‘Two-Thirds Of Climate Warming’
Since 1750 Due To ‘Solar Causes’
– Dr. Alan D. Smith, Geoscientist
Though advocates of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative may not welcome the news, evidence that modern day global warming has largely been driven by natural factors – especially solar activity – continues to pile up.
Much of the debate about the Sun’s role in climate change is centered around reconstructions of solar activity that span the last 400 years, which now include satellite data from the late 1970s to present.
To buttress the claim that solar forcing has effectively played almost no role in surface temperature changes since the mid-20th century, the IPCC has shown preference for modeled reconstructions of solar activity (i.e., the PMOD) that show a stable or decreasing trend since the 1970s. Why? Because if the modeled results can depict steady or decreasing solar activity since the last few decades of the 20th century – just as surface temperatures were rising – then attributing the post-1970s warming trend to human activity becomes that much easier.
The trouble is, satellite observations using ACRIM data (which have been affirmed to be accurate by other satellite data sets and are rooted in observation, not modeled expectations) indicate that solar activity did not decline after the 1970s, but actually rose quite substantially. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that solar activity began to decline, corresponding with the denouement of the Modern Grand Maximum.
ACRIM Composite Is ‘Data Driven’, While The PMOD Composite Is ‘Model Driven’
• Comparison of the results from the ACRIM3, SORCE/TIM and SOHO/VIRGO satellite experiments demonstrate the near identical detection of TSI variability on all sub-annual temporal and amplitude scales during the TIM mission. A solar magnetic activity area proxy [developed in 2013] for TSI has been used to demonstrate that the ACRIM TSI composite and its +0.037 %/decade TSI trend during solar cycles 21–23 [1980s-2000s] is the most likely correct representation of the extant satellite TSI database.
• The occurrence of this trend during the last decades of the 20th century supports a more robust contribution of TSI variation to detected global temperature increase during this period than predicted by current climate models.
• One of the most perplexing issues in the 35 year satellite TSI database is the disagreement among TSI composite time series in decadal trending. The ACRIM and PMOD TSI compostite time series use the ERB and ERBE results, respectively, to bridge the Gap. Decadal trending during solar cycles 21–23 is significant for the ACRIM composite but not for the PMOD. A new  TSI-specific TSI proxy database has been compiled that appears to resolve the issue in favor of the ACRIM composite and trend. The resolution of this issue is important for application of the TSI database in research of climate change and solar physics.
• The ACRIM TSI composite is data driven. It uses ACRIM1, ACRIM2, ACRIM3 and Nimbus7/ERB satellite results published by the experiments’ science teams and the highest cadence and quality ACRIM Gap database, the Nimbus7/ERB, to bridge the ACRIM Gap.
• The PMOD TSI composite, using results from the Nimbus7ERB, SMM/ACRIM1, UARS/ACRIM 2 and SOHO/ VIRGO experiments, is model driven. It conforms TSI results to a solar-proxy model by modifying published ERB and ACRIM results and choosing the sparse, less precise ERBS/ERBE results as the basis for bridging the ACRIM Gap (Frohlich and Lean 1998).
• The Earth’s climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from 35 years of satellite TSI monitoring and solar activity data has established a paradigm of direct relationship between TSI and solar magnetic activity. (Willson et al. 1981; Willson and Hudson 1991; Willson 1997, 1984; Frohlich and Lean 1998; Scafetta and Willson 2009; Kopp and Lean 2011a, 2011b) This paradigm, together with the satellite record of TSI and proxies of historical climate and solar variability, support the connection between variations of TSI and the Earth’s climate. The upward trend during solar cycles 21–23 coincides with the sustained rise in the global mean temperature anomaly during the last two decades of the 20th century.
Assessment Of The Sun’s Climate Role Largely Depends On The TSI Model Adopted
• [T]he IPCC neglects strong paleo-climatologic evidence for the high sensitivity of the climate system to changes in solar activity. This high climate sensitivity is not alone due to variations in total solar irradiance-related direct solar forcing, but also due to additional, so-called indirect solar forcings. These include solar-related chemical-based UV irradiance-related variations in stratospheric temperatures and galactic cosmic ray-related changes in cloud cover and surface temperatures, as well as ocean oscillations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that significant affect the climate.
• [T]he cyclical temperature increase of the 20th century coincided with the buildup and culmination of the Grand Solar Maximum that commenced in 1924 and ended in 2008.
• Since TSI estimates based on proxies are relatively poorly constrained, they vary considerably between authors, such as Wang et al. (2005) and Hoyt and Schatten (1997). There is also considerable disagreement in the interpretation of satellite-derived TSI data between the ACRIM and PMOD groups (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003; Fröhlich, 2009). Assessment of the Sun’s role in climate change depends largely on which model is adopted for the evolution of TSI during the last 100 years (Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2009; Scafetta, 2013).
• The ACRIM TSI satellite composite shows that during the last 30 years TSI averaged at 1361 Wm-2, varied during solar cycles 21 to 23 by about 0.9 Wm-2, had increased by 0.45 Wm-2 during cycle 21 to 22 [1980s to 2000s] to decline again during cycle 23 and the current cycle 24 (Scafetta and Willson, 2009).
