Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.
If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.
I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.
I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.
Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).
I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.
I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).
But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am to modest to point it out.
I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.
If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website. https://agree-to-disagree.com
Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.
I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.
National Geographic says of the Zanna study, “If all the heat the ocean absorbed from from 1955 onward were suddenly added to the atmosphere, air temperatures would rocket by more than 60 degrees.”
Per above, the average transit time for the deep Pacific is 1000 years, and it is expected that the deep Pacific won’t be in equilibrium with surface climate changes over shorter time scales.
In other words, humanity is looking at 6C warming every century for the next 1,000 years.
To prevent the sixth extinction event, this heat has to be converted to an energy carrier that extracts a portion of the heat from the ocean and converts it to the energy required by 9-10 billion people for use on land.
The heat of warming, 335 terawatts annually, converted at 7.5% produces 25 terawatts of primary energy and the waste of this is the heat that needs to be dissipated into space. The 310 terawatts unconverted by negative emissions ocean thermal energy conversion returns to the surface by advection in 250 years at which time it can be driven back down by a heat pipe and converted again into useful energy.
Ultimately, over 3250 years all of this 60 degrees is consumed and much of life on Earth is spared.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . An open letter to RealClimate.org . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
[ This open letter has been posted on a number of major global warming websites. ]
[ You can “disappear” this copy, but there are plenty of other copies for people to see ]
Gavin Schmidt from RealClimate.org is a wise person.
He gives good advice.
If Gavin gives you some advice, then I suggest that you take it.
Gavin recently gave all Deniers some good advice.
If Deniers don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, then don’t go around denying climate science.
That bit of advice is beautifully simple. It can’t be argued with. It is logically sound. It is a statement that Yogi Berra would be proud of.
But Gavin is a busy person. He doesn’t have time to give everybody the advice that they deserve.
To solve this problem, I have managed to “get inside Gavin’s head”, so that everybody can benefit from Gavin’s wisdom.
First, some advice for Alarmists.
———————————
Alarmists, if you don’t want to be called a stupid arrogant jerk, then don’t act like a stupid arrogant jerk.
Now some advice for climate scientists.
—————————————
Climate scientists, if you don’t want to be called an undemocratic third world dictator, then don’t act like an undemocratic third world dictator.
Even Gavin could benefit from some “Gavin” type advice.
——————————————————-
Gavin, if you don’t want to be called an obnoxious Tamino-like character, then don’t act like an obnoxious Tamino-like character.
.
I think that I am getting the hang of giving out wise advice.
I think that I will quit while I am ahead, with one last piece of advice for Gavin.
Gavin, if you want to “weasel” out of answering any difficult climate questions, then call the questioner a Denier. Because nobody is expected to answer questions from Deniers.
Sorry, Gavin. I can see that you already knew that last piece of advice.
Gavin wrote to Sheldon Walker, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”
The truth is that most of the people who use that term do not restrict it to know-nothings. Anyone who disagrees with even the most tenuous aspect of climate alarmism gets called a “denier” by climate alarmists (often from behind anonymous handles like “t marvell,” “DukeSnide,” “Mal Adapted,” “Al Bundy,” etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the disagreement is based on mere reflexive gainsaying or solid evidence.
In fact, most of the people who use that pejorative term also insist, ironically, that there is no such thing as “solid evidence” against climate alarmism.
For instance, when I show graphs like these as proof that CO2 level does not significantly influence the rate of sea-level rise, and thus that the IPCC is wrong to claim that rates of sea-level rise depend on emission scenarios or RCPs, I usually get called a “denier,” or worse:
Sea-level continues to rise in some places and fall in others, at rates not significantly different from 90 years and 105 ppmv CO2 ago.
All that additional atmospheric CO2, CH4, etc. has not significantly altered sea-level trends, thus far. (Nor, contrary to Leif Knutsen’s comment, has it caused worsening droughts, forest fires, or storms.) The major effects, so far, are modest & benign warming (mostly at high latitudes, where it makes frigid climates a little bit less harsh), beneficial “greening” of the earth, and agricultural gains.
Those are proven facts, yet most climate alarmists refuse to admit them, and many of them are the very same people who call those who disagree with them “deniers.”
It also doesn’t help that the name-callers are often unwilling to engage in civil discussions with those who disagree with them, and that they even often seek to censor those who disagree with them, if they can. For instance, even though several people here, including Gavin, have written replies to Sheldon Walker’s comment, including a question, he is not permitted to respond to them here. When he tried to respond, his very measured comment was removed to “The Bore Hole.”
“Valid criticism does you a favor,” noted Carl Sagan, but it takes a big person to be properly grateful for it. Sheldon’s criticism was valid, constructive and gentle, but I’m not detecting any gratitude for it.
Matthew R Marlersays
I wonder if I am a “denier”, a “climate denier”, or a “climate science denier”.
Dan DaSilvasays
Gavin, if a person believes that the danger of global warming is overhyped is that person a denier on that fact alone?
Mr. Know It Allsays
Would Europe benefit from a stopping of the Gulf Stream? Since the northern part of the NH is warming faster than any other place, why does Europe need heat from the Gulf Stream? Perhaps the stoppage is a good thing? Last I heard Europeans were dying like flies a couple of summers ago in the extreme heat.
“Once again, the ridiculous troll “Victor” is leading everybody by the nose. His is the 2nd comment posted on this thread, and after that ALMOST EVERY COMMENT is about Victor.”
Including this one! Lol! You guys crack me up.
“Wonder why he continues posting his clumsy, clownish denialist BS here? That’s why.”
No, I post here to inject a measure of common sense into the proceedings. But I have to admit, I do enjoy getting all you guys so riled up. It amuses me to see how so many of you can write so much without actually saying anything. And all the feeble attempts at bullying make me feel like I’m back in eighth grade. Nostalgia.
Now as to the deep inner meaning of the phrase “cooling down,” seems to me that when we have a year that’s cooler than the previous three, it’s accurate to see that process as a “cooling down.” The notion that this phrase implies a cooling trend lasting beyond that year is pure assumption, a spécialité de la maison in these parts.
And yes, “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.” I knew that. But knowing the sun will come out is NOT the same as being able to predict the climate. Most people know that too — but not Al Bundy. If things get warmer over the next few years, Al will take that as proof he was right. And if things get cooler, he’ll find a way to get around that by invoking various “natural forcings” that distorted an underlying warming trend. That’s how “science” works, no?
And yes, the “hiatus” from 1998 through 2015 remains, regardless of anything that happened after that. Just as the hiatus from 1940 through 1979 remains, despite the temperature rise that took place over the following 20 years. Once again you folks are assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about, because you see what you want to see and ignore all else. The definition of confirmation bias.
To predict how climate change/global warming will affect a country, you need to know what the country’s current temperatures are, for the average hottest month, the average month, and the average coldest month.
But the IPCC, and Alarmists in general, don’t want you to believe that. They want you to believe that ALL warming is “BAD”. And that ANY warming is “BAD” for EVERY country, no matter what that country’s climate is.
Next time that you talk to an Alarmist, ask them if global warming is “bad” for Russia (temperature data for Russia is shown in the article).
====================
This article contains 3 graphs, and 1 table.
The table is at the end of this article, and lists all 216 countries in alphabetical order, along with the region, population, and temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
The 3 graphs each list all 216 counties, along with a bar graph showing the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month, for each country.
====================
It is fun just browsing through the graphs, seeing the temperatures of the different countries, and trying to explain why different countries have different temperatures.
But eventually, you will probably want to look up a particular country (like the country that you live in). Because there are 216 countries, you might find it hard to find a particular country. You can use your knowledge of a countries temperatures, to help you to locate it on a graph.
If you live in Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Chad, Qatar, Sudan, Niger, or Pakistan, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average hottest month, then I suggest that you look at the bottom of the graph (they all have high average hottest months).
If you live in Mongolia, Russia, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Canada, Finland, Kyrgyzstan, or Armenia, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average coldest month, then I suggest that you look at the top of the graph (they all have low average coldest months).
If you live in England (which is listed under the country name “United Kingdom”), then I have to say “bad luck”. Not everybody can live in a country with nice temperatures. I am just joking. But United Kingdom actually has the 7th lowest average hottest month temperature (+19.8 degrees Celsius, that is colder than Finland, and Russia). I lived in London for about a year, and I was amazed at how nearly everyone in England gets badly sunburned, whenever there is a sunny day. It is because they don’t get many sunny days, so they like to enjoy them, when they occur.
====================
Time to get serious again. You can’t search for a country using the browsers “find” function, because the graphs and the table are all pictures. But there is a fairly easy way to find a particular country. Look it up in the alphabetical table at the end of this article. Memorize (or if you are like me, write down) the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
To find the particular country on the graph sorted by the hottest month, find the countries average hottest month, in the hottest month “continuum”. The country will be near that position, in the hottest month “continuum”.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know what Russia’s average temperature is?
I am guessing, not many.
If you told them that Russia’s average temperature was +0.2 degrees Celsius, how many would have enough science and mathematics knowledge, to say whether that was hot or cold (especially American children, who are not familiar with Celsius).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russians live at an average temperature, which is near the freezing point of water?
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that the average coldest month in Russia (the coldest winter month), is -21.1 degrees Celsius (yes, that is MINUS 21.1).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russian children are also taking a holiday off school. To demand that the world increases global warming, so that they can survive in the future.
I am guessing, not many.
To increase your knowledge of other countries temperatures (average hottest month, average month, and average coldest month), read the article at this link:
Why is Climate Science different?
=========================
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
We have it on authoritative authority of a US Congresspersonage that the world will end in 12 years (now 11y 10m). Thus, there’s really no need to do anything, because no actions taken now will have any significant effect within that time.
The total global sea ice area coverage over 15 percent per the CHarctic daily graph from the US national snow and ice data center just dropped below 15 million square kms. That is the lowest recorded since 1981, when that record started. Lowest ever for Antarctica, lowest this time of year for the Arctic. Here:
Climate scientists claim to be able to make a radiative budget of the whole Earth, but they are not even able to make a radiative budget for a single molecule, or for the collision of two molecules.
They still rely on the “ghost photon” theory of the bohrian atomic model, which is an oversimplification of what really happens when a photon collides a molecule.
Moreover they confound absorption of infrared energy with global cinetic energy and with thermic energy… Three very different things with different causes and different results.
Thus, they believe in the existence of atmospheric effects that don’t even exist in reality. Sad, but true.
Why don’t you let “cranks” post their theories directly on “The Crank Shaft” thread?
I have a theory, that if you wrap a climate scientist in tinfoil, then they can no longer deny absolute temperatures.
Why is Climate Science different?
============================
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
What are the two scenarios pertaining to the global mean temperature in the Earth Energy Budget ?
Let’s place our theorical thermometer, our beloved and tiredless perfect blackbody in the low stratosphere of the Budget…
The best case is found by removing all the fluxes that are not radiative (yes, don’t ask me why, but strangely, they mix radiative and non radiative fluxes in their radiative theory…).
