Jeff ID
Observation is the key to scientific study. When you observe that a released apple falls to the ground, this observation has more meaning than any theory of spontaneous levitation that ever existed. Such observations have led us to recognize and attempt to quantify the laws of physics in the forms of mathematical equations. These equations are not really perfect reflections of reality, but rather are our best match of understanding to observation. I will give an unquestioned and well observed effect that I think most people can understand.
Two cars crashing head on, each going 30 mph. Car 1 is moving at speed v (30mph), car 2 is moving head on, at speed u (30mph).
Speed of closure between two cars (S) = v + u which is 30 +30 = 60 mph of closure speed.
In the early 1900’s relativity was discovered and it was found that at very high velocities, the Galilean physics did not match observation. This caused a change in the expression of physics, resulting in a different (looking) equation.
This equation looks different and at first glance appears over-complicated. It is not. S in this equation is the closure rate between cars based on current physics, rather than the S of the olden days. Then you realize, the speed of light squared, c^2 is a really really huge number and it is at the bottom of the equation. What makes this interesting is that when v times u (vu at the bottom of the equation), is usually very small compared to the speed of light squared c^2 (the vu/c^2 in equation is effectively a zero at 30 miles per hour) and the equation actually converges to the Galilean standard of previous observation.
S = v + u / (1+0) = v + u
So the result is that relativistic equations of physics, now MATCH a wider range of OBSERVATION. Both the low speed, two cars at 30 miles per hour, and the high speed 80% of the speed of light match within our ability to observe. The Galilean equation is imperfect and fails to represent the high speed observations – only.
Observation:
In much of science (not most anymore), observation is the unpolluted king of the research department. However, money is the thing which pays for the observation. This causes problems much more often than most people will ever realize (my unsolicited but free opinion).
A long time ago now, “scientists” being well paid for global warming research, intentionally switched the narrative from Global Warming to Climate Change. The reason for this is political, but from a scientific standpoint, it had a first level of theoretical justification. The energy movement in the climate system is what drives the variation in weather patterns. If you have more energy moving in the system, it is perfectly rational and even necessary to conclude with absolute certainty, that you will see more extreme weather patterns. Hurricanes must become stronger because they are heat pumps moving heat from the ocean to upper layers of the atmosphere. More heat equals bigger hurricanes. Rain will become more common as the atmosphere has more warmth allowing more differential. However, science knows that measurements are imperfect as there is always noise in the data – and the size of the expected signal matters.
More telling, is that you can observe the truth of those statements on other planets. Jupiter’s red-spot is large and continuous because it is moving a tremendous amount of heat from the lower atmosphere to the upper. The wind speeds and size are beyond any form of observation we will ever see on Earth and this is a known fact. Venus is hot enough at its surface to melt solder, this is caused in huge part by its thick CO2 atmosphere. These are real world examples (some pun intended), but they cannot be denied as they are OBSERVATION.
But all science, including “Climate Science™“, is all about math, and it suffers from the same problems as Galilean velocity equations — size actually matters.
Global warming is real:
Global warming is an effect caused by a radiative emission from a visual spectrum (sunlight) being absorbed into the surface of Earth and then a perfectly equal amount of energy being re-emitted back to space at much longer wavelengths. In generalities, this is characterized by the also imperfect Planck blackbody equations. There is literally zero scientific controversy about global warming at this level. Zero is a small number. Again, a first level science review proves beyond a doubt that the global warming effect is real and completely uncontroversial.
Again, size matters. Tay appension people!!! You still with me?
If the car is not traveling well over 1000 Miles per SECOND (pretty fast), Galileo’s equations are perfectly correct within our ability to observe velocity. If you are bored, you can figure out that the relativistic equation results equal Galilean equation results to a large number of significant figures. Therefore, relativistic equations are correct and it is impossible to say Galilean equations are wrong. After all, we all used the same Galilean equations to get through high school.
What I’m saying is that these two different equations reduce to the same number through most of human observation, because SIZE MATTERS in science.
So… bullet points for us chicken brain humans
- Global warming is unquestionably real
- Climate change also exists
- Size matters
Time for a couple of graphs. It is science after all.
The below graph is from Dr. Roy Spencer’s fantastic blog – linked here and on the right.
The rate of “Global Warming” as measured by satellites in the lower part of the atmosphere. These values are basically unpolluted by ground effect that surface stations include but much more importantly, they include the bulk of the heat energy in the gaseous atmosphere. This means that global warming since 1979 is visually about 0.5 degrees Celsius. We humans don’t have any scientific idea how much of that is caused by CO2.
In total, this is a very SMALL amount of warming.
Much smaller than any climate models predicted, and the graph above is actually humanities best data on atmospheric temperature.
This next graph compares OBSERVATION of temperature changes to climate models of temperature changes as predicted. The blue bar on the left is observation.
As we all can now OBSERVE, the key to all of Real Climate™ observation, are lower than all of climate models. ALL of the climate models have predicted more warming than we observe. What folks don’t know, is that the HIGHER model trends are the ones being politically represented as the CORRECT models and the LOWER models on the left side of the graph above are typically the ones being represented as models if we do something to fix the alleged, but as yet UNOBSERVED, climate “problem”.
Now, I have repeatedly stated with links and evidence from government and even my own science, the following equally true OBSERVED facts:
No trend in hurricanes
No trend in drought
No trend in rain
No the fish are not shrinking
No butterflies are going extinct
Polar bears are doing great
Antarctic ice is not shrinking away
Sea level rise is a dead straight line for 150 years
Penguins are doing great too.
So the chicken-brain in the human body says, JEFF, you just told me this stuff was real. I ALSO TOLD YOU THAT IN SCIENCE, —– SIZE MATTERS.
Energy flow:
Power is the flow of energy, horsepower, Watts — energy per time.
Energy is Joules, BTU’s.
A little arcane for this post but many here understand what I wrote.
Energy is what you get when the power of sunlight is temporally retarded by the increased global warming effect of carbon dioxide. Try again? Global warming energy is a buildup of temperature when the sunlight energy takes a smidge longer to escape to space.
The real scientific question then becomes, how much more heat buildup can we expect with the change in CO2 and what would that do to our weather patterns. How big will hurricanes be? How bad will droughts be? How hot will we get.
Unfortunately for the sandwich board, government funded, doom sooth, end-of-the-world class, the answer is very simple and very understandable. Unfortunately for you, it comes in the form of a graph.
The Earth’s emission temperature is something close to 285 degrees Kelvin. Space is very close to zero, like 3 degrees kelvin. We should use Kelvin when determining how much CHANGE in the flow of energy will occur, with absolute zero (no molecular temperature) being equal to zero Kevlin. The Kelvin scale doesn’t use negative numbers (don’t get all techie on this).
Now the ORANGE block on the bar on the left is NOT what global warming is. Global warming is the Gray bar – that you cannot see – on top of the orange bar on the left.
Size matters- Don’t know if I’ve mentioned that.
The CO2 warming forcing us to use untenable electric vehicles and endless global regulation is NOT visible on this graph. The gray bar you cannot see is also the reason that we cannot measure ANY change in weather patterns on earth caused by human based global warming. Like the relativistic effect of a 30mph car crash, global warming is simply way too small to cause big changes in weather, even when exaggerated by climate models.
It is also why we never will measure change the following items caused by CO2:
hurricanes
drought
rain
fish size
butterflies
Polar bears
Antarctic ice
Sea level rise
Penguins
Per OBSERVATION, and per the basic first-level physics of Climate science, the effect is TOO SMALL to cause harm or even a microscopically observable change in most of the values I’ve written. FOREVER. Keep in mind, that however small global warming is, it is real and that scientific fact does not ever change.
Atmospheric mixing:
Final point I need to make is that when CO2 based warming occurs in the atmosphere, it is a well-mixed phenomenon. Imagine over 10 years trying to have a measurable change in the temperature difference between Germany and France caused by a super small change in energy movement as represented in the Kelvin graph above. It boggles the mind that “Climate Science™” would even suggest such a thing, but that is what the fake-news “Climate Change” term is meant to express. Extremes of weather caused by the mobility of the extra energy — the gray bar that nobody can actually see in the graph above.
