Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/trend
“Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades.” —- IPCC AR4 (2007) Section 8.3.9.3 Page 232
According to no less of an authority than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a significant lack of evidence connecting anthropogenic global warming to changes in the frequencies or intensities of extreme weather events (such as storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes). In Chapter 2 of the most recent IPCC report (AR5, 2013), for example, we find these (7) conclusions affirming the the lack of clear observational evidence linking extreme weather events to human activity.
1. “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century”
2. “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years”
3. “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
4. “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
5. “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”
6. “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”
7. “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
The IPCC conclusions summarized above are supported by references from the peer-reviewed scientific literature extending through 2013. Since the 5th IPCC report was released 3 years ago, many more scientific papers have been published that also endorse the position that there is not an established link between increases in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and anthropogenic climate change. For example:
van der Wiel et al., 2016 “[N]o evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.”
Boos and Sterelvmo, 2016 “Thus, neither a physically correct theoretical model nor a comprehensive climate model support the idea that seasonal mean monsoons will undergo abrupt, nonlinear shifts in response to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol emissions, or land surface albedo.”
Guo et al., 2016 “[T]he combined spatial-temporal variability of U.S. tornado occurrence has remained nearly constant since 1950.”
Chang et al., 2016 “With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade.”
Chen et al., 2017 “[T]here is a close linkage between the weakening of cyclonic activity after the early 1990s and the nonuniform surface warming of the Eurasian continent.”
Sugi et al., 2015 “Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate.”
Chenoweth and Divine, 2014 “Our results suggest that nineteenth century [tropical cyclone] frequency is comparable to that for the same area during the entire satellite era from 1965–2012.”
Cheng et al., 2016 “The results thus indicate that the net effect of climate change has made agricultural drought less likely and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture have not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.”
Hoerling et al, 2016 “[A]ppreciable 35-yr trends in heavy daily precipitation can occur in the absence of forcing, thereby limiting detection of the weak anthropogenic influence at regional scales.”
Kundzewicz et al., 2014 “It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends [floods] to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades. … [P]resently we have only low confidence in numerical projections of changes in flood magnitude or frequency resulting from climate change.”
Benito et al., 2015 “[I]n most cases present flood magnitudes are not unusual within the context of the last millennium … [T]he frequency of extreme floods has decreased since the 1950s“
Delworth et al., 2015 “In our simulations the tropical wind anomalies account for 92% of the simulated North American drought during the recent decade, with 8% from anthropogenic radiative forcing changes. This suggests that anthropogenic radiative forcing is not the dominant driver of the current drought“
McCabe and Wolock, 2015 “[F]or the past century %drought has not changed, even though global PET [potential evapotranspiration] and temperature (T) have increased.”
van Wijngaarden and Syd, 2015 “Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass [through 2013]… The trends for precipitation change together with their 95% confidence intervals were found for various periods of time. Most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change. … A change of 1% per century corresponds to a precipitation change of 0.09. mm/year.”
Cai et al., 2014 “Recent drought in 1993–2008 was still within the frame of natural climate variability based on the 306 yr PDSI reconstruction.”
Doerr and Santín, 2016 “[M]any consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”
So although the science — indeed, the IPCC — is rather clear in documenting the lack of evidence affirming the anthropogenic global warming/extreme weather link, just about every day we are nonetheless barraged with claims that human-caused droughts will destroy all 888 million trees in the US Southwest by 2100, that we humans are causing “weather whiplash” with our CO2 emissions, or that this past year we humans caused eight 500- or 1000-year floods. In other words, when it comes to advocating for the anthropogenic global warming cause, the observations and evidence contradicting the narrative that says humans have caused more frequent and severe floods, droughts, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes . . . is largely ignored.
Just as the leading temperature graph above illustrates, a warm temperature anomaly is, according to an alleged “consensus” of climate scientists, caused by humans, not natural factors (i.e., the 2015-’16 Super El Niño event). A cooling temperature anomaly, on the other hand, is just called “natural variability.” No need to substantively support this “explanation” of human vs. natural attribution with actual scientific evidence. It is enough just to claim it is so.
Likewise, when severe drought conditions parch the US Southwest — or, as of today, “catastrophic flooding” deluges the very same region — all that needs to be reiterated is that we humans double drought frequencies and triple flood frequencies with our CO2 emissions — regardless of whether this reiteration is supported by observational evidence. (It is not.) This way, catastrophic floods and devastating droughts which occur at the same time and in the same place can be said to be human-caused, and each single event can necessarily be claimed to have been driven by anthropogenic climate change. Those who question (or deny) the “truth” of these human attribution pronouncements deserve to be marginalized as “climate deniers” and “anti-science.” This seems to be how modern-day “climate science” works.
A Wake-Up-Call Scientific Paper
Perhaps no paper found in a reputable journal (American Meteorological Society’s Weather, Climate, and Society) has been as openly critical of the narrative “science” of extreme weather human attribution as the one just published by University of Manchester’s Janković and Shultz (2017). The authors pull no punches in boldly asserting that the brand of human attribution science as currently practiced by climate activists such as Michael Mann and Michael Oppenheimer “contradicts the scientific evidence“ and engenders a “massive oversimplification” or even “misstatement” of the “true state of the science.” They further question the claims that a pre-industrial or “below 350 ppm [carbon dioxide]” climate is necessarily more benign or less affected by extreme weather, and they warn that “unachievable” CO2 emissions reduction policies are at risk of being classified as “ill advised, ineffective, and disingenuous” if and/or when the public eventually recognizes how flimsy the evidence is upon which these policies are based.
Janković and Shultz even dare to reference the late Dr. Stephen Schneider’s heartfelt rationalization for climate change advocacy by invoking his stated position that climate scientists must necessarily “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” so as to “capture the public’s imagination” by “getting loads of media coverage” as a means to advance the cause. This, of course, is not science. It is political activism. Unfortunately, this is all too often the direction that modern “climate science” has been headed in recent years.