And doing so, the Earth Energy Budget predicts an actual global mean temperature of 65,8°C or something near, if I recall correctly.
Then, the worst case is by including all the fluxes at ground level, even the non radiative ones, let’s do like them !
And what does one find ? A temperature superior to 90°C, dangerously approaching the ebullition point for water !
So best case scenario: 65°C+, worst case scenario: 90°C+, instead of the experimental 15°C for the global mean temperature…
The IPCC claims that climate scientists have an incertitude of tenths of degrees for the temperature in an hundred years… but in reality they have an incertitude of tens of degrees on the prediction of the actual temperature !
Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi hi
Real Scientistsays
“The climate sensitivity of the model is around 3°C global warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration, which is at the center of the range of current best estimates of climate sensitivity that range between 1.5 and 4.5°C”
*current best estimate*
lol
The “current best estimate” of climate sensitivity has been 1.5K-4.5K for nearly 40 years now. So either:
1) climate scientists have learnt nothing in the past 40 years (plausible, given the vast majority are primarily concerned with and selected for their politics rather that their scientific ability), or
2) climate scientists are horrible at estimating confidence intervals, or
3) the climate sensitivity confidence interval is manipulated to ensure that it includes values likely to provoke alarm, or
4) all of the above.
Either way, only a fool would base economy-destroying policy on the recommendations of climate scientists.
Brian G Valentinesays
So what caused the depression in the 70’s, Gavin? The reflection from aerosols could not possibly have been that large to cause that.
These data are as BOGUS as YOU ARE!
Victorsays
#76 BPL: I haven’t gone wrong, Victor. Correlation is a simple number with a formula to calculate it, and I got it right. If I didn’t, show the math error. If you can’t show a math error, shut up, because no matter how you gas about what correlation “really” means, you can’t just make up your own definitions of words.
V: There is a difference between math and science, Bart. The “correlation” you think you found is meaningless, since it applies to only one 20 year period, out of the last 130. As I wrote in the conclusion of that blog post:
Anyone following the analysis presented above should better understand why I’m so skeptical when it comes to the excessive reliance on statistical methodologies when attempting to evaluate scientific evidence. As a wise man once said, “If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.”
Victorsays
#37 Dan: Everyone needs to remember that Victor has shown time and time again that he has no clue about the scientific method, is too insecure to admit to being wrong in the face of facts and laws of thermodynamics, and cowardly avoids the peer-reviewed science since it does not tell him what he wants to believe. He is a classic example of poor scientific education and inability to think critically.
V: I could say exactly the same things about you, Dan. But I won’t. :-)
Dan: Yet he somehow thinks he knows something that literally every single professional climate organization (including the National Academy of Science) in the world do not. Talk about absolute scientific ignorance and arrogance. Yet he flaunts it in desperation for his insecurity and inability or want to learn.
V: It’s called “skepticism,” Dan. Usually considered a healthy attitude among real scientists.
Erik Lindebergsays
29 zebra wrote: “You are certainly correct that most people do not understand how mathematics differs from science. However, your position with respect to “proof” in science is less than rigorous.
In science, we have facts. We can “prove” them empirically; for each instance of an experiment, you can’t argue that a result coinciding with the prediction (hypothesis) doesn’t constitute “proof” of the correctness of that prediction.”
Yes I can. Even if you put ‘prove’ in hyphens it does not help, we cannot a prove a theory with even the most accurate experimental measurement matching a prediction.
Thousands of accurate measurements were evidence for Newton’s laws of motion. However, Einstein proved Newton wrong with the theory of general relativity (GR) and new even more accurate measurements brought evidence to support for GR. Even if Newton’s laws were sufficiently accurate to land man on the moon, they were not accurate enough for satellite GPS navigation which relays on the GR. However, when GR was confronted with quantum mechanics new formulations are needed, and so it goes on and on.
The best we can do for a theory is to provide supporting evidence, but we cannot prove it. To put prove in hyphens contributes with nothing but confusion.
Coeur de Lionsays
Luckily the Paris Agreement is never going to affect the inexorable rise iin atmospheric CO2 as people lift themselves out of dire poverty with coal fired power stations, India and China leading and many other countries following. So let’s waauage our nervousness by taking another look at how much CO 2 affects the weather. (Not much, you’ll find
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote referring to Fig 1: “What is shown are the winds in the key sector of the Amundsen Sea, centered on ~71°S and ~108°W, with observations in blue….”
Why is that sector “the key sector”?
What kind of instruments were used to obtain the observations in blue and how many stations were used? How frequently were measurements taken? Were the instruments on a buoy, a ship, a satellite, on land, weather balloon, or something else?
From Fig 1, there are no “observations” prior to 1980, only models, correct? If so, we really don’t KNOW what the winds were doing prior to 1980, would you agree?
Just based on the blue “observations” in Fig 1, I see only miniscule changes in the wind speed and direction from 1980 to 2019, would you agree? Thus, the only real changes in Fig 1 are in the models, right?
Per Google Earth,the Thwaites Glacier is 168.5 miles south of 71S, 108W. At 71S, 108W, the water is ~7,500 feet deep, but just 12 miles south of 71S, 108W the water is only 1600 feet deep due to a “ridge” or plateau on the bottom – the continental shelf I’m guessing. Does that change of depth affect the water currents and do models take that into account? I’d think with the reports recently of a Manhattan-sized hole in the Thwaites that a lot of study has been done in that area.
Has anyone made a prediction of how long before enough Antarctic ice that is currently sitting on land melts to cause a noticeable change in the ocean level? (Noticeable by a beach-going fisherman, for example, not by a satellite instrument.)
Is ice still accumulating on the other side of Antarctica as reported by NASA in 2015?
49 – MA
“Keeling had heard about the CO2 greenhouse effect, but it had yet to show up in the global temperature record by the early 1960s.”
Huh? I thought there was a clear trend upward in global temps since the first lump of coal was burned to run a steam train, no? So, are you saying there was no increase in global temps for the 100+ years of coal, oil and gas burning from say 1860 to 1960? How can that be if CO2 was rising steadily? That defies AGW theory doesn’t it?
Mr. Know It Allsays
86 – KVJ
“The only thing we know for sure is this: we need to cut these emissions as fast as possible. Starting now! And we haven’t even started yet. Why not?”
Great question! Please tell us why YOU haven’t cut your emissions to near zero. Solar is cheap – I know because of many comments on RC that say it is so. Since it’s so cheap, and since EVs are so awesome (as claimed by most here), your question is of great importance.
If all the people who believe AGW is a problem would walk their talk, emissions would have been cut in half several years ago.
John Swallowsays
It appears that Eric Steig has no intentions of allowing my post of 8/30/2019 being exposed for others consideration and it is obvious that Eric Steig does not feel that it is worth his time to address the issues that I presented regarding what the conditions were over 100 years ago when Mawson SAILED on the Antarctic continent to establish two bases: the Main Base at Commonwealth Bay led by Mawson, and the Western Base at Queen Mary Land led by Frank Wild. I will bring up another issue that I will receive no answer for either. Where did these sea level rise figures come from? “The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss).”
I will present to you what the NOAA Tides and Currents (NOAA / National Ocean Service) that was Revised: 08/08/2018 puts forth for the Relative Sea Level Trend for 999-003 Argentine Islands, Antarctica;
The relative sea level trend is 1.38 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.39 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1958 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.45 feet in 100 years. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-003
This is for the Relative Sea Level Trend for 999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica;
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
It is obvious that there is a large discrepancy in what you want your loyal followers to believe and what is shown by these two valid reporting stations regarding sea-level rise in Antarctica. This brings about this observation; the duty of science is to search for the truth and then report that truth. Have you and the rest of your team done that in this instance?
John Swallowsays
I can see that this will take some time and effort because I like to deal with what is the truth and not conjecture.
First off, I do not put credence in what Wikipedia puts forth for the reason I will present in a separate comment. “Antarctic in Tromso harbor, 1898” Last year in Sept we were in Tromsø, Norway to board a cruise for a trip on the ‘Richard With’ to Trondheim, Norway. Before we left Oslo we saw the ‘Fram’ that Amundsen used when he went to the South Pole and also the ‘Gjøa’ that was the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage. Roald Amundsen, with a crew of six, traversed the passage in 1906.
You issue the site; “The monthly Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
This site takes issue with your saying; “In the Antarctic, the sea ice is mostly a seasonal phenomenon, expanding in the Austral winter–ie., at this time of year–and melting back to the shore in the “warm season” of January and February.” and that is simply not true as the site shows if you look at where it states; Median ice edge 1981-2010 & also that the slope trend is 0.6+/-0.7 % per decade.
You need to consider what was happening back in 2014 when the greatest Antarctic Sea Ice extent was recorded.
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global-snow/2015/08/Antarctic_daily_seaice.png
Please pay close attention to this report from National Geographic;
“A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.”
“[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.”
“The ship, the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, is waiting for emergency help—though help might take some time to come, given a blizzard that pummeled the area. The ship locked up in the ice on Christmas.”
“The vessel hasn’t moved in the last two days, and we’re surrounded by sea ice,” said Chris Turney, leader of the modern-day Australasian Antarctic Expedition, said in a video posted on Twitter. “We just can’t get through.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#
Understand how different the ice conditions were in 1913 when Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition could go to the shore and how in 2013 this global warming advocate, Chris Turney, was trapped in the ice. If you go to the National Geographic site you will observe that in 1913 there was basically no sea ice where Douglas Mawson was able to go ashore at Commonwealth Bay. Tell me what conclusions that you develop from this fact and if “The Antarctic ice sheet is melting and, yeah, it’s probably our fault.” can possibly be true when this is what was recorded on August 10, 2010.
“New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
[…]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent’s eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location. (Related: “South Pole Expeditions Then and Now: How Does Their Food and Gear Compare?”)
Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-coldest-place-on-earth-antarctica-science/
The ship, the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, is waiting for emergency help—though help might take some time to come, given a blizzard that pummeled the area. The ship locked up in the ice on Christmas.
“The vessel hasn’t moved in the last two days, and we’re surrounded by sea ice,” said Chris Turney, leader of the modern-day Australasian Antarctic Expedition, said in a video posted on Twitter. “We just can’t get through.”
John Swallowsays
Eric; Thank you for the analogy. You say that the ice in West Antarctica is melting from below. “The defining characteristic of West Antarctica is that the majority of the ice sheet is “grounded” on a bed that lies below sea level” so it for sure has contact with the sea water that is running at McMurdo 0°C/32°F & Marambio Base 0°C/32°F https://seatemperature.info/december/antarctica-water-temperature.html
The melting could also be caused by the volcanoes; “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has many subglacial lakes beneath it; geothermal heating is thought to contribute to the melting of the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, the extent of this, and the rate, is very poorly known and currently not included in glaciological numerical models. Actual volcanoes may, during eruptions, melt quite large portions of the ice sheet around them”.