And there it is:
Climate change is a complete, government funded HOAX of the greatest magnitude of almost any scientific hoax AND Global warming is very real, and very small. This is a scientific FACT, proven by all available observations of science.
It is also embarrassingly obvious. Humanity needs to improve intellectually or we will never achieve the best of our imagination.
Wow, this deserves archiving and sending to all my loony contacts
The effect of increasing atmospheric CO2, to
quote UW Madison meteorologist Reid Bryson,
is like a fart in a hurricane.
brilliant proof!
No trend in rain
If you go to NOAA’s Climate at a Glance and choose to look at the trend
in precipitation since 1895 in the USA 48 there certainly is a trend, see
see below
Global warming is the Gray bar – that you cannot
see – on top of the orange bar on the left.
That was was really good.
Take a look at the water levels in the lakes and dams across much of the US and you get a much different answer.
It’s called weather.
It’s also called population growth induced increase in water usage
Water level in lakes caused by changes in inflow (precipitation) and outflow (used for electricity generation, irrigation, city use, watering the golf courses…). Many lake levels going down primarily due to higher outflow.
There’s also diversion. Taking water from streams that used to flow into the lake.
Water level in lakes caused by changes in inflow (precipitation) and outflow (used for electricity generation, irrigation, city use, watering the golf courses…). Many lake levels going down primarily due to lower inflow.
brilliant proof!
Take a look at how fast your grass grows — thanks to increasing CO2.
Take a look at how fast your grass grows — thanks to increasing watering and fertilizer.
“Increasing watering?” But you said, “Many lake levels going down primarily due to lower inflow” and not due to factors like “increasing watering.” Playing both sides it seems.
Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (thanks to mankind’s CO2 emissions) improves plants’ water use efficiency (WUE). That means that for the same amount of plant growth less water us used.
That fact is long-settled science. Here’s a relevant paper:
Chun et al. (2011). Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn. Agric For Meteorol 151(3), pp 378-384, ISSN 0168-1923. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015.
EXCERPT:
The improvement in plants’ WUE is highly beneficial for mankind and for many natural ecosystems (“greening” the Earth),
However, I wrote in the first paragraph that, “for the same amount of plant growth less water us used” — and “amount of plant growth” is not the same. More & faster-growing plants increase the transport of water into the air via increased transpiration. (What goes up must come down, so that, in turn, increases rainfall, which increases inflows to streams, rivers & lakes.)
So there are two important things happening, with opposite effects on total water usage:
1. Crops (and lawns, and wild plants) are becoming more water efficient, reducing the need for watering crops and lawns (and improving drought resliance).
2. “Greening” of the Earth is increasing the number and size of plants, and the rate of their growth, thus increasing their total water usage.
In fact, those two effects are by far the most important consequences of anthropogenic climate change, and both of them are obviously objectively beneficial.
However, those two effects have opposite consequences for total water usage. This study says that they roughly balance (cancel) each other, with respect to total water usage:
Cheng et al. (2017). Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nat Commun 8(110). doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00114-5.
P.S. – I should have also mentioned that, although climate industry propagandists incessantly blame droughts on manmade climate change, in fact droughts are not worsening.
Hao et al. (2014). Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system. Sci Data 1(140001). doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.1
U.S. Percentage Areas (Very Wet/Dry):
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/wet-dry/0
Also, a typo:
s / resliance / resilience /
And how about the overall greening of the earth? Caused by increased watering and fertilizer, no doubt!
I guess you’ve never heard of droughts?
You appear to be making a point by using an anecdote without any actual measure and then applying your preferred interpretation of cause without any evidence. You are joining the herd of doomsayers who refuse to follow scientific practice when it doesn’t fit the narrative. This is not contributing to productive discourse – it is diverting attention from reality with fear mongering. Not very laudable.
Take a look at the water levels in the lakes and dams across much of the US and you get a much different answer.
___________________________________________
The NOAA link represents the USA 48 coast to coast for over 100 years and to paraphrase Richard Verney July 2017 here at WUWT :
The United States isn’t the world, but it spans North America
with a good variety of geography and topography which makes
it a good sub-set of a land mass. World-wide, the US has the
best sampling of weather data of any significant land surface.
If the US does not show warming, a strong explanation is needed
as to why it is an outlier compared to the rest of the world as a
whole.
That goes for precipitation as well. What’s obvious from your post is that the narrative put out by climate alarmists is your preference.
“If the US does not show warming, a strong explanation is needed as to why it is an outlier compared to the rest of the world as a whole.”
The U.S. does not show warming, it was warmer in the 1930’s than it is today.
And the U.S. is not an outlier, as unmodified, written temperature records from around the world show basically the same temperature profile as does the U.S., that being that they all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, worldwide.
The older woldwide temperature records are few and far between, but that’s what they all show, the very same temperature profile as the U.S. profile.
None of them look like the “hotter and hotter and hotter” profile of the bastardized Hockey Stick charts that alarmists hang their hats on and use to “prove” that CO2 and temperatures are connected and therefore CO2 is dangerous. They made it all up in their computers.
The historic written temperature record shows there is no unprecedented warmth today. The written record puts the lie to the Human-caused Climate Change claims. It’s no hotter today than in the recent past, yet there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere now than then. More CO2 does not equal unprecedented warming.
The only thing showing unprecedented warming is a bastardized global temperature record. Alarmists are lying to us using their computers.
“If the US does not show warming, a strong explanation is needed as to why it is an outlier compared to the rest of the world as a whole.”
strong? nope you dont need any explanation for outliers, thats known as psuedo scientific overfitting
The historic written temperature record shows there is no unprecedented warmth today.
wrong
brilliant proof!
The United States isn’t the world, but it spans North America
with a good variety of geography and topography which makes
it a good sub-set of a land mass.
its a poor subset, china is much more varied.
BullSh**!
I have no data on water level in lakes and dams, but if they were to go down, why blame climate change and/or a downward rainfall trend? Upstream, isn’t agriculture using more water? Aren’t cities using more water?
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/global_reservoir/
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/global_reservoir/#datasets
you didnt even look lazy bones
Way to answer his questions.
With all of the inaccuracy of measuring sea level from satellite…
Crop irrigation generally uses water from ground wells or river intake, if the cropland happens to adjoin a major river. Not a lot of land near major rivers, even around the East Coast.
Residential yard watering utilizes reservoir water mainly through urban/suburban water distribution pipes.
Shopping malls, casinos and golf courses usually drill their own wells so they’re not dependent upon municipal potable water systems and to avoid political water restrictions.
Large lakes/reservoirs only…
Great Salt Lake is being dried up slowly by people who are diverting streams that normally replenish the Great Lake into their homes and crops.
Same with the Dead Sea, no need for climate change fairy tales
Yeah. 40 years or so ago they built pumps because too much water was flowing into the GSL and people were fishing on State Street. Snowpack is currently averaging 175% over most of Utah with more on the way. Ma Nature is a B****!
The January 2023 “atmospheric river” just ruined your drought crisis, now you need to shift to catastrophic flood crisis without taking a breath (or a moment for reflection).
dam levels are not exactly good data, sincehuman choice is involved
Please provide the R-squared of the regression shown and how much of the variation is explained/unexplained. Hint, the term “insignificant” might apply.
Hint, since you know so much about ABC- squared WTF and regression, suppose you provide what you’re talking about and explain what it means.
R-Squared is a measure of the degree of correlation between an independent and dependent variable. It is derived from the difference between each data point and the predicted value from the formula for the straight line fit. Its square root is called the correlation coefficient. Every set of data that consists of paired data points – in this case year and rain fall can be regressed and will produce a straight line. If the dependent variable – rain fall – is essentially random the R-Squared will be near zero. If there is a strong relationship the R-Squared will be nearer to 1. Anything less than about 0.7 is a pretty good indicator that the two variables do not demonstrate cause and effect. The R-squared can be used in a simple calculation to estimate how much of the dependent variable variability is explained by change in the independent variable.
My comment probably should have been more directed to NOAA who posts these types of charts without providing context regarding significance. I seems clear that they are more interested in supporting the narrative than providing meaningful unbiased information.
“If there is a strong relationship”
A strong relationship still doesn’t imply cause and effect. It only implies that the slope of the trend lines are similar. It’s why postal rates correlate so well with so many things. Things that increase are similar.
