by Judith Curry
Last January, I visited Prager U in California. I recorded several videos. Science.feedback.org has done a fact check on my 5 minute video, which is the topic of this post
Here is information about Prager U.
Here are links to my two videos.
The Good News About Climate Change
Stories About Us: Climate Scientists Can’t Intimidate Me
JC’s Prager U text
Let’s start with the good news.
All things considered, planet earth is doing fine. Humans are doing better than at any other time in history. Over the last hundred years, when temperatures have warmed by about two degrees Fahrenheit:
- Global population has increased by 6 billion people
- Global poverty has substantially decreased
- And the number of people killed from weather disasters has decreased by 97% on a per capita basis.
We are obviously not facing an existential crisis.
Anyone who tells you that we are, is not paying attention to the historical data. Instead, they are concerned about what “might” happen in the future, based on predictions from inadequate climate models, driven by unrealistic assumptions.
I offer this positive diagnosis after a lifetime of study on the issue. Until recently, I was a professor of climate science and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
But it’s not all good news.
The biggest problem with climate change is not climate change, per se, it’s how we’re dealing with it.
We’re attempting to control the uncontrollable, at great cost, by urgently eliminating fossil fuels. We’ve failed to properly place the risks from climate change in context of other challenges the world is facing.
Climate change has become a convenient scapegoat. As a result, we’re neglecting the real causes of these problems.
There are countless examples, but let me give you just one.
Lake Chad in Africa is shrinking. Nigeria’s president Muhammadu Buhari blames it on you-know-what. “Climate change,” he pronounced, “is largely responsible for the drying up of Lake Chad.”
But it’s not.
Yes, the initial water level decline was caused by long droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. But the lake has remained virtually empty over the past two decades, even while rainfall has recovered. During this time, rivers flowing into the lake from Cameroon, Chad, and Nigeria have been diverted by government agencies to irrigate inefficient rice farms.
In short, climate change has little to do with the declining water level of Lake Chad. Rather, bad human decisions do. Climate Change is just a convenient excuse, hiding poor management and governance.
Blaming every major weather disaster on man-made global warming defies common sense, as well as the historical data record.
For the past 50 years, the global climate has been fairly benign. In the US, the worst heat waves, droughts and hurricane landfalls occurred in the 1930s – much worse than anything we’ve experienced so far in the 21st century.
Population growth, where and how people live, and how governments manage resources are much more likely to create conditions for a disaster than the climate itself. We’ve always had hurricanes, droughts and floods, and we always will.
Maybe you think I’m being too cavalier about the dangers we face. Isn’t it true that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change?
Well, here’s what all climate scientists actually agree on:
- The average global surface temperature has increased over the last 150 years.
- Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
- And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.
However, climate scientists disagree about:
- How much warming is associated with our emissions
- Whether this warming is larger than natural climate variability.
- And how much the climate will change in the future.
There’s a lot that we still don’t understand about how the climate works. Ocean circulation patterns and variations in clouds have a large impact. But climate models do a poor job of predicting these. Variations in the sun and volcanic eruptions also have a substantial impact, but these are simply unpredictable.
The fact is, we can’t predict the future climate. It’s simply not possible. And everybody should acknowledge that. And every scientist does.
While humans do influence the climate, we can’t control the climate. To think we can is the height of hubris, the Greek word for overconfidence.
What we can do is adapt to whatever mother nature throws our way. Human beings have a long history of being very good at that. We can build sea walls, we can better manage our water resources, and implement better disaster warning and management protocols.
These are things we can control.
If we focus on that, there’s every reason to be optimistic about our future.
I’m Judith Curry for Prager University.
Science.feedback.org
Here is the link to the ‘factcheck’
The ‘fact checkers’ include Ella Tilbert, Georg Feulner, Ian Richardson, Kerry Emanuel.
“Verdict: MISLEADING”
“Claim: Climate scientists disagree about how much warming is associated with our emissions and whether this warming is larger than natural climate variability from the sun and volcanic eruptions”
“Key takeaway: Scientific evidence shows that modern global warming is primarily driven by increasing CO2 emissions from human activities. There is no evidence that solar variations or volcanic activity are substantial drivers of recent climate change.”
Their objections are focused on two of my statements:
“However, climate scientists disagree about . . . whether this warming is larger than natural climate variability.”
“But climate models do a poor job of predicting these. Variations in the sun and volcanic eruptions also have a substantial impact, but these are simply unpredictable.”
I could cite hundreds of papers published in refereed science journals that question whether the recent warming is larger than natural climate variability (many of these papers have been discussed on this blog). The IPCC chooses to ignore these papers. This does not mean that disagreement among scientists does not exist. In fact, the IPCC AR4 and AR5 conclusions about attribution are framed in terms of “most of the warming” and “more than half of the global average surface temperature increase”. So >50%. Imagining 49% is not farfetched. The IPCC AR4 talks about “unresolved internal variability” to justify using the relatively weak “most”.
With regards to the potential impact of future volcanic eruptions, the IPCC AR6 WG1 has this to say (Cross-Chapter Box 4.1):
“A low likelihood high impact outcome would be several large eruptions that would greatly alter the 21st century climate trajectory compared to SSP-based ESM projections.”
Plenty to disagree about on these topics (they didn’t mention natural internal variability, which IMO is the biggest deal). But that is the point of my statement: SCIENTISTS DISAGREE (for details, see Chapter 8 of my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk).
JC comments
The fact checkers ignore the main points of my statement, and focus on trying to emphasize the consensus that natural climate variability doesn’t matter.
Since the fact checkers essentially ignored the rest of my statement, presumably they have no objections to these statements:
“All things considered, planet earth is doing fine. Humans are doing better than at any other time in history.”
“We are obviously not facing an existential crisis.”
“The biggest problem with climate change is not climate change, per se, it’s how we’re dealing with it.”
“We’re attempting to control the uncontrollable, at great cost, by urgently eliminating fossil fuels. We’ve failed to properly place the risks from climate change in context of other challenges the world is facing.”
“Blaming every major weather disaster on man-made global warming defies common sense, as well as the historical data record.”
“Population growth, where and how people live, and how governments manage resources are much more likely to create conditions for a disaster than the climate itself. We’ve always had hurricanes, droughts and floods, and we always will.”
“However, climate scientists disagree about:
- How much warming is associated with our emissions
- And how much the climate will change in the future.”
“The fact is, we can’t predict the future climate. It’s simply not possible. And everybody should acknowledge that. And every scientist does. “
“While humans do influence the climate, we can’t control the climate. To think we can is the height of hubris, the Greek word for overconfidence.”
“What we can do is adapt to whatever mother nature throws our way. Human beings have a long history of being very good at that. We can build sea walls, we can better manage our water resources, and implement better disaster warning and management protocols.”
Seems they can’t refute these statements.
I’ll take that as a ‘win.’
Sadly, at my age, I find many who try to solve hard problems from the past. You are “in the game,” or you are not.
Trump gave a respite form the insane Warmistas. Good people left the Climate debate. With Trump’s absence, the alarmists are back.
Sorry, you can not give up until the fat lady sings.
CO2 was treated as pollution for all four years while Trump ws president. Not once in his life has Trump made an intelligent statement on climate science, for even one minute.
The Curry pitch at Prager.com goes off the rails near the end:
“There’s a lot that we still don’t understand about how the climate works.
Correct
Ocean circulation patterns and variations in clouds have a large impact.
Contradicts prior sentence. Since we don’t know, the word large is meaningless.
“But climate models do a poor job of predicting these.”
Partially true. The average moel overpredicted warming from 1975 to 2006 but the warming since 2007, at +0.3 degrees C. per decade is EXACTLY what the average prediction was in the 1979 Charney Report and the same as the average climate model prediction since then.
“Variations in the sun and volcanic eruptions also have a substantial impact, ”
Wrong there is no evidence that TOA TSI has increase since the late 1970s so could NOT have caused any of the warming since 1975 There are no data on underseas heat releases from volcanoes and vents
A 2022 poll of scientists that seems unbiased found that 59% believe CAGW was here or coming. Far from the false claims of 97% but a scary percentage. I do not recall the poll asking when they thought CAGW would arrive, but a majority believed it was coming (or already here).
The 97% number actually undercounts the consensus that there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions increase it by some amount — a consensus which I believe is closer to a 100%.
The only evidence of catastrophic warming (causes unknown) is the +0.3 degrees C. per decade warming rate since 2007. That will allegedly continue for centuries according to the IPCC and cause a catastrophe. Strangely, the first 18 years of a catastrophic warming rate in the US has been very pleasant. The US USCRN has increased at a +0.34 degrees C. per decade rate since 2005, FASTER than the average prediction for global CAGW of +0.3 degrees per decade.
We love the warming here in Michigan and hope this warming “catastrophe” continues for a long time.
Richard G, in two parts
1): You said, “Partially true. The average moel overpredicted warming from 1975 to 2006 but …”
The measure of the models (to decide if they “did a poor job”, or not) is not in the “warming” they hindcast, since the models have not just one, but many errors, and many of those errors have opposing signs; thus the model errors sometimes cancel each other.
One example is clouds. Models simulate too few (cloud amount), but, the clouds they simulate are too reflective (“too few, too bright”). These two errors affect the planetary energy balance in opposite ways. The models SEEM to give the “correct” warming, but, FOR THE WRONG REASONS. Part of the “warming” is cloud amount, and another part of the “warming” is cloud reflectiveness (brightness). As summed, they (partly) cancel. But, individually, they represent errors UN-ACCCOUNTED-FOR in the terms of “warming” because they self-cancel.
The appropriate measure is to single out each (in this case, cloud amount, and brightness) and “Root-Mean-Square” (toss the signs) and sum them. This is a more appropriate measure of a model.
Recall, that the overall effect of decades of “warming” is “remembered” by the planet, in the ocean heat content. Dean Roemmich 2015 (➜10.1038/nclimate2513) proposed a net energy imbalance of +0.5W/㎡ ±0.1W/㎡ over the time span considered. This is the net actual warming FROM ALL CAUSES, natural or anthropogenic. Although there are others who also published THEIR estimates, I’m sticking to Roemmich 2015 for now, +0.5W/㎡.
Compared to the incoming averaged energy of ≈340W/㎡, (½÷340)=0.0015471≈0.15% so each and every parameter that affects the Earf energy budget, must be measured (or simulated) such that the total of all RMS errors is MUCH less than 0.15%.
The CMIP6 models’ RMS accumulated errors are orders of magnitude off.
Just as an example, Wild 2020 (➜10.1007/s00382-020-05282-7) said CMIP6 models averaged 163W/㎡ (Surface shortwave absorption, all-sky, Fig 2) while (the reference value, as shown in Wild 2015) said 160W/㎡. … in this case, assuming Wild 2015 (➜0.1007/s00382-020-05282-7) represented the best known “true” value, the CMIP6 models are off. CMIP6=163, reference 160, difference 3. Wild 2020 used 160, but Wild 2015 actually had 160.1. Moot.
Right there, is 3W/㎡ off … Now, I don’t care if the models were warmer or cooler, we’re looking at the RMS values of the errors.
… again, “warming” from any and all causes, was ½W/㎡ … Just one parameter, off by 3W/㎡ So, just ONE parameter, and the models are MEASURED BAD.
The models are certified as BAD from journal-published, peer-reviewed science, by a group of “REAL” climate scientists, not “deniers” … REALLY BAD. Do you understand that? Furthermore, do you acknowledge that?
Wild 2020: “The global multi-model mean surface shortwave absorption in CMIP6 is lower by 1.6W/㎡ than in CMIP5 (165W/㎡) (statistically significant, Table 1)”. So the new models had significantly smaller surface absorption, yet still “run hotter” than the old ones.
Wild 2020: “The higher atmospheric absorption in CMIP6 leads also to a global mean downward shortwave radiation at the Earth’s surface, which is, at 187.4W/㎡, lower by more than 2W/㎡ compared to CMIP5 (statistically significant, Table 1), and thereby in closer agreement with recent reference estimates (Table 1).” So the new CMIP6 models are closer to the reference value, than the CMIP5 models, yet the new models “run hotter” than the CMIP5 models …
Read all of Wild 2020, there are plenty more examples of how bad the models are. Certified bad.
2): You said, “… the warming since 2007, at +0.3 degrees C. per decade …”
What? Perhaps you should be more detailed. Between what exact dates? (“2007” is assumed as January First, 2007) … Using today as the end point, WOODFORTREES (dot org) calculates (using UAH 6) a decadal warming of 0.15˚C/decade “#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0150416 per year” … perhaps you could specify the dates and the source of temperature measurements (UAH, Hadcrut, etc) to support you ridiculous claim of 0.3˚/decade!
Planetary “Warming” itself is questionable; not the sign, we know it is “+” … it is, a tad bit warmer, out there … but the magnitude is UNKNOWABLE due to the accumulation of errors in how we measure temperature. Claims of any RATE are not supported when using the older data. Maybe “since 2007″ but not going back into the 1950s or before.
Frank 2010: “… the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0˚C, … The rate and magnitude of 20ᵀᴴ Century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20ᵀᴴ Century global air temperature are unsustainable.”
Frank, Patrick 2010. “Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit.” Energy & Environment
➜10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969
Richard G said, “there is no evidence that TOA TSI has increase since the late 1970s so …”
Mefta 2014: “The TSI is a crucial input for all climate models. The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.” (➜10.1007/s11207-013-0443-0)
Mefta 2015: “The potential relationship between solar activity and changes in solar diameter remains the subject of debate and requires both models and measurements with sufficient precision over long periods of time.” (➜10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/4)
Mefta 2017: “The accurate determination of the solar spectral irradiance in the NIR and MIR is still a matter of debate. The uncertainty budgets with random and systematic errors of existing extraterrestrial solar spectra and ground-based SSI measurements in the IR wavelength range appear to be inconsistent. Consequently, there is a persistent controversy between the various measurements. The discrepancy of the solar spectral irradiance absolute levels from 1000 to 2400 nm was and still is the subject of an intense discussion in the scientific research community (Thuillier et al., 2015; Weber, 2015; Bolsée et al., 2016). One can wonder about the nature of the correction methods of each instrument and the consideration of all effects that may introduce systematic errors. Indeed, the various measurements require corrections; the space-based measurements are affected by the space environment, while the ground-based measurements are disturbed by the Earth’s atmosphere.” (➜10.1007/s11207-017-1115-2)
TSI, an abbreviation for “Total Solar Irradiance” is not the total measure of the sun’s influence on the planet. There is no effort to measure the magnetic influence of the sun, nor the emissions of particles (the “solar wind”). It doesn’t even measure the “Total Irradiance” as it claims to.
TSI has instrumentation problems in itself. It is a set of metal tubes, coated in a “black” substance, pointed at the sun. The ability of this “black” substance to absorb all the influx of electromagnetic radiation, falters in the ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths. It also fails to measure longer wavelengths. It also degrades over time.
SSI, or Spectral Solar Irradiance, is a big issue. It has been shown that measured TSI does not vary, much, but different bands of spectra go up, while other bands, go down, and the two almost completely cancel each other, with respect to the TSI as measured. In the very short wavelengths, the interaction of the solar radiation is very different than the visible wavelengths. As an example, much UV is absorbed in the Stratosphere. If the sun changes to put more energy into the UV, and at the same time, lowers the visible wavelengths proportionally, the TSI would show zero change, but the planet would have a cooler surface and a hotter Stratosphere.
While we have TSI monitors in space, we have not monitored the SSI, and know very little of those changes.
Reply to the windbag named “The damned nitpicking VooDude.”
The average annual temperature from 2007 to 2023, based o surface measurements, rose at an average rate f _0.3 degrees per decade, rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree C.
The average temperature prediction in the 1979 Charney report was +0.3 degrees C. per decade for several centuries. The average climatwe mdel, which call a climate confuser game, is also programmed to predict +0.3 degrees C. per decade for centuries. That’s no surprise because models predict whatever the funders in government want predicted. The Russian INM model may be the one exception.
The UAH temperature record is slightly different than the surface statistics. But UAH also increased at a +0.3 degree C. per decade rate, rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree C., from 2008 through 2023.
The USCRN warmed at +0.34 degrees C. per decade since 2005.
While the predictions from 1979 were wild guesses, they give the appearance of accuracy after 2005, 2007 or 2008, with actuals of +0.3 degrees C. per decade or more matching the +0.3 degree C. per decade 1979 predictions (also matching the average climate confuser model since 1979).
What this means is that criticizing the models is more difficult than it had been before 2005.
Of course I have cherry picked only a small portion of the 48 year warming trend since 1975. While the predictions are for hundreds of years — it could take over 100 years to prove the mdels were not “accurate”.
I believe a better strategy than attacking the models right after the warm year of 2023 (bad timing) is to focus on actual experience with a “catastrophic” warming rate. Since most of the warming since 1975 has been in colder nations, in the colder months or the year and TMIN rather than TMAX, the alleged catastrophe warming has actually been pleasant climate news for most people.
Concerning TOA TSI measured by NASA satellites since the late 1970s: They claim TOA TSI has declined slightly. That means TOA TSI did not cause any of the post 1975 global warming.
In addition, any warming by solar energy would most affect TMAX, while actual warming since 1975 mainly affected TMIN.
It is my opinion that the climate in 100 years can not be predicted, even with great knowledge of every climate change variable at some time in the future.
If any climate confuser game predictions appear to be accurate, it is just a lucky guess, IMHO … even the Russian INM model, that appears to be the least inaccurate model so far.
thecliffclavenoffinance | June 5, 2024 at 6:01 pm |
“Concerning TOA TSI measured by NASA satellites since the late 1970s: They claim TOA TSI has declined slightly. That means TOA TSI did not cause any of the post 1975 global warming.”
Office cliff – I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your comment – though its worth noting that the thermal inertia of the oceans is poorly understood – How much of the warming in the last 40-50 years has been due to the solar effect from the early 1900’s – the answer to that question is not well understood, at least not with our present knowledge. Of course, that is contrary to what the activists parading as scientists are claiming.
thecliffclavenoffinance | June 5, 2024 at 6:01 pm |
In response to Office cliff’s comment on models – first I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Cliff’s comments. Only noting that over the last 20k years, the short term warming and cooling cycles have typically lasted 150-300 years. Projecting continued warming 1/2 way through the typical length of the cycle is not overly impressive.
the cliffclaven… (TLDR) person said, “In addition, any warming by solar energy would most affect TMAX, while actual warming since 1975 mainly affected TMIN”
… that pattern of warming, where Tₘᵢₙ is warmed more than Tₘₐₓ, is a marker of the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Scafetta & Ouyang 2019: “☛Atmospheric boundary layer physics predicts higher UHI warming during night.
☛The divergence between Tₘᵢₙ and Tₘₐₓ is used to detect urbanization biases.
☛The China regions with the strongest Tₘᵢₙ-Tₘₐₓ divergence are also the most populated.”
Scafetta, Nicola, and Shenghui Ouyang 2019. “Detection of UHI bias in China climate network using Tₘᵢₙ and Tₘₐₓ surface temperature divergence.” Global and planetary change
➜10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.102989
‘Varmint’ over on The Daily Sceptic, commenting on an article about Dr. John Clauser tells this Jewish folklore tale (I quote from memory).
God sent two angels down to earth, each with a sack of foolish souls; they were told to distribute them evenly throughout the world. Unfortunately the angels tripped and all the souls fell onto Chelm, a small Polish town. Some time later a hot dispute started in Chelm. Which was the greater of the celestial bodies… the sun or the moon? No one could agree so the problem had to be put to Authority. The Chief Rabbi pondered and announced this decision… the moon was the greater entity because it shone at night giving light when needed whereas the sun shone in the day which was already light. The question was thus settled and only a few cranks and malcontents in Chelm muttered about the Rabbi’s decision. These so and sos became known as ‘Moon Deniers’.
Michael Mann, you missed your true calling!
Thanks to’Varmint’ for this. Only the final sentence is my own.
Palhaco5
This was written:
The fact is, we can’t predict the future climate. It’s simply not possible. And everybody should acknowledge that. And every scientist does.
I disagree, the past climate has had alternating warm and cold periods in nearly the same bounds and I do predict that the future climate will follow closely the same pattern, what has happened will happen again.
To state we do not understand the past and cannot predict the future is based on not really even trying to understand the past and not even trying to accurately and honestly predicting the future.
This is not a prediction.
We are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and in last couple million years, appears to be coldest time within this Ice Age.
We are in an Ice Age due to having a cold ocean.
We sort of tend to ignore the Ocean as part of Earth’s surface- it’s a place the whales and dolphins live, and it controls global air surface temperatures.
It generally takes a long time, to warm or cool this ocean.
One look at it, this way. Turn off the sun for 2 months.
The whales and dolphins don’t notice much of difference
in terms of water temperature.
But surface air temperature would get colder than any of coldest times in a glaciation period- though not much glacial ice is added within the 2 months.
Then turn the sun back on, there is some effect lingering from turning off the sun, but roughly things go back to “normal”.
In terms of predicting, humans have a fair chance of becoming a spacefaring civilization.
If you are spacefaring civilization, you can control the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. You add more sunlight to Earth or can remove all sunlight from reaching Earth.
Government could actually control global climate, then.
Everyone might not like it, that governments can control global climate, but it cheap to do {other than the corruption and vast bureaucracies, which is fundamental nature of governments- it will never change}.
This is a prediction; the most recent ten thousand years has been bounded in more narrow bounds and this new normal will continue for many thousands of years. The ice sequestered on land that did not return to the oceans during the warming out of the last major ice age that ended about 20 thousand years ago has reduced the ocean water and land ice that can be exchanged between warm and colt times and the extreme warm times with oceans much higher and warmer compared to the extreme cold times with much lower oceans and much ice volume and extent on land during cold times is no longer possible.
The future will be alternating warmer and colder periods, just like there has always been, they will be in more narrow bounds as in the last ten thousand years and not in the more extreme bounds of the hundred thousand year or 40 thousand year cycles as occurred before 20 thousand years ago. Yes, this is my prediction, increased ice sequestering on land has reduced the water and ice that can move from ocean to land and thaw and return during alternating warm and cold periods.
If you were a consensus scientist, it would be illegal to NOT predict the future climate will be a crisis, worse than you previously thought. And you would get a bonus for waving your arms, sounding frightened, and mentioning boiling oceans and saving the planet. There are climate scientist acting classes for these presentations.
There is no evidence humans CAN MAKE accurate LONG TERM CLIMATE PREDICTIONS OR THAT SUCH LONG TERM PRESICTIONS WOULD EVER BE POSSIBLE, even WITH A LOT MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE in the past.
Scientists make projections. The ignorant make predictions. Knowledge about past climate change is useful; it lets us know that there is no (known) event int the past that is similar to what is happening now.
Reply to THECLIFFCL… (TLDR)
You said, “… criticizing the models is more difficult than it had been before 2005. … it could take over 100 years to prove the mdels were not ‘accurate’.”
Martin Wild 2020 already did prove the models are grossly inaccurate.
Wild, Martin 2020. ”The global energy balance as represented in CMIP6 climate models.” Climate Dynamics
➜0.1007/s00382-020-05282-7
The total of “global warming” from any and all causes is ≈½W/㎡ and the incoming energy is ≈340W/㎡. The planet is retaining a tiny amount of the incoming sunshine, around 0.15%
(½÷340)=0.0015471≈0.15%.
For the models to simulate global warming, with sufficient accuracy to detect the cause, the models must be significantly more accurate than 0.15%
Let’s look at the global energy budget term called Outgoing longwave radiation (clear sky). Wild 2020 said CMIP6 models averaged 262W/㎡ (Fig 9 of Wild 2020) while the reference value for that term said 267W/㎡.
CMIP6=262, reference 267, RMS difference 5.
(5÷267)=0.0187≈1.87% …
Overall, for just one term of the global energy budget, we’re off by 5W/㎡, and the total of “global warming” from any and all causes is ≈½W/㎡ … TEN times smaller. … but each term’s RMS error value should be compared to the reference value for that term.
1.87% …
We are required to have an RMS sum, after evaluating all the terms of the global energy budget, that is MUCH less than 0.15%.
In just this first, singular term, we have an RMS error of ≈twelve and a half times that 0.15% …
(1.87÷0.15)=12.47 …
By comparing the models’ WARMING of the planet, to the measured warming, you’re allowing the models’ internal, compensating errors to dilute your evidence.
Models simulate too few clouds (cloud extent or amount), relative to the observations, but, the clouds they simulate are too reflective (this is known as the “… too few, too bright …” problem [Kuma 2023, Konsta 2022, Kuma 2020, Bender 2017, Wall 2017, Engström 2015, Klein 2013, Nam 2012, Karlsson, 2008, Zhang, 2005, Weare 2004, Webb 2001]).
These two errors upset the global energy balance calculation, but in opposite ways. The models SEEM to give the “correct” cloud albedo, but, FOR THE WRONG REASONS. As summed, they (partly) cancel. But, individually, they represent errors UN-ACCCOUNTED-FOR in the “warming” because they self-cancel. So, to the extent that these errors cancel out, it benefits the public opinion of the adequacy of the models, (claiming that the models do a good job in simulation of warming in the recent past) which is unfounded.