• By contrast, the PMOD TSI satellite composite suggests for the last 30 years an average TSI of 1366, varying between 1365.2 and 1367.0 Wm-2 that declined steadily since 1980 by 0.3 Wm-2.
Total Solar Irradiance Increased By 3 W m-2 Between 1900 And 2000
Van Geel and Ziegler, 2013 (continued)
• On centennial and longer time scales, differences between TSI estimates become increasingly larger. Wang et al. (2005) and Kopp and Lean (2011) estimate that between 1900 and 1960 TSI increased by about 0.5 Wm-2 and thereafter remained essentially stable, whilst Hoyt and Schatten (1997) combined with the ACRIM data and suggest that TSI increased between 1900 and 2000 by about 3 Wm-2 and was subject to major fluctuations in 1950-1980 (Scafetta, 2013; Scafetta, 2007).
• Similarly, it is variably estimated that during the Maunder Solar Minimum (1645- 1715) of the Little Ice Age TSI may have been only 1.25 Wm-2 lower than at present Wang et al., 2005; Haig, 2003; Gray et al., 2010; Krivova et al., 2010) or by as much as 6 ± 3 Wm-2 lower than at present (Shapiro et al., 2010; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997), reflecting a TSI increase ranging between 0.09% and 0.5%, respectively.
Graph Source: Soon et al., 2015
After Removing Instrumental ‘Adjustments’, Urban Bias, Temperatures Follow Solar Activity
The combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012. This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013). At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees). So, by changing versions, and by adjusting the data, the slight cooling was changed to a slight warming trend.
As recently as 1990, it was widely accepted that the global temperature trend, as reported by NASA (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987), showed a “0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950.”
This 0.5°C rise in global temperatures between 1880-1950 (and 0.6°C between 1880 and 1940) can clearly be seen in the NASA GISS graph from 1987:
Schneider, S. H. 1989. The greenhouse effect: Science and policy. Science 243: 771-81.
Today, it is no longer acceptable for the NASA global temperature data set to graphically depict a strong warming trend during the first half of the 20th century. This is because anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat and negligible relative to today during this abrupt warming period.
So as to eliminate the inconvenience of a non-anthropogenic warming trend in modern times, NASA has now removed all or nearly all the 0.5°C of warming between 1880 and 1950.
NASA GISS graph
• [B]etween 65-80% of the apparent warming trend over the 1961-2000 period for the Beijing and Wuhan station records was probably due to increasing urban heat islands. [T]he temperature trends increase from +0.025°C/decade (fully rural) to … +0.119°C/decade (fully urban). … If we assume that the fully rural stations are unaffected by urbanization bias, while the other subsets are, then we can estimate the extent of urbanization bias in the “all stations” trends by subtracting the fully rural trends. This gives us an estimate of +0.094°C/decade urbanization bias over the 1951-1990 period [+0.38°C of additional non-climatic warmth]– similar to Wang & Ge (2012)’s +0.09°C/decade estimate.
•We have constructed a new estimate of Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends derived from mostly rural stations – thereby minimizing the problems introduced to previous estimates by urbanization bias.
• Similar to previous estimates, our composite implies warming trends during the periods 1880s-1940s and 1980s-2000s. However, this new estimate implies a more pronounced cooling trend during the 1950s-1970s. As a result, the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period [1930s-1950s] is comparable to the recent [1980s-2000s] warm period – a different conclusion to previous estimates. Although our new composite implies different trends from previous estimates, we note that it is compatible with Northern Hemisphere temperature trends derived from (a) sea surface temperatures; (b) glacier length records; (c) tree ring widths.
• However, the recent multi model means of the CMIP5 Global Climate Model hindcasts failed to adequately reproduce the temperature trends implied by our composite, even when they included both “anthropogenic and natural forcings”. One reason why the hindcasts might have failed to accurately reproduce the temperature trends is that the solar forcings they used all implied relatively little solar variability. However, in this paper, we carried out a detailed review of the debate over solar variability, and revealed that considerable uncertainty remains over exactly how the Total Solar Irradiance has varied since the 19th century.
• When we compared our new composite to one of the high solar variability reconstructions of Total Solar Irradiance which was not considered by the CMIP5 hindcasts (i.e., the Hoyt & Schatten reconstruction), we found a remarkably close fit. If the Hoyt & Schatten reconstruction and our new Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates are accurate, then it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution.
• This contradicts the claim by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that most of the temperature trends since the 1950s are due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Bindoff et al., 2013).
New Paper: Since 1750, About 0.8°C – 0.9°C Of CET Increase Is Due To Solar Forcing
Yearly mean temperatures in the CET [Central England Temperature] record show an increase in temperature of approximately 1.3°C degrees from the end of the 17th Century to the end of the 20th Century/beginning of 21st Century. … Subtle difference in timing between the warming/cooling phases between the Central England record and the other localities may reflect local climate variation, but the similarity in events between continents suggests the CET [Central England Temperature] record is recording global temperature patterns.
