At Die kalte Sonne site here, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse published an analysis of Gebbie et al 2019. What follows is the translation in the English.
A paper very worth reading from the USA from January 2019 in Science (Geoffrey Gebbie of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Peter Huybers of Harvard University, hereinafter GH19) is titled “The Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific cooling”.
It shows fascinating science.
The authors evaluated temperature measurements made in the deep sea by the famous expedition of the “HMS Challenger” in the 1870s. The ship sailed the Atlantic and Pacific, and probably provided the first data on the oceans down to depths of over 2000 meters. The recalibration of the old data alone is a work of art! What the paper found: The Pacific down in depths has cooled from 1870 to today, the Atlantic not.
With a model of the global waters down to such depths, the authors got to the bottom of the cause and concluded: The circulation of the deep sea means that the Pacific depths today are still influenced by the Medieval warm period (MWP, about 950-1250 AD) and the transition to the Little Ice Age (about 1500-1800 AD).
The warmed up water from 1000 years ago needs that long a time until it arrives at depths of 3000 meters in the Pacific! This implies two things: The MWP was a globally large-scale event, as we have also demonstrated in the MWP project (not represented in climate models in this way and so it is an “unknown factor” to the IPCC) and it is still at work today. The GH19 paper is evidence.
The temperature development in the Pacific from the paper:
Fig. 3: The temperature development in the Pacific to depths of 5500 meters. The MWP at the surface warmed the water until 1300 AD and the subsequent cooling of the “Little Ice Age” (LIA) later had a cooling effect on the Pacific Ocean. After 1750 the ocean was still “warmed up” and cooling continues even until today. Source: Supplements Fig. S5 from GH19.
Today’s climate still impacted by Medieval Warm Period
This is a wonderful example that our climate was NOT in equilibrium around 1750, like all climate models assume. We are still feeling the effects of MWP today.
If we now assume an equilibrium in the ocean around 1750 for the determination of the sensitivity “ECS“, i.e. the long-term (several centuries) temperature increase with a doubling of the CO2 concentration, and if we trace the warming back to anthropogenic impulses to this day, then we indeed neglect that there was still residual heat (completely unknown for models as already mentioned) in the 1750s.
CO2 effect on ocean warming overstated
The growth in the total heat content of the oceans to this day is therefore smaller than models assume and this leads to a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic effects. Nic Lewis also stated this in this commentary on the work by noting a significant reduction in the size of climate sensitivity from the findings of GH19, even if one follows the IPCC guidelines in the following calculations.
IPCC report needs fundamental revising
Should the findings of Gebbie and Huybers be confirmed, then the IPCC report needs to be fundamentally revised, especially for long-term temperature forecasts. But this also applies to the warming to be expected by 2100, as reflected in the TCR (transient climate response) estimates when the CO2 concentration doubles.
Reader F.B. posted a comment on Judith Curry’s blog for discussion at the beginning of January, 2019. In it he tried to derive the natural variability 1950-2016 from observations and NOT from models. Taking into account all assumptions made by the IPCC, what ultimately results is a climate sensitivity (TCR) of about 1.3 °C/doubling the carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere. If one adds the known influences of volcanoes, the Pacific El Nino/La Nina cycles (ENSO for short) and the solar influences (also assumed by the IPCC to be exactly the same) and takes into account the internal variability since 1950, one can only reconstruct the annual temperature trend only with this magnitude:
Fig. 4: Reconstructed global temperature since 1950 (dark blue) and the real observed (green).
The agreement is astounding and it was not created by the excessive fudging and tuning of many parameters, as is done in many climate models. Even the order in which the parameters are “tuned” plays an important role in the result.
Sensitivity of only 1.3°C
The good reconstruction results if a TCR of 1.3 is used, unlike the models for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, which do it by using 1.85. The TCR of 1.3 is the most important parameter for the results. That is 30% less warming than models see. This is also the result of Lewis/Curry (2018), which we reported here.
An additional result of this IPCC-conforming approach is that (almost) all longer-term warming, in the example shown since 1950, is assumed to be caused by “anthropogenic forcing”, essentially CO2. Longer-term studies also show this: if a similar approach is chosen and the time spans from 1870 onwards are investigated, then it inevitably follows that all tendential warming comes from anthropogenic drives, in this case since 1870. All such methods contain this requirement. Any long-term natural warming source is excluded by assuming our climate was in “equilibrium” in the 1750s, i.e. that it was not driven by long-term drivers and that only (short-term in the sense of decades) internal variability, volcanoes and ENSO had an impact on the climate, with the exception of even more long-term changes caused by the Earth’s orbit (ice ages, interglacial ice ages).