It is often well to see what was happening in the past to understand the present, such as this
The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939) Thu 21 Jul 1932
A Warmer World.
SOME great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. Commander L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed.
Sir James Ross, who went out on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.[…]
If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.
Please allow me to rephrase that comment to; I seldom use Wikipedia as a sources of information on any matter such as the climate for this reason….” & if you can’t see from what I posted from:
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article
It is amazing how Kevin McKinney can now come to the conclusion that; “In other words, you’ve found an excuse not to consider information you find inconvenient. (Which must be taken to mean in Kevin McKinney’s opinion that all information must come from Wikipedia without having the ambition to find other sources”.
Please try not to be so ridiculous.”
Then I am admonished by nigelj who said that I; “quoted wikipedia himself several times above, along with the NY Times and both for the climate issue. So his assertion doesn’t make much sense.” I used a photo that I needed to make my point and it was on Wikipedia.
Permission details
This image is of Australian origin and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (August 2014).3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bay#/media/File:F._Bickerton_looking_out_over_seas_near_Commonwealth_Bay.jpg
It appears that Kevin McKinney & nigelj have very little to occupy them if they see fit to make an issue out of this. By all means, make Wikipedia your only source of information, if that is what makes you feel comfortable.
I leave you with this thought that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
How large is the Sun compared to Earth? Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
Al Bundysays
Charlie Brown,
“It’s probably our fault”
Wishy washy much? That “probably” totally ruined the post.
Mr. Know It Allsays
71 – Al Bundy
“Charlie Brown,
“It’s probably our fault”
Wishy washy much? That “probably” totally ruined the post.”
Exactly! But if that didn’t do it, this one did:
“But the physics linking wind variability and CDW inflow is complex, and not everyone agrees with our view on this. Indeed, it is most certainly an oversimplification. Furthermore, as many authors has emphasized, there are complex feedbacks and internal ice-sheet and glacier dynamics involved, and it’s not as if there is a one-to-one relationship between changing winds and glacier retreat.”
And this one just beat that dead horse to a pulp:
“Third, even without the first two caveats, we are far from proving that the ongoing ice loss from Antarctica can be attributed to human-induced climate change.”
Hmmmm:
“The key finding is that we now have evidence that the increasing loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a result of human activities — rising greenhouse gas concentrations in particular. Now, some may be surprised to learn that this wasn’t already known.”
We have been told for HOW LONG that the Antarctica is melting because of AGW, yet, just now, in 2019, is it shown to “actually” be the case? Have they been lying to the public all these years?
It’s OK for a CC scientist to say this, but if a denier says it they should be thrown in jail, or worse:
“But there has been little direct evidence that what’s happening to the ice sheet itself can be attributed to human-induced climate changes. Consequently, there has been no paper published that makes a strong claim about this. Indeed, a formal solicitation of expert views in 2013 showed that opinion was pretty much evenly divided on whether observed changes to the Antarctic ice sheet were simply part of the natural variability of the climate/ice-sheet system.”
The above paragraph is exactly why many are skeptical of AGW – the earth climate HAS always changed, and always will. Yet, they should be thrown in jail.
Skeptics will be on this like stink on poop:
” This is what Richard Alley is referring when he says that the evidence for forcing by natural variability was strong, and it throws a lot of cold water (no pun intended) on the purported link with human activities. But that’s not very satisfying.”
Do scientists “argue” or demonstrate with evidence?
” What we argue, in brief, is that although ENSO does indeed dominate the wind variability in the Amundsen Sea on timescales from interannual to multi-decadal, there is also a longer-term trend in the winds, on which the ENSO-related variability is superimposed.”
“….plausible” and “..probably the best current estimate”? Is that science or politics?
“While we can never know exactly what happened prior to the advent of satellite observations in the late 1970s, the PACE ensemble provides a set of histories that is plausible, and compatible with modern data. This is probably the best current estimate of how winds have in fact varied in this region.”
“Strong westerlies”? I thought your reply to a post above said this is near the zero velocity line? So, are they near zero, or “strong”?
” But at the same time, the prevalance of strong westerlies in the Amundsen Sea has gradually increased throughout the 20th century.”
“Assuming”? Is that science or politics?
“Second, we are assuming that the Amundsen Sea shelf-edge winds are indeed the most relevant aspect of the system to consider.”
All of the above makes this highly questionable:
“Although we humans have evidently caused a long-term increase in westerly winds along the Amundsen Sea coast (which is bad for the West Antarctic ice sheet), the future is not yet written (which is an opportunity). Lowering greenhouse gases to a more modest rate of increase might be enough to prevent further changes in those winds.”
Back to the quonset hut on that ice flow! Need more data! Where’s that grant proposal form? :)
Dan DaSilvasays
How many here believe that the future of the climate is so dire that any means necessary is the only viable path forward? Namely the retraining of the most outspoken deniers. Those countries whose government’s laws allow the enforcement of ideological purity should do so. Maybe a series of pleasant camps where offending parties can be retrained.
While this would seem improper to some the consequence of climate change must be elevated to such a high level that the need for retraining of those blocking the path forward will reach a consensus. Countries with laws forbidding such action must redefine basic human rights in a way to put the masses ahead of the individual. The current methods have failed and this is the only path forward. We can save the world comrades but on by forceful action.
After reading many comments my concern is that many here will agree.
Mr. Know It Allsays
52 – b1daly
“..The Republicans are actually climate change denialists, and as much or more power than the Democrats despite being supported by less than half the population because of quirks in the demographics of the US. Until they are outvoted any constructive action here is impossible.”..
Not true. Republicans explicitly believe in climate change. They specifically believe the science (and history) which clearly shows the climate has always changed just as it is doing today. They just don’t believe that FFs are driving it because it has occurred long before FFs were burned. Also, constructive action can be achieved today, NOW. If all the believers will just walk their talk, emissions will drop BIG LEAGUE, possibly up to 50%. More walk, less talk.
;)
67 – Mal
“The current POTUS didn’t require a majority of votes, after all. Again, here’s hoping.”
Not true. He got the majority of electoral votes. That is how you win the Presidency in the USA, otherwise only the high population states would matter. It’s all spelled out in the Constitution.
;)
Dan DaSilvasays
BPL
Have you ever open your mind enough to wonder why in the history of the world no other science has depended on consensus like climate change? It is because nobody has any idea what the hell is going on. Even the IPCC not can bear to fudge the sensitivity down to narrower than 1.5-4.0. Go to your scales it says you weigh somewhere between 150 and 400 pounds great tell your doctor. The great thing about science is that it informs how much we do not know. (Not its wonderful achievements like the A-Bomb and air pollution.)
In Galileo’s time, it was dangerous to disagree with the scientific consensus that time will come again. Please do not hasten that day Barton.
Victorsays
“When it comes to climate science, there is a small group of people who refuse to acknowledge the facts that have convinced almost the entire scientific community.”
Here’s a sampling of some of the so-called “facts” and why I have trouble acknowledging them:
FACT: There’s a long-term correlation between CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels and global temperatures.
Wrong. No such correlation exists. The steep temperature rise between 1910 and 1940 was largely due to factors other than CO2 emissions. (“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming. https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)
During the following 40 years or so (ca. 1940-1979) we see a steep drop in temperatures followed by a leveling off — no significant warming, while during the same period CO2 levels rose substantially. From ca. 1998-ca. 2015 we see only a very slight temperature increase (the so-called “hiatus”) while CO2 levels continued to soar. The ONLY period when both temperatures and CO2 levels rose more or less in tandem was 1979-1998, only 20 years.
FACT: The rate of sea level rise has accelerated due to climate change.
Wrong. It has in fact declined:
“Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric [i.e., glacial] mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” Fasullo et al., 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245)
FACT: the so-called hiatus since 1998 has been erased thanks to recent data corrections as published by Thomas Karl et al.
FACT: Global temperatures have been rising at an alarming rate.
Wrong. From 1998 until the very unusual El Nino of 2016 there has been only a minimal rise in global temperatures. The current temperature that so many find so alarming is largely due to the steep increase that took place from 1979-1998, over 20 years ago.
Advocates of the mainstream view have, of course, been remarkably inventive in coming up with various theories that conveniently explain away the evidence noted above. If there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures it must be due to certain factors that are masking an underlying correlation. One favorite is the effect of industrial aerosols, whose cooling effects can supposedly explain away the embarrassing cooling from 1940-1979. I’ve already refuted this theory by pointing to the many world regions with little or no industrial output where the expected warming also fails to appear.
The decline in sea level rise has been explained away by the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption — an interesting hypothesis but nothing more. As I ask in my book,
“If we see no sign of any significant slowdown in sea level rise in the wake of the precipitous downturn in world temperatures during the early 1940’s . . . then how can one claim that a single volcanic eruption, causing a far less significant dip in global temperatures over a shorter period, could have significantly altered the average water level of the entire ocean?”
The moral of the story:
“[F]or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Ockham
Ragnar Hellspongsays
I have a problem with the historical record of CO2 as used by IPCC. It uses ice core proxies before 1958 and the Keeling curve after that. So why were ice core proxies used as late as 1957 when CO2 has been measured directly by chemical methods since 1812? Please give a link where I can find an explanation.
Terry Haskewsays
Believers is the correct term for anyone who accepts anything without evidence. I asked for a MODEL. Ill even explain what i mean. A mathematical expression using valid scientific principles that shows how the composition od the atmosphere can warm the surface of the earth by 33 degrees Celsius and venus by 503 degrees Celsius. The “citation” you gave assumes there is a “greenhouse effect” then goes on to draw conclusions based on that assumption. I’ll give you a spoiler the “greenhouse effect” does not exist. Start with the scientific method. Not the “climate science” version the one used by the rest of science. You dont need 70,000 papers you need just one model. Easy to find easy to cite.
Terry Haskewsays
None of the citations are models and yes i have looked and asked. Every article starts with the assumption the “greenhouse effect” exists. Then tries to justify it. Go back to basics. The S-B equation is used and then when it does not agree with observations rather than examine the model a debunked idea that has never been shown to exist is resurrected. Explain how the atmosphere at -60 degrees Celsius can warm the surface to +15 degrees Celsius without violating physical laws. Spouting papers that confirm your beliefs is not science.
The guy at the gas station told me yesterday when I commented on how cold it was that summer is just around the corner-six months and a few days-lol! Great attitude but does not negate the fact that it gets colder earlier every year. Ahhh-love being Canadian. Thanks for the post!
Dan DaSilvasays
It is always “worst than we thought” isn’t it? CMIP7 will have even higher ECS. How can this be predicted with certainty? There are “common forcings” in all models. They are the “common forcings” of political bias and career advancement. All the models are equally inaccurate even as the ECS varies wildly. Want to see name-calling and more bias? You can read the responses to this reply.
