Less Stupid than Climate Scientists
Let’s imagine the weather forecast for next Tuesday (7 day forecast) called for a clear and sunny day with a high temperature of 15 C. You would appear pretty stupid if instead the weather turned out to be a torrential downpour at just 5 C and you went out in short sleeves without an umbrella. And all because you ignored what was going on outside (reality) and dressed according to what the forecast (weather model) predicted.
Now let’s look at how that discredited greenhouse gas theory works for climate scientists. The issue here is not whether carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can or cannot cause the 0.3 deg C/decade warming predicted under Scenario A in the IPCC 1990 AR1 SPM; but the fact that this has not happened!
Below is a graph of all five global temperature datasets (HadCRUT3, GISS, NCDC, RSS MSU and UAH MSU) showing a reversal from warming to cooling taking place in 2002 as CO2 concentration continued to increase.
This net cooling trend was still in place in February 2014 so any claim of CO2 causing warming made between 2002 and 2014 were patently false!
The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report Policy Makers Summary ignored the data and stated explicitly that the prediction of 0.3 deg C/decade was based on models:
Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade
(See Executive Summary bottom left and top right)
In the same Policymakers Summary (near the end) the IPCC posted this graph of global temperature which showed that there had only been 0.54 deg C of warming since 1860 which works out to 0.0415 deg C/decade demonstrating that up to 1990 there was no physical evidence for the claim that ‘business as usual’ increases in CO2 emissions could cause the 0.3 deg C/decade of warming predicted by the models!
The graph also shows the cooling trend from 1942 to 1975 that brought on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s. During this 33 year period of net cooling global CO2 emissions increased from 4.0 gigatonnes in 1942 to 17.1 gigatonnes in 1975 and a 425{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} increase in CO2 emissions not causing any global warming at all is more than ample proof that any claim of CO2 emissions causing 0.3 deg C/decade of warming must be completely false!
In 1991 Friis Christensen and K Lassen produced a paper showing a near perfect (95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) correlation of global temperature with sunspot cycle length. Professor Tim Patterson added CO2 concentration to the graph which Friends of Science published on their website demonstrating that the sun and not CO2 matched global temperature as demonstrated by increasing CO2 and decreasing global temperature between 1942 and 1975
Today we have proof that the sun is causing the global cooling starting in 2002 as demonstrated by the drop in total solar irrdiation (TSI) from the peak of solar cycle 23 in 2002 to the peak of solar cycle 24 in 2014 perfectly matching the 2002 reversal from warming to cooling
This is Hansen’s Scenario A model projection to 2014 demonstrating that a large increase should have taken place between 2001 and 2014
This is the actual empirical data starting at the same 1958 year as Hansen’s Scenario A model
Hansen’s Scenario A was based on an exponential increase in CO2 matching the increase in CO2 emissions but as the graph shows this exp[onential increase did not materialize proving that the exponential increase in Human sourced CO2 emissions is not the primary source of increase in atmospheric CO2concentration as has been falsely claimed all along!
Scenario A never materialized either so the entire basis for all this climate change nonsense never existed and still does not exist today in any way shape or form!
Instead with no global warming since atleast 2002 our continued expansion in the use of fossil fuels has still managed to achieve Scenario C which was supposed to occur with the immediate (1988) curtailment in the use of fossil fuels!!
The models are simply wrong so we don’t have to have protracted debates as to why they are wrong!
Trackback from your site.
Hans Schreuder
| #
“… proving that the exponential increase in Human sourced CO2 emissions is not the primary source of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration as has been falsely claimed all along!”
Yes Norm and you know why – because the so-called “greenhouse effect” does not exist other than in models and some people’s imagination and CO2 does not “enhance the greenhouse effect” either. Once you finally get your head around that aspect of “climate science” you can start to think straight and agree with these two peer reviewed papers: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf and http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf
It’s not “just a matter of numbers”, it’s a matter of principle, first principle in fact: the atmosphere does not act like a greenhouse. Period.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Well said Hans Schreuder.
What the ‘Dr’ Pete Sudbury fails to recognize (possibly deliberately) is the historical evidence that the temperature of this planet has been both higher and lower than now, AND that CO2 level have varied greatly over the same time span (millions of year). Never, ever during all that time have CO2 levels shown to be able to control the planets temperature. Temperatures went up and down, then later (often much later) CO2 levels reacted. CO2 level variations are at best a reaction to planet-wide temperature changes NOT the controller of temperature variations. Hansen is wrong! Sudbury is wrong!
Greenhouse shit is all the cAGW advocates have, that and a great reliance on politics NOT science.
So Pete Sudbury what temperature should this planet be at as we come out of the LIA?
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
Imagine you came on a partially-ruined wall, and saw a man standing in front of one of the untouched parts, with his eyes inches from the bricks, shouting “there are no holes in this wall!” You’d wonder what his problem was: “perhaps he works for an insurance company”, you might think, “and it doesn’t want to have to pay out”.