Climate sensitivity “likely to be lower”
Against the background of the paper by Gebbie and Huybers presented above, it is however highly questionable that influences acting on longer timescales can be neglected from the outset by the IPCC approach. In plain language, this means that the above-mentioned estimate of sensitivity is rather an upper limit and, considering the ocean warmth was not in climate equilibrium in the 1750s, it is likely to be lower.
Focusing on observations leads to surprises
We keep hearing, again and again, that science can hardly find anything new on anthropogenic climate change. “The science is settled.” But don’t fall for it! GH19 is a shining example of true science when it comes to climate. We look forward to further news and observations. If you don’t concentrate on models, but rather work on empirics, then we are always in for a surprise!
56 responses to “German Scientists Back Findings By Gebbie et al 2019, Believe Climate CO2 Sensitivity Even “Likely To Be Lower” Than 1.3°C”
“Longer-term studies also show this: if a similar approach is chosen and the time spans from 1870 onwards are investigated, then it inevitably follows that all tendential warming comes from anthropogenic drives, in this case since 1870. All such methods contain this requirement. Any long-term natural warming source is excluded by assuming our climate was in “equilibrium” in the 1750s, …”
Yes there another UN-IPCC evidence-less, crass assumption that climate is equilibrium.
There is no rhyme or reason for this assumption.
It might well be that the climate always tries to reach equilibrium but because of the very chaotic nature of most climate influencing processes, the variable coupling between them (some tight, many loose or variable in their exact nature), and the noisy influences (volcanoes, solar, flares, the odd meteor, etc.) it never usually get to an equilibrium. Or if it does reach equilibrium will be only for a short climatic time period (maybe only decades).
Certainly it can not be CO2 as the driving influence of how climate goes towards equilibrium, as so many proxy analyses of historical data records indicate otherwise.
This paper fits well with your report from last year ( https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/24/seismic-shift-in-climate-science-ipcc-co2-induced-warming-estimate-far-too-high-in-a-free-fall/ )
Where Kenneth again pointed out that to SebastianH, he had
“SebastianH has just debunked Nicholas Schroeder, as well as all the other scientists who do not find climate sensitivity to CO2 to be harrowingly high. How? He very substantively called what they wrote “nonsense” and “stupid”.”
Yep yet again we see SebastianH casually dismisses scientific papers, and the scientists who wrote them, because their results did not fully align with his cAGW beliefs. Evidence again of SebastianH demented bias when it comes to assessing science.
Well, you know you’ve won (whatever contest that was) when the opponent is so obsessed with you that it’s all he/she can write about anymore.
tomOmason, it is you who is severely biased towards an idea that rational people can only call nonsense. I know … you feel exactly like that is what is going on with all the other people disagreeing with you. You’ll likely also feel like I am just mirroring this back to you.
Well if you think the Kalte Sonne people are correct … everyone is entitled to an opinion. It definitely is further evidence that you are suffering from what you accuse me off. Just saying …
Yet another SCIENCE FREE post from seb
You forgot the irony tag, spike.
You really are the limit, believing you are that important, whereas in reality you are just another insignificant true believer in the cAGW nonsense. Very anti-scientific true believer.
You can’t even understand that even if CO2 were to have a significant effect on this planets temperature, it gets less so with each doubling. So how does the planet get to +20°C again as you believe? Is it by Hansen’s and your magical thinking? It certainly is not by real physics, as real physics does not depend on anyone’s opinion, or belief in magic.
And as this very good paper shows the most probable climate sensitivity to CO2 is not even close to what most activists believe. Observations, not failed computer models, show this to be the most probable.
You are making me feel very important in your world when you only write about me … no need to believe anything here.
Classy, mixing your belief with something everyone knows to be true to prop up your belief? Yes, the effect is logarithmic and not linear.
+20°C from what it would be without GHGs or +20°C from now? And global average or in a certain season in a certain region? Please specify what you think it is that I “believe”?
Then stop making this about opinions or beliefs! You are doing yourself a disservice by venturing into that realm.
In case you meant +20°C temperature anomaly from pre-industrial levels you can use the well known formulas to get to the heat content that would be required, infer the forcing necessary for this to happen und thus the concentration change over time if everything else stayed the same. It’s real physics and you claim to be experienced, so I am sure you can do that calculation, right?