Records of sunspot numbers began in 1610 such that detailed estimates of solar variation for the years covered by the CET record can be made without resort to the use of proxy data. Reconstructions of TSI [e.g. 16-18] differ in magnitude (Table 1), but there is agreement in form with 4 peaks and 4 to 6 troughs occurring over the time-scale of the CET record (Fig. 4). These are: a minimum in TSI associated with the Maunder Sunspot Minimum in the latter half of the 17th Century; a peak, possibly bi-modal approaching modern TSI values during the 18th Century; a well-defined trough corresponding with the Dalton Sunspot Minimum between 1800- 1820; a poorly defined TSI peak in the mid 19th Century; a reduction in TSI during the late 19th Century; increasing TSI during the early 20th Century; a decrease in TSI from around 1950- 1975; and a second phase of TSI increase in the late 20th Century [1980s-2000s]. There is good correspondence with TSI throughout the CET record, with warm events correlating with high TSI and cool phases correlating with plateaus or decreases in TSI .
However, for temperature increases from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum to end of 20th Century), high TSI models can account for only 63-67% of the temperature increase. This would suggest that one third of Global Warming/Climate Change can be attributed to AGW. … Approximately two-thirds [0.8°C to 0.9°C] of climate warming since the mid-late 18th Century [1.3°C] can be attributed to solar causes, suggesting warming due to anthropogenic causes over the last two centuries is 0.4 to 0.5°C.
All Over The Globe, Trends In Solar Forcing Correlate With Temperature Changes
Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012)
Schneider et al., 2015 and Wilson et al., 2016
Box et al., 2009
“[T]he period just before AD 1950 was substantially warmer than more recent decades.”
54 responses to “New Paper: Most Modern Warming, Including For Recent Decades, Is Due To Solar Forcing, Not CO2”
That is all there is — sun cycles and ocean currents driving the general direction of the climate, they control the atmosphere and thus the weather and climate. CO2 can not and have not any effect on these major drivers. Variation in the earth’s orbit provides the very long term trend in the climate changeability. Variations in atmospheric CO2 is a natural consequence of the interaction of these many cycles. In 600 million years of earth’s history there is no evidence of CO2 driving climate. (see https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Temperature-and-CO2-thru-time.gif ). All UN-IPCC and ‘climate scientists™’ statements to that effect are at best mistaken, at worse perpetrating a fraud.
Transitory events such as volcanic eruptions, seismic events, solar coronal mass ejections, and outflows from coronal holes, and changes in land use just add confounding uncertainty elements to both the timing and severity of the subsequent weather/climate events. CO2 is not a mover in transitory events, at most it is a consequence of such events.
I recently found that no one looked at the IR coming from the sun at the CO2 absorption frequencies (1,9 – 2,7 – 4,3 and 15 micrometers). Calculating them from the sun spectrum considering the square law and the area relationship, we can conclude that there is a similar amount of IR radiation of that frequencies coming from the top (sun) as from the bottom (earth) thus cancelling any effect coming from the increased CO2 content.
You’ll want to have a look at today’s article…which effectively affirms what you just wrote regarding CO2 absorption frequencies.
It is becoming blindingly obvious, except to “useful idiots” like SebastianH, that climate “science” is a scam that makes Enron look tiny by comparison.
Climate science is deliberate fraud.
The perps should be jailed.
The only obvious thing here is how easy it is to manipulate people until they really believe that all the conspiracies they are making up are real.
Speaking of “useful idiots”, I’d look into a mirror if I were you.
SebastianH, people like Phil Jones and Michael Mann were caught writing about how they “hide the decline” in temperatures. They were caught discussing the artificial removal of 0.15 C from the 1940s warmth in their datasets. They were caught writing that SH SST data are “mostly made up”. They were caught writing about how they planned to keep certain scientists from getting their papers published in journals, but that “review would be friendly” for those publishing who agree with their views. What did you expect us to do with this information? Ignore it?
As you are ignoring any information on the validity of your conclusions/interpretations?
I am not quite sure that anyone has been caught doing what you accuse them of. That’s one of those good night stories skeptics tell themselves to convince themselves of the alternate reality they are living in. Another one would be calling climate science a religion.
So, why ignore what many “opponents” have told you here in the comments? Why do you still fall for those conspiracy themes, get baselines wrong, can’t distinguish between values and their derivatives, etc? What should we observers make from this behavior of yours?
So what is your interpretation of these conversations about hiding the decline in post-1960s temperatures? Why is it called hiding? Why is it referred to as a trick…if it’s not meant to cover something up?
“…you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed [instrumental] temperatures due to the decline.”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were… Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!”
“I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down” [referring to recent temperature data].
Why are they talking about “deliberately” removing 0.15 C from the global temperature values from 1940? Why would they remove warming? What’s your interpretation?
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip
Phil Jones admits that much of the SH SSTs are “mostly made up”. What’s your alternative interpretation of what that means?
…the measurements are coming in from places where we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals [SSTs] are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.
And then, there’s the ‘ok everyone – destroy the email chain.’