Unfortunately, the graph you allude to doesn’t appear to have uploaded. However, going back to the datasets to which you refer, it’s clear which bits you have picked. If you want to prove up is down, on a graph with significant short-term variability, make sure you start from a very high point: 1942 or 2000ish. It also helps if you focus on one single component of the system, ignoring others. You could then quote inputs rather than effects on the system.
Taking the first period (1942-1975). During this time yearly emissions (inputs) of CO2 increased, as you say, from a bit over a tenth of current levels to about two fifths, and CO2 concentrations from about 310ppm to 330ppm i.e. by 20ppm, or a bit over 6% (which sounds a lot less significant than the quadrupling in CO2 output), there was a corresponding increase in sulphate aerosols (remember concerns about acid rain?), and a very large volcanic eruption caused cooling of half a degree from 1963, before a drop in TSI in the early ’70s. So the flatline was the sum of a lot of inputs (and good start point selection). The clean air acts, and (later) closing down massively polluting industry in the former Soviet Union took out the sulphates, but not the CO2.
Were you to mention the section of the graph you chose to ignore, from 1975-2002, with yearly CO2 emissions doubling and CO2 concentration rising from 330 to 380ppm i.e. by 50ppm or 15% (i.e. two and a half times the numerical increase, and twice the percentage increase of the first period) you would note over half a degree of warming (I could easily say 0.7 degrees if I cherry-picked data points to match up with low and high points, but that is not, as you know, good science).
Then there’s the second period you chose. Why that period?. It is now 2018. Why choose to stop at 2014? Would it be anything to do with the four hottest years on record in 2014,15,16,17?. Taking 2002-2017, the increase is about 0.15 degrees. The total since 1975 is over 0.8 degrees, and CO2 has risen to around 405ppm, a 23% increase over that period. Note its only 25% since 1940, giving another reason why the 1942-75 signal might be easily swamped by other effects.
It really is time we stopped cherry-picking short periods of time and started looking at the whole picture, which, if we are honest, is quite alarming, especially given that at the current rate, it will take not much over a decade to raise the CO2 concentration by as much as we managed since 1942.
Choosing to stand close to the wall is fine. Shouting that you can’t see the holes isn’t, and sneering at an entire group of scientists is beneath contempt. The information you have posted is misleading, and it brings science into disrepute by treating it as a branch of religion or politics, where truth doesn’t have external referents, and should be bent to prove a point rather than chewed over to find the answer.
Why not post a paper on what to do about rising CO2 (/CO2e)? For ideas see:
Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming: Paul Hawken
Have a great day!
References:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
(solar irradiance) http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html
(old post, but useful background) https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html
“Recent” historical context of CO2 levels: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
Reply
Norm Kalmanovitch
| #
Dr Sudbury,
In 1970 the Nimbus 4 satellite measured the spectrum of the thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface demonstrating that the 13 micron to 17 micron wavelength band affected by CO2
was already too close to saturation from the 325ppmv CO2 concentration at the time for any additional increases in atmospheric CO2 content to have any detectable further effect on global temperature.
It is obvious that you are not aware of this fact or have no knowledge of the quantum physics defining the interaction between CO2 and thermal radiation
I suggest that you educate yourself before making such inane comments as you have done.
For your edification I suggest you check out
http://jimpeden.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/norm-kalmanovich-on-global-warming-hoax.html
as well as
https://www.geoconvention.com/archives/2010/0058_GC2010_Effect_of_Doubling_Concentration_of_CO2_in_the_Atmosphere.pdf
Reply
Norm Kalmanovitch
| #
Hans, Up until Hansen et al 1981 the scientific definition of the greenhouse effect was simply the difference in temperature between the surface temperature and effective radiating temperature (defined as the Stefan Boltzmann temperature equivalent to outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). A temperature difference is not an effect!
In high school science most students learned of the greenhouse effect as something that keeps the world cooler during the day and warmer during the night because of the insulation from the atmosphere.
Hansen exploited this non scientific perception of the greenhouse effect and came up with the term “greenhouse mechanism” in Hansen et al 1981.
This false use of the term greenhouse effect spawned the term greenhouse gas in Hansen et al 1988 as a substitute for his initial misleading reference to CO2 as “trace gases”
On June 23, 1988 Hansen testified before Senator Timothy Wirth’s US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the Earth was warming because of the “greenhouse effect”
The false meaning of the greenhouse effect was included in UN Resolution 43/53 under which the UNEP and WMO formed the IPCC.
This same false use of the term “greenhouse effect” is prevalent throughout the 1990 IPCC AR1 Policymakers Summary and all subsequent IPCC Assessment Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013) as well as the 1992 UNFCCC agreement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
This false definition of the greenhouse effect is explicitly state on the American Meteorological Society
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
greenhouse effect
As used in the field of meteorology, the term “greenhouse effect” refers to the heating exerted by the atmosphere on Earth’s surface because certain atmospheric constituents (clouds, water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and emit infrared radiation.
