Atmospheric Scientists Slam Fundamentals
of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory
Scafetta et al., 2017 Natural climate variability, part 1: Observations versus the modeled predictions
[T]he AGWT [Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory] was globally advocated by the IPCC in 2001 because it appeared to be supported by the ‘infamous’ Hockey Stick temperature reconstructions by Mann et al. * and by specific computer climate models mainly based on radiative forcings [4,11]. Those temperature reconstructions claimed that only a very modest change in the Northern Hemispheric climate had occurred during the pre-industrial times from A.D. 1000 to 1900, while an abrupt warming did occur just in the last century. Energy balance and general circulation climate models (GCM) were used to interpret the Hockey Stick climatic pattern as due mostly to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 because of coal and oil fuel consumption, which has been accelerating since the beginning of the 20th century .
However, since 2005 novel Northern Hemisphere proxy temperature reconstructions were published revealing the existence of a large millennial oscillation that contradicts the Hockey Stick temperature pattern
* see reference list
Wilson et al., 2016
Wilson et al., 2016
Abrantes et al., 2017
The new findings were consistent with alternative climatic and solar activity records showing that a quasi-millennial oscillation occurred throughout the entire Holocene for the last 10,000 years [16, 17].
The severe discrepancy between observations and modeled predictions found during the 1922-1941 and 2000-2016 periods further confirms, according to the criteria proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, that the current climate models have significantly exaggerated the anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect.
In 2009 AGWT advocates acknowledged that: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” . Thus, according to the AGWT advocates’ own criteria, a divergence between observations and climate models occurring at the bi-decadal scale would provide strong convincing evidences that the GCMs used to support the AGWT are severely flawed.
In conclusion, the temperature records clearly manifest several fluctuations from the inter-annual scale to the multidecadal one. Detailed spectral analyses have determined the likely existence of harmonics at about 9.1, 10.5, 20 and 60- year periods [7, 8, 9]. By contrast, the CMIP5 GCMs simulations used by the IPCC (2013) to advocate the AGWT show a quite monotonic accelerating warming since 1860, which is at most temporarily interrupted by volcano eruptions and only slightly modulated by aerosol emissions. Thus, the models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted for future energy planning .
It has been suggested that non-radiative physical processes connected with solar activity and the “resonant” orbital motions of the moon and the planets can cast light on the otherwise incomprehensible temperature fluctuations [34, 35]. In fact, the magnetic activity of the sun and, probably, also the planetary motions modulate both the solar wind and the flux of the cosmic rays and interstellar dust on the earth with the result of a modulation of the clouds coverage.
Scafetta et al., 2017 Natural climate variability, part 2: Observations versus the modeled predictions
Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).
[S]ince 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT . However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences  and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14-16].
We … critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 °C. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 °C.
Herein, the authors have studied the post 2000 standstill global temperature records. It has been shown that once the ENSO signature is removed from the data, the serious divergence between the observations and the CMIP5 GCM projections becomes evident. Note that Medhaug et al.  claim that the models agree with the post 2000 temperature trend. However, these authors did not remove the ENSO signal and used annual mean temperature records up to 2015 that camouflage the real nature of the 2015-2016 ENSO peak.
Moreover, a semi-empirical model first proposed in 2011 based on a specific set of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus a 50% reduced climatic effect of the radiative forcing, which includes the anthropogenic forcing, performs quite better in forecasting subsequent climate changes. Thus, the GCMs used to promote the AGWT have been also outperformed [by a natural oscillation/astronomical/anthropogenic “semi-empirical” model]. This result is indeed consistent with recent findings. In fact, although the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2 doubling of the GCMs vary widely around a 3.0°C mean [3,4], recent studies have pointed out that those values are too high.
Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C  and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C .
Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination .
78 responses to “2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims”
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
These papers confirm the methods and are compatible with the predictions of my paper
The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
Norman J. Page
Dr. Norman J. Page
Energy & Environment
(C )The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
For an accessible blog version see
See fig 12
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution
Fig 4 shows the current situation
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
Gotta love the chart from Fig. 7 of Scafetta et al. (2017), showing the evolution of best estimates for TCR and ECS from 2000 through 2017.
