By Paul Homewood
In 1922, the US Weather Bureau, now part of NOAA knew that the Arctic was undergoing a “radical change of climate”, and was “not recognizable” from the climate of 1868 to 1917.
In November that year, the Weather Bureau published this chapter in their Monthly Weather Review:
Sound familiar….these ‘scientists’ have been citing anecdotal evidence of the Arctic changing for 100 years. Of course in 1922 man made carbon was insignificant.
Meanwhile 100 years later:
November was a cold month across much of Alaska – especially in southwest Alaska. These location all saw a Top 5 coldest November. Both King Salmon and Cold Bay recorded their coldest November on record!
Mozart
I think that even in the southern hemisphere we have had the coldest weather in years and it is still in summer recorded exceptionally low temperatures. For instance high rainfall and cooler conditions let to a bumper wheat harvests in the Western Cape area.
We may be just starting to find the world is getting cooler rather than warming up as the sc ientists predict as a panic measure justifying Government power grabs. If the planet start cooling down - like it has done in cycles for millions of years - what will the story be then? Will it be that we must avoid using fossil fuels to avoid cooling down of the earth?
Sound familiar….these ‘scientists’ have been citing anecdotal evidence of the Arctic changing for 100 years. Of course in 1922 man made carbon was insignificant.
Oh yes all the evidence these 'scientists' have is anecdotal, they don't ever do anything like say take reading or measurements. Its all entirely anecdotal.
Meanwhile 100 years later:...
I think that even in the southern hemisphere we have had the coldest weather in years and it is still in summer recorded exceptionally low temperatures...
Joburg had a freezing cold winter and is now in the middle of one of the mildest summers that I can remember...
Selectively picking one region over a limited time period or sticking your head out the window and saying it appears to be usually cold today is not climate science.
Once again, there is thousands of temperature monitoring stations around the planet both on land and see in addition to satellites that measure the temperature of the planet globally. They conclusive show that the planet is warming. A warming planet in no way precludes localised cold weather, even record setting cold weather events from occurring.
Colder weather is always anecdotal and hot weather is always GW caused by man made carbon.
Again cold weather events the sceptic's love to cite are again localized events or even limited time period. In addition sometimes cold weather can actually be caused by GW. Hot weather is not always GW but the rise in global temperatures is being driven by man made carbon.
A sweeping statement "global temperatures si being driven by man made carbon". I wonder at times while te warming and cooling cycles - that had been scientific proven has no effect on the weather. The last major Ice Age ended 12 000 years ago and the next one is due in another 20 000 years so. Ice ages are preceded by a gradual cooling down of the planer.
I think what went wrong is to politicize the issue. B The real objectives of the extreme leftists are hidden behind the "climate change cloak" and measures that would fail are introduced nit to deal with climate change - but their own often hidden objectives. By doing that the wrong te chnique will always cause bitter resentment by people. The leftists use a scam system to undermine the populace and then wonder what wen wrong.
Poor ou Stavass still thinks made man climate change is real. I fear he will be one of the last to wake up to the Globalist scam. Stavass is not an independent thinker rather he is a gullible dupe.
Hope you are enjoying the Covid protests in Ireland Stavass!
Like the Covid scam the Globalist use Climate change to herd the sheepie. Sheepie like Stavass are very easy to manipulate.
This is a weapon to take money out of the USA and build up China. America is a beacon of freedom that must be destroyed. The Globalist love China's authoritarian approach. Vaccine passports and socials credit scores are the way to control the herd as one culls them.
Most people will trust scientific specialists in their field, just like they would trust a mechanic with their car. A consensus is the best guess. The concepts can be converted into layman's terms and numbers, but ultimately those most qualified to make the decision have the most chance of being right.
Most climate change deniers are also anti-vaxxers and conspiracists (e.g. Beeno and DumbMike ). Their argument against anything is that it is a socialist conspiracy.
Oil companies pay the Churches to push their agenda, and the religious simpletons lap it all up.
Dumb Mike a former terrorist collaborated with the radical left when it suited his agenda, now he is back to pushing far-right nonsense that has no place in the 21s century.
Most ‘medical experts’ for 50 years told us eating fats destroys our health….backed up by a series of huge studies which in retrospect probably missed the role smoking played. These medical chappies aren’t good with numbers.
In the case of Climate Change there is no payoff for a ‘scientist’ finding it doesn’t exist. So they ignore the fact that half of the agonizingly small increase in temps occurred before carbon had spiked…..and attribute all sorts of phenomena to this small change.
And then, like Anger, after citing case after anecdotal case they go bananas when, tongue in cheek, we reverse the roles.