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Sometimes conspiracies are real. And when the evidence is clear and unmistakable, ignoring it is folly. Dismissing it is to be a partner in it.
And it didn’t happen overnight.
See also here.
Just a few more links.
Looks like the mother load here.
Lots of good stuff here, too.
And a quick sum up of the significance, from here.
CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
Obstructing release of damaging
data and information;
Manipulating data to reach
Colluding to pressure journal
editors who published work
questioning the climate science
Assuming activist roles to
influence the political process
It was the ClimateGate e-mails that were most responsible for making me a skeptic. Once it was established that the overseers of climate alarm have been/are attempting to cover up their duplicitous practices, I could no longer just trust them again. We’re told it was just a bunch of “nothing to see here”, but that was, and is, spin.
It was the John Daly website that did it for me.
As soon as I read what he posted that contradicted every warmist talking point, I realized it was a scam.
But Climategate was the icing on the cake, to be sure! After that there was no more making excuses for them that they were honestly mistaken. The sad part is that some seem to have committed actual crimes,…
…and should have been prosecuted. The fact that they weren’t is a powerful indictment of those who should have held them accountable, IMO.
Seb jus cant help him/herself. Heck, even head of the Berkley BEST, prof. Muller told after the Climategate hide-the-decline-trickery was revealed that he now has a list of people, who’s papers he no longer will read:
About climate gate:
Once you realize that you are all puppets (or as someone else put it here: “useful idiots”) for the powers that are interested in exploiting fossil fuels further, you’ll realize that you are part of a conspiracy and not the other way around.
Reading here with the reality denying and arithmetic confusing comments all in the name of making renewables look bad or calling climate change (and/or the cause for it) fake, has been eye opening in the last year.
If you can’t understand what “hiding the decline” means and what was done and (some of you) still claim that the data has not been released, etc … then so be it. Continue to live in this wonderland of yours.
Uh, SebastianH, “rationalwiki” is a rabid defender of the dishonesty and shenanigans of Michael Mann, Al Gore, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook… It is the blog-like equivalent of SkepticalScience, comparing people who disagree with the orthodoxy to Holocaust deniers. Sorry, but we hardly view your source as reliable or trustworthy. “Hide the decline” was clearly intended to hide the decline in temperatures in reconstruction data. That you believe it wasn’t just goes to show how large your bias is.
So you think we’re part of a conspiracy. What is this conspiracy, exactly?
Dr. Muller understands. Here’s his take:
Of course you don’t … so stay in wonderland 😉
Yes, exactly. And you are ignoring the reason for this … maybe we need a time machine and travel 100 years into the future, look at the proxy data compiled at that time and determine if there really was decline when instrumental temperature records clearly show there wasn’t.
Can you imagine a group of people/companies who would profit from the public believing the nonsense of climate change denialism?
So one more time (we had this many times), do you believe the instrumental temperature record would in reality look like the decline in the proxy data and it has been faked (world wide) to show warming in a time of actual cooling?
If so, how is that compatible with the Sun causing the warming (as per your latest post) when there was apparently no warming because … well … the decline is real and instrumental records are all fake?
Sorry, but we hardly view your source as reliable or trustworthy.
I see. So if we don’t agree with you that Phil Jones was behaving with integrity when he decided to just remove 0.15 C from the 1940s “blip”, we’re in “wonderland”. How persuasive. This is probably the 8th time you have tried to use “rationalwiki” as a source to defend ClimateGate as a nothing-to-see-here. It’s not working, SebastianH. We’re skeptics.
What, exactly, does it mean to be in denialism of climate change?
Actually, the ones who profit most from not having to pay through the nose for energy to heat their homes and operate basic electronics in their homes are poor people. The emphasis on renewables benefits the wealthy and those who “win” subsidies (taxpayer funded).
“…because current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, they harm the world’s poor much more.”
If not for adjustments and manipulation, the instrumental record would, in reality, look like the many reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures that show an oscillation rather than a nearly-linear warming trend since 1900, with the peak of the 2000s meeting or only slightly exceeding the peak reached in the 1940s. After all, as of 1981 (Hansen et al., 1981) NASA had NH rising by 0.8 C between 1880 and 1940, then dropping by -0.5 C through to 1970. Now it’s more like +0.3 C between 1880 and 1940 (instead of 0.8 C), a cooling of just -0.1 C (instead of -0.5 C), and then an abrupt warming that is almost twice as high as the satellite record since the 1970s. They’ve adjusted their own instrumental record to fit the narrative of a linear warming trend, SebastianH. And it doesn’t match up with the proxy evidence…nor with rural-only instrumental temperatures (that are not affected by urbanization).
Nothing but straw men from you. No one has written that there was “no warming” after the 1970s. Instead, this is what the instrumental (rural) temperatures look like:
Notice how closely they match with proxy evidence that also show an oscillation with almost exactly the same timing.
Should we count how often you used sources that aren’t trustworthy in any way, but you post anyway because “they might be on to something”? Of course you don’t like anything that doesn’t match your gut feeling of what you think is happening. That’s the nature of skeptics who also are bad at arithmetics.