Reminds me of the efforts to replicate Millikan’s Oil Drop Experiment a century ago. Matt Ridley summarized it in an article 5 y ago.
Or read Feynman’s observations on confirmation bias in his lecture at Cal Tech 43 y ago. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Will they eventually settle on numbers < 2.0 for both, perhaps < 1.5?
… actually, a better question would be, “What if TCR or ECS aren’t actually constants, after all?”
Cue head explosion by Joe Romm & co.
Indeed, and maybe find they are very dependent on other atmospheric parameters like humidity, air pressure (and thus lunar cycles), and solar fluxes (both electromagnetic and particulate).
Now that would put a cat among the pigeons.
If they are not constants, then they …. .well, just don’t exist. They just don’t exist
“What if TCR or ECS aren’t actually constants, after all?”
Why do you think there’s an expectation that they would be constant?
The “convective” value for CO2 doubling on its own from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, or 560 ppm to 1,120 ppm, and so on, is indeed expected/considered to be constant: 1.16 K due to the modeled forcing assumption of 3.7 W m-2. So if the direct doubling of CO2 concentrations would yield a constant result both in forcing and temperature change, why would no such expectation exist for the TCR (which is only the “average” temperature during the ~20 years before/after the year of the doubled concentration)?
Is it really news to you, Scott, that the direct forcing/temperature result for doubled CO2 is assumed (modeling) to be constant?
The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ∼1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects.
“The radiative forcing resulting from doubled atmospheric CO2 would increase the surface and tropospheric temperature by 1.2°C if there were no feedbacks in the climate system.”
“An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 275 to 550 ppm is expected to increase radiative forcing by about 4 W m2, which would lead to a direct warming of 1.2°C in the absence of feedbacks or other responses of the climate system”
And in the last year alone, there have been at least 5 more papers with ECS values in the 0.25 C to 1.0 C range…and these papers are not included on that chart. Every year the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is found to shrink smaller and smaller. Within another 10 years, perhaps we’ll almost uniformly be in the tenths of a degree range, with only the stragglers like Schmidt and Mann staking claim to the catastrophic values.
Could you Kenneth update the Scafetta 2017 figure 7 with the post 2014 values, since Nicola didn’t. It would be very handy to have such an updated version of such an impressive visualization of the evolving scientific understanding.
Great work Nicola.
That Figure 7 shows that the concept of a sensitivity constant is false. The Arrhenius hypothesis (1896) is nonsense.
The near perfect correlation of CO2 and temperature over the last 850,000 years results from Henry’s law (solubility of gases in liquids falls as temperature rises):
Arrhenius 1906 paper, did improve it a lot,still warm but no longer nonsense of the time.
Every time I visit “diggingintheclay” I am annoyed to distraction.
This is NOT “clay” that’s being dug in! It is course sand.
Otherwise, it’s a great website. |;-[)
IPCC AR4 (2007): “Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years.”
Caillon et al., 2003 “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
Fischer et al., 1999 “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”
Monnin et al., 2001 “The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”
Kawamura et al., 2007 “Our chronology also indirectly gives the timing of the CO2 rise at [glacial] terminations, which occurs within 1 kyr of the increase in Antarctic temperature.”
Indermuhle et al., 2000 “The [CO2] lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a [CO2] lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.
Landais et al., 2013 “[F]rom 130.5 to 129,000 years ago, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged that of Antarctic temperature unequivocally….At mid-slope, there is an unequivocal lead of δ15N [temperature] over CO2 of 900 ± 325 yr”.
Schneider et al., 2013 “Furthermore, a 5,000 yr lag in the CO2 decline relative to EDC [East Antarctica] temperatures is confirmed during the glacial inception at the end of MIS5.5 (120,000 yrs before present).”
Stott et al., 2007 “Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ∼2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ∼1000 years.”
Shakun’s paper was exposed for it statistical omissions. It is GARBAGE!
In a FOUR post series,Willis Eschenbauch showed that the temperature proxies are all over the map,that Shakun stopped the CO2 data dateline,when the temperature was going down slowly while CO2 went UP for a while.
A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy
The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.
The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.