What follows are selected excerpts (all direct quotes) from the Janković and Shultz (2017) paper entitled, “Atmosfear: Communicating the Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Weather“. Considering there were 500 papers supporting a skeptical position on global warming alarm published in scientific journals during 2016, perhaps the publication of wake-up-call, borderline-iconoclastic scientific papers such as this will become more and more commonplace in the near future. For the sake of salvaging at least some credibility for what has come to be known as modern-day “climate science,” one can only hope.
Janković and Shultz (2017)
‘”[C]limate Change Means More Extreme Weather” Is A Massive Oversimplification—If Not Misstatement—Of The True State Of The Science’
In 2011, the nonprofit science and outreach organization Climate Communication—whose staff and science advisors include, among others, Richard Sommerville, Jerry Melillo, Ken Kaldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Michael Mann, and Michael Oppenheimer—issued the following statement:
“As the climate has warmed, some types of extreme weather have become more frequent and severe in recent decades, with increases in extreme heat, intense precipitation, and drought. … All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before.”
Yet, this statement, as well as numerous others in the popular literature and media stories, contradicts the scientific evidence.
[R]educing the complexity of climate change (as if a single outcome were known) into the soundbite of “climate change means more extreme weather” is a massive oversimplification—if not misstatement—of the true state of the science.
–
‘Policy Based On Attribution Claims … Run The Risk Of Being Ill Advised, Ineffective, And Disingenuous’
[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality. … [A]ttribution science appears to have a unique potential to boost motivation for climate action because of its appeal to responsibility to prevent socioenvironmental impacts of the anthropogenically charged atmosphere…. [S]ome commentators resort to the language of human rights, government’s malfeasance, and corporate liability. … [A]ttribution claims allow policy-makers to put forward a case for morally robust policies based on mitigation of greenhouse emissions. Weather extremes are proxies of climate crisis, dismantling the climate complexity into the simpler and more visible conventional idiom of atmospheric hazard. … It is assumed that a new postanthropogenic atmosphere will be graced by a more benign weather than the anthropogenic one preceding it. … [I]t remains to be determined whether such [CO2 emission reduction] plans ought to be legitimized by a presumed rise in future weather extremes and whether a successful implementation of such plans would result in a demonstrable reduction of socioeconomic damages caused by supercharged weather. If neither of these results is justified, a policy based on attribution claims (and [fear]) runs the risk of being ill advised, ineffective, and disingenuous.
–
‘Climate Change Is Not Manageable By A Policy Based On A Mere Scientific Consensus’
Scientists and policy-makers sometimes refer to the status of the unadulterated climate by the preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide, under the assumption that staying below 350 ppm would entail a climatically safer world characterized, among other things, by a decrease of anthropogenically driven extremes. Does a world under the 350-ppm limit (or any other limit) automatically translate into one characterized by a more favorable climate? … Reducing carbon emissions, regardless of how effective, cannot of itself reduce weather impacts (e.g., Schultz and Janković 2014). … Climate change is not a discrete problem independent of development imperatives, nor is it manageable by a policy based on a mere scientific consensus (Prins et al. 2010). [E]ven if anthropogenic climate change were effectively stopped, extreme weather would continue. Members of the public and governmental representatives who had been sold on the idea that “stopping climate change will reduce extreme weather events” would understandably question their bill of goods, reducing scientific credibility.
–
‘Uncritical Attribution Claims … Bolstered By The Cultural And Media Propensity For Hyping Extreme Events’
We believe that the weatherward rather than landward attention results in part from an uncritical adoption of attribution claims that, in turn, shape the perception of climate change as a long-term weirding of weather, bolstered by the cultural and media propensity for hyping extreme events (Leyda and Negra 2015). Attribution claims and atmosfear have helped to consolidate the representation of climate change as a material threat with origins in an adulterated atmosphere, safety from which must be sought in tackling that threat. As a result, in popular parlance, climate change is often represented as a carbon-driven entity (or agency) endowed with a causal power that alters social life and the natural environment (Fleming and Janković 2011; Hulme 2015).
With such events seemingly outside the expected natural range of possibilities, the media increasingly turned to blaming climate change for the severe weather (e.g., Janković 2006; Hulme 2014).
“The good cause—one that most of us support—can all too readily corrupt the conduct of science, especially science informing public policy, because we prefer answers that support our political preferences, and find science that challenges them less comfortable” (Kellow 2008).
In 1989, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading twentieth-century climate scientists, summarized the need for this particular form of scientific-cum-moral double engagement to Discover magazine.
“[W]e [scientists] are […] working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we [scientists] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
The graph at the top is missleading since it displays one a very short time period. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ (the seasonal mean temperature change graph at the bottom) to see what I mean.
GISS dataset, many say, is fraud.
Sebastian, the graph you refer to is misleading since it displays one very short time period. See http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
to see what I mean.
The leading graph was not intended to be viewed as a representation of long-term temperature changes, or trends. It was intended to illustrate the vacuousness of how “climate science” attribution works.
But in your opinion, SebastianH, what was the mechanism that caused the global temperature to drop by -0.75 C in the last 10 months or so? To what do you attribute such a large anomaly? And what caused the +0.6 C rise from mid-2015 to early 2016? Was that CO2? Please support your answer scientifically.
After looking at the graph for a couple of seconds I thought it was obvious what you were doing.
I don’t know why your graph shows what it does. Other graphs say completely different things: https://climate.copernicus.eu/news-and-media/press-room/press-releases/earth-edge-record-breaking-2016-was-close-15°c-warming
It is difficult to know who tells the truth, but it is easy to see who is using graphs in a missleading way to make a point.
The graph of global temperature changes since early 2015 is taken directly from the data supplied by the RSS satellite through December, 2016. The link is provided directly underneath the graph within the body of the essay. Here it is again:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/trend#sthash.m8Y3qiGk.wAOhcAe2.dpuf
Apparently you are having trouble understanding that this graph shows the monthly anomalies for a period that encompassed the 2015-’16 El Nino warming event and its denouement only, and it was used to demonstrate the speciousness of attributing cherry-picked warming anomalies to humans, and dismissing cherry-picked cooling anomalies as “natural variability.” This colloborates with, and is illustrative of, the non-scientifically supported practice of attributing extreme weather events to humans without the evidence to support it, which is precisely what this essay, and the Janković and Shultz (2017) scientific paper it was centered on, was about.