If wild fires are fair game…so is the coldest Arctic November in memory. But more likely both have nothing to do with the 1.2 degree increase since 1800, if that’s even real.
Snarkhole isn't famous for his skill with numbers either, but that doesn't stop him from having strong opinions on the issue.
A sweeping statement "global temperatures si being driven by man made carbon".
Its not, the evidence overwhelming supports it.
I wonder at times while te warming and cooling cycles - that had been scientific proven has no effect on the weather. The last major Ice Age ended 12 000 years ago and the next one is due in another 20 000 years so. Ice ages are preceded by a gradual cooling down of the planer.
The natural cooling and heating cycles of the earth are well known and understood at this point. The current rate of warming cannot be explained by natural causes.
I think what went wrong is to politicize the issue.
Agreed, so can you ask your side of the argument to stop politicizing it please.
B The real objectives of the extreme leftists are hidden behind the "climate change cloak" and measures that would fail are introduced nit to deal with climate change - but their own often hidden objectives. By doing that the wrong technique will always cause bitter resentment by people. The leftists use a scam system to undermine the populace and then wonder what wen wrong.
You're talking unmitigated rubbish here.
Poor ou Stavass still thinks made man climate change is real. I fear he will be one of the last to wake up to the Globalist scam. Stavass is not an independent thinker rather he is a gullible dupe.
Hope you are enjoying the Covid protests in Ireland Stavass!
Like the Covid scam the Globalist use Climate change to herd the sheepie. Sheepie like Stavass are very easy to manipulate.
This is a weapon to take money out of the USA and build up China. America is a beacon of freedom that must be destroyed. The Globalist love China's authoritarian approach. Vaccine passports and socials credit scores are the way to control the herd as one culls them.
Speaking of unmitigated rubbish.
Their argument against anything is that it is a socialist conspiracy.
Yeah I wonder when Margaret Thatcher spoke out against the global threat of climate change back in 1989 was she secretly a radical socialist!
Most ‘medical experts’ for 50 years told us eating fats destroys our health….backed up by a series of huge studies which in retrospect probably missed the role smoking played. These medical chappies aren’t good with numbers.
Why are we talking about 'medical chappies' in a climate debate?. Of course the answer is obvious you want to tar all science with the same brush when it suits you're agenda, but you where sure as shit quick to cite a Danish medical study into the efficacy of mask wearing in protecting against Covid when you thought it served your agenda.
In the case of Climate Change there is no payoff for a ‘scientist’ finding it doesn’t exist.
More conspiracy nonsense without a shred of evidence to back it up. But from all the billions spent lobbying by fossil fuel companies there most certainly a bigger pay off from climate change denial.
So they ignore the fact that half of the agonizingly small increase in temps occurred before carbon had spiked…..and attribute all sorts of phenomena to this small change.
They ignore nothing, they can account for and explain what's caused all of the temperature rises since the 1850's. And for umpteenth time, just because something is small doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect.
And then, like Anger, after citing case after anecdotal case they go bananas when, tongue in cheek, we reverse the roles.
Yeah you keep telling yourself that.
If wild fires are fair game…so is the coldest Arctic November in memory.
You can cite all the cold weather events you want, the other side have global temperature readings from around the world.
But more likely both have nothing to do with the 1.2 degree increase since 1800, if that’s even real.
Well I'll follow the science over your opinion. As for it being real, that attitude reminds of that case of the man over in the US who got Covid and was in ICU for quite a while, it was touch and go for a while but he pulled through. On leaving the hospital he got into argument with staff demanding to know what his illness really was because Covid didn't exist and it was all a hoax.
Boris Johnson knows with the degree of brainwashing out there it is the political kiss of death to disagree with the Climate groupies.
Look for the coming oil shortage crisis as exploration plummets and the number of new ICE cars in the 20s out number the EVs by 5 to 1. That according to MIT, hardly a right wing institution.
It’s all a political farce. If these politicians really believed it’s an existential threat we would:
1 Be ramping up nuclear
2 Be making a deal with the car industry to reduce ICE carbon outputs…..the easiest solution. And retrofitting the existing fleet to lower carbon output.
3 Stop the massive battery cars which probably are no more carbon stingy than ICE vehicles
4 Limit the exploding use of private jets….especially their own
5 Stop pretending China is making a serious attempt eg in the use of coal.
6 They would also stop buying homes on the sea.
7 And the protection of low lying islands would be a priority that is being actively worked on today.
But none of that is happening because this is a manufactured political crisis and we are headed into a solar decline which is likely to reverse some of the effects of the high level of solar activity through the 20th century.