AND the continental US was coming out of the LIA that whole time. And the LIA was caused how.
All we really know about our ever changing climate is that climate changes, NOT why.
The Le Châtelier Principle (LCP) in chemistry (something you will never hear mention of in climate science on either side of the arguments) tells us that when you have a complex interacting system of ‘components and physical conditions’ (for example molecules, temperatures, pressures, volumes, in the atmosphere, in the ocean, on land and in the biosphere), a change in any one these components or conditions will cause the system as a whole to react to resist the change!
A simple example, understood by everyone, will familiarize you with the concept. If the atmosphere becomes heated, say, by 1°C by whatever agent of warming, the atmosphere swells in volume, and this has a counter cooling effect. Now imagine each of the parts of the system joining in.
The slight warming along with continued increase in CO2 stimulates growth and areal coverage by the biosphere’s plants, plankton, etc. Photosynthesis and and shell growth are endothermic reactions (cooling), thereby sequestering in large part both ‘heat’ and carbon dioxide. Thousands of smaller to larger other effects are participating in the counter reaction throughout the system (evaporation, condensing, forming clouds, melting, changing albedo….. Were it not for the LCP that thin gray line of warming, which you cant see in Jeff’s diagram, would be ~3x as thick and you might barely make it out!
Gary, in systems science & engineering what you’ve described is called negative feedback.
Negative feedback mechanisms attenuate perturbations, and stabilize systems. Positive feedback mechanisms amplify perturbations, and if large they may destabilize systems.
Many natural systems have numerous feedback mechanisms, but, in general, most feedbacks in most systems tend to be negative/attenuating/stabilizing rather than positive/amplifying/destabilizing.
A common misconception is that positive feedbacks necessarily “run away,” and make a system unstable. That is incorrect. Positive feedbacks of less than +100% don’t make a system unstable. (Explosions happen when positive feedbacks are >100%!)
In electrical engineering, many quantities are “AC” (oscillating), and there are specialized analysis techniques, like Bode plots, for those situations. But for systems involving “DC” (non-oscillating) quantities, or in which oscillations have periods much longer than the response times of the the system, the analysis is more straightforward and intuitive.
Many of those systems can be approximated as linear over the ranges of interest of the involved quantities. That makes the analysis dead simple, if the feedbacks can be accurately quantified:
In general, in a linear “DC” system, a feedback ƒ causes a “compounded” net amplification (or attenuation, if ƒ is negative) which multiplies the original effect by 1/(1-ƒ).
For example, if ƒ =+20% then net amplification = 1/(1-ƒ) = 1/(1-0.2) = 1.25×.
(Caveats: In practice, delays in the feedback path may mean that the full amplification effect of a positive feedback isn’t immediately seen. Also, these calculations assume linearity, but most systems are not perfectly linear, though many are approximately linear over ranges of interest.)
Gary wrote, “The Le Châtelier Principle (LCP) in chemistry (something you will never hear mention of in climate science on either side of the arguments)…”
Never say never, Gary! I heard Prof. Lindzen mention it in his interview by Prof. Jordan Peterson.
Yes, warmer (and it is warmer than 200 years ago thankfully) has to mean more water in the air which should mean more rain.
All in all, better for all
Your precipitation graphic looks dependent upon instrumentation with systemic change as new instruments were deployed and technical rain measurement ability increased many times.
“This means that global warming since 1979 is visually about 0.5 degrees Celsius. We humans don’t have any scientific idea how much of that is caused by CO2.”
==============
Climate science took a vote to decide that question.
Quantum mechanics did much the same with the Copenhagen interpretation. Decided the answer ahead of the question.
Science isn’t determined by a vote, FFS. They took a vote and decided to become grifters.
The church took similar votes in the Middle Ages and decided the world was flat and it was a punishable offense to deny the existence of their god. The voters consisted of priests and middle school “science” teachers. History rinses and repeats.
I have been informed by people at the Guardian that the world would have cooled without AGW and so man’s contribution is greater than 100% of the observed warming.
I’m a tad confused by the graphic comparing NOAA observed and GCM modeled 1973 – 2022 US summer temperature trends. Were the GCM trends actually predictions or ‘hind casts’ or some combination of the two?
Great question Frank, and we know the models are tuned to previous “data” as cherry picked by the pseudo-scientists.
McIntire has a whole web site, Climate Audit, proving the ex post facto selection of the data used by Mann and Company.
Correct, if the modelers actually had some portion of NOAA’s ‘observations’ in hand when they produced the ‘data’ Dr Spencer used to calculate the 1973 – 2022 trends, it would imply that the models are nowhere close to being useful for purposes of making long-term predictions.
The trends are predictions which means that the trend itself or temperature values are not used in anyway as an input. The difference between a hindcast prediction and a forecast prediction is that the former uses actual inputs and the later uses scenario inputs. The inputs being solar, aerosol, GHG, etc. forcings. For CMIP6 I believe the cutoff is 2019. So 1880-2019 is a hindcast and 2019-2100 is a forecast. That means 1880-2019 uses actual solar, aerosol, GHG, etc. forcing and 2019-2100 uses scenario’d solar, aerosol, GHG, etc. forcing. I believe there are over 400 scenarios analyzed by CMIP6, but only 4 of the most representative pathways of human behavior are available on KNMI Explorer. Those common pathways are called Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). I don’t know which SSP Dr. Spencer used, but it probably doesn’t make much of difference given the relatively short period of time the SSPs were used.
If 2019 is the cutoff between actual and predicted temperatures in a range spanning 1973 – 2022, I don’t think I’d be too happy that every model missed to the high side, and many by way over 2x the ‘actual’.
2019 is not the cutoff between actual and predicted temperatures. The temperatures are predictions (or at least postdictions) through the entirety of the range.
That’s actually one of the biggest confusions I see on here. A lot of commentors think the hindcast portion uses actual temperatures as an input. It does not. It is an output.
Regardless of whether the modeled temperatures are pre- or post-dictions, they don’t agree with the ‘actuals’, hence the models are wrong. And it’s not that some are too low and others are too high, they are all too high, which is pretty good evidence that there is a systematic error and/or bias in all of them. I’ll hazard an educated guess here – CO2 is NOT the ‘control knob’ of the Earth’s climate.
right-ish answers for the wrong reasons. Only the sign of the trend is right. Everything under the hood wrong. this is not knowledge.
Trend lines are not very good for predicting. The trend lines give equal weight to data far in the past as it gives to current data. No one running a business would forecast sales or revenue in this manner.
It’s why, if you put a ruler on the CGM outputs, they are very close to being nothing more than a y = mx+b linear line with a miniscule amount of noise.
It doesn’t matter if the inputs to the CGMs are temperature data or something else that produces temperature outputs. Whatever the inputs are the output is basically a linear trend line with a slope of “m”. The CGMs produce the wrong “m”. If you ran the CGMs for a millennia it would just show the temperature continually rising – never another ice age. Does anyone believe that?
You can apply lots of models in business but…what?
If projecting home prices for 2040, you think you should be giving weight to the recent ridiculous rise in prices?
You think inflation is just going to skyrocket to the moon as well I guess?
Long term linear trends are good for predicting. They aren’t always the best model, but they probably are more than practically any other.
What is the RMSE of the model vs actual?
What is the threshold of RMSE to be “wrong”.
This is a stupid article by a stupid author.
There is always global warming or cooling
There was global warming from 1975 to 2015
NO one on this planet knows what percentage of that 1975 to 2015 warming was caused by manmade CO2 emissions.
By the use of lab spectroscopy, downwelling infrared measurements, and the pattern and timing of warming since 1975, there is strong evidence rising CO2 contributed some unknown amount to that global warming.
Anyone who claims to know exactly how much is a liar, or a fool. The author claims he knows. Therefore, he is a liar, or a fool.
We can make a worst case guess that all warming from 1975 was cause by CO2 and then consider what that would mean.
That would mean CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 331 ppm (1975) as expected from lab spectroscopy experiments.
And it is obvious warming since 1975 harmed no one.
In fact, the extra CO2 helps green the Earth, and the most warming has been at night during winters in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, which is good news for the few people who live there.
Richard,
it about which medicine to use to ‘cure’ the earth from its global warming /climate change/ For that you need a proper diagnosis.