About half of the sunlight incident on Earth is transmitted through the atmosphere and absorbed at Earth’s surface. The sunlight-warmed surface emits radiation but, because Earth is colder than the sun, this radiation is primarily at infrared wavelengths. Most of this emitted infrared radiation is absorbed by trace gases and clouds in the overlying atmosphere. The atmosphere also emits radiation, primarily at infrared wavelengths, in all directions. Radiation emitted downward from the atmosphere adds to the warming of Earth’s surface by sunlight. This enhanced warming is termed the greenhouse effect.
As a result of the greenhouse effect, Earth’s annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher than an equally reflective planet in Earth’s orbit with no atmosphere.
The term “greenhouse effect“ is something of a misnomer in this context. It is used as an analogy to the trapping of heat by the glass panes of a greenhouse, which let sunlight in. In the atmosphere, however, heat is trapped radiatively, while in an actual greenhouse, heat is mechanically prevented from escaping (via convection) by the glass enclosure.
You are perfectly justified in criticizing the ‘made up’ AMS definition of the “greenhouse effect” but instead of blaming me for it, it would serve a far better purpose to condemn the false definition and explain that the true scientific definition only relates to an actual greenhouse in a metaphorical manner of how the atmosphere slows down the rate of cooling!
Norm K.
Reply
EllBee
| #
Mar. 2, 2018 – Two questions – First, Norm Kalmanovitch – Is there a reason why you chose https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf for this article and not https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf Second Hans Schreuder – Can you please explain the peer review process used for the two articles you cite above in your comments. Thanking you both in advance!
Reply
Norm Kalmanovitch
| #
What people don’t know is that the IPCC was formed in 1988 by the UNEP and WMO under UN Resolution 43/53 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm
This gave the UNEP directors complete editorial (censorship) control over everything produced by the 2500 scientists associated with this IPCC so any quote of an IPCC report is really quoting the environmentalists who run the UNEP and therefore control the IPCC.
Peer review has become more of an act of collusion than one of verification so the only information that can be used is what the empirical data shows to be the case.
The HadCRUT4 dataset shows that there has only been 0.78 deg. C of net warming since 1850. This works out to a warming rate of 0.47 deg. C / century and is perfectly in line with the natural recovery from the 1690 ‘cold point’ of the Little Ice Age so there has been absolutely no detectable warming above the half a degree C per century natural variation in the past 167 years in spite of all the CO2 since 1850.
We can’t blame warming on CO2 emissions if there is no unnatural warming observed!!
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norm Kalmanovitch:
March 4, 2018 at 7:33 am | #
What people don’t know
UN Resolution 43/53 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm
This gave the UNEP directors complete editorial (censorship) control over everything produced by the 2500 scientists:
Peer review has become more of an act of collusion:
. . . the only information that can be used is what the empirical data shows to be the case.
JMcG:
Excellent comments!
I want to draw attention to the last sentence that I quoted above because many people will read this sentence and not recognize its significance: ” . . . the only information that can be used is what the empirical data shows to be the case.”
Many will read this sentence and think it to be perfectly reasonable, even scientific. But the truth is that it is a surreptitiously anti-scientific statement. It is an excuse to ignore the one thing that most thoroughly distinguishes a scientist from an engineer: awareness of uncertainty.
Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
No Steam in the Atmosphere; H2O Polarity is Variable
Reply
Norm Kalmanovitch
| #
To EllBee
The reason for only referencing the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report Policymakers Summary is that this Policymakers Summary formed the entire basis for the 1992 UNFCCC Agreement which was implemented through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
This 1990 AR1 SPM is the only report to specifically state predicted warming of 0.3°C/decade so if this level of warming does not occur the claim of CO2 emissions causing warming would according to science protocol would be a failed hypothesis that needs to be discarded!
In 1990 the hypothesis was completely trashed in the 1990 documentary the greenhouse conspiracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9j54rWnmeo
Please take the time to watch this 52 minute documentary and compare what the documentary shows to what is stated in the 1990 IPCC AR1 SPM
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
The question that needs to be asked is if the Greenhouse Conspiracy had not been blocked from being aired by the environmentalists; would anyone in their right mind have signed the 1992 UNFCCC agreement
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
Norm K.
Reply
Jerry Kennedy
| #
I’m a Contractor. I don’t stand in front of a Wall (Planet Earth) yelling there are no holes in it. I’m paid to evaluate, using best available empirically based information, what exactly has caused the alleged holes and how best to estimate the cost of repairing them. As a Contractor, my study of the alleged Wall holes shows they exist only in computer modeling (designed by the scientists alleging there are holes) or, the holes are based on unprovable anecdotal claims. I inform Owner that those scientists claiming there are holes in the Wall are mistaken. I provide him empirical proof there are no holes. The Owner effusively thanks me for saving Trillions of dollars in unnecessary hole repair, fires the greedy charlatan scientists for claiming there were holes in the first place and thankfully, we all live happily ever after. Or until the impending Ice Age destroys what’s left of humanity 20,000 years in the future……
Reply