This is not a scientific consensus it’s a political consensus.
By measuring the increase from 1820, we are measuring from the minimum temperature level of the last 2000 years back to something that looks like normal.
There is an anomaly over the last 40 years where solar activity apparently didn’t drive increased temperatures…solar activity flattened but temps continued to rise.
But we have to ask is this an instantaneous relationship. Or is it more like a kettle where constant power inputs cause temperatures to rise. Is there a lag effect.
In any case 1.2 degrees above the low point for the last 2000 years and almost at the average seems rather desirable. Especially as, given a choice, warmer is a lot better than colder.
Boris Johnson knows with the degree of brainwashing out there it is the political kiss of death to disagree with the Climate groupies.
Boris Johnson doesn't give a shit about climate change, he only cares about himself and being Prime Minister and to that end he's smart enough to know that taking a position against climate change is not a vote winner.
It’s all a political farce. If these politicians really believed it’s an existential threat we would:
1 Be ramping up nuclear
Nuclear has too many issues to be the solution. Cost to make, time to make, safety concerns, effectiveness (simply can't build enough of them) and waste storage.
2 Be making a deal with the car industry to reduce ICE carbon outputs…..the easiest solution. And retrofitting the existing fleet to lower carbon output.
I suspect this was considered but ruled out as not being effective enough.
3 Stop the massive battery cars which probably are no more carbon stingy than ICE vehicles
The carbon footprint for making a EV battery depends on what the carbon footprint of the electricity grid it is was connected to during manufacture, for example a EV battery made by Telsa in Nevada USA would be considerably cleaner than an EV battery made in China. Either way the lifetime CO2 footprint of an EV would still be considerable less than life time emissions of an ICE car and that gap will widen in favour of EV as the electricity grids of countries counties to decarbonise.
4 Limit the exploding use of private jets….especially their own
Fine no problem with this. But stop using them as an excuse for not doing anything.
5 Stop pretending China is making a serious attempt eg in the use of coal.
Absolutely China does need to do a lot more to reduce its CO2 emission. But again stop using it as an excuse for inaction.
Actually on both those points, since you don't believe the planet is warming significantly for to have a major impact and you don't believe the warming is caused by man made CO2 why would you care about either of those two things?
6 They would also stop buying homes on the sea.
Okay what about the people already there?
7 And the protection of low lying islands would be a priority that is being actively worked on today.
And the best way to protect them is too limit sea level rises caused by man made climate change.
But none of that is happening because this is a manufactured political crisis and we are headed into a solar decline which is likely to reverse some of the effects of the high level of solar activity through the 20th century.
The science does not give a crap for ones political leanings. The facts are the facts. The solar decline has already been acknowledged and considered and its been concluded that it will not offset the temperature rise from global warming.
This is not a scientific consensus it’s a political consensus.
Its the overwhelming scientific consensus. You're arguing black is white here.
1 So why mention Boris?
2. It’s not effective to regulate the 90% plus of cars?
3 You really don’t think do you? A 300 hp Tesla linked to Washington State electricity has 40% of an ICE car’s lifetime footprint, Most real world electricity doesn’t benefit from Hydro.and a 1000hp Tesla Plaid, which I own, will emit more than 3 times the carbon of the 300 hp version. That car in Illinois probably has twice the carbon footprint of an ICE car,
4 Not using anybody as an excuse, just observing the hypocrisy. Are hypocrites believable?
5. It’s a different imperative….we are killing clean American gas while supporting Politically tainted Russian gas and Chinese coal use.
6 The people already there will be fine, but when supposed believers like Obama buy on low lying islands it’s a tell.
7 Which implies it’s all been sorted by the latest Climate Conference, so why all the handwringing.
8 “The Science” gosh doesn’t it send chills down your spine? Perhaps the science should honestly admit half of the 1.2 degrees has nothing to do with man made carbon.
9 It’s a political consensus, supported by some very dodgy science and poor modeling work. Some 0.4 degrees is not explained by natural causes and may reflect man made carbon, or just the constant tinkering with temperature measurement.
Always with the same ridiculous reasoning, Star...
"And for umpteenth time, just because something is small doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect."
Just because something small doesn't always account for a small effect, doesn't mean that it has to account for a large effect.
See what I did there? See how ridiculous it is?
Seems like your favorite two words are "just because".
Allow me to use it on your cohort, VrotVis...
Just because something sounds like a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it can't be 100% accurate.
So many oopsies.
Just because something small doesn't always account for a small effect, doesn't mean that it has to account for a large effect.
See what I did there? See how ridiculous it is?