It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water
I know it’s all SO2, you believe, which of course is wrong
There are too many periods of 5 years or longer when the global average temperature and SO2 emissions do not move in the direction you claim they do. Such as from 2015 to 2023 with falling SO2 emissions, yet the global average temperature was steady, not rising as SO2 emissions declined. So much for your theory.
You are confusing me with another Henry
Richard Greene:
Between 2014 and 2016, SO2 aerosol emissions decreased by 23 million tons, and again, in 2019, they decreased by 29 million tons. Average Jan-Dec anomalous global temperatures for 2014-2021 (per Hadcrut5) were as follows
2014 0.623 Deg. C.
2015 0.825
2016 0.933
2017 0.845
2018 0.763.
2019 0.891
2020 0.923
2021 0.762
Temperatures followed changes in S)2 aerosol emissions, and were NOT steady, as you maintained.
My SO2 theory is still intact.
Calm down, Richard. Aside from your ad hominem attacks, there’s no difference between the author’s conclusions and those in your comment.
I was curious while reading his comment since other than the first sentence, he was in complete agreement with the article.
Richard seems to be two people at times to me. I wonder if he has a different identity in there somewhere, and his posts reflect that.
First sentence and entire third paragraph.
Before coffee comments VS after coffee comments?
That was funny
But I don’t drink coffee
.
I just wake up mean, planning to insult a leftist every morning, so if a know-it-all conservative writer gets in my way, he gets it first. I’m a tough New York former juvenile delinquent — 4′ 6″ and 495 lbs., so watch out.
Well Richard, I’m 6ft 4″ and 124 lbs, so I’ll back myself to outrun you 🖕🏃
It’s funny how he threatened you even though he’s probably never going to see your face in his life.
I was hoping 4′ 6″ and 495lbs would be considered to be funny. You have a sense of humor similar to Attila the Hun.
So you’re Peter Griffin?
Former? Maybe still.
The author claims manmade CO2 has almost no effect on the climate. He is an AGW denier
I claim manmade CO2 appears to have some effect on the climate — the exact effect is unknown, but si o far it has not harmed anyone. Even with a worst case assumption about CO2 causing ALL the warming, there appears to be no danger.
I am not an AGW denier
That is a BIG difference.
I actually would prefer a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere to stimulate the growth of C3 photosynthesis plants (90% of 300,000 species), supporting more life on our planet.
I am an overeducated AGW realist. Your reaction is silly.
The author claims to know that the contribution of CO2 to global warming is close enough to zero that the difference doesn’t matter.
Richard points out that there is no way the author can know this.
No. The author has observed (from UAH data) that the change in temperature since 1979 is about 0.5C. He then infers that even if this change is fully attributable to CO2 emissions, then the impact of CO2 on temperature must be small.
The change was about +0.7 degrees C. with surface numbers and I read the author’s claim in his chart to be that CO2’s effect was almost zero
I’m not sure it’s safe to agree with me here!
The mob might come after you with flaming torches!
I am tired of people claiming CO2 does nothing (new this year) and people who claim CO2 does everything (for the past 25 years)
It’s about time for people to admit “we don’t know the exact effect of CO2.
The CO2 – average temperature correlation has changed from negative in 1940 to 1975, to positive in 1975 to 2015 and no correlation from 2015 to 2023.
That leads me to ONE conclusion:
CO2 is one of many climate change variables, and definitely not the temperature control knob.
I actually agree that we don’t know the contribution of CO2 to warming. I’ve written it more times than you likely ever will.
Size matters.
The author claims to KNOW the exact effect of CO2 on the climate (almost none), which no one knows, and no one could know.
There are too many variables that cause climate change for ANYONE to know exactly what CO2 does. It could cause anywhere from zero to 100% of the warming since 1975
I said there is evidence CO2 was one cause of the warming from 1975 to 2015 — I did not specify how much because the percentage is unknown. The author claims he knows. He is wrong.
Authors who make false claims, like he does, significantly harm our effort to refute CAGW climate scaremongering — a battle we are losing. We are not helped by authors making specific claims about CO2 that can never verified.– the AGW does not exists conspiracy nuts.
We have real Climate Howlers claiming CO2 does “everything”, We also have fake Climate Realists claiming CO2 does nothing, or does almost nothing, such as this author. Both claims can not be supported by data. Only stupid people make claims that can’t be proven. Therefore, the author is a stupid person.
Climate Realists are hurt by people making false, unproven claims, so such people deserve to be insulted -hoping they will stop. They make Climate Realists too easy to fact check and get called science deniers, because they are AGW deniers.
A big part of climate science is questions that do not yet have answers, such as the actual ECS of CO2, the exact short-term effects of CO2 emissions, and accurate predictions of the future climate. I resent authors who have the “I’m 100% right, and consensus science is 100% wrong” attitude. They are big ego fools.
And I want them to know that.
We Climate Realists will never end the CAGW scaremongering by denying AGW exists. So it’s time to stop doing that.
You should re-read the article. The author does not deny that the GHE exists, nor does he deny that AGW exists. But he does deny that CAGW exists, first by showing the entire post-1979 ~0.5C rise in UAH temperature, assuming full attribution to CO2, in context with the Earth’s temperature in Kelvin, and then by comparing NOAA’s own 1973 – 2022 trend against those from the GCM models.
“The author claims to KNOW the exact effect of CO2 on the climate”
Fake news Richie.
For 25 years I went berserk when a Climate Howler leftist claimed CO2 controlled the climate and caused every problem in the world, from cancer to warts. This year I also decided to go berserk when a Climate Realist conservative claimed CO2 does nothing and/or AGW does not exist. Don’t advise me to get my head examined. I have already had my head examine., The doctor said he found nothing.
Ha!
Mr. Greene, this is pretty much the same conclusion as the author’s. Not sure what your point is.
The author is an AGW denier
With a specific claim about CO2, that’s just his personal opinion.
I am not an AGW denier
And I correctly say the exact short term effect of CO2 is unknown, because there are too many other climate change variables that can cause warming or cooling. There’s no evidence the effect of CO2 effect is large, or dangerous, as the CAGW scaremongers claim, but “we don’t know” is the right answer.
Dick, may I call you Dick. Your example of arrogance and rudeness is truly awesome. I pray I never attain your level of either.
Oh, by the by I think your declaration about the author and article are wrong.
A meaningless, childish, generic character attack.
A polite person would repeat at least ONE or TWO sentences from my comments, and explain why I was wrong. But you are not polite — you are just a leftist style character attacker, thinking that writing ‘you are wrong’ is actually a debate.
I guess you were not able to understand my fourth sentence,
A polite person would never have written what you did about the author or the article.
Saying you are “wrong” is not a debate it is a declaration that you are wrong.
RG said: “NO one on this planet knows what percentage of that 1975 to 2015 warming was caused by manmade CO2 emissions.”
Here is the estimate from IPCC AR6. There isn’t an entry for 1975, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to use 0.97 W/m2 for CO2 and 0.64 W/m2 for Total ERF. Then taking the differences we have (2.01 – 0.97) = 1.04 W/m2 for dCO2 and (2.61 – 0.64) = 1.97 W/m2 for dTotal. That is 1.04 / 1.97 = 53%.
The obvious caveat here is that this is the percentage of ERF from 1975 to 2015. The percentage of warming is a lot more complicated due to difference between transient and equilibrium climate responses. But this at least provides the general gist.
Don’t hear what isn’t being said. The following chart and thus the 53% figure above is not know for sure. The IPCC talks about the uncertainty of these figures in the report. The point is that our knowledge is better than “NO one on this planet knows”.
Stop hand waving about transient and equilibrium responses. The point of the article is that your model boys completely missed hitting the barn despite having some portion of NOAA’s tampered data in hand. If you have an explanation for this, fine, but don’t try to obfuscate this failure by introducing specious IPCC forcings with 2 decimal ‘accuracy’.
The difference between TCR and ECR is a result of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The 1LOT is not a hand-wave.
