowl years.
1936 – 1936 North American heat wave during the Dust Bowl, followed one of the coldest winters on record—the 1936 North American cold wave. Massive heat waves across North America were persistent in the 1930s, many mid-Atlantic/Ohio valley states recorded their highest temperatures during July 1934. The longest continuous string of 38 °C (100 °F) or higher temperatures was reached for 101 days in Yuma, Arizona during 1937 and the highest temperatures ever reached in Canada were recorded in two locations in Saskatchewan in July 1937.
1947 – record breaking temperature of 37.6 °C (99.7 °F) in Paris recorded on June 26, 1947.[10]
1950s – Prolonged severe drought and heat wave occurred in the early 1950s throughout the central and southern United States. Every year from 1952 to 1955 featured major heat waves across North America. In some areas it was drier than during the Dust Bowl and the heat wave in most areas was within the top five on record. The heat was particularly severe in 1954 with 22 days of temperatures exceeding 38 °C (100 °F) covering significant parts of eleven states. On 14 July, the thermometer reached 47 °C (117 °F) at East St. Louis, Illinois, which remains the record highest temperature for that state.[11][12][13]
October 1952 – Romania was hit by very hot weather. Temperatures reached 39.0 °C (102.2 °F) on 2 October, with Bucharest reaching 35.2 °C (95.4 °F). Temperatures on the night of 2–3 October were also just under 26 °C (79 °F).
1955 – 1955 United Kingdom heat wave was a period of hot weather that was accompanied by drought. In some places it was the worst drought on record, more severe than 1976 and 1995.
1960 – on 2 January, Oodnadatta, South Australia hit 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) degrees, the highest temperature ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere and Oceania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
Thanks for the reference. Why do you truncate at 1960? The article gives data up through 2023. Oh, maybe because it lists ~15 times as many heat waves after 1960, as before 1960.
Here is what NOAA and EPA say has happened with heat waves in the US since 1960.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Cherry picked start date
The definition of anti science
BA – you know better but you continue to use deceptive stats.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293872/us-heat-wave-index/
https://www.weatherandradar.com/weather-news/weather-history-list-of-past-major-us-heatwaves–6d94c950-313b-4fa7-a13f-8d64d4187cad
Joe, Those are nice cherry-picked anecdotes. Thanks. Real statistics and full data sets can be found in my prior references and here:
https://www.globalchange.gov/indicators/global-surface-temperatures
If you don’t like them, complain to the sources.
BA – the discussion was on the frequency of heat waves.
Why did you change the subject with a non relevant link that doesnt discuss the subject?
Could you not justify the use of cherrypicked start dates
Joe,
I copied the wrong sub-link. Here is the correct one (same source).
https://www.globalchange.gov/indicators/heat-waves
We have better records for recent weather. The past records are sparse.
Also, you have to read carefully. For example, a 75 F bit of weather was classified as a heat wave. Really?? We don’t have anomalies like that for the past, so can’t compare.
I don’t see any data links in your heatwave article.
Jim,
look at the first reference (EPA) they give references and links to data sources. Largely based on:
The second one lists resources at the bottom and “reports” at the top. Also:
“The year 1961 was chosen as the starting point because most major cities have collected consistent data since at least that time. The methodology for this indicator is based on Habeeb et al. 2015.”
The EPA link is a bridge to nowhere.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 30, 2024 at 1:20 pm |
Joe,
I copied the wrong sub-link. Here is the correct one (same source).
https://www.globalchange.gov/indicators/heat-waves
BA – you were just criticized for providing a study using a cherrypicked start date. So what do you do – you provide the link to a study using the same cherrypicked start date
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 30, 2024 at 2:43 pm |
“The year 1961 was chosen as the starting point because most major cities have collected consistent data since at least that time. The methodology for this indicator is based on Habeeb et al. 2015.”
Very convenient excuse for picking a start date – A little too convenient. Bet the study authors did not want the readers (advocates) to know that the 1960’s was a low point
Bet the study authors did not want the readers to know about the heat wavers of the 1930’s
Other than that…
jim2,
“The EPA link is a bridge to nowhere.”