The problem becomes evident when we plot all of these 80 standardized proxies together. Figure 9 shows all of the standardized temperature traces.
Now, there’s plenty of things of interest in there. It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age. The median value for the warming is 4.3°C, although the range is quite wide.
But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming?
I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.”
That was only one of the fatal problems of the paper. It isn’t surprising that ignorant warmists like you didn’t know it. In
Oh please, nothing but junk science from two bloggers. Not a single peer-reviewed paper disputes Shakun.
Listed above are 10 peer-reviewed papers that dispute Shakun.
Then you would have quoted the part where they mention Shakun. You did not. You quote cherrypicked alternative facts.
The quotes are from peer-reviewed scientific papers, many of them published in the journal Science.
CS, doesn’t have a counterpoint. Just a smarmy attack with ZERO value. It is clear you have nothing to counter with.
The paper is so bad that even most warmist scientists don’t bother with it,Real Science blog, supports the CO2 chart Willis created:
Here is the chart straight from RealClimate blog,
As you can see that CO2 is indeed going up,right where Shakun stopped the data at about 6,000 bpe. Colose goes all the way to the recent times,which shows it going UP,the very thing Shakun wanted to omit.
CO2 was rising while temperature was going DOWN slightly at the time.
Willis made the point that Shakun deliberately hid the CO2 increase while the temperature was going down.
Willis also showed that Shakuns temperature proxies are all over the map time wise and trend wise.
You didn’t tell us why you think he is wrong,which means you have nothing.
“Then you would have quoted the part where they mention Shakun. You did not. You quote cherrypicked alternative facts.”
You are too dumb to notice that 8 of the 10 paper Kenneth listed was published BEFORE Shakun published his paper. The remaining to was withing a year after Shakun published.
Your claim they are cherrypicked are straight from their ABSTRACTS or the body of the paper.Two examples:
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Caillon et al.
The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
Fisher et al.
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
You are really stupid.
Wow, still not a single peer-review paper talking about Shakun being wrong. Not a single one. No surprise there.
“Consensus Science 18. October 2017 at 3:34 AM | Permalink
Wow, still not a single peer-review paper talking about Shakun being wrong. Not a single one. No surprise there.”
Wow, not a single debate point comes from you,not only that you have yet to defend Shakun’s two big errors of his paper which was fully addressed using data of his own paper on temperature proxies.
Shakun failed to show the rest of the CO2 data because it destroyed his claim,that his own Temperature proxies are all over the map as shown in full detail using Shakun’s own data which he properly made available.
Still waiting for your counterpoint,otherwise you have nothing to show.
“You are too dumb to notice that 8 of the 10 paper Kenneth listed was published BEFORE Shakun published his paper.”
So you finally admited he relies on old outdated papers that have been debunked by Shakun.
“you have yet to defend Shakun’s two big errors of his paper which was fully addressed using data of his own paper on temperature proxies.”
“Errors” according to discredited BLOGGERS. They are the ones that made the errors. Their fake analysis could not pass peer-review.
Stop hoaxing people with junk science.
Here is the coup DE grace of the terribly dishonest Shakun paper:
Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!
“Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.
Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.
Figure 2 shows the surprise …
Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.
I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …
I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …”
Shakun’s paper has been invalidated for FIVE years now.
Not peer-reviewed science, only junk science and smear attempts by bloggers.
Your reply shows you have no argument to make,just another baseless attack is all you can bring up.
Nothing but projection from you. Try real peer-reviewed science.
Your reply shows you have no argument to make,just another baseless attack is all you can bring up.
The problem is that the climate models use to explain ‘back radiation’ (which claims a radiative exitance is an energy flow when every professional would say is not the case) the bidirectional photon diffusion theory of Goody and Yung. This is based on Planck’s 1913 treatise which assumes a vacuum, with Maxwell’s waves propagating in both directions, hence stored energy. The photons are simply a subset of Maxwell wave propagation.
Consider the CO2 15 micron GHG band; fully self-absorbed. It emits to the adjacent, equal temperature surface at the black body level – no gap. The surface emits at the black body level to the gas – no gap.
