Global warming and causality.

CO2 didn't start going up for around 200 years after the LIA was dissipating from the late 1600's thus it couldn't be CO2 causing the warming at all.

From C3 Headlines LINK showing that CO2 was about 280 ppm for thousands of years while there were large temperature swings during that time frame a reality warmist/alarmists ignores all the time.

 

You'll need to do something to divert readers' (and your own) attention from the indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

I worry about the mental health of some people.

We get it. You don't understand statistics. No need to keep hammering on it.

You predict that temps are about to explode. But I predict they aren't. Your prediction will be proved objectively incorrect, while mine will be proved objectively correct.

Do you have new propaganda ready? Or will you just rely on your pals to keep changing the temperature record to conform to your theory?

Yes it has.

These are claims that are either without evidence, or contrary to known fact.

The GHG band emission changes are all but irrelevant. You are merely pretending that an irrelevancy is relevant.

No. All that proves is that what we do is by definition not natural.

I already have: the sun. But it depends on the time scale you are talking about, as different cycles dominate over different periods.

I'll just let that self-evident absurdity sit there refuting and humiliating you.

Falsehood after falsehood is not a good look for you. Just sayin'.

Absurd fabrication after absurd fabrication is not much better.

 

Connolly et al debunked hard here. That's the crazy paper claiming it's all because of the sun.

By Jack's rules, unless someone addresses every single point in the debunking in detail, they must admit the debunking is correct, and that the sun theory is nonsense.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.p...akes-found-in-recent-paper-by-connolly-et-al/

 

Have you got your excuses for failing again ready? You are going to need them.

Yep, you're ready. That's good planning on your part, getting your "ANY DATA THAT CONTRADICTS MY RELIGION IS FAKED!" excuse in ahead of time. You seem to be quite aware that your prediction will faceplant.

It's good to be on the rational side. Since we follow the data wherever it goes, we never have to spin crazy conspiracies about why the data contradicts us.

 

Still waiting for the scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current warming period.

 

We shall see.
". . . More recently, a review article was published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Connolly et al. (2021). The article has 23 co-authors with a range of perspectives, but who were united by their agreement not to take the consensus approach of the IPCC. Rather, the paper emphasized where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as identifying where there is scientific agreement. The authors found that the Sun/climate debate is an issue where the IPCC’s consensus statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions. . . ."
Solar variations controversy
Posted on November 21, 2021 by curryja | 82 comments
by Judith Curry



“The field of Sun-climate relations . . . in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming” – Lockwood (2012)

“We argue that the Sun/climate debate is one of these issues where the IPCC’s “consensus” statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.” – Connolly et al. (2021)

 

Score another win for the skeptics.
Ross McKitrick: The important climate study you won’t hear about
Guest Blogger
…the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period.

". . . Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias. In other research, Christy and mathematician Richard McNider have shown that the satellite warming rate implies the climate system can only be half as sensitive to GHGs as the average model used by the IPCC for projecting future warming.

Strong implications, indeed, but you won’t learn about it from the IPCC. That group regularly puts on a charade of pretending to review the science before issuing press releases that sound like Greta’s Twitter feed. In the real world the evidence against the alarmist predictions from overheated climate models is becoming unequivocal. One day, even the IPCC might find out."

 

Gavin Schmidt trying to wish his problem away.
The error of the mean: a dispute between Gavin Schmidt and Nicola Scafetta
Andy May
By Andy May Here we go again, writing on the proper use of statistics in climate science. Traditionally, the most serious errors in statistical analysis are made in the social…

 

Another Day, Another CO2-Is-A-Climate-Driver Inconsistency
By Kenneth Richard on 13. April 2023

Share this...
The global mean surface temperature (GMST) effects of a 1 W/m² radiative forcing, or positive/negative energy imbalance, has been gleaned from the observations from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. CO2’s climate effects are claimed to be many times larger than observations indicate.
The observed climate sensitivity (CS) to a perturbation to Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is, in a new study (Pauling et al., 2023), defined as -0.4°C per -9 W/m², or 0.044°C per W/m². These values were gleaned from observations from Mt. Pinatubo.



Image Source: Pauling et al., 2023

 

CO2 strikes out again.
CO2 Budget Model Update Through 2022: Humans Keep Emitting, Nature Keeps Removing
April 13th, 2023
This is an update of my CO2 budget model that explains yearly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959 with three main processes:

1. an anthropogenic source term, primarily from burning of fossil fuels
2. a constant yearly CO2 sink (removal) rate of 2.05% of the atmospheric “excess” over 295 ppm
3. an ENSO term that increases atmospheric CO2 during El Nino years and decreases it during La Nina years

The CO2 Budget Model

I described the CO2 budget model here. The most important new insight gained was that the model showed that the CO2 sink rate has not been declining as has been claimed by carbon cycle modelers after one adjusts for the history of El Nino and La Nina activity.