It is ridiculous, but then again I never said or implied that.
Now if you can put aside the strawman for a second and if its at all possible for you to be balanced go read Moz's countless posts where he implies the temperature rise from global warming is too small to have any significant effect.
So many oopsies.
That's so cute.
Boris Johnston is a slimy Globalist traitor who managed to fool the British people he had their interests at heart with BREXIT.
He loves open borders, multiculturalism, climate change and is fully on board with the Covid hoaxes and of course wants to Build Back Better being the good little Davos traitor he is.
Covid Plandemic, man made Climate Change, Financial Crises and the threat of WW3 are the 4 things the Globalist elites use most to herd the sheepie.
People from all ideologies believe that man-made climate change is a threat to future generations.
However, there are also people from all ideologies that do not see it as a threat.
This indicates independent thought processes.
Not herd mentality from the likes of brainless Bible Bashing Beeno who all see it as a conspiracy. Just like how Covid is a conspiracy.
Most younger people believe in climate change, so even if it is not real - that is the direction where the majority is going. Future policies will be reflective of this.
Which is why I own Tesla, Fisker, Albemarle the lithium mining company and today I bought a few shares of NIO the beaten up Chinese electric car maker . Lots of electric cars are going to be built in the next 10 years…but even more ICE cars, 5 times more….so I’m also keeping my Exon and Royal Dutch shares.
So if all these guys are winners…..who are the losers. The consumer of course who will be paying more for the same function. But they will only tolerate it to a degree, there are already massive rumbles about the Biden oil price increase
SB
That is just the problem - Politics
The problem si that everything that is propagated in brainwashing manor has nothing to do with Democracy and everything to do with political control to an unbelievable level. If carbon is cut out totally it would mean you get 2 hours electricity a day - and that would be a lot without nuclear power. Wind and sun electricity is fine - but had limited potential to replace present sources for supply of electricity. The answer obviously to replace carbon with nuclear power - which has virtually no impact on environmental pollution. But the same media and propaganda outlets who use global warming is the alpha and omega of climate change are scaring the shit out of people about nuclear power.
I have used wind and air power at my house in Tinley - but the impact was minimal and at most i could get 3 hours of use per day out of it.
The next problem that would be effected is food production - meat eating will also be banned if the fanatical global warming fanatics have there way (remember the statement farting cows pollute the air - and food production will be hit hard if the climate change fanatics have their way. Food will be a weapon too - ration cards will determine what and how much people would be allowed to eat. Reduced areas occupied by sun and wind infrastructure will cut farm production badly. So the ideal is to give the people a minimal situation to keep them out of starvation and ensure that people will get poorer all the time. The elite will thrive the rest will starve.
It is clear that pollution is a major problem - not only air pollution - all forms of pollution - but there need to be a middle way to protect people from dictatorship - where total Government control will apply. Be it as it may - the era of democracy will soon come to an end and a ruling elite will take over totally.
Yes let us rely on the Scientists to control everything in this world.
But thus far they have only been wrong.
They are nothing but lefty STOOGES being financed by Lefty big Business.
With all the data available plus financial records they still are unable to fathom out just how, when or where `Covid 19` started.
Or should I say they don`t want to admit to the true facts.
Just shows money always justifies and dictates their scientific reports.
Lefty politics not science.
Yes once it’s cold it switches from global warming to climate change. Look there is evidence to suggest a very moderate effect from the increase in CO2. Probably a good thing actually.
But it’s also clear half the temp increase since the IR can’t have anything to do with man made CO2. So we are dealing in small changes.
Is it a good idea to limit the use of fossil fuels. Yes, because they are crucial to our way of life and there is a limited supply. Without fossil fuels we would still be in a middle age economy. They have made our world.
So why not preserve more for future generations by using nuclear to create an electricity abundance. Because the Greens still see fairies in the garden, like the early critics of the Industrial Revolution.
The level of thinking around this crucial subject is pitifully emotional.
And now…the lowest temperatures on record in St Petersburg…and lowest temps in 35 years in Sweden. Along with one of the coolest summers I can remember in SA(JHB at least)…
How hard is this to understand, all these record cold weather events climate skeptics keep pointing too are recorded by temperature measuring stations and are included in the data for determining the average temperature for the whole planet for a year. So even with all these cold weather events factored in the measurements show the whole planet is getting warmer.
I could point to record hot weather in St Petersburg and Moscow in July and August and say that indicates the planet is warming but it doesn't, all it tells us is that St Petersburg had record hot weather in July and August.