Also, you said, “… UAH also increased at a +0.3 degree C. per decade rate, rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree C., from 2008 through 2023.”
Using 2007 as a start, to 2023 as the end point, WOODFORTREES (dot org) calculates (using UAH6 Global Lower Troposphere) a decadal warming of 0.26˚C/decade …
before rounding, that is 0.258788˚C
WFT (raw data): “#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2024.25
#Selected data from 2007
#Selected data up to 2023
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0258788 per year”
My earlier reply (which wasn’t to you, btw) had an error. I’d said 0.15 … that was incorrect.
BA Bush/Gagon: You said, “Scientists make projections. The ignorant make predictions.”. … So you say that scientists, in peer-reviewed, journal published science papers, who make “predictions” are … ignorant.
So these folks: Mark C Urban, Janne Swaegers, Robby Stoks, Rhonda R Snook, Sarah P Otto, Daniel W A Noble, Maria Moiron, Maria H Hällfors, Miguel Gómez-Llano, Simone Fior, Julien Cote, Anne Charmantier, Elvire Bestion, David Berger, Julian Baur, Jake M Alexander, Marjo Saastamoinen, Allan H Edelsparre, Celine Teplitsky are all ignorant, according to BA Gagon? They are the authors of this paper:
Urban, Mark C., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2024. ”When and how can we predict adaptive responses to climate change?” Evolution Letters
➜10.1093/evlett/qrad038
Next time, do a little research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yVc_GEAyA
VooDude,
Yes, not knowing the difference between prediction and projection is ignorant, whether it be you, or all the people you list.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/predictions-future-global-climate
Arguments about Predictions vs projections would be a valid argument if the climate scientists community weren’t using those two terms interchangeably.
Further – there is no reason to initiate insults
M,
I know the difference. If others don’t know the difference, they are ignorant of the difference – a fact, not an insult.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 16, 2024 at 5:48 pm |
M,
I know the difference. If others don’t know the difference, they are ignorant of the difference – a fact, not an insult.
You repetitively throw out unwarranted insults – yes your comment was intended to be an insult.
quite a few of your beloved climate scientists did not get the message regarding predictions v projections – perhaps you could educate them and alleviate their ignorance.
The IPCC used predictions a few hundred times in the AR6 report.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL106212
https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/climate-change.html
Even Michael Mann issues climate predictions.
https://michaelmann.net/books/dire-predictions
https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1680774780138430471
M,
IPCC AR6 WG1 used “prediction” 373 times; “projection” 3766 times. The “predictions” are generally made as generalities, without specificity or numerical support. IMHO, they know what they are doing with their word choice.
“prediction vs projection” is a pretty easy search – go for it.
From gbaikie: “If you are spacefaring civilization, you can control the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.”
No. You still cannot control Earth’s orientation in space. See below.
From popesclimatetheory: “This is a prediction”. Prediction, even for this century, without all information, is a blind prediction.
In Holocene earth changed it orientation under planetary influence several times. Times of change were Eddy cycle infection points (why: not resolved). Worst of known is 2346bce, leading to the 4K2 Event (2200bce civilisation collapse).
Next is Eddy peak- turning point-. The next generation to be born will know it.
Thanks for being a rare voice of reason.
While I am not a “denier”, even a casual look at the geologic climate charts tells me that eventually our climate is going to do something unpleasant that we will have no control over. I would much rather have scientists spending far more resources figuring out how people survive, no matter what happens. We really don’t need the entire scientific industrial complex sucking up all of these resources to tell us the obvious… which is this… pumping billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere might have unintended consequences.
you wrote:
pumping billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere might have unintended consequences.
we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from near 300 to over 400 parts per million, that is only a little more than one more molecule added to ten thousand molecules. How many tons has now meaning if you do not compare it to the total mass of the atmosphere.
Water is abundant in all of its states, water, water vapor and ice, water in its abundance and changing states is much more effective in self-correcting climatic regulation and CO2 is in a narrow range of the margins of error.
Dr. Curry,
I don’t understand this sentence: “This does mean that disagreement among scientists does not exist.” Typo?
i.e., Even if we concede that global warming alarmists’ predictions of global warming are grossly exaggerated, it still is possible that what warming does exist is mostly the result of human activity.
oops fixed, thanks for catching
Way to take the argument to them.
‘“Verdict: MISLEADING”
“Claim: Climate scientists disagree about how much warming is associated with our emissions and whether this warming is larger than natural climate variability from the sun and volcanic eruptions”
“Key takeaway: Scientific evidence shows that modern global warming is primarily driven by increasing CO2 emissions from human activities. There is no evidence that solar variations or volcanic activity are substantial drivers of recent climate change.”’
Did they actually have to back up their VERDICT, their TAKEAWAY with evidence to back them up, or are they just unaccountable gods who can say whatever they want as if they are an all-knowing, all-powerful unanswerable autocrat?
“MISLEADING” is fact-checker-speak for TRUE when they wanted it to be false but couldn’t distort the evidence enough to get there. One positive – it shows they do have some scruples.
How many scruples does it take to get a cup of coffee in Moscow? Oh, Emanuel, as many as you can Kerry!
‘We’ve failed to properly place the risks from climate change in context of other challenges the world is facing.’ True, true… Western academia has stabbed Civilization in the back.
Fact checkers don’t check facts. They check opinions. If your opinion disagrees with the opinions of the people hiring them they label yours as misleading.
As always, great job, Judith! Thanks.
As I showed in my last video on climate as a secular religion,
https://youtu.be/02x30Axf0xA
fact checkers are the modern Inquisition, whose job is to make sure anyone who disagrees with the dogma has no credibility.
Bjorn Lomborg showed that misinformation experts are not unbiased:
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1771508496921448790
“Experts leaned strongly toward the left of the political spectrum”
Data from Harvard Misinformation Review, survey of 150 misinformation experts.
https://t.co/J5e3CYu2fQ
You cannot reason with those who want to shut you up.
Do tell The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
They are living proof that you can leave out the secular and still assemble a fair semblance of a cult. Surely you recall Fred Singer’s career as the Reverend Moon’s skeptical climate adviser?
Thanks for recognizing the religious aspect of the climate frenzy. It has obviously been induced from the elites as it would not have developed on its own about something so silly as the weather.
Most fact checkers
are fact chokers
Thank you for the differentiated approach and the perseverance to break through the narrative
I don’t share these quotes and links to “prove” anything except that if one actually reads the literature you will find complex, contradictory or inconsistent or nuanced conclusions all the time, which is to be expected. If your only sources are the IPCC or press releases you generally don’t get the same perception. The science is full of contradictions, uncertainties, nuances and complexities. The popular narrative is not.
“ Anthropogenic impact on Antarctic surface mass balance, currently masked by natural variability, to emerge by mid-century”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001
“Recent increase in the surface mass balance in central East Antarctica is unprecedented for the last 2000 years”
“ We show a 24% increase of snow accumulation rate since early 19 century confirmed by the instrumental data for the last 52 years. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01355-1
“..findings here suggest that systematic underestimation of sea ice in coupled climate models may result in overestimation of precipitation across the ice sheet, and thus an underestimation of future AIS contributions to global sea level. Likewise, satellite-era increases in Antarctic sea ice have likely reduced precipitation across the AIS, enhancing its recent contributions to global sea level rise. On the other hand, negative sea ice biases in models would likely enhance surface melt.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/19/JCLI-D-23-0056.1.xml
Most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion and a negative greenhouse effect
Some melting of ice shelves and the small peninsula is tiny –alleged to be 150 gigatons melting a year of the total 24.4 million gigaton total ice mass.
150 gigatons is statistically insignificant for a 24.4 million gigaton ice mass. 150 gigtons melting every year woul take 1.6 million years to melt al the Antarctica ice. That could not happen unless the current interglacial lasted 1.6 million years.
Reply to thecliffclav … (TLDR)
You said, “Most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion and a negative greenhouse effect”
Citation for that:
Notholt 2024: “In 2015 we have initiated a discussion on a fundamental property of the radiation in the atmosphere over Antarctica: The negative greenhouse effect (Schmithüsen et al., 2015, … doi … ➜10.1002/2015GL066749). A negative greenhouse effect means, the atmosphere emits more radiation to space than it receives from the surface. This results in a cooling somewhere in the Antarctic atmosphere during some months of the year, when increasing CO₂.”
➜10.1029/2023GL105600
Notholt, Justus, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2024. Infrared radiative effects of increasing CO₂ and CH₄ on the atmosphere in Antarctica compared to the Arctic.” Geophysical Research Letters
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2023GL105600
Plenty of those who claim ‘fact checker’ status abuse facts to the extent of converting them to convenient lies. They have sworn to stick to the agreed agenda and will certainly not tell the truth if it disagrees with that agenda.
A healthy society would debate disagreements. We are getting farther and farther away from being a healthy society in a way that history warns us will not end up anywhere positive. And we are running out of time as we waste vast quantities of public money on stuff that will never work as planned.
Good summary of the situation as I see it based on my reading of the literature. Thanks Judith!
There is good evidence that the 23% human induced CO2 you site is too large and should be about 5%. https://edberry.com/the-effect-of-human-emissions-on-the-level-of-atmospheric-co2/
One of the problems I continue to hear or read about is “The Scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current global warming.” That was first mentioned by Cook et al (2013).
By the way, that was incredible how they tried to sell that lie.
Even my AI is telling me that consensus is a good thing. No bias in that neuro network.
Since then, we have been able to show that roughly 23% of the CO2 concentration in Earth’s current atmosphere is from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) or ‘human caused’. That leaves, 77% which does not seem to matter. For myself, if CO2 is actually the main problem, then why aren’t our scientists, activists’, governments and world organizations applying all of their resources to find how the other 77% continues to grow.
For one, most would lose their funding. Governments would have no one to tax. Our University Administrator positions would become obsolete, and educators would once again take over those responsibilities.
Atmospheric CO2, is more than 50% higher than it was 200 years ago. Most of the increase is from human emissions – fortunately, ocean and biosphere absorb about 2/3 of those human emissions. Scientists already know how it increases beyond direct emissions: It comes from temperature feedback; warmer oceans, melting ice, and increased decomposition of dead organic matter increase both CO2 and CH4 atmospheric concentration.
All resources are not devoted to studying something already understood, just because YOU don’t have complete understanding. Besides, if all resources were applied to your perceived problem, then they wouldn’t be able to study other aspects.
“No references, no publication, too many unjustified and incorrect assumptions. Just my opinion as a physicist.”
BA Bushaw @10:27 am
Thanks George,
If you don’t understand the difference, it’s not a surprise.
BIll V,
Nope. Even if the two hypotheticals (constant human source (no associated sink), with bidirectional sink-sources cut in half) were true, I’d agree with you – CO2 would increase, and faster than it is now.
Yes, phytoplankton population health is important, there are many such things that are important. The ocean’s role is clearly more complex and plays a bigger role than just the temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in water.
Bushaw,
Robert Cutler shows a US Govt graph of temperatures over a large area and CO2 in air versus time from nearly 200 years ago. The graph is said by some to show that some earth temperature changes not only in pattern with CO2 but also that CO2 causes the temperature change in the sense more CO2 causes higher T.
Two matters. First, early years of CO2 were measured far differently to recent. Many, many early measurements were rejected as being too high, by subjective guesses. Second, for the first 50 years shown, the alleged relation does not hold; more CO2 goes with lower T change.
Therefore, the graph is unfit for scientific purpose.
The graph has no support for a claim that CO2 in air causes warming. It might, it might not.
All of the measurements are with uncertainty, here not estimated or shown adequately.
Now, should you not modify your subjective guess that CO2 causes warming and strive to find hard scientific measurement?
Geoff S
Geoff, No, I don’t think so.
“Since then, we have been able to show that roughly 23% of the CO2 concentration in Earth’s current atmosphere is from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) or ‘human caused’. That leaves, 77% which does not seem to matter.”
Leroy: I am not sure who “we” is, but perhaps you got this wrong steer from the unfortunate article by Skrable et al. in Health Physics a couple of years ago based on radiocarbon analysis. The present carbon composition of the atmosphere does not tell you where it came from, because atmospheric carbon and carbon in land/sea reservoirs mixes on a decadal time scale. See Andrews, D.E., 2023: Comments on “Components of CO2 in 1750 through 2018 Corrected for the Perturbation of the 14CO2 Bomb Spike”, Health Physics, vol 124, issue 3, pp 223-225.
Humans added 259 to 399 oom of CO2 emissions to the atmi osphere sinnce 1850 and atmospheric CO2 ent up +140 ppm
That means nature was a net CO2 absorber since 1859, as it has been for 4.5 billion years.
Stop reading and start thinking.
Correcting multiple typos in my prior comment caused by a dog eating my papers:
Humans added +250 ppm to +300 ppm of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1850 and atmospheric CO2 went up +140 ppm. So where else could the +140 ppm CO2 increase have come from?
Bill V,
If you think through your scenario of dying photoplankton causing reduced carbon absorption by the sea, thereby allowing some natural source to no longer be compensated and increase atmospheric carbon, then you will find that atmospheric carbon rates of increase would EXCEED human emissions. That would make net global uptake, A MEASURED QUANTITY, negative. But that is not the situation we have been in for the last 100 years. Indeed in the distant past net global uptake has on occasion been negative, for example when there were no humans to emit anything and atmospheric carbon was increasing.
Javier,
When you say
“In the end, both sides approach climate science with the wrong attitude. Science is about uncertainty and questioning.”
you are describing the aspect of science that used to be called “natural philosophy”. But science in the 21st century is much more than that. It is also the mother of invention, the basis of medicine and technology, and a practical guide to public policy.
A physician may have uncertainty when he recommends surgery, but he makes the best judgement he can based on the scientific record. In an ideal political world, public policy makers would do the same thing. Your description of skeptics playing in climate science, each doing their own thing, is not worthy of the responsibilty the modern world puts on science. Your emphasis on originality over veracity and/or consensus cannot be the basis of policy.
Thank you for saying “I am also not skeptic of the evidence linking the increase in CO₂ to human emissions. I consider that proved to my satisfaction.” I wish Dr. Curry would make a similar statement. Perhaps then “DMA” would let go of a misconception he has had for years.
David Andrews,
From what I have read, the terrestrial biosphere has undergone a substantial greening lately, implying that it is absorbing more CO2 than previously. If the increase in carbon absorption of the terrestrial biosphere exceeds the decrease in carbon absorption due to dying phytoplankton, then net global uptake would still be positive.
I’m not saying this is definitely happening, but I think you first have to quantify the individual natural sources and sinks before the argument you make in Section 2 of your paper holds up.
David,
You are mixing two things. A doctor recommending surgery is a personal opinion based on knowledge that can be correct or incorrect, but it is up to the patient to follow that recommendation or not.
A policy based on science is forced on people who disagree, and if it does not consider uncertainty and proper cost-benefit analysis is a fool’s policy. The precautionary principle works both ways and should have limits, because dedicating huge resources based on a scientific consensus that might turn out to be wrong is a disaster, maybe bigger than doing nothing. In her latest book Judith Curry is exemplary in her analysis on how climate policy should be implemented given what is known and what is not known.
And the problem is worse when the science falls captive of powerful interests. The climate alarm now moves over 1.25 trillions of dollars annually. Part of that money is going to climate science since the 1980s, creating a vested interest in many scientists. We have every reason to suspect the science of climate bias towards supporting the alarm that feeds the scientists.
Javier,
You are certainly not the only one taking a libertarian approach to climate change. “If I don’t believe in it I won’t comply.” We had best not get into a discussion of Covid mask mandates. Years ago I had a conversation with a couple of French engineers about their experience doing a job in the US. They were disappointed to find that “the land of the free” had speed limits. Does “freedom” come with no responsibilities in your thinking?
Bill V,
What causes the greening in your latest scheme? I think you are finding that it is hard work inventing a scenario where natural processes, which are undeniably removing CO2 from the atmosphere, are at the same time the cause of the atmospheric increase. Why not accept the consensus view? It is simple and straightforward.
Javier,
And another thing. Your tired claim that climate science is biased by the money is laughable, even though it is often repeated on this blog. It is also an insult to friends of mine. If you want to “follow the money” acknowledge that fossil fuel companies have much deeper pockets and have been shown to have suppressed their own research. I will refrain from accusing you of dipping into those pockets
David, to suggest that climate science isn’t biased by money shows that you’re either part of the problem, or you’re not paying attention. Research is largely funded by governments and governments have agendas which they promote through their allocation of assets and propaganda.
Take for example this NOAA (government) plot of CO2 vs global temperature. The use of color and scaling is designed to create an emotional response, and to draw your eye away from areas prior to 1980 which detract from the narrative. With propaganda like this coming from a supposedly scientific organization, there’s clearly bias in “the science”.
https://www.climate.gov/media/13840
Robert Cutler: “The use of color and scaling is designed to create an emotional response, and to draw your eye away from areas prior to 1980 which detract from the narrative”
So, you just don’t like the obvious conclusions? All the data is equally represented and quantified on the axes – I guess that detracts from your narrative.
Cutler: “The use of color and scaling is designed to create an emotional response…”
Yes, red for warm, blue for cool – clever. Glad you pointed that out. I was completely taken in.
Pat, red is also a color associated with danger. Were you also completely taken in by the unscientific scaling and the fact that they didn’t take the log of the CO2 concentration? If the data is so compelling, why do you suppose NOAA skipped that step?
David Andrews,
In answer to your second question, I have no problem with the consensus view, which associates increasing atmospheric CO2 almost exclusively with the burning of fossil fuels. I am a great believer in the scientific method and I accept the consensus view as a reasonable but untested hypothesis. Because I consider it as untested, I am simply trying to understand where the hypothesis might go wrong.
I’m not sure I understand your first question. As I previously stated the natural process, which I’m suggesting might be causing atmospheric CO2 to increase, is the reduction in oceanic phytoplankton. I’m then suggesting that the greening might be caused by the terrestrial biosphere sequestering an amount of CO2 greater than this. In algebraic terms:
Say burning fossil fuels causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 of quantity ‘X’.
Say phytoplankton reduction causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 of quantity ‘Y’.
Say increased greening results in sequestering atmospheric CO2 of quantity ‘Z’.
If (X+Y) > Z > Y, then Net Global Uptake = Z – Y is positive.
Also, if Y >> X, the increase in atmospheric CO2 would be dominated by the phytoplankton reduction.
Robert Cutler: “unscientific scaling”
What exactly does that mean?
Bill V: “Say phytoplankton reduction causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 of quantity ‘Y’.”
That is a common logical error; the proper formulation is: Phytoplankton reduction causes less reduction of atmospheric CO2 – it never causes an increase.
Robert Cutler, you write
“to suggest that climate science isn’t biased by money shows that … you’re not paying attention.”
I try very hard to pay attention and to read material I disagree with. Why else would I visit this site? I have read Curry’s “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” and Koonin’s “Unsettled”. I do this believing that one of the biggest current problems in the US democracy (and likely elsewhere too) is that the explosion of information sources, especially the internet, puts too many people in information silos. We are never going to agree on solutions if we have different bases of facts. Of course I have seen the sentiment you express in many Climate etc posts, but I read other things too.
Your comment suggests that perhaps you should read a little more widely, if you really want to follow the money. May I suggest “Merchants of Doubt”, not a new book but one that traces the origins of climate change skepticism. Spoiler alert: it may be hard to believe, but fossil fuel companies were involved!
BA Bushaw (ganon1950),
In a carbon cycle with dynamic sources and sinks, I would equate ‘less reduction of atmospheric CO2’ to ‘an increase of atmospheric CO2’, especially if there are no changes to the CO2 sources. Sort of like ‘less basic’ being similar to ‘more acidic’
Bill V –
May I use your X,Y,Z formulation to demonstrate David Andrew’s point that “…it is hard work inventing a scenario where natural processes…are the cause of the atmospheric increase.”?
You correctly posit that “If (X+Y) > Z > Y, then Net Global Uptake = Z – Y is positive.” You also correctly note that “…if Y >> X, the increase in atmospheric CO2 would be dominated by [some natural process] that causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 of quantity ‘Y’.” But in that case we would have (X+Y) > Z > Y >> X, or approximately, in self-contradiction, Y > Z > Y. Put another way, your expression (X+Y) > Z > Y can only hold if X > Z – Y; that is, if the fossil fuel input exceeds the net natural input.
Bill V,
I know you would make that equivalence, you just did it again. It is a still a logical fallacy: removal of something can’t increase that something, even if the removal is made smaller.
Pat Cassen,
You say: ” But in that case we would have (X+Y) > Z > Y >> X, or approximately, in self-contradiction, Y > Z > Y.”
What kind of gobbledygook math is that??
Let X = 2, Y = 10, Z = 11. Then (10 + 2) > 11 > 10, and 10 >> 2. No self-contradiction.
You also say “… your expression (X+Y) > Z > Y can only hold if X > Z – Y; that is, if the fossil fuel input exceeds the net natural input.”
I agree. What point are you trying to make?
BA Bushaw (ganon1950),
If the CO2 sources into the atmosphere match the CO2 sinks out of the atmosphere each year, then there should be no change to the quantity of atmospheric CO2, year over year. This seems to be what was happening in pre-industrial times when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was approximately 300ppm. If in one year the CO2 sources remain constant but, for some reason, the CO2 sinks reduce by half, then this imbalance between sources and sinks will cause the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to increase for that year. What exactly is the logical fallacy you are seeing?
Sorry Bill, I guess I could have been more explicit.
The “gobbledygook” math comes in the limit Y >> X. In your numerical example, Y=10, Z=11, X=2
X > Z – Y becomes 2 > 1; fossil fuel contributions are twice natural sources and sinks.
“What point are you trying to make?” Simply that one cannot explain the increase in CO2 abundance by appealing to an imbalance of natural sources and sinks; they cannot dominate fossil fuel contributions.
If your point is that an imbalance of natural sources and sinks might contribute to the increase in CO2, sure. It just can’t dominate the fossil fuel contribution.
“…fossil fuel contributions are twice net natural sources and sinks.”
Of course we have real measured values that should be used. In units normalized to known emissions (X = 1),
X + Y – Z = 1 + Y – Z = the measured increase in CO2 = about .5. So Y – Z = -.5. Sinks exceed sources, natural processes are net sinks, and natural imbalances contribute nothing to the increase in CO2. (Which we knew all along.) One might speculate about coincident increases in natural sources and sinks, but since they must cancel, such speculation does not affect the conclusion that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion.
Bill V: “If the CO2 sources into the atmosphere match the CO2 sinks out of the atmosphere each year, then there should be no change to the quantity of atmospheric CO2, year over year.”
If the “If” is true, then the statement is likely true. But the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and thus sources and sinks are not equal. The “if” is not true.
Bill V,
The logical fallacy is claiming that less decrease causes increase. If you don’t get it, that’s OK.
Pat Cassen,
Using a net sink value for all natural sources and sinks in order to estimate their contribution to atmospheric CO2, relative to fossil fuels, would only make sense if they all originated from exactly the same phenomenon. In my scenario I was suggesting the natural source might be from dying phytoplankton and the natural sink might be from the greening of the terrestrial biosphere, two completely different phenomena. You could just as easily create a net sink value by combining fossil fuel combustion and biosphere greening and come to the conclusion that the increase in CO2 is due to dying phytoplankton.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950),
Because the ‘if’ seems to be true in pre-industrial times, I’m going to assume you’ll agree with the following:
During pre-industrial times, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 remained relative constant because the natural sources and sinks were in balance, i.e. equal but opposite in sign.
Please let me know if this assumption on my part is incorrect.
If the above assumption is valid, what do you think would have been the effect on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere if the CO2 sources remained constant but the CO2 sinks were reduced by half? My position is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would increase. You seem to insist that this is a logical fallacy.
There is good evidence that the 23% human induced CO2 you site is too large and should be about 5%. https://edberry.com/the-effect-of-human-emissions-on-the-level-of-atmospheric-co2/
No, it is not good evidence. No references, no publication, too many unjustified and incorrect assumptions. Just my opinion as a physicist.
Here is the paper with the references: https://edberry.com/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2-published-paper/
See the referenced work by Harde and Salby as well.
Scienceofclimatechange.org – LOL – not all publications are impartial or scientific. Perhaps you should read their objectives (to present only one side of the story) on their home page. Like I said, it is not good evidence. Thanks anyway.
So it is wrong because it comes from an unlikely source not because it has errors you can show or other works that refute it. The IPCC assumption that all of the increase in CO2 is man made sits on a very weak foundation and unsound reasoning. The statistical works referenced in the Berry paper support his contention and rule out the IPCC assumption.
No, because it comes from a source that admits it is completely biased against the accepted views of climate change.
“No, because it comes from a source that admits it is completely biased against the accepted views of climate change.”