No gap means there can be no energy dissipation, no radiation entropy production. The CO2 emits as part of OLR at say 20 km. That means to Space, the surface of the Earth in the IR spectrum is at ~20 km. There can only be zero heating of the surface if CO2 rises AND no positive feedback. No need for any hypothesis about how the energy in that band at the surface is transferred; it just does over no gap so no energy dissipation. QED
So how does measuring the back radiation work then?
Why would there be an energy flow (towards the surface)? It almost never happens that net radiation from the surface becomes negative (back radiation of larger value then the surface radiation).
It seems back-radiation is a non-existent non-phenomenon. First of all, the concept requires its opposite (the radiation that doesn’t go back but rather goes ….well, up or out). The back radiation meme either requires that photons emitted by GHG molecules ALL DECIDE TO EMIT DOWNWARD (maybe they want to return home to Mother Earth), or alternatively they disappear into a different dimension.
Second, as the atmosphere gets colder with altitude how does radiation from a increasingly colder parcel of air, heat a relatively warmer surface? Analogy: How would standing in front of a block of ice warm you up?
Third, a recent paper — F.K.Reinhart (2017) — claims only 6% of CO2’s 15 micron energy is emitted as another 15 micron photon at each “free path to extinction level” in the troposphere. The 94% is “decanted” to kinetic energy via collisions with the surrounding [99.9% non-GHG] molecules via thousands of collisions during th ~6micro-seconds an excited CO2 molecule holds its bending pattern. Therefore after a say 3 or 4 layers of “absorption/emission” there’s no upwelling 15 micron IR for CO2 to work its back-radiation magic.
Finally, what we see from the Earth’s IR spectrum taken from satellites is that CO2 emits IR at temperatures around 220K, which would put it just below the troposphere. This is IMO possible because upper troposphere water precipitation refreshes the supply of 15 micron IR and any CO2 active that high up just serve to facilitate the shedding of IR to outer space. In brief, what the satellites show us is that CO2 activity serves to cool (NOT WARM) the atmosphere.
Please, some more detail on the Reinhart paper, so I can google it. Thanks
We had an entire article on it…
“The back radiation meme either requires that photons emitted by GHG molecules ALL DECIDE TO EMIT DOWNWARD (maybe they want to return home to Mother Earth), or alternatively they disappear into a different dimension.”
You are making a baseless assertion on both counts.
Back-radiation describes a process in which half the photons emitted by GHG molecules travel downward, and half travel upward.
Nope. That’s correct (should flow mostly to colder space, not to warmer earth), even though it would be a lot better than what they try to sneak past us. See my post below for a reference that explains it in detail.
“That’s correct ” should read :That’s NOT correct.”
There’s also sideways, or east and west, which means that at least 3/4ths of the photons end up being re-emitted to space. Or is there a mechanism that prevents GHG molecules from re-emitting sideways?
“Analogy: How would standing in front of a block of ice warm you up?”
False analogy, hence wrong question. Let’s try a better one.
How would the temperature of an object radiating into empty space (receiving say a few hundred W/m^2 from a source with an apparent diameter of around 30 arc minutes, and only the CMB with a source temperature of 2.7 K in all other directions) compare with the temperature of the same object receiving the same amount of radiation from the first source but surrounded in every other direction by a giant block of ice at 0 degrees Celsius (object not touching the ice so only radiation is exchanged between the two)? Would the ice cool the object as much as the CMB?
RE – “BACK RADIATION”
You’re correct. It’s nonsense, as this professional writes in agreement…
NASA’s numerous conflicting and anti-science assertions about “back radiation,” are a stain on one of America’s previously finest institutions.
FOR SHAME, NASA! FOR SHAME!
P.S. – That’s to david russell 13. October 2017 at 4:13 PM
You still trust Scafetta?
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (search for “Scafetta”)
And why would someone not include the ENSO signal? Of course humans aren’t directly causing El Ninos, but the energy for those events is coming from somewhere. You can’t just not include those because they don’t fit with your (Scafetta’s) “ocillation predicition method” that has been shown numerous times has no basis in the physical world. You can split any graph into multiple sinus waves … there is no meaning behind those individual splits.
I guess the only way to make you guys see the problem is to wait 50 years and compare the real temperature graph with what these “predicitions” said would happen. Will it be significantly cooler in 2067 or will we see the the temperature to rise 2+°C above pre-industrial times?