Read the section, “Technical Documentation”, if you are able. Also, there are plenty of other sources out there, if you are capable of literature research beyond cherry-picking a part of a table in a wiki article.
I have a life and have neither the time nor intention of replicating their work. If they make such sweeping claims, it is their responsibility to back it up with data. And that data should be easy to find.
Jim2,
Thanks for admitting that you don’t/can’t do literature research – just complain when others can.
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/f/1440/files/2020/09/Habeeb_2015.pdf
4th time BAB links a heat wave study with a cherrypicked start year of 1961
In all fields of science, cherrypicked data is an absolute No-No. However in climate science it is worshipped.
Note – a few obvious red flags
1) the decade of the 1960’s/70’s is a known low heat wave decade since the end of the LIA
2) The lastest study posted deals with heat waves in cities. Cities have grown in size which means the UHI exaberates the heat waves. That factor is poorly adjusted in the study.
Other than that ….
Joe,
“In all fields of science, cherrypicked data is an absolute No-No.”
Do you mean jim’s cutting off data after 1960 that is in the same table that he copied and pasted?
You are not a scientist, and apparently don’t understand that all datasets have a start and an end – that does not make them cherry-picked [sc]. If that’s all you’ve got to pick on, you don’t have much.
And truncated data sets are not an absolute No-No. All that is needed is an explanation for why the given truncation is used. The cited papers do that – you’ve got nothing. If you don’t understand science and can’t read the papers, maybe you should refrain from stupid comments about them.
For these sweeping, breath-taking, climate articles; it is best to assume it is BS until proof is crystal clear. They should have liked data to every claim. All we get is broad references. What a crock.
That should have been: “They should have LINKED data to every claim.”
Copying the entire article wouldn’t be “fair use.” You are the King of Strawman Arguments.
Nobody is asking you to copy the entire article. You copied a cherry-picked section of a data table.
“All we get is broad references. What a crock”
Guess you aren’t interested in reading articles or accessing. Supplemental data.
Science does not provide proofs, so presumably you think it is all BS. What a surprise.
King of the Straw Man!
My arguments come from publicly available articles and peer reviewed papers, and other references that are cited in those publications.
If you were to copy and paste the whole table from Wiki, it would be clear that it agrees with the conclusion of the articles I cited.
Jim,
So you’ve got nothing. Thanks for making that clear.
Polly: “My arguments come from publicly available articles”
Definition: If the State says it, it’s fact. If peer review says it (entirely funded by state); it’s fact. One doesn’t criticize the state, naturally; such makes this ideological rationale self buttressing.
Intellectualizing while at the same time channeling the mob for relevant critical thinking is parroting; however, said archetypes are the quintessential intellectual posers. They’re often well educated sycophantical idealists who are best defined as bookish useful idiots; these make the best ideological disciples of all.
Consensus, one easily influenced by centeralized confluence; one whom enforces understanding of all centralized confluences–these are the global disciples who parrot the word. Consensus is god for the authoritarianism, it’s a truism.
Polly, check.
Pretty sophmoronic of you BABs.
Your dollars my friend,
are blowin’ in the wind …
US wind power slipped last year for the first time in a quarter-century due to weaker-than-normal Midwest breezes, underscoring the challenge of integrating volatile renewable energy sources into the grid.
Power produced by turbines slipped 2% in 2023, even after developers added 6.2 gigawatts of new capacity, according to a government report Tuesday. The capacity factor for the country’s wind fleet — how much energy it’s actually generating versus its maximum possible output — declined to an eight-year low of 33.5%. Most of that decline was driven by the central US, a region densely dotted with turbines.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/why-did-us-wind-power-production-drop-for-the-first-time-in-25-years
None of the climatists who loath deniers of official climate change science have ever actually suffered from, global warming. Just the reverse: fear of global warming is solely a Western phenomenon. Only those who are the most dependent on the benefits of modernity, and the continuance of it, are pushing the idea that all of the rest of us should now fear the effects of it.