And it is also wrong because it is based on an incorrect application of conservation of mass, and false statements regarding the concentration of 14C. For a correct explanation see, for instance,
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
DMA,
There are many reasons to reject the arguments of Berry, Harde, Salby, and Skrable et al. on the source of atmospheric carbon rise. I include several of them in this paper:
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202301/20. You will see this is a link to a Science of Climare Change article by myself that debunks all of these authors. Ganon is correct that you should be dubious of a “journal” whose stated mission is to contradict the IPCC, but former editor Jan-Erik Solheim made exceptions with my papers. Feel free to ask questions or challenge any of my points, but please think for yourself. A response “but Berry says…” would not be helpful, unless you can make the argument yourself.
David Andrews,
Your paper’s argument in Section 2 (Human Emissions Cause the Increase) would be a lot more convincing if the value for ‘Atmospheric Accumulation’ equaled that of ‘Cumulative Human Emissions’. As it is, you are showing a non-zero ‘Net Global Uptake’ value. This means that one or more of the natural sources and/or sinks must have changed over the specified time period. To complete your argument you really need to answer the following:
What exactly caused those natural sinks and sources to change during that time, and by how much did they change?
Your argument doesn’t hold water if, for example, there was actually a huge change in one of the natural sources and and also a huge compensating change in one of the sinks.
Pat Cassen: “And it is also wrong because it is based on an incorrect application of conservation of mass”
It is not an incorrect application of the conservation of mass. As we have been through in a previous post, mass IS conserved, but the residence time of CO2 in reservoirs (previously captured CO2 in decaying biomass) varies with a huge impact on atmospheric levels.
That’s why atmospheric levels can vary by as much 100ppm per century in the proxy record.
“former editor Jan-Erik Solheim made exceptions with my papers.”
Why do you say they made an exception? Looks to me that the journal is open to scientific debate and contrary positions on climate change.
That would make this journal an exception for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.
Agnostic,
There is only one case known where CO2 has changed by 100 ppm/century – that would be the last 100 years.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Bill V,
You ask:
“What exactly caused those natural sinks and sources to change during that time, and by how much did they change?”
First it is important to understand that the non-zero and positive “net global uptake” is an empirical statement utilizing carbon conservation, not my speculation. If our emissions are about 2x the rate of atmospheric carbon growth, the excess carbon has to have gone somewhere. You can see that the errors are quite small on this NET quantity, the difference between flows to and from the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs. The gross flows are less well known. See the Nature article by Ballantyne et al. cited. There is no controversy on the data. Berry has graphs showing emissions about 2x greater than atmospheric accumulation too, but does not recognize the implication.
Second, more carbon in the oceans is confirmed by their acidification (less basic) and more carbon on land from the measureable flourishing of plant life.
Finally, the reason these natural sinks changed is obvious. We put sequestered carbon from fossil reservoirs into the atmosphere, and its spread elsewhere by Henry’s Law and biological forces was inevitable.
Javier,
I will tell you that I have respect for Solheim. During the review of my paper he sent me multiple contrary papers and questions that indicated he honestly believed that the CO2 rise was “natural” and temperature caused. I countered them all. In the end he accepted my paper. I don’t know if he accepted my arguments (he should have) or just got tired. Shortly afterwards he resigned as editor of a journal whose mission statement is not about seeking truth but about countering the IPCC.
I do not have the same respect for Harde (the new editor), or Berry or Skrable. They repeat mistakes and avoid answering clear questions. I do not know what motivates them. To me, they represent the skeptic community. If other skeptics want to gain credibililty, they could begin by agreeing which parts of the overall skeptic narrative is just plain wrong and publicly denouncing it. Otherwise they risk being lumped with junk science. I address this comment to Dr. Curry as well as to yourself.
Only stupid conservatives claim 5% and thereby make fellow conservatives with some climate science knowledge look bad by association.
Further to Agnostic’s point about rapidly rising CO2 in proxy records, without human contribution:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/co2-and-temps-250-yr-lag-during-lia-rev.png
Much ado is claimed about the 80ppm rise from 1850 to 2000, but just as rapidly CO2 went up the same from 1400 to 1550
“If other skeptics want to gain credibililty, they could begin by agreeing which parts of the overall skeptic narrative is just plain wrong and publicly denouncing it. Otherwise they risk being lumped with junk science.”
There is no “overall skeptic narrative.” Skepticism is a personal position on anything a person considers has insufficient evidence. Every person is skeptic of a different set of issues. You might be skeptic of the evidence that solar activity has an outsized effect on climate. I am not. I am also not skeptic of the evidence linking the increase in CO₂ to human emissions. I consider that proved to my satisfaction.
Lumping all skeptics into one group is incorrect as there is more variety among them than among affirmationists. They all believe in the central dogma of affirmationism, that humans are responsible for recent climate change, and that it constitutes an emergency and an existential threat.
So, the ones that more vigorously oppose my hypothesis of climate change through changes in meridional transport modulated by the Sun, are those skeptics who defend different explanations. I already expected this. My hypothesis competes directly with theirs for the same following of the people that reject the central dogma of affirmationism.
In the end, both sides approach climate science with the wrong attitude. Science is about uncertainty and questioning. We don’t need to believe in anything and we should not believe in anything, because science is not about believing.
David Andrews,
I accept that ‘net global uptake’ is in fact non-zero and positive. I also accept that the oceans are acidifying slightly, probably due to dissolved carbon dioxide. As you have pointed out, these are natural phenomena that can be and have been measured and quantified.
Your explanation as to why this is happening is reasonable but speculative. Consider what would happen if phytoplankton became less effective in sequestering CO2 in the ocean. This might happen due to human pollution, or possibly due to warming water. With more CO2 in the water the oceans would then become less basic, their ability to sink CO2 would decrease and atmospheric CO2 would increase from the existing natural sources, assuming these natural sources don’t change. This explanation is of course also speculative.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 27, 2024 at 12:57 pm |
“….No, because it comes from a source that admits it is completely biased against the accepted views of climate change….”
On the other hand, it seems inconsistent that BA Bushaw would completely accept the conclusions of publications from sources which are completely biased towards their own particular ‘mainstream’ views on climate change.
BA Bushaw: “There is only one case known where CO2 has changed by 100 ppm/century – that would be the last 100 years.”
Not so. It has regularly changed by as much as 100ppm in <100 years. For example at the end of Bolling-Allerod when CO2 leaked at as much 425ppm. Also the MWP where it could have been as high as 390ppm.
There is plenty of evidence for this.
“I am also not skeptic of the evidence linking the increase in CO₂ to human emissions. I consider that proved to my satisfaction.”
Further to Javier’s point; His hypothesis is in no way impacted by those of us who think the contribution to increases in atmospheric CO2 also have a natural component that is underestimated. If he is right, then the increase in temperatures from the LIA is predominantly driven by solar activity. If we are right, then that warming has driven increased natural CO2 emissions from CO2 reservoirs in the biosphere.
Agnostic,
If there is plenty of evidence, cite it. Your opinion and false statements are not evidence.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Markx,
(1) You have no idea what I accept and what I don’t.
(2) You are the one saying the sources I quote are biased – that is your biased opinion – irrelevant when compared to a source whose published mission is to be biased. Nothing inconsistent except you.
Bushaw: “If there is plenty of evidence, cite it. Your opinion and false statements are not evidence.”
Fine:
Wagner et al 2004: https://tinyurl.com/57wafbhu
“The majority of the stomatal frequency-basedCO2 estimates for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years (Indermu.hle et al., 1999). The available high-resolution CO2 reconstructions based on plant fossils suggest that century-scale CO2 fluctuations contributed to Holocene climate evolution (Rundgren and Beerling, 1999; Wagner et al.)”
Steinthorsdottir et al 2013: https://tinyurl.com/55u2cfk7
”first to minimum values of 175-190 ppm at theGS-1/Holocene boundary (3.24 depth), before rising sharply to280-300 ppm, and staying at that level through the next 95years….This again indicates a ca 100 ppm rise in CO2 in <100 years"
"which marks a shift from a warmer to a colder climate state, CO2 increases markedly before the boundary and peaks at ca 400-425 ppm before it decreases again and then stabilizes after the boundary into a pattern of lower-amplitude
fluctuations withaverage values of 230-250 ppm during GS-1"
Will that do you or would you like some more?
Agnostic,
Thanks. Two old papers on stomatal index, which exhibits high data variance and pCO2 reconstructions are not considered quantitative.
I’ll offer this as rebuttal:
“The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
“The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.”
Who says? 20k years is all near-term data, an ongoing measure of post one-off glacial climate timescale metrics, relative to Milankovitch time scales. Any centennial, or decadal period since the last glacial has no relative comparible measure within said timeframe, relative to climates march towards peak interglacial.
By default any time-scale metric (within 20k years) must be unique in climates march towards “peak” interglacial. If it’s not unique, describe, in exact scientific terms, what peak interglacial looks like without AGW? The CAGW presentation, short of natural disaster causation influence, is that a non-AGW influenced interglacial would not witness temperature spikes like we’ve witnessed over the last 150 years. So prove it. Looking at a Milankovitch chart, strip out the granularity of the modern age temperature curve—what one sees is that there’s nothing noteworthy about the current 21st century temperature peak in relation to other Milankovitch peak interglacial periods. We probably need more warmth in comparison, actually, a bit more SLR too.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1496
Ones ambition to blame warming entirely on anthropomorphic causation isn’t provable. Granular observational data from prior interglacial periods might help in said argument; granular in the sense of how CAGW zealots argue “unprecedented warming”; but I doubt it. Similar granular decadal data 120k years ago (during the Sangamon interglacial) to discover what a normal peak interglacial looks like might help in the understanding of anthropomorphic influences, but data from 120k years ago is scattershot, there’s no hockey stick to be found; though they probably exist in abundance if science could produce a granular decadal scale going back millions of years. Having a few 100 year paleo data points isn’t good enough to say “atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases”—the latter is an absurd statement.
Trunks,
Climate.gov is part of NASA – that’s who says. Are you having trouble navigating? If you don’t like what they say, write ’em a letter.
Polly, Since NSAS is apparently your source on the matter, show us a NASA quote making the broad stroke statement you’ve been recently surfing on: “atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases”.
BTW: “The Last Interglacial (LIG; ~129,000–116,000 years ago) is the most recent warmer-than-present period in Earth history, when global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were ~0.5–1 °C warmer than today1,2,3 and sea level 1.2 (ref. 4)–9 m (ref. 5) above the present-day level….While the warmer mean SSTs during the LIG are reasonably well constrained, little is known about the short-term dynamics during this period, in particular the decadal to centennial rates of SST change….. So far, reconstruction of continuous short-term climate variations from the LIG has been restricted by the limited availability of temporally well-constrained continuous archives that preserve undisturbed signals of climate variability in sufficient resolution and by the coarse temporal resolution provided by conventional analyses.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01016-y
Trunks,
Child.
Polly, resorting to platitudes. can’t produce the quote he continually parrots.
Trunks,
Here it is again (notice the quotation marks – verbatim copy and paste):
“The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.”
Here is the previously given source link (click or tap on it to go to the article):
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
And references therein. Apparently, you, too, can’t demonstrate a past event that is similar to what is currently happening now with GHGs.
Bye, bye, little boy – not interested in any more of your silly name-calling and irrelevant deflections.
“you, too, can’t demonstrate a past event that is similar to what is currently happening now with GHGs.”
Says the climate theologian.
I doubt the NASA quote can be proven. We have decadal CO2 data for every decade since 17k years ago?
How much CO2 was released by glacial dam bursts? The floods cut through surrounding permafrost and gouged out most of the North American canyons we recognize today. Freshwater flooding so significant that it changed ocean currents. From what I’ve read it’s not well understood. But you know the amount of CO2 that would have been released as thee floods scoured through permafrost from coast to coast, in a matter of days?
Jungletrunks,
You, too, still can’t demonstrate a past event that is similar to what is currently happening now with GHGs.
“Could have happened, just can’t see it.” Make me laugh!
Polly certainly knows how to parrot the written word: when a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, it only made a sound if NASA says it did.
Trunks,
Thanks for letting us know, still a looser that behaves child.
Polly, during the prior Sangamon interglacial, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, yet it was warmer at peak interglacial than our current climate. How does Polly’s orthodox climate bible reconcile?
The literature attributes the interglacials warmth to Earth’s orbital parameters, and Milankovitch cycles. Zharkova’s science attributes contemporary warming to planetary orbital parameters.
Valentina Zharkova attributes todays warming to SIM specifically, a confluence of gravitational planetary alignment effects on the sun. The suns wobble positions it closer to Earth.
Trunks,
You still can’t demonstrate a past event that is similar to what is currently happening now with GHGs.
Just more deflections, thanks anyway – fun to see you (and others) get your panties all twisted. The desperation to avoid the obvious is hilarious.
Trunks,
You still can’t demonstrate a past event that is similar to what is currently happening now with GHGs.
Not interested in you continued deflections
The Pope shares your views too, Polly.
Disciples to never stray from orthodoxy, they’ll continue pounding away, never straying from the scripture. Central authority is the whole point for being saved.
Trunks, see my last comment – nothing has changed.
33% of the 420 ppm CO2 had manmade origins — 100% of the increase since 1850 of +140 ppm
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s existence. own to 180 ppm just 20,000 years ago.
Humans “recycling” sequestered underground carbon that was once in the atmosphere is a new trend.
I think it is good news. Others claim bad news.
That is the debate.
The debate is not over where the last +140 ppm of CO2 came from.
“Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s existence. own to 180 ppm just 20,000 years ago.”
Doesn’t look that way by the best data we have:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/mannheimer-fig16.png
When I went up to University for my first degree [ 60 years ago], a Professor told us little in science was certain. In his experience there were only 3 certainties namely ” the indivisibility of the electron”, ” the conservation of mass” and ” the conservation of energy”. 1Almost 100% of the energy that makes thrive comes from the sun. Some is absorbed (70%) and the rest is reflected. The absorbed energy re emits in the infra red. 100% of this is absorbed primarily by water vapor and carbon dioxide. Adding more CO2 does not increase the absorption it just means the absorption occurs closer to the earth’s surface. Obviously if the albedo falls there will be more IR.
Actually, saturated absorption increases effective bandwidth, thus there is more absorption as well as it being closer to the surface.
“Adding more CO2 does not increase the absorption”
WRONG
CO2 is not saturated and never will be. That is a myth. I wrote this article on the myth:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2024/04/tthe-greenhouse-effect-co2-is-saturated.html
“Well, here’s what all climate scientists actually agree on:
. . .
• And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.”
That statement is an incomplete description of an inherently complex physical domain. In particular, the necessary and sufficient states that Earth’s climate systems must attain for the statement to be correct are omitted. Without these states specified, the statement is not correct. The theoretical basis that such states will be obtained, and especially empirical data that indicate that such states have been previously attained, have not been presented. The figure of merit that is currently in use to represent the outcome of the warming, a global functional, is not related to any meaningful aspects of the physical domain. None.
The methodology that will be used to determine, or more likely approximately estimate, that those states are obtained is omitted. Demonstration that the methodology is appropriate and consistent with Earth’s climate systems has not been presented. Quantification of the time scales, (years, centuries, millennium), necessary to observe the “warming effects”, and more importantly, the beneficial or deleterious nature of the warming, are omitted.
For me, the incompleteness of the specification of the “problem” is how we got from (a) CO2 is important with respect to radiative energy transport in Earth’s climate systems, to (b) We’re all goin’ die because of the existential threat of increasing CO2.
Correct solutions of a problem cannot begin until after the problem has been correctly identified.
Well, I did it to myself. This statement is incomplete: “(a) CO2 is important with respect to radiative energy transport in Earth’s climate systems,”
CO2 is not even the most important aspect of radiative energy transport in Earth’s climate systems. There are several constitutes of our atmosphere that are radiatively interactive including non-condensible and condensible gases, liquid and solid states of water, and various other solids. Increasing amounts of CO2, in and of itself, is not sufficient to ensure an increasing energy content within Earth’s climate systems.
CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas in the mid-1800s. Adding CO2 to the troposphere inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself — also discovered in the 1800s.
I have no idea what you arer blathering about in this comment, and neither do you.
The evidence collected that manmade CO2 emissions are an important cause of post -1975 warming far exceeds the evidence that the warming was 100% natural.
Science is collecting evidence to support a theory.
You imply that no CO2 = warming evidence has been collecte in the past 100+ years.
In your next comment you deny that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect.
That claim is false.
And that false claim makes you an unreliable source of climate science information.
“In your next comment you deny that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect.”
No, I did not. Please supply the exact words in which I wrote that.
“Read harder.”
No, we’re all going to, die because everybody dies. Only some will die because of climate change. The main problem and solution have been identified (too many people burning too much fossil fuel; do less). It seems to me, the lesser natural contributions which some people concentrate on here are a deflection from the idea that humans are destroying planetary sustainability and accelerating climate change so much/so fast that other species (even humans) will have difficulty adapting. If you can’t process/accept the scientific evidence, that’s your (and many others) problem.
Where’s the scientific evidence that humans will have trouble adapting the climate change
Can’t you figure anything for yourself? I guess not. Here is an example:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2210769
“It’s so hot in Mexico that howler monkeys are falling dead from the trees” [AP]. What are you going to do to help them adapt?
Monkeys are not humans.
Your link did not show anything where humanity is having trouble adapting. We have AC now.
Humanity is and will adapt just fine. You are simply an alarmist.
And you think having AC solves the problem? LOL Third Law of Thermodynamics. Never mind.
The primary climate change since 1975 is warmer winters in colder nations of the NH. Mainly higher TMIN at dawn not higher TMAX in afternoons
Adapt to a better climate?
We love the first 48 years of “global warming” here in Michigan. Give us more of that. 10 minutes of snow shoveling in the whole winter. That took about three seconds to adapt to.
This Blog represents a meeting place for those who agree with one another over an over again that because of uncertainty we should do nothing. The establishment takes the opposite view and agrees with itself over and over again that the end of the world is at hand due to climate change. Despite all the good news, there are also ominous signs pointing toward evolving global war via dictatorial regimes Russia, China, Iran, the Muslim proxies of Iran, various parts of Africa, and who knows who else?
Judith, you wrote: “The fact is, we can’t predict the future climate. It’s simply not possible. And everybody should acknowledge that. And every scientist does.”
I respectfully disagree. If the sun is the primary driver of climate, of which many scientists do agree, then it is possible to make predictions at least 10 years into the future simply because the earth’s integral-like response to solar stimulation introduces a delayed response. This is the basis of my future predictions. I’m not extrapolating into the future. If we know past solar activity, then we can predict climate a short distance into the future just as surely as we can expect a boom some time after we see the flash of a firecracker.
Second, many hypothesize that solar activity is modulated by the gravitational forces of the planets. If true, and if we ever understand how, then we could could possibly predict climate even further into the future.
Finally, I seriously doubt all scientists agree on anything. “Consensus” isn’t scientific, it’s political.
Dr. Curry is right, we can’t predict the future climate; it depends too much on uncertain (and unpredictable) societal responses. However, projections with probabilities (subjective and sometimes quantitative) based on assumed societal response (RCPs and SSPs) can be, and are, done. Future predictions are for psychics; projections are for scientists that calculate (chaotic) trajectories and their uncertainties.
Judith, while I stand by my comments, I realize that the way I quoted the comment suggests that it’s a comment you made. It is not. I apologize if this mislead anyone.
The alleged effect of the sun on Earth’s climate for short 50 to 100 year periods is a fig newton of Solar Nutter imaginations.
‘Let’s start with the good news.’
CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is greening the globe.
Thank you GOOD NATURE!!!
What Nature does is a one way decaying process. It is a never stopping cooling process.
Earth is slowly cooling since its formation.
Once in the process carbon (C) occured, when combined with hydrogen (H2) the life occured.
Carbon in form of CO2 gets captured and sequestered. It gets sequestered in the natural sinks (oceanic waters, rocky sediments, and coal, natural gas and oil deposits).
By doing so, Nature exploites life. Also, Nature doesn’t care about life’s future existence.
Many large forms of life (dinosaurs etc…) went extinct, because the Natural CO2 depletion from Earth’s atmosphere made the food for the large species very scarce, so the smaller species were more adapted. It was then large mammals (whales) turned back into sea, because there still was enough food.
If Nature is left on its own, Nature will lead life on Earth to inevitable natural ecological catastrophe.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Recycle” CO2
Save the planet
Burn hydrocarbon fuels
Thanks for a great science comment.
For those that the rate of sea level rise is static.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2404766121
“Widespread seawater intrusions beneath the grounded ice of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica”.
ganon
Static is not the same as insignificant acceleration. But that is for another discussion.
The contribution to GMSLR from Thwaites Glacier can’t be evaluated in isolation. The loss there has to be compared to the gain in SMB for the entire AIS which offsets rise in GMSLR. Just like everywhere else there is variability. The links that I provided above focused on the dynamics involved in the increase/decrease of SMB.
“The results show that the continuous mass loss in the AIS between 2003 and 2020 was 141.8 ± 55.6 Gt yr−1 . However, the AIS showed a record-breaking mass gain of 129.7 ± 69.6 Gt yr −1 between 2021 and 2022. During this period, the mass gain over the East AIS and Antarctic Peninsula was unprecedented within the past two decades, and it outpaced the mass loss in the Amundsen sector of the West AIS from 2003 to 2022.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad0863
“ Here, we reconstruct 200 years of Antarctic-wide snow accumulation by synthesizing a newly compiled database of ice core records using reanalysis-derived spatial coherence patterns. The results reveal that increased snow accumulation mitigated twentieth-century sea-level rise by ~10 mm since 1901, with rates increasing from 1.1 mm decade−1 between 1901 and 2000 to 2.5 mm decade−1 after 1979. Reconstructed accumulation trends are highly variable in both sign and magnitude at the regional scale, and linked to the trend towards a positive Southern Annular Mode since 1957.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0356-x
Guess you forgot what “rate” means. You have consistently maintained that the rate is not increasing – that would be a static rate.
Thanks for the references.
I am of aware of increased snow pack with warmer oceans. The ~ 10 mm of sea level rise that we have been “saved from” should be compared to the total observed over the same period (~250 mm). A real, but minor, distraction.
Rob, you didn’t mention acceleration. Whether or not you are alarmed doesn’t matter, You are entitled to your opinion, that doesn’t make it correct; regardless, you speak for anyone else. What does your reference’s acceleration number yield for the rate of sea level rise in, say, 50 years? Can you calculate that?
ganon
Read harder. There is a difference between no acceleration and insignificant acceleration. Are you starting to catch on yet? There is hope for you yet.
Kid,
So you can’t calculate either: (r_c x 0.5a^2). According to the numbers in the referenced UC link, yearly sea level rise will increase by ~9.4 mm/yr in 15 years, and that’s on top of the current ~3.5 mm/yr. It is real simple physics and math; that y’all can’t/won’t do it, says a lot.
sorry, should be: r_c + 0.5a^2
ganon
You mean runaway acceleration like in San Diego where the acceleration is .0125mm/yr2. Head for the hills. Hundreds of other tidal gauges across the globe show the same insignificant acceleration.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9410170&co2=0
.01125mm/yr2
KId,
No, I mean global mean sea level rise. You got nothing and the attempts are pathetic.
ganon
I’ve already provided you last year with these tidal gauge data and they all show insignificant acceleration. Tidal gauges as a whole show the only in situ direct measurements of acceleration. We’ve already covered numerous times the massive uncertainties with satellite measurements.
I’ve already provided you last year with these tidal gauge data and they all show insignificant acceleration. Tidal gauges as a whole show the only in situ direct measurements of acceleration. We’ve already covered numerous times the massive uncertainties with satellite measurements.
You showed graphs for a few cherry-picked sites that show low rate and accelerations. You ignore global averages, and weirdly think the low side of a distribution negates it’s average.
How much do those massive uncertainties weigh? My understanding it is they weigh about 5 cm for a single measurement and easily gets down to 0.1 cm with signal averaging.
The first paragraph above:
I’ve already provided you last year with these tidal gauge data and they all show insignificant acceleration. Tidal gauges as a whole show the only in situ direct measurements of acceleration. We’ve already covered numerous times the massive uncertainties with satellite measurements.
should have been in quotes – it comes from cerescokid.
ganon
ganon said “… you showed graphs for a few cherry-picked sites …”
ganon meant to say “..you showed graphs for a few hundred sites…”
These are the graphs that I provided you when you first came on this site seeking help and clarification about global warming. As you can see by clicking on the graphs and looking at the bottom, you won’t find acceleration that is even close to that found in most studies from satellite altimetry. I completely empathize with your dilemma having to deal with inconvenient reality. You probably deep sixed those earlier graphs by throwing them away in the garbage with the avocado peels.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html
As we’ve discussed several times before, satellite data have huge uncertainties from a long list of sources. To name a few:gravitational attraction and loading effects, satellite orbit error, instrument errors, sea state bias, need for recalibration, geophysical correction errors, wet troposphere correction, oscillation drift, rotational feedback, ocean bottom deformation, coastal zone adjustments, wave steepness adjustments, gravity field inversion errors, intra mission bias, on and on and on.