Having established that the global temperature monthly anomalies plummeted by -0.75 C in the last 10 months using RSS data, can you explain the mechanism for that cooling? Is it the same mechanism that caused the warming monthly anomalies from March 2015 to January 2016? Or did humans cause the warming, and natural variability cause the cooling? What do you believe, Sebastian?
And here is a link to the El Nino event back (also RSS tropospheric temperature data) in 97/98: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.7/to:1999.2/plot/rss/from:1997.7/to:1999.2/trend
Also a shortterm event with significant cooling afterwards. Isn’t El Nino a natural event that is fueled by global temperatures and releases stored energy in a short timeframe? Why should it be independent of global warming?
I am not suggesting that the media is not exaggerating effects of climate change (like they to with every other topic), I was merely pointing out that the graph at the top is missleading. It suggests that there is a trend downwards, which is only true over short periods of time. You linked to surface data from 2002-2014 below to show that there was no warming in that period. Why not from El Nino peak to El Nino peak?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998.1/to:2016.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998.1/to:2016.1/trend
0.2 K increase in global temperature in a timeframe of 18 years …
Do you understand now that you can show almost anything with perfectly chosen start and enddates? It gets easier the shorter the timeframe is.
Yes, I most certainly do understand that cherry-picking start and end points can yield just about anything that the person cherry-picking would like to show — and both sides do it. Again, the graph used was not intended to be viewed as a reflection of trends of any kind, but was intended to be illustrative of the speciousness so often riddling “climate science” when it comes to attributing cause.
And thanks for sticking around and responding to most of my comment. Can you answer this question?
“Having established that the global temperature monthly anomalies plummeted by -0.75 C in the last 10 months using RSS data, can you explain the mechanism for that cooling? Is it the same mechanism that caused the warming monthly anomalies from March 2015 to January 2016? Or did humans cause the warming, and natural variability cause the cooling? What do you believe, Sebastian?”
Assuming that you believe that CO2 is what heats or cools the oceans to depths of 1000s of meters when increased or decreased, and CO2 is what causes 71% of the Earth’s sea surfaces to heat up or cool when increased or decreased, can you identify how much ocean cooling is induced by a -10 ppm (-0.00001) reduction in atmospheric CO2? What are the physical measurements, and from what scientific experiment using CO2 variation and water were those physical measurements derived?
Also, considering ocean heat content (0-700 m) plummeted by -0.9 C (joules to C) between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (Rosenthal et al., 2013), and that CO2 concentrations actually rose slightly during this same period, what was the mechanism that caused ocean temperatures to decline so rapidly? Here is a visual of the decline from the Rosenthal paper:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg
What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct? Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection? Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case? And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?
Yes, I “believe” higher levels of CO2 cause some amount of warming and obviously also warming of the sea surface and thus lower layers of the oceans. The amount of this effect is certainly up for debate, but even your 500+ papers collection does not say it’s negligible.
What do you believe or know? I am curious, because your questions sound like you are doubting the green house effect (how little it may be) of CO2 or maybe the green house effect as a whole.
Regarding the heat content of the oceans: I don’t know. What was the mechanism that caused the decline? What is the mechanism that causes the rapid rise in modern times? Do you suggest solar activity is the only thing responsible and the effects of an atmosphere never change when its composition changes?
The problem for you, Sebastian, is that, even according to models, it is well established that CO2 only plays a very, very modest role within the “greenhouse effect” relative to, say, cloud radiative forcing. In fact, as this paper from the journal Science (1,400 citations) indicates, clouds completely dominate longwave radiation within the greenhouse effect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 [to 600 ppm]. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”
We’re talking about magnitudes here, Sebastian. You and those who believe as you do obviously assume that CO2 dominates the greenhouse effect, even though it is well established (from modeling, anyway) that clouds exert the most influence as a “heat trapping” mechanism (though their LW forcing is supplanted by their SW forcing capacity.) So, as I wrote below, it is quite possible that CO2 can play a role within the GHE, but that its role is overwhelmed by variations in natural agents (cloud cover, water vapor). Or do you believe this is not possible, and that CO2 dominates anyway, since that’s what you’ve been told to believe (and since that way humans can cause climate changes)?
As even the Skeptical Science and Real Climate blogs acknowledge, the infrared heat “trapped” by greenhouse gases at the ocean surface “cannot penetrate into the ocean itself.” Since this is true, how do you suppose that the heat trapped by greenhouse gases manages to control the heat content of the “lower layers of the oceans”?
Yes, and that is entirely the point. Magnitude. You ostensibly believe CO2 dominates despite not having the requisite scientific evidence to back up that assertion, not to mention paleoclimate data which heartily contradicts it (i.e., CO2 levels rose while ocean heat content declined, or OHC rose rapidly while CO2 levels were constant).
Declining solar activity (Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton Minimums) and higher volcanic activity (higher albedo reduces the amount of SW radiation penetrating the ocean surfaces). Likely decadal-scale increasing cloud cover too, but obviously we have no cloud data prior to the 1980s. We’ve enjoyed a Grand Maximum of solar activity during the 20th century (which recently ended) and a century of very low volcanic activity relative to the Little Ice Age period. More solar heat has penetrated into the oceans since the LIA ended. This is what the science says, anyway. In other words, CO2 didn’t modulate the ocean heat during the MWP to LIA decline. So why do you believe it has been doing so recently since CO2 plays such a modest role within the GHE?
Please do try to answer these questions I posed, Sebastian, just as I had the courtesy to respond to yours. I will not call you names, insinuate that you are unintelligent, or treat you rudely.
Thank you for keeping up with me, it is quite difficult to keep a discussion going in the comment section of a blog without notifications 😉
Water vapor is of course the dominating greenhouse gas. I didn’t say that CO2 was dominating the greenhouse effect, I just said it was playing a role and according to the internet it plays a bigger role than methane and ozone. CO2 is absorbing other wavelength than water vapor, so the effects do add up I imagine. Can we agree on the fact that there is an equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and the energy the planet is radiating back into space? If it gets disturbed in either way it gets warmer or colder, correct?
So a small amount of change in any of the greenhouse gases concentration will have effects on the global energy equilibrium.