Dan DaSilvasays
All these newer models, as well as the older models, are accurate? All these differing results should be hidden/classified in order to protect the CAGW narrative. Why advertise this Gavin?
Dan DaSilvasays
34 Al Bundy Spock:“guys kill youselves off” Learn to spell Mr. Spock or I will take back what I said about you being smart.
42 Jai Mitchell:“At this point, any ESM that reproduces an ECS that is less than 3.0K must be thrown out of the mix simply due to conflict with direct observations.” Please tell the IPCC now but use a higher CO2 concentration than 41ppm in your communications.
40 Kevin McKinney: You got me on that one! Let me correct my statement: “The IPCC thinks it has an idea of what the ECS is as expressed with the weasel words“extremely likely and best estimate” used over a wide range of value
Let me take this space to thank the moderator for allowing me to express my nonsense and improve my grammar without the dishonor of ending up in the borehole. (Please do not read this Gavin.)
Emil Borelsays
To preview, after far too much study, my
view is that the claim of human caused
significant global warming is essentially
a flim-flam, fraud scam driven by money
from special interests and attracting a
lot of people who want to do virtue
signaling and join a tribe.
In particular, as in explanations by MIT
professor R. Lindzen and other in
nearly all the climate scientists
have their funding and, thus, their
careers dependent on supporting the
threat. After all, no big threat, no big
funding.
For more detail:
(1) About 20 or so years ago, the claim
that increasing concentrations of CO2 from
human sources would significantly warm the
atmosphere was studied by some dozens of
computer-based modeling efforts based on
the basic theory. The models made
predictions of temperatures.
is a summary of those predictions. Nearly
all the predictions were for significantly
higher temperatures. The time for those
predicted higher temperatures has now come
and gone without the higher temperatures.
So, nearly all the models were wildly
wrong. The relatively accurate models
were the easiest to do — predict no
changes at all.
So, since the predictions were so
inaccurate, in science we junk the models
and the associated theory or methodology.
Net, we are left with no significant
empirical evidence (see (3) below) or
empirically confirmed theoretical evidence
that CO2 from human activities will have
any significant effect on temperature.
In science, that should be the end of the
discussion.
MIT prof R. Lindzen outlines why any of
the current warming, if it even exists,
can’t be caused by CO2, IIRC, “is not CO2
warming”, from human sources or anything
else.
(3) From the ice core data in Al Gore’s
movie, both temperature and CO2 levels
went up and down. But when the
temperature started to go up, the CO2
levels were low, not high. And when the
temperatures started to go down, the CO2
levels were high, not low.
So, in the ice core record, the CO2 level
changes were not causing the temperature
changes. Instead, temperature changes had
some other cause, and the temperature
changes caused the CO2 changes: The
higher temperatures caused more biological
activity and, thus, higher CO2 levels.
But when the cause of higher temperatures
quit, temperatures fell and the biological
activity and higher CO2 levels did not
keep the temperatures up.
Net, from the ice core record, CO2 levels
could not have been a significant cause of
the temperature changes: That is, the ice
core record does not provide any empirical
evidence that higher concentrations of
CO2, within the ranges of concentrations
observed, can cause higher temperatures.
Indeed, from that ice core record, the
evidence against CO2 causing warming is
even stronger since the low levels of CO2
did not keep the temperature from rising
and the high levels did not keep the
temperature from falling.
(4) Even in just the last 1000 years, the
temperature was significantly higher in
the Medieval Warm Period and significantly
cooler in the Little Ice Age (apparently
at least in both Europe and the US), and
human sources of CO2 had nothing to do
with either temperature.
So, again, there really are causes of
temperature changes other than CO2 with no
empirical evidence that CO2 levels had any
significant effect at all.
(5) From the 1940s to the 1970s, we
actually had some significant cooling.
But CO2 levels from human activities were
increasing due to more industrial activity
due to WWII and the economic recovery
after the Great Depression. But that
higher CO2 did not stop the cooling or
warm the planet.
So, again, there really are causes of
temperature changes other than CO2 with no
empirical evidence that CO2 levels had any
significant effect at all. The
temperatures were falling, and the higher
CO2 levels did not keep the temperatures
up.
(6) The Medieval Warm Period shows that
even if we do have somewhat higher
temperatures, there will be no serious
problems. We will be able to grow grapes
in England again, and the polar bears and
penguins will survive again. The
permafrost won’t all melt, release
methane, and cause run-away
warming. The ice in Greenland and
Antarctica won’t all melt or flood London.
The Gulf Stream won’t quit due to the
melting ice from the Arctic or Greenland.
So, the temperature record shows no
evidence that CO2 has any significant
effect on temperature.
So, if we are to entertain that CO2 will
have a significant effect on temperature
in the future, then we need some good
theoretical work, but as in (1) here such
work made predictions that were seen to be
wildly wrong so that we had to junk, stuff
in the sewer, the proposed methodology and
its conclusions.
There is no evidence, there is none, there
is zip, zilch, zero nichts, nil, nada
meaningful evidence, empirical or
empirically confirmed theoretical, that
anything like current CO2 levels, from
human sources or otherwise, will have any
effect on temperature at all.
Yes, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from
Planck black body radiation from the
surface of the earth, absorbs in three
narrow frequency bands in the infrared
and, thus, has a greenhouse effect.
Sure. Solid. But it is a very long
argument, so far not made with meaningful
science, that this property or any other
property of CO2 will be warming the
planet.
The claims about CO2 warming the planet
are no better than the claims of the Mayan
charlatans that it was necessary to kill
people and pour their blood on a rock to
“keep the sun moving across the sky”.
Well, they did pour the blood, and the sun
did keep moving, so maybe they would claim
that the blood was necessary.
on the Green New Deal to lower CO2
emissions and the temperatures do not
change much, then the climate alarmists
will claim that the $90+ trillion was
necessary?
The threats of global warming have no
meaningful scientific basis and are just a
flim-flam, fraud, scam driven by money and
special interests out to get on our backs
and into our pockets.
The answer is NO.
Warning to all the climate alarmists:
Look for another job while you still have
one.
For your current alarmist gig, the easy
money and favorable regulations are about
to go away, and, with that fad over, the
newsies will move on to gang up and pile
on to another made-up, cooked-up, faked-up
scam.
BPL: The correlation only confirms the physics. Global warming theory did not result from observing a correlation; the radiation physics came first. Remember that Arrhenius _predicted_ we would see this in 1896.
“Most of the models show Hurricane Dorian striking the Atlantic Coast of Florida, though the exact location is not something that can be predicted yet. Somewhere between Palm Coast and Miami, most likely near Melbour, Palm Bay or Port St Lucie. That’s a pretty large area.
How strong will Dorian be? Don’t believe the hype Major news outlets are suddenly saying that Dorian may be a Category 4 storm. Maybe. But almost every model puts Dorian squarely in the extremely dangerous major-storm Category 3 range, with just a couple of models showing it forming into a Category 4 storm. One model actually shows it becoming a Category 5 storm.”
There is much uncertainty in the ability to predict when or where Dorian will make land fall. That is unseemly when we listen to the IPCC and climate alarmist predicting what the temperature and the sea levels of the planet will be in 100 years.
At least one prediction that this group has made is not true and that was that due to more CO₂ in the earth’s atmosphere that there would be a huge increase is severe weather events, such as hurricanes.
May 4, 2013
In a blow to those that want to link increased severe weather with global warming/climate change, a new record low has been set according to NOAA tornado data. At the same time, it has been 2750 days (7 years, 6 months, 11 days) since the last major Hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) hit the USA on October 24th 2005 when hurricane Wilma made landfall. Each new day is a new record in this major hurricane drought.
J Doug Swallowsays
#63 Barton Paul Levenson says: “DY 54, Perhaps climate modelers defend the models because they have been right so many times” I must inform Barton Paul Levenson that his high regard for the performance of climate models is not universally agreed upon by folks who have a high degree of knowledge about the Earth’s temperatures from actual observations, such as Dr Roy Spencer. “Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. […]As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994. In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).”
This is what Dr Roy Spencer had to say about 95% of Climate Models.
“95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)” https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
J Doug Swallowsays
What I wonder about is why Barton Paul Levenson, #88, did not elucidate and explain his claim about Dr. Roy Spencer’s
“famous failure with the satellite observations”? What would Dr. Roy Spencer’s interpretation of Genesis have to do with his work with satellite observations of the Earth’s temperatures? Please take the time to explain that as well as what follows:
A remarkable, no holds barred attack was made on Spencer on the website The Daily Climate. The Daily Climate article contained statements such as this:
“Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”
This is not the sort of things that scientists say about each other, at least not in print. Besides it was a complete lie, because Christy and Spencer are known to be very competent and careful scientists. More interesting than what was said, is who said it. Kevin Trenberth was the first author. The two other authors were John Abraham and Peter Gleick. All three of these scientists are aggressive defenders of global warming catastrophe theory.
Let’s take Kevin Trenberth first. By general acclaim, Trenberth is one of the smartest climate scientists alive. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Ironically, Trenberth is a strong critic of climate models, for example here and here, yet he defends the alarmist predictions that are rooted in climate models.
[…]
The lie the scientist believers in global warming are living is that the climate models reliably mimic the Earth’s climate and are suitable for predicting the future. Roy Spencer has developed a theory to compute climate sensitivity, using real data, data that does not invoke the monster climate models. His theories may or may not stand the test of time, but the climate establishment should stop acting like a science mafia protecting its turf. New ideas should be allowed to circulate freely, not be strangled at birth.
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust REDACTED[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt
Gavin,
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.
If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.
I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.
I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.
Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).
I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.
I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).
But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am to modest to point it out.
I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.
If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.
I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.
National Geographic says of the Zanna study, “If all the heat the ocean absorbed from from 1955 onward were suddenly added to the atmosphere, air temperatures would rocket by more than 60 degrees.”
Per above, the average transit time for the deep Pacific is 1000 years, and it is expected that the deep Pacific won’t be in equilibrium with surface climate changes over shorter time scales.
In other words, humanity is looking at 6C warming every century for the next 1,000 years.
To prevent the sixth extinction event, this heat has to be converted to an energy carrier that extracts a portion of the heat from the ocean and converts it to the energy required by 9-10 billion people for use on land.
The heat of warming, 335 terawatts annually, converted at 7.5% produces 25 terawatts of primary energy and the waste of this is the heat that needs to be dissipated into space. The 310 terawatts unconverted by negative emissions ocean thermal energy conversion returns to the surface by advection in 250 years at which time it can be driven back down by a heat pipe and converted again into useful energy.
Ultimately, over 3250 years all of this 60 degrees is consumed and much of life on Earth is spared.
To do otherwise is to invite our ultimate demise.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . An open letter to RealClimate.org . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
[ This open letter has been posted on a number of major global warming websites. ]
[ You can “disappear” this copy, but there are plenty of other copies for people to see ]
Gavin Schmidt from RealClimate.org is a wise person.
