Global warming and causality.

Read the post. I'm not your tutor.

". . . So what can we conclude? It seems to me that the tidal gauge dataset suggests that over the last two thirds of the 20th century, apparent sea level acceleration may have oscillated about a mean of zero and an amplitude of roughly 0.4 mm/yr/yr. There’s a hint that sea level acceleration may be related to SST acceleration, where SST leads sea level by about 7 years. This could clearly be called “climate-change-driven”, but there does not appear to me to be evidence for it to be anthropogenic, if that means that it is driven by the release of CO2. It’s even possible that the sharp peaks and valleys in Figs. 4 and 5 are due to “helpful” corrections to sea level rise data, the discontinuities hinted at earlier. I don’t know. . . . "

 

More cooling.
UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2023: -0.04 deg. C
February 1st, 2023
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January 2023 was -0.04 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is down from the December 2022 anomaly of +0.05 deg. C.


The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). . . .

 

You even quoted one: "apparent sea level acceleration may have oscillated about a mean of zero and an amplitude of roughly 0.4 mm/yr/yr."

 

Even if you hide your head under the covers, the monsters will still be there.

 

"Consensus" climate claims deconstructed here.
Reprise — Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1
Kip Hansen
This reprise has been prompted by a conversation with a colleague who’s only understanding of Climate Change or Global Warming has been gleaned from NPR/CNN/PBS and Main Stream Media. . . .

 

From the Department of Debunking:
Climate Fact Check: January 2023 Edition
Guest Blogger
Seven pieces of climate propaganda from January 2023 exposed and debunked. . . .

 

In 2003 The Globe Was 0.34% Urban. By 2035 0.96% Will Be. ‘Global’ Warming Is Significantly Urban-Induced.
By Kenneth Richard on 13. February 2023

Share this...
Two new studies affirm the rapid growth in urbanization is causing significant non-climatic warming, artificially increasing the “global” trend.
Water covers approximately 362 million km² of the Earth’s surface. Land covers 148 million km² of the Earth’s surface.

As of 2003, just 0.5 million km² (0.34%) of the globe’s 510 million km² surface was urban or mostly urban. As of 2018, it was 0.7 million km² (0.42%). By 2035, 1.4 million km² (0.96%) of the Earth’s surface will be urban.

So approximately 99.8% of the Earth’s surface is not urban, and yet the majority of the temperature stations contributing to the “global” warming trend records over the last decades are located in urban areas. This would appear to have a tendency to bias the warming trends.

Urbanization adds artificial, non-climatic warmth

A new study assesses urbanization (concrete, machinery, roofs, vehicles, etc.) added 0.054°C of additional warmth to the annual temperature over the 16 years from 2003 to 2018. In summer, as much as 0.122°C was added to global temperature records over this period.

Urban areas are poised to experience rapid growth in the next two decades, almost tripling the proportion of the surface area (from 0.34% to 0.96%) during the 2003-2035 period.

This explosive expansion in global urban area is predicted to “nearly double” the growth in artificial, non-climatic warming added to the surface temperature record from densely populated areas.

Since the majority of the globe’s temperature stations are situated in urban areas, this urbanization tendency is poised to inflate temperature records well beyond that of non-urban areas.



Image Source: Shen et al., 2023

 

Another new study assesses the mean surface warming trend as 0.5 ± 0.20 K·decade−1 in the urban core of more than 2000 city clusters across the globe. This is “29% greater than the trend for the rural background.”

In other words, “surface warming in global cities is substantially more rapid than in rural background areas.”



Image source: Liu et al., 2022

 

And the rural "background" is itself not entirely unaffected by non-climate warming due to land use changes and especially night-time energy use such as for lighting, heating and air conditioning. The real background can only be found by looking at data from instruments in pristine wilderness areas -- which (surprise!) show very little warming since the 1940s.

 

Objective Science Assessment: Hypothesis CO2 Controls The Climate Is On Quicksand
By P Gosselin on 21. February 2023

Share this...
Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics, there is a rather simple way to get an idea about what this is all about.

Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how energy flows back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies. . . .

 

Serious issues for serious people.

Climate Uncertainty & Risk: the presentation
Posted on February 24, 2023 by curryja | 15 comments
by Judith Curry

A 20 minute presentation on Climate & Uncertainty and Risk (including some content from my forthcoming book)

Continue reading →

 

Watts Up With That?

The Holocene Temperature Conundrum

February 25, 2023

By Andy May

Excerpt:

As my regular readers know, I’ve been writing about the Holocene, especially Holocene climate, for over ten years. My colleagues, Javier Vinós and Renee Hannon, have also written extensively on this topic. This fills a void left by the IPCC, which ignores the Holocene, a fact made very clear in my last two posts, here and here. Here I would like to review a very comprehensive and informative review article of what the authors, Darrell S. Kaufman and Ellie Broadman, call “The Holocene global temperature conundrum.” The paper was published in Nature February 15, just a little over a week ago. I was made aware of it by a reader who identifies himself as “Mike G,” he was also kind enough to send me a pdf of the article.

Kaufman and Broadman define the Holocene Temperature Conundrum in this way:

LINK

==========

A fine presentation showing how big a failure Climate Models really are.

I posted a comment that should get a few people excited since no one seems to think of this possibility at all.