Earth is receiving around 314 W/m2 (sphere vs. circle, if earth were flat it would be 1365 W/m2) of solar radiation on average, half of that gets to the ground, some amount gets absorbed by the atmosphere and the rest is reflected back into space. There is of course a direct heat exchange between the ground and the atmosphere, but the main transfer happens via heat radiation. The emissivity of earth (and the oceans) is very high. The heat radiation per squaremeter can be calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann-law and is significantly greater than the incoming solar radiation. All that is keeping earth as warm as it is, is in fact the greenhouse effect. The result: 1 W/m2 change of the greenhouse effect has the same influence on the equilibrium as 1 W/m2 change of the non-reflected solar radiation. Don’t you agree?
If CO2 is playing a 1% role in greenhouse gases (total effect around 333 W/m2) and we double its amount this should cause significant warming. Or to come back to my 4 meter wall example … you’ll definetly notice a 4 meter high wall next to your house, even if it is just a 4% increase in total height (your house is located 100 meter above sealevel).
You write about magnitude of the effect of CO2 or it having a modest role. How much of the warming are you willing to attribute to it? 1 degree per doubling? 0.5 degrees?
Regarding the oceans: If it is not surface heat that is warming deep ocean water, what is? Solar radiation can’t penetrate this far. Maybe the currents?
Regarding past CO2 levels: a quick search found me this [1] and this [2]. The last time the levels were as high as today was millions of years ago. The small amount of changes in the CO2 levels in those millions of years did certainly contribute to a change of the greenhouse effect back then (amplified whatever else caused warming/cooling). Today is a different story. Maybe there are other effects that are currently warming the climate, but we are artificially increasing the amount of greenhouse gases on top of that, don’t you agree?
You can call alarmist behaviour of the media as it is, but writing about human emissions having almost no impact on climate seems to be the other extreme. I do think the solutions to this problem is easy enough: just burn less fossil fuel. Websites like this one think it marks the end of the world to start doing that, I disagree. But that is in the realm of opinion and not facts, is it? I’d like to stick to facts:
* CO2 levels are rising because we emit CO2 (so we can do something about it)
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas
* CO2 thus contributes to warming of the surface
* Other effects compensate or amplify these changes
* Those other effects haven’t reversed/stopped the warming trend yet
[1]: https://epic.awi.de/25382/4/vandewal2011cp.pdf
[2]: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-38/esd-2016-38.pdf (the very first paper you list in your 500+ list)
Yes, but water vapor as a GHE forcing factor was only mentioned in passing in my response above. I notice you have completely ignored the conclusion that the greenhouse effect, or longwave radiation in general, is completely dominated by changes in cloud cover, rendering changes in CO2’s radiative effect rather negligible by comparison. As a case in point, there was a paper published in Nature a few months ago (it’s one of the 500) entitled “The Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect”. It points out that the greenhouse effect “paused” or exerted no positive radiative forcing on temperature (as expressed in W m-2) from 1992-2014. The reason? Cloud cover changes. So all those billions of tons of anthropogenic CO2 emissions loaded into the atmosphere were, according to mainstream science (the journal Nature), ineffective in enhancing the greenhouse effect…because cloud cover changes overwhelmed the LW effect. For details and a link to the paper and its salient findings, see the NTZ essay here:
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
Sure, we can use the radiative balance explanation for warming and cooling. But if we do that, once again, cloud cover changes alone (even with no changes in TSI) are enough to explain warming and cooling phases, once again dominating over CO2 in not only LW effects, but SW in their radiative effect (as expressed in W m-2). For a description of what is meant by what I just wrote, see this essay from a few months ago (that also used several papers from among the 500): https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/27/3-new-papers-reveal-dominance-of-solar-cloud-forcing-since-the-1980s-with-co2-only-a-bit-player/
Here’s a list of 60 papers that conclude climate sensitivity to CO2 is very, very low: https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
But again, I have to ask a question that you have not answered: How does the heat trapped by CO2 at the surface skin warm the subsurface ocean waters since it is widely acknowledged that the infrared heat from CO2 can’t penetrate into the ocean itself?
So how far do you think solar radiation can penetrate into the ocean to heat it? According to scientists, it’s about 30 m. Heat trapped by CO2 cannot penetrate into the ocean itself. So if there were, say, a decadal-scale 1%-2% reduction in cloud cover that allowed more SW radiation to penetrate into the ocean (as has been observed since the 1980s), do you think this would have an impact of greater magnitude on the heat in the oceans than a change of, say, +10 ppm (0.00001) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration? Considering the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,100 times greater than the air, would not even a modest change in cloud cover affect the radiative balance with far greater magnitude than a parts-per-million change in an atmospheric gas constituent?
Again, Sebastian, we’re talking magnitudes here. So even if all your postulates are wholly true about CO2 as a GHG, humans raising CO2 levels, CO2 causing warming…we are still left with this same issue: To what extent does raising CO2 cause climate changes, or warming, relative to the other factors (clouds, volcanic aerosols, natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [NAO, PDO, AMOC…], solar radiance…) that have been known to cause warming (or cooling) for millions of years, and at a far greater amplitude and rate than has occurred in the last century? Your answer is: a whole lot. Our answer is: not much. Do you have scientific evidence to back up your conclusions?
Kenneth Richard 12. January 2017 at 12:01 AM
“To what extent does raising CO2 cause climate changes, or warming, relative to the other factors (clouds, volcanic aerosols, natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [NAO, PDO, AMOC…], solar radiance…) that have been known to cause warming (or cooling) for millions of years, and at a far greater amplitude and rate than has occurred in the last century?”
Kenneth,
Earth’s atmosphere typically now contains 9 times the mass of H2O in all six phases, as the amount of daily precipitation. Not all of this water can be water vapor, as this atmosphere is to low in temperature. More than half of absorbed insolation is done by airborne H2O colloids (clouds, haze) converting to latent heat in the morning. Then re-condensing to colloids at nighttime to actually power that atmospheric EMR exitance to space.
“Your answer is: a whole lot. Our answer is: not much. Do you have scientific evidence to back up your conclusions?” 🙂
roflmao.. data post 1979 from Hadley and NOAA..