If the sink rate was really declining, that means the climate system is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere, and future climate change will be (of course) worse than we thought. But I showed the declining sink rate was just an artifact of the history of El Nino and La Nina activity, as shown in the following figure (updated through 2022).


The model also showed how the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a large increase in rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (not a new finding) due to enhanced photosynthesis from more diffuse sunlight. This contradicts the popular perception that volcanoes are a major source of atmospheric CO2.

I attempted to get the results published in Geophysical Research Letters, and was conditionally accepted after one review. But the editor wanted more reviewers, which he found, who then rejected the paper. The model is straightforward, physically consistent, and agrees with the observed Mauna Loa CO2 record, as shown in the following plot.


2022 Update: CO2 continues to Rise Despite Renewable Energy Transition

As I have pointed out before, the global economic downturn from COVID had no measurable impact on the Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2, and that is not surprising given the large year-to-year variations in natural sources and sinks of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, mainly due to emissions from China and India whose economies are rapidly growing.

The following plot zooms in on the 2010-2035 period and shows the Mauna Loa CO2 rise compared to my budget model forced with 3 scenarios from the Energy Information Administration (blue lines), and also compared to the RCP scenarios used by the IPCC in the CMIP5 climate model intercomparison project.


The observations are tracking below the RCP8.5 scenario, which assumes unrealistically high CO2 emissions, yet remains the basis for widespread claims of a “climate crisis”. The observations are running a little above my model for the last 2 years, and only time will tell if this trend continues.

But clearly the international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are having no obvious impact. This is unsurprising since global energy demand continues to grow faster than new sources of renewable energy can make up the difference.

 

Review Of Koonin’s “Unsettled”…Government, Scientific Institutions As “Instruments Of Hostile Forces”
By P Gosselin on 16. April 2023

Share this...
A German scientist asked if I would post the following text on behalf of William Walter Kay
===================================

Koonin’s Sociology of Climatology




By William Walter Kay BA JD

Although focused on hard science, Koonin’s Unsettled broaches Sociology of Climatology in Chapter 10 (WHO BROKE “THE SCIENCE” AND WHY); commencing:

Can it really be that a multiplicity of stakeholders in climate matters – scientists, scientific institutions, activists and NGOs, the media, politicians – are all contributing to misinformation in the service of persuasion?”

Koonin answers “yes”, suggesting the culprit is: “not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests.” He then walks us through his “multiplicity of stakeholders.”

Climate apocalypticism attracts politicians wishing to keep the public terrified and clamoring for safety.

The media disseminates climate horror because “news is a business” and “if it bleeds it leads.” As newsrooms shrink overworked journalists, sans science degrees, cannot properly research climate stories:

…the general lack of knowledge of what the science actually says, the drama of extreme weather events and their heart-rending impact on people, and pressures within the industry all work against balanced coverage in the popular media.”

Governments, businesses and NGOs have “messages” that employees must deliver to stay employed or to attain promotions, tenure etc:

…more than a few climate contrarians have suffered public opprobrium and diminished career prospects for publicizing data that doesn’t support the “broken climate” meme.”

NGOs like 350.org, Union of Concerned Scientist, and Natural Resources Defence Council solicit donations with scary distortions of climate science. (This is off. Climate NGOs draw funds from Big Green philanthropies, vested corporate interests, and captured government agencies. Climateworks and Energy Foundation boast annual receipts, respectively, of $425 million and $230 million. Neither solicit from the public.)

According to Koonin: “individuals and organizations in the scientific community are demonstrably misrepresenting the science.”

Scientific institutions: “seem more concerned with making the science fit the narrative than ensuring the narrative fits the science.” Regarding climate:

…institutions that prepare the official assessment reports have a communication problem, often summarizing or describing the data in ways that are actively misleading.”

Scientists hype research, fudge uncertainty, and covet publicity.

The public believes whatever science authorities say, and presumes journalists know what they’re talking about. Authorities oblige the public’s abhorrence of gray areas by keeping them wholly in the dark.