He gives good advice.
If Gavin gives you some advice, then I suggest that you take it.
Gavin recently gave all Deniers some good advice.
If Deniers don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, then don’t go around denying climate science.
That bit of advice is beautifully simple. It can’t be argued with. It is logically sound. It is a statement that Yogi Berra would be proud of.
But Gavin is a busy person. He doesn’t have time to give everybody the advice that they deserve.
To solve this problem, I have managed to “get inside Gavin’s head”, so that everybody can benefit from Gavin’s wisdom.
First, some advice for Alarmists.
———————————
Alarmists, if you don’t want to be called a stupid arrogant jerk, then don’t act like a stupid arrogant jerk.
Now some advice for climate scientists.
—————————————
Climate scientists, if you don’t want to be called an undemocratic third world dictator, then don’t act like an undemocratic third world dictator.
Even Gavin could benefit from some “Gavin” type advice.
——————————————————-
Gavin, if you don’t want to be called an obnoxious Tamino-like character, then don’t act like an obnoxious Tamino-like character.
.
I think that I am getting the hang of giving out wise advice.
I think that I will quit while I am ahead, with one last piece of advice for Gavin.
Gavin, if you want to “weasel” out of answering any difficult climate questions, then call the questioner a Denier. Because nobody is expected to answer questions from Deniers.
Sorry, Gavin. I can see that you already knew that last piece of advice.
Keep up the good work !!!
====================
An open letter to RealClimate.org
Anybody who would like to read the conversation that I DIDN’T have with Gavin, should click this link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/an-open-letter-to-realclimate-org
Gavin wrote to Sheldon Walker, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”
The truth is that most of the people who use that term do not restrict it to know-nothings. Anyone who disagrees with even the most tenuous aspect of climate alarmism gets called a “denier” by climate alarmists (often from behind anonymous handles like “t marvell,” “DukeSnide,” “Mal Adapted,” “Al Bundy,” etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the disagreement is based on mere reflexive gainsaying or solid evidence.
In fact, most of the people who use that pejorative term also insist, ironically, that there is no such thing as “solid evidence” against climate alarmism.
For instance, when I show graphs like these as proof that CO2 level does not significantly influence the rate of sea-level rise, and thus that the IPCC is wrong to claim that rates of sea-level rise depend on emission scenarios or RCPs, I usually get called a “denier,” or worse:
https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_Wismar_Stockholm_vs_CO2_annot3.png
https://sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html
Sea-level continues to rise in some places and fall in others, at rates not significantly different from 90 years and 105 ppmv CO2 ago.
All that additional atmospheric CO2, CH4, etc. has not significantly altered sea-level trends, thus far. (Nor, contrary to Leif Knutsen’s comment, has it caused worsening droughts, forest fires, or storms.) The major effects, so far, are modest & benign warming (mostly at high latitudes, where it makes frigid climates a little bit less harsh), beneficial “greening” of the earth, and agricultural gains.
Those are proven facts, yet most climate alarmists refuse to admit them, and many of them are the very same people who call those who disagree with them “deniers.”
It also doesn’t help that the name-callers are often unwilling to engage in civil discussions with those who disagree with them, and that they even often seek to censor those who disagree with them, if they can. For instance, even though several people here, including Gavin, have written replies to Sheldon Walker’s comment, including a question, he is not permitted to respond to them here. When he tried to respond, his very measured comment was removed to “The Bore Hole.”
“Valid criticism does you a favor,” noted Carl Sagan, but it takes a big person to be properly grateful for it. Sheldon’s criticism was valid, constructive and gentle, but I’m not detecting any gratitude for it.
I wonder if I am a “denier”, a “climate denier”, or a “climate science denier”.
Gavin, if a person believes that the danger of global warming is overhyped is that person a denier on that fact alone?
Would Europe benefit from a stopping of the Gulf Stream? Since the northern part of the NH is warming faster than any other place, why does Europe need heat from the Gulf Stream? Perhaps the stoppage is a good thing? Last I heard Europeans were dying like flies a couple of summers ago in the extreme heat.
FYI here’s the Ocasio-Cortez Countdown to Doomsday clock:
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20310121T20&p0=263&msg=Alexadria+Ocasio-Cortez+Doomsday+Countdown&font=serif
The Science and Mathematics of Earth’s Temperatures.
==========================================
Imagine a temperature model of the Earth, that can explain:
– 94% of the variation in the average temperature, of every country on Earth
– 90% of the variation in the temperature of the coldest month, of every country on Earth
– about 59% of the variation in the temperature of the hottest month, of every country on Earth
That would have to be a big, complex temperature model, wouldn’t it?
What if I told you, that the temperature model of the Earth was based on only 4 factors:
– the average latitude of the country
– the average longitude of the country
– the average elevation of the country
– the area of the country
Would you believe me?
I am sure that many people will expect my temperature model of the Earth to be very inaccurate.
You are welcome to have a look at the results of my temperature model of the Earth.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-science-and-mathematics-of-earths-temperatures
35 SecularAnimist says:
“Once again, the ridiculous troll “Victor” is leading everybody by the nose. His is the 2nd comment posted on this thread, and after that ALMOST EVERY COMMENT is about Victor.”
Including this one! Lol! You guys crack me up.
“Wonder why he continues posting his clumsy, clownish denialist BS here? That’s why.”
No, I post here to inject a measure of common sense into the proceedings. But I have to admit, I do enjoy getting all you guys so riled up. It amuses me to see how so many of you can write so much without actually saying anything. And all the feeble attempts at bullying make me feel like I’m back in eighth grade. Nostalgia.
Now as to the deep inner meaning of the phrase “cooling down,” seems to me that when we have a year that’s cooler than the previous three, it’s accurate to see that process as a “cooling down.” The notion that this phrase implies a cooling trend lasting beyond that year is pure assumption, a spécialité de la maison in these parts.
And yes, “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.” I knew that. But knowing the sun will come out is NOT the same as being able to predict the climate. Most people know that too — but not Al Bundy. If things get warmer over the next few years, Al will take that as proof he was right. And if things get cooler, he’ll find a way to get around that by invoking various “natural forcings” that distorted an underlying warming trend. That’s how “science” works, no?
And yes, the “hiatus” from 1998 through 2015 remains, regardless of anything that happened after that. Just as the hiatus from 1940 through 1979 remains, despite the temperature rise that took place over the following 20 years. Once again you folks are assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about, because you see what you want to see and ignore all else. The definition of confirmation bias.
Temperature and Population by Country
==============================
How many people will die, if we reach the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit?
Does anybody know?
Even an approximate number?
It is difficult to give an accurate number, because it is a totally new situation.
But I have found a way to estimate the number of deaths.
It took quite a bit of work. But in the end, the answer was obvious.
The answer is so obvious, that I am not going to tell you the answer.
I have done all of the work so far. It is about time that you pulled your weight.
Don’t worry. I am only asking you to look at a graph. Do you think that you could manage that?
====================
This is the only graph that you need to look at, to fully understand global warming.
It even comes with a money back guarantee.
So what are you waiting for, click the following link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/temperature-and-population-by-country
How hot is that country?
========================
To predict how climate change/global warming will affect a country, you need to know what the country’s current temperatures are, for the average hottest month, the average month, and the average coldest month.
But the IPCC, and Alarmists in general, don’t want you to believe that. They want you to believe that ALL warming is “BAD”. And that ANY warming is “BAD” for EVERY country, no matter what that country’s climate is.
Next time that you talk to an Alarmist, ask them if global warming is “bad” for Russia (temperature data for Russia is shown in the article).
====================
This article contains 3 graphs, and 1 table.
The table is at the end of this article, and lists all 216 countries in alphabetical order, along with the region, population, and temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
The 3 graphs each list all 216 counties, along with a bar graph showing the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month, for each country.
====================
It is fun just browsing through the graphs, seeing the temperatures of the different countries, and trying to explain why different countries have different temperatures.
But eventually, you will probably want to look up a particular country (like the country that you live in). Because there are 216 countries, you might find it hard to find a particular country. You can use your knowledge of a countries temperatures, to help you to locate it on a graph.
If you live in Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Chad, Qatar, Sudan, Niger, or Pakistan, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average hottest month, then I suggest that you look at the bottom of the graph (they all have high average hottest months).
If you live in Mongolia, Russia, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Canada, Finland, Kyrgyzstan, or Armenia, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average coldest month, then I suggest that you look at the top of the graph (they all have low average coldest months).
If you live in England (which is listed under the country name “United Kingdom”), then I have to say “bad luck”. Not everybody can live in a country with nice temperatures. I am just joking. But United Kingdom actually has the 7th lowest average hottest month temperature (+19.8 degrees Celsius, that is colder than Finland, and Russia). I lived in London for about a year, and I was amazed at how nearly everyone in England gets badly sunburned, whenever there is a sunny day. It is because they don’t get many sunny days, so they like to enjoy them, when they occur.
====================
Time to get serious again. You can’t search for a country using the browsers “find” function, because the graphs and the table are all pictures. But there is a fairly easy way to find a particular country. Look it up in the alphabetical table at the end of this article. Memorize (or if you are like me, write down) the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
To find the particular country on the graph sorted by the hottest month, find the countries average hottest month, in the hottest month “continuum”. The country will be near that position, in the hottest month “continuum”.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know what Russia’s average temperature is?
I am guessing, not many.
If you told them that Russia’s average temperature was +0.2 degrees Celsius, how many would have enough science and mathematics knowledge, to say whether that was hot or cold (especially American children, who are not familiar with Celsius).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russians live at an average temperature, which is near the freezing point of water?
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that the average coldest month in Russia (the coldest winter month), is -21.1 degrees Celsius (yes, that is MINUS 21.1).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russian children are also taking a holiday off school. To demand that the world increases global warming, so that they can survive in the future.
I am guessing, not many.
To increase your knowledge of other countries temperatures (average hottest month, average month, and average coldest month), read the article at this link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country
NASA says record cold coming due to low sunspot activity:
http://spacecoastdaily.com/2018/11/nasa-warns-record-low-temperatures-could-be-on-the-way-after-latest-sunspot-activity/
Greenpeace founder says AOC has a YUGE carbon footprint and her GND will kill all life on earth:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-03/greenpeace-co-founder-rips-pompous-little-twit-ocasio-cortez-garden-variety
353 – alan2102
“As far as I can see, there is no intellectually substantial objection to these claims……”
Can you see that big booger on the end of your nose?
:)
Why is Climate Science different?
=========================
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different
We have it on authoritative authority of a US Congresspersonage that the world will end in 12 years (now 11y 10m). Thus, there’s really no need to do anything, because no actions taken now will have any significant effect within that time.
A mild reality check.
The total global sea ice area coverage over 15 percent per the CHarctic daily graph from the US national snow and ice data center just dropped below 15 million square kms. That is the lowest recorded since 1981, when that record started. Lowest ever for Antarctica, lowest this time of year for the Arctic. Here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The driver of this shift is core mantle boundary geomagnetic shift. I think, after 20 years work.