Sorry, SebastianH, but we don’t fall for your side’s Social Justice Warrior tactics here. I understand that you like to employ the John Cook/Dana Nuccitelli name-and-shame model, hoping that if you can call attention to blacklists (i.e., desmogblog’s list of “deniers”) who don’t maintain the same beliefs as you that humans are primarily responsible for dangerously causing oceans to warm, glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, hurricanes to intensify, etc., perhaps you can persuade others to just ignore what they have to say entirely by dismissing them. Dr. Scafetta’s work has been cited in scientific journals 1,650 times by other scientists in the last 5 years alone. You go right on ahead and pretend that you have “debunked” Scafetta’s papers highlighted here by pointing out that John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli find his work heretical. Most people here will probably just ignore it.
The energy for El Ninos does not come from human activity. That’s what scientists have concluded, anyway.
The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says an expert. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98.
“There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.
The IPCC, which comprises representatives from 190 countries, produces a report every six to seven years on the trend of global climate change, its causes and impacts and how to migitate these. Saying that the current El Nino was in its final stretch and that the condition in the Pacific Ocean was expected to return to neutral by June, Tangang stated that the IPCC, in its latest report released in 2013, did not come up with a conclusion on the inter-relation between El Nino and global warming. He said that unlike typhoons, which the IPCC concluded would increase in intensity as global warming intensified, El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.”
Thanks for warning us about this problem, SebastianH. Once we “see” it, we are sure to follow your lead and advocate for more wind turbines to be erected. Because more wind turbines (and more solar panels) are the key(s) to solving this problem, right? Or did you have something more substantive in mind?
How much catastrophic warming do you believe humans will have caused in the year 2067, SebastianH? 3 degrees C? 5 degrees C? By how much will we be able to cool the planet by using more wind and solar?
How many species will become extinct by the year 2050, SebastianH? According to the non-deniers, or the side that you’re on, (Thomas et al., 2004, Nature), over 1 million species will go extinct in the next 33 years. That’s conservatively about 30,000 species extinctions each year. I think I remember you saying that you’re not a believer, but a denier with regard to this particular problem. If so, why are you a million-species-by-2050 denier, SebastianH? After all, it says that that’s what will happen because of our CO2 emissions (and our failures to believe in wind and solar) in the journal Nature. That’s the journal Michael Mann publishes in! And the authors of Thomas et al. (2004) aren’t listed on desmogblog’s denier list, or SkepticalScience’s “Climate Misinformers” list. And if John Cook hasn’t rejected you, and you believe there is a problem, then…you must be right. Right? Isn’t that how this stuff works for guys like you and John Cook? Just expose the denier scientists by providing a link (like the one you have above for Dr. Scafetta), and then the deniers you share the link with (us) will then see their error of their ways, and agree with you that we have a problem, and so we need more wind turbines and solar panels. Simple enough.
It’s not about beliefs, but interpreting results in a way they can’t be interpreted.
No, according to your quotes there is no evidence that El Ninos are influenced by climate change. But since those events draw their energy from the heat content of the oceans and this is influenced by global warming, it is unreasonable to think global warming doesn’t influence them, we just can’t prove it (testing if the same El Nino would have occured without global warming).
The problem is the prediction method using the frequency components of a temperature times series (in essence graph -> FFT -> re-FTT -> graph). I don’t know what you interpreted that I would mean with the word “problem”. But then, it isn’t the first time that you misunderstood me on purpose, so who knows …
Well, of course there could be an influence, however negligible. What if the influence was 0.0000001 K? Would that be enough of an influence to claim that humans are significantly affecting El Nino events?
Have humans influenced the -0.6 C cooling that has occurred since March, 2016? If so, how did we influence that cooling? Explain the mechanism.
You also can’t prove how much, if at all, atmospheric CO2 concentration variations in volumes of parts per million cause heat changes in the global oceans. Even you have characterized this as a theory, as you’ve acknowledged it hasn’t been observed, and thus clouds have to be used as a proxy for any experiment. And despite none of this being proven, you believe anyway. And you characterize those who don’t share your beliefs as deniers. Why?