What you need to determine if the planet is warming is the entire data set of temperature at locations across the entire world both on land and at sea, recorded 24/7, 365 days a year, to determine the average global temperature and then you need to compare it to previous yearly average temperatures. This is whats done and that conclusively shows the planet is warming.
Wait for another big “just because” followed by “Yes but GW causes all types of temps, both hot and cold”.
Don’t turn that oven up too much now, you might re-freeze the food.
You can mockingly dismiss something all you want, all you're doing is exposing how ignorant you are.
Yes once it’s cold it switches from global warming to climate change.
No, its explained to your side over and over that localized and time limited cold weather events are not evidence against global warming/ climate change. You're just ignoring this and repeating the same basic and flawed argument over and over and over.
Look there is evidence to suggest a very moderate effect from the increase in CO2. Probably a good thing actually.
But it’s also clear half the temp increase since the IR can’t have anything to do with man made CO2. So we are dealing in small changes.
The evidence and research suggests the effect of global warming from an increase of CO2 will be severe on 100's of millions of people and it will be overwhelming negative effect.
Yes early 20th century temperature rising can be largely attributed to natural causes though CO2 did have a role in it as well, but its not quite half of the overall temperature increase. However those natural causes are not a factor in the current warming rate a rate which is faster then what occurred in the early part of the 20th century and continuing to accelerate.
Is it a good idea to limit the use of fossil fuels. Yes, because they are crucial to our way of life and there is a limited supply. Without fossil fuels we would still be in a middle age economy. They have made our world.
So why not preserve more for future generations by using nuclear to create an electricity abundance. Because the Greens still see fairies in the garden, like the early critics of the Industrial Revolution.
No one disagrees that fossil fuels have played a hugely beneficial role in peoples lives and advanced human civilization a great deal. But we are the tipping point where the negatives are starting to outweigh the benefits.
Nuclear power has its own issues. Would you be comfortably living by a nuclear waste storage site for example?
Who where the early critics of the industrial revolution?
The level of thinking around this crucial subject is pitifully emotional.
Perhaps your side should start looking at the evidence in a balanced manner then. One side has decades of sciences, facts, evidence and research conducted that support their position, the other side has logical fallacies and conspiracy theories.
So the natural causes which caused half of the 1.2 degree increase from the lowest temperature in the last 2000 years, stopped on a dime when man made carbon started to increase significantly?
Not. We don’t know what part natural causes played in the last half of the temperature increase….we do know that man made carbon was so low relative to today that it has to have played a minuscule part in the first half.
But we do know it’s unlikely natural causes stopped suddenly, nature doesn’t work like that. We are in a long term recovery trend from the prolonged low that lasted from 1400 to 1800.
And yes these scientific consensus views can be wrong. I bet if one bothered to do the research in 1990 the consensus view would not have been a 0.5 degree increase from where we were then to 2020…..but an increase of over 2 degrees.
That’s a difference between 0.5 degrees and north of 1.5 degrees. Three plus times too radical. Their models were in consensus but hopelessly wrong.
As for their facts….have you ever heard them breaking down the 1.2 degree increase into its components. Nope. It’s much more compelling to just hammer the 1.2 degree increase since the Industrial Revolution. Do they know it’s not all man made CO2?
Of course, these are not stupid people, just people with an agenda.
So the natural causes which caused half of the 1.2 degree increase from the lowest temperature in the last 2000 years, stopped on a dime when man made carbon started to increase significantly?
Did I or anyone else say they stopped on a dime. Its easy to attack an argument you're deliberately misrepresenting Not very honest though is it?
Not. We don’t know what part natural causes played in the last half of the temperature increase….we do know that man made carbon was so low relative to today that it has to have played a minuscule part in the first half.
Why don't we know? If we where able to determine the cause of the temperature rise in the first half of the 20th century as being mostly natural, have we suddenly lost that ability to measure natural causes? A for categorically stating that CO2 played a minuscule part their appears to be conflicting views on the scientific community on that one.
But we do know it’s unlikely natural causes stopped suddenly, nature doesn’t work like that.
You can't see the contradiction in your position can you? Lets apply that logic the other way round
But we do know its unlikely for natural causes to start suddenly, cause nature doesn't work like that.
Therefore natural causes can't be responsible for the warming in the first part of the 20th centu ry right?
And yes these scientific consensus views can be wrong. I bet if one bothered to do the research in 1990 the consensus view would not have been a 0.5 degree increase from where we were then to 2020…..but an increase of over 2 degrees.
Science is not done by consensus, its done by observing the evidence and conducting research, then publishing the findings for peer review so other scientists can check it for errors.