 

Greenland Temperatures Rose 1°C In 1994 … Since Then They Have Been ‘Relatively Constant’
By Kenneth Richard on 27. February 2023

Share this...
A warming event that spans only one year, with decades of stable temperatures before and after, would not appear to align with rapidly rising human CO2 emissions or a gradually rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
From 1958 to 2020, as CO2 rose from 320 ppm to 410 ppm, Greenland had a warming period of 1°C that lasted one year – 1994. Over the next 26 years (1994-2020) and spanning the years 1958 to 1993, there have been “relatively constant” temperatures across Greenland (Zhang et al., 2022).

These temperature trends appear to align much better with phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Greenland blocking indexes (GBI), and volcanism better than they do with any anthropogenic causal agents.

Image Source: Zhang et al., 2022

 

Surely CO2 works in mysterious ways that is why it worked for one year and that is all It needed as it is now resting from the hard work on poor Greenland which it does every 29 years, 7 months, 2 days and 21 seconds.

I am impressed!

 

Another blow against the empire.
Challenging Net Zero with Science: Lindzen-Happer-CO2 Coalition Paper Released
Charles Rotter
Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method . . .

 

All I can say is, Wow!

What do you bet that the minions will declare it false without even reading it?

Thanks again.

 

Here's some original thinking.

A new way to extract a climate signal from weather noise: Seasonal lag
Posted on February 27, 2023 by curryja | 33 comments
by David M. Barnett

Synopsis of Global Warming as a System Response Theory Problem

Continue reading →

 

What scientists do is propose a hypothesis and then endeavor to “prove” it using the scientific method. The relevant hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions are responding for the current modern warming period which started in the 1600’s, experienced a cooling period (little ice age), and then began warming again in the late 1800’s. The hypothesis that human CO2 emissions is responsible for the current warming trend (which is very similar to the other 9 warming periods of the Holocene) has never been proven. Ben Santer’s upper atmospheric temperature data for a specific period of time was not repeated. But opportunistic global politicians used this data to fuel their scheme to extract money for developing countries.

 

Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Table of Contents
Posted on March 11, 2023 by curryja | 21 comments
by Judith Curry

A preview of the contents of my forthcoming book Climate Uncertainty and Risk. Plus an update on the publication process and availability of the paperbook version for pre-orders.

Continue reading →

 

The natural cycle would have the earth slowly cooling. The fact that the earth is warming rapidly is the first thing that obviously shows the warming isn't natural.

The directly measured increase in backradiation -- the thing that's making more energy stay with the earth -- that has no known natural cause.

The stratospheric cooling, polar amplification and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas emission bands, those have no known natural causes.

That's directly observed hard data. No models are involved. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Since the observed data contradicts the "it's a natural cycle" theory, the "it's a natural cycle" theory is wrong. It doesn't matter how fervently someone believes in it. It doesn't matter how upset they get when their political dogma is challenged. The hard data contradicts that theory, so it's wrong.

Now, AGW theory perfectly explains the observed data, therefore it is the accepted theory. That's how science works -- the simplest theory that explains all of the data is the accepted theory.

If you want to dethrone the current theory, you can't just nitpick at it. That's not science.

You can't create political conspiracy theories. That's not science.

You can't invoke "Well, there must be some magical mystery X-factor that we don't know about, but which conveniently backs my politics." That's not science, that's invoking magic.

You especially can't use fudgy data to create a new reality (that is, use UAH). That's not science, that's fraud.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to provide an alternative theory that explains the observed data better than AGW theory does.

 

The earth is not warming rapidly. The rate of temperature increase is less than half of the previous Holocene warming periods (GISP2 Data from Ice Cores - Alley 2004). And actual the rate of warming (btw it hasn’t warmed in the past 8 years) is much less than model predictions.

And there is no proof scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are causing the current warming. Claiming that observations must be human caused because it couldn’t be anything else is not scientific proof.

 

Lots of money to be made in the GoreBull Warming hoax!

 

Except we're not in a Holocene warming period. The natural cycle wants to have the earth keep cooling slowly, like it had been for the past 8000 years, before humans recently cranked up the thermostat.

Nope. The models have been excellent. If anyone told you otherwise, they lied. And like I said, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly observed data proves the human cause of the warming just fine.

AGW theory didn't come out of nowhere. It arose from the directly observed evidence. It explains that evidence. That's why it's the accepted theory. "Golly, we just don't know for sure, so it must be some unknown magic" is not science, but it's all deniers have.

 

Skeptics have science.

 

False. The sun was more active over the last century than it has been for thousands of years.

False, as proved above. And even if the earth would naturally have kept cooling instead of recovering from the LIA, then anything we can do to prevent a return to LIA conditions is an obligation, as any significant cooling would be far more catastrophic than any plausible prognosticated warming.

The models that assume high sensitivity of temperature to CO2 have been hilariously wrong, and have necessitated wholesale retroactive falsification of the temperature record to rescue them from outright falsification and ridicule. If anyone told you otherwise, they lied.

Their humiliating failure is an embarrassment that in any less politically controlled field would have ensured their abandonment.

False. The directly observed data prove CO2-centered climate "science" is anti-scientific garbage.

It came out of politically motivated nonscience.

Baldly false on both counts. That's why it requires wholesale falsification of data.

It's only the officially authorized theory.

Another bald falsehood from you.