I previously linked Prandi (2021) which had an uncertainty level of 0.062mm/yr2 for acceleration in satellite data. Big numbers given the small nominal amounts.
But, I am not without empathy. Religious beliefs can wreak havoc with our cognitive functions and mess up big time our logic and reasoning.
KId,
You can deny the acceleration of sea level rise all you want – doesn’t change it one bit. And BTW, a half dozen is not hundreds.
ganon
You missed the top of the page. 375 tidal gauges. Fixed it for you.
kid: “I previously linked Prandi (2021), which had an uncertainty level of 0.062mm/yr2 for acceleration in satellite data.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7
Either you don’t understand, or misrepresent your reference. I’ll tutor you
The 0.062 mm/yr2 is the AVERAGE OF SINGLE-LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES.
Prandi “Over 1993–2019, we find that the average local sea level trend uncertainty is 0.83 mm.yr−1 with values ranging from 0.78 to 1.22 mm.yr−1. For accelerations, uncertainties range from 0.057 to 0.12 mm.yr−1 [incorect/typo – should be yr-2], with a mean value of 0.062.” Com’on man – it’s in the abstract. More details are given after fig. 4:
“The uncertainty in local sea level trend ranges from 0.78 to 1.22 mm.yr−1 with a mean value of 0.83 mm.yr−1. Locally, the uncertainties on sea level trends are found to be 2 to 4 times higher than the uncertainty on the GMSL trend. The average local SL trend uncertainty is about twice the estimate GMSL trend uncertainty from [Ablain2015].
The uncertainty in local sea level acceleration ranges from 0.057 to 0.12 mm.yr−2 with a mean value of 0.062 mm.yr−2. Uncertainties on local SL accelerations are 1 to 2 times higher than the uncertainty on the GMSL acceleration. The average local SL acceleration uncertainty is comparable to the GMSL acceleration uncertainty [Ablain2015]”
[Ablain2015] https://os.copernicus.org/articles/11/67/2015/
If you’d like to keep up on the Prandi group:
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-330/
Thanks for the discussion, you make it so easy …
“ Uncertainties on local SL accelerations are 1 to 2 times higher than the uncertainty on the GMSL acceleration.”
Still substantial uncertainty given the accelerations that are being used in many studies. Of course the tidal gauge acceleration amounts are significantly less than the satellite data and are the only direct, in situ measurements.
And then there is this study which I’ve linked before.
“ We provide a new and more accurate estimate of the intra-mission bias, which leads to a much reduced GMSL acceleration over the whole record. Hence, the conundrum of an uncertain GMSL acceleration from altimetry is still unsolved, in spite of recent opposite claims, and in contrast to the expected effect of ocean warming and continental freshwater fluxes.”
“ Note that the inability to state that an acceleration is present with certainty using satellite radar altimetry does not imply there is no acceleration at all. Its estimated value in this study is actually in line with the results of the 20th-century tide-gauge-based GMSL reconstruction by Dangendorf et al.17, notably 0.018 ± 0.016 mm yr−2. The uncertainties in the altimetry-derived estimate, however, cause the same acceleration to become statistically equivalent to zero at a 95%-confidence level. It should be stressed that, based on the decadal behavior of GMSL as shown in the same study, we need to be careful with comparing accelerations from records of different length.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
kid,
Thanks. Yes, the acceleration in the 20th century was small. What does that have to do with acceleration that has been observed in the last 30 years? I guess old people live in the past … or is just another failed attempt at cherry-picking?
The rate of sea level rise is increasing slightly and not at an alarming rate. The flows under Antarctica are not due to CO2. You are an alarmist.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Yeah, you think I’m an alarmist – I am realist and a scientist – I find it better than being ignorant. Your reference: The blue line probably looks straight to you – it isn’t – it shows quadratic growth. The important piece therein is: acceleration = 0.083 mm/y^2. Do you know what that means?
Don’t really care about your uninformed personal opinions, but I hope it makes you feel better to attack me (and fail) every time you think you see an opportunity.
You ARE an alarmist.
The rate of acceleration is on the chart. I never stated there was zero acceleration just that it is unalarming.
BAB
I have shown the 30-year record and trend that demonstrates there is little to worry about over the period. You have shown nothing to reliably show that there will be a change in that trend or that AGW is a problem for humans. I have also shown the long-term sea-level record showing large change over time independent of humans.
You comment VERY frequently at this site and parrot the liberal mainstream academia position. You are wrong. CO2 mitigation will do virtually nothing to alter the CO2 growth curve. Humans release CO2.
Rob Starkey: “I have shown the 30-year record and trend that demonstrates there is little to worry about over the period.”
No, there is no worry about the 30-year record over its period – it has already happened – no worries. The trend shows that CO2 is increasing, and the acceleration shows how fast. If you choose to ignore it, or think it is not important, that is your choice; to me, that just indicates a lack of understanding of exponential growth and trajectory inertia in non-linear dynamics. And of course, you are always entitled to your personal subjunctive opinions.
Thanks for your thoughts.
That article has nothing to do with acceleration of sea level. Geez. Take a break BA. You are just cluttering up the blog.
Sure it does, it says “acceleration: 0.083 ± 0.025” mm/yr^2 right there on the main graphic. Maybe you are the one that should stop cluttering up the blog with obvious denialistic lies.
The acceleration is slight and easily adapted to by humanity. Only alarmists see the rate of sea level rise as a pending disaster.
Rob,
We’ve covered this several times, and your “record” is stuck – nothing quantitative, no references, repeating the same personal opinions over and over.
One more time: Only those that can’t/won’t use the “slight (LOL)” acceleration value to calculate likely sea level-rise-rate in 15-20 years, deny there is a possible pending disaster. But then, ignorance is bliss.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Willful ignorance does not make it go away.
Bruce are you saying you would be willing to use that data to extrapolate 20 years into the future?
Robert Cutler,
Yes, as long as the stated uncertainties are propagated. I’m pretty sure there is enough inertia in the global climate system that the trend/acceleration won’t change all that much in 15-20 years. However, I would also consider more detailed projections than a simple quadratic fit, e.g.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report-sections.html
If we are certain about sea level rise and the rate, then now is the time to take adaptive measures. Help people move from affected areas in the US. Stop issuing federal flood insurance in those areas. Be sure the commercial interests understand the risks an that it’s on them to adapt. It isn’t difficult.
Jim2, It is the future, where nothing is certain. How should we deal with that?
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/271/rising-seas-unknown-future-how-to-communicate-uncertainty/
Well, Bruce I wouldn’t make that prediction. I think the acceleration will turn negative. But if you would, here’s what to expect. Note that I couldn’t reproduce the acceleration rate in the original graph.
https://localartist.org/media/SeaLevel.png
In short, with all of that horrific acceleration we can expect about 110 mm of rise over the next 20 years, or a little over 4 inches.
The Climate catastrophists are giving the insurance companies cover to raise rates due to “climate change”. Just follow their lead for adaptation.
Robert Culter,
fit and projection look about right. Your 0.0416 quadratic coefficient corresponds to a = 0.0832 mm/yr^2, essentially the same as found by UC, Boulder. You are entitled to your own subjunctive opinion about it.
ganon
You link to a study on Thwaites and you deflect from further conversation. The purpose of my links is to show that there is variability in the AIS contribution to SLR and precipitation detracts from the contribution to GMSLR. Try to keep up on the debate.
“Contrastingly, extreme precipitation in the winters of 2019 and 2020 decreased mass loss by 60 ± 16 Gt yr−1 during those years (contributing negatively to the total loss of 107 ± 15 Gt yr−1). These results emphasise the important impact of extreme snowfall variability on the short-term sea level contribution from West Antarctica.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36990-3
Of course, there is variation, and I already said I am aware that increased snowfall with warmer temperatures slows GMSLR by about 4%. You keep repeating the same old false denials – dementia? Perhaps you should go tutor youself will something new and up to date.
ganon
Besides the uncertainties from GRACE data and various results from estimates of GIA affecting SMB used in models, there is the ever present elephant in the room that everyone, including the IPCC, would like to ignore when the factors influencing Thwaites Glacier are considered.
“ The impacts of the underlying geology on Thwaites Glacier flow may be compounded by subglacial volcanism (6–8) and associated deeper lithospheric processes, increasing basal geothermal heat flux (9) and favoring enhanced basal melting. Basal melting, possibly supplemented by groundwater stored in underlying sedimentary basins (10, 11), can promote subglacial sediment erosion, transport, and soft till deposition, all factors associated with enhanced ice flow. The region’s tectonic and magmatic evolution therefore has direct and important consequences for future rates of ice loss and sea level rise from Thwaites Glacier.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10413667/
Thanks Kid,
You are repeating the same deflections over and over again. They don’t change the effects of AGW – I’m not interested.
Why should I pay attention to someone who can’t/won’t even calculate the progression of a given acceleration value? The originally cited UC sea level graph say the GMSLR acceleration is 0.083 mm/yr^2. That you can pick out a few of the lowest single locations from the distribution that leads to the GLOBAL MEAN seal level rise means nothing except that you are not averse to cherry-picking.
But, I understand your point and partially agree – geothermal activity in West Antarctica will compound the effects of AGW – but it does not cause it.
First paragraph above should be in quotes – it is copied from cerescokid.
I agree with your last three statements. I also agree that humans are doing better than at any other time in earth’s history. A partial reason is because of the methods humans have invented for how to cooperate on vast, even planetary, scales. Another is that the climate has been good. Furthermore, although you hem and haw with uncertainty, you do seem to agree that humans have influenced earth’s energy balance mostly (an exception might be aerosol pollution) in one direction, namely to absorb more energy than it radiates. Of course scientists disagree. Scientists should disagree and question. That’s how we make progress. It would be great if we could all agree with you to “adapt to whatever Mother Nature throws our way” by cooperating to “build sea walls, … better manage our water resources, and implement better disaster warning and management protocols.” It’s not guaranteed, though. We could go the other way. We could stop cooperating. We could stop accepting reality. I love my friends, but some don’t, won’t, accept reality. They don’t think of government, even good democratic government, as a way of cooperating. They hate government. Oh, especially taxes. They think they love capitalism, but they don’t admit that capitalism requires good government to function. They see conspiracies and agendas in any effort to discuss cooperation. They see the idea of human influence on climate, not only as hubris, but as some kind of tool or leverage by those who want to take away their freedom.
H. S. Wildman – I’ve lost count of the straw men in your comment. Must be a record of some sort.
On a positive note … “climate change” to the rescue!
India maintained its prediction for an above-normal monsoon, boosting prospects for crops such as rice, soybeans and cotton in a country where rain is the main source of irrigation for almost half of the farmland.
Precipitation in the June-September season is likely to be 106% of a long-term average, Mrutyunjay Mohapatra, director general of the India Meteorological Department, said at a press briefing in New Delhi Monday. The latest forecast, which matched its projection in April, has a margin of error of 4%, he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-27/india-reiterates-ample-monsoon-rain-forecast-in-boost-to-crops
Excellent, as usual, Judith!
The brief summary might be:
Climate change is a given, not a problem
CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution
CO2 at these levels is not in control of climate.
We are not in control of CO2.
Let’s stop the foolishness, Greta!
Here’s a fact check:
“The study found that renewable energy’s copper needs would outstrip what copper mines can produce at the current rate. Between 2018 and 2050, the world will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition.”
https://eandt.theiet.org/2024/05/16/study-finds-amount-copper-required-evs-impossible-mining-companies-produce
The reason your supposedly “irrefutable” statements cannot be refuted is that they are simply statements of opinions. You state, after showing that nothing terrible has yet happened, that “Obviously we’re not facing an existential crisis”. But this is nonsensical. The past says exactly zero about whether we’re facing an existential crisis. The day before the atomic bomb exploded on Hiroshima, there was nothing in its past that hinted that it was facing an existential crisis.
As I’ve said before, your claims about the reduction in deaths due to extreme climate are based on studies with glaring deficiencies in assumptions about past and current deaths that ignore concrete changes in death-rates during heat-waves. You claim that all proxy data of paleo-climate is suspect and can be ignored. but these studies, with data that is far more suspect, there is not even a hint of skepticism, or even caution, about. why would that be? Gosh, i have no idea!
Most of all, climate science fails to explain the warming of the first half of the 20th century. I do not understand why this is generously “overlooked”..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-cross-check-to-manns-hockey-stick
Warming before 1940 accounts for 70% of the warming that took place after the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. However, only 15% greenhouse gases that global warming alarmists ascribe to human emissions came before 1940.
34.5% warming before 1940. Raw data from HadCRUT5; would probably be more accurate (and lower) with averaging a few years around each point.
MtCO2
Yearly, e.g.,
US
1900 – 704
1940 – 1980
2011 – 5555
I was referring to your temperature value of 70%. Not interested in the deflection.
‘1934 is new hottest U.S. year after NASA checks records
‘A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in the country’s history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA. ~Thomas H. Maugh II, Aug. 15, 2007, Los Angeles Times
Breaking news.
I suppose I could’ve missed it, but I can’t find a link in the fact check to what is being “fact checked”. Shouldn’t a prominent, convenient link to what’s being checked be some sort of minimum prerequisite to this sort of thing?
Dr. Curry provides links to her videos in the introduction. The fact checking is here:
https://science.feedback.org/review/no-evidence-significant-influence-volcanoes-solar-variability-on-recent-climate-change-contrary-judith-curry-claims-prageru-video/
I was referring to the Science Feedback site, not this blog post.
Mike, that’s what I gave you. Click on the link.
Yes Mike, the fact check includes gems like this from Kerry Emmanuel:
“There is a widespread scientific consensus that a strong signal of global mean temperature increase has emerged from natural background variability and that it is not caused by other kinds of radiative forcing changes, such as solar output. Of course, as in all scientific endeavors, there is a minority dissent, but in this case that has been reduced to typical background noise levels.”
Pingback: Fact checking the fact checkers on my Prager U video - Climate- Science.press
The green nightmare …
Eraring, the country’s largest power plant, burns through as much as 6 million tons of the fossil fuel annually and had been due to close as soon as August next year. Last week, those plans were scrapped — instead, it will operate until at least 2027.
The reason is painfully simple. Eraring meets a quarter of power demand in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, and local authorities feel that cleaner alternatives are simply not on track.
The problem lies, at least in part, with a sharp slowdown in spending on clean energy projects as developers struggle with rising costs, lengthy approval processes and grid constraints.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-28/climate-coal-s-australian-reprieve-is-an-energy-transition-reality-check
I would very much appreciate your comments on the paper “The Impact of CO2, H2O and other Greenhouse Gases on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures” https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
This paper was written by myself and two German colleagues. We are all physicists having worked a lifetime in industry and are fully conversant with infra-red gaseous spectroscopy. Gerhard Wiegleb is currently a professor at Dortmund University. The conclusion to the paper is that H2O is by far the dominant greenhouse gas and the overlap and saturation of spectral absorption lines results in a climate sensitivity to CO2 of just 0.5deg celsius. Angstrom was indeed correct in his criticism of Arrhenius all those years ago. The paper since its publication in 2021 has been viewed by over 18000 people and has yet to be refuted. Our only reason for writing this paper is that the claims being made for the role of atmospheric CO2 are at odds with our professional experience working with infra-red gaseous spectroscopy.
David, thanks for chiming in here. I read and appreciated your study and posted a synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2021/08/31/fear-not-warming-from-co2/
Coe et al. confirm what Ångström showed experimentally a century ago. He stated in 1900:
“Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of terrestrial radiation, and the size of this absorption varies quantitatively very little, as long as there is not less than 20 percent of the existing value.” See Pick Your A-Team: Arrhenius or Ångström
Independently, W. A. van Wijngaarden, W. Happer published findings this year similar to Coe et al. in their study Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules
Continued “steady” sea level rise is expected and not all that uncertain. The uncertainty is if, and when (how soon), a major ice sheet collapse will occur. As for the relationship to decision-making, I found this interesting:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/271/rising-seas-unknown-future-how-to-communicate-uncertainty/
The first sentence of the Nasa Article
“A catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would have grave implications for global sea level rise, …”
Yet no mention of the geothermal activity! Why?
Hide the decline?
Hide the science?
Hide the context?
Agenda maybe?
Bushaw,
On sea level, there are many papers for the last 20,000 years, so I have selected one. Let me know if you prefer another.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/
An extract: “From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend.”
Graphical support: https://www.geoffstuff.com/graphsea.jpg
Source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506
……..
One might expect the sea level to be affected by similar processes for those 8,000 years, since there is an absence of much variability at the available resolution. During that time, processes that are said to affect sea levels, especially ice loss at Greenland and Antarctica balanced against new snow formation, appear to have been near constant. Or, have they changed?
Natural variability over these 8,000 years has no connection to “climate change” unless one argues that the last 100 years or so have a new factor of influence. If you wish to argue this, you need to show that the last 100 years have a different trend. Where is your evidence that there is a new trend, a new process, a shift from the monotony of the last 8,000 years of natural variation? I mean a shift in measurement, not a shift in human mental processes. Geoff S
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
And references therein.
Bushaw,
You must know this, but your response means nothing because you have not demonstrated that this recent alleged increase (caused by what? noisy satellite measurements?) is not part of normal pastterns in earlier times. That is, you are required to show that the recent feature is not present before the instrumental period. Just needs to have happened once through natural variation to blow your idea away. Since you cannot show that because of lack of measurement resolution, your words are not science but personal opinion, unmeasured. Geoff S
Mr. S,
I am not required to do anything, if Geoff is the one doing the “requiring”.
Like everyone else, you can’t tell me when in the past there was a climate event similar to what has been happening over the last 60 years.
If you wish to argue the evidence from NASA, NOAA and multiple ice core projects – argue with them – I am not interested in what you have to say. P.O.
Closing paragraph of your reference:
“From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.”
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 5, 2024 at 9:25 am |
Mr. S,
“Like everyone else, you can’t tell me when in the past there was a climate event similar to what has been happening over the last 60 years.”
Bushaw – Nobody can tell if the last 60 or so years has happened in the past because the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to make that determination.
The Ice core proxies from greenland show that most likely several times in the last 20k-30k years similar warming has occurred. The ice core proxies have fairly good resolution. On the other hand, the proxies from the non polar regions have resolution far too low to ascertain with reasonable certainty whether the earth has or has not experienced similar warming in the past.
Unfortunately, you are fully aware of weakness of the activists paleo reconstructions, yet continue to parrot the activists talking points
Bushaw – read the full statement – in context – did you notice the conflict?
“Between about 21,000 years and about 11,700 years ago, Earth warmed about 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F), and the oceans rose (with a slight lag after the onset of warming) about 85 meters, or about 280 feet. However, sea levels continued to rise another 45 meters (about 150 feet) after the warming ended, to a total of 130 meters (from its initial level, before warming began), or about 430 feet, reaching its modern level about 3,000 years ago.
This means that, even after temperatures reached their maximum and leveled off, the ice sheets continued to melt for another 8,000 years until they reached an equilibrium with temperatures.
Stated another way, the ice sheets’ response to warming continued for 8,000 years after warming had already ended, with the meltwater contribution to global sea levels totaling 45 additional meters of sea-level rise.
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.”
Polly, per your 1st chart:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
The before chart indicates that since 1993 about an 26.89 mm rise in SLR, or 1.058661 inches.
So which chart is correct, your 1st, or 2nd “settled” claim? The new claim you present: “…(with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches”
You might want to put on the google hat to triangulate your error bars.
Jungletrunks | June 5, 2024 at 11:59 am |
“You might want to put on the google hat to triangulate your error bars.”
Jungle – Error bars? – Climate science doesnt need no stinking error bars! At least not error bars that represent a reasonable level of scientific integrity – especially in the paleo arena.
No triangulation necessary: 6 – 8 inches => 7±1 inches. Simple arithmetic.Your “gun” is full of blanks. Ciao.
JTNCS, Thanks – I see you still don’t understand how scientific disproof works, and you have failed to disprove anything. I’m no longer interested in trying to fix that.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 5, 2024 at 12:44 pm |
No triangulation necessary: 6 – 8 inches => 7±1 inches. Simple arithmetic.Your “gun” is full of blanks. Ciao.
Ganon restates the climate science theme –
We dont need no stinking error bars!
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 5, 2024 at 12:59 pm |
“JTNCS, Thanks – I see you still don’t understand how scientific disproof works, and you have failed to disprove anything. I’m no longer interested in trying to fix that.”
The scientific issue flys way over ganon’s brain.
The activist Ganon fails to understand the concepts of scientific proof and confuses disproof.
It should be repeated since the activist ganon fails to be honest with the data – the resolution of the data is insufficient to reach any conclusion.
JTNCS,
Thanks, you have made it clear that you’re not a scientist of any kind, nor do you understand the scientific method. Science does not provide proofs, it develops theories that are supported by evidence. However, those theories can, in principle, be disproven. Unfortunately, you (or anybody else) have not been able to disprove the GHE, AGW, and ACC.
Joe, ” Error bars? – Climate science doesnt need no stinking error bars!”
Since comptehension is the objective, I used the term error bars as an application for humans, not climate science. I’ll own this stinking set, thanks.
I don’t know, but maybe because they concentrate on the consequences and uncertainty management, rather than the causes. Nonetheless, The combination of (well known¹) geothermal activity and AGW surely makes a WAIS collapse much more likely and rapid. Thanks for drawing attention to that deficiency in the article. Geothermal activity obviously increases the ice-melt rate, and thus properly dealing with the uncertainties becomes an even higher priority.
¹https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500093
The omission looks intentional – like much of “climate science” omissions, misrepresentations are common in climate science which Bushaw frequently repeats
What something “looks” like to M. Starkley’s bias is such important evidence, I don’t think I should respond to it.
Nonetheless, Starkeley keeps engaging in irrelevant nitpicking, even after he has been thanked for pointing out a deficiency, and why that deficiency is largely irrelevant to the uncertainty and decision-making discussed in the article. It is clearly not a scientific review of why the WAIS may collapse, it is a discussion of ice sheets in general and the handling of sudden, yes possibly catastrophic, climatic events – actually reading and understanding the article might help.
I often repeat climate science, and often give references thereto. But I rarely repeat climate science denial, and I’m good with that.
The omission looks intentional with the attempt to leave the false impression that it is due solely to GW.
That behavior should be condemned.
Bushaw praises that behavior.
Glad you pointed it out. So, we should expect the cooperative (nonlinear) effects of AGW and natural geothermal to make the collapse of the WAIS more likely/sooner. Thanks for the warning.
I haven’t praised any behavior, but I disapprove of your presumptuous and repetitive behavior.
If you don’t like the article – write your own, and complain to the author at NASA. But don’t assign me my thoughts about things you couldn’t possibly know about (and probably wouldn’t understand) – it’s childish.
I’m grateful for the effort you put into each post.
With what we know, continued arm-waving about a coming global warming catastrophe is nothing more than academic thievery of the investment of time, sweat and capital of the productive who work in the free market economy to bring actual benefit to society. For the last 100,000 years Earth has mostly been locked in an ice age punctuated only briefly by periods of warming such as the interglacial that gave birth to our species. Earth has been locked in ice age conditions for more than 80% of the time over the last one million years. Those are all of the facts–e.g. “when Nigel Calder and I updated our book, The Chilling Stars,” says Henrik Svensmark, “we wrote a little provocatively that, we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Dear Dr. Curry-
Thank you again for your continued efforts regarding truthful climate information.
I’m writing about the basic math behind climate alarmism that is woefully incorrect. I’ve discovered a significant question about the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) CO2 data that does not equate:
The MLO annual CO2 increase is far less than, net accepted global CO2 emissions minus accepted 27% ocean bicarbonate cycle uptake. Therefore, where does the remaining annual CO2 emissions go?
This is the basic math behind the question-
Accepting MLO data of approximately 350 ppm in 1990 to 425 today is approximately linear at 2.2 ppm annual increase.
The accepted current global emissions is approximately 35 Gtn, and the accepted ocean uptake is 27% or 9.5 Gtn, with a net balance of 25.5 GT remaining in the atmosphere.
The accepted land biomass uptake of CO2 is considered small, less than 15% of ocean uptake, and not included.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,148,000 Gtn (KE Trenworth, L Smith, 2005).
Therefore the calculated annual increase is 25.5 / 5,150,000 = 5 ppm. This is more than double the MLO observed annual increase of CO2.
Multiplying the atmospheric mass by the 2.2 ppm observed MLO annual increase would project only 11.3 Gtn of net annual emissions, far less than accepted global emissions less accepted uptake, net 25.5 Gtn annual emissions.
67% of the 35 Gtn would have to be absorbed, net 11.5 Gtn, to equate to the MLO observed 2.2 ppm annual increase.
If it is accepted 27% of annual emissions are absorbed in the ocean uptake cycle, where is the other 40% of annual emissions removed from the atmosphere going?