The solar EM energy INTERACTS with planet surface matter.
The Earth’s surface has a different distribution of land and oceanic waters areas between Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
There is much more land on the Northern Hemisphere, and there is much more oceanic waters on the Southern Hemisphere.
–
Thus, along with all three Milankovitch cycles, we have the solar EM energy INTERACTION with surface the differentiated results.
In that consideration, the orbital Eccentricity combined with the Earth’s rotational axis Precession play the major deterministic role.
In our times Earth’s Perihelion almost coincides with the Southern Hemispher’s summer solstice.
What actually happens, as the combination-result of all three Milankovitch cycles, and the solar EM energy INTERACTION with surface, is that when the Northern Hemisphere is in cool summers, the Souther 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!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Obviously some do believe more not less CO2 is the devil’s work and can only lead to disaster. They must believe plants breath in pollutants to survive and humans breath out pollutants. The war against CO2 has turned into a war against humanity by conservationist catastrophists, radical environmentalists and fundamentalist global warming alarmists, all facilitated by socialist Western academia. Humanity needs more not less energy.
As we see unfolding in liberal Blue State campuses today, the Leftist US population is getting dumber not smarter. They will be the last to appreciate the fact that the idea of an average global temperature is as meaningful as the average of all the telephone numbers in NYC and that whether the globe gets warmer or cooler, more not less energy will be needed to survive.
The GWPF will be publishing a full video of Judith’s “insightful lecture” shortly.
Nice
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMkBTFUbcAAlPO_?format=jpg&name=large
Looking at the long term Central England Temperature record, the hottest modern (annual) point on it is only 0.5 hotter than those in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File:20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean,_beginning_in_1659).png
Read whatever you want into single-point noise. The first figure in your Wiki reference clearly shows that the running average (on climatically significant timescale) annual global temperature has risen at least 1.2 C since 1900.
So what? Are you claiming humanity didnt do well during this same timeframe?
No, I’m claiming GMST has risen by at least 1.2 C since 1900.
Human beings aren’t exposed to the running average of temperature, they live in the noise.
Jim,
That’s right, humans are exposed to all the noise and extrema that make up the running averages. When the average is higher, so are the extrema, and so are human deaths.
ganon
While this brand new study (4/24/24) addresses the uncertainty and lack of reliable data for a much longer period (CE) vs since 1900, the criticisms are applicable to any subset. Some believe we know more than is possible to know, especially with the lack of spatial coverage. Unless you are into just making up numbers.
“ Regarding global temperature reconstructions specifically, we also highlight the following limitations that must continue to be contextualized in consensus reports on CE temperature reconstructions: (i) warm season biases due to the dominance of tree-ring records during the CE, (ii) spatial biases in proxy sampling, with a persistent lack of high-resolution proxy records from the tropics and SH, which are needed for accurately representing lower-latitude and SH temperatures over the past 2000 years, (iii) the likely loss of variability when including time-uncertain and smoothed proxies in a large-scale reconstruction, (iv) the potential limited ability of conventional tree-ring records to capture millennial-scale trends in climate, and (v) the need to more accurately estimate reconstruction uncertainties that reflect changes in replication and statistical model fidelity of the underlying proxy network back in time (a constant uncertainty range back in time is unlikely to accurately represent the increasing uncertainties that exist).”
“ The above uncertainties remain relevant, universal, and critical in the context of producing large-scale reconstructions of climate over the CE. These issues were overlooked by the rendition of global temperature reconstructions drafted by the IPCC in 2021 and they were also not addressed in the accompanying report discussion.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01371-1
Even with the use of thermometers available in 1900, massive amounts of land and ocean were not being measured in 1900.