If you say so, mr. “true believer”
I just want to make sure that you believe “it’s physics” and “the laws of physics” that says we’ll get 20 to 30 degrees of warming once CO2 levels reach 1400 ppm, as Hansen believes.
It isn’t “real physics” from “well known formulas” that says we’ll get 20°C of warming when we reach 1400 ppm CO2. It’s imaginary. It’s a modeled result. An assumption. The surface temperature couldn’t warm by that much until the oceans do, and the assumption that “concentration change” for CO2 causes the oceans to warm/cool by ____ Kelvin (??) has not been observed in the real world. So there’s no “well known formula” using “real physics” involved here.
SebastianH: “you can’t bear the fact that everything you believe in is imaginary”
Says the same person who believes 30,000 species go extinct every year, that the oceans are turning to acid so fast that species can’t adapt, that high CO2 causes mass extinctions, that humans can control the weather, wind, precipitation, the temperature of the abyssal ocean, hurricane intensities…just by burning more or less CO2.
Well, then let’s make sure you accurately state what’s written in that Hansen paper. +20°C average over land and +30°C at the poles, global average +16°C with a CO2 forcing of ~9 W/m² at around 1400 ppm CO2. Is there an error in their calculation or the way they used the laws of physics to calculate that kind of temperature anomaly increase?
Note: let’s say it turns out the forcing from a certain amount of CO2 is smaller/larger than what they used for their calculation, do you think this invalidates how this mechanism works? Why?
The rest of your reply seems to be the usual stuff about “we don’t know this or that” and imaginary assumptions. If that is what you believe, good for you … doesn’t make you a skeptic though, it’s just a sign of ignorance. So, do you believe a different CO2 sensitivity changes the physics involved? Or do you really claim that the physics used in those calculations are wrong?
It depends on which “laws of physics” you choose to believe in. Interestingly, the “laws of physics” seem to change over time, depending on the belief. For example, a few years ago it was believed that CO2’s effectiveness at increasing temperature diminished as it got higher. Consequently, increasing CO2 to 2400 ppm (8 X 300 ppm) – which would take “several thousand years” to accomplish by humans – would increase the surface temperature by less than 2°C. Today, you believe in different “laws of physics”, as you believe CO2’s effect will cause surface temperatures to rise by 20°C with only 1400 ppm. These “laws of physics” for CO2’s effect on surface temperature don’t seem to operate like normal, or real laws of physics. Why is that, SebastianH?
Rasool and Schneider, 1971
“Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide […] in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. … It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2 [~2400 ppm], which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2°K.”
Well, um, if the “different” CO2 sensitivity estimate from the “laws of physics” than Hansen uses states that CO2’s effect on surface temperature is about 0.02 K for doubling the “present” [380 ppm] CO2 concentration to 760 ppm…
“A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2.”
…then yes, we shall get a temperature change somewhere in the neighborhood of less than <0.1°C when CO2 doubles again and reaches 1400 ppm.
Why do you believe the "laws of physics" say we'll get 20°C surface warming with 1400 ppm, whereas other "laws of physics" estimates have us getting <0.1°C warming at about the same concentration (1400 ppm)?
Which one do you think I should believe in so that I can avoid being classified as a denier of the truth?
Better put than I could write, much appreciated. 🙂
Seeing as there is zero evidence that increased atmospheric evidence has any effect whatso ever on climate, and that basically everything Hansen put forward has been proven manifestly WRONG by reality…
… it would seem that his interpretation and understanding of the “laws of physics” is, like seb’s, tenuous at best
The actual “law’s of physics” actually preclude any possible warming by increased atmospheric CO2, because the lower atmosphere is controlled by gravity based thermal gradient and CO2 does not get a change to re-emit below about 11km altitude.
Seb seems to be almost totally ignorant of the “law’s of physics”, instead just “inventing” his own little Fantasy version that he is totally unable to back with any science whatsoever.
“Then stop making this about opinions or beliefs! You are doing yourself a disservice by venturing into that realm.”
Even this is nothing but your opinion, and therefore is wrong.
All you ever offer is your opinion.
I too offer my opinion, more often than not with quotes from scientists or scientific papers (I don’t always admit their attribution straight away though).
So no you are all about opinion — your dismissal of scientists and their works, you dismissal of other people’s arguments without offering any counter argument, that is all you do — it just your opinion.