If you asked scientist back in 1990 what they thought temperature would be in 2020 they would likely have present you with several models which make assumptions on what the level of CO2 emissions would be. But in between say humans take action and lower their CO2 emissions then at least some of the models won't come to pass but it doesn't mean they're inaccurate. Its like models predicting a million cases of Covid 19 in 6 months if no mitigation measures are put in place, and then government introducing a lockdown for 3 months and only 300,000 cases occur. The model didn't come to pass but may have still had been correct if no mitigation factors came into play.
That’s a difference between 0.5 degrees and north of 1.5 degrees. Three plus times too radical. Their models were in consensus but hopelessly wrong.
No they weren't.
As for their facts….have you ever heard them breaking down the 1.2 degree increase into its components. Nope. It’s much more compelling to just hammer the 1.2 degree increase since the Industrial Revolution. Do they know it’s not all man made CO2?
Of course, these are not stupid people, just people with an agenda.
Its just easier to say that then actual breaking the whole thing down into component parts.
You have an agenda, which is just you're categorically unable to admit you're wrong.
It’s simple:
1 By implying all of the increases since 1945 are attributable the man made CO2, you are implicitly saying natural causes stopped.
2 We are able to determine the cause is mostly natural in the first half of the century because man made CO2 levels were less than 10% of what they are now…and because even at current elevated levels the temperature response is modest. After 1945 man made CO2 is a new factor whose effects have to be considered.
3. Natural causes never started suddenly….look at the temperature graph. It was a slow climb out of the minimum, which then accelerated in the early part of the century. The natural effect would have been a slowing of this explosive phase….in mathematical terms the second derivative would have gone negative….see basic calculus.
4. The Economist did a review of all the models a while back and the vast majority were predicting much bigger temperature increases. They were wrong then, why should we believe they are right now.
5 They were in consensus in the sense that by now we would see dramatic temperature increases, not necessarily the same number, but in a range far higher than what has come to pass. More than 3 times higher.
6 If I ever see a fact which suggests I’m wrong I’ll admit it. But if I ever ignored natural causes and presented my number as if all the warming was the result of Man Made Carbon, you’d know I have joined the consensus.
Try again.
1 By implying all of the increases since 1945 are attributable the man made CO2, you are implicitly saying natural causes stopped.
Nope. I didn't say they stopped, stopped on a dime or even used the date 1945. I used terms like the first half of the 20th century, earlier 20 century and current rate of warming.
2 We are able to determine the cause is mostly natural in the first half of the century because man made CO2 levels were less than 10% of what they are now
Sounds like you're listed an argument in favour of man made climate change.
and because even at current elevated levels the temperature response is modest.
Not when compared to the natural rate of warming.
3. Natural causes never started suddenly….look at the temperature graph.
No one is making the argument that they started or stopped suddenly. As for looking at graphs...have you actually taken your own advice?
It was a slow climb out of the minimum, which then accelerated in the early part of the century. The natural effect would have been a slowing of this explosive phase….in mathematical terms the second derivative would have gone negative….see basic calculus.
The cause of early 20th century temperature rise (between 1910 to 1940/1945) was primarily driven by increasing solar irradiance and a lack of volcanic activity (which has a cooling effect by blocking out sun light). However solar irradiance began to decline in the 1950's and there was an increase in volcanic activity in the 1950 and again in the 1960's. And in the 1950-60's we seeing a levelling off temperature. It's roughly from 1960 onwards that the these natural factors actually had a cooling effect on the planet, so they didn't stop they gradually reversed over the course of two and half decades. From about 1975 onwards that the effect of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere caused from man made emissions overcame these natural factors and the planets temperature started to rise. And if you considered early 20th century temperature rise explosive well its over twice as fast now and its doing so while overcoming a natural causes of cooling.
4. The Economist did a review of all the models a while back and the vast majority were predicting much bigger temperature increases. They were wrong then, why should we believe they are right now.
You mean this The Economist who I'm going to quote from one of its articles on predicting climate change in 2019
"In spite of all this uncertainty, climate models have done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened so far."
5 They were in consensus in the sense that by now we would see dramatic temperature increases, not necessarily the same number, but in a range far higher than what has come to pass. More than 3 times higher.
Can you give an example?
6 If I ever see a fact which suggests I’m wrong I’ll admit it. But if I ever ignored natural causes and presented my number as if all the warming was the result of Man Made Carbon, you’d know I have joined the consensus.
Its nonsense to suggest natural cau ses are being ignored and you know it. Care to show us a model that gets close to accurately being able to account for the current rate of temperature rise that relies solely on natural causes.
From the Economist, before they decided the truth was politically incorrect:
OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO? put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.