Human deaths don’t correlate only with temperature, they correlate better with technological progress. Cheap energy for air conditioning has been a game changer in that regard. Adaptation is the key.
kid,
Paleo reconstructions of the CE are instructive, but not definitive – only qualitative agreement between different studies. I prefer to pay attention to the post-industrial revolution and instrumental period, rather than crying that we don’t have sufficient data or resolution for the deep past. There is plenty of data for the last couple centuries, particularly the last 45 years (satellites) and 65 years since the international physical year (1957-58) spurred extensive and accurate scientific measurements, which continue into the present. But, as usual, you’re complaining about the past and ignoring (deflecting from) the present.
ganon
My last sentence was the purpose of my comment. Massive amounts of land and oceans were not being sampled in 1900. All we need to know is that in 1900 only 30% of the SH and 60% of the NH were being measured.
Plus, millions of square miles of ocean were not covered by regular and reliable sampling.
Another term for this paucity of in situ, direct observations is known as guessing.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4/coverage.png
kid,
“My last sentence was the purpose of my comment”
ditto
ganon
“ditto”
Translation: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide
kid – is that all?
ganon
“ These results indicate that historical SATs and SSTs involve substantial inconsistencies at both regional and global scales. Major outstanding questions involve the distribution of errors between our intercalibration model and instrumental records of SAT and SST as well as the degree to which coastal intercalibrations are informative of global trends.”
Guessing is spelled G-u-e-s-s-i-n-g.
If raw data doesn’t exist, all the statistical guesswork is still statistical guesswork.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/7/JCLI-D-22-0569.1.xml
Temperatures rise and fall in a sinusoidal pattern on a gently rising trend. If you measure peak to peak or trough to trough you might be able to say something sensible about temperatures. But even that is not guaranteed.
Germany has been the crash test dummy of Europe, rushing into the transition to wind and solar. Electricity hungry industries have either cut back, gone out of business, or left; leaving a dark hole in industrial production there. Looks like the voters need to be more persnickety.
Respondents in the Ifo survey cited bureaucracy, the price of energy, the availability of raw materials and the lack of digitalization as Germany’s main weaknesses.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-03/germany-lacks-appeal-as-a-business-location-ifo-survey-shows
We know that: nominally, the sun is the cause of climate change. The number of sunspots is a usual sign we use to get an insight into changes in solar activity. Over the last 150 years the correlation between CO2 and temperature is only 22%. However, the correlation with sunspots is 79%. And, when you combine the known effects of solar activity with various known ocean oscillations like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), the correlation is more than 95%
is this meant as humor? i love the precision of it though. since you’re plucking numbers out of the atmosphere, might i suggest going with even greater imaginary precision? for exampe: 22.7% and 78.456%? it makes it seems like your made up numbers have credibility. https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change/
As David Legates would say, ‘the science speaks for itself.’
Climate Modeling-
Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
The best correlation you can get between atmospheric CO2 and climate is, R²=.44
‘We assert that strong evidence exists to support the reality of a physical Sun–climate connection, as manifest in the multidecadal co-variations of TSI and EPTG. A similar relationship also exists between fluctuations in TSI and other regional-scale climate variables such as surface air temperature. Our study clearly implies a necessity to account for the persistent nature of this external solar irradiance forcing. Many previous studies have amply documented relevant physical relationships, which range across seasonal, decadal, multi-decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. The empirical relationships regarding modern climate that are shown in this paper have great potential for application to the interpretation of climate variability in other geological epochs, before the modern era of instrumental and satellite-borne measurements. We suggest that fruitful exploration of the topic might first be made using records from the data-rich Holocene epoch.’
‘
For more details, see:
Soon and Legates, 2013. Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. Vol. 93, pp45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.11.015
‘
Curious if anyone has read this? Paywalled. Seems evaporation isn’t only driven by heat. Sounds interesting:
Photomolecular effect: Visible light interaction with air–water interface April 24, 2024, PNAS
Abstract: Although water is almost transparent to visible light, we demonstrate that the air–water interface interacts strongly with visible light via what we hypothesize as the photomolecular effect. In this effect, transverse-magnetic polarized photons cleave off water clusters from the air–water interface. We use 14 different experiments to demonstrate the existence of this effect and its dependence on the wavelength, incident angle, and polarization of visible light. We further demonstrate that visible light heats up thin fogs, suggesting that this process can impact weather, climate, and the earth’s water cycle and that it provides a mechanism to resolve the long-standing puzzle of larger measured clouds absorption to solar radiation than theory could predict based on bulk water optical constants. Our study suggests that the photomolecular effect should happen widely in nature, from clouds to fogs, ocean to soil surfaces, and plant transpiration and can also lead to applications in energy and clean water.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2320844121
Try https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.19832
Thanks, George.