Therefore by the evidence of the vast majority of your comments YOU are all about opinion and belief and NOTHING else.
“do you think this invalidates how this mechanism works?”
Ah.. the mythical seb “mechanism”. (spooky music)
Please describe it to us, seb..
(With empirical measurements to back up your fantasy, of course).
You do not really understand what I mean when I say it’s the laws of physics, do you? Otherwise, a reply like this could never exist. Yet here we are …
Just to be clear, the laws of physics states things like you need a force of 10 N to accelerate a mass of 1kg at 10m/s². If it turns out that the mass was really 2kg and as a result it only accelerates at 5 m/s², then the values change, but the physical law behind this mechanism doesn’t. Do you understand that? Because from what you write I am not so sure you do …
Do you think that you guys are offering counter arguments? It’s all about creative interpretations and accusing the other side of faking it or lying to you. Why should one actually put in the effort to “counter” this with science when none of you is really interested in that? Maybe a new reader of your blog not scared away by the nonsense is still motivated to do that, but I learned that it leads to nowhere on this blog. So I let you guys call me a troll and project your own problems onto me … who cares. And yes, I often offer just an opinion … my opinion is that one should be very skeptical about anything a member of your community puts out there. And yes, dismissing anything you write first is a good strategy to cope with the sheer amount of nonsense. If there really would be something worthwhile to consider in this pile of “skeptical science”, it would stick and could not be so easily dismissed. So far … nothing. Just demonstrations that you find things to be too complex to understand, which seems closer to the truth than you might think 😉
Correct! And this is precisely why your claim that we will get 20 K of surface warming once we reach 1400 ppm (or is it Rasool and Schneider’s 1.8 K with 2400 ppm…or Florides and Christodoulides’ 0.02 K with 800 ppm?) due to formulaic calculations rooted in “the laws of physics” is woefully misinformed. We don’t have observations or measurements for CO2’s effect on water temperatures. Instead, we have model-based assumptions and hypotheses of what we think might maybe possibly perhaps happen once we reach ___ ppm. That’s why the guesses are so wildly divergent…despite the modelers claiming they’re using the “laws of physics”. Obviously, your belief is we’ll get 20 K of warming at 1400 ppm. You don’t believe we’ll get 1.8 K at 2400 ppm. You definitely don’t believe we’ll get 0.02 K with 800 ppm. You choose your belief. Fine. But don’t tell me the “laws of physics” are at work.
“You do not really understand what I mean when I say it’s the laws of physics, do you?”
Those laws of physics that you can’t even explain, and have only a vague junior high level of comprehension of ????
Yes we know exactly what you mean by your PHANTASY FIZZICS,
and your mythical “mechanism”, which have also rabidly avoided explaining or providing evidence for.
It is noted that yet again, your post is basically CONTENT-FREE.
You twist and turn, then squeal —
“Do you think that you guys are offering counter arguments? It’s all about creative interpretations and accusing the other side of faking it or lying to you. Why should one actually put in the effort to “counter” this with science when none of you is really interested in that?”
Yes we offer a counter arguments, and so much more. But not just for you SebastianH, it only for all those that are willing to learn, for those who wish to be scientifically educated and literate about aspects of the climate. However from you essentially it is nothing but sneering and opinion. Opinions that are grounded in your utter faith in the cAGW mantra. It’s not that you don’t argue any science, it’s painfully obvious you can’t argue using science. It is beyond you.
You, like all hardened cAGW types, attempt to reduce the very complex nature of the climate to some simplistic rubbish about CO2 warming because your type can not get their feeble minds around how truly complex climate is. Hence your reliance on unvalidated and unverified computer models — because they and not nature give the answers you wish to see.
You (apparently) can not stand the idea of the climate being so complex that it is beyond these simplistic models you rely on. You do know and can explain how the UN-IPCC’s preferred models deal with humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation? With science or ‘tuning’ – i.e. with mathematical formulae based on a proper scientific understanding of reality, or do they just ‘tune’ for the required results?
Do humans understand all the many facets that make up how our planet’s climate changes. Most probably not, that is why there are still new discoveries made in this field of work.
That is why you casually dismiss me. Because what I see in the way climate changes grinds so hard against your beliefs and fears, you never have any scientific answers because you don’t really understand the science, you just recite the bits of the cAGW mantra you can recall or have bookmarked.
cAGW true believers just can’t answer because your and their paradigm is at odds with what changes in climate really shows to be happening — the evidence for which is often highlighted in the published scientific papers shown here on this blog.