As evidenced above, Koonin references mostly generic social phenomena. Financial pressure, groupthink and hype underly all discourse, not merely climate science. Koonin doesn’t adequately distinguish climate from other overegged topics, nor explain why climate is even on the agenda. Aware of this defect, he offers glimpses into the unusual treatment given Climatology; particularly the fear-borne ignorance exhibited by scientists whenever the topic arises. Climatology generates: “an eyes-shut-fingers-in-the-ears position I’ve never heard in any other scientific discussion.” And: “otherwise rigorous and analytical scientists abandon their critical faculties when discussing climate…”

Koonin rebukes the National Academies of Science for publishing reviews of climate assessments so lacking in objectivity as to betray an intent to manipulate. A 2019 joint climate statement, freighted with misinformation, signed by each NAS academy president, bewildered Koonin:

I’m quite sure that this personal statement of the presidents in a news release was not reviewed by the usual Academies procedures; if it had been, its deficiencies would have been corrected.”

Climatology also receives unique treatment from politicos and journos. Politicians must pitch renewable energy as the only way to solve an urgent crisis; because the Energy Transition won’t sell if framed as one option for solving some distant problem. Politicians won’t discuss climate science uncertainties, nor admit the true cost of the Energy Transition. Thus, when crafting climate messaging:

…the science is jettisoned in favor of The Science, and “simplified” for use in the political arena, which allows the required actions to be portrayed as simple as well – just eliminate fossil fuels to save the planet.”

Alarmist media articles aren’t just the result of overloaded, undereducated journos. A legion of “Climate Reporters” zealously monger doom.

Koonin understands that the Energy Transition is the dog wagging the Climate Change tail:

Science should not be partisan, but climate science’s intersection with energy policy all but guaranteed that it would become so.”

…as alternative energy grows, there is financial incentive for politicians to hype climate catastrophe.”

Unsettled is a naïf’s confession.

In 2004 Koonin thought Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was a legit hypotheses sincerely held by honest scientists. Few climate contrarians, under 50, can say the same.

Koonin’s main claim is that the actual scientific literature doesn’t jibe with what alarmists call The Science. His testimony resonates because he’s a top-tier scientist who’s actually read the national and international climate assessments. The thought-fields Koonin wonders onto, however, are Climate Change Communication and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. These too are sciences, complete with literary canons to which Unsettled’s 200+ footnotes make nary a reference.

Koonin apologizes for, and defends, the science establishment. He fears a corrupted Climatology undermines public confidence in the entire scientific project. He prefers “misinformation” but describes “disinformation.” Connecting his own dots, its obvious key US government agencies, and leading US scientific institutions, are instruments of hostile forces. This, added to the Energy Transition’s hobbling of the American economy, warrants designating climate alarmism as treason. Koonin ain’t there yet.

Source

Koonin, Stephen E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, And Why It Matters; BenBella Books, Dallas, TX, 2021; Chapter 10 “WHO BROKE ‘THE SCIENCE’ AND WHY” pages 185-96.

 

Deleted.

 

How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science
Posted on April 23, 2023 by curryja | 86 comments
by David Young

Much has changed in science since the pandemic and much of it is change for the worse. The pandemic has highlighted the loss of credibility of the public health establishment and the often toxic nature of current public discourse. John Ioannidis stands out as perhaps the best example of a fine scientist who was smeared and denigrated mercilessly both online and in the literature. There was also a flood of fraudulent papers and badly flawed studies. This made claims that we should follow the “The Science” almost laughable, given the extremely poor quality of much of the science. The use of coercion was inexcusable when there was no rigorous basis for it.

Continue reading →

 

ECS remains the problem that AGW theory can't solve.
The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 1
Andy May
The climate sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) is arguably the most important number in the climate change debate. AR6[1] claims the sensitivity, which they…

 

Solar Variability Linked To Climate Change…CO2 Not ‘The Primary Driver For Nearly All Of Earth’s History’
By Kenneth Richard on 24. April 2023

Share this...
A new study exposes the uncertainty in solar activity reconstructions, but suggests solar models explain climate changes far better than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Proxy model estimates of the impact of solar variability on climate are highly uncertain. For example, estimations of the increase in solar irradiance over the last 400 years range anywhere from 0.75 W/m² to 6.3 W/m² (Scafetta and Bianchini, 2023).

Even satellite measurements of recent solar irradiance changes are controversial and conflicting. One composite (ACRIM) shows an increase in solar activity from 1980 to 2000, whereas another (PMOD) depicts a decrease. If even modern-day measurements of solar activity contradict each other, then we cannot assume the estimations of past variations from proxies are any more accurate.