Speaking of, having previously acknowledged that you are a denier with regard to the 2004 Nature study that says we’ll get 30,000 species extinctions per year until 2050, and assuming you believe species extinctions caused by “global warming” is a problem, how many species extinctions do you believe we’ll get by 2050? 500,000? 300,000? What? What’s your guess? How does it feel to be a denier of peer-reviewed climate science, SebastianH? After all, those authors weren’t on John Cook’s denier list, so they’re OK, right?
The fact that Seb thinks that humans are indirectly responsible for the ENSO says all we need to know. There is no point in engaging fools like these.
Where does an El Nino draw its energy from? What reservoir? And what fills up that reservoir?
El Nino and La Nina events deliver heat distribution changes within regions of the oceans due to naturally-spawned wind speed anomalies. The source of all the Earth’s energy is the from the Sun’s absorbed radiance, which is significantly modulated by changes in albedo (clouds, aerosols).
The North Atlantic, Pacific Ocean, and Southern Ocean have all undergone cooling trends in recent decades….
Where did the loss of heat energy emanate from for those regions?
Seb, you should read up on ENSO before making bigger fool of yourself.
Sebastian,surely you knew that the Sun warms up the ocean waters to a few hundred feet?
SebastianH can’t even admit that variations in the concentrations of water vapor (i.e., 40,000 ppm in the tropics, 1,000 ppm at the poles) are modulated by the Sun. He claims that water vapor concentrations are modulated by “temperature” instead. How difficult it must be to consistently avoid using language that would acknowledge the integral role of the Sun in climate, and climate change.
The sun is only capable of warming the top micrometer of ocean, while co2 can reach 300 meters below the ocean surface.
Is this really what you believe, CS, or are you just trying to write something smarmy?
Kenneth, he is here to spread baloney. He is a shallow minded troll who gets a kick in irritating others with stupid comments.
It is very easy to find the evidence of 300 feet penetration of solar heating of the waters,this is but one example of many:
Light Transmission in the Ocean
“Reflection, Refraction, and Color
The uppermost, sunlit layer of the ocean where 70 percent of the entire amount of photosynthesis in the world takes place is called the euphotic zone. It generally extends to a depth of 100 meters (330 feet). Below this is the disphotic zone, between 100 and 1,000 meters (330 and 3,300 feet) deep, which is dimly lit. Some animals are able to survive here, but no plants. Although the amount of light is measurable at this range of depths, there is not enough available for photosynthesis to take place. The layer of the ocean where no light at all penetrates—over 90 percent of the entire ocean area on Earth—is called the aphotic zone, where depths are more than 1,000 meters (3,300 feet).
A certain amount of incoming light is reflected away when it reaches the ocean surface, depending upon the state of the water itself. If it is calm and smooth, less light will be reflected.
If it is turbulent, with many waves, more light will be reflected. The light that penetrates the surface is refracted due to the fact that light travels faster in air than in water. Once it is within the water, light may be scattered or absorbed by solid particles. Most of the visible light spectrum is absorbed within 10 meters (33 feet) of the water’s surface, and almost none penetrates below 150 meters (490 feet) of water depth, even when the water is very clear.”
Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Light-Transmission-in-the-Ocean.html#ixzz4vmWgRT52
Meanwhile CO2 is all over the place in the ocean from the surface to the very bottom.
In order to understand trolls like CS, a reminder of their logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ
“It is very easy to find the evidence of 300 feet penetration of solar heating of the waters,”
Yeah, when co2 is around. Sheesh, why is science so difficult for you to understand?
LWIR from CO2 does not penetrate past the micrometer layer (0.1 to 1 mm “thick” skin), CS. Even your own oft-cited website, SkepticalScience, says this. In contrast, according to NOAA, heating from the Sun extends down to depths of 200 meters. None of this should be new information for someone who calls himself “Consensus Science”.
This surface layer is also called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 660 feet (200 meters). It is in this zone that most of the visible light exists. With the light comes heating from sun. This heating is responsible for wide change in temperature that occurs in this zone, both in the latitude and each season. The sea surface temperatures range from as high as 97°F (36°C) in the Persian Gulf to 28°F (-2°C) near the north pole. The sea surface temperature also “follows the sun”. From the earth’s perspective, the sun’s position in the sky moves higher each day from winter to summer and lower each day from summer to winter. This change in the sun’s position from winter to summer means that more energy is reaching the ocean and therefore warms the water.
Kenneth, your nasa link shows they forgot to mention how co2 helps the sun reach that far. Without the co2, the sun reaches 1mm, as you said.
No, I’ve never “said” that the Sun’s radiance only heats the oceans to depths of 1mm in the absence of CO2. That’s not what the science says. If you believe it does, it is up to you to cite actual evidence. Since this evidence doesn’t exist, you’ll have a difficult time finding a source that supports your beliefs.
Again, even SkepticalScience affirms that the heat “trapped” by CO2 does not penetrate into the ocean, only the Sun’s heating does. The NOAA link didn’t “forgot to mention” your rendition of how ocean heating works.
@sunsettommy 16. October 2017 at 6:22 PM
Basically, what you wrote. (nice job)
Here’s a good audio, with easy illustration, for the simple minded trolls.
How long do you think it will take them before they admit they are wrong?
skeptical science said no such thing in my link.
they explain more here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
You have been exposed as a liar on this. Please don’t make it a habit. Thanks.
You need to read more carefully, CS.
SkepticalScience: “Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers.”
“Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself“
What do you believe that “this heat [from CO2] cannot penetrate into the ocean itself” means, CS? Does it mean that CO2 penetrates 300 feet? Or have you just learned something?
The link you provided is exactly the same as the one I used to state that the heat “trapped” by CO2 cannot penetrate past the micrometer layer, the “skin” layer, which is “0.1 to 1 mm thick” per SkepticalScience.
Now that you have learned what your own website says, are you still going to claim that the heat from CO2 penetrates into the ocean by 300 feet? Or will you acknowledge that you made a “mistake” here?
The sun can not penetrate the oceans alone, only with the aid of co2.
This is not “basic physics”; it’s not even psuedoscience. It’s just plain ridiculous. What source are you using to formulate this belief?
Kenneth, again you cherrypicked quotes and evaded the central arguments.
Um, yes, I cherrypicked the SkepticalScience quote that says the “trapped” heat from CO2 “cannot penetrate into the ocean itself” because it’s your claim that the “trapped” heat from CO2 does penetrate into the ocean…by 300 feet/meters. You obviously have no source to back up this claim (because it doesn’t exist).
[…] linkittää NTZ-blogin yhteen tuoreeseen artikkeliin (Linkki). Taustalla on meteorologi Scafettan marginaalisessa lehdessä julkaisema tutkielma. Siinä […]
[…] highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s […]
Kenneth and Pierre,
CS is a bullshitting Troll. He is here to pull your chain, with absurd statements that are in my opinion deliberate.
Come on you think these troll statements are intelligent?
“Kenneth, your nasa link shows they forgot to mention how co2 helps the sun reach that far. Without the co2, the sun reaches 1mm, as you said.”
“The sun is only capable of warming the top micrometer of ocean, while co2 can reach 300 meters below the ocean surface.”
You think he is here to debate with anyone?
Do waste your time with this one,suggest you ban him.
Yes please ban science from this forum, it’s what you guys do all the time.
Make me a martyr. Go on right ahead!
I think it’s likely that even those on your “side” would agree that you, CS, are not synonymous with “science”.
CS just admitted being a religious fool by asking to be a martyr. Do not give him/her the pleasure of being banned, that is what alarmists sites do. You should instead stop feeding this mindless troll.
CS, is not here to debate, he is here to play games.
“Make me a martyr. Go on right ahead!” – Sciencless Clown
As to “Consensus Science,” anyone who chooses a “handle” like that is NOT concerned about science, as the following links clearly show.
For one thing, it’s been thoroughly debunked.
And even if we didn’t have that, we could just consider the source.
So, thank you, Shahid. Now go find an empty field where you won’t hurt any innocent bystanders, and practice pushing the little red button until you get it right.
[…] highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s […]
This site is unfortunately a denier echo-chamber.
Kenneth created SebastianH sock puppet to have controlled opposition.
What a pathetic misinformation site this is.