Peter Spencer Ravenscroft, geo, Oz. p.s.ravenscroft@gmail.com
Climate scientists claim to be able to make a radiative budget of the whole Earth, but they are not even able to make a radiative budget for a single molecule, or for the collision of two molecules.
They still rely on the “ghost photon” theory of the bohrian atomic model, which is an oversimplification of what really happens when a photon collides a molecule.
Moreover they confound absorption of infrared energy with global cinetic energy and with thermic energy… Three very different things with different causes and different results.
Thus, they believe in the existence of atmospheric effects that don’t even exist in reality. Sad, but true.
Why don’t you let “cranks” post their theories directly on “The Crank Shaft” thread?
I have a theory, that if you wrap a climate scientist in tinfoil, then they can no longer deny absolute temperatures.
Why is Climate Science different?
============================
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different
What are the two scenarios pertaining to the global mean temperature in the Earth Energy Budget ?
Let’s place our theorical thermometer, our beloved and tiredless perfect blackbody in the low stratosphere of the Budget…
The best case is found by removing all the fluxes that are not radiative (yes, don’t ask me why, but strangely, they mix radiative and non radiative fluxes in their radiative theory…).
And doing so, the Earth Energy Budget predicts an actual global mean temperature of 65,8°C or something near, if I recall correctly.
Then, the worst case is by including all the fluxes at ground level, even the non radiative ones, let’s do like them !
And what does one find ? A temperature superior to 90°C, dangerously approaching the ebullition point for water !
So best case scenario: 65°C+, worst case scenario: 90°C+, instead of the experimental 15°C for the global mean temperature…
The IPCC claims that climate scientists have an incertitude of tenths of degrees for the temperature in an hundred years… but in reality they have an incertitude of tens of degrees on the prediction of the actual temperature !
Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi hi
“The climate sensitivity of the model is around 3°C global warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration, which is at the center of the range of current best estimates of climate sensitivity that range between 1.5 and 4.5°C”
*current best estimate*
lol
The “current best estimate” of climate sensitivity has been 1.5K-4.5K for nearly 40 years now. So either:
1) climate scientists have learnt nothing in the past 40 years (plausible, given the vast majority are primarily concerned with and selected for their politics rather that their scientific ability), or
2) climate scientists are horrible at estimating confidence intervals, or
3) the climate sensitivity confidence interval is manipulated to ensure that it includes values likely to provoke alarm, or
4) all of the above.
Either way, only a fool would base economy-destroying policy on the recommendations of climate scientists.
So what caused the depression in the 70’s, Gavin? The reflection from aerosols could not possibly have been that large to cause that.
These data are as BOGUS as YOU ARE!
#76 BPL: I haven’t gone wrong, Victor. Correlation is a simple number with a formula to calculate it, and I got it right. If I didn’t, show the math error. If you can’t show a math error, shut up, because no matter how you gas about what correlation “really” means, you can’t just make up your own definitions of words.
V: There is a difference between math and science, Bart. The “correlation” you think you found is meaningless, since it applies to only one 20 year period, out of the last 130. As I wrote in the conclusion of that blog post:
Anyone following the analysis presented above should better understand why I’m so skeptical when it comes to the excessive reliance on statistical methodologies when attempting to evaluate scientific evidence. As a wise man once said, “If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.”
#37 Dan: Everyone needs to remember that Victor has shown time and time again that he has no clue about the scientific method, is too insecure to admit to being wrong in the face of facts and laws of thermodynamics, and cowardly avoids the peer-reviewed science since it does not tell him what he wants to believe. He is a classic example of poor scientific education and inability to think critically.
V: I could say exactly the same things about you, Dan. But I won’t. :-)
Dan: Yet he somehow thinks he knows something that literally every single professional climate organization (including the National Academy of Science) in the world do not. Talk about absolute scientific ignorance and arrogance. Yet he flaunts it in desperation for his insecurity and inability or want to learn.
V: It’s called “skepticism,” Dan. Usually considered a healthy attitude among real scientists.
29 zebra wrote: “You are certainly correct that most people do not understand how mathematics differs from science. However, your position with respect to “proof” in science is less than rigorous.
In science, we have facts. We can “prove” them empirically; for each instance of an experiment, you can’t argue that a result coinciding with the prediction (hypothesis) doesn’t constitute “proof” of the correctness of that prediction.”
Yes I can. Even if you put ‘prove’ in hyphens it does not help, we cannot a prove a theory with even the most accurate experimental measurement matching a prediction.
Thousands of accurate measurements were evidence for Newton’s laws of motion. However, Einstein proved Newton wrong with the theory of general relativity (GR) and new even more accurate measurements brought evidence to support for GR. Even if Newton’s laws were sufficiently accurate to land man on the moon, they were not accurate enough for satellite GPS navigation which relays on the GR. However, when GR was confronted with quantum mechanics new formulations are needed, and so it goes on and on.
The best we can do for a theory is to provide supporting evidence, but we cannot prove it. To put prove in hyphens contributes with nothing but confusion.
Luckily the Paris Agreement is never going to affect the inexorable rise iin atmospheric CO2 as people lift themselves out of dire poverty with coal fired power stations, India and China leading and many other countries following. So let’s waauage our nervousness by taking another look at how much CO 2 affects the weather. (Not much, you’ll find
Quote referring to Fig 1: “What is shown are the winds in the key sector of the Amundsen Sea, centered on ~71°S and ~108°W, with observations in blue….”
Why is that sector “the key sector”?
What kind of instruments were used to obtain the observations in blue and how many stations were used? How frequently were measurements taken? Were the instruments on a buoy, a ship, a satellite, on land, weather balloon, or something else?
From Fig 1, there are no “observations” prior to 1980, only models, correct? If so, we really don’t KNOW what the winds were doing prior to 1980, would you agree?
Just based on the blue “observations” in Fig 1, I see only miniscule changes in the wind speed and direction from 1980 to 2019, would you agree? Thus, the only real changes in Fig 1 are in the models, right?
Per Google Earth,the Thwaites Glacier is 168.5 miles south of 71S, 108W. At 71S, 108W, the water is ~7,500 feet deep, but just 12 miles south of 71S, 108W the water is only 1600 feet deep due to a “ridge” or plateau on the bottom – the continental shelf I’m guessing. Does that change of depth affect the water currents and do models take that into account? I’d think with the reports recently of a Manhattan-sized hole in the Thwaites that a lot of study has been done in that area.
Has anyone made a prediction of how long before enough Antarctic ice that is currently sitting on land melts to cause a noticeable change in the ocean level? (Noticeable by a beach-going fisherman, for example, not by a satellite instrument.)
Is ice still accumulating on the other side of Antarctica as reported by NASA in 2015?
49 – MA
“Keeling had heard about the CO2 greenhouse effect, but it had yet to show up in the global temperature record by the early 1960s.”
Huh? I thought there was a clear trend upward in global temps since the first lump of coal was burned to run a steam train, no? So, are you saying there was no increase in global temps for the 100+ years of coal, oil and gas burning from say 1860 to 1960? How can that be if CO2 was rising steadily? That defies AGW theory doesn’t it?
86 – KVJ
“The only thing we know for sure is this: we need to cut these emissions as fast as possible. Starting now! And we haven’t even started yet. Why not?”
Great question! Please tell us why YOU haven’t cut your emissions to near zero. Solar is cheap – I know because of many comments on RC that say it is so. Since it’s so cheap, and since EVs are so awesome (as claimed by most here), your question is of great importance.
If all the people who believe AGW is a problem would walk their talk, emissions would have been cut in half several years ago.
It appears that Eric Steig has no intentions of allowing my post of 8/30/2019 being exposed for others consideration and it is obvious that Eric Steig does not feel that it is worth his time to address the issues that I presented regarding what the conditions were over 100 years ago when Mawson SAILED on the Antarctic continent to establish two bases: the Main Base at Commonwealth Bay led by Mawson, and the Western Base at Queen Mary Land led by Frank Wild. I will bring up another issue that I will receive no answer for either. Where did these sea level rise figures come from? “The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss).”
I will present to you what the NOAA Tides and Currents (NOAA / National Ocean Service) that was Revised: 08/08/2018 puts forth for the Relative Sea Level Trend for 999-003 Argentine Islands, Antarctica;
The relative sea level trend is 1.38 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.39 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1958 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.45 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-003
This is for the Relative Sea Level Trend for 999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica;
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
It is obvious that there is a large discrepancy in what you want your loyal followers to believe and what is shown by these two valid reporting stations regarding sea-level rise in Antarctica. This brings about this observation; the duty of science is to search for the truth and then report that truth. Have you and the rest of your team done that in this instance?
I can see that this will take some time and effort because I like to deal with what is the truth and not conjecture.
First off, I do not put credence in what Wikipedia puts forth for the reason I will present in a separate comment. “Antarctic in Tromso harbor, 1898” Last year in Sept we were in Tromsø, Norway to board a cruise for a trip on the ‘Richard With’ to Trondheim, Norway. Before we left Oslo we saw the ‘Fram’ that Amundsen used when he went to the South Pole and also the ‘Gjøa’ that was the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage. Roald Amundsen, with a crew of six, traversed the passage in 1906.
You issue the site; “The monthly Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
This site takes issue with your saying; “In the Antarctic, the sea ice is mostly a seasonal phenomenon, expanding in the Austral winter–ie., at this time of year–and melting back to the shore in the “warm season” of January and February.” and that is simply not true as the site shows if you look at where it states; Median ice edge 1981-2010 & also that the slope trend is 0.6+/-0.7 % per decade.
You need to consider what was happening back in 2014 when the greatest Antarctic Sea Ice extent was recorded.
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global-snow/2015/08/Antarctic_daily_seaice.png
Please pay close attention to this report from National Geographic;
“A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.”
“[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.”
“The ship, the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, is waiting for emergency help—though help might take some time to come, given a blizzard that pummeled the area. The ship locked up in the ice on Christmas.”
“The vessel hasn’t moved in the last two days, and we’re surrounded by sea ice,” said Chris Turney, leader of the modern-day Australasian Antarctic Expedition, said in a video posted on Twitter. “We just can’t get through.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#
Understand how different the ice conditions were in 1913 when Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition could go to the shore and how in 2013 this global warming advocate, Chris Turney, was trapped in the ice. If you go to the National Geographic site you will observe that in 1913 there was basically no sea ice where Douglas Mawson was able to go ashore at Commonwealth Bay. Tell me what conclusions that you develop from this fact and if “The Antarctic ice sheet is melting and, yeah, it’s probably our fault.” can possibly be true when this is what was recorded on August 10, 2010.
“New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
[…]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent’s eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location. (Related: “South Pole Expeditions Then and Now: How Does Their Food and Gear Compare?”)
Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-coldest-place-on-earth-antarctica-science/
“A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.”