Either that, or Trenworth & Smith are wrong by more than double, for an atmosphere mass of 11,500,000 Gtn, which I highly doubt.
I’m sure there is, and you have, an explanation. We cannot be simply accepting 33% of annual emissions lead to a 2.2 ppm MLO observed increase, where 27% is absorbed by the oceans and another 40% conveniently “disappears” on its own.
And while I can’t find it in my notes, from somewhere back in 2018-2019 I thought the oceanic CO2 cycle absorbed 50% of emissions. Perhaps you have some insight as to where this previous 50%, or almost double the currently accepted 27%, absorption figure originated. Even then it is not enough to explain that the annual difference between global emissions less oceanic absorption, divided by atmospheric mass, is far higher than the observed increase at MLO.
Sincerely
hector E Joules
RE: Missing CO2
How much of the CO2 emissions is fixed in the ocean by plants such as algal, seaweed, seagrasses, and kelp?
Mr. Joules,
If you will permit me to answer your question: there is no mystery here. Not only does the higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere neccessarily, by Henry’s Law, push carbon from the atmosphere into the oceans, it also stimulates a measurable flourishing of plant life. A good reference on this is Ballantyne, A. P. Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P., 2012: Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years, Nature, vol 488 pp 70-72. doi:10.1038/nature1129
We are lucky that uptake by the land and oceans has been able to remain at about 55% of emissions even as they have increased, else the atmospheric increase would be higher.
One liter of ice cold water can hold about 3.3 grams of CO2. The cold polar water can absorb a lot of CO2.
Ron,
I made a post two days ago that evaporated, possibly because it included a link to a seditious Skeptical Science article relevant to our discussion. If you are interested in learning more about human contributions to the atmospheric carbon increases, you could still track it down. But I think I have already made most of its points. Rule 1 of being a skeptic is to understand the science that you are skeptical about. You clearly do not.
Can I please have the name of your banker? Evidently in his accounting system, deposits are recorded and withdrawals are ignored. How else can a net sink can become a source?
Hector, here the pertinent math:
Atmospheric CO2 Math
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%
Ratio Natural:Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1
Ron,
When dying vegetation puts carbon into the atmosphere, it is merely returning it from whence it came, within the last decade or so. The natural flows are therefore balanced. A tree doen’t make carbon, it just recycles it. It is called “the carbon cycle” for a reason.
When humans dig up coal and burn it, they are adding previously sequestered carbon to the modern carbon cycle. That addition is the cause of more carbon in the air. More carbon in the air inevitably raises carbon in the sea (Henry’s Law) and stimulates more plant growth.
And that’s a good thing, right?
Ron … Interesting numbers. I’m sure you’ve posted sources in the past for these. Can you post them again, please. Thanks.
Bill, that math expression actually came from another participant in a discussion thread here Causality and Climate last September. My synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2023/10/01/co2-fluxes-are-not-like-cash-flows/
An excerpt per your question:
When you look at the flow of carbon dioxide—”flow” meaning the carbon moving from one carbon reservoir to another, i.e., through photosynthesis, the eating of plants, and back out through respiration—a 140 ppm constant level requires a continual inflow of 40 ppm per year of carbon dioxide, because, according to the IPCC, carbon dioxide has a turnover time of 3.5 years (meaning carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for about 3 1/2 years). 140 ppm divided by 3.5 is 40 ppm CO2.
“A level of 280 ppm is twice that—80 ppm of inflow. Now, we’re saying that the inflow of human carbon dioxide is one-third of the total. Even IPCC data says, ‘No, human carbon dioxide inflow is about 5 percent to 7 percent of the total carbon dioxide inflow into the atmosphere,’” he said.
[Today’s level of nearly 420 ppm means that 120 ppm of inflow is required annually, or 120 +2 ppm if it is to increase as it has been. Where does 122 ppm of CO2 come from? Well, let’s say we can count on 6 ppm of FF CO2 (5%) and the other 116 being non-human emissions.]
Thanks, Ron.
I was waiting for a rush of comments in reply to what you said: “Ratio Natural:Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1” … as that tends to establish that CAGW … has no clothes. Yet, it’s as quiet as a church. I enjoyed the Koutsoyiannis post, but wasn’t sure what other sources you may have had in mind.
They key to clarity is repetition, as the truth tends to get old pretty fast. Or, should I say lost?
Bill, another repetition is an analysis showing that the current warming spike since January 2023 is again demonstrating how quickly CO2 rises in response to temperature changes.
https://rclutz.com/2024/05/21/recent-warming-spike-drives-rise-in-co2/
Bill: “Yet, it’s as quiet as a church.”
I don’t know about others, but my comment about “funny math,” asking for references, and stating that atmospheric “storage” has a difference of more than 50% over preindustrial — it never showed up.
And, I don’t know if it is censorship, but it happens often enough that I now copy and save my comments before hitting the “reply” button, and possibly abandoning my thoughts to the ether.
Ron,
I’m sure you’ve seen my frequency domain analysis where I show that [CO2] lags temperature by six months for all periods except seasonal and an oddity at 0.75 yr^-1
My reason for bringing this up again is that I want to emphasize a different aspect of the analysis — the magnitude response. In the upper, left plot ignore the spike at 0 yr^-1, that’s an artifact of the analysis technique. The first low-frequency marker at 0.1 yr^-1 (10 year intervals) has a value of 4.9. This is the [CO2] sensitivity in ppm/°C. The next higher frequency marker shows a sensitivity of 2.8 ppm/°C. While I can’t explain with certainty why the sensitivity falls of with frequency, this behavior is consistent with integration.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Many believe that temperature is related to the ln of [CO2]. Is it? In these next two plots we find that a second order function is much better at detrending the [CO2] data relative to temperature than a log function. Again this suggests that [CO2] is related to temperature by integration over long intervals. I’m not claiming this proves that point, but it is interesting.
Log detrend:
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png
Second order detrend: (Southern Hemisphere temp):
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
Bruce, there’s some kind of cross-site script that causes problems. I had to reconstruct this post because I forgot to copy it first.
Bruce and Robert … I feel you. It’s happened to me numerous times where my comment gets lost, and always when I’ve put much effort/length into one.
Ron … I appreciate your stuff. Always thought provoking for me.
Ron,
Your posts assert that gross natural inflows of carbon to the atmosphere are larger than human emissions. Nobody contests that. Your numbers also correctly show that the large natural inflows are balanced by slightly larger outflows (making net global uptake positive, etc.) You have all the data you need to understand a mistake common to the papers of Berry, Harde, Salby, and Skrable et al. These are papers you continue to tout on your own blog but are papers that miss the important concept of an “isoflux” and therefore misinterpret radiocarbon data and reach wrong conclusions. (to be continued.)
(continuing comment to Ron)
The mixing from roughly balanced exchanges of carbon between reservoirs tends to erase any pre-existing, or developing, differences in the isotopic composition of the carbon in the reservoirs. (This should be intuitive, but I can elaborate if you wish.) Carbon 14 can be exchanged by such as isoflux EVEN IF NO NET CARBON IS EXCHANGED. In other words, it is a mistake to consider the time profile of carbon 14 in the “bomb pulse” as a “tracer” of carbon, as Harde continues to do. They follow different trajectories.
The same mixing is overlooked by Skrable. He correctly concludes that the present atmosphere cannot be a mixture of 300ppm of vintage 1750 “natural carbon” and 120ppm of added cold, fossil carbon, because it has too much carbon14 which is absent from fossil fuel emissions. He therefore concludes that human emissions are not responsible for the increase. Wrong! An isoflux of 14C into the 14C depleted atmosphere fooled him.
References available on request.
Unfortunately, David keeps pushing his CO2 theory about carbon isotopes to avoid the miniscule contribution of human emissions of CO2. It’s bogus and unscientific.
https://rclutz.com/2023/07/12/in-defence-of-non-ipcc-co2-science/
Ron,
Of course the relevant isotope analysis is not my pet theory, it is established science and simple to understand. But you apparently stand behind your claim that the Skrable paper is a “proof” that human emissions are minor contributors. First, do you acknowledge that the paper you referred to was retracted by Skrable and colleagues? They conceded that the data they “guesstimated” bore little resemblance to real data, as was pointed out in all four letters rebutting it. They did replace it with another paper with good data and got similar results. I mention this only to point out the incompetent review job done by Health Physics on a paper outside their field, notwithstanding the defense of the review by editor Ulsh.
The second paper still had a fatal flaw. Skrable did not appreciate the effects of mixing and you apparently need a little coaching on that too. We have agreed (I think) that large quantities of carbon flow naturally in both directions between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs. This means atmospheric carbon is continually mixing with land/sea carbon. The time scale for the mixing is about one decade. Skrable thought that if all the atmospheric carbon increase since 1750 was 14C free fossil fuel carbon, he should measure a very large drop in the 14C content of the present atmosphere. Can you explain to me (Skrable couldn’t) how the isotopic composition of the present atmosphere could possibly reflect fossil fuel inputs in, say 1980, with all that mixing going on? It can’t. Skrable made an honest mistake, and the poor review job by Health Physics turned the episode into an embarrassment for all concerned.
The 5-6 letters rebutting Skable are behind a Health Physics paywall, but I will send you them on request. The abuse of radiocarbon data by Team Denial (Harde, Salby, Berry, Skrable… shall I add Clutz?) is such that an open access paper has been published in the peer-reviewed journal of the field:
Schwartz SE, Hua Q, Andrews DE, et al. Discussion: Presentation of Atmospheric 14CO2 Data, 2024, Radiocarbon ;66(2):386-399. doi:10.1017/RDC.2024.
David, I know that you and your cronies wished Skrable et al. to be retracted, but it was not. You persist in confusing your wishes with reality. There is no paywall, my post linked above includes links to all the comments and responses. There’s even an invitation to you to come to your senses, which you have not done. In the end, you are just another “fact checker”, someone who knows enough to muddy the waters for the sake of an agenda.
Ron,
You appeal to the “authority” of Skrable, Harde, Berry… to defend your post of their mistakes. You just repeat what they said. I am not appealing to the authority of the IPCC or anyone else. I am asking you to think for yourself. I know you are not a scientist, but please try to answer my previous question:
“Can you explain to me (Skrable couldn’t) how the isotopic composition of the present atmosphere could possibly reflect fossil fuel inputs in, say 1980, with all that mixing going on?”
If you don’t understand the question or its importance, say so and I will try to rephrase it. If you avoid answering, I will take that as a concession that you know as well as I do that Skrable was wrong.
Ron,
Can you access this?
Andrews, D.E., 2023: Comments on “Components of CO2 in 1750 through 2018 Corrected for the Perturbation of the 14CO2 Bomb Spike”, Health Physics, vol 124, issue 3, pp 223-225.
David, I know no “give up” in you, but this is my last comment on this.
(From Skrable et al. Response to Stephen Musolino)
“It is difficult to have an open and useful discussion when the proponents of the established viewpoint often appear recalcitrant in their willingness to consider an alternative view..
Regarding the complications of recycling among reservoirs, we noted in our paper that our results were grounded in annual mean values of the D14C quantities; thus we were looking only at annual means that would have incorporated into them all the effects of recycling. Lastly, as we noted in the paper, we recognized the significance of bomb-induced 14C, which had disappeared from the atmosphere by absorption into carbon reservoirs, especially the oceans. But we believed that the small fraction this represented of the total 14C would result in a negligibly small impact on the specific activities of interest as a consequence of release from the reservoirs.”
Ron,
OK, so I don’t expect a response. But a couple of further comments:
1. Here is a link to my letter on the revised Skrable paper. I did not realize it was available on an NIH site.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36719939/
2. Let me rephrase Skrable’s error. As noted in this paper and in an earlier post, there is no problem with his calculated specific activity dilution formula. But he wrongly thinks that when a balanced exchange swaps atmospheric 14C devoid “fossil carbon” for oceanic carbon, changing the atmospheric isotopic composition, humans are off the hook for the carbon increase. They are not. The exchange did not remove any net carbon. This ws understood by Seuss in the 1950’s. Berry has the same misconception.
Testing. What is Nonce verification fail?
You have to keep the big picture front and center:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/scotese-pole-gradients-w-present-day.png
We are still in an ice age and during the LIA cold, CO2 levels became dangerously low for the biosphere’s productivity. Thankfully the cycle switched back to warming and CO2 was released back out, principally from the oceans that have 50 times as much as the air. You can credit humans for adding some CO2 into the increase, but it’s nature that did and still does the heavy lifting
Ron,
“it’s nature that did and still does the heavy lifting.”‘
Huh? That’s not what the numbers you posted a few days ago about “Atmospheric CO2 Math” say. You wrote:
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
I believe you meant “units” rather than %, or else something is missing from the outs. So you said then, natural outs (98 units) exceeded natural ins (96 units) by two. The IPCC agrees with your rough numbers. The 4 units of human emissions get split about equally between the atmosphere and other reservoirs. (It’s 45% atmosphere 55% land/sea according to Ballantyne et al.)
The land/sea reservoirs have been net sinks for the last 75 years and longer. Get used to it. Don’t fall for every nonsense paper you come across that says otherwise, especially if the author is named Skrable, or Harde, or Berry.
Done with your denial of natural contributions to atmospheric CO2, David.
Hey, Ron, they were your numbers, and they were accurate for a change!
Despite the title of your blog, “Science Matters”, it is quite apparent that science does not matter one iota to you. I don’t know what motivates you, but the only thing that seems to matter is trying, quite unsuccessfully, to find holes in the mainstream narrative. You do that by trolling for contrarian articles, whose flaws you are blind to, and parroting them without showing much understanding. Nowhere is that more apparent than in your defense of debunked papers which deny human responsibility for the CO2 increase. You have destroyed any credibility you might have had on other topics by doing so.
You are correct that I don’t quit on these things.
You lie by ommissions David. My numberrs are as stated above:
Atmospheric CO2 Math
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%
Ratio Natural:Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1
Case Closed.
David Andrews said (citing numbers given by Ron C):
“The land/sea reservoirs have been net sinks for the last 75 years and longer.”
Ron – do you agree?
Nope, plenty of evidence against denying natural contributions to atmospheric CO2, which didn’t stop when humans discovered hydrocarbons.
OK, Ron, let’s try this one:
If fossil fuel emissions were turned off tomorrow instantaneously, would CO2 in the atmosphere continue to increase or begin to decrease?
zzzzzzzzzzz
I know, it’s a tough question. Sleep on it.
Ron,
I have said before that I know, the IPCC knows, and everybody who has looked at it before knows that natural carbon inputs to the atmsophere substantially exceed human inputs. You have not said whether you accept that natural outflows are still larger as in the numbers you quoted. You have not been willing to confirm the obvious: land/sea reservoirs have been net sinks, not always but for the last century. That makes it very difficult to concoct a scheme where natural processes are the cause of the last century’s CO2 rise.
Skeptical Science has a little writeup on the topic which may help if you are really confused. But I know that this analysis falsifies several of the posts on your blog, and suspect that is why you don’t want to talk about it. But it is hardly rocket science.
David, thanks for alerting us to prevalence of a strange belief, namely that natural CO2 sinks are selective and averse to CO2 molecules from humans burning hydrocarbons. Yet half of those molecules are taken up, leaving the remainder in the air. Amazing. Marvelous. Wish there were photos of the intake filters on CO2 reservoirs.
Ron,
Your misconception about different absorption rates for human and natural carbon is taken straight from Ed Berry. Not only is it wrong, it shows a deplorable lack of respect for climate scientists to think that they could make such an elementary mistake.
There is a semantics problem here that I think is best understood by the Skrable analysis. He (like Berry) likes to talk about HUMAN CARBON, by which he means the very carbon atoms that came out of smokestacks or car exhausts. When a climate scientist sometimes talks about atmospheric human carbon, he is talking about the increase since pre-industrial times, whose source is obvious from the natural net sinks argument. (Actually, the term “human carbon is rarely used by scientists, though you can find exceptions, especially in lay publications.) But the climate scientist is also well aware that mixing from the large, mostly balanced two-way exchanges between the atmosphere and other reservoirs turns what Skrable/Berry call HUMAN CARBON into what they call human carbon: carbon in the atmosphere humans are definitely responsible for, but not the same atoms that came out of smokestacks.
David, I simply stated overtly the rediculous premise required by your CO2 theory. Otherwise any gain in atmospheric CO2 would be in the same proportion as the total mass: 24:1 Natural:Human. As I said before, humans add a bit to the recovery toward optimum CO2 levels, but are not determinative. You can’t agree because that truth dooms your zero carbon agenda. Too bad.
I’m done.
Ron – I respect your declaration “I’m done”, but nevertheless have a suggestion.
There was a symposium held at Brookhaven Lab back in 1972(!) on the subject of “Carbon and the Biosphere”. It is available online here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Brookhaven_Symposia_in_Biology/z4X3x0f6f-oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover
Perhaps you should take a look. You would not be surprised at how much was yet to be discovered back then, but you might be surprised at how much was known, and has remained unrefuted by half a century of research. In particular, the conclusion that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary cause of the contemporary rise in CO2 was immediately apparent and remains one of the most robust conclusions in atmospheric science. The subject is addressed (including isotopic evidence) in several chapters of the proceedings. An understanding of those chapters would short-circuit a lot of the discussion here. (Did the participants have a ‘zero carbon agenda’? I doubt it.)
And yet the cause of the rise in CO2 has been debated here at Climate etc. and elsewhere for more than a decade, with the same arguments repeated over and over (mine included). That’s the great thing about blog science – unlike ‘establishment science’, no one ever has to deal with a consensual understanding of the evidence, and you can go on posting whatever you want while everyone else moves on.
hector,
Pure speculation follows.
It is reported that the CO2 cycles in the air in corn fields range from higher to lower than Mauna Loa each day. Possibly, some CO2 is generated but retained in small pockets that never reach the wider world and add to the Mauna Loa total each day. Think regular market and black market for traders. Question is, how big is the black CO2 market?
Imagine a smokestack at a coal electricity plant belching CO2. Imagine that some of this CO2, being of high specific gravity, heads for the ground and that corn field. Do we get a new process where some CO2 does not make it to ML, but gets tied up in a plant growth cycle with (eventually) a lot of this and similar other black market CO2 in huge growths of ocean life. I am not talking here of known major processes, so much as the pathways from chimney stack to biological growth without ever enough mixing to affect the ML numbers, or those at the many other sampling stations. It is a foggy idea, speculative.
It creates a concept like a pool of air just above the land or sea surface that is locally enriched in CO2. This pool is likely important in the radiative physics of outgoing IR from the surface generating local heating with CO2. What happens to this heat and its ability to cause global warming is an unfinished story. But we have a scenario where some heat can be generated in an amount not linked to the ML numbers, which I think addresses your question. Speculatively. Geoff S
I recommend this herbal syrup….
Get rid of the Herpes totally,.
You can still win back your Ex..
Opportunity of a lifetime,
Just checking. I did post a comment about the problem of being associated with Prager U – a right wing disinformation source on many issues such as abortion and gun control which was deleted.
That’s OK pm. You have plenty of Soros-backed, socialist/communist, left-wing-nut sources to turn to.
jim2,
Did you see that Chinese EV that gets 1,300 miles to a charge and costs less than $14k?
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/05/28/byd-unveils-plug-in-hybrid-with-1305-miles-of-total-range/
Those communists are kicking your dumb a$$. They will rule the world because they are smarter than you regressive right wing nut jobs.
“China filed 25% more patents than the U.S. in 2023”
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/china-filed-25-more-patents-than-the-us-in-2023-banned-huawei-led-all-companies-worldwide-despite-heavy-us-sanctions
Jack The article is impressive – if true. The price at 14k US$ seems extremely low given the professed performance. ie not plausible, unless chinese buyers are heavily subsidised for the purchase.
OK, Jack, you and your relatives should volunteer to work for $8/hr building EVs. That’s about what Chinese workers make. If you aren’t willing to do that your emissions are just more hot air. China is our enemy and we need to do everything in our power to ensure their failure.
jim2,
Who needs to go to China to find low wages? Mexico is our #1 trade partner and it’s no surprise. There are 31,634 US companies operating in Mexico. General Motors, for example, pays assembly-line workers in Mexico just 7,694 pesos ($450) per month, while paying US workers doing the same work $6,400 per month. Let’s hope DJT outlaws all unions to drive down those insanely high wages and boost our corporate profit margins.
https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/the-global-north-is-a-gated-community-using-borders-to-maintain-inequality
jack … that’s a hybrid, not an EV. Hybrid sales made substantial ground last year on ICEs and EVs. I’m betting they will this year, as well.
Good catch Bill, not a pure EV. It’s more like my Chevy Volt (13gal tank) and theirs is 17gal. Even so it must have a super-efficient ICE generator. I have seen stories of over 1400 miles on a full charge & tank.
In 2023, about 80% of vehicle sales were ICEVs.
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/us-ev-sales-grew-nearly-52-in-2023.html
jack … if used properly, I’ll bet your Volt could get 60-75 MPG, as well.
Kelley Blue Book calculates the five-year cost to own a vehicle, which includes all vehicle-related costs a consumer will likely have within the first five years of ownership. The data pulled from the first week of February in 2023 shows that EVs cost consumers an average of $65,202 during this time period, while ICE vehicles cost $56,962.
https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/beyond-sticker-price-cost-ownership-evs-v-ice-vehicles
Jacksmith4tx, you said, “… Chinese EV that gets 1,300 miles to a charge …” … no, it does NOT get 1300miles on A CHARGE. You failed to note, it has a GASOLINE ENGINE aboard. It is a plug in HYBRID that gets 1300miles before everything is emptied. … this is GREAT for going places that don’t have hundreds of GASOLINE STATIONS every thousand miles or so.
“With a fully charged battery and a full tank of gas, the technology can provide a driving range of 2,100 kilometers (1,305 miles), …”
Germany, having not learned its lesson from punishingly high electricity prices, now hits the nitro button as it heads for the energy cliff.
Germany will fast-track permits for hydrogen projects and end a ban on carbon capture and storage as the nation tries to clean-up its fossil-fuel intensive industry.
The government will make it easier to get development permits with shorter environmental checks for production, storage and transport of hydrogen. Europe’s biggest economy wants to cut carbon emissions 65% by 2030 to reach net zero by 2045, five years earlier than the European Union.
Germany will support the move with “a lot of funding,” Michael Kellner, Parliamentary State Secretary for the economy ministry, said at the Green Hydrogen Innovation Congress in Dresden. This year, it’s planning €4.6 billion ($5 billion), according to Kellner.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-to-fast-track-hydrogen-projects-to-cut-carbon-emissions
“Europe’s biggest economy wants to cut carbon emissions 65% by 2030 to reach net zero by 2045, five years earlier than the European Union.”
Why? Why five years earlier than the European Union?
Is it a better way for Germany?
Does it more good to the European Union?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cutting any and all CO2 is a net good. Germany appears to be very concerned about climate change.
Thank you, David,
“Germany appears to be very concerned about climate change.”
Without Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and the assumptions underlying it, there is no alarm about humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate models run hot because the underlying assumptions are wrong. Besides, global warming is not a net-negative: it’s been good for all living things. The UN’s official climate science prognostications of doom have really been a [i]stick up![/i]
Robert de Niro has it bassackwards. Left-leaning politicians have used the exaggerated predictions of academia to justify a relentless intrusion into society and the nation’s economy. What if the terrible truth about global warming is that it really has nothing at all to do with CO2? What if it’s just a hoax and a scare tactic? What if it’s just a belief — like a belief in aliens — real to the believer but nothing anyone can prove or disprove? What if government and government policy is evil? That’s the way it was in Germany, not so long ago: an evil government with too much power deciding who should live; and, government now wants to tell us how we must live.
‘Without adequate review and consideration of how it will affect home buyers or renters, HUD and USDA have rammed through a mandate that will do little to curb overall energy use but will exacerbate the housing affordability crisis and hurt the nation’s most vulnerable house hunters and renters. Studies have shown that building to the 2021 IECC can add up to $31,000 to the price of a new home and take up to 90 years for a home buyer to realize a payback on the added cost of the home.’ ~NAHB, 4-26-24
CO2 is a trace gas (~0,04%) in the planet Earth’s thin atmosphere (1bar at sea level).
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t whatsoever affect Earth’s global temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As you should certainly know by now, the actual concentration doesn’t matter, it is how much upwelling IR is absorbed at given, relevant concentrations.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
“the actual concentration doesn’t matter”
It is ~0,04% in Earth’s thin atmosphere. there are very small amounts of CO2 molecules in the Earth’s troposphere.
” it is how much upwelling IR is absorbed at given, relevant concentrations”
The upwelling IR goes straight out from the Earth system. Only the heavy water vapor clouds may demonstrate some greenhouse warming effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You’re welcome, but you once again demonstrate your inability to understand or learn (for whatever reason) molecular spectroscopy and gas kinetics.