The ones who profit are those in business selling fossil fuel to us. And sawing doubt about anything that threatens their business model is a valid and obvious strategy. And with presenting nonsense as real science here and misinterpreting papers you are doing their work one way or the other.
Correctly overlaying those two NASA graphs results in this: https://imgur.com/a/oksOx … temperature diff between 1900 and 1940 is the same, no decrease in 1940 temperatures. Pre-1900 got adjusted.
No, they adjusted bad data to make the measurements more comparable. The raw data is still available and you can do your own adjustments to account for the variations of measurement quality over the decades. Nothing is hidden away like you guys imagine it …
So you believe the steep decline that proxy data shows is real and actual measurements aren’t. Got it.
Google “proxy temperature divergence”! Why are you ignoring this problem and instead think the proxy data is better than actual measurements?
Does the declining proxy data show warming at its declining end that the scientists wanted to hide? No …
About 99% of the sources I provide links to are from Google Scholar, the science portal. Rationalwiki defense of ClimateGate e-mails, as well as its blacklisting of “climate deniers”, is not of that caliber.
These “rebuttals” are quite substantive, SebastianH.
SebastianH, fossil fuel “businesses” are largely operated by governments. China’s government runs the coal plants…and is planning on building 100s more in the coming decades. India’s government promotes the expansion of coal plants. And they know that the means to the end of lifting poor people out of poverty is to promote cheap, reliable energy.
“India’s development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many years in the future,” India’s power minister, Piyush Goyal, said at a recent conference in New Delhi in response to a question. “The West will have to recognize we have the needs of the poor.”
Mr. Goyal has promised to double India’s use of domestic coal from 565 million tons last year to more than a billion tons by 2019, and he is trying to sell coal-mining licenses as swiftly as possible after years of delay. The government has signaled that it may denationalize commercial coal mining to accelerate extraction.
(It’s “sowing” doubt.) What is the “business model” being employed by the Indian governmental leaders in trying to meet “the needs of the poor”, or providing its citizens with cheap, reliable energy? How is this not helping the poor?
SebastianH, 2,100 coal plants are being built or going to be built across the world regardless of whether or not we cite scientific papers that support a skeptical position on climate alarm or renewable energy ineffectiveness here at NTZ. Your conspiracy imaginings that we are influencing the Chinese or Indian or Turkish or Russian or South African governments to expand their fossil fuel infrastructure with our blog posts here is a little strange.
As has been pointed out to you at least 4 or 5 times, your starting point in the made-up overlay you concocted is about 0.4 C different. This means it is not “correct”. It means that you are changing the data points. Not surprising coming from you, since that’s what you defend.
The +0.8 C warming and -0.5 C cooling (that have now been changed to +0.3 C warming and -0.1 C cooling) are documented by NASA:
When the same starting point is used (unlike your concoction), this is what the data tampering looks like:
So amusing. Yes, SebastianH, “bad data” = data that do not conform to the narrative. Skeptics don’t think historical recorded data should be changed to satisfy a policy agenda. That’s not science.
The steep decline in instrumental data (-0.5 C between 1940 and 1970) used to exist too…before it was removed. It didn’t fit the narrative.
Here are “actual measurements” (instrumental data) taken from rural locations across the Northern Hemisphere.
Notice how closely this oscillatory shape in rural instrumental temperatures resembles proxy reconstructions.
Then notice how neither the rural temperature instrumentals nor the proxy records matches the post-1981 “adjusted data” that you believe are true…because they fit your narrative of a linear-shaped warming.
The declining proxy data is regional. So are the proxy data that show an increasing trend. Overall, the proxy data show a 60-year oscillation, which has been pointed out to you many times now. Look at the above links for the Northern Hemisphere. Or look at the graphs in the article from the Arctic, Greenland, Antarctica, Chile, Europe, Southern South America…which all show the same oscillatory trend. Then consider how well these all align with solar activity. Uncanny.
Interesting construction of a straw man Kenneth. You and your interpretations of what others write/say …
It is the correct way to overlay anomaly data. Why would someone even try to match those lines at the start? Only a math-illiterate would do something like that.
I see, so you want to use the raw data without adjustments? Why not do that then? The data didn’t change at all … use it.
If only there were a way to find out what the green line in that graph is … oh wait, there is. It is the instrumental record … and you are impressed by it matching the instrumental record? Hmm …
That’s the right word for your ability to see things like you imagine them to be instead of how they are.
Huh? There’s no straw man here. It is your claim that by linking to scientific studies and analyses that question the beliefs you cherish (that humans control ocean temperatures and thus sea ice and glacier melt and sea level rise), we are helping the “businesses” with their “business model” of promoting fossil fuels.