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING !!!
These are highly fabricated and adjusted nonsenses that have basically ZERO relationship to reality.
Sebastian, you are the one misleading, as the graph I pointed you to clearly shows. Not surprising that you avoided the subject.
It should be obvious that changes in variables over geological time scales are not possibly connected to the advent of humans on this planet or our efforts to emit CO2 in large quantities.
To find out our impact on the climate you need to look at timeframes from before industrialisation began until today. Events like an El Nino do affect the climate too, but over a relatively short period.
How can you claim to be able to identify human attribution when natural variations over geological time scales are so large as the graphs clearly show? Cherry-picking is not the answer as you very well known.
That is a question that is easily answered. I have eyes and a brain.
1) Reconstructed temperatures over geological time scales are noisy and less reliable the further you go back. Despite this they clearly show trends over large periods of time
2) Those changes/trends obviously didn’t happened because humans were around
3) Recent warming and CO2 level changes happened in a very short timeframe of 50-100 years. Even the shortest sudden changes in temperature in your linked graph took millenia if not millions of years to manifest.
Conclusion: we live in times with extremly fast changing climate compared to data you linked to. Are we the only cause of that change? Probably not, but we contribute and it seems stupid to not acknowledge that humans would have an effect on this planet. There could be negative feedback that cancels everything out, but there is no evidence of this yet, is there?
Wow, that is some serious “climate science” filled with make-believe-methodology. I don’t think you should expect any Nobel prizes for your work though, except for the one for literature.
Please read any of the first few papers linked in the “500+ papers overview” that was posted on this website.
LOL, are you really claiming that you can find any scientifically robust support for your “eyeballing”-methodology in those or any other papers?
Well, I don’t want to disturb you in your believe that we have zero impact on anything. Have fun LOLing and wowing or read up, at least on the sceptic viewpoint.
Alarmists like you seem to assume to be the smartest kids in town, whereas their understanding of science and scientific methodology is rather underdeveloped like your eyeballing-methodology. You are the one who needs to do some serious reading, starting with the concept of null hypothesis.
I am not alarming anyone. Neither am I LOLing or falling back to attacking the person who said something …
What is you null hypothesis and how was it disproven?
Sebastian is right. The graph is misleading.
both, el nino and la nina are natural effects. So the rise and the fall are “natural”.
But the peak is (most likely) not. This el nino is beating the peak temperature during the 1998 super el nino, because it is starting from a higher base temperature.
“sceptics” on the other hand always do, what we are accused of here: they always want to ignore el ninos but leave la ninas inside the data.
There is a lot of dishonesty, but not on the side of the climate scientists.
So if the 2015-’16 rise and fall of temperatures are natural, and the 2002-2014 trend is cooling (below link), even according to HadCRUT4, why has there been no anthropogenic warming since…well, when?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend
So the bulk of the warming is natural, but that 0.1 C extra warming monthly anomaly (yes, we’re talking a matter of weeks) relative to 1998’s peak is…anthropogenic? Can you support this position scientifically? What data are you using to support this claim? And what percentage of the peak warmth monthly anomaly is anthropogenic since you agree that the bulk of the warming is natural? 10%? Support that answer scientifically too. While you’re at it, explain how CO2 heated up that water from a physics standpoint.
According to David Appell, La Nina cooling hasn’t even begun yet. Do you disagree with David? If so, support your claim that La Nina has begun.
“both, el nino and la nina are natural effects. So the rise and the fall are “natural””
So, since ALL the warming in the satellite data era has come from El Nino events….
…..all the very slight warming is TOTALLY NATURAL.
WELL DONE, sop.
you FINALLY got there. !!!! 🙂
First piece of REALITY to ever pass your lips, even if it did have to get past two feet to do it. !
AndyG55 if you put it like that everything is natural, right? Since we humans are a part of nature everything we do is natural 😉
El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect. Read up on those “sceptical” papers that Kenneth Richards is linking to here (https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.k2LIbS3N.dpbs) to learn more about that (i think it was paper #4, de Larminat, making that point).
As a side note on those papers:
What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist. And they all use models to calculate things. Yet, you can read those ridiculous claims and that models are bad everywhere on sites like this one here. You can’t have it both ways and cherry pick out of scientific papers, while also accusing others to cherry pick as well.
The truth is out there and it looks like we will only be able to know what will happen as we continue on our path if we invent time travel. Dismissing any effect of human activities on the climate however … seems stupidly ignorant.
Do you agree, Sebastian, that it is indeed possible that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and the “greenhouse effect” does exist, but the effects of CO2 within that GHE are modest and overwhelmed by natural variation?
What if it’s true that we humans are affecting the climate, but the effect we’re having is very minor and the current state of the climate is still well within the range of what can and has occurred naturally, without any human interference?
Poor Sebastion. The Klimate Kool-aide and brain-washing is strong with you, isn’t it.
There is no CO2 warming signal in any of the real data bases, temperature or sea level.
There is no mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming of a convective atmosphere.
Extra atmospheric CO2 is totally and absolutely beneficial.
@Kenneth: again, please define modest and overhelmed by natural variation. Even if CO2’s effect is just half a percent, a doubling would cause a significant amount of additional heat to be “trapped”, wouldn’t it?
If the effect we are having is in the range of natural events I would try to counteract. Imagine what would happend if natural effect and our effect would add up …
@AndyG55: please stop whatever you are doing and revolutionize climate sciences as we know it! I guess you can go and revolutionize physics too while you are at it 😉
No need to revolutionise physics.
Just apply it properly.
Something the AGW agenda of the farce that is “climate science” have consistently failed to do.
Please produce one paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…
Waiting, waiting
There is NO MECHANISM that allows for heat to be trapped by CO2 in a convective atmosphere.. END OF STORY..
Kenneth Richard wrote:
“Do you agree, Sebastian, that it is indeed possible that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and the “greenhouse effect” does exist, but the effects of CO2 within that GHE are modest and overwhelmed by natural variation?”
That’s not what the science finds.
“Over lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere, the CO2-rad-forcing exceeds energy released upon combustion by >100,000 times.”