As always, these papers are way above my pay grade. But this one seems like their work points in a direction of interest to those who assign a larger role to the sun vs CO2. What did you think of it?
I did not attempt to study it. Reasons: Authors don’t explicitly state the energy of the incident light. The article is written in a way a mechanical engineer would do it, where a chemist or a physicist might be better.
Thanks.
The physicist or chemist likely have known of these characteristics for ages, but it takes the mechanical engineer to take that to the application level. It all depends on one’s organisation of the personal neural network (those that work).
Times past when the Thames was low or dried up: 1114 – 1716.
https://community.netweather.tv/topic/48751-the-thames-in-london-running-dry/
jim2; Thanks for this info; another example of the effect of the planets on the earth.
See similar here : https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/pefqs/1895_03_253.pdf [THE STOPPAGE OF THE RIVER JORDAN IN .A.D. 1267]
In same place in 2346bce it was far worse (mentioned earlier).
“1592 September 5th: “One standing on the shore of the Thames could not see any water in it from London Brisge to Westminster” It was the new moon and a particular planets orientation. A similar but full moon in Feb 5th 2023 – Turkey
It is these things that bring abrupt and long change in climate and human fortunes.
What does the long flat handle of Mann’s hockey stick represent if not Western academia’s willingness to lie to your face… Much like Democrat politicians are more than willing to do on a daily basis these days?
Early on in the making of the hoax past declines like the Little Ice Age (LIA) — as well as previous warming periods like the Medieval Warm Period (WMP) — were simply hidden. Soon they were rediscoverd. Then came all of the attempts to marginalize the scope of these major Earthly events as being simply regional instead of ubiquitous. There never was, of course, any good reason for concealing the actual facts about the LIA and the WMP or any of the other previous cooling and warming periods except that these were inconvenient facts for the global warming alarmists to deal with.
Did you think all of the lying deception of the Left only began in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary? The Great Global Warming Debate has been an ongoing process in the US since about 1997. Much of the groundwork was surreptitiously laid by companies like Enron and Lehman Brothers that worked behind the curtains in concert with dead and dying Old Europe — especially France — to quietly stab America in the back. Then, as of November 7, 2000 it was certain that George Bush had defeated Al Gore (the EU and UN presidential choice) and the war against reason went mainstream.
fascinating…
Remember Copenhagen? ‘Cap and trade also figured prominently in the business plans of the late but unlamented Enron and Lehman Brothers. Attendees at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, meanwhile, arrived in private planes and then rented limousines, thus demonstrating the extent to which they really believe carbon emissions are a problem.’ ~c&en
The ‘cap and trade’ scheme as proposed in Copenhagen was essentially a global excise tax- much like the ‘sin tax’ on tobacco products… all of which are ultimately born by users- a majority of which would have been paid by the US. George Bush said, nyet! which was the birth of the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the Left and the Hot World fanaticism of Western academia.
There is not any emergencies to rush. The fossil fuels burning (the intensive CO2 emissions) do not whatsoever affect Global climate temperature.
–
Global warming happens because of the more uniform global temperature. It is getting warmer for some millennials now. Because the warming is an orbitally forced process.
*******
When global warming, it is enhanced by the Higher Latitudes Temperatures Amplification.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hot World fabulism is essentially a stab in the back of American exceptionalism by Western academia.
Wags, set that to music and you’ll have a hit. Guaranteed.
(What’s it mean?)