Those same scientist and their scientific papers you casually dismiss without an argument but with just your sneering exaltation of fatuous opinion.
Still the merry game is up, and you have thrown in the towel. With no science to offer and with just your usual blather, sneers, and nonsense.
P.S. Just remind me, what is “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS), and why does it keep getting revised downward? 🙂
Fact free mockery and deceit is all SebH can ever muster.
Here’s just one of the many times he’s been caught lying. This one by myself.
And if you scroll down you will see Kenneth Richard’s comment in agreement. He’s caught and confronted SebH about his lying far more than anyone else has.
Says the one always replying in a fact free manner. You can do better, Yonason.
Nope, you are just misunderstanding everything others write. My reply to your accusation over there was probably deleted as I remember correcting you, so let’s try it here again.
Someone is the author of the blog post, Kirye.
This is not about what you wrote. I wrote that someone – the author – presented a graph of a major city that shows no warming.
You wrote that warming would disappear when the UHI effect would be removed. So all warming is caused by the UHI effect. Logic 101. But apparently the UHI effect isn’t warming Tokyo (major city mentioned) so …
You are making up what you think you read when I didn’t write whatever you imagined I wrote.
So seb, you have absolutely NOTHING to counter the FACTS or the DATA.
Just more mindless conjecture based on EMPTY opinion.
Nothing unusual about that, is there, seb.
“Says the one always replying in a fact free manner.” – an insignificant troll
You lied. I showed where and how. That’s fact.
Now you lie again, saying it’s “fact free.” You have no shame, but then you are a troll, so it’s to be expected.
Keep it up, so new readers can see just how perversely dishonest you are. 😉
And, no it wasn’t Kirye who came up with the material. She was just passing it on. You can’t blame your being wrong on her.
“You can do better, Yonason.” – SebH
You aren’t worth more than my being correct, without getting fancy. Too bad you can’t be better. And the funny thing is, the more you pretend, the more obvious it is to everyone you have no intention to even try.
The data is available, It shows NO WARMING this century
There was a slight step around the late 1990’s, which occurred in many Asian counties, but before that there was NO WARMING between 1950-1990
FACTS and DATA , seb..
Absolutely ZERO CO2 warming signature, because there was NO WARMING, in a country that built huge numbers of coal fired power stations over that 1950-1990 period.
Spike55, your first reply makes no sense in this context … or ever. Second reply is a prime example of how skeptics interpret data and then blurb about it. Well done.
Japan is warming despite what “steps” you are imagining into the “FACTS and DATA”.
I didn’t and you didn’t. That’s the fact.
Your reply is fact-free since you accuse me of lying, which I didn’t do. I explained to you where you went wrong. Deal with it. Trying to troll me all the time leads to nowhere, Yonason. If you aren’t doing this on purpose then maybe try to better understand what people write or ask followup questions that make sense. Don’t accuse people of lying when you go into automatic rage mode as soon as you detect opposing views.
Yonason, it’s really not that hard to understand what I actually wrote. “Someone – the author – presents a temperature graph of a major city.” … how is there any room to interpret it the way you are? Is there some secret code hidden in the English language that changes the meaning of words randomly when a skeptic reads them?
What are you trying to do here? Calling me dishonest and a liar while it’s pretty clear what you did over there. But hey, if there is hidden meaning in those words that only you can see, please teach me how to read these kind of things into what people write! Sounds like the perfect troll strategy and since you imagine me to be the troll I should improve my game I guess and learn from the best.
Thanks in advance.
“Japan is warming”
No its not.
Hasn’t warmed this century.
Look at the data yourself.
Oh wait, totally beyond your ability.
So I’ll help, This is the graph of that data since 1998.
Didn’t warm from 1950-1990 either, during the massive industrial expansion
Even blind Freddie can see the two step changes in the longer term graph.
Again, seb caught out using NON-CO2 based step changes to show NATURAL warming out of the LIA cold anomaly, then attempting attribute it ot CO2.
Its pretty disgusting and deceitful behaviour, even from a low-level troll..
“Fact free mockery and deceit is all SebH can ever muster.”
That indeed was all he offered. Fear that his belief is threatened renders the poor distracted soul mute on science.
What did I write on 27th November 2018? Ah yes: “then the strong positive feedback from water vapour, which forms part of the AGW orthodoxy, is probably a myth. This would mean that less than half of the warming that we have actually seen can be down to increased atmospheric CO2.”
This would inevitably imply that CO2 sensitivity was relatively low as this current thread indicates. However, because I don’t deny everything concerned with GHG orthodoxy, I am not treated as a “proper” sceptic!
You haven’t been expected to “deny everything concerned with the GHG orthodoxy”. Considering the name you’ve chosen for yourself, you’ve been expected to actually act accordingly and respond to the questions as to why you believe what you do. For example – the following. I’ll keep asking you these questions until you stop with your modus operandi: swarming in, taking a comment dump, and then refusing to respond to the questions that are posed to you. As long as you continue to take comment dumps, I will continue asking you these questions. Avoiding answering is anything but skeptic-like. That’s what believers do.
As of the early 1990s, it was still widely accepted that the land + sea global surface temperature rose by +0.5°C between 1880 and 1950. Not only that, but there was a +0.15°C warming between 1880 and 1910. Both trends are manifest in the NASA GISS graph (1987) here:
By 2018, NASA GISS decided to remove all of the +0.5°C warming between 1880 and 1950. It’s 0.0°C today. And instead of warming by +0.15°C, the 1880 to 1910 trend today shows -0.4°C cooling between those two years.
Considering we’ve had no new over-a-century-old temperature records entered into the NASA GISS data set since the 1990s, and yet we have had over a half a degree of warming removed from the early 20th century, why do you have confidence that what you now “know” about instrumental temperatures are accurate? Why no skepticism? Why do you just believe?
You’ve previously expressed no doubts that the current instrumental temperature data sets are accurate or at least “un-fiddled” with. (i.e., Skeptik: “The idea that scientists would deliberately fiddle their results strikes me as ridiculous.”) How then, Skeptik, can you explain such widely divergent temperature trends from the pre-1950s era, removing half a degree of warming from a data set that has no new data? I’ve asked you this question (and several others) many times now, and each time you refuse to answer. Why?
You have previously expressed the belief that CO2 variations have a modulating effect on water temperatures. As I recall, you’ve claimed that almost half of the warming in the last few decades is due to CO2 increases. You further claim this belief is rooted in the “established physics“. Also, you claim the greenhouse theory that says greenhouse gases warm and cool the oceans when increased or decreased has “no flaws” in it.
Given these past statements, I’m curious if you have any quantified real-world measurements that support this belief you have that almost half of the warming in recent decades has been caused by CO2 increases. How much warming occurs in a water body when the CO2 concentration above it is increased by say, 10 ppm (0.00001)? Again, real-world physical measurements. Do you have anything to support your belief?
Again, I’ve asked you this question many times. Each time you have failed to respond directly to it other than to once say that water (i.e., 71% of the Earth’s surface) is not a good way to “test” the GHG theory. And if we don’t have measurements of CO2 changes to water surfaces (and subsurfaces), why, as a self-described skeptic, do you nonetheless go ahead and unquestionably believe that CO2 changes heat and cool the oceans anyway? Why not more skepticism…or even curiosity?
Ok … then how about answering the following questions:
[-snip Seb, this is not a forum for you to misuse and to get into personal squabbles with the authors about every article. Post your opinions and comments on the articles that appear, and be happy with that. If you wish to engage in a personal discussion, then do it by e-mail. Again, you are free to start your own blog and to take your gripes there. -PG]
“…you are free to start your own blog and to take your gripes there.” -PG
Go for it, SebH. I’m sure you’ll get LOTS of traffic. 😉
Come on … now Kenneth looks like being not skeptic-like without him answering all those questions about his believes.
So Kenneth should have asked Skeptic those question via E-Mail as well? You guys are inconsistent at every turn …
Anyway, this “snip” says more than any possible reply could ever say. Thanks for showing us what being skeptic-like looks like.
Poor seb, still unable to muster one tiny bit of actual science.
Have another whimper, you poor little victim.
Start your own blog. All you keep doing here is trolling. When an article appears, then state opinion and be content with it. You think you can change people’s minds here by continuously dogging them with what is often junk science. This is not your platform to abuse.
SebastianH stop griping!
It’s obvious you appear to enjoy your time here, or is it that you’re paid to be here? Either way you keep coming back.
Here you get to try and score imaginary (in your head) points against those who’s ideas don’t tally with your deeply held beliefs.
However if you don’t find it so amusing here maybe you should ask your paymaster(s) for a different assignment.
Maybe consider commenting elsewhere, there must be somewhere that would recognize your vast intellect. 🙂
“Start your own blog”
But you spend your money and lie in bed forgotten
And wonder what you did it for
No one came from miles around
And said, “Man, who’s he?”
I would like to thank you for posting here. I’ve read four pages of articles and always looked forward to your responses and then Kenneth’s. It’s good to know there’s someone, who automatically denies every bit of evidence provided, which in turn forces Kenneth to provide even more sources for me to read.
I’m actually serious, please do not stop. Sorry to everyone else if SebH bothers you, but in my oppinion it makes the site better. Especially the evidence provided to refute SebH’s claims.
I agree with you, Sidian. I personally find most* of SebastianH’s contributions indirectly (and inadvertently in his case) helpful to the skeptical point of view. He provides us with the opportunity to underscore the vacuousness of the positions he espouses.
When it comes to the topic of climate science, I prefer to interact with those who disagree with me than the other way around.
*The only time I do not enjoy it is when the other side uses dishonest tactics or uses ad hominems or critiques the person instead of the substance or especially when he makes up positions that we have not espoused in concocting a straw man argument.
Please comment here whenever you are so inclined.
An audible chuckle here.
I’ve considered that, but what would one more blog showing how bonkers climate skeptics are, change in the whole scheme? You guys need to be opposed on your own turf.
I have no illusions about changing minds here. You guys are stubborn and can’t be convinced by anything.
Well, thank you I guess? I hope that was a joke though … what evidence refutes what I write? I am not claiming anything. It’s also not about automatically denying something. It’s about being highly skeptical about what gets posted in this corner of the internet. It sometimes feels like playing chess with a pigeon here, but I like that often enough the comments here show the level of understanding and how this community operates pretty well.
[snip – ad hominems directed at every regular commentator here, including Pierre, deleted]
What are you accomplishing by doing so, SebastianH? Other than doing what I suggested: you’re helping make our case for us by failing to support your beliefs with evidence.
And if we need to be opposed on our own turf, why do you bother interacting with the likes of us? Go to the pages of the skeptical scientists themselves who are gaining more and more followers by the day with their findings. Dr. Nikolov and Dr. Berry, for example, would love to have you attempt to expose their conclusions and publications as “nonsense”. Dr. Nikolov asks other scientists to debate him on a regular basis. For example:
Maybe you should educate him on how wrong he is. I’d love to see how you’d do.
“Sorry to everyone else if SebH bothers you”
Chuckle, no , seb AMUSES me,
His squirming and evasion of anything to do with actual science or fact is hilarious.
Its like throwing ball for a puppy, but keeping it in your hand.
I intentionally try to keep him posting his moronic dysentery.
…. and he just keep going.
So funny. 🙂
Please seb.. waiting for your response. 😉
“and can’t be convinced by anything.”
Mindless anti-science, zero-fact ranting BS will NOT convince anyone of anything.
You need to produce actual EVIDENCE.
Sadly and TOTALLY lacking in basically every post you have ever made.
Maybe we should do a survey.
If we did, would we find that…
97% of NTZ skeptics are convinced that SebastianH is a troll, and his continued unfettered posting of laughable nonsense will result in catastrophic runaway hilarity? //;o]
Since Skeptik didn’t start posting here until after I last cited this material, he probably missed it.
Water vapor gives negative feedback.</strong)
It's just one of the many ways in which the CO2 "greenhouse" effect theory breaks down on contact with reality.
Sure, the greenhouse effect isn’t real and all your imaginations are. Congratulations, you’ve solved the game!
I seriously doubt how mankind could have come this far with people like you existing. Great video link. Want to throw in some Dailymail or Tony Heller material when you are at it? That surely would enrich the experience of dealing with a (climate) troll for me.
You have proven time and time again that there is ZERO EVIDENCE for the existence of an atmospheric GHE from CO2.
You could always try to prove me wrong by PRESENTING SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
But again, you produce NOTHING to back up anything you rant about.
Apparently I’ve hit a nerve in my posts about him, or he wouldn’t be so frantically and irrationally attacking me.
I’M LOVING IT! hahahahahahahaha
Post Modern watermelon Leftists don’t like real science, as described by Feynman (related by Bob Carter).
Funny isn’t it, that the experiment in the video I linked to has all the elements that Feynman says are required for it to be science. SebH’s retort is fact-free, emotional, hysterical, confrontational, in short, everything science is NOT.
In fact, the video is organized and clearly develops a number of ideas. If the video author were wrong, it should be easy to show why he is. SebH doesn’t even make the effort. I can only conclude that the whole presentation is so over SebH’s head that he is at a loss to understand what was presented.
It’s so easy to see the contrast between the approach of a scientist, and that of a post-modern Leftist. The former is based on evidence rooted in reality. And the latter is based on feelings and tribal group think, regardless of whether the evidence supports it.
That whole Bob Carter video gives more insight into the phenomenal errors made by the anti-science scoundrels.
Oh, and in the link to Salby’s talk that Philip posted here…
…Salby also quotes Feynman on what science is, and then illustrates how IPCC “climate science” violates all those principles.
Also, here’s Salby addressing Post-Modern Science, and what’s wrong with it.
(there to about 1:28:30)
It’s no accident that his description of the post-modern science acolyte is a perfect fit to SebH and his alternative angry monolithic universe.
Today is a cold day here on earth. Minus 16 F today for the high and all the way to minus 36 tonight.
You can make up stuff and turn it into a mathematical model, it’ll look nice, spaghetti graphs are the cat’s meow. So darn cool, that cAGW is as good as it gets.
It is not going to change the weather.
Keeping track of it to build a future climate is a good exercise, you will learn something, a thing or two about a thing or two.
Lots of huffing and puffing going on at Climate Change Headquarters in the Climate Situation Room. lol
Must be with the gripping cold outside, they don’t dare leave, they’re afraid of the cold more than they are of the dark.
At sixteen below zero, I will remain indoors and stay warm. You have to have a healthy respect for any temperatures below zero, they can be deadly.
It is winter season in the Northern Hemisphere, it is not unusual to have inclement weather, right now it is colder than Hades outside.
Don’t want to get left out in the cold, that’s for sure.
Easy to see what can happen.
“You can make up stuff and turn it into a mathematical model, it’ll look nice, spaghetti graphs are the cat’s meow. So darn cool, that cAGW is as good as it gets.”
You mean something like this? 🙂
This article on Zero hedge today is quite a good read.
Nice comments there Robert.
However IMO the real take away line are —
“The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.
“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.
The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.
If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?
All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.”
In other words the professed certainty of the UN-IPCC that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate is just expensive hubris, misapplied confidence, and lots of misinformation.
Our climate is not well understood. How it acts/reacts to the many external forces, given that so many climate processes are loosely coupled and chaotic in nature, is still an unfolding puzzle. And the solving, or at least better resolution of the puzzle keeps getting diverted from real observations and science by the UN-IPCC cAGW advocates who care nought for science and all for politics.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
“This is a wonderful example that our climate was NOT in equilibrium around 1750, like all climate models assume. We are still feeling the effects of MWP today.”
Exactly the UN-IPCC’s assumption (that around 1750 the atmospheric CO2 levels were in equilibrium) is that a CO2 mediated climate was optimal. But is that what we should wish to aim for, is it what is truly needed ?
This (UN-IPCC assumption) implies that the climate and CO2 use by vegetation on the planet were also at optimum. But why should the natural venting of CO2 be at, or be near to, what are the planet’s natural requirements for life? That would imply natural CO2 production and use are linked, and that is a bit far fetched (even for the UN-IPCC).
The UN-IPCC’s implied assumption is back in 1750 the CO2/plant life balance was at optimum (and therefore matched all other life requirements on this planet), and so we should return to it.
But that was back in the LIA, why should we wish to have plant life struggling along at that level of CO2? Why should we wish to have all life on this planet restricted to 1750 values?
This idea is at it’s heart anti-life; for as atmospheric CO2 levels rises ALL life benefits from the consequential increase in plants’ abundance.
IMO any CO2 atmospheric level from 400 to 1000ppmv is preferable for today’s life requirements, thankfully with the expansion of coal use globally that will be achievable.
We burn fuel which generates some co2. Burning requires oxygen. The extra co2 promotes extra plant growth. The extra plant growth produces more oxygen.
What a marvellous system.
Clearly the ideas of “zero carbon” economies will necessitate zero burning otherwise the world’s oxygen supply will be reducing. Will be difficult to get that vaunted “equilibrium”.
Wonder how all that might work out?
As well, those who advocate a much reduced human population, why don’t they go the whole hog and advocate zero humans, and then lead by example also?
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] by P. Gosselin, January 29, 2019 in NoTricksZone […]