IPCC forcing do not have 2 decimal accuracy. As can be seen in AR6 the ERF uncertainty of CO2 and Total are about ±0.3 W/m2 and 0.8 W/m2 respectively. And per the NIST uncertainty machine that makes the confidence interval quite wide at 16-90% assuming the CO2 force and Total force are uncorrelated (bad assumption) and 43-63% for the fully correlated case. Note that because Total depends on CO2 the correlation between the two is very high are likely close to 1.0. Anyway, that is significantly different than the 52-54% range your claim that ±0.01 W/m2 would imply.
‘IPCC forcing do not have 2 decimal accuracy.’
No? What’s this?
‘…but I don’t think it is unreasonable to use 0.97 W/m2 for CO2 and 0.64 W/m2 for Total ERF.’
Those are the interpolated values for 1975 using 1970 and 1980 from the table.
W/m^2 in IPCC-speak means ‘forcing’. And every forcing in your table implies 2-decimal accuracy.
Frank from NoVA said: “W/m^2 in IPCC-speak means ‘forcing’. And every forcing in your table implies 2-decimal accuracy.”
Technically the values in the table AIII.3 I posted above are Effective Radiative Forcing. And table 7.8 lists the uncertainties for table AIII.3. None of them have “2-decimal accuracy” as you claim. The smallest is contrails at ±0.04 W/m2 and seeing as it is estimated at +0.06 W/m2 in 2019 that is a relative uncertainty of 67% which is obviously rather large.
IPCC forcing is a wild guess
It does not have any accuracy.
this presupposes you know the truth.
if you guess my age is 96 i can say you are inaccurate in your guess because i know the right answer
I think one can claim inaccuracies in the modeling because they don’t match reality. So, we move on to … ‘since we don’t know which of the many variable(s) are wrong, it is bad to assume any are inaccurate’?
(By the way, if I guess your age at 96, 269 times in a row (knowing I am wrong every time), I can claim a precision that is greater than your climate model(s).)
It is far more than a wild guess. It is the culmination of the consilience of evidence described in about 10,000 first order scientific works and hundreds of thousands or even millions of secondary and tertiary scientific works. There is so much evidence that goes into those IPCC estimates that no human could ever review even a fraction of it in a lifetime.
consilience of incompetence. Infinite derivative works and still no theory. sad.
‘It is the culmination of the consilience of evidence described in about 10,000 first order scientific works and hundreds of thousands or even millions of secondary and tertiary scientific works.’
So, billions of dollars to fund 30+ GCMs, none of which agree, in order to develop a range for ECS, which continues to diverge with each CMIP iteration. And then billions more to fund thousands of ‘peer-reviewed’ / copy-cat papers predicting the environmental effects of higher temperatures, assuming the models are correct. Not a good look, but certainly enough real science does gets past the gate keepers, typically on the paleo side, so that the entire CO2 = Control Knob narrative collapses.
I’ve often wondered why none of the radiative “forcing” studies take into account the inverse square law for radiation.
If the earth sends x w/m^2 skyward and it is intercepted by a CO2 molecule at 1000m what is the radiative intensity at 1000m? It certainly isn’t x w/m^2. It’s something like y = x/1000^2 w/m^2. Then when it re-radiates toward the earth the earth will receive y/1000^2 w/m^2.
It just seems as if all this radiative stuff is just added and subtracted directly as if there were no inverse square law. What am I missing?
TG said: “What am I missing?”
the inverse square law formula is not I = 1/D^2. It is actually I ∝ 1/D^2. The ∝ symbol is not the same as the = symbol. It means proportional to; not equal to.
Surface radiation does not get emitted from a point surface. It is already spread out. The surface shell is about 6378000^2 m2. The 1000 m height shell is about 6379000^2 m2. Using the inverse square law we know that the view factor from the surface shell to the 1000 m height shell is 6378000^2 m2 / 6379000^2 m2 = 0.999968. That means surface radiation only diffuses by a negligible amount by the time it reaches 1000 m. Even up to the tropopause the diffusion is only about 0.994.
BTW…it can be easily shown that y = x/1000^2 cannot be right with unit analysis. When we include the units (as is always recommended) we see that we have x W/m2 / (1000 m)^2 = x W/m2 / 1e6 m2 = x W/m4. W/m4 is a non sensical unit.
Well stated.
A better point or two:
Why do the models get less accurate over time?
Why does the least inaccurate Russian INM model not get 99% of the attention, rather than 1%?
My answer:
Climate computer games are programmed to scare people, not to make accurate predictions. Scaring people is the only purpose of CAGW predictions. There are political reasons for creating fear that have nothing to do with science.
CAGW is a data free, always wrong (since the 1979 Carney Report) prediction of climate doom. Wrong predictions are not real science. Wrong predictions for 43 years (since 1979) are a laughingstock — scaremongering for gullible people like bdgwax.
I wholeheartedly agree.
They don’t, is the answer.
They certainly don’t get *more* accurate!
A distinction without a significant difference. An estimate subject to revision is not ‘knowing.’
A specific estimate about the exact effects of CO2, that can never be proven, is just a personal a guess, and a personal guess is BS.
How do we know that the uncertancies aren’t uncertain?
This could be one of those mathematic progressions that eventually disappears up its own orifice?
The IPCC fits within the definition of “no one” knows.
TCS is 70 years, and unknown
ECS is 200 to 400 years, and unknown
1975 to 2015 is 40 years, and the exact causes if the warming in those 40 years is unknown. Why is it so impossible for anyone to say “we don’t know” when that is the truth?
I’m not sure what that means. TCS is transient and has no added time extension to it so I’m not sure where the 70 years comes from. ECS is often broken into the fast feedback response and slow feedback response. When not specifically stated ECS durations are usually given as the fast feedback response and limited to 100-150 years. The slow feedback response is tens of thousands of years because that’s how long it takes for ice sheets to melt and carbon uptake to dispatch into the depths of the ocean.
TCR, transient climate response, is the response after 70 years, which at a one percent increase per year means CO2 has doubled in 70 years. It is generally on the order of 2/3 of ECS.
Ah. Got it. He’s talking about an idealized pulse of CO2 that results in a 1%/yr increase used for model simulations.. In other words 2^(1/70) = 1.01. I thought he was talking the real world state as of 2022.
Richard, you are entitled to your opinions just as the person who wrote this article is. You don’t always have to get pressed whenever you read something you don’t like. Regardless, there’s pretty good evidence that CO2 is only a small player in the observed warming we’ve seen. The fact that the warming has been slowing not accelerating as time goes on is, in my view, the best evidence of that.
Since the warming in the era of manmade CO2 emissions has been relatively small (+1.1 degrees C. in 172 years, from 1850 to 2022) and harmless, it would be reasonable to assume CO2 emissions have been harmless too.
I complement the good articles. to encourage the authors to write more articles, and try to slam the bad articles, to encourage the authors to stop writing climate articles.
I agree with you Richard. I’m thankful for climate realism, but people here need to realize that making future climate predictions will more likely than not embarrass them in the future. We just have to see what happens and just go with it.
Climate science has predictions up the wazoo
Too many ECS guesses
Too many people claiming the future climate can be predicted after a century of wrong predictions
There are also 8 billion first hand witnesses to climate change for their entire lives. 47 years of global warming experience for me — 1975 to 2022. 35 years in the same home in Bingham Farms, Michigan — I don’t need any scientists to tell me our winters are warmer than in the 1970s, with less snow. We observe that in Michigan and love it. Global warming is great news for people in Michigan, and many other relatively cold areas of the world.
Why is it that ordinary people are not asked about their experiences with their local climate? We only hear predictions of some global average temperature — a temperature that no one lives in — from scientists who are paid by governments to make scary climate predictions.
Based on my study of climate proxies, we CURRENTLY live in the best climate for humans, animals, and especially plants, in the past 5,000 years, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended.
We should be CELEBRATING the current climate.
Living in an interglacial during a mild warming trend is about as good as the climate gets on our planet.
The biggest improvement would be for us conservatives to muzzle the leftist Climate Howlers, so they finally stopped annoying us with predictions of climate doom. Or deport them to Cuba.
My apologies to the author for calling him stupid. I usually save “stupid” for stupid leftists. I tried to erase the “stupid” in this thread by holding a magnet next to my computer screen but that did not work. Of course this was not my fault, because none of my faults are my fault.
Richard, Engage brain before
mouthcomment.I nominate you for the award of “Diplomat of the Year.”