Self-convinced global warming alarmist views of a Hot World Hot are more like a modern Doomsday religion than science. Such mentalizations may actually be misunderstood, monster under the bed, ‘Oceanic’ feelings that are better understood by Sigmund Freud than by objective investigators of Climate Change.
iSeeCars’ research looked at the costs to operate various fuel types between November 2022 and April 2023, finding that EV owners not only drove far fewer miles than gas owners, but their average costs to operate those vehicles over 1,000 miles were much higher. People drove EVs an average of 10,256 miles during that period, seeing costs of $5,108 per 1,000 miles. In contrast, owners drove gas vehicles 12,813 miles, averaging $3,123 over the same distance. The costs per 1,000 miles for other fuel types in the study include:
Hybrids: $3,056
Gas Cars: $3,123
Plug-In Hybrids: $4,351
EVs: $5,108
EV owners may worry about range and spotty charging infrastructure, which could contribute to the smaller number of miles driven. The higher purchase price of each vehicle is spread over fewer miles, making them significantly more expensive to drive. iSeeCars’ study found an average EV price of $52,387, compared to the $40,009 gas buyers paid.
https://www.autoblog.com/article/evs-are-the-most-expensive-vehicles-to-operate-over-1000-miles-according-to-iseecars/
I have a genius idea! Let’s build a floating solar plant!
INDORE: The world’s largest floating solar plant at Omkareshwar Dam has been badly damaged in a storm. Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation ( NHDC ) has started evaluation of the damage, but is confident the plant will be back to producing power soon. Part of the plant went operational last week, and this is the section that took a hit. The floating plant, built on the backwaters of Omkareshwar Dam, was ready for launch but it was slammed around by 50kmph winds in a summer storm that hit on Tuesday.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/indore/storm-damages-worlds-biggest-floating-solar-plant/articleshow/109231119.cms
At least nobody died like when this 350,000 pound piece of oil refining gear fell off a trailer.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/two-people-crushed-to-death-after-giant-pipe-falls-off-texas-trailer-onto-car/ar-AA1nRVP2
Good grief! If that pipe is damaged It might take up to a year to build a new one. Those solar panels will be back online in weeks at most.
The deaths are unfortunate, but your maudlin meanderings are meaningless when it comes to reliable energy.
Solar panels don’t cause earthquakes like oil and gas drilling do. Just waiting for a big one to cause the Commanche Peak nuclear power plant to meltdown and spread radioactive ash over the 8 million people in the DFW area.
https://www.keranews.org/energy-environment/2024-05-01/mansfield-earthquake-johnson-county-oil-gas-drilling
Ooooooo! Scary!!!
Yeah jim2, it was pretty scary to the Texas Railroad Commision too.
https://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/updates/railroad-commission-bans-injection-of-fracking-waste-in-area-wracked-with-earthquakes/
Meanwhile solar prices keep hitting record low prices while their efficiency has almost doubled in the last ten years.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/03/accelerated-declines-in-solar-cell-prices-since-late-march/
From Jack’s linked article – “In addition, this source stated that there are no indications of any demand factors favoring a reversal in the price trend, and the only foreseeable solution to reverse the current sluggish market is to wait for some production capacity to be gradually phased out.”
No – accounting for demand? in the supply and demand curves?
jacksmith4tx | May 6, 2024 at 11:44 am |
Yeah jim2, it was pretty scary to the Texas Railroad Commision too.
https://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/updates/railroad-commission-bans-injection-of-fracking-waste-in-area-wracked-with-earthquakes/
Article lacks commentary on SWD.
Why?
There is plenty of demand, but the US is trying to prop up domestic supply by putting high tariffs on the type of photovoltaics used in residential solar panels. Problem is our US solar manufactures can’t compete on price or performance. If you dig into the details of the US-China solar tariffs you would notice the type of PV used on solar farm were largely untouched. That was a clear example of picking winners and losers where the winners were the big monopoly utility companies.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/whos-building-the-most-solar-energy/
Re the comment at “jacksmith4tx | May 6, 2024 at 11:27 am |”
Checked out of curiosity, and ergo:
Look up the orientation of the sun, moon and all planets with respect to the earth. All grouped within ~90 degree corner. Gravity vector change as the site faced the group. Similar noted at other times as well. Any site where stresses in the crust exist and ready for release, might do so abruptly – no slow deformation-. It is a trigger.