So your claim is that we here at NTZ are conspiring to “do the work” of the profiteering fossil fuel “businesses”. Apparently it is brand new information for you that the “businesses” who promote and pour money into fossil fuel development and infrastructure are predominantly made up of government bodies in places like China, India, Russia, Middle Eastern bloc countries, Russia…, not private, profiteering businesses. So by substituting what’s actually going on with regard to who is operating these fossil fuel “businesses” rather than agreeing with you that it is some fossil fuel “industry”, I took the liberty to correct your misinformation and wrote that “your conspiracy imaginings that we are influencing the Chinese or Indian or Turkish or Russian or South African governments to expand their fossil fuel infrastructure with our blog posts here is a little strange.” Again, no straw man. That you actually believe we are “doing the work” of Big Fossil Fuel
“businesses”governments by citing scientific sources that support skeptical positions here is a bit odd. We don’t influence governments to build 2,100 more coal plants here. They decide for themselves to do that.
It’s not if the “overlay” doesn’t match up with the actual text that says the NH warmed by 0.8 C and cooled by -0.5 C between 1880-1940 and 1940-1970. With your overlay, those values don’t match up, of course. Which means it is not “correct”. No matter how much you want to try to manipulate it further, you cannot change that +0.8 C has been “adjusted to +0.3 C, and -0.5 C has been “adjusted” to -0.1 C. No overlays will cover up this data manipulation.
Um, yes. The data that had the NH warming by +0.8 C between 1880 and 1940 and cooling by -0.5 C between 1940 and 1970 should not be adjusted to read +0.3 C and -0.1 C instead. This is exactly what the dataset overseers were talking about when they wrote to each other that “it would be good” to just remove 0.15 C from the 1940 “blip”. They were changing past data.
And there was ‘Fakegate,’ the day Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole.
Writing about Chinese, Indian and other goverment fossil fuel enterprises and than arguing that those aren’t profiting businesses is the straw man.
You do know what the term “useful idiot” means, do you?
Another made up thing … when did I claim that you influence goverments? You somehow are convinced that it’s all a hoax and humans can’t possibly be causing global warming to the extent that climate scientists say they do. So you believe the BS that others put out there and you even promote in on a blog. That’s “doing their work” if you will.
Yeah, the wonderland thing comes to mind again … please specify which two graph I should overlay for you and then we can discuss how I did it wrong and how you think it’s done correctly.
https://imgur.com/a/oksOx is just moving the thick line down on the y-axis so it matches up with the newer NASA graph.
No they didn’t. The data is still the same. The necessary adjustments changed, just as RSS and other temperature records have evolved (that’s why there are versions). Please do us the favor and graph the raw data and try convince anyone that this is the correct way to display the data …
Unbelievable. So now you’re reduced to claiming the government of India is a for-profit fossil fuel business…who we do “work” for here at NoTricksZone by writing articles supporting a skeptical position on climate alarm. SebastianH, you’re embarrassing yourself with your conspiracy theories. It’s probably best to stop before you do so (embarrass yourself) further.
That you actually believe we are “doing the work”
Yes, I understand that you are effectively calling Pierre and I idiots. Name-calling is what you’re reduced to when you have nothing substantive to offer.
We don’t influence governments to build 2,100 more coal plants here.
Wow, you seem to be oblivious to the circular reasoning you employ. You claimed that by posting articles skeptical of the position that we humans control climate with our CO2 emissions we here at NTZ do the work of the fossil fuel businesses…which I later clarified for you are mostly made up of government bodies who operate and oversee fossil fuel infrastructure development in their countries (a clarification that appears to be brand new information to you, as you seemed to think that the fossil fuel “industry” is benefiting from our articles here). Then, above, you even wrote that the Chinese and Indian governments are profiting business “enterprises”…which, by using your own words, we are doing the work of by promoting skeptical positions. So it is not a leap to conclude that you actually believe we are doing the work of governmental officials in India who make the decision to double their coal production…by writing articles here.
I have never written that “it’s all a hoax”. I purposely avoid using loaded, all-encompassing language like that.
I’m not using just graphs. I’m using text, as you have decided to manipulate the graphs. As I have now written multiple times, NASA (1981) indicated that the NH warmed by 0.8 C between 1880 and 1940, then cooled by -0.5 C between 1940 and 1970. Those figures have now been changed to +0.3 C and -0.1 C, meaning that 0.5 C has been removed from the warming and 0.4 C has been removed from the cooling. For verification, read the following text from Hansen et al. (1981) carefully, SebastianH:
According to NASA (1987), the globe warmed by 0.5 C between 1880 and 1950, as indicated by Pirazzoli, 1990 here:
The +0.5 C of documented warming between 1880 and 1950 has now been eliminated. NASA currently shows no warming between those two years. They’ve removed half a degree from past data. And you’re OK with this data manipulation because it fits the narrative you believe in.
They were changing past data.
And you wonder why we don’t consider you to be an honest person, SebastianH.
SabH needs some knowledge.
SebH wants to read here:
SebastianH and his ilk will not read or consider that which does not conform to his/their presuppositions regarding the control that we humans wield over the temperature changes in the oceans, weather events, and climate change in general. He is a believer, and nothing will shake his belief. There is no use.
you don’t seem to realize that what you have just written is exactly the way you behave, do you? Projecting this onto others because of your own inabilities and imagination of how things ought to be, is what you did.
SebastianH, still employing I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I comebacks.
Good one, SebastianH!