Keep an eye out for his forthcoming self-help book, “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” 🙂
My two new books are almost done:
Climate change will kill your dog !
and
How to fight climate change by living in your car trunk
They should make me rich and famous — climate change is a big subject these days, and I want my share of the loot.
What about how climate change spawned 26.25 new human genders?
Dammit! Will you two alarmists knock it off with the faux two-decimal precision?
There are only two genders among leftists:
Dumb and Dumber.
That was funny
Richard Greene:
You say there was Global Warming from 1975 to 2015:
Between 1975 and 1979 Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions increased by 10 Million tons.
The SO2 aerosol is a fine mist of Sulfuric Acid droplets, which are reflective and cool the Earth’s surface by reflecting away much of the incoming solar radiation.
Thus, it is impossible for any global warming to have.occurred during that time period. Recall that it was actually the period when there was concern about the return of a new Ice Age because of the COLD temperatures.
What source are you using to come up with your misinformation?
Richard, you are addressing your vitriol about CAGW against the wrong person!
I agree with your analysis about CO2 and its ineffectiveness in relation to climate change but to call the author a fool etc is why get you these negative scores. Lighten up mate, life is too short, you need to put blame on the alarmists and their ilk in academia and NGOs.
Observed from space, the Earth peak spectra corresponds to a temperature close to 273.15K. Not 285K.
Therefore, the bulk of energy is emitted from the atmosphere, not from the surface. Energy is transported from the surface into the atmosphere by convection, not by radiation.
The flux from the 2/3rds of the surface covered by cloud does not contribute to outgoing longwave radiation.
At any given time, at minimum, 2/3rds of radiative flux originates from the the atmosphere.
The peak emission is shifted outside the CO2 absorption bands.
The system is free to shift more or less energy into the atmosphere to maximize OLR.
The changes in convection also impact the cloud free areas by reducing the high altitude water vapor.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
correct. observe the system response more clearly in relative humidity.
As of the early 2000s the system has stabilized. There are signs of a shifting fluid dynamic mode
Observed the corresponding fluid dynamics in the global near surface wind field. The shifting fluid mode in climate cannot be denied. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac770a/pdf
Thanks JCM.
What you have posted appears to be something I have never seen on WUWT, or elsewhere.
If I missed it, that is my fault. I don’t always read every post to the end.
Always good to expand the knowledge base.
the error is in thinking the following equilibrium state equation is “fundamental”. As Dr Dessler repeatedly claims is “fundamental physics”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PAbm1u1IVg
Solar Constant (1 – albedo) / 4 = sigma T ^ 4 i.e. OLR.
But of course, albedo is selected ad hoc. And so we do not have any a-priori foundational equation. And so there is no fundamental physics.
And therefore all sorts of assumptions are made ad hoc, such that environmental lapse rate is constant, or such that relative humidity is constant. It is not.
The error is the failure to recognize that the right side of the equation term OLR is not distinct from the left side of the equation term albedo.
The failure to recognize in 1D models that there is no single source radiating surface which filters up through the depth of the atmosphere to be “effectively” radiated at some variable height. But that the source radiation also occurs some variable height.
And so the concept of an effective radiating height is irrelevant if we do not also know the variable effective radiating source.
There is no increasing depth of radiation observed.
Dessler speaks with authority but it is an embarrassment. For the entire system has been conceptualized in reverse – what is fixed is the depth of IR radiation. It is everything else which varies.
Assuming that’s Dessler’s ‘equilibrium equation’, he’s a crank. I’m ok with equating (at ‘equilibrium’) absorbed SW with TOA outgoing LW, but using the S-B equation, which is applicable to the Earth’s surface but not it’s atmosphere, is a fundamental mistake.
Also noted in his video the supposed shift in atmospheric temperature is ‘not shown to as scale’.
it’s the (non)fundamental equation underlying the whole gamut. just plug in albedo and bam: 255K for an atmosphere with cloud but no fluid. assume constant relative humidity and bingo, the rest is gospel since Manabe 1967. nonphysical pseudoscience, a consequence of inductive empiricism.
More thoughts on Dessler’s fundamental equation. Assuming ‘equilibrium’, his equation is correct ONLY if there is no GHE, (whether because there is no atmosphere or because the atmosphere does not contain greenhouse gases) AND T = T_surface. However, since there is a GHE, it’s fundamentally flawed unless the non-perturbed GHE is specified and any changes to the perturbed GHE effect are consistent with changes to albedo, T_surface and LW forcings between the Earth’s surface and TOA.
The radiative equilibrium is a strict constraint, and the OLR as a function of:
[surface temperature and a variable LW radiation depth] = solar absorbed,
is a violation of energy conservation.
Reduced OLR due to increased LW radiation depth cannot be restored to match initial solar absorbed without adding additional thermal or radiative energy to the system.
The simplest solution is for the system to restore the initial radiation depth. The simplest solution is not to find a way to warm. This conundrum has never occurred to climatology.
The real world OLR is the weighted sum of emitters at all altitudes, where energy is transmitted to where and when it is needed to maximize OLR.
OLR is strictly bound to net radiation at the surface. OLR/2 = net radiation = total convection = greenhouse effect.
Full column radiation depth = 2. Always. A rule of nature, it would appear, in a water rich world.
Calculate full column integrated radiation depth = -ln(Window Flux / Surface Flux)
Take values of 50 W m-2 for window and 380 W m-2 for surface flux. Integrate through the atmospheric column.
Radiation depth = -ln(50/380) = 2.
While the surface IR window might be less than 50, latent flux is transmitted away from the surface, and into cloud, where the window is wider. Surface flux is reduced, and flux from atmosphere is increased.
This is a theory of optimized fluid dynamics in maximum entropy. Climatology has yet to catch up.
The increased optical depth from a supposed radiative forcing is fully compensated when the latent flux completes its phase transition and rains out at altitude, thereby fully releasing tangible heat sourced from the surface. This process has been occurring long before industrialization. This height can be calculated from first principles but it is outside the scope of the thread.
it’s a ceterus paribus formulation required by empiricists because they have not considered the physics, but have tricked themselves into believing they have.
the result is that skeptics have been pulled into arguing about the magnitude of radiative forcing and radiative feedbacks. But in reality the entire system has been conceptualized incorrectly. The bulk of mechanisms of interest are in fluid dynamics and convection / total turbulent flux of heat, flux of mass, and momentum.
Absolute humidity is a climate change variable, not relative humidity.
you seem to have this idea but it’s nonsense. Read up Manage 1967 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml
Oceans, the earth is a heat pump. The oceans have become very very cold over the last 2.5 million years, we are in an interglacial because of the lack of movement of ocean heat. And lack of warm water instead of cold water going to the bottom of the ocean. GHG isn’t as much of a factor. The locations of the continents is more important to our ice age.
How many times have I heard the expression “follow the science?.
Seems to make sense until you realize that those using that expression (usually politicians or activists) are choosing the science they want you to follow. It is a simple process to pick supposedly scientific studies or conclusions that support a narrative. Especially if you add a little artistic exaggeration.
Another is “the war or the fight against”. Used in connection to climate change AKA global warming, covid19, or anything else they would like you to perceive as an enemy.
How do you have a war against an enemy that doesn’t fight back. The actual war is being imposed on and against humanity, or groups of humans. Producers and users of fossil fuels,or anti-vaccers are obvious targets for saturation bombing.
And then there is the significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Significant only when expressed as a percentage. Actually, it is an extremely tiny increase. It is only noticeable because we started with a very low number.
The same is true for global warming where a only a tiny fraction of the earth’s history is used as a comparison.
The only real war is a war of words
The diurnal temperature variation depends on latitude, altitude, and humidity. Itbis high in mountainous or desert terrain. It is low in low lying humid places. For example, in the Swamp (Washington DC) it averages about 8C over a year. In Hong Kong, it averages about 4C.
The observational ECS computed using EBM is about 1.7C. So to claim climate harm from a doubling of CO2 ignores diurnal reality. The world already adapted to delta 1.7C long ago.
And in fact none of the past alarming claimed harms have occurred:
Washington DC was built on low riverbank land susceptible to flooding so would occasionally get muddy. It only became a swamp due to political critters infesting the area.