“[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#
The ship, the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, is waiting for emergency help—though help might take some time to come, given a blizzard that pummeled the area. The ship locked up in the ice on Christmas.
“The vessel hasn’t moved in the last two days, and we’re surrounded by sea ice,” said Chris Turney, leader of the modern-day Australasian Antarctic Expedition, said in a video posted on Twitter. “We just can’t get through.”
Eric; Thank you for the analogy. You say that the ice in West Antarctica is melting from below. “The defining characteristic of West Antarctica is that the majority of the ice sheet is “grounded” on a bed that lies below sea level” so it for sure has contact with the sea water that is running at McMurdo 0°C/32°F & Marambio Base 0°C/32°F
https://seatemperature.info/december/antarctica-water-temperature.html
The melting could also be caused by the volcanoes; “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has many subglacial lakes beneath it; geothermal heating is thought to contribute to the melting of the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, the extent of this, and the rate, is very poorly known and currently not included in glaciological numerical models. Actual volcanoes may, during eruptions, melt quite large portions of the ice sheet around them”.
It is often well to see what was happening in the past to understand the present, such as this
The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939) Thu 21 Jul 1932
A Warmer World.
SOME great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. Commander L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed.
Sir James Ross, who went out on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.[…]
If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/23150667
Please allow me to rephrase that comment to; I seldom use Wikipedia as a sources of information on any matter such as the climate for this reason….” & if you can’t see from what I posted from:
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article
It is amazing how Kevin McKinney can now come to the conclusion that; “In other words, you’ve found an excuse not to consider information you find inconvenient. (Which must be taken to mean in Kevin McKinney’s opinion that all information must come from Wikipedia without having the ambition to find other sources”.
Please try not to be so ridiculous.”
Then I am admonished by nigelj who said that I; “quoted wikipedia himself several times above, along with the NY Times and both for the climate issue. So his assertion doesn’t make much sense.” I used a photo that I needed to make my point and it was on Wikipedia.
Permission details
This image is of Australian origin and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (August 2014).3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bay#/media/File:F._Bickerton_looking_out_over_seas_near_Commonwealth_Bay.jpg
It appears that Kevin McKinney & nigelj have very little to occupy them if they see fit to make an issue out of this. By all means, make Wikipedia your only source of information, if that is what makes you feel comfortable.
I leave you with this thought that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
How large is the Sun compared to Earth? Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
Charlie Brown,
“It’s probably our fault”
Wishy washy much? That “probably” totally ruined the post.
71 – Al Bundy
“Charlie Brown,
“It’s probably our fault”
Wishy washy much? That “probably” totally ruined the post.”
Exactly! But if that didn’t do it, this one did:
“But the physics linking wind variability and CDW inflow is complex, and not everyone agrees with our view on this. Indeed, it is most certainly an oversimplification. Furthermore, as many authors has emphasized, there are complex feedbacks and internal ice-sheet and glacier dynamics involved, and it’s not as if there is a one-to-one relationship between changing winds and glacier retreat.”
And this one just beat that dead horse to a pulp:
“Third, even without the first two caveats, we are far from proving that the ongoing ice loss from Antarctica can be attributed to human-induced climate change.”
Hmmmm:
“The key finding is that we now have evidence that the increasing loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a result of human activities — rising greenhouse gas concentrations in particular. Now, some may be surprised to learn that this wasn’t already known.”
We have been told for HOW LONG that the Antarctica is melting because of AGW, yet, just now, in 2019, is it shown to “actually” be the case? Have they been lying to the public all these years?
It’s OK for a CC scientist to say this, but if a denier says it they should be thrown in jail, or worse:
“But there has been little direct evidence that what’s happening to the ice sheet itself can be attributed to human-induced climate changes. Consequently, there has been no paper published that makes a strong claim about this. Indeed, a formal solicitation of expert views in 2013 showed that opinion was pretty much evenly divided on whether observed changes to the Antarctic ice sheet were simply part of the natural variability of the climate/ice-sheet system.”
The above paragraph is exactly why many are skeptical of AGW – the earth climate HAS always changed, and always will. Yet, they should be thrown in jail.
Skeptics will be on this like stink on poop:
” This is what Richard Alley is referring when he says that the evidence for forcing by natural variability was strong, and it throws a lot of cold water (no pun intended) on the purported link with human activities. But that’s not very satisfying.”
Do scientists “argue” or demonstrate with evidence?
” What we argue, in brief, is that although ENSO does indeed dominate the wind variability in the Amundsen Sea on timescales from interannual to multi-decadal, there is also a longer-term trend in the winds, on which the ENSO-related variability is superimposed.”
“….plausible” and “..probably the best current estimate”? Is that science or politics?
“While we can never know exactly what happened prior to the advent of satellite observations in the late 1970s, the PACE ensemble provides a set of histories that is plausible, and compatible with modern data. This is probably the best current estimate of how winds have in fact varied in this region.”
“Strong westerlies”? I thought your reply to a post above said this is near the zero velocity line? So, are they near zero, or “strong”?
” But at the same time, the prevalance of strong westerlies in the Amundsen Sea has gradually increased throughout the 20th century.”
“Assuming”? Is that science or politics?
“Second, we are assuming that the Amundsen Sea shelf-edge winds are indeed the most relevant aspect of the system to consider.”
All of the above makes this highly questionable:
“Although we humans have evidently caused a long-term increase in westerly winds along the Amundsen Sea coast (which is bad for the West Antarctic ice sheet), the future is not yet written (which is an opportunity). Lowering greenhouse gases to a more modest rate of increase might be enough to prevent further changes in those winds.”
Back to the quonset hut on that ice flow! Need more data! Where’s that grant proposal form? :)
How many here believe that the future of the climate is so dire that any means necessary is the only viable path forward? Namely the retraining of the most outspoken deniers. Those countries whose government’s laws allow the enforcement of ideological purity should do so. Maybe a series of pleasant camps where offending parties can be retrained.
While this would seem improper to some the consequence of climate change must be elevated to such a high level that the need for retraining of those blocking the path forward will reach a consensus. Countries with laws forbidding such action must redefine basic human rights in a way to put the masses ahead of the individual. The current methods have failed and this is the only path forward. We can save the world comrades but on by forceful action.
After reading many comments my concern is that many here will agree.
52 – b1daly
“..The Republicans are actually climate change denialists, and as much or more power than the Democrats despite being supported by less than half the population because of quirks in the demographics of the US. Until they are outvoted any constructive action here is impossible.”..
Not true. Republicans explicitly believe in climate change. They specifically believe the science (and history) which clearly shows the climate has always changed just as it is doing today. They just don’t believe that FFs are driving it because it has occurred long before FFs were burned. Also, constructive action can be achieved today, NOW. If all the believers will just walk their talk, emissions will drop BIG LEAGUE, possibly up to 50%. More walk, less talk.
;)
67 – Mal
“The current POTUS didn’t require a majority of votes, after all. Again, here’s hoping.”
Not true. He got the majority of electoral votes. That is how you win the Presidency in the USA, otherwise only the high population states would matter. It’s all spelled out in the Constitution.
;)
BPL
Have you ever open your mind enough to wonder why in the history of the world no other science has depended on consensus like climate change? It is because nobody has any idea what the hell is going on. Even the IPCC not can bear to fudge the sensitivity down to narrower than 1.5-4.0. Go to your scales it says you weigh somewhere between 150 and 400 pounds great tell your doctor. The great thing about science is that it informs how much we do not know. (Not its wonderful achievements like the A-Bomb and air pollution.)
In Galileo’s time, it was dangerous to disagree with the scientific consensus that time will come again. Please do not hasten that day Barton.
“When it comes to climate science, there is a small group of people who refuse to acknowledge the facts that have convinced almost the entire scientific community.”
Here’s a sampling of some of the so-called “facts” and why I have trouble acknowledging them:
FACT: There’s a long-term correlation between CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels and global temperatures.
Wrong. No such correlation exists. The steep temperature rise between 1910 and 1940 was largely due to factors other than CO2 emissions. (“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming. https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)
During the following 40 years or so (ca. 1940-1979) we see a steep drop in temperatures followed by a leveling off — no significant warming, while during the same period CO2 levels rose substantially. From ca. 1998-ca. 2015 we see only a very slight temperature increase (the so-called “hiatus”) while CO2 levels continued to soar. The ONLY period when both temperatures and CO2 levels rose more or less in tandem was 1979-1998, only 20 years.
For a refutation of a typically misleading argument for correlation, see my blog post at http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
FACT: The rate of sea level rise has accelerated due to climate change.
Wrong. It has in fact declined:
“Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric [i.e., glacial] mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” Fasullo et al., 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245)
FACT: the so-called hiatus since 1998 has been erased thanks to recent data corrections as published by Thomas Karl et al.
Wrong. Almost all the adjustments pertain to data collected prior to 1940. After that date the differences between the original dataset and the adjusted one are minimal. See for example: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
FACT: Global temperatures have been rising at an alarming rate.
Wrong. From 1998 until the very unusual El Nino of 2016 there has been only a minimal rise in global temperatures. The current temperature that so many find so alarming is largely due to the steep increase that took place from 1979-1998, over 20 years ago.
Advocates of the mainstream view have, of course, been remarkably inventive in coming up with various theories that conveniently explain away the evidence noted above. If there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures it must be due to certain factors that are masking an underlying correlation. One favorite is the effect of industrial aerosols, whose cooling effects can supposedly explain away the embarrassing cooling from 1940-1979. I’ve already refuted this theory by pointing to the many world regions with little or no industrial output where the expected warming also fails to appear.
The decline in sea level rise has been explained away by the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption — an interesting hypothesis but nothing more. As I ask in my book,
“If we see no sign of any significant slowdown in sea level rise in the wake of the precipitous downturn in world temperatures during the early 1940’s . . . then how can one claim that a single volcanic eruption, causing a far less significant dip in global temperatures over a shorter period, could have significantly altered the average water level of the entire ocean?”
The moral of the story:
“[F]or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Ockham
I have a problem with the historical record of CO2 as used by IPCC. It uses ice core proxies before 1958 and the Keeling curve after that. So why were ice core proxies used as late as 1957 when CO2 has been measured directly by chemical methods since 1812? Please give a link where I can find an explanation.
Believers is the correct term for anyone who accepts anything without evidence. I asked for a MODEL. Ill even explain what i mean. A mathematical expression using valid scientific principles that shows how the composition od the atmosphere can warm the surface of the earth by 33 degrees Celsius and venus by 503 degrees Celsius. The “citation” you gave assumes there is a “greenhouse effect” then goes on to draw conclusions based on that assumption. I’ll give you a spoiler the “greenhouse effect” does not exist. Start with the scientific method. Not the “climate science” version the one used by the rest of science. You dont need 70,000 papers you need just one model. Easy to find easy to cite.