In Germany the whole state is pushing the issue to a point where not only the weak but otherwise straight thinking people believe in these views.
For a country that holds so much of its education system its unfathomable where it ends. Even more so since they went through another believe system some 70 years back with similar state wide propaganda. A guy like Sebastian has caved in, succumbed to this.
But its not only Germany it seems. Had friends over with a 8 year old boy from England. He grows up thinking cars are the evil of this world. Breaks my heart when I hear this.
Keep up the good work. I just hope we will at some point be able to have the climate books re-written with the truth so we can tackle the real problems of this world.
It’s amazing how ignorance can be so strong with someone. You really think it is some kind of believe system that everyone else but you is falling for and only you can see how it really is.
Is there any way you could be convinced that you are wrong? And are “papers” with questionable math and language enough for you to justify your behaviour?
I’ve never written anything that would resemble what you have just written. A large majority of engineers and geoscientists are skeptics. It’s not just me who questions the belief system you espouse that says humans actually control the temperatures of the oceans, the retreat or advance of glaciers, and the height of global sea levels…by emitting more or less CO2.
Provide a real-world experiment that shows how much (quantified measurements) CO2 concentration changes – in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) – heat and cool water bodies when increased or decreased. By how much does a body of water cool down when airborne CO2 concentrations are reduced by 10 ppm? What are the measurements from a real-world experiment?
I didn’t reply to you here.
Stay in wonderland …
But you do it in a very dishonest way by supporting nonsense and let it appear as if “they were on to something”. Either that or you misrepresent what is written in a paper to fit your cause.
You don’t have to believe in humans having a big influence on temperature via their CO2 emissions, but neither do you have to make up “arguments” to “support a skeptic viewpoint”.
You won’t stop it and that’s ok. But could you please provide any real-world experiment that actually supports whatever you feel is really happening? So far it’s only your (false) interpretations that we can read and whenever you actually claim something of your own it is hopelessly off from reality.
A large majority of engineers and geoscientists are skeptics
Perhaps you should actually read the links that are used to support this statement.
Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers
Engineers and Geoscientists: 36%
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
“The largest group of APEGA respondents [engineers and geoscientists] (36%) … express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Stenhouse et al., 2016
“A web-based survey was sent to all professional (i.e. non-student) members of the AMS [American Meteorological Society] in December 2011. … Members who said the global warming of the last 150 years was mostly caused by human activity (53% of full sample).”
Climatologists: 53% and Agronomists: 19.2%
Prokopy et al., 2015
“In 2012, a total of 22 state and extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. … About 53% attributed climate change primarily to human activities.”
“Extension educators are a unique set of agricultural advisors who serve to connect and translate research from universities to farmers in order to decrease risk to the farm enterprise and increase productive capacity and resilience. Typically, Extension educators have at least a Masters degree and are trained in agronomic sciences, which may not include climate sciences. … [O]ver 19% attribut[e] climate change primarily to human activities.”
Why do you think it is that a majority of engineers — who are educated in the basics of heat transfer physics — and geoscientists do not agree that humans are the predominant cause of climate change? Why is it that only half of meteorologists and just 20% of those with a Master’s in agronomy sciences are believers? It would not appear that your beliefs are as widely accepted as you imagine. Perhaps that’s why you consider anyone who questions your beliefs that humans control ocean temperatures by burning more or less fossil fuels as living in “wonderland”.
I think that the Sun warms the ocean…since that’s what real-world observations tell us.
The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.
Wasting time with SebH no worth it. He very skeptic about anything that no confirm him. He no skeptic when comes to what he believes. Not thinks he that he can be wrong.
Must open eyes and read and learn.
If he no understands that the oceans make the air warm or cold and are reason for climate he could stop thinking about atmosphere and look for reason why water warm. If air makes water warm and water makes air warm the temperature very high. But we no have very high temperature. We just have temperature.
It clear that only one thing can warm the other.
Sun warms water before air, so clear that air not warms water. Big mistake thinking that. Logic error.
No more wasting time. He no scientist.
And there they are again … your interpretations of data which always lead to a skeptic viewpoint.
From the first paper: “we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change.”
And your conclusion from that is “A large majority of engineers and geoscientists are skeptics” … yeah, right 😉
No, the “wonderland” is exclusively for people who bend reality to fit their idea of how reality should be or what is and what isn’t happening.
You couldn’t better describe skeptics like you and Kenneth. No need to project on other groups what is wrong with yourself.
The Sun’s energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface. The surface re-emitts through the atmosphere where most of that energy gets absorbed and re-emitted again. Nobody is saying that the Sun doesn’t warm the oceans. The jacket doesn’t warm your body when it is freezing outside either … so what is your problem? And why do you employ this strange writing style?
Only 36% of engineers and geoscientists are believers that humans are mostly responsible for climate change. That would indicate that 64% of engineers and geoscientists are not believers. I would call a 64-36 split a rather large majority, as it’s almost 2 to 1.