– Ken Caldiera, on Twitter, points to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063514/abstract
According to “the science” of the greenhouse effect as revealed in Nature, there was a hiatus of the greenhouse effect’s influence on temperature from 1992-2014. Even though human CO2 emissions rose from 6 GtC/yr to 10 GtC/yr during that span, the GHE radiative forcing attributed to CO2 for 1992-2014 was about 0 W m-2. Why? Because the effect of CO2 forcing was trounced by the effects of cloud radiative forcing.
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
Song, Wang & Tang, 2016 A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315
[T]he primary goal of this study is to investigate the spatiotemporal evolution of the greenhouse effect to better evaluate its potential impact. Because of the shorter period of the CERES EBAF product, the areal averaged Gsa [surface greenhouse effect] is represented only between 2003 and 2014 in Fig. 2 but shows no notable trend over the globe, sea or land. Thus, the surface greenhouse effect has not been strengthened in the last decade.
In the 1980s, a significant increasing Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] tendency exists with a linear estimate of 0.19 W m−2 yr−1. However, this uprising trend pauses starting in circa 1992, when Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] begins to slightly decrease at a rate of −0.01 W m−2 yr−1. This statistically non-significant trend indicates that the enhancing global atmospheric greenhouse effect is slowed down. Moreover, the atmospheric greenhouse effect hiatus can be found over both sea and land.
In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect].
[A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.
Kenneth, there has been on official La Nina yet, only some La Nina-like months.
NOAA is now forecasting the possibility of a weak El Nino later this summer. Won’t that be fun!
So what do you believe caused the dramatic fall in temperature in the last 10 months, since it wasn’t due to a natural La Nina? What was the physical mechanism driving the cooling?
A quick glance at the paleo data shows that Earth is currently starved for CO2 and much colder than normal.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Note that even with CO2 much higher in the past, there was never any runaway greenhouse effect. There never will be.
SebastianH 9. January 2017 at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Reply
“The graph at the top is missleading since it displays one a very short time period.”
How is data misleading when it is labeled correctly?
Warmunists HATE it when they don’t have total control over everything that is published.
Fun fact: Ultra warmunist oligarch creep GRANTHAM got his ass kicked:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/iconic-investor-jeremy-granthams-gmo-loses-40-billion-aum-over-two-years
GRANTHAM is the person who pays this warmunist attack dog.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/bob-ward/
HadSST3 shows the same temp pattern from oceans.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/hadsst3-2015-2016.png
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/anatomy-of-the-hottest-years-ever/
so el nino, an effect that is based on a band of high ocean temperatures might be linked to water temperatures?
you might be upon something there! keep investigating!
Nothing to do with CO2, that is for certain.
El Nino is a release of pent up solar energy from the oceans, that causes a transient warming of the atmosphere..
But it is actually a global ocean COOLING event.
Haven’t you figured that out yet, sop..
or are you destined to remain IGNORANT forever.
What does the p stand for?
S is obviously for either stupid or maybe stubborn. O for obtuse.
p= pathetic? pathological? psychiatric? panic?
The “s” could also stand for “scatterbrain.”
The “d” for dolt or donkey or dimwit.
Otherwise as you’ve written.
Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?
Sop does not threaten any of what we know, neither do you.
We just get sick of anti-science moronic twerps and their religious, unsubstantiated belief in AGW.
“We just get sick of anti-science moronic twerps and their religious, unsubstantiated belief in AGW.”
Language! Sane people do not constantly insult others.
“Language! Sane people do not constantly insult others.” – SebastianH
What is that, like a law of nature, or something?
You should tell that to David Appell, who right after he writes something to that effect, immediately launches into name calling. (you two aren’t “related” are you?)
You are long winded and lacking in detail. We give you factual material, and you give us vague warmunist nonsense. You haven’t addressed any of what I’ve shown you, at all.
Just one illustration of your obfuscation.
The Dr. Keen video I linked to goes into great detail about what is wrong with warmunist temperature reconstructions. The C3Headlines and Tony Heller links deal with a few specific cases.
Your response to my posting the C3 and Heller links was…
“So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?”
I responded with Dr, Keen’s video, and you responded with… a wisecrack. Sorry, but while he is “only a climate skeptic” to you, he also happens to be a real climate scientist.
Just because you don’t like him, you try to delegitimize him by refusing to call him a scientist, but instead a “climate skeptic,” …and then you tell us not to call names!!! You are as big an hypocritical @$$ as David Appell.
You are impervious to reason, and contemptuous of us when we attempt to reach you with it. Not much left but ridicule of you and your phoniness at this point.
You are insulting us by bring your idiocy and ignorance here.
Take it elsewhere and stop insulting our intelligence with your puerile nonsense.
“Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?” – Sebastian
I doubt anyone here feels threatened by you or the idiotic ideas you are pushing. Also, what’s “normal” is to view a dishonest troll with contempt.
It’s only ad hom when that is ALL one does. If when we provide data you ignore and/or misrepresent it, than any attacks on you are no longer gratuitous, they are earned.
Judith Curry explains what horrible people many warmists are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8
I have no respect for anyone who treats their colleagues so poorly, and that includes those like yourself who support them. As I pointed out before, you “call names” when you refer to climate scientists as “climate skeptics,” contemptuously dismissing their expertise. If you want respect, start acting like an adult instead of a spoiled child.
Sebastian wrote:
“Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?”
Sebastian, unfortunately it’s about the only response you’ll see on this blog.
When they feel out of sorts, or bested, or they don’t understand your science, they respond like children.
It shows how weak the denier movement actually is.
Seriously Appell.. you get more and more pathetic every day.
You have NEVER bested anyone in anything except science fantasy.
You are nothing but a petulant little brat bringing up the same DESTROYED fantasies day after day after day. Fantasies that you are NEVER able to back up with concrete evidence.
That is how WEAK and PATHEIC your arguments are.
You are like a two year old asking “are we there yet”, every 10 seconds ….. ad infinitum..
…. and you wonder why everybody thinks you are a child-minded idiot.
Short time period or not, it actually DOES illustrate the point being made quite well. That is, the choice of anthropogenic attribution vs. natural variation. It isn’t a comment on the immediacy of effect of CO2 variation, and supporting evidence can be found at all timescales.