“Green” hydrogen. In this case, the green stands for the money missing from your pocket.
Across the state, the closures and downtime are leaving drivers scrambling to find fuel. On Reddit, one Mirai owner posted that their car had been towed twice recently after running out of fuel, as every hydrogen station within 25 miles had gone offline. A Sacramento-area tow truck driver chimed in that they tow several marooned hydrogen cars a month to the only fueling station still open in the state capital region.
Hydrogen fuel stations in greater Los Angeles on April 2. Red indicates a station is offline.Source: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership
Complaints about fuel prices are just as common. Filling up a Mirai, a Hyundai Nexo or a Honda FCX Clarity runs a California driver about $200 — the equivalent of paying $14.60 for a gallon of gas.
“The car is AMAZING but the fueling infrastructure and cost of hydrogen per mile is TERRIBLE,” wrote one Mirai owner on Facebook. On Reddit, a hydrogen fuel cell car owner in Southern California vented that, “The cost is the equivalent of driving a monster truck that gets 9 mpg.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-04/california-s-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-lose-traction-against-battery-models
Despite many years of claims that increasing concentrations of CO2 are an “existential threat” to life on Earth, one cannot identify any harm that has been done. In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops.
The evidence for greening of the Earth from eCO2 is now too obvious to deny. In recent years, some researchers have claimed that that nutritional values are negatively affected by elevated CO2 concentrations. Media promoters of climate alarmism have seized on these results to further demonize CO2.
In this paper we explain why the nutritional value of our more abundant crops can and will remain high as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase toward values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth’s history.
While this is a somewhat technical report, it is a valuable tool for you to put in your quiver to use the next time you see increased CO2 being linked to declining nutrition.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nutritive-value-of-plants-growing-in-enhanced-co2-concentrations-eco2/
The war against fossil fuels continues …
A group of 24 institutional investors with a combined $1.2 trillion of assets wants Barclays Plc to stop financing fracking, and argued a recent pledge by the British bank to restrict financing for companies that focus exclusively on fossil-fuel exploration and extraction doesn’t go far enough.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-08/barclays-under-investor-pressure-to-halt-financing-for-fracking
The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/08/new-analysis-shows-bad-electric-trucks-are-for-business/
EV’s continuing to fail …
Mercedes-Benz Group AG is backing away from ambitious electric-vehicle goals as weakening sales push the luxury-automaker to its tried-and-true combustion engines for the foreseeable future.
“The transformation might take longer than expected,” Chief Executive Officer Ola Källenius will tell shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting on Wednesday, according to prepared remarks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-08/mercedes-retreats-to-gas-guzzlers-as-evs-fail-to-boost-profit
The war on fossil fuels … continues …
The Democratic governor, Biden surrogate and potential presidential contender is pushing aggressive climate action in appearances from China to the Vatican, selling it as a winning issue beyond the borders of his deep-blue state.
…
Newsom’s moves to promote electric vehicles and renewable energy while phasing out gas-powered cars, trying to recoup climate-related damages from oil giants and going after refiners’ profits have won strong support in California, but his efforts face a reliable line of attack from the industry and Republicans who say it’s all too expensive.
He’s used to the criticism. A key part of his strategy has been to ascribe high gas prices and utility bills to corporate greed and gouging while beating back proposals that he believes go too far like Proposition 30, which would have raised taxes on the rich in 2022 to funnel money to electric vehicles.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/gavin-newsom-climate-message-california-00156954
Challenges involved in saving passengers from electric car crashes could see victims dragged from vehicles by firefighters or, in the most extreme cases, left to die, an inquiry has been told.