The problem, SebastianH, is that for you, it is a reality that humans can control how warm or cool the oceans’ temperatures get (and how much glacier melt and sea level rise we get) just by burning coal and natural gas, driving cars, and heating/cooling our homes. That’s your version of reality. We don’t agree that humans control ocean temperatures and glacier melt and sea level rise with our CO2 emissions. Therefore, we do not agree with your version of reality. And for that, you call us names like “deniers” and “idiots” who live in “wonderland”. Perhaps you’ve gathered that we have not found this argument of yours particularly persuasive.
That link is a gold mine, thank you. Of course you believe that nonsense because it sounds “sciency”, but one can take apart each paragraph of that text and find something incorrect. But I can understand how a skeptic with his/her presuppositions can fall for something like this and declare it to be “knowledge”.
You guys laugh at Wikipedia and come up with something like this. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
SebH has to make up his mind. Is it a gold mine or is it nonsense. Where John comes from Gold is precious. And if SebH finds Gold nonsense he not know real values.
He’ll call it a gold mine of nonsense.
But you will look in vain for any examples of what he means by that. Empty rhetoric is all he has.
Here’s another link about the CO2 effect on climate from someone SebH doesn’t like, but isn’t able to show anything wrong with.
It’s a lot less technical than most of his other posts, and after listing the failures of the “CO2 causes warming” meme, he comes to the obvious conclusion that… “The case for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is so poor, that it is clear that the real reason so many support this false hypothesis does not lie in the science.”
Yonason, gems like this:
At your new link:
Resident time of a single molecule is a different thing. Classic skeptic argument that couldn’t be more misleading …
@John: Gold mine of skeptic nonsense.
SebH seems to think I should be embarrassed by those quotes. I’m not.
And again, he STILL.will not even attempt to point out what he thinks is wrong with anything. All he does is hope you share his indignation that skeptics’ ideas aren’t in agreement with what his warmunista handlers tell him.
It’s abundantly clear he has no knowledge of the science involved, only the anti-science propaganda.
??? Only if you were the author.
It should be obvious from the quotes. If you think these are correct statements or aren’t straw man arguments than by all means stay in wonderland, be non-skeptic about the stuff you want to believe in 😉
Does calling the arguments of the other side propaganda make you feel better while you believe the nonsense?
Why do you believe that calling a conclusion “nonsense” is qualitatively superior to calling a conclusion “propaganda”? Does calling conclusions you don’t agree with “nonsense” make you feel better?
“Of course you believe that nonsense because it sounds “sciency”,…” – SebH
Read the writer’s bio, why don’t you?
Just like my other link where SebH wrote that the author couldn’t pass any science courses, even when he’s a PhD physicist who’s been successfully running his own business for years.
And I will AGAIN remind SebH that his writhing junk like this…
“but one can take apart each paragraph of that text and find something incorrect.”
…doesn’t make it so.
So, will SebH try to refute what’s been said, or will he again defer to spewing greenie agitprop.
Bonus link to a post on his blog that explains why increased [CO2] CAN’T cause any serious warming.
[…] Read the full story here. […]
The use of Mannian statistics (matrix operations) could reveal the Suns influence. It is only partly ironic, because used with care these matrix operations can detect what is not obvious.
I have to say that I find myself in contention with Mr Sebastian H. Like him, I keep a watch on the climate discussion.
Where we seem to differ seems to lie in how we choose to accept or not, different bodies of evidence. Mr. H. seems not be believe that Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 has been comprehensively disproved. Nor does he believe that Jones of CRU has likewise been comprehensively uncovered as behaving in extremely non-scientific ways.
I do not understand what it is about the evidence of their behaviours – for such it is, evidence – that Mr H. cannot accept.
It is almost as though Mr. H. does not want to believe; that he actually wants to believe the worst – just as Jones at CRU said ( and I paraphrase ) “Provided the warming halt does not last more than 15 years, we have nothing to WORRY about”. Why would Jones be worried about factual empirical, on-the-ground results, if he is a proper scientist?
Mr H.- would you be prepared to offer your ‘take’ on the empirically proven disparity between IPCC forecasts and the actual real slight warming that has taken place, which is circa one third of the forecasts. Not that they are forecasts of course – they are selected computer scenarios.
And are you aware that the international market in Carbon Trading is now of the order of £53 Billion annually, and that does not even include the derivatives. If an artifical market of that size, which would disappear if the gravy-train stopped running does not ring any warning bells with you, what would?
Mr Sebastian H, like so many believe in the ‘Global Warming’ fiction.
Their belief is beyond rationality. They can not contemplate their AGW view being wrong, as that would knock the stuffing out of the noble cause of ‘save the planet’. They all refuse to acknowledge that the world does not need them as saviors. Hubris drives them on as they imagine that human’s commands all aspects this world instead of correctly realizing that it is nature, both now and in the future.
If they ever came to the correct view of climate they would have to ask the next question — what is the UN-IPCC about if not to ‘save the planet’?
[…] He also advances the position that solar irradiance changes can explain modern temperature variations, which is consistent with other recent analyses. […]
[…] No Tricks Zone reminds us of how NASA GISS, keeper of temperature data for the U.S., has changed historical […]