Perhaps you are a bit biased because your pet hypothesis does not allow more than a few °C of GHE. I would say the very strong evidence for the GHE effect, both basic physics and experimental measurements, indicate that your model needs further refinement before it is useful to earth sciences.
“I would say the very strong evidence for the GHE effect, both basic physics and experimental measurements,”
Let’s show the “lost” 130 W/m².
Φ=0,47 the solar irradiation accepting factor.
1-Φ = 1-0,47 =0,53
Now, let’s see:
240 W/m² *0,53 = 127,3 =~ 130 W/m²
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The theoretical +33C warming has never been verified, all of it is based on mathematical hypotheses.
The application of S-B at terrestrial temperatures has never been verified by experiment.
Neither the GHE nor AGW has been verified by experiment. The notion of global warming from a trace gas and the subsequent theory of climate change has never been verified by experiment.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, good luck with your adventures.
It is nothing more than an edict of the Grand Poobah of Western academia that Milankovitch cycles no longer control Earth’s climate, much like Galileo’s conflict with the Catholic Church 400 years ago when Western academia of the day simply determined that the Sun revolved around the Earth… Tap-Tap No Erasies!
Should we ignore the fact that academia’s, America-is-evil-and-is-killing-the polar-bear, story has been very helpful to the Left’s war on capitalism? Academia took sides against America. So, what is the real science of global warming and climate change? We can begin with how amazingly bad are the GCMs. The climate models that Western academia has erected like a Tower of Babel are of a morbid interest now, just to see how contrary to reality are the preconceptions that underlie all of the official government GCMs.
Western academia’s pogrom against America and modernity in general has all been to the delight of India and China, not to mention the oil producing nations from Norway to Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. Meanwhile, the Eurocommies war against Americanism has begun to bear a bitter fruit. ‘The move ended more than 60 years of nuclear power generation in Germany. Germany is not the only European nation restarting coal-fired units to provide more energy security. The UK restarted some coal-fired generation this past summer to cope with rising demand for power during a heat wave. ~www.powermag.com, Oct 5, 2023
Pingback: Good News About Our Climate - Climate- Science.press
Goldman Sachs is upping guidance for oil demand from earlier in the year; their new note for oil just came out. They see fossil fuel demand acceleration until 2034, then a long plateau. They say that by 2040; under no scenario will demand for oil fall below current levels.
This presents another ideological mission for the synergistic narrative bending cabal to contend with, the fact checking/MSM industry. They’ll turn their own opinions into “the facts”, then feed these “factual opinions” to dealers of facts (the MSM) as “verified”—ephemera for broadcast distribution. Come to think of it, this same tactic has been borrowed by science, judging from the ever increasing numbers of peer reviewed papers found to be fraudulent.
There’s a lot of profit, and/or power, to be found in opinion if one learns how to exploit opinion as a representation of fact—along requisite preparation/capability for its media distribution.
Climate has always changed and always will. The irony is that curtailing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate. Water vapor molecules have been increasing substantially faster than possible from just temperature increase and more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
It is only the benefits of the modernity that Western academia blames for global warming (rising seas &etc), that enables a city like New Orleans that is built next to the oceaan on land that is below sea level.
This new study about Antarctica’s subglacial lakes and the interactions with ice sheet dynamics, should remind us that there is still much to learn about the complexities of natural variability.
“ Subglacial hydrological activities mainly comprise the processes of water storage in subglacial lakes and drainage, as well as the interactions between ice, lakes, bedrock, groundwater, and the ocean. Subglacial hydrology research starts with explorations and discoveries of subglacial lakes. Subglacial lakes are multi-scale in size and are formed at the interface between ice and bedrock. According to modeling results, although over 600 subglacial lakes in Antarctica have been found thus far, there are still thousands of subglacial lakes that remain to be discovered. Subglacial hydrological processes are crucial for Antarctic ice sheet dynamics, lubrication of ice sheet bases, grounding–line stability, and discharge into the surrounding ocean.”
“Our analysis indicates that active subglacial lakes are more likely to be situated in regions with higher surface ice flow velocities. Nevertheless, the origin of subglacial lakes still remains enigmatic and uncertain. They could have potential associations with geothermal heat, ice sheets melting, and ice flow dynamics.”
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/8/1111
This is a recent paper covering the subglacial hydrologic mechanisms of AIS.
“ Meltwater forms at the base of the Antarctic Ice Sheet due to geothermal heat flux (GHF) and basal frictional dissipation. Despite the relatively small volume, this water has a profound effect on ice‐sheet dynamics. However, subglacial melting and hydrology in Antarctica remain highly uncertain, limiting our ability to assess their impact on ice‐sheet dynamics.”
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/433669575/JGR_Earth_Surface_-_2024_-_Wearing_-_Characterizing_Subglacial_Hydrology_Within_the_Amery_Ice_Shelf_Catchment_Using.pdf
The albedo constant is taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface.
A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant is 0.3.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I am one of many with computer skills who suffers from severe headaches from banging my head against the proverbial brick wall over the abuse of these rapid processing machines when it comes to conceits like AI, modelling, simulation, reliance upon as security of process provision and much else. Computers have limited uses and those limits include programming language limits and processing time scales.
To use them for climate modelling is either a fool’s errand that clearly didn’t hit the funny bone or is the product of someone who didn’t pay attention to the programmer’s maxim ‘know your subject inside out before you write one line of a program’.
I am guessing this running before walking is endemic in a society that no longer cares about dotting i’s and crossing t’s,
Britain has its Post Office’s Horizon as a commercial horror story but I am guessing it is one of many abuses of computers awaiting discovery globally. There is not enough care that a programmer should take before committing work for commercial use and there are many hopeless failures struggling to provide the service they promised/guaranteed. Meanwhile standards slip because people are not being disciplined for failure but are instead cancelled for wanting to be sure they are doing stuff the right way.
This isn’t going to end well.
If done correctly it will just depend on how you ask the question, e.g., asking, is global warming a hoax?
‘The evidence must of course be empirical, meaning that it is independent of theory.
‘Typical Alarmist Offerings of “Evidence” Polar Bears, Glaciers, Arctic Melt, Antarctic Ice Shelves, Storms, Droughts, Fires, Malaria, Snow Melt on Mt Kilimanjaro, Rising Sea Levels, Ocean Warming, Urban Heat Island Effect
‘Although each of these issues may say something about whether or not global warming is or was occurring, none of them say anything about the causes of global warming. It would make no difference to these issues if the recent global warming was caused by CO2 or by aliens heating the planet with ray guns.
‘The IPCC Said So.
(Dr. David Evans, There is No Evidence, July 6, 2009)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Forcing employers to do business within the ever-narrowing confines of acceptable conduct that is established at the whim of politicians and demanding that employers police the business’s compliance with an ever-growing set of rules and performance criteria–as interpreted by government bureaucratic fiat–should henceforth be considered to be an impossible standard for employers to meet. WHENEVER YOU HEAR THAT THE ECONOMY IS GROWING UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY BIG LIE. Hiring an attorney to help navigate a regulatory minefield or hiring a Compliance Officer to satisfy the requirements of a heavy-handed government edict is not growth. It is not a sign of economic growth whether the government hires 1,000 or 10,000 IRS agents to collect a new tax or businesses hire thousands of accountants to avoid it or calculate, collect and remit it. Economic growth does not arise from printing money to manufacture filing cabinets full of public-funded global warming junk science.
“We have to ask ourselves, are we doing the right thing? Or are we using scientific information to do the wrong thing more precisely?” ~Roger Pulwarty
Hello, do you think its a fight between politic left ideas and right ideas ?
Sort of… global warming alarmists believe they are in a battle between good versus evil, fighting on the side of God– a new age urban god. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a belief that activities of us monkeys caused global warming over the last half of the 20th century. They don’t believe they’re saving lives– saving the world from us is their mission.
Many conservatives accept the claim of settled science without question.
From my perspective, some genuinely believe it, while others support it to appeal to younger generations, who have only heard that greenhouse gas emissions from the Western world are the primary cause of modern climate change and that it threatens both the environment and our economic prosperity.
I believe the general public is being lied to about this issue. The adjustments made to the temperature records and the implausibly small uncertainty values assigned to them give it away.
Since things have quieted down, I have an idea I’d like some feedback on.
One of the arguments against solar activity being the driver of temperature is that, if true, then the stratosphere should be warming. It’s cooling, therefore it must be caused by [CO2]. The other reason that it “must be” [CO2] is that water vapor doesn’t stay in the air long enough. I take this as shorthand to mean that it’s not in the air long enough to be a self-sustaining warming mechanism.
Let me suggest how the stratosphere could be cooling while global temperature is rising in response to solar activity.
First, one of the fundamental errors I see many people make is assuming the effects of the sun on global temperature are immediate. This would be true in the stratosphere where there’s little thermal mass, but not true for the troposphere where temperature is moderated by the oceans, ice caps, etc. In fact, it’s easy to show that the earth integrates solar activity, which is one of the functions my model performs in predicting temperature from sunspot data.
Because of this integration, it’s possible for global temperatures to still be warming after we’ve passed peak solar activity, which we have, while the stratosphere cools due to its faster response. In fact my model suggest that we are just now at peak global temperatures, not including the current spike which everyone struggles to explain.
Running with that idea I decided to look at stratospheric cooling against solar activity (I’m plotting sunspots, EUV would be better). While the effects of the sunspots can be seen in the temperature, I don’t think declining solar activity is sufficient to fully explain the cooling. However when you consider humidity as a GHG, that should also help cool the stratosphere.
https://localartist.org/media/StratCooling.png
Thoughts?
I’ve update the chart to show that the temperature data comes from UAH and the Humidity is from the MET office.
Robertt, Might I please add some supplementary thoughts?
An object like the atmosphere can be heated by radiation, but if the radiation stops, the object reverts to original temperature, typically.
If radiation starts heating our atmosphere, it can only do so by the input of extra carried energy. The question is, what is the source of postulated ongoing energy brought by radiation to the air? If it is not the sun, what is it?
Next, if the air is heated, measurements show that it does not accumulate that heat. It tends to a steady state of a new temperature with a new loss rate. There are ways for heat to be lost to space by radiation, but we lack an explanation about whether that loss process could/should cause reversion to the original temperature. Why should it settle at a higher temperature, as the common explanations assert (largely without accurate measurements to support them)?
I still seek experiments using gases and radiation sources to show how not only CO2 might heat the air, but also why this process is not transitory in the sense that heat reverts to the norm and not a way above the norm sustained by a mechanism that I cannot comprehend because I have not read of its demonstration and because I lack the gear.
Can anyone help with succinct experimental links to explanatory papers? Please do not write IPCC AR6 nor Callendar nor Angstrom. Surely there is some modern day bwith with modern day instruments. Geoff S
Robert Cutler, the Stratosphere has a much different composition and structure, than the Troposphere below it. Molecular Oxygen and Ozone concentrations in the Stratosphere (which vary) intercept certain bands of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun (which, also varies), and the result is that the heating of the Stratosphere, varies. It is probably true that increased CO₂ can increase radiative cooling of the Stratosphere … but, to what magnitude, compare to Ozone variations and UV variations?
In general, it is considered that the TSI (an abbreviation for Total Solar Irradiance) is the TOTAL measure of the variations of the sun. It is not. In particular, observations of small segments of the sun’s irradiation (a “band” of wavelengths) show that the sun varies in the strength of these small bands, while, at the same time, opposite variations occur in OTHER bands.
As a crude example, say the sun increases strength in UV, while simultaneously decreasing in strength in the visible bands. These changes will end up cancelling, in the TSI measurement, because the way we attempt to measure TSI is simply a backend tube, pointed at the sun, and we measure how hot (or cold) it gets. In this black tube, most all irradiance is counted the same.
When we break the irradiance from the sun into smaller chunks (bands), this is consider Spectral Solar Irradiance, or SSI (as opposed to TSI). We have had LOUSY instruments in space, most time focused on DIFFERENT band segments, so we don’t really know much about how the sun’s irradiance varies in small band spectra.
In that example above, the UV increased, which would increase Ozone heating in the Stratosphere (assuming a constant Ozone), so the heat, now dissipated in the Stratosphere, is unavailable to warm the Troposphere, so (in this example) an increase in UV with a simultaneous matching decrease in the visible band, causes warming in the Stratosphere, and a decrease of energy dissipated in the Troposphere and surface (from two causes). All the while, the TSI did not vary at all.
Scafetta 2023: “The climate system could appear to be over-sensitivity to solar activity changes because the Sun should impact climate change not only through total solar irradiance (TSI) variations, as the GCMs assume, but also through variations in its ultraviolet light and magnetic field. UV forcing directly modifies stratospheric Ozone, whereas solar magnetic activity modifies fluxes of interplanetary charged particles — cosmic rays, solar wind, and interplanetary dust — that could directly influence the electric properties of the atmosphere and its cloud system (Scafetta, 2023c, Scafetta 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2016, Shaviv, 2002, Svensmark 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2016, Scafetta 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2020, Svensmark, 2022). In particular, Scafetta (2023c) showed that direct TSI forcing could even explain only 20% of the total solar effect on climate change.”
Elsey 2019: “Much (≈40%) of the solar energy is emitted in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum (0.4㎛ to 0.7㎛), which is affected less by atmospheric absorption (e.g. Petty [2005]). Most of this visible energy reaches the surface. The ultraviolet contribution [UV] from 0㎛ to 0.4㎛ is significantly smaller (≈10%), but varies strongly with the [Schwab] solar cycle, an 11-year change in the Sun’s output corresponding to changes in its magnetic field e.g. Ball 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. [2014]. Additionally, UV radiation is strongly absorbed by stratospheric Ozone and molecular Oxygen, making it particularly important for middle-atmosphere dynamics (e.g. Zhong 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. [2008]; Ineson 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. [2011]).”
Scafetta, Nicola 2023. Impacts and risks of “realistic” global warming projections for the 21ˢᵀ Century.” Geoscience Frontiers
➜10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774
Elsey, Jonathan David Charles 2019. “Accurate observations of near-infrared solar spectral irradiance and water vapour continuum.” Diss. University of Reading
➜10.48683/1926.00088668
You’re almost there- over 70% of the world is covered with water, most of which is in the ocean. When the oceans are cooling there is no global warming and, vice versa.
There are too small amounts of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere to have any measurable warming effect.
The only observable effect the rising CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere have is the global greenning.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Scientists do mistakes all the time.
I agree on that with Javier.
Javier,
“The precautionary principle works both ways and should have limits, because dedicating huge resources based on a scientific consensus that might turn out to be wrong is a disaster, maybe bigger than doing nothing. ”
And
” The climate alarm now moves over 1.25 trillions of dollars annually.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The unfortunate reality is that efforts to regulate one risk can create other, often more dangerous risks… Insofar as regulations divert resources away from potentially life-saving or safety-enhancing activities, they make people worse off. At the extreme, regulations that impose substantial costs can even increase overall mortality. Higher economic growth and aggregate wealth strongly correlate with reduced mortality and morbidity. This should be no surprise as the accumulation of wealth is necessary to fund medical research, support markets for advanced life-saving technologies, build infrastructure necessary for better food distribution, and so on. In a phrase, poorer is sicker, and wealthier is healthier. There is no free health. Much the same can be said for environmental protection.” ~Jonathan Adler (More Sorry Than Safe: Assessing the Precautionary Principle…)
The unfortunate reality is that efforts to regulate one risk can create other, often more dangerous risks…
The reality is that efforts to regulate fake risks always create other, always more dangerous actual risks…
Not by chance, but by design!
would think… probably a true concern as those who purposefully engage in creating false risks are likely to be condemnable people, e.g., the liberal fascist Nadolf Nitlers of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/climate/electricity-from-coal-is-pricey-should-consumers-have-to-pay.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wk0.N8yv.6WFRPneviQl3&smid=url-share
NYT on Coal Power Plants — Free Read
Ron Clutz: “during the LIA cold, CO2 levels became dangerously low for the biosphere’s productivity”
To my understanding, that is not true. You’d have to provide evidence. Here is some – go ahead and refute it.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
Ron, so you don’t have any evidence that “during the LIA cold, CO2 levels became dangerously low for the biosphere’s productivity”? Just making it up as you go?
ganon, there’s evidence already in this thread. Seek and you will find, once you take off your blinders.
Ron, Sure. LOL
Bushaw,
Nobody knows adequate about CO2 levels even 100 years ago. It is even unsafe to tie the mind to the Mauna Loa way to do things, because they both subjectively reject many analyses (even though the samples are CO2 in air, like the rest) and because of immodest claims of accuracy that they unforgiveably confuse with instrument repeatability. (I wrote this up for WUWT a year ago).
There is the somewhat bestial problem well described by Beck in a couple of papers about tens of thousands of wet chemistry analyses of CO2 in the air of 50 to 150 years ago or so. Some folk with a quaint ability to look back and know better have culled most of these early values and (objectively of course!) kept a few to claim ambient levels around the pop-science 280 ppm, cancelling the many 300+ ppm determinations. They have created this peculiar CO2 that only counts if it fits a fictional narrative.
Please don’t join these cancelling the old analyses. Your experience with analysis should guide you to at least think about what is going on.
Geoff S
Ever heard of Antarctic ice cores? Your stories don’t interest me, thanks anyway.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 8, 2024 at 8:35 am |
….
Ever heard of Antarctic ice cores? Your stories don’t interest me, thanks anyway.
…
Bushaw,
Yes, I am familiar with Antarctic ice cores.
For example, here is a photo of the original data for most of the early Law Dome projects.
Have you ever got this close to the data yourself?
Geoff S
…
https://www.geoffstuff.com/antfiles.jpg
Wow, Sherro. Looks like Trump’s bathroom. I’m impressed.
Evidence that BAB is a progressive with a severe case of TDS. Seek treatment.
Rob, nlm.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950), Ron Clutz, YES, low atmospheric CO₂ (180㏙ to 200㏙) causes much grief in modern C₃ plant (85% to 90% of all species). C₃: Wheat, Rice, Potatoes, Soybeans, Oats, Sugar Beets, Spinach, Barley, Rye, Tomatoes, Yams, Banana, Coffee, Mango, Papaya, Peach, Avocado, Apple, Peanut, Cowpea, Cassava, Alfalfa (Lucerne), Cotton, Sunflower, Tobacco, Chlorella, … Much of our FOOD PRODUCTION is C₃.
Tissot & Welte 2013: “About 2 billion years ago in the Precambrian, photosynthesis emerged as a worldwide phenomenon.”
Tissot & Welte 2013: “The oldest form of photosynthesis, as performed by bacteria, did not produce Oxygen.”
It would appear that photosynthesis evolved only once, in all that time. No competitor has appeared in the fossil record. It has been modified, but not reinvented.
Photosynthesis happens in two different pathways, called C₃ and C₄.
Gerhart & Ward 2010: ”It is, perhaps, ironic — to be considering plant responses to low [CO₂] — during an era in which most research has focused on rising [CO₂].”
Gerhart & Ward 2010: ”From the studies that have been conducted, it is clear that modern C₃ plant genotypes [plants possessing the C₃ photosynthetic pathway (85% to 90% of all species)] grown at low [CO₂] (180㏙ to 200㏙) exhibit severe reductions in photosynthesis, survival, growth, and reproduction, suggesting that reduced [CO₂] during glacial periods may have induced Carbon limitations that would have been highly stressful on C₃ plants (Polley 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1993a; Dippery 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1995; Sage, 1995; Tissue 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1995; Sage & Coleman, 2001; Ward & Kelly, 2004; Tonsor & Scheiner, 2007; see Fig. 2 for a photo of plants from Dippery 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1995).”
Modern C₃ plants die out when CO₂ drops below ≈170㏙. We don’t know about ancient C₃ plants; we don’t have any, to experiment on.
Gerhart & Ward 2010: ”Modern plants grown at low [CO₂] (150㏙ to 200㏙) exhibit highly compromised survival (Ward & Kelly, 2004) and reproduction (Dippery 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 1995) at conditions that occurred only 18,000yr ago to 20,000yr ago.”
Gerhart & Ward 2010: ”Dippery 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (1995) found the most extreme response, where low [CO₂] (150㏙) prevented reproduction in the modern C₃ annual, 𝐴. 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖, as a result of the abortion of all flower buds that drove the fitness response to zero. This finding suggested that 150㏙ CO₂ may be near the threshold for successful completion of the life cycle in some C₃ species. Campbell 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (2005) found that Tobacco was able to successfully reproduce at both 100㏙ and 150㏙ CO₂, although after a very large amount of time (16wk), and the germination percentage of offspring was compromised at 100㏙ relative to 150㏙ CO₂. Both the Dippery 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (1995) and Campbell 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. (2005) studies provide a strong reminder that the whole-plant CO₂ compensation point allowing for full completion of the plant life cycle may be substantially higher than the leaf CO₂ compensation point. In addition, much more time may be required for successful reproduction at low [CO₂] since sufficient Carbon must be accumulated and stored in order for reproduction to be successful. Such considerations must be kept in mind when predicting the full effects of low [CO₂] on plant reproduction and fitness.”
Tissot, Bernard P, Welte, Dietrich H. 2013, “Petroleum formation and occurrence.” Second Revised and Enlarged Edition Springer Berlin, Heidelberg
➜10.1007/978-3-642-87813-8
Gerhart, Laci M., and Joy K. Ward 2010. “Plant responses to low [CO₂] of the past.”
➜10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x
Lovelock’s climate model suggested the death of photosynthesis at 150㏙.
The Biden administration has also set its goal of reducing emissions produced from everyday household items like appliances, which already cost the average American family more than $9,000 in compliance efforts. In February, the Department of Energy finalized regulations that will limit Americans’ access to residential washers and dryers that produce too high of emissions
“The latest nonsensical, so-called green energy regulation will add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home and take about 90 years for the homeowner to recoup the additional cost,” Antoni told the DCNF. “Biden’s proposed subsidies to home buyers will only drive costs up further — this is Econ 101, for goodness’ sake! If you increase demand, prices will rise.”
https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/02/astronomical-home-prices-worse-biden-gets-way/
It’s funny, kind of. When you reach a certain age, some people stop caring about what people think on some subjects. There are only 2 genders and a man is a man and a woman is a woman, is one where I refuse to play the game to placate gender dysphoric people and supporters of the whole pangender movement. Climate change is another. The climate changes and we need to deal with that change. The easiest way for people to be safeguarded from severe weather events is the proliferation and access to cheap energy. It doesn’t matter if you’re in equatorial Africa or California, inexpensive energy, instead of making the world unsafe, makes an already unsafe world, safer. Thanks Alex Epstein. Anyone arguing for any policy which makes energy more expensive is just plain evil.
Following up on joe comments
Human life expectancy jumped from the high 40’s circa 1850
To nearly 80 years in the industrialized world.
The efficient use energy has been the single factor that facilitated all the improvements that allowed humans to emerge from mearily survival existence
The observed global greening is due to the rise of the trace gas CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere.
The very fact the rise of the CO2 content resulted in global greening means Earth’s biosphere ecology system is dangerously depleted from so much necessary CO2, it means Earth’s biosphere ecology system has already gone far beyond the red line of ever stopping ecological catastrophe.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘how we’re dealing with it,’ is the problem…
When it comes to the government science of climate change, global warming alarmists are dealing us a deadly abuse of their ‘pragmatic’ truth as it was described by philosopher and psychologist, William James. The government version of truth is based solely on its utility in creating a sense of alarm about America’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Official global warming science is all about urgency –i.e., the world community must act quickly to stop America from emitting any more globe-destroying climate pollution.
Meanwhile, China is busy parking rockets on the dark side of the Moon, Russia is expanding its territory by indiscriminately rocketing its neighbor, China is rocketing Israel, Argentina’s economy is rocketing with the increase in oil sales and savings achieved by shipping their prison population to America….
The performative denial gap continues to widen :
“Global population has increased by 6 billion people
We are obviously not facing an existential crisis.”
JC 5-26-24
“Climate is a hoax intended to kill 75% or more of the global population by limiting energy supplies and food production.”
Steve Milloy 9-26-23
Hasn’t the whole CAGW message been a unnecessarily destructive prediction, based upon faulty beliefs and unproven theory, made by politicians in collusion with a collection of untrustworthy scientists who are also beneficiaries?
Wasn’t 2050 a conveniently far off point in time to allow the perpetrators to disappear into obscurity when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that a) warming is not catastrophic and b) benefits outweigh disadvantages by a very large amount.
If the science was so sure would it not allow those among it to keep making fools of themselves with predictions which never come true? Aren’t predictions the tools of charlatans and has that not always been true?
Isn’t any temperature measure only true for the moment it is taken and what about the larger part of the globe we don’t monitor?
If temperature increases are so dangerous to human health how come mankind made it through the Holocene with evidence that they literally thrived in the warmth?
Why have we done so many things to make our energy footprints bigger and bigger since the whole CAGW scare began? And if we look at AI, data centres, and all the commerce systems centred upon digital processing how was this deemed acceptable when we “knew” the extra energy consumption made and continues to make our carbon dioxide emissions problem worse and worse?