The term scientists use to describe the way the climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels is “climate sensitivity”. This is usually defined as how much hotter the Earth will get for each doubling of CO? concentrations. So-called equilibrium sensitivity, the commonest measure, refers to the temperature rise after allowing all feedback mechanisms to work (but without accounting for changes in vegetation and ice sheets).
Carbon dioxide itself absorbs infra-red at a consistent rate. For each doubling of CO? levels you get roughly 1°C of warming. A rise in concentrations from preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 560ppm would thus warm the Earth by 1°C. If that were all there was to worry about, there would, as it were, be nothing to worry about. A 1°C rise could be shrugged off. But things are not that simple, for two reasons. One is that rising CO? levels directly influence phenomena such as the amount of water vapour (also a greenhouse gas) and clouds that amplify or diminish the temperature rise. This affects equilibrium sensitivity directly, meaning doubling carbon concentrations would produce more than a 1°C rise in temperature. The second is that other things, such as adding soot and other aerosols to the atmosphere, add to or subtract from the effect of CO?. All serious climate scientists agree on these two lines of reasoning. But they disagree on the size of the change that is predicted.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which embodies the mainstream of climate science, reckons the answer is about 3°C, plus or minus a degree or so. In its most recent assessment (in 2007), it wrote that “the equilibrium climate sensitivity…is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.” The IPCC’s next assessment is due in September. A draft version was recently leaked. It gave the same range of likely outcomes and added an upper limit of sensitivity of 6°C to 7°C.
A rise of around 3°C could be extremely damaging. The IPCC’s earlier assessment said such a rise could mean that more areas would be affected by drought; that up to 30% of species could be at greater risk of extinction; that most corals would face significant biodiversity losses; and that there would be likely increases of intense tropical cyclones and much higher sea levels.
Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO? emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.
This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.
If such estimates were right, they would require revisions to the science of climate change and, possibly, to public policies. If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case.
If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.
One type of model—general-circulation models, or GCMs—use a bottom-up approach. These divide the Earth and its atmosphere into a grid which generates an enormous number of calculations in order to imitate the climate system and the multiple influences upon it. The advantage of such complex models is that they are extremely detailed. Their disadvantage is that they do not respond to new temperature readings. They simulate the way the climate works over the long run, without taking account of what current observations are. Their sensitivity is based upon how accurately they describe the processes and feedbacks in the climate system.
The other type—energy-balance models—are simpler. They are top-down, treating the Earth as a single unit or as two hemispheres, and representing the whole climate with a few equations reflecting things such as changes in greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols and global temperatures. Such models do not try to describe the complexities of the climate. That is a drawback. But they have an advantage, too: unlike the GCMs, they explicitly use temperature data to estimate the sensitivity of the climate system, so they respond to actual climate observations.
The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures. In contrast, the Norwegian study was based on an energy-balance model. So were earlier influential ones by Reto Knutti of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich; by Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and Jonathan Gregory of the University of Reading; by Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, both of the University of Illinois; and by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre (who is also a co-author of the new Norwegian study). All these found lower climate sensitivities. The paper by Drs Forster and Gregory found a central estimate of 1.6°C for equilibrium sensitivity, with a 95% likelihood of a 1.0-4.1°C range. That by Dr Aldrin and others found a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range.
It might seem obvious that energy-balance models are better: do they not fit what is actually happening? Yes, but that is not the whole story. Myles Allen of Oxford University points out that energy-balance models are better at representing simple and direct climate feedback mechanisms than indirect and dynamic ones. Most greenhouse gases are straightforward: they warm the climate. The direct impact of volcanoes is also straightforward: they cool it by reflecting sunlight back. But volcanoes also change circulation patterns in the atmosphere, which can then warm the climate indirectly, partially offsetting the direct cooling. Simple energy-balance models cannot capture this indirect feedback. So they may exaggerate volcanic cooling.
This means that if, for some reason, there were factors that temporarily muffled the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on global temperatures, the simple energy-balance models might not pick them up. They will be too responsive to passing slowdowns. In short, the different sorts of climate model measure somewhat different things.
This also means the case for saying the climate is less sensitive to CO? emissions than previously believed cannot rest on models alone. There must be other explanations—and, as it happens, there are: individual climatic influences and feedback loops that amplify (and sometimes moderate) climate change.
Begin with aerosols, such as those from sulphates. These stop the atmosphere from warming by reflecting sunlight. Some heat it, too. But on balance aerosols offset the warming impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most climate models reckon that aerosols cool the atmosphere by about 0.3-0.5°C. If that underestimated aerosols’ effects, perhaps it might explain the lack of recent warming.