Mark Steyn has referred to a certain part of Our Nation’s Capital as a cesspool.
But CAGW will cause the planet to go to hell in a handbasket in ten years. Sure the climate seems fine now. That’s just the lull before the storm. While it is true that CAGW has been coming in 10 years since the 1979 Charney Report, that was only because of a miscalculation caused by Charney’s dog eating his papers. The ten-year prediction is right today, and we are all doomed in 10 years this time, for real.
Regarding “Sea level rise is a dead straight line for 150 years”: Willis Eschenbach shows sea level rise being .76 mm/year greater in 1993-2013 than in 1972-1992, in a criticism of a claim of greater acceleration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-acceleration-factory/
Huh?
He showed that was due to grafting satellite measurements onto tide gage records.
He specifically showed there was no acceleration.
Correct.
W. Eschenbach did not show lack of acceleration. He showed acceleration of 2.1 mjm/year per 21 years with grafting of satellite data onto tide gauge data, and .76 mm/year per 21 years without.
Brilliant, even I understood it! Thank you.
What is the total energy in that gray bar compared to the total incidental energy of sunlight hitting the earth?
There are a lot of caveats with your question, but I think the best way to answer this question is via the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Assuming no rectification effect the grey bar would be sblaw(285.5) – sblaw(285.0) = 2.6 W/m2. And the TOA energy flux is 340 W/m2.
The chart this comment refers to seems to be one of summer temperature trends in the US. Not sure what relevance this has to the CMIP models, which are global and cover the whole year..
Back in 2013 the IPCC published a chart (Figure 11.25a,b from IPCC AR5). This compared the multi-model range to global surface observations. As a check on this, Ed Hawkins at Climate Lab Book has updated it annually using each new set of annual observations. Data for 2022 isn’t in yet, but as of 2021, observations are well inside the 5-95% multi-model range. If anything, 2022 looks set to be warmer than 2021.
I think that’s important to keep in my mind that Spencer’s graph on the summer temperatures start in 1973, which was a colder period of time. I suspect that if it were to start early, say 1940’s, that rate of warming would be even smaller.
Yes, these temp graph start points always remind me of the travel directions I got upon my arrival in Ireland –
“If I was going to Dublin, I wouldn’t be leavin’ from here.”
I think that it is worth noting that the historical means appear more centered than the RCP projection means. That is, the maximum values for the range appear to be drifting upwards.
That’s because the hindcast period uses actual solar, aerosol, and GHG forcing inputs and the forecast period uses scenario’d solar, aerosol, and GHG forcing inputs. There is only one set of actual inputs for the hindcast and 4 sets of inputs for the forecast since there are 4 RCPs. And because there are 4 RCPs represented in that graph the range (max – min) grows with time.
One criticism I have with the graph is the placement of the hatched red box. I’m not sure exactly how the creator decided upon that.
We only know solar output in the past to a rough estimate. Prior to the satellite era, our knowledge of TSI is a guess at best.
Only someone who knows nothing about history would make a claim that we know historical aerosol levels with any level of confidence.
As for the other GHG forcings, we don’t even know what most of them are, much less their levels.
Hansen pre-print 2022
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.04474.pdf
It seems like you could form a confidence level you are comfortable with based on first principal reasoning alone.
It was actually part of the original IPCC AR5 chart. There is some discussion aboout it in the paper.
Oh, got it. I see now.
The ONLY way to make the average CMIP6 models appear to be accurate is to calculate TCS, rather than ECS, and use RCP 4.5, rather then RCP 8.5, which is what Zeke H. did several years ago to “prove” models were “accurate”.
In fact, it is impossible for a climate computer game to be accurate. Not enough is known about every cause of climate change to construct a model that could make an accurate prediction, assuming an accurate prediction of the future climate is even possible (I doubt it). Therefore, any model that appears to have made an accurate prediction, has just made a lucky guess.
That’s why so many model runs are made, using different parameters for the various possible influences. None is expected to exactly forecast observations.
Over time, the multi-model average is expected to be more reflective of observations than any single model run. So far, observations are well within the multi-model range and the multi-model average is relatively close to observations. This is what would be expected from a skillfully constructed model range.
Excellent article for the layman like me. But with regards to your last line:
“Humanity needs to improve intellectually or we will never achieve the best of our imagination.”
It is in government’s interest to claim that CO2 is destroying the Earth because it gives them the moral imperative to take control of every aspect of every person’s life. The ultimate in power and control.
Also, the governments run the schools.
Sites like WUWT are among the best hopes for humanity. The truth is out there, but we need to teach people how to find it.
In the US, the Governments don’t run all the schools – there is private education. Regrettably, those institutions have also been corrupted by the long march through the institutions.
I don’t believe governments are evil in purpose. They just suffer from the very human need to sustain themselves. As long as they believe their policies are what the most powerful groups of people want, they will continue with those policies. Minorities and ineffective majorities can get trampled alike, with no fear of consequences.
Governments have an inherent conflict of interest with the governed when they are formulated as ‘problem solvers.’ The elected understand that their job depends on having problems that need fixing. It is in the interest of governments to make sure there are plenty of problems for the people so that they will demand an ever growing and ever enriched government to solve the peoples’ problems. If they ever actually solved a problem, the need for that department would cease and the jobs and money would get cut off. Maybe that’s not “evil”, but its not good.
You should add a 3rd category on the graph with a grey bar that shows the glacial and interglacial range as well.
I decided to go ahead and do it. I apologize for not replicating the format exactly.
Changes things how?
I don’t think it changes anything. But it might provide another level of context for those reader the article.
OK, just to explain – my question was prompted by the thought that global warming is always presented & emphasized as “global”, so the end result of the net effect of what’s happening in the literally hundreds of unique climates all around this planet that operate in their own particular ways doesn’t change the “global” take on the presentation of a claimed net effect.
(While on the subject of all the different zonal and local climates around the world, do you know if any of the climate studies faculties in academia have ever sought to do detailed comparisons of the observed behaviors of individual local climates over the industrial age period since Al Gore unilaterally declared “CO2 is the control knob for THE climate”?)
Now wouldn’t that would make for interesting context for those who would read such articles (e.g. me)?
One suggestion I would make to the climate realism community is to monitor the UAH temperatures in Alaska, Northern Russia, Greenland, etc (if there is a way to get that data). According to the mainstream theory, they should show considerable warming from here on out, which it has, but it could slow down or even reverse one day putting yet another nail in the GHG coffin.
That’s possible. UAH publishes their grids. You’d need to create a mask for those specific areas though. I obviously don’t know the amount of warming off the top of my head for those areas, but UAH does provide the precomputed NoExt zone with is pretty close. It is about 0.83 C of warming vs the 0.57 C warming for the globe from 1979 to 2022.
Then that means the rest of the globe is well below 0.57c and therefor we’ll below the point where it is noticeable
Just like the gray bar in the graph above.
Right?
Pat from Kerbob’s post made me realize I made a mistake NoExt is 20N-90N. I meant to use NoPol which is 60N-90N. The amount of warming in the NoPol region is 1.1 C.
Air Vent said: “This means that global warming since 1979 is visually about 0.5 degrees Celsius. “
That’s pretty close. But there’s no need to rely on a visualize. UAH provides the trend of 0.13 C/decade. Over the 44 year period of record that is 44 yr * 0.13 C/decade / 10 yr/decade = 0.57 C.
You’re doing the “Rainman” thing again Bdgwx.
“DEFINITELY!”
Lol. Not “rainman” needed here either. The trend is provided at drroyspencer.com and the result is trivial arithmetic that I’m certain most people can accomplish even without a calculator. I always use a calculator because propensity for mistakes is high without one.
Good article. I appreciated the points about the energy stored in the atmosphere, and the quote, “We humans don’t have any scientific idea how much of that [warming] is caused by CO2.”
Consider how much and how quickly the “vertical integral of total energy” over a location changes in an hourly time series. A few Watt-hours per hour per square meter of static “forcing” vanishes in the plot. Here is a full comment on an open thread here at WUWT from about a year ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/30/essay-contest-results-delayed-a-bit-and-open-thread/#comment-3443611
This article actually summarizes a few key points that people like me have been trying to pass on to the community of non-scientists following popular false and incomplete claims.