Oh, and that copper problem. How could any sensible person negate to explain where it is all going to come from and how when that is a very important question we should all know the answer to?
And what do electric vehicles bring to the picture other than explosive spectaculars and bigger carbon footprints?
Just a few of the dots I can recall that have been totally ignored when it comes to having joined up thinking and joined up policy.
That is why I believe, as I do with COVID-19 (and the scandalous vaccines), that we are again being taken for fools by a political class completely out of its depth and in danger of sleep walking to its ultimate suicide.
>”Why have we done so many things to make our energy footprints bigger and bigger since the whole CAGW scare began? And if we look at AI, data centres, and all the commerce systems centred upon digital processing how was this deemed acceptable when we “knew” the extra energy consumption made and continues to make our carbon dioxide emissions problem worse and worse?”
Have you ever considered Jevons Paradox & climate change? AI offers the hope that the best of humanity (mostly billionaires) will escape the ‘Behavioral Sink syndrome’ as the global population collapses.
We need to supply contraceptives to Sub-Saharan Africa with instructions and incentives. They are thought to be the final hold-out for lower birth rates.
It’s cheaper to just let them starve to death.
You are describing what happened in the book. Atlas Shrugged. Society’s most productive left with the result that the rest of society got its wish- to be ruled by the Leftist bureaucracy that they had elected.
This was written:
the best of humanity (mostly billionaires) will escape the ‘Behavioral Sink syndrome’ as the global population collapses.
Are you suggesting that the mostly billionaires will grow their own food and build their own houses and manufacture their own stuff without a global population, power their land, air and water, and even space transportation without a working population? Wealthy people have always had more than poor people, but wealthy people never existed and thrived without working people and military and service people. If the global population collapses, the the wealthy people will have very little that their wealth can purchase.
popesclimatetheory,
I said “hope” not “will”, but I do think technology can change reality. And I also said humanity but I didn’t specify that it would be home sapiens (AI+genetic engineering)😁.
Lass,
Good points.
On copper, another time another life I was part of a small Aussie team that discovered a few new mines where only flat and lovely wheat fields rewarded the scientific eye. Should you benefit from opinion on whether finding Cu is easy, cheap, fast, certain, I’m pleased to assist. Geoff S
Earth’s “recent” global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.
It happens so, Earth on its orbitally forced process, the global warming is in its culmination “moments”.
Please compare with the yearly seasonal periods of the colder and warmer phases. The highest solar insolation occurs at June 22, but the warmest phase is in mid-July.
Our planet Earth, in its orbitally forced warming is, by analog around the July 7.
Thus, it is going to become warmer during the millenial and half to come, and only then the orbital path will change into the global cooling trend.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Once again, misguided “climate change” initiatives take a bite out of the world economy! And with it, the war on fossil fuels continues.
Colombia’s biggest companies are bracing for energy costs to soar in the months ahead as dwindling natural-gas production forces the nation to turn to costly imports to avoid shortfalls.
President Gustavo Petro, who has made fighting climate change a priority, is refusing to grant licenses to explore for new sites to drill even as reserves wither. And production from wells being explored in the Caribbean won’t come online until at least 2027.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-05/colombian-companies-face-energy-crunch-as-gas-reserves-plunge
jim2 wrote:
Once again, misguided “climate change” initiatives take a bite out of the world economy! And with it, the war on fossil fuels continues.
President Gustavo Petro, who has made fighting climate change a priority, is refusing to grant licenses to explore for new sites to drill even as reserves wither. And production from wells being explored in the Caribbean won’t come online until at least 2027.
…even as reserves whither
lulz
This has nothing to do with climate change. It’s about production not meeting needs.
BTW, natural gas has never been cheaper:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/natural-gas-price
How much will climate change cost Columbia?
PS – Funny that his last name is “Petro.”
Pay attention to who wrote it David. To put a sharper point on it, NOT ME!
Trunks,
No Polly here. It was Geoff’s reference that I quoted – complain to him if you don’t like it. With your level of reading comprehension, I’m not interested.
Bushaw,
Not sure if I’m the Geoff. If so, the score is that you have nowhere shown me wrong despite a bombardment of 100 open-ended attempts at deflections.
Geoff S
Geoff S,
That comment was directed to Jungletrunks, who didn’t like your reference. I guess you also have a reading comprehension problem.
Bushaw .gov link:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
“Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2022, global mean sea level was 101.2 millimeters (4 inches) above 1993 levels”
Bushaw continues on by reposting a portion of text from a Geoff NASA link. Geoff’s post was presented as ad hoc, a quick grab from many available sources: “Bushaw, On sea level, there are many papers for the last 20,000 years, so I have selected one. Let me know if you prefer another.” Bushaw preferred it, capturing this paragraph segment:
“Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches.”
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/
So the crux: Bushaw’s link stated “Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.” Then Bushaw cited Geoff’s NASA link: “Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches”.
SO the point I directed to Polly earlier was to reconcile his standard of comprehension, or personal “error bar” standard, if you will. Is it 8-9 inches since 1880 (from his link), or 6-8 inches since 1993 (from Geoff’s link) that he agreed with—both figures he has no problem with, yet there’s a huge difference between them.
Geoff is correct in his assessment of Polly; “…bombardment of 100 open-ended attempts at deflections.
Trunks,
Poor comprehension strikes again.
You said “Is it 8-9 inches since 1880 (from his [BAB’s] link), or 6-8 inches since 1993 (from Geoff’s link) that he agreed with—both figures he has no problem with, yet there’s a huge difference between them.”
Geoff’s paper said:
“Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches.”
Reread, I’ll translate for you:
Since 1880 (144 years: 8-9 inches
past 100 years: 160 to 210 mm = 6 to 8 inches
since 1993 (31 years) 3 – 4 inches (half of last 100 years value)
Where is trunky’s “huge difference”? They seem consistent with the known rates of MSL rise and acceleration thereof.
If you can’t comprehend what you read, it’s your problem. I understand story problems can be difficult.
BTW: Polly eats crackers for breakfast – Think I’ll have to call you Mr. Ritz from now on.
The Democrat party has proven it has no answer to this:
• Without them America will be completely free of dependency on middle east oil and gas
• With them America’s future is out of our control
The simple fact is at any time the oil monopoly can be used to cause energy shortages overnight. It’s happened before.
The Democrat party has done more than just cut the U.S. pipeline to energy independence. The Democrat party has created a real crisis of catastrophic proportions: by neglecting the development of our own natural resources the net present wealth of the U.S. as measured in GDP has declined; and, with the decline in wealth there will be an inevitable decline in the quality of life for all.
“Our peak was not much of a peak – sea level were only 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
Past peak warming was +4 meters higher than present sea levels.
Perhaps it was because the recent Glacial Max was the coldest time that Earth has ever known to be. Certainly the coldest time within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and had lowest level of global CO2 levels- ever known.”
–
The past times sea levels are not a solid evidence of the former global climate.
The Earth’s system the H2O content should not be considered constant, because it has a strong ability to change in a long time scales.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV,
Basin volume changes, this is known, but not by how much or how fast. This is an irreducible error net yet measured. Until it is, sea levels have a high uncertainty, larger than the sub-mm or even mm uncertainties of the naive. Geoff S
“Look at the graph. Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.
They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago.
That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.
Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.
Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.
All these values have confidence limits of +/- 0.1C and are real values. Why they changed is a valid topic of debate, but denying them is not a reasonable option.”
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
What I can is to reconstract a trend for some period of time.
It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.
First it was a slower warming, then as it proceeded, the rate of warming accelerated.
What we witness now are the culmination times of the warming trend.
In about a millenial and half it will start gradually cooling.
–
Now, how it is possible to reconstract the global temperatures for tens thousands years back – I think it is impossible.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You may think it is impossible, but it is done all the time.
(the word is “reconstruct”)
Bushaw,
How do you confirm that what is reconstructed is correct? A reconstruction is a thought process as much as a measurement process, where the thoughts can be errors.
Geoff S
Sorry Geoff, I didn’t say reconstructions are correct. Like all science, the uncertainty is judged by independent testing. Too bad you don’t understand that.
“(the word is “reconstruct”)”
Thank you.
What I can do is to reconstruct a trend (either it is a warming trend, or it is a cooling trend) for some period of time.
It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Actually the “trend” had been slow (orbital) cooling for 8 ka, since the Holocene Thermal Maximum; only in the last 150 years has this been overwhelmed by changes in atmospheric composition (other, smaller, forcings and feedbacks continue as usual, but respond to the new atmosphere).
I would agree that if you compare current (average) temperatures with any past temperature of the Holocene, the “trend” will always be warming … simply because current is the highest the GMST has been throughout the Holocene.
Christos, here’s a reputable reconstruction of NH temperature proxies by Moberg et al. The graph also includes a separate study of CO2 levels using stomata proxies. The graph does not add at the end the instrumental record of temperatures measured daily and increasingly every minute or second. To compare that high varibility with proxy records is wrong.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/co2-and-temps-250-yr-lag-during-lia-rev.png
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
“Actually the “trend” had been slow (orbital) cooling for 8 ka, since the Holocene Thermal Maximum; ”
–
How do you know, how do we know “Actually the “trend” had been slow (orbital) cooling for 8 ka, since the Holocene Thermal Maximum; “?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ron, for your response.
“To compare that high variability with proxy records is wrong.”
–
Of course it is wrong!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ron,
Your 250-year lag does not hold for the 20th century. Although still rising, the onset and general appearance appear synchronous. That is because CO2 changes have added a strong non-temperature dependent forcing, while the smaller feedback response to other forcings continues.
Christos,
From those “impossible” temperature reconstructions and Milankvitch calculations; i.e., experimentally and theoretically.
And thanks in advance, I’ve already seen you conjecture that the effect of Milankovitch cycles is upside down from what everybody (except you) thinks it is.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
” I’ve already seen you conjecture that the effect of Milankovitch cycles is upside down from what everybody (except you) thinks it is.”
–
” I’ve already seen you conjecture that the effect of Milankovitch cycles is upside down from what everybody (except you) thinks it is.”
(emphasis added)
Yes, unfortunately the effect of Milankovitch cycles is upside down.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, alternatively you could use Greenland ice core record which is higher resolution than Antarctica, and has an overlap with HadCRUT.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/gisp2-and-hadcrut-4.png
Thank you, Ron, for your response.
“Christos, alternatively you could use Greenland ice core record which is higher resolution than Antarctica, and has an overlap with HadCRUT.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/gisp2-and-hadcrut-4.png”
–
When studying the Graph it is another strong confirmation of the “It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.”
–
Ron, you see, it is upside-down again, as it is with Milankovitch cycles’ effect.
The ice core record is preciselly measured the previous millenials the captured atmospheric gases the CO2 content.
–
It is wrongly assumed, that the warmer the atmospheric air was at the time, the higher in ice cores the captured atmospheric CO2 content should be.
–
It is exactly the opposite what happens. The colder the air, the more CO2 is captured in the ice cores.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Trends depend on POVs and POVs depend upon numerous factors which Berne referred to in his transactional analysis theory in an attempt to explain how human’s behave and why.
Berne’s descriptions of the child and parent states works wonders with alarmists (parent) and their demands upon deniers (child) to stop what they are doing now either willingly or by force if necessary. “Is your cell comfy?” asks a certain Mr Dale. “It is better than you deserve” says a certain Mr Guterres.
Meanwhile Berne’s genuine scientists (adults) deal with the here and now as they have been doing for multiple generations with never a prediction made nor a theory ever settled.
If only we could all behave like adults the world would be a better place especially with all the charlatans put in their rightful places with honest work or given tender loving care in an asylum..
Ron Clutz, Christos posted the link to your graph on Spencer’s blog. The GISP2 measurements represent the temperature of the air and surface at the time the snow forms and lands on the top of the glacier. As a result, the data represents the local to regional temperature, it is not a global data set. The Hadley CRT4 is a global average, AIUI.
The fact that the ice core is an Arctic record also says that is includes what’s called Arctic Amplification. Just like the satellite record from UAH or RSS, there’s much more variation in the Arctic temperatures and the trends trends are greater for those regions. As a result, your combination of the two records presents a completely distorted impression. I think your graph is a complete distortion of the evidence, bordering on disinformation.
Christos and E. Swanson, I submited a comment on the GISP and Hadcrut graph, but it was not shown in the thread at Spenser’s blog. The graph was produced Ed Caryl in 2015 and he gave this explanation:
OK guys. The GISP2 ice core temperatures are the best record we have. There is no other. No, it isn’t global. It is a record of temperatures at Greenland’s latitude, which covers a good part of the globe that the current global temperature records are based on. The people that did the GISP work intended their readings to represent global climate. We have no Greenland thermometer readings that cover the years back to 1850 allowing a splice. Godthab-Nuuk goes back to 1880 and has problems with gaps, moves, and infrastructure changes, as well as UHI effects. But I can see why the calamitoligists want me to use it. I used HADCRUT4 because it likely has the least amount of Mann and Hansen-made warming in it. I repeat, the current warming is not unusual. Even splicing on the most biased temperature record anyone can find will not change that fact.
Ron Clutz, I doubt that the scientists who produced the GISP2 record thought it represented GLOBAL temperatures. Having just re-read Richard Alley’s book on the subject, he makes it clear that the del18O data is of rather local origin and captures seasonal variations as well. For example, during ice age periods, there’s very little snow during the winter half of the year, the snow fall occurring during summer, whereas during warm Interglacials, such as the Holocene, the snow falls during the Winter and not Summer. Also, the data includes some influence from the source region for the water vapor, thus capturing changes in the jet stream supplying said water vapor, as may be reflected by the NAO.
Again, the data includes Arctic Amplification, as does the MSU/AMSU data. See Spencer’s LT data for a comparison between the Arctic and Global trends. The latest Global trend is 0.15K/decade and the Arctic is 0.26. Note that the Arctic trend may be reduced in summer by the ongoing decline in sea-ice area over the period of record.
There’s more recent Greenland ice core results. For example:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/grip-hololcene-temps.png
Reconstructed temperatures for Greenland ice cores Dye3 and GRIP. (A) The temperature from 8000 BP to present; (B) the temperature from AD 0-2000 (after Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998). The observed difference in amplitude between the two cores is a result of their different geographic location in relation to the variability in atmospheric circulation. Source: Reconstructed-temperatures-for-Greenland-ice-cores-Dye3-and-GRIP-A
https://rclutz.com/2023/05/05/1875-was-coldest-in-10000-years-warming-a-good-thing/
Ron,
One should be skeptical of conclusions drawn from single cores. Multicore composites show much more detail (and show where noise in single cores has been falsely interpreted as signal.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
ganon’s “fact check” by Hausfather confirms the point of Dr. Curry’s post. Embedded in all of the consensus narrative is this gem:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/greenland-and-cmip-hs-temps.png
That’s a hockey stick made by adding on CIMP model projections to Greenland ice core dataset. Hype much? Dishonest to be sure. Not buying it.
Testing.. Comment stuck in moderation.
The supposed “fact check” is another example of the issue of this post. Included is this gem:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/greenland-and-cmip-hs-temps.png
Onto ice core temp data they spliced projections from CIMP models! No shame, only hype. Not buying it.
Ron,
So you don’t understand multi-component color-coded graphs? But good for you, you shouldn’t buy something you don’t understand.
Testing more comments lost in moderation
Trying again, this is for you buusshaw
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/troll-detected.png
Ron,
That’s alright, I’m sure it’s just personal attacks. =)
But you deflect from my comment about multi-core studies providing much better data and interpretation than single-core studies. Why is that?
If those that think Ron’s cherry-picked clipping from the article I referenced is “cool”; read the article and see the figure immediately after the one Ron “selected”. But if one doesn’t understand the connection between past data and future projections, there’s probably not much hope.
Ron Clutz, the graphic you presented was taken from Figure 4 of Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998. In that paper, they present the results of the application of statistical modeling to the actual record, not the real data. The authors wrote:
“The record implies that the medieval period around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present in Greenland. Two cold periods, at 1550 and 1850 A.D., are observed during the Little Ice Age (LIA) with temperatures 0.5 and 0.7 K below the present. After the LIA, temperatures reach a maximum around 1930 A.D.”
The authors also comment regarding the GRIP data (note 5) that:
“The temperatures measured in the top 40 m are very disturbed,
so we used measurements from an air-flled shallow borehole (100 m) near the borehole.”
From their Figure 1B, note that the temperature variation over the past 1000 years or so is quite small. And, let me say again, the GRIP data, like the GRISP2 data, includes the effects of Arctic Amplification. The DYE3 data exhibits greater variation, which the authors attribute to the location which is influenced by local effects.
So we can appreciate Jørgen Peder Steffensen’s conclusion:
“Other core samples from elsewhere in Greenland confirmed that the little ice age ended about 140 years ago at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years. The natural pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods back in time has also been confirmed elsewhere in the northern hemisphere. Carbon 14 dating of organic matter from peat bogs and tree rings confirms the pattern. Also the data from stalactite caves in China and measurements from North Africa.
The problem is that we can all agree completely that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th century. Yes, but an increase from what? It was probably an increase from the lowest point we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. And this means it will be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was man-made or it’s a natural variation. That would be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment when we started to observe meteorology at the coldest time in the last ten thousand years.”
Ron Clutz,
I dismiss any comments you make on other topics as long as you refuse to acknowledge that the data says human emissions exceed atmospheric carbon accumulation. That immediately implies natural processes are removing carbon from the atmosphere, not adding it. You sqy you are done with that topic. I am not.
Agreed David. I don’t accept your thinking either. I’m going to follow the facts and they lead away from you. Sayonara.
Rod,
Nonsense. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge is that human emissions exceed atmospheric carbon increases. If natural processes dominated, the atmospheric carbon increase would exceed human emissions. “Case closed” as yoiu like to say.
David Andrews,
” If natural processes dominated, the atmospheric carbon increase would exceed human emissions.”
If you were familiar with feedback and control theory, I don’t think you would be nearly so confident of the ‘natural net sink’ argument. Photosynthesis is almost certainly the predominant natural CO2 sink and is acting very much like a negative feedback path within the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle is therefore acting similar to a control system with negative feedback. It’s possible there may be other natural CO2 sources that are increasing besides fossil fuel combustion but even if these natural source increases dominated, because of the regulating effect of photosynthesis the net natural sink would almost certainly remain positive.
Bill V
I am a physicist and am quite familiar with negative feedback and control theory. Indeed, raising carbon in the atmosphere stimulates more photosynthesis which slows the atmospheric carbon rise. Similarly, more carbon in the atmosphere causes more carbon to become dissolved in seawater, another negative feedback on atmospheric carbon confirmed by data. This negative feedback is what causes the atmospheric rise to be less than human emissions, which means net global uptake is positive, etc., etc.
One can imagine a natural source that is not compensated by the kind of outflows that Rod refuses to think about: say undetected undersea volcanos spewing CO2 at a rate larger than human emissions. I can’t model that and come up with a positive net global uptake, WHICH IS DEMANDED BY THE DATA. Based on your earlier posts, I don’t believe you can either.
Ron Clutz, While we may “appreciate” Steffensen’s conclusion, there are other climate records to be considered, which he did not show. For example, the graph you previously posted, which shows that cold period in both the DYE 3 and GRIP bore hole data, displays a much larger excursion in the DYE 3 data compared with the GRIP data. That’s the result of the two curves being presented together, but with much different different scales, the GRIP data indicating only a minimal change since a low at ~1600CE.
There’s no comparison with the delta18O data from GRIP and GRISP2 cores, which have been shown to closely agree each other. These data continue up to about 1980, so there’s no problem with the use of a model to interpret the results.
David Andrews,
“This negative feedback is what causes the atmospheric rise to be less than human emissions, which means net global uptake is positive, etc., etc.”
If you are familiar with control theory, then you should agree that net global uptake would still likely be positive if there were also natural sources contributing to increasing atmospheric CO2.
“I can’t model that and come up with a positive net global uptake …”
Then your model does not provide sufficient photosynthesis feedback. The feedback should be proportional to the amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere and great enough to sink almost all of it.
There may be good reasons to suspect that fossil fuel combustion is responsible for most of the increase in atmospheric CO2, but this ‘natural net sink’ reasoning is faulty logic and isn’t one of them.
Why have the atmospheric and marine oxygen levels been dropping the last 100+ years? What kind of photosynthesis that consumes CO2 results in oxygen sequestration?
jacksmith4tx,
“Why have the atmospheric and marine oxygen levels been dropping the last 100+ years?”
Who knows? Just as a wild guess, I’d say fossil fuel combustion would be contributing to dropping atmospheric oxygen levels, and maybe reduced effectiveness of phytoplankton photosynthesis would be contributing to dropping marine oxygen levels. I would also guess that oxygen levels vary around the globe.
Do your questions have some relevance to David Andrews ‘natural net sink’ argument, which was what I was trying to address in the previous comment?
Bill V,
I have emphasized the most accurate and simplest conclusion from emission and atmospheric data: together land/sea reservoirs are net sinks. You seem ready to concede that the biosphere is a net sink, and perhaps are hinting that therefore the oceans may be a net source. That would be wrong conclusion. The biosphere (to my surprise) turns out to be somewhat more of a sink than the oceans, but oceans are unambiguously net sinks, as confirmed not only qualitatively by the ongoing acidification, but also quantitatively. I am not going to bother finding a reference for that statement. I will let you look it up.
So where should we look for this hypothetical dominant CO2 source of yours? The warmest parts of the ocean surface may on balance be outgassing CO2. Where would that carbon have originated? Likely from colder parts of the ocean surface taking in carbon. After all, atmospheric carbon levels have increased, Henry’s Law… It cannot have been from the ocean depths without the oceans becoming overall sources. Apparently we are just talking, once again, about the carbon CYCLE, just as I have explained elsewhere why a dying tree should not be considered a carbon source.
I have used more information here than contained in the simplest “net sink” argument. If you like, tell me “I told you so; that argument was incomplete.” OK, you win. But I like the analogy between a scientific theory and a crossword puzzle. When all the words fit, across and up/down, you are pretty sure you are correct. Human responsibility for atmospheric carbon increase is a rock-solid result. The papers of Skrable, Berry, Harde, and a couple of others that Ron likes to cite on his blog have had their flaws pointed out multiple times.
Bill V. , I appreciate your line of inquiry here. IMO a recent paper will be of interest to you. The conclusions:
1. In the 16th century, Earth entered a cool climatic period, known as the Little Ice Age, which ended at the beginning of the 19th century;
2. Immediately after, a warming period began, which has lasted until now. The causes of the warming must be analogous to those that resulted in the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, the Roman Climate Optimum around the first centuries BC and AD, the Minoan Climate Optimum at around 1500 BC, and other warming periods throughout the Holocene;
3. As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];
4. As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
5. The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];
6. Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere.
Overall, the findings in this paper confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle (and through this in climate)
and a non-discernible signature of humans.
https://rclutz.com/2024/03/20/humans-add-little-to-rising-co2-march-2024/
David Andrews,
” together land/sea reservoirs are net sinks”
Agreed, and you have shown this with your calculation of net global uptake. But as I’ve indicated in previous comments this fact alone does not help very much in determining the contribution of land/sea reservoirs to the atmospheric CO2 increase. I think all it really indicates is that fossil fuels do make some positive contribution.
Currently atmospheric CO2 is increasing each year by the equivalent of approximately 50% of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel combustion. I believe you conclude from this that land/sea reservoirs are responsible for none of the increase in atmospheric CO2. I’d be interested in your take on the following hypothetical scenario:
Imagine that one of the natural CO2 sources (volcanoes perhaps?) suddenly increases dramatically. Let it be sufficiently large that it causes a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 such that the increase in CO2 is now 75% of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel combustion, rather than 50%. Under such a scenario, your net global uptake calculation would remain positive. Would you still maintain that land/sea reservoirs are not responsible for any increase in atmospheric CO2?
jacksmith4tx: “Why have the atmospheric and marine oxygen levels been dropping the last 100+ years? What kind of photosynthesis that consumes CO2 results in oxygen sequestration?”
They haven’t been “dropping”. They are lower relative to the proportion of CO2 that has been increasing due to increased temps speeding up respiration. In other words, because CO2 has increased, the proportion of oxygen to CO2 has decreased.
agnostic,
“In other words, because CO2 has increased, the proportion of oxygen to CO2 has decreased.”
–
Also the intensive burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas) has increased the production of H2O, which also causes the O2 depletion in atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bill V,
You write:
“ I believe you conclude from this that land/sea reservoirs are responsible for none of the increase in atmospheric CO2.”
No I do not reach that conclusion. My favorite article on this is:
Ballantyne, A. P. Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P., 2012: Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years, Nature, vol 488 pp 70-72.doi:10.1038/nature11299
That article includes a plot of decade-by-decade variations in net global uptake. Elsewhere I wrote:
“Perhaps the question “do natural sources contribute anything at all to the CO2 rise?” is not the right one to ask. In Ballantyne’s analysis, temporarily reduced (but still positive) Net Global Uptake during the 1990’s is attributed to a volcanic eruption. [Mt. Pinatubo] Should that count as a contribution to the rise? But claiming that natural processes dominate the rise in CO2, just because gross natural emission rates exceed anthropogenic ones, when Net Global Natural Emissions are negative is untenable.”