Yet it does not. In fact, it may actually be an overestimate. Over the past few years, measurements of aerosols have improved enormously. Detailed data from satellites and balloons suggest their cooling effect is lower (and their warming greater, where that occurs). The leaked assessment from the IPCC (which is still subject to review and revision) suggested that aerosols’ estimated radiative “forcing”—their warming or cooling effect—had changed from minus 1.2 watts per square metre of the Earth’s surface in the 2007 assessment to minus 0.7W/m ² now: ie, less cooling.
One of the commonest and most important aerosols is soot (also known as black carbon). This warms the atmosphere because it absorbs sunlight, as black things do. The most detailed study of soot was published in January and also found more net warming than had previously been thought. It reckoned black carbon had a direct warming effect of around 1.1W/m ². Though indirect effects offset some of this, the effect is still greater than an earlier estimate by the United Nations Environment Programme of 0.3-0.6W/m ².
All this makes the recent period of flat temperatures even more puzzling. If aerosols are not cooling the Earth as much as was thought, then global warming ought to be gathering pace. But it is not. Something must be reining it back. One candidate is lower climate sensitivity.
A related possibility is that general-circulation climate models may be overestimating the impact of clouds (which are themselves influenced by aerosols). In all such models, clouds amplify global warming, sometimes by a lot. But as the leaked IPCC assessment says, “the cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models.” It is even possible that some clouds may dampen, not amplify global warming—which may also help explain the hiatus in rising temperatures. If clouds have less of an effect, climate sensitivity would be lower.
So the explanation may lie in the air—but then again it may not. Perhaps it lies in the oceans. But here, too, facts get in the way. Over the past decade the long-term rise in surface seawater temperatures seems to have stalled (see chart 2), which suggests that the oceans are not absorbing as much heat from the atmosphere.
As with aerosols, this conclusion is based on better data from new measuring devices. But it applies only to the upper 700 metres of the sea. What is going on below that—particularly at depths of 2km or more—is obscure. A study in Geophysical Research Letters by Kevin Trenberth of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research and others found that 30% of the ocean warming in the past decade has occurred in the deep ocean (below 700 metres). The study says a substantial amount of global warming is going into the oceans, and the deep oceans are heating up in an unprecedented way. If so, that would also help explain the temperature hiatus.
Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that “the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.” It is possible, therefore, that both the rise in temperatures in the 1990s and the flattening in the 2000s have been caused in part by natural variability.
So what does all this amount to? The scientists are cautious about interpreting their findings. As Dr Knutti puts it, “the bottom line is that there are several lines of evidence, where the observed trends are pushing down, whereas the models are pushing up, so my personal view is that the overall assessment hasn’t changed much.”
But given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified: a downwards nudge on various best estimates from 3°C to 2.5°C, perhaps; a lower ceiling (around 4.5°C), certainly. If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch. But it would not yet be downgraded.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a benchmark in climate science. But it is a very specific measure. It attempts to describe what would happen to the climate once all the feedback mechanisms have worked through; equilibrium in this sense takes centuries—too long for most policymakers. As Gerard Roe of the University of Washington argues, even if climate sensitivity were as high as the IPCC suggests, its effects would be minuscule under any plausible discount rate because it operates over such long periods. So it is one thing to ask how climate sensitivity might be changing; a different question is to ask what the policy consequences might be.
For that, a more useful measure is the transient climate response (TCR), the temperature you reach after doubling CO? gradually over 70 years. Unlike the equilibrium response, the transient one can be observed directly; there is much less controversy about it. Most estimates put the TCR at about 1.5°C, with a range of 1-2°C. Isaac Held of America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently calculated his “personal best estimate” for the TCR: 1.4°C, reflecting the new estimates for aerosols and natural variability.
That sounds reassuring: the TCR is below estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity. But the TCR captures only some of the warming that those 70 years of emissions would eventually generate because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for much longer.
As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.
Since CO? accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.
Despite all the dancing on eggs it’s very apparent from this that the models have been awful and you have to go to the tail of the probability distribution to get a frightening result, even if you believe all this speculation. Net, net…whatever happens it’s likely to be quite manageable. What won’t be manageable is 8 billion people without enough energy.
From the Economist, before they decided the truth was politically incorrect:
LOL so the Economist is fine when it prints something you perceive to support your viewpoints but they have been compromised by political correctness if they print something you don't agree with. The mental gymnastics on display here are hilarious.
As for your article its over 8 and half years old and the global warming hiatus of 1998 to 2013 to which the article was referring didn't actual occur.