As usual, Kenneth has taken a lot of time and trouble to assemble evidence from the scientific community itself. One’s immediate hope is that this paper is startling enough to cause quite a few ripples in the climate-CO2 continuum. However (Kenneth will confirm this) papers expressing similar evidence or evidential summaries are by no means new (Seems that Jankovic has previously published quite similar) without really getting noticed.
But, thanks Kenneth, please keep it up.
Sorry — blog posts aren’t “papers.”
The scientific community will pay zero (0) attention to this post, just as they do to all blog posts.
Blog posts aren’t science.
If you want to be noticed, publish in a respectable notice. I bet Kenneth is afraid to attempt that.
No one claimed this blog post itself was a paper. This blog post is about a paper published in AMS that trashes the state of extreme weather attribution “climate science” as it exists today. It also contains links to 18 peer-reviewed papers as well as direct quotes from the IPCC.
As usual, a very impressive article.
And it seems like Germany is fudging the numbers, when it comes to the consumption of hard coal-anthracite :
” Germany used to produce a lot of hard coal, also known as anthracite. In fact, it produced around 60 million tons per year, all used for steel and power generation in the country. In order to fulfill the goal of reducing Germany’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal, the government decided to close down all the coal mines that were getting the anthracite out of the ground; the last operating mine is scheduled to close in 2019. Voila, Germany will then no longer emit “Germany-made” CO2 from coal.
Believe it or not, the consumption of anthracite in Germany though will remain around 60 million tons per year – but that will no longer produce “German CO2.” Instead, Germany will get its anthracite from imports, mostly from the U.S., and the CO2 resulting from that is not accounted for in Germany’s CO2 emissions.
Isn’t that a prime example of false accounting?”
Link to the article here : https://www.iceagenow.info/avoid-crocs-crooks/
In German : http://www.derwettermann.de/ruhmloser-abgesang-auf-den-steinkohlebergbau.html
Ole
And this is what is widely called fake news nowadays. There is no such thing as “German CO2” or some kind of attribution to other countries if the coal was imported … That is ridiculous.
Yep, it IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS that Germany thinks it can say it is reducing its CO2 emissions because it is IMPORTING coal, rather than using their own coal.
But that is how FAKING-IT works in the anti-CO2 agenda.
Germany isn’t saying any of that.
You can only reduce CO2 emissions locally by importing the resulting electricity from elsewhere (so emissions rise there and not at your place). Germany is exporting way more electricity as it is importing.
Considering the IPCC indicates that human CO2 only represents 4% of all CO2 emissions, do you think the atmosphere distinguishes between human CO2 and natural CO2?
“German CO2” was used as a label for CO2 emitted from burning German resources. There is no such thing. CO2 is emitted by whoever emits it, not by the one who extracted the fossil fuel from the ground.
And no, I don’t think there is a difference between human CO2 and natural CO2. But let it put me this way, say you live in a town 100 m above sealevel. You neighbor builds a 4 meter wall. You complain, but he says “hey, it is only 4% higher than before” … would you still think that the change of height was too small to matter?
“say you live in a town 100 m above sealevel. You neighbor builds a 4 meter wall. You complain, but he says ‘hey, it is only 4% higher than before’ … would you still think that the change of height was too small to matter?”
I have tried, but I am unable to finesse the meaning of this anecdote, or how it may pertain. Why am I complaining about a 4 meter wall? Do I want it lower or higher? What is “4% higher than before” representing? Before what?
And how, exactly, does this have something to do with anthropogenic CO2 vs. natural CO2?
“Why am I complaining about a 4 meter wall? Do I want it lower or higher? What is “4% higher than before” representing? Before what? ”
In Germany, most private properties will be pretty small, in comparison with some places in the US.
In the average neighbourhood, a 4 m wall will completely ruin the use of the property around the house (we also have pretty strict laws in this field, so i assume a 4 m wall would not be legal).
so the 4 m wall is just adding 4% to the elevation of the property (which was 100 m). And yes, you should (and would) complain about it (being too much)!
Kenneth Richard says:
“Considering the IPCC indicates that human CO2 only represents 4% of all CO2 emissions, do you think the atmosphere distinguishes between human CO2 and natural CO2?”
Now Kenneth, you’re clearly too sharp to have to stoop to this kind of nonsense.
Don’t stoop to the lowest common denominator.
So…you deny that the IPCC acknowledges that 4% of all CO2 emissions are from human activity?
The natural versus anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio as of 2013 from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC(primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total respiration and fire)
Anthropogenic emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels, 1.1 is land use changes)
Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7 to 4.3
Appell DENIES all facts..
That is how he maintains his deep religious belief in AGW.
He is a zealot, a fanatic, a dogmatist…
… a fundeMENTAList.
@SebastianH
Are you aware of how they “adjust” their raw data? Funny thing about their “adjustments,” they ALWAYS result in warming the present and cooling the past.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
There’s a lot more, but they should make you aware that a problem just might exist.
So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?
Sebastian you really do not seem to have any idea of what has being going in within the climate science:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/gavin-schmidt-removing-the-1940s-blip/
There is certainly a group that is changing historical measured temperatures and certainly only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it.
If you don’t know this, you are very obviously very ill-informed… as your posts show.
Large scale conspiracy?
It would seem so, with politicians holding the purse strings and their accomplices in the field enforcing the faux orthodoxy by denying funding, lab space, access to publications and denying tenure, to any who dare question their lies.
The only Climatologists who are able to speak out, because they are retired or have tenure, do so. Here’s one who exposes the climate b.s. that you uncritically believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
I do think someone here is uncritically believing something, and I don’t think it is me.
So, in your eyes everything that is written on this website [1] is part of the conspiracy?
P.S.: Don’t try to convince me with a video of someone using Comic Sans in a powerpoint presentation about “science”.
[1]: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
NOAA are at the forefront of the data adjustment scam.
Are you so ignorant that you didn’t know that??
Well yes, you obviously are.
Here is a map of GHCN data for August.
See that grey.. NO DATA.. they FABRICATE that data
And they also know basically nothing about the quality of a lot of their stations. It took A Watts to show what a parlous state the USA system was in, with many stations having massive errors due to positioning.