Dr. JBVigo
How did “Kevlin” get passed your spell checker?
Ethics is the secular religion of relativity, selectivity, and semantic games.
The big lie is that CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s climate. All conclusions based on this false premise are invalid. Exposing the big lie is our best chance of restoring sanity and the scientific method.
The CO2 – average temperature correlation has changed several times since 1940. Negative from 1940 to 1975, positive from 1975 to 2015, and no correlation from 2015 to 2023. Which one is right?
The biggest lies are that humans can predict the future climate and that CO2 is pollution
I thought it was Newtonian, not Galilaen.
Not this nonsense again.
Yes, at any given instant, the human contribution to CO2 is small. However over time, this small contribution adds up to a huge amount.
Humans have been adding CO2 to a system that was previously in balance for over 100 years. Over that time, the human contribution has caused the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to go from around 280ppm to a bit over 400ppm.
How does 120 ppm translate to a huge amount. Can I have some of what you are smoking.
I think “huge” depends on the perspective. Either way it doesn’t change the fact that small things can have big effects.
Nonsense would be the belief that Earth’s climate is ever in balance. There are thousands of variables in continuous flux driving conditions from brutal ice ages to pleasant interglacials like we are blessed to live in now.
The carbon budget was close to balanced for the last 10,000 years. It didn’t drift much beyond the 260-280 ppm range during that time.
180 ppm to over 300 ppm in the ice core records
Is the top right plot in figure 1 wrong? Not calling you out, just want your documentation.
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/825/1/Fis1999a.pdf
Where are you seeing 180 ppm circa 8000 BC?
Richard in the earlier part of the discussion about the tiny invisible line representing warming, you appear to not have noticed that the units were Kelvin°. Yeah, a half a degree looks thin stacked on top 285°K (remember that just above the atmosphere it is only 2°K! so use of K° is approptiate). With inattention you then wrote half the comments on this excellent thread which were of no value.
I would expect to see a signal from that increase in CO2. If it is there, it’s insignificant.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/de254896-fc11-4b66-9b49-580f0dd227e3
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=120-012
Tell me more about this.
“This means that global warming since 1979 is visually about 0.5 degrees Celsius. We humans don’t have any scientific idea how much of that is caused by CO2.”
Even if all of that warming were due to anthropogenic emissions, so what? There is no doomsday because of that. We’re still well below Eemian temperatures and sea levels. There wasn’t a mass extinction then, and if there’s going to be one in the relatively near future, it won’t be from modest and mostly beneficial warming.
But while a little warming may be man-made, I doubt most of it is, or that land use changes have been sufficiently explored. Also, in an article posted recently here on WUWT, the Keeling Curve was posted, and you can’t identify where 9/11, the Great Recession, the Pandemic, or succeeding supply chain crisis and skyrocketing fuel prices had any real impact on CO2 growth. And those were far more significant on fossil fuel usage than Energiewende or the overall Green Movement.
I am so sick of hearing that without greenhouse gases the earth would be around33K cooler. The number is derived by plugging 243 watts/sqM (the current average solar energy absorbed by Earths surface) into the Stefan Boltzmann law. Trouble is the radiation intensity in near Earth space is not 243 watts/sqM but more like 340 watts/sq M. The difference is due to Earth’s albedo of 0.3 most of which is due to clouds but without GHG’s there would not be any clouds so energy absorbed would be closer to 340 watts/sqM giving an “average temperature” what ever that means given the 4th power nature of the SB law of more like 278K so the incremental warming from all GHG’s is about 9K.
Why no clouds I hear you cry? Because Earths atmosphere is the working fluid of a heat engine converting thermal energy (solar heat) into mechanical energy (wind, rain etc). Heat engines require a heat source where energy is injected into the working fluid (a hot junction) and a heat sink where energy is extracted from the working fluid (a cold junction). The hot junction must be at higher pressure than the cold junction. For the Hadley cell (by far the dominant heat engine on earth and the one that drives the Ferrel and Polar cells) the hot junction is the equatorial surface. But where is the cold junction? Most people claim the poles but not so; firstly because the Hadley cell does not come within 60 degrees of the poles, secondly because the pressure at the poles is not lower than at the equator and thirdly because for the air to lose energy to the poles, the warm air must first descent to the surface against a massive temperature inversion which aint going to happen. The cold junction is in fact the tropopause (not surprisingly the top of the convective loop) and the energy lost is radiated to space by GHG’s (thats after all the definition of a GHG). No GHG = no energy loss from the atmosphere to space hence no cold junction so no heat engine and thus no convective loop. No convection and no atmospheric energy loss means no clouds (water vapour needs to lose energy to condense and there is no way for it to lose energy without GHG’s) no dust no rain, no weather at all; a static isothermal atmosphere from surface to tropopause and a climate essentially the same as the moon. Forget about freezing, we would all fry each mid day especially in the summer months.
Sorry. Any time you present a single line for “global temperature”, or “anomaly”, or whatever you want to call it, you’re not doing science.
Sure they are
Political science is science.
They are just disguising it.
That was a good read. Thanks.
Thanks to WUWT for running the article. It was kind of fun to see a bit of traffic and critique.
Sorry, but NO, it is NOT “perfectly rational and and even necessary to conclude with absolute certainty that you will see more extreme weather patterns” as a result of “global warming.”
The reverse is true – it is global COOLING that will result in “more extreme weather patterns.”
Global warming does NOT result in “more energy MOVING in the system,” because of HOW the Earth warms. Most of the increase in the AVERAGE temperature is nighttime LOW temperatures not getting as cold, and from the coldest, driest air masses (poles and higher latitudes) warming while the tropics remain pretty much the same.
The result is SMALLER temperature DIFFERENTIALS, which REDUCES, not increases, “extreme weather patterns.” Because it is temperature DIFFERENTIALS that drive violent weather, not a higher AVERAGE temperature.
That’s why some of those types of “severe weather” are trending DOWN, though not “significantly.”
You got the “size matters” part right, but the sign of the “change” wrong.
You’re also giving too much credit to the notion that rising CO2 does ANYTHING to the Earth’s temperature. THAT is only the case ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL. A small increase in cloud cover completely eliminates ANY alleged CO2 “effect,” and a poor understanding of cloud behavior (and a lack of quality data) is acknowledged (in the fine print, of course) even in the IPCC reports. Observations support no effect of CO2 on temperature.
Could be that added CO2 has a significant effect that triggers a counter-effect, or several, that mitigates it as Willis suggests with his emergent phenomena thesis. If the climate were as sensitive to small perturbations in minor actors as the alarmists suggest, I seriously doubt we would be here to debate it.
Here are quotes from my Blog http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
“……….5. CO2 -Temperature and Climate.
The whole COP Net Zero meme is founded on the flawed assumptions and algorithms which produced the IPCC- UNFCCC model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases.
The “consensus” IPCC models make the fundamental error of ignoring the long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 1
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog. (13)
Stallinga 2020 (14) concludes: ” The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we……… find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. ……Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.” CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing (RF) arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures.
Miskolczi 2014 (15) in “The greenhouse effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere “says “The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water.”
Also See AleksandrZhitomirskiy2022 Absorption of heat and the greenhouse gas effect. https://independent.academia.edu/AleksandrZhitomirskiy (16) which says:
“The molar heat capacities of the main greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases are of the same order of magnitude. Given the low concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their contribution to temperature change is below the measurement error. It seems that the role of various gases in the absorption of heat by the atmosphere is determined not by the ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation, but by its heat capacity and concentration. ”
Zaichun Zhul et al 2016 (17) in Greening of the Earth and its drivers report “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated Leaf Area Index (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area from 1982 – 2009. ………. C02 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend.”
Policies which limit CO2 emissions or even worse sequester CO2 in quixotic CCS green-washing schemes would decrease agricultural food production and are antithetical to the goals of feeding the increasing population and bringing people out of poverty.”
For the solar activity – temperature correllation see Figs 1,2,3 in the link above
Here is Fig 1
Fig 1 Correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. ( 5,6 )
The Oulu Cosmic Ray count in Fig.1C shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009. In Figure 1 short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos. The hadsst3gl temperature anomaly at 2037 is forecast to be + 0.05.