The NSW government’s Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Batteries Inquiry heard testimony from fire and rescue services, paramedics, the Motor Traders’ Association, and TAFE on Tuesday in its second public hearing.
The inquiry heard Australia’s first responders, mechanics and tow truck drivers did not have adequate training to deal with electric vehicle collisions, and gaps in their knowledge had the potential to put lives at risk.
In the most serious incidents, firefighters said crews could be forced to abandon rescues or crudely rescue passengers from vehicles, and were being left “flying blind” at battery fires.
https://thedriven.io/2024/04/30/ev-crash-victims-could-be-left-to-die-in-battery-fires-without-training-for-responders-inquiry-told/
Infrastructure Pork tracker. No surprise that Cali is a big beneficiary.
https://www.nlc.org/resource/rebuilding-america-tracking-federal-investment-in-local-infrastructure-projects/
And that’s not enough Pork for the Dimowits … they want half a TRILLION MORE!!!
The new Build Green Act would allow DOT to fund up to 90 percent of the cost of projects, and would permit certain projects to be fully funded by the federal government at the discretion of the secretary of transportation. Historically, federal transportation funds have been distributed on the basis of an 80-20 split; that is, state and local governments must pony up 20 percent of funds for any project. That means states that have devoted little to public transit have been eligible for less federal money to address the historic lack of investment.
This has created a challenge for local officials who are trying to enhance public transit in states that traditionally have given it little support. For example, in Alabama, the only state that provides no state funding for public transportation, only 1 percent of the $168 million in infrastructure bill funding it received has gone to mass transit, according to the National League of Cities tracker. An Inside Climate News analysis of federal energy data last year showed Alabama has the highest per-capita gasoline consumption in the nation.
Under the new Build Green bill, no less than 30 percent of total grant funds would go to rural areas, and no less than 40 percent to disadvantaged communities and areas that currently experience high adverse health and environmental impacts from pollution. The legislation also would guarantee that each state receive at least $4 billion for eligible programs and that no state
receive more than $40 billion.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06052024/build-green-bill-clean-energy-transportation/
In Germany we have increasing “surface reaching solar radiation”, due to decreasing cloud cover. We have less cloud cover due to clear air (less pollution). In India they have MORE cloud cover due to increasing air pollution. Therefore India has no climate change:
Sources:
1. More cosmic radiation in India and more cloud cover
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/spike-in-cosmic-radiation-triggers-lightning-flashes/articleshow/63561876.cms
2. Surface solar radiation in India is decreasing
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/All-India-averaged-annual-mean-surface-reaching-solar-radiation_fig2_240490964
3. No global warming in India
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-map-warning/
Pingback: Quelle est l’influence du soleil sur le climat ? – Le Point de Vue
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present | Climate Etc.
I find all of these arguments interesting. I am not a climate scientist. My doctoral degree is in clinical psychology. I also hold a BS degree in computer science. I often wonder how much of the conformity in the IPCC data is due to confirmation bias on the part of the global warming proponents. I computer science, there is a reason we use the term GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. We know that models are only as good as the programming that support them. Models can be manipulated to produce the result we want them to produce. Scientists are usually smarter than the average bear so to speak, but that does not make them immune from psychological factors like confirmation bias. When I see scientists trying to shut down honest inquiry by other scientists who disagree with them, I begin the think confirmation bias. Science is supposed to be about inquiry and following the data but also questioning it. I like a good discussion as much as the next person, but I walk away when someone begins to denigrate my position because it doesn’t fit their interpretation of the data.
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present - News7g
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: COME SAPPIAMO CHE IL SOLE CAMBIA IL CLIMA, PARTE I: IL PASSATO
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP 2024 MAY | wryheat
Pingback: L’action du soleil sur le climat. 2ème partie : la période récente – Le Point de Vue
Pingback: COME SAPPIAMO CHE IL SOLE CAMBIA IL CLIMA PARTE II: IL PRESENTE
Pingback: How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories | Climate Etc.
Pingback: How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories - News7g