One can only imagine what the rest of the world is like.
A task for you, find all the stations contributing to the temperatures in the yellow circles and provide pictures and data about site history etc etc
Sorry, but NOAA’s surface data is a total MESS, and their propaganda pap that you linked to is just that… propaganda pap.. served up for the likes of the gullible twerp like you.
“I do think someone here is uncritically believing something, and I don’t think it is me.” – SebastianH
Well, you had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly. Better luck next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4
Thanks for playing “What’s my lie?” We look forward to debunking your future nonsensical claims, and, while talking to you is like talking to a wall,…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZ6vRY_kWI
…perhaps in doing so we can help others who are not yet aware of the truth. If so, it will have been worth it.
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:30 PM
“So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?”
There is no need for any conspiracy! The gross incompetence and greed of your Climate Clowns is sufficient! That is all the skeptics wish to bring to light! ‘septic tank’ perhaps!
whoops , missed the map link…
https://s19.postimg.org/ek13ihsdv/201608_2.gif
So where is the evidence of the “german origin CO2”?
In the real world again, the opposite is happening: “sceptics” are making a huge fuss about CO2 output not sinking in Germany and totally ignore rising electricity exports (so Germany actually is IMPORTING CO2 output, not the other way round!).
For a real view of weather events see “A Chronology of Notable Weather Events by Douglas V. Hoyt”
available at http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/climatehistory.pdf
Read it then come back and talk about extreme weather and natural variation.
My favorite from about 1700 to about 1760 (one lifetime).
Smackdown, trends by el nino, neutral and la nina years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXcA9oq04n4
ouch.
Ouch back —
Dr Benjamin Sander has adjusted the satellite data of UAH and RSS to remove ‘natural variability’ in his paper:
Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature.
Sander, et al (Nature Geoscience 7, Feb. 2014)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
This reduces any warming trend to being lost in the noise!
and a word from a scientist —
https://youtu.be/EvO7bBuTRno
Thanks for that Christy video, tom0mason. I didn’t have it.
A video posted by warmist activist liar Nuccitelli??? LOLOL
An idiot sod is, and an idiot he/she/it will remain.
Here’s some info by someone who knows what he’s talking about (scroll down for the videos).
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/
Y: I don’t think you’re capable of discussing science without your need to call everyone else names.
It’s an indicator of your fear.
ouch all right.. first screen is a temperature data graph that hold absolutely ZERO resemblance to reality.
And the LIES and MISINFORMATION just keep on coming.
That video is of such low quality and so empty of anything resembling science, that would almost certainly receive a “P” in John Cook’s or Al Gore’s “Climate Propaganda 101”
Temperatures by ENSO classification:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/el-nino-years-compared.html
They keep getting warmer…..
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM
“What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”
Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?
“Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”
Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.
“Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”
No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.
“And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?”
No and No!
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 11:15 AM
“El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect.”
Are you now claiming that some greenhouse effect are causing El Ninos? What about all others that claim a gravitational Earth luni-solar influence?
“As a side note on those papers: What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist.”
The early papers by Kenneth Richards and others did indeed concentrate on the obnoxious thermal magnitude claims of early CAGW proponents.
I have always postulated that CO2 is no green house gas and that the green house effect doesn’t exist, except as a deliberate SCAM. It is still not known if atmospheric CO2 ‘can’ influence surface temperatures. Your CAGW clan has yet to propose any viable scientific mechanism for such, or any evidence thereof!
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM
“What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”
Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?
“Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”
Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.
“Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”
No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.
“And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?”
No and No!
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 11:15 AM
“El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect.”
Are you now claiming that some greenhouse effect are causing El Ninos? What about all others that claim a gravitational Earth luni-solar influence?
“As a side note on those papers: What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist.”
The early papers by Kenneth Richards and others did indeed concentrate on the obnoxious thermal magnitude claims of early CAGW proponents.
I have always postulated that CO2 is no green house gas and that the green house effect doesn’t exist, except as a deliberate SCAM. It is still not known if atmospheric CO2 ‘can’ influence surface temperatures. Your CAGW clan has yet to propose any viable scientific mechanism for such, or any evidence thereof!
Part 1
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM
“What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”
Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?
“Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”
Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.
“Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”
No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.
SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM
“What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”
Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?
“Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”
(2)Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/richard-lindzen-axe-climate-science-funding-groupthink-has-destroyed-intellectual-foundations/#comment-1878117
Kenneth Richard 11. January 2017 at 5:58 AM |
“Please do try to answer these questions I posed, Sebastian, just as I had the courtesy to respond to yours. I will not call you names, insinuate that you are unintelligent, or treat you rudely.”
Quite nice an respectful Kenneth!
How come you gits’ta post lots; and I gits’ta post almost nothing?
All the best! -will-
I’m moderating at the moment, Will. Regarding your multiple “testing” posts (now deleted), please be patient and just post your comment once; if it doesn’t show up immediately, that doesn’t mean it has disappeared; it’s just being held in abeyance for moderation, or until one of us gets to approve it. Sometimes a comment will appear right away. Other times it will have a “This comment is under moderation” disclaimer. And other times it will disappear from your view altogether (though it is still there, just being held).
You gitsta post lots too. Just understand the processing part may take time due to the inordinate amount of spam that must be weeded through to get to the real stuff.
You may like what Erl Happ has on his site over at https://reality348.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/progress/
UV rays indeed!
“You may like what Erl Happ has on his site over at
UV rays indeed!”
I find that Erl Happ attributes much the same nonsense to stratospheric O3, as the clowns attribute to atmospheric CO2. The Earth Luni-solar geometry, gravitation, and conservation of angular momentum effects on weather seem well-founded, if still not well-understood.
Kenneth Richard 11. January 2017 at 7:02 AM
“I’m moderating at the moment, Will.”
I understand (what a bitch)! I are now going on 78. Will I get more patient or elsewise? Thank You!~
[…] down. Like this: Like Loading… New York Times Or The Onion? You Decide! — Manhattan Contrarian. Smackdown: AMS Paper Exposes Media, Scientists As Falsely Hyping Human Attribution In Extreme Weathe…. Headlines Claim, But Details Deny | Science […]