The mainstream argument holds together. If, like Rod Clutz, you think that natural emissions are the primary cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, please tell me your reasoning.
[held up for some reason]
Bill V and agnostic,
You can easily find data on the decline in global atmospheric oxygen in recent decades, with seasonal variations. The data is normalized to nitrogen, not CO2. Some call for an “oxygen tax” rather than a “carbon tax” on the burning of fossil fuels, figuring that the public appreciates the benefits of oxygen more than the harms of carbon.
Let’s face it: we all should exercise a greater degree of scientific skepticism. Obviously there will always be many idiots and ideologically-driven charlatans who do not care about the truth. Should we be among them? We must be honest enough, for example, in 2012 you could say that the Earth had been in a cooling trend for a decade.
Wagathon,
About 10 years flat T from UAH above Australia.
Of course, other locations have different pictures, some warmer.
My interest in in mechanisms that can generate such differences, when we hear so much about globally well-mixed radiative gases. Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahjune2024.jpg
True, besides being impossibly impractical to measure the temperature of everywhere in the world, even assuming we could know the temperature everywhere with complete accuracy, an average of these temperatures is roundly understood as being as meaningless as the average of all of the telephone numbers in New York.
Sherro0,
Thanks for the UAH Australian weather report. Here is the Global climate (>30 years) from the same source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/
Washington Post article on Nuclear Power (free link)
https://wapo.st/3Xbgt8D
The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading. Specifically, NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA’s claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA’s claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed. Given the importance and influence of the dataset in science and policy, NOAA should act quickly to address this scientific integrity shortfall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44304-024-00011-0
Washington Post story on current heat wave: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/interactive/2023/heat-waves-map-us-tracker/
Its called summer
I will be doing a 65 mile bike ride starting at 8am and should finish shortly before 11am before it gets hot. not a problem though may have to carry 4 water bottles instead of 3.
It’s not just called “summer.” The science says heat wave frequency is increasing in the US. So is heat wave duration, season and intensity.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Pulling the same stunt as Bushaw –
Using the cherrypicked start date.
Use a start date at the beginning of the 20th century, and massive increase in heat waves dissipates.
Honest climate science – the final frontier
this is just australia – though worth noting
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000999
Using the cherrypicked start date.
Starting in th 1960s, right before modern warming began to take off, is not cherrypicking.
There have been decadal increases in all those metrics since. 6 decades of increases is worrying.
this is just australia – though worth noting
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000999
So lame.
Of course heat wave deaths are decreasing since 1844. It’s called “air conditioning.”
Laughable.
JTNCS pulling the same stunt again-
Claiming that a starting date when data has sufficient accuracy and spatial coverage is “cherry-picking”.
And I never cherry-picked anything – I referenced specific paper/articles/sites. If you don’t like their data ranges and explanation thereof, that’s your problem.
Appell
I know it’s not your strong suit but do try to keep up with the science. As EPA shows, heat waves were significantly worse nearly 100 years ago than in recent years.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/figure-gd-1-10.png
BTW, how are those 8th grade equations coming along?
JoeTheNon below references an Australian paper on heatwaves and deaths.
It is strange. The authors give lots of measurements of deaths. They give no measurements of heatwaves.
I’ve done thousands of heatwaves measurements from official raw Tmax BOM public daily data and I cannot support the proposition – using the longest temperature records with the highest population numbers for a start, that –
1. Just because average temperatures might have warmed about a degree C, this does not force heatwaves to get hotter.
2. Some places begin records in the 1860s or so. Some of them show their hottest annual heatwave to be getting hotter over the years. More of them show no change or a decrease.
3. I see no evidence of heatwaves getting longer.
The “seminal” papers so often quoted for Australia almost always commence analysis after 1950.
The only records available that use Tmax and/or Tmin may not be optimum because temperatures integrated over the day could beat a couple of spot readings. Also, the uncertainty of these daily temperatures is of the order of +/- 1 deg C for 2 sigma so all deductions to date are unreliable. Most big heatwaves rise only a fuzzy degree or so above surrounding years, not a prominent 5 deg or more, similar to their uncertainty. Geoff S
David Appell | June 7, 2024 at 5:48 pm |
Using the cherrypicked start date.
Starting in th 1960s, right before modern warming began to take off, is not cherrypicking.
Both Appel and Baby – know its cherrypicking using a start date of 1960 when the considerable data shows the 1960’s was a low point.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/figure-gd-1-10.png
Throw insults all you want – both of you have blown through what ever integrity you may have had.
Baby Joey, the non-scientist, once again claims to be the arbiter of what are valid data sets for papers he hasn’t read or understood. Then he repeats it over and over again (probably can’t think of anything else to complain about), and purports to know what other people think. Little and pathetic.
Bushaw – A few other commentators have provided documentation reflecting higher frequency of heat wavers in the early part of the 20th century. Please let us know the scientific justification for omitting heat wave data for those years if its not for the purposes of deception.
Why would you embrace the deception?
M Starkley (and others who don’t read the papers that they make up conspiracy theories about),
Sorry, I haven’t seen any global frequency data for the first half of the 20th century from other commentators. They seem to be stuck on the regional heat waves in the USA (’34 and ’36), which do not show up it the GLOBAL temperature record.
It is because spatial coverage prior to ca. 1960 was not good enough to determine changes in global frequency, intensity, and duration. The only deception is self-induced from lack of information – read the papers referenced in the EPA articles.
BAB said: “It is because spatial coverage prior to ca. 1960 was not good enough to determine changes in global frequency, intensity, and duration.”
Therefore, any claims that current heat waves are more frequent or worse than in the past are unsupported.
Jim2: “Therefore, any claims that current heat waves are more frequent or worse than in the past are unsupported.”
Those are not the claims, the claim made is that the decadal frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves from 1960 through present has been increasing. Simple as that – read the referenced papers, and stop making false implications.
Nice diversion BAB. If you don’t have reliable data before 1960, using only data from 1960 is merely cherry picking. No, you don’t have data before then, so you can’t say if data after 1960 is more extreme than before 1960. I’m not limiting my consideration based on what the paper says. You have to look at the bigger picture, and you can’t.
JIm2: “No, you don’t have data before then, so you can’t say if data after 1960 is more extreme than before 1960.”
You are the one saying that, not me. All I (and the works I reference) are saying is the heat wave extremes have been increasing since 1960. You can speculate about what happened before that all you want, but it is just personal opinion without sufficient evidence.
Your position makes about as much sense, scientifically, as those (Joey, in particular) that say, there could have been climate events in the past similar to the current one, we just haven’t found one yet. No evidence, no value, bye bye.
BAB is unwilling to admit the unknowns in climatology.
Jim2,
As usual, you have no idea of what you are talking about. I freely admit there are unknowns in climatology, and there always will be. Where I have a problem is with people who won’t/can’t admit the knowns of climatology, despite all the evidence – it’s called willful ignorance.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 11, 2024 at 10:59 am |
Jim2,
“Where I have a problem is with people who won’t/can’t admit the knowns of climatology, despite all the evidence – it’s called willful ignorance.”
Which is exactly why you should have a problem with climate scientists presenting studies with truncated data sets! the quality of the truncated data is vastly more robust than you are willing to admit.
JTNCS,
Sorry you don’t get it, but not surprised. Prior to improvements made after the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), there was is sufficient data to make a robust evaluation of heat wave trends. Go ahead and cite literature that shows sufficient data for decadal global heat wave evaluation prior to 1960. If not, I’ll have to assume you just make up stuff.
David Allen Appell | June 7, 2024 at 5:19 pm |
“It’s not just called “summer.” The science says heat wave frequency is increasing in the US. So is heat wave duration, season and intensity.”
…..
These linked analyses start at 1960. There is abundant disproof from the records of earlier times, available from 1860s or so.
It is simply ludicrous to claim “getting hotter”. Take a gander at this stuff from major, long-term Australian city stations (and mentally subtract some UHI if you want to be fair).
http://www.geoffstuff.com/asixheatwave2022.xlsx
…
The way they claim “getting hotter” is by composing home-made defintions, like comparing temperatures to a few years each side instead of the whole available credible record. I call that cheating,
Geoff S
“These linked analyses start at 1960. These linked analyses start at 1960.”
Geoff – that is just one of the many examples of cherrypicking data sets which dominates throughout climate science.
Ganon – of course hopes no one notices he takes diametrically opposite position defending the truncation of good data, while defending the inclusion of poor data – as long as it supports the agenda.
JTNCS,
Just can’t help exhibiting your angry non-scientist inferiority complex, can you?
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | June 10, 2024 at 9:44 am |
JTNCS,
Just can’t help exhibiting your angry non-scientist inferiority complex, can you?
BABy gets caught taking diametrically opposite positions to justify the truncation of good data sets while including poor data sets that fits the agenda
Baby demonstrates his integrity – Did you really think no one would notice
Baby – Give us a scientific justification for the double standard – instead of throwing your repetitive insults.
Joey baby,
Keep it up, your pain is obvious – I enjoy it.
Judith blocks me from receiving new comment notifications.
Cowardly, plain and simple.
Yes. David. Judith. Is. Out. To. Get. You. (Or is the error between the seat and keyboard?)
You realize that your mistaken whining about comment notifications makes everything else you write seem stupid and whiny as well, don’t you?
Judith is afraid of free inquiry. Sign of a loser.
Try using a RSS browser extension and subscribe to the comments.
Meanwhile on planet Earth, Mr Appell, the UK Met Office has been found cooking the books again as Paul Homewood reveals to us in stark detail. Why do you think CAGW needs such propaganda to back it up. If CAGW were true there would be absolutely no need for deceptions. But of course the charlatan Mann started all this didn’t he?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-junk-data-trashes-the-met-offices-reputation/
Lass
“ Recently they were forced to admit that most of their temperature station network is not fit for purpose. Because they are so poorly sited, 78 per cent of stations have uncertainty of at least 2C, according to the official World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) classifications. Nearly a third are assessed as Class 5, the lowest classification, officially regarded as junk, with uncertainty of up to 5C. The most common siting issue is being much too close to roads, buildings and even airport runways, all of which artificially raise temperatures.”
If this is even remotely accurate, and given that other nations might not have standards as high as the UK, it is an indictment of the entire institution of climate science.
The US and Australian networks have their own critics along the same lines.
I’ve been somewhat skeptical about some of the critics since I would like to believe the experts know what they are doing, but little by little the confidence in the consensus narrative is eroding.
This could be why the official temperatures are difficult to reconcile with the lack of commensurate acceleration in the tidal gauge data.
Kid
I do not believe the CAGW movement ever had credibility scientifically – period – and the fact of what it does and continues to do is a statement about how dishonest so many so called professionals for the last several decades have been and are getting worse.
At least free thinkers in the UK are fighting Government neglect of its duties when investigating [sic] the horrors of COVID-19, not the virus but the way top officials behaved during what was a largely self- induced damage exercise in any number of areas including the unsafe vaccines .
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/10/the-peoples-vaccine-inquiry-launches-today/
Perhaps this is also the way free thinking climate scientists should tackle the damage officials at all levels are causing with CAGW propaganda, policy, and mitigation on an even bigger scale with Net Zero. The sleep walking alarmists need to be stopped as soon as is possible so that normal service can be resumed with a purge of the all those who have caused the general public needless pain, worry, financial and mental health damage and will continue to do so until they are stopped.
We need much better quality people at the top of stuff and not those who love money, power and control.
Jo Nova posted this. Search for her site because WP apparently doesn’t like the link.
What? The government can’t mandate physics and chemistry? Surely it must try again. Spend even TRILLIONS MORE!!!
It’s fair to say the transition to EVs isn’t going as some automakers had projected. Several car manufacturers are delaying their lofty goals to become purely electric in the foreseeable future. Just last y, Volkswagen estimated that EVs would account for as much as 80 percent of annual sales in Europe by the end of the decade. The so-so reception of ID models has prompted VW to revise its strategy.
Of the €180 billion ($196 billion) set aside in 2023 primarily for next-generation EVs, the German brand will now use one-third to continue the development of combustion engines.
https://www.motor1.com/news/722457/vw-invest-billions-gas-engines/
Washington Post story on heat levels throughout world: https://wapo.st/3x50Jts
How many people faced “dangerous heat” in the thirties? Of course one would have to correct for total population. Have those numbers?
JIM2,
Probably, the longest, hottest heatwave reported in Australia was in 1896, over a large area of N-W New South Wales. Newspaper reports werew from the town of Bourke latit 30S, longit 149E.
There were 22 consecutive days above 40 deg C or 104 deg F.
Geoff S
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/heatwaves-in-australia-not-longer-not-more-common-why-wont-bom-and-abc-say-that/
Jim Steele explains heat waves clearly at WUWT:
With a disproportionate focus on the greenhouse effect and fossil fuels, most people are totally unaware that the earth’s surface is cooled primarily by convection currents carrying warm buoyant air up and away. Indeed, with water vapor and CO2 making the lower 1000 meters of the atmosphere opaque to most escaping infrared, thus preventing radiative cooling, the earth’s surface only cools sufficiently via convection. All honest scientists know heatwaves are caused by suppressed convection.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/08/science-of-heat-waves-reveals-blaming-co2-is-a-scam/
Judith,
You said that scientists agree on things like:
..
– And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.
But do you mean that there is some understood warming effect (greenhouse effect), but what is the total effect of CO2 concentration increase is still under dispute, isn’t it? I mean , the discussion about the cause and effect of CO2 increase and global temperature increase.
The radiative effect of CO2 is not disputed, it can be tested in a laboratory and quantified. From first order physics, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere should result in a 1.1C of warming.
What’s in dispute are the feedbacks to that warming. If they are positive, it means there is more warming. From observations we have not seen more than 1.3C (that’s the 1.1C plus 0.2C) per doubling, but the IPCC have their range at 2.5-4C. 1.3C of warming per doubling is not enough to worry about, but 2.5-4C probably is.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the CO2 effect is logarithmic. The 1.1C is PER doubling. So if you go from 250ppm to 500ppm, you will get 1.1C warming, but you would have to go from 500 to 1000ppm to get the next 1.1C. So the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere the less effect it has to increase warming.
Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48886-x?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Sherro0,
“Nobody knows adequate about CO2 levels even 100 years ago. ”
I think you mean, “Geoff doesn’t know much about CO2 levels.”
Being “close” to the data doesn’t mean having boxes of it in your closet. More relevant is to have an up-to-date understanding of the data and being able to reference it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45894-9/figures/1
Indeed. The transparency of web libraries renders 21st century ignorance of 19th century advances in accurate atmospheric analysis inexcusable.
The difference in CO2 between smokey Paris and its leafy suburbs was measured – and published – to a few PPM before the Eiffel Tower was built
Well, if it was a certain value in Paris before the Eiffel Tower was built, it must have been that value all over the planet. Is that what you are trying to say, Russell?
I Love Paris in the Springtime.
The First Conclusions
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Planet………Te…..Te.correct….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….440 K…..364 K……325,83 K….340 K
Earth………255 K…..210 K……287,74 K….288 K
Moon……270,4 K….224 K……223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars……….210 K…..174 K……213,11 K….210 K
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At first reading, Esper et al (2024) carried out multiple re-scaling and re-centering operations on Buentgen et al (2021) series that were already reconstructions centered on reference period 1961-1990. The only purpose for these operations appears to have been to “improve” the coherence of the Buentgen Rmean reconstruction with temperature. A sort of air brushing of their hockey stick diagram.
And, at the end of the day, Esper et al (2024) is best described as climate pornography. In the premier modern journal for climate pornography: Nature. And while climate partisans (and scientists) pretend to read the articles and the fine print, in reality, they, like Penthouse readers in the 1980s, are only interested in the centerfold. In the present case, an air brushed hockey stick diagram. A diagram that raises the same question that Penthouse readers asked back in the day: real or fake?
https://climateaudit.org/2024/06/02/tracing-the-esper-confidence-intervals/
More from that …
What the experiment actually demonstrated was that different climate groups could get dramatically different reconstructions from identical data. Thus, over and above the many well known defects and problems in trying to use tree ring data to reconstruct past temperatures, there was yet one more source of uncertainty that had not been adequately canvassed: the inconsistency between climate groups presented with the same data.
I wrote earlier “Nobody knows adequate about CO2 levels even 100 years ago. ” Here is support. Geoff S.
….
The relation between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and air temperatures requires fundamentally that both sets of measurements are adequately accurate.
For CO2, measurements are in three main groups. Here, we do not deal with measurements from ice cores – that is a separate study. The two other main groups are from laboratory chemical analysis mainly with wet titration type methods; and by the change to infra-red light intensity in a beam shone through a cell containing the CO2, often with continuous flow and frequent measurement, starting about 1960.
Between 1800 and 1961, more than 380 technical papers that were published on wet chemistry contained data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. For the simple, logical reason that each sample was of CO2 in the air and each was potentially subjected to similar interactions with natural radiation, each of these analyses should be used to contribute to assessments of historic global patterns of CO2. It is of course valid to reject work that can be shown to have unacceptable errors.
Ernst-Georg Beck published compilations of this past work by location, author, setting, date and so on in 2007 and 2022 (there are more.)
https://www.ddponline.org/beck.pdf
Beck, Ernst-Georg. “Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground.” Science of Climate Change 2.2 (2022): 148-211.
Beck made many estimates of historic CO2. One graph is shown for comparison to “Establishment” graphs.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/beckback.jpg
An Establishment graph is from https://sealevel.info/co2.html
https://www.geoffstuff.com/mlandcore.jpg
The large differences between these graphs have so far received short shrift to “cancel culture” the Beck work. This serious matter deserves proper, high standard scientific reconciliation.
‘We are obviously not facing an existential crisis…’
America’s great evil is success. Given their hatred for Americanism and the EU’s increasing impotence in global affairs it’s easy to see how momentarily gratifying it was for these effete snobs–in their most insignificant moment in history–to award a scientific-illiterate like Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize and few have been more eager than Al Gore to sell out America and all of humanity for thirty pieces of silver.
Washington Post on HFCs (Free Article): https://wapo.st/4bUznW6
New York Times on PFAS lawsuits. (free article): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/climate/pfas-forever-chemicals-lawsuit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y00.d71Y.Jb_HmO3G8sDL&smid=url-share
Two comments on the HFC’s and the PFAS articles from Segrest and Jack
A) See the Bell Mcdermott study of the increase in premature mortality in 96 US cities from increases in ground level ozone. While the study is often considered the gold standard in this type attribution study, it does a poor job of adjusting for other co-existing variables. Most, if not, all the pre mature mortality studies continue with the same methodology errors, especially the fine particulate matter studies. Those studies mentioned in the WP and NYTs articles likely continue with similar errors.
B) Assuming argumento, that the pre mature mortality studies are valid, the benefits in health and reduction in premature mortality are very small in relation to the money spent. Far less money could be spent on other programs achieving much higher rates of improvements. ie money is being diverted to the improvements generating the lower/lowest rates of return.
The squeeze is coming. Regardless of the hope for increased federal spending to combat AGW, the inexorable explosion of Net Interest costs will slap a little reality onto those plans.
May 2024 outlays for Net Interest were $89 billion. I expect each of the final 4 months to approach $100 billion. With cumulative outlays at $609 billion through May, it seems reasonable that total FY 2024 for Net Interest to approach $1 trillion.
To put that into perspective, $1 trillion would fund 100 EPAs.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0524.pdf
Nuclear Power Is Hard. A Climate-Minded Billionaire (Bill Gates) Wants to Make It Easier. Free Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/climate/bill-gates-nuclear-wyoming.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zU0.O8W9.SU18iLaucpAi&smid=url-share
We’ve failed to properly place the risks from climate change in context of other challenges the world is facing.
Typically misleading, unfortunately.
You’re completely confused about the risk from climate change. You don’t assess that risk by looking at the climate now or the recent past, but by looking at the risks going forward from future climate change. You like to point to the uncertainty monster but you constantly ignore the risk of (even low probability) high damage function risk. Comparing risk from future climate change to other uncertain risks that we face, such as the risk from terrorism, is what we need to do. Or even comparing the risk from future climate change, within the confidence interval even you claim to accept, to other challenges the world is facing (like the risks from carbon particles in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels) is the critical context.
Joshua
What future climate change risks will humans not be able to adapt to as they unfold? During the last 60 years of supposedly unpresented warming, humanity has had its best period.
Carbon atoms do not exist in Earth’s atmosphere.
The Comment on carbon atoms landed in the wrong place. Addresses Comment by Joshua.
Photon Powered,
I believe Joshua said carbon particles, not carbon atoms. That would be black carbon (soot). Also, atoms do not stop being atoms because they are part of a molecule.
I love it when people show up at the home of the uncertainty monster to ignore the uncertainties of risk from high damage function impact of climate change at the high end of the confidence interval Judith claims to accept.
Let alone the increased risks of mortality and morbidity resulting from carbon particles in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.
The human population has and will adapt to carbon particles quite well. Our population is arguably growing too fast.
> The human population has and will adapt to carbon particles quite well.
Lol. OK Rob.
Wow.
Carbon pricing or carbon taxes lower the lifestyle of the current population with any benefits.
You have no idea what the damage function is. It could be small or even negative. Besides, the proposed fixes are costing tens of trillions of dollars. This is absolutely a risk to our quality of life. A long but dull existence is not desirable. People have fought and died to achieve a favorable, free life. And life is inherently risky. We need to accept the risk and, if necessary, adapt where we can.
Jim2,
“We need to accept the risk and, if necessary, adapt where we can.”
–
There is not any risk, because the global warming is a millenials long orbitally forced inevitable natural process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> You have no idea what the damage function is.
That’s like saying I have no idea what the risk from terrorism is. You have to act in the face of uncertainty. Which is life. We do it all the time. Only when the questions become fused with identity-based cognition do people demand unreasonable levels of certainty.
There are some uncertainties that are too expensive insure. “Climate change” is one of those.
The war/nuclear war risk from the id eee ots that run the Western world is a much greater concern than “climate change” and is a real, realized risk.
In the Ukraine war alone there have been about half a million casualties, and 10s of millions more wounded or displaced.
These aren’t “projections”, these are history spanning the last few years.
Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 30,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.5 million have fled Ukraine. 14.6 million people need humanitarian assistance.
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine?ref=atlanticcityfocus.com
Casualties …
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-dead-russia-ukraine-war-update-troops-civilians-1864034
El Nino La Nina– free article NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/climate/el-nino-la-nina.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zk0.xHAx.miV-cWMvL-t3&smid=url-share
1. Uncertainties that climatology is complete.
2. Uncertainties about the cost/benefit of ACO2.
3. Uncertainties about the proposed solutions for “climate change”. In this, we know that if we were suddenly forced to rely on wind and solar alone, we would have frequent, prolonged blackouts. Enough batteries don’t exist, and may never exist. EVs aren’t selling well. Heat pumps are inadequate in many climates. And given 1 & 2, all this tens of trillions of spending to mitigate “climate change” may well be a gargantuan and sad waste of money, worse for the poor and swelling their ranks.
“ If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted.”
Could someone remind me what all the freak out is about.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Net-Zero-Averted-Temperature-Increase-2024-06-11.pdf
As I read the manuscript, that would appear to be the projected warming in the absence of feedbacks, which has nothing to do with reality. I think the only ones freaking out are those that understand nonlinear dynamics, attractors, bistable systems, and chaotic trajectories. I take it you are not one of them.
I go by name recognition and worldwide reputation. Some have it. Some don’t. Nice try. I see above you still can’t reconcile scientists being wrong about sea level rise from 40-50 years ago. Whether they were predictions or projections is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they were wrong. Wrong is still wrong in the English language.
Kid,
Pay attention, this thread (yours) was about temperature, not sea level, and I have said nothing about sea level here – you got some kind of weird fixation on “deflection by sea level”?
Nonetheless, I have no reason to reconcile scientists being wrong 50 years ago. That’s how time and science work. You still don’t get it, do you?
And yes, I understand how important a few recognizable names are to you. So I’ll go with the “Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change” [76 Nobel Laureate Scientists]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainau_Declaration
ganon
Your inane lectures on the difference between prediction and projection takes me back to exercises in semantics in the student union 60 years ago that were equally useless.
You need to catch up. The mentality and assumptions and models and equations that were dramatically wrong decades ago are still in existence. It seems that fact alone should dawn on people who are so ideologically bent that they can’t see the light.
Kid: “It seems that fact alone should dawn on people who are so ideologically bent that they can’t see the light.”
Yep
Exciting news for any denizens who are looking for a second, kick around EV. Ferrari is planning on introducing their electric model in 2025 at a cool $535,000. Chump change for some I’m sure.
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1143591_first-ferrari-ev-tipped-to-cost-over-half-a-million-dollars