On the other hand, the Northern Hemisphere proxy temperature record (shown in black in the image below, extended to 1999) has been linked to the periodicity of an interplanetary solar activity model devised by Dr. Nicola Scafetta and others. Notice the proxy temperature reconstruction depicts nearly all of the warming in the last 400 years occurring prior to 1950.



Image Source: Scafetta and Bianchini, 2023
In contrast, there is almost no link between CO2 and temperature that could lead to the conclusion CO2 is a driver of climate.

CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by hundreds of years in paleoclimate reconstructions, and CO2 variations “significantly depend on the surface temperature of the oceans.” If the CO2 variations are dependent upon temperature variations, the CO2 cannot be the driver of temperature variations.

“It is worth noting that the link between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature has been fairly poor throughout the last 600 million years [2,22,23]. CO2 concentration, for example, has also lagged for centuries behind temperatures during deglaciation and glaciation periods, as occurred during the last 420,000 years, as shown in the Vostok ice core record [24]; although, if the data are processed in some way and some specific places are analyzed, the two variables appears much more tightly coupled [20,25]. Hence, carbon dioxide cannot have typically been the primary driver of climate changes for nearly all of Earth’s history, but rather, it worked as one of the climate (positive) feedback mechanisms in response to solar, astronomical, orbital, and other natural forcings, although it was likely less important than water vapor and clouds. In fact, the atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly depends on the surface temperature of the oceans and on the status of the biosphere, although it might also be suddenly altered by volcanic activity.”

 

The climate models perform poorly.

Do CMIP5 models skillfully match actual warming?
Posted on September 5, 2023 by niclewis
by Nic Lewis

Why matching of CMIP5 model-simulated to observed warming does not indicate model skill

Continue reading →

 

German Professor: Part Of Warming Last 150 Years Due To Measurement Station Siting Changes
By P Gosselin on 22. September 2023

Share this...
Urban regions a good 2°C warmer than rural regions

Among other factors, German professor Fritz Vahrenholt looks at the urban heat island effect.
==============================================

By Fritz Vahrenholt

In August 2023, the deviation of the global temperature from the 30-year average of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama (UAH) continued to increase slightly compared to July. The value is 0.69 degrees Celsius and represents the second highest deviation from the long-term average since 1979.

The temperature increase has averaged 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade since 1979. A further rise of this magnitude is no cause for concern, certainly not for panic. The increase in ocean temperature has been 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade; the increase in land temperature has been 0.19 degrees per decade. We will elaborate on why land temperatures are rising.


The heat island effect results when measuring stations that were once located in purely rural areas now find themselves surrounded by populated areas due to urbanization.

Rural vs urban

An example is the Frankfurt Airport measuring station, which 80 years ago had rural areas as its surroundings, but is now influenced by heat-storing and heat-emitting runways, highways, buildings and traffic.

The study concludes that 65% of the 1850-1900 rural monitoring stations are now fully urbanized. Why is this important? The difference in temperature between urban and rural areas is serious; if rural areas become urbanized over time, the respective local monitoring stations will record the higher temperature of the urbanized environment. Accordingly, the locations of the measuring stations have a more important role in the assessment of the global temperature increase than previously thought.


Yearly mean temperatures in rural regions of Munich (gray) and Munich City (blue). Source: Lüning/Vahrenholt Unerwünschte Wahrheiten (Unwanted Truths) 2021.

Since the ratio of measuring stations in the countryside and in the city has shifted by 65% in favor of the cities due to growing cities, this also has an influence on the causes of the global temperature development.

Therefore, part of the warming of the last 150 years in Europe, the USA and, above all, China is due to changes in the environment and not solely to rising CO2 concentrations.

The study concludes that the effect is 0.34 degrees Celsius per century. This does not absolve CO2, but the degree of warming on land would be almost 40 % lower without the heat island effect.

 

Munich has GREAT beer to cool you off!

 

The best beer in Germany comes from the Czech Republic.

 

Germany has strict laws about its beer. Best I ever tasted was FASHING "Festbock" from a small brewery in Babenhausen... South of Frankfurt.

 

I favor Staropramen from Prague.

 

I remember crossing the border into Czechoslavakia just after the Iron Curtain came down. A buddy of mine that lived on the border drove me across. The old system of retail was still in effect. The Communist system. We went into an Apoteke to buy some tooth paste. One guy took our order... another got the item... another put it in a bag... another took our money. Communism at work. No one cared about efficiency and making a profit.

 

I didn't understand what happened?

 

Just my experience after the WALL came down.

 

Four guys doing what only one was required to do. Four jobsw... four paychecks. The way things are done in a communist world where making a profit means nothing.