None of the citations are models and yes i have looked and asked. Every article starts with the assumption the “greenhouse effect” exists. Then tries to justify it. Go back to basics. The S-B equation is used and then when it does not agree with observations rather than examine the model a debunked idea that has never been shown to exist is resurrected. Explain how the atmosphere at -60 degrees Celsius can warm the surface to +15 degrees Celsius without violating physical laws. Spouting papers that confirm your beliefs is not science.
The guy at the gas station told me yesterday when I commented on how cold it was that summer is just around the corner-six months and a few days-lol! Great attitude but does not negate the fact that it gets colder earlier every year. Ahhh-love being Canadian. Thanks for the post!
It is always “worst than we thought” isn’t it? CMIP7 will have even higher ECS. How can this be predicted with certainty? There are “common forcings” in all models. They are the “common forcings” of political bias and career advancement. All the models are equally inaccurate even as the ECS varies wildly. Want to see name-calling and more bias? You can read the responses to this reply.
All these newer models, as well as the older models, are accurate? All these differing results should be hidden/classified in order to protect the CAGW narrative. Why advertise this Gavin?
34 Al Bundy Spock:“guys kill youselves off” Learn to spell Mr. Spock or I will take back what I said about you being smart.
42 Jai Mitchell:“At this point, any ESM that reproduces an ECS that is less than 3.0K must be thrown out of the mix simply due to conflict with direct observations.” Please tell the IPCC now but use a higher CO2 concentration than 41ppm in your communications.
40 Kevin McKinney: You got me on that one! Let me correct my statement: “The IPCC thinks it has an idea of what the ECS is as expressed with the weasel words“extremely likely and best estimate” used over a wide range of value
Let me take this space to thank the moderator for allowing me to express my nonsense and improve my grammar without the dishonor of ending up in the borehole. (Please do not read this Gavin.)
To preview, after far too much study, my
view is that the claim of human caused
significant global warming is essentially
a flim-flam, fraud scam driven by money
from special interests and attracting a
lot of people who want to do virtue
signaling and join a tribe.
In particular, as in explanations by MIT
professor R. Lindzen and other in
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
nearly all the climate scientists
have their funding and, thus, their
careers dependent on supporting the
threat. After all, no big threat, no big
funding.
For more detail:
(1) About 20 or so years ago, the claim
that increasing concentrations of CO2 from
human sources would significantly warm the
atmosphere was studied by some dozens of
computer-based modeling efforts based on
the basic theory. The models made
predictions of temperatures.
At
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
is a summary of those predictions. Nearly
all the predictions were for significantly
higher temperatures. The time for those
predicted higher temperatures has now come
and gone without the higher temperatures.
So, nearly all the models were wildly
wrong. The relatively accurate models
were the easiest to do — predict no
changes at all.
So, since the predictions were so
inaccurate, in science we junk the models
and the associated theory or
methodology.
Net, we are left with no significant
empirical evidence (see (3) below) or
empirically confirmed theoretical evidence
that CO2 from human activities will have
any significant effect on temperature.
In science, that should be the end of the
discussion.
(2) In the video documentary
The Great Global Warming Swindle
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
MIT prof R. Lindzen outlines why any of
the current warming, if it even exists,
can’t be caused by CO2, IIRC, “is not CO2
warming”, from human sources or anything
else.
(3) From the ice core data in Al Gore’s
movie, both temperature and CO2 levels
went up and down. But when the
temperature started to go up, the CO2
levels were low, not high. And when the
temperatures started to go down, the CO2
levels were high, not low.
So, in the ice core record, the CO2 level
changes were not causing the temperature
changes. Instead, temperature changes had
some other cause, and the temperature
changes caused the CO2 changes: The
higher temperatures caused more biological
activity and, thus, higher CO2 levels.
But when the cause of higher temperatures
quit, temperatures fell and the biological
activity and higher CO2 levels did not
keep the temperatures up.
Net, from the ice core record, CO2 levels
could not have been a significant cause of
the temperature changes: That is, the ice
core record does not provide any empirical
evidence that higher concentrations of
CO2, within the ranges of concentrations
observed, can cause higher temperatures.
Indeed, from that ice core record, the
evidence against CO2 causing warming is
even stronger since the low levels of CO2
did not keep the temperature from rising
and the high levels did not keep the
temperature from falling.
(4) Even in just the last 1000 years, the
temperature was significantly higher in
the Medieval Warm Period and significantly
cooler in the Little Ice Age (apparently
at least in both Europe and the US), and
human sources of CO2 had nothing to do
with either temperature.
So, again, there really are causes of
temperature changes other than CO2 with no
empirical evidence that CO2 levels had any
significant effect at all.
(5) From the 1940s to the 1970s, we
actually had some significant cooling.
But CO2 levels from human activities were
increasing due to more industrial activity
due to WWII and the economic recovery
after the Great Depression. But that
higher CO2 did not stop the cooling or
warm the planet.
So, again, there really are causes of
temperature changes other than CO2 with no
empirical evidence that CO2 levels had any
significant effect at all. The
temperatures were falling, and the higher
CO2 levels did not keep the temperatures
up.
(6) The Medieval Warm Period shows that
even if we do have somewhat higher
temperatures, there will be no serious
problems. We will be able to grow grapes
in England again, and the polar bears and
penguins will survive again. The
permafrost won’t all melt, release
methane, and cause run-away
warming. The ice in Greenland and
Antarctica won’t all melt or flood London.
The Gulf Stream won’t quit due to the
melting ice from the Arctic or Greenland.
So, the temperature record shows no
evidence that CO2 has any significant
effect on temperature.
So, if we are to entertain that CO2 will
have a significant effect on temperature
in the future, then we need some good
theoretical work, but as in (1) here such
work made predictions that were seen to be
wildly wrong so that we had to junk, stuff
in the sewer, the proposed methodology and
its conclusions.
There is no evidence, there is none, there
is zip, zilch, zero nichts, nil, nada
meaningful evidence, empirical or
empirically confirmed theoretical, that
anything like current CO2 levels, from
human sources or otherwise, will have any
effect on temperature at all.
Yes, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from
Planck black body radiation from the
surface of the earth, absorbs in three
narrow frequency bands in the infrared
and, thus, has a greenhouse effect.
Sure. Solid. But it is a very long
argument, so far not made with meaningful
science, that this property or any other
property of CO2 will be warming the
planet.
The claims about CO2 warming the planet
are no better than the claims of the Mayan
charlatans that it was necessary to kill
people and pour their blood on a rock to
“keep the sun moving across the sky”.
Well, they did pour the blood, and the sun
did keep moving, so maybe they would claim
that the blood was necessary.
If we start to spend the $90+ T
https://cei.org/blog/how-much-will-green-new-deal-cost-your-family?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIit2Ah__k5AIVD_DACh0m_wkZEAAYASAAEgJsQ_D_BwE
on the Green New Deal to lower CO2
emissions and the temperatures do not
change much, then the climate alarmists
will claim that the $90+ trillion was
necessary?
The threats of global warming have no
meaningful scientific basis and are just a
flim-flam, fraud, scam driven by money and
special interests out to get on our backs
and into our pockets.
The answer is NO.
Warning to all the climate alarmists:
Look for another job while you still have
one.
For your current alarmist gig, the easy
money and favorable regulations are about
to go away, and, with that fad over, the
newsies will move on to gang up and pile
on to another made-up, cooked-up, faked-up
scam.
BPL: The correlation only confirms the physics. Global warming theory did not result from observing a correlation; the radiation physics came first. Remember that Arrhenius _predicted_ we would see this in 1896.
V: His prediction was wrong. There is in fact NO such correlation. While it’s possible to produce a pseudo-correlation via some clever statistical legerdemain, a critical analysis clearly demonstrates the folly of such an attempt. See http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
Global warming, mental illness, and Greta Thunberg
Article has good comments – sort by “Best”.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/global_warming_mental_illness_and_greta_thunberg.html
:)
“Most of the models show Hurricane Dorian striking the Atlantic Coast of Florida, though the exact location is not something that can be predicted yet. Somewhere between Palm Coast and Miami, most likely near Melbour, Palm Bay or Port St Lucie. That’s a pretty large area.
How strong will Dorian be? Don’t believe the hype Major news outlets are suddenly saying that Dorian may be a Category 4 storm. Maybe. But almost every model puts Dorian squarely in the extremely dangerous major-storm Category 3 range, with just a couple of models showing it forming into a Category 4 storm. One model actually shows it becoming a Category 5 storm.”
There is much uncertainty in the ability to predict when or where Dorian will make land fall. That is unseemly when we listen to the IPCC and climate alarmist predicting what the temperature and the sea levels of the planet will be in 100 years.
At least one prediction that this group has made is not true and that was that due to more CO₂ in the earth’s atmosphere that there would be a huge increase is severe weather events, such as hurricanes.
May 4, 2013
In a blow to those that want to link increased severe weather with global warming/climate change, a new record low has been set according to NOAA tornado data. At the same time, it has been 2750 days (7 years, 6 months, 11 days) since the last major Hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) hit the USA on October 24th 2005 when hurricane Wilma made landfall. Each new day is a new record in this major hurricane drought.
#63 Barton Paul Levenson says: “DY 54, Perhaps climate modelers defend the models because they have been right so many times” I must inform Barton Paul Levenson that his high regard for the performance of climate models is not universally agreed upon by folks who have a high degree of knowledge about the Earth’s temperatures from actual observations, such as Dr Roy Spencer. “Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. […]As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994. In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).”
This is what Dr Roy Spencer had to say about 95% of Climate Models.
“95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
What I wonder about is why Barton Paul Levenson, #88, did not elucidate and explain his claim about Dr. Roy Spencer’s
“famous failure with the satellite observations”? What would Dr. Roy Spencer’s interpretation of Genesis have to do with his work with satellite observations of the Earth’s temperatures? Please take the time to explain that as well as what follows:
A remarkable, no holds barred attack was made on Spencer on the website The Daily Climate. The Daily Climate article contained statements such as this:
“Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”
This is not the sort of things that scientists say about each other, at least not in print. Besides it was a complete lie, because Christy and Spencer are known to be very competent and careful scientists. More interesting than what was said, is who said it. Kevin Trenberth was the first author. The two other authors were John Abraham and Peter Gleick. All three of these scientists are aggressive defenders of global warming catastrophe theory.
Let’s take Kevin Trenberth first. By general acclaim, Trenberth is one of the smartest climate scientists alive. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Ironically, Trenberth is a strong critic of climate models, for example here and here, yet he defends the alarmist predictions that are rooted in climate models.
[…]
The lie the scientist believers in global warming are living is that the climate models reliably mimic the Earth’s climate and are suitable for predicting the future. Roy Spencer has developed a theory to compute climate sensitivity, using real data, data that does not invoke the monster climate models. His theories may or may not stand the test of time, but the climate establishment should stop acting like a science mafia protecting its turf. New ideas should be allowed to circulate freely, not be strangled at birth.
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust REDACTED[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt