Home/BlogMaybe the best way to summarize the main message of this post is this:
There have been no weather events observed to date – including Hurricane Irene — which can be reasonably claimed to be outside the realm of natural climate variability.
Now, you can believe – as Al Gore claims – that the present warm period we are experiencing has caused more hurricanes, more tornadoes, too much rain, too little rain, too much snow, too little snow, etc., but those are matters of faith, not of observable scientific reality.
Until a month or so ago, we were near record lows in global tropical cyclone activity, after a precipitous 6-year drop following the most recent 2005 peak in activity (click for full size version):
From what I can tell at Ryan Maue’s website, it sounds like global activity is now back up and running about normal.
Also, we have not had a Cat 3 or stronger hurricane make landfall in the U.S. in almost 6 years now, which is the longest ‘drought’ for U.S. landfalling major hurricanes on record.
There is even published evidence that the 1970s and 1980s might have experienced the lowest levels of hurricane activity in 270 years (Nyberg et al. 2007 Nature 447: 698-702), and that the 20th Century (a period of warming) experienced less hurricane activity than in previous centuries (Chenoweth and Divine 2008 Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems).
Claims that warming “should” or “will” cause more hurricanes are based upon theory, that’s all. What I have listed are based upon historical events, which suggest (if anything) periods of warmth might also be periods of fewer hurricanes, not more.
24 Hours of Denying Reality
On September 14, Al Gore will host a “global” event called 24 Hours of Reality, which is part of his Climate Reality Project. As the website states:
“24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.”
From what I have been hearing, Mr. Gore will be emphasizing record weather events as proof of anthropogenic global warming. What most people don’t realize is that you can have a 100 year weather record event every year, if they are in different places.
Besides, as a meteorologist I must question the whole idea of 100-year event. Since even the longest weather station datasets only go back about 100 years, it is questionable whether we can even say what constitutes a 100-year event.
I especially dislike Gore’s and others’ use of the pejorative “denier”. Even some climate scientists who should know better have started using the term.
What exactly does Mr. Gore think we “deny”? Do we deny climate? No, we were studying climate since before he could spell the word.
Do we deny global warming? No, we believe it has indeed warmed in the last few hundred years, just like it did before the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD:
So what do we deny, if anything? Well, what *I* deny is that we can say with any level of certainty how much of our recent warmth is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability.
No one pays me to say this. It’s the most obvious scientific conclusion based upon the evidence. When the IPCC talks about the high “probability” that warming in the last 50 years is mostly manmade, they are talking about their level of faith. Statistical probabilities do not apply to one-of-a-kind, theoretically-expected events.
I could have done better in my career if I played along with the IPCC global warming talking points, which would have led to more funded contracts and more publications.
It is much easier to get published if you include phrases like, “…this suggests anthropogenic global warming could be worse than previously thought” in your study.
In contrast, Mr. Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars by preaching his message of a “climate crisis”.
I would say that it is Mr. Gore who is the “climate denier”, since he denies the role of nature in climate variability. He instead chooses to use theory as his “reality”.
What I worry about is what will happen if we get another Hurricane Andrew (1992) which hit Miami as a Cat 5, or Camille in 1969, also a Cat 5. The reporters will probably have heart attacks.
Dr. Spencer
“What I worry about is what will happen if we get another Hurricane Andrew (1992) which hit Miami as a Cat 5, or Camille in 1969, also a Cat 5. The reporters will probably have heart attacks.”
Warmists don’t need any cat 5 hurricane to wave the magic wand of climate terrorism. One of the most viewed TV news here in Italy at lunchtime today just warned everyone about the Irene “anomalous” behavior. An “expert” told us that “we expect more unpredictable hurricanes like Irene due to man made global warming”.
Yes, they overestimated the hurricane theorizing an increase of energy due to global warming and now they accuse the same global warming for their own overestimation.
Great. 🙂
Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy. I want to puke everytime Al “an Inconvenient Moron” Gore, claims someone else is doing it for the money.
I guess he will be contributing all his income from pushing Goreball Warming to charity to help those most harmed by the envirowhackjob policies??
Nope, I won’t be holding my breath.
The number of tornadoes and hurricanes was heading down until 2011, when the temperature anomaly fell suddenly. Tornadoes and hurricanes need a temperature difference so energy can move from hot to cold.
I think the recent uptick in tornadoes and hurricanes is caused by the downward shift in temperature, causing the high latitudes to get colder, causing an increased temperature gradient from tropics to poles.
Could we be so accustomed to the brainwashing of the CAGW alarmists that we’re not recognising the advent of Global Cooling?
Dr Spencer writes: “but those are matters of faith, not of observable scientific reality”.
I think it wise to recognize that I believe that reports of scientists are often accurate reflections of scientific reality, but I still have to rely on the good faith and skills of the reporters.
I think it wise to recognize two kinds of faith or belief: probative or categorical belief, and arbitrary or optative belief.
Probative or categorical (see Aristotle’s ten categories) beliefs can be tested by rules of evidence and by testimony of actual witnesses. Arbitrary or optative beliefs cannot. I categorically believe that Hurricane Irene hit land over the last few days; perhaps the television reporters are tricking me, as they sometimes try to do, but on the whole I don’t think they are doing so on this occasion; I have an email from a friend who says his home was hit. I arbitrarily believe that my lady love is like a summer’s day, but I don’t try to check this out with a hygrometer and a thermometer, and I don’t call witnesses to check it out.
Physical science is about probative belief, but one needs to be alive to the need to check its probative basis. It can happen that assertions of “observable scientific reality” are mistakes of reporting or even are attempts to deceive, and for practical decisions we have to form beliefs about such possibilities. Ultimately therefore, we live and make our practical decisions by belief of one kind of another.
Of course some quantum mechanics aficionados think that they have a direct link, not available to ordinary mortals, to absolutely real facts including absolute probabilities, and consequently that they don’t need to state explicitly the evidence on which their “probabilities” are based. But ordinary scientists should try to use probability theory to indicate the degree of reliability and reasonableness of their beliefs, based in each instance on specified evidence, as explained by Jeffreys (1939) and by Jaynes (2003). Christopher Game
Dr Spencer writes: “[Al Gore] instead chooses to use theory as his “reality”.”
“Theory” is a neutral abstract concept. I am not keen on using it as a pejorative epithet.
Al Gore doesn’t use probatively based scientific theory; instead he utters optative speculative theory. Christopher Game
I would say that all of the warming last century can be linked to natural causes. From an active sun, to low volcanic activity, to many El Ninos, to a warm PDO. This was the rule for most of last century, and yet the temperature only rose .6c ,despite inceases of CO2 to go along with the natural items in their mostly warm phase.
Now this decade unlike last century, has all of the natural items phasing into a cold mode,(against the background of a prolong solar minimum) the result will be more extremes in the climate, and declining temperatures.
This winter is probably going to be characterized by a mostly -AO ,and a weak La Nina. This is going to result in wild weather if this combination comes to pass. Time will tell.
All signs point to the above from a soi index tending positive, ocean temp cooling /warming in key locations ,PDO index -1.86, the former applying to the La Nina, likelyhood. Low solar,increase of volcanic activity, easterly qbo likely, supporting a -AO likelyhood, along with low ice volume in the Arctic.
The global man made warming theory is very likely to meet it’s ending before this decade is out as the prolong solar minimum continues to exert more and more influence on earth’s climatic system through it’s link to these natural items which control the temperautres of earth.
We know this is so. Just look how the temperatures in the recent past have responded to Enso, look how the temperatures responded to the big volcanic eruptions of the early 1990’s and early 1980’s. The proof is there, and with more of this ,among other items I have mentioned coming on this decade, what do you think the temperature result will be ?
Then we have to throw in the cosmic ray angle, earth’s weakening magnetic field,to go along with the above, all of which conspire to increase earth’s albedo, through the likelyhood, of more cloud cover,snow cover and greater precipitation. RESULT IS GLOBAL COOLING.
What makes you so sure of a negative AO? There is no reliable indicator we have out there to show that there will be a negative AO. Besides, there haven’t been many years were we have had 3 winters in a row of negative AO and this would be the third I do believe. Not pickin’ at ya, but just curious where you get that information? Weak La Nina?? yes…
Carl Chapman,
Extratropical cyclones are driven by latitudinal/horizontal temperature gradients, but this is NOT the case for tropical cyclones (hurricanes) for which the vertical gradient is more important (as it allows for release of heat from condensation).
Dr. Spencer wrote;
“There have been no weather events observed to date – including Hurricane Irene — which can be reasonably claimed to be outside the realm of natural climate variability.”
EXACTLY CORRECT…………
As an engineer I am much more controlled by the reality of how my creations perform than what a theory or a computer model predicts. If the actual hardware does not perform as predicted by our model, we improve our model. We DO NOT improve our hardware until it performs as predicted by the model as we have learned that this is a DEAD END…..
I am constantly amazed by the HUBRIS of those that think they can predict the future performance of something as complex as the complete Sun / Earth / Atmosphere / Universe System. We struggle mightily just to predict the temperature of portions of the complex systems we design. And this is with fairly accurate knowledge of the thermal characteristics of the various materials involved.
Computer models are just one more tool in the toolbox of an engineer; they are not a substitute for the actual observed performance of a system.
So as an engineer who deals with the reality of actual system performance every day I ask;
Who wants to ride on an airplane I design after I state that; “it will very likely remain airborne” ?
Any takers ???
Cheers, Kevin.
“The map is not the territory.”
Or, The Model is Not the Climate.
Al Gore can’t tell the difference.
The very idea of deniers and supporters seems to come out of unscientific brains.
Maybe it’s wise to take these terms as evidence of a non or anti scientist and be ready to quietly ignore their other thinking which is not up to standard.
Massimo:
“One of the most viewed TV news here in Italy at lunchtime today just warned everyone about the Irene “anomalous” behavior. An “expert” told us that “we expect more unpredictable hurricanes like Irene due to man made global warming”.”
And I bet that nobody on the programme challenged this claim?
It’s only a matter of time before someone says that the failure of IPCC models to predict temperatures is due to “climate chaos” caused by “global warming”. It is impossible to win against this Alice in Wonderland logic. Some people have become so brainwashed that they do not recognise this for the rubbish it is.
Dr Spencer,
I am growing increasingly irritated by the use of the term “climate deniers” by AGW protagonists, when, as you point out, it is they who are denying the influence of the climate.
Every time this term is used it should be challenged, to make those who use it look foolish.
Well, I forced myself to watch the video on the “24 hours of reality” site and this is clearly unmitigated propaganda.
It states that “Across the globe, cataclysmic weather events are occurring with such regularity that it is being called a new normal, but there is nothing normal about it”.
So apparently all such events are due to “climate change” and never happened in the past.
Is anyone going to be given the opportunity to contradict these lies?
Of course, in the same video, it is implied that anyone who does contradicts the assertion that such weather events are nothing unusual is in the pay of “big oil” and “big coal”, so cannot be relied upon.
What really annoys me is Al Gore’s self-righteous arrogance in making these claims, and the implication that anyone who contradicts him is either being paid to do so, or is simply ignorant.
“In contrast, Mr. Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars by preaching his message of a “climate crisis”.”
For Al Gore life is all about $Money$. Why does he keep harping about AGW? $Money$! Who is he trying to help? $Himself$! Who is he ripping off? Everyone! Why do we listen to him, write about him, read about him? I haven’t figured that one out. He never did anything for me. Did he ever do anything for you? Hummmmm….
I used to like Al Gore, back in the days when I actually believed in much of the “climate change” propaganda.
When he lost the Presidential election to Bush in 2000, I was very sympathetic to him, as it seemed that he had been “cheated” of the Presidency.
Now I wonder what would have happened if he had won the election.
Would he have been allowed to implement the policies which he now advocates?
I suspect that he would now been taking credit for reducing global temperatures and the effects of “climate change”. Otherwise, he would probably be saying that extreme weather events were being reduced as a result of his policies.
Ray raises a point that is the stuff of nightmares. If Gore had won and managed to introduce some climate measures very early on in his presidency there is no doubt he would claim the credit for the recent flatlining of global temps. Every other greenwashed politician would have been scrambling on to that bandwagon.
In this scenario, I think that we in Europe would have regressed to living in cold, damp, iron age villages and having to apply months in advance to use any electricity.
Thankfully, we live in an age when the other scenario applies. One where the whole AGW edifice is tumbling down on Gore and he and his supporters look more foolish by the day.
“easterly qbo likely, supporting a -AO likelyhood”
Sorry, I missed this part yesterday in my reading. Good post though nonetheless.
The global warmers NEVER predicted extremes in climate originally. Infact they had predicted the EXACT opposite. They predicted a more zonal flow ,not this more meridional flow which has been coming on of late,SINCE SAY 2008.
So the global warmers have now changed their story to make it fit in with the recent trends ,toward more climatic extremes.
The points being, climatic extremes have been on the increase of late, but that is again the exact opposite of what the global warming community had predicted ,when they first came up with their global man made warming theory.
The reason why more climatic extremes have been present of late is due to a less zonal flow , which is due to the prolong solar minimum ,and increased geological activity, in large part.
This trend should continue.
Year 2011 has had very active geological activity , and the climatic extremes have been way above, what we could normally expect.
SAM – I think a mostly -AO will occur due to the following reasons:
prolong solar minimum continuation
increase of high latitude volcanic activity continuing
low ice cover in Arctic
easterly qbo lkely – this will cause a greater disruption to the normal west to east flow (zonal flow). Anotherwords it promotes a more meridional flow, which goes hand in hand with a more -AO.
Time will tell.
Don’t like “denier?” How about the more recent “racist?”
Al Gore, and the global warming NEW NORMAL ORIGIANLLY called for LESS extremes in climate ,not more. I have to emphasize this,because it is getting lost through the cracks.
They, the global warming models ,all called for a more +AO(ZONAL FLOW ) to evolve over time, not a more -AO (MERIDIONAL FLOW ) ,which is indeed what has been the case and is the OPPOSITE of what they had originally predicted.
So the more extremes we have in the climate, the more wrong they are. Global cooling brings on extremes in climate,global warming does not.
I am a little surprised that Joe Bastardi and Joe D’Aleo don’t get a bit more credit for good predictions this year. I realized they are “just meteorologists” but they look at how the ocean temps are distributed then look back at similar analogous years to make predictions usually several months in advance. They predicted a strong tornado season back in February and the high likelihood of huricanes hitting the east coast this summer. (In fact Joe B says a double hit (a second huricane this season) is a high probablility. Apparently when there is a cold PDO and La Nina conditions, couple with a very warm AMO, this is what we should expect. Joe also called cautioned the skeptics about the fact that there much more to these storms that just wind speed. Irene was huge and caused a lot of damage inland from flooding, just a Floyd and Gloria had done previously.
Personnally, I think Al Gore is best ignored as he likely does more damage to his cause than good. The Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi seem to have a better handle than many others with respect to calling what to expect seasonally in the regional climate. I actually think climate science would benefit greatly from working more closely with weathermen like these that seem to understand natures rythems a little better than others do.
Joe Bastardi recently demonstrated that he didn’t understand the basic concept of the greenhouse effect. When challenged, he kept insisting he was right. I don’t think anyone takes him seriously anymore.
Salvatore, can you help me find some links on some good reading that gives the connection between the QBO and AO as you say? I’m sort of an amateur at this, although I am fairly educated in meteorology, my degrees were not in meteorology. I am hoping to enter the Applied Met program at Miss. State soon. Can you help? I really enjoy climatology.
Hello Sam,
I’m in agreement with Salvatore on the negative polar vortices issue as explained here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
However my concept is still outside the climate consensus which believes that the stratosphere warms when the sun is active and cools when it is inactive.
But note what Joanna Haigh said recently:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations”
I think she is right and if she is then my hypothesis is the only one left standing.
Interesting times.
Ray said:
”
“…An “expert” told us that “we expect more unpredictable hurricanes like Irene due to man made global warming”.”
And I bet that nobody on the programme challenged this claim? ”
None, of course.
This night the only news about Irene was to emphasize that it hasn’t overestimated at all, that’s because of all the damages it did in various parts of the East coast. No one of them told that the alarmism strategy did nothing to prevent those disasters, just worried some million of people for almost nothing.
In the meantime they proposed one more time some shorts from Emmerich’s “the day after tomorrow” movie as an example of what could be expected in future.
Someone should tell them that that movie wasn’t sci-fi but just “scientific aberration”.
The cause of the temperature run-up in the 20th century and the flat and declining temperature trend for the latest decade have been discovered. Sunspots explain about 40% of the temperature change, Ocean surface temperature fluctuation about 40% leaving about 20% for everything else.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot number and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 100 times everything else) will cause the decline to be only about 0.13°C per decade. Steeper if the sun goes really quiet.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through July, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
You might want to google qbo versus atmospheric circulation ,and you should find some interesting articles.
Also some good websites are icecap.com,climaterealist.com, and iceagenow.com.
Joe D’Aleo ,is one of the best when it comes to climate and where it might be going. You should google him.
I wish Dr. Spencer ,would overlay the solar activity for the past 2000 years,along with the CO2 concentrations. If he would do that, one would see a clear correlation between the temperatures and solar activity, no correlation between the temperature and co2 concentrations.
DR. SPENCER COULD YOU PLEASE POST SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THANKS.
Also if one goes to the icecap.com website ,which Joe D’Aleo created ,you will be able to find a list of over 30 items that the global warming models have predicted wrong.
Climate models don’t make predictions — how many times must this be pointed out?
Modelers have a saying: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
Salvatore, I greatly appreciate your help!! 🙂
REMEMBER THE GLOBAL WARMERS ARE LIARS
Again they said zonal flow less extremes in climate originally.
They will try to use volcanic eruptions if they should occur on a mass scale for the cause of cooling, if that should occur ,not taking note that an increase of geological activity is tied into the prolong solar minimum.itis part of what happens with a prolong solar minimum.
They refuse to look at past history, which shows a correlation between solar activity and temperature ,but no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
They refuse to admit that their projected temperature rises, are already falling far short of what they predicted.
They refuse to admit their models have the atmospheric circulation they predicted wrong, they have the stratospheric cooling wrong they have the lower troposheric hot spot near the equator wrong, anotherwords all the so called positive feedbacks between CO2,and water vapor no where to be found.
They have the continuation of more El Ninos, in response to the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator wrong, they have the droughts associated with more El Ninos wrong.
They are in short CLUELESS.
Sal,
Note that the link that I provided is to ClimateRealists.com. I am quite familiar with that site. I looked at the other links. Thanks for that.
If you look at my stuff you will find that I got 88% accuracy in calculating the temperature trajectory since 1895 while using only one independent variable; the sunspot number. The way it is used in the equation, it is actually the time-integral of sunspot numbers (appropriately reduced by radiation from the planet).
Since this simple approach is so accurate, I am lead to believe that more complex considerations will turn out to be either temporary (volcanism) or resultant rather than causative.
Yes ,I agree,DAN, but I think with a prolong solar minimum the effects will be even far more reaching.
Don’t forget the period from 1895-2005 was active but pretty much normal sunspot cycles, with no prolong solar minimum ,during that time period.Normal 11 year sunspot cycles tend to cancell out the solar effects, over the 11 year period, which was the rule from 1895-2005. We need a prolong solar minimum to see what the real effects may or may not be,in my opinion.
I think we now have our first prolong solar minimum in progress, since the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1840. Prolong solar minimum’s can be shown to correlate from various studues to one degree or another ,with a more negative AO, increase in volcanic activity, a cold PDO/AMO, more La Ninas, more cosmic rays, which all conspire with the low solar activity setting the tables, to increase earth’s albedo through an increase in clouds, snow cover and precip., to degrees, which I feel will far exceed the effects of a normal quote , 11 year sunspot cycle.
I say if the solar flux stays at readings between 65-110 for the next 30 or so years ,
(allowing for some spurts of activity from time to time ,which will enhance geological activity in my opinion)that the effects will be very far reaching, as far as earth’s climate goes.
Solar irradiance itself probably also has to be lower during a prolong solar minimum ,maybe .2 % to .3 % ,and must also contribute to cooling to some degree, although probably not much.
The key is how long ,and how deep will this solar minimum be. I can’t really know, except to say it has happened in the past with the solar system in relationship to the sun in a similar situation. The last two times being the Dalton , and Maunder Minimum.
Joe Bastardi,Joe D’ Aleo, Geoffry Sharp, Piers Corbyn, David Archibald, to name a few, are 1000x better in their assesssments of earth’s climatic system,then any of the so called mainstream climatolgist, who know nothing about nothing.
Infact I venture to say there are very few climatologist that have a good handle on the climate. Very few. I think solar scientist and meteorlogist have a much better understanding in general, of earth’s climatic system.
Richard Lindzen ,although does not support global man made warming, leaves much to be desired ,in my opinion when it comes to the skeptic’s views, of what makes earth’s climatic system work.
I view him as neutral ,almost. I think Dr. Spencer,of late is moving closer and closer toward what I, and other skeptics have been saying. He is one of the best high visibility people we have out there, and I hope as this decade goes on, his thinking will be more ,and more along the lines so many of us have expressed on these message boards.He comes across very well, as a reguar but very smart person.
I say over the last two years ,he is more sure that the global man made warming theory is wrong, and I now see hints Dr. Spencer, is starting to think maybe the sun has a bigger role, then what he had thought in the past.
Sal,
The 11 year solar cycles make an irrelevant waviness in the calculated anomalies. The equation uses the TIME-INTEGRAL of sunspot numbers. To understand my work better you really need to examine the pdf made public 4/10/10 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. It explains the analysis starting on page 11. I have refined it since then with the final version of the equation presented on page 5 of the pdf made public 3/10/11.
I don’t know of any other analysis that has done anywhere near as well as 88% accuracy (correlation coefficient of 0.938) at calculating temperatures since 1895. The best that I have found for the IPCC is 37%.
Even if there is a prolonged solar minimum, the IPCC will chaulk it up to Chinese soot in atmosphere. That is my main concern. No matter what happens they have explanations.
But if the media freeze their butts of in NYC and London, I think they will turn public opinion.
I’m sorry Roy, but I have to tell you this because it is making me sick to my stomach. Apparently the Team, led by Dessler, now believes that the best way to “deal” with you is to ignore you, and claim to have “proof” that you are wrong…but won’t publish it! I really do find it disgusting:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/how-scientific-debate-should-be-conducted-with-john-nielsen-gammon/
“Also, Spencer has recently dropped below my credibility threshold so don’t bother citing him here unless the work is corroborated.”
“It didn’t take my colleague Andrew Dessler long to work out a demonstration that Spencer’s new paper is wrong. Many of his colleagues have counselled against publishing this demonstration, arguing that the time wasted refuting yet another in a series of incorrect papers by the same author would be better spent advancing our knowledge about the climate system and that at some point it’s better just to ignore incorrect papers. I personally agree with you that an incorrect paper should be publicly refuted in the scientific literature, but I can see how it would get annoying to be working on one public refutation after another.”
I…I just can’t believe it. I have never been so disheartened and sickened by anything in my life…
Dan ,I will review that. Thanks.
Dr. Spencer, should not care about Dessler and his team. The only thing that matters is who will be correct and who will be wrong. Dessler and his team are going to be wrong, and we should find out very soon.
I had read that before, yes no doubt that is part of it, but I maintain that the climate cannot be correlated to anyone item that changes here on earth.
The sun controls earth’s climatic system, that we all agree on , but not just by changing one of the items that control earth’s climatic system.Ex. clouds.
I agree if the altitude of clouds increases ,that being the case with higher solar activity ,temperatures would increase, and vice versa, but that is only one part of how solar activity influences earth’s climate.
I think and have read studies that show how solar activity influences volcanic activity, the Arctic Oscillation, the PDO/AMO, the SOI Oscillation ,along with the number of La Ninas versus El Ninos, all of which DO change earth’s climatic system..
I say all of that along with the low clouds increasing during low solar activity due to an increase in cosmic rays ,(not to forget earth’s significant magnetic field weakening,which just adds to the cosmic ray increase, while at the same time allowing more charged particles from the sun to enter our atmospehre during solar spurts, which in turn influence the climate and geological activity )is aLl conspiring to change earth’s climate.
I say you need a substancial period of prolong MINIMUM solar activity in order to make the magnitude of these changes STRONG enough and duration of these changes LONG enough, to have a profound effect on earth’s climate.
I say of course ,as you say low clouds increase earth’s albedo, but snow cover due to a more -AO will also be important to increasing earth’s albedo, along with an increase in precipitation.
Not to mention there is a study that suggest SO2 particles from an increase in volcanic activity may also serve to help increase low clouds, while at the same time as we know SO2 , reflects much of the incoming sunlight back into space, warming the stratosphere but cooling earth’s surface.
I think in addition earth’s weakening magentic field is sort of being left out of the equation on climate change, and has a bigger role to play, then what we our all thinking including myself.
In closing in my opinion ,everthing other then CO2 increasing is pointing toward a colder climate going forward, and this sets up the great natural experiment to see who is right and who is wrong.
If temperatures should fail to decline despite all items pointing to colder temperature ahead , we will be forced to examine the CO2 theory. On the otherhand if the temperatures decline, while the CO2 continues to increase, (which I feel will happen ,like 95% sure,) then I think it is time to say the global man made induced warming from an increase in CO2 is not correct.
I think the problem I see is everyone wants to have a simple cause and effect for the climate to change. Some trying to say, an increase in CO2 forget everything else, others trying to say low solar activity ,increase in cosmic rays,increase in low clouds, forget everything else.
I say no, although I agree that an increase in low clouds has a role in the climate changing, whereas I don’t think CO2 has any role, because although if it doubles a slight increase in temperatue may take place, the positive feedbacks just are not there,not to forget as co2 increases it’s effect on temperature lessens. It has to keep doubling itself to create the same effect.
I hate to promote myself as having the answers, but I have to maintain that my phase in of the items that control the climate ,with solar activity setting the stage, if the magnitude is strong enough and duration of time long enough, is the best comprhehensive explanation of what drives earth’s climatic system.
Cloud, playing a big role , but equally important in my opinion is earth’s magnetic field, volcanic activity, soi oscillation.pdo/amo, various atmospheric circulations such as the -NAO for an example.
Also the Milankovitch cycles have to have a part in this, in addition to everyting else,for major climate chages lasting a very long time.
This in my opinion is the only way ,not only to explain the small temperature changes in earth’s climatic system such as last cnetury, but the sudden abrupt large temperature changes ,and sometimes long lasting climatic changes, in earth’s climatic system that have happened many times in the past.
The thermohaline circulation due to atmospheric circulation changes also probably has a role in the major long lasting climatic changes, due to an increase of freash water,not to forget ice rafting(henrich events). These along with the Milankovich cycles/decline in earth’s magnetic field, probably setting the stage for major climate events ,s I just mentioned, which start, due to a prolong solar minimum period , with it’s phase in of items that control the climate, which could create significant climatic changes, but needs those other items to fall into place ,to turn it into something even far greater in my opinion.
Nevrtheless, I feel the prolong solar mimimum with the items that control the climate if strong enough /long enough in duration will on it’s own without those othe items I mentioned(for major long lasting changes) , will be enough to cause a signifcant climate changes on it’s own accord.
That is how I see it,time will tell.
The above opinion piece by Roy is a perfect example as to why he is rapidly losing credibility in the global scientific community. Worse yet, his decision to include a outdated and misleading graphic is not helping his case (see below).
It seems that if all else fails then Roy resorts to conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks on Al Gore– that is not science, and neither is citing the much flawed Loehle (2007). And that brings me to one of the more egregious errors in Roy’s above opinion piece. Why does Roy show Loehle (2007) and not Loehle and McCulloch (2008), which included corrections to errors made in Loehle (2007)? That is being incredibly disingenuous and misleading Roy. Here is a more complete picture or the proxy data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html
In fact, there is something very wrong with Roy’s graph, as N. Hemisphere temperatures are now known to be running warmer than those most likely observed during the Medieval warm anomaly.
Regardless showing an outdated and flawed paleo graphic is just an old trick to distract people from where we are heading as Roy urges to continue with BAU. And let me note the logical fallacy by Roy here– according to Roy paleo data are a “grey” are of research, except of course when a cherry-picked (and flawed) paper claims to show that N. Hemisphere temperatures are as warm as they were during the Medieval climate anomaly. And another logical fallacy by Roy, funny how Roy chooses to use temperature data (global or N. Hemisphere Roy please be specific?) compiled by those alleged “corrupt” scientists from CRU that he and his readers despise so much probably full knowing that the HadCRUT has a been demonstrated to have a cool bias (can’t provide a link b/c of the spam filter, but the UK Met office has shown this).
Really Roy, you really ought to know better and to up your game. This latest gaff by you is, IMO, running dangerously close to committing scientific misconduct.
why have we had warming since 1950 ?
Is it chaos theory, creating random upswing ?
Is it change in cosmic rays getting to atmosphere ?
Is it CO2 ?
Is it that we are not measuring temperature of WHOLE atmosphere properly ?
Btw how does the moon affect temperature ? It blocks light and causes tides, which can affect things.
Roy,
Can you please comment more on the possibility that tropical storms developing in an environment that typically has higher PWV can lead to more extreme rainfall (e.g., Knutson et al. 2010, Nature)?
The big story with Irene was the exceptional rain, not so much the wind. The ACE index does not take that important factor (i.e.m increased rainfall) associated with TCs into account. Despite what your cohort Michaels recently opined (i.e., “it is doubtful that Irene will even cough up 8 bodies”), Irene has claimed at least 45 live sin the USA alone, with damages consistent with a category three storm, and on Wednesday more than 1.7 million customers remained without electricity from North Carolina to Maine.
You claim that:
“Claims that warming “should” or “will” cause more hurricanes are based upon theory, that’s all.”
Yet that is not what the latest research is suggesting, and you know it, or should at least. The latest science suggests that there will likely be fewer but more intense tropical cyclones– Landsea and Emanuel (who have often been at odds on this issue) are in agreement on this point. Here is an excellent and easily accessible overview:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/tropical-cyclones-climate-and-consensus/
There is also a part II.
And Roy is shamelessly misrepresenting what Gore said in AIC about hurricanes. He said ” “There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger.” That statement was based on research published by the much respected Kerry Emanuel.
Also, you surprisingly ignore the following papers:
Knutson et al. (2010, Nature):
“Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.”
Bender et al. (2010, Science):
“The model projects nearly a doubling of the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century, despite a decrease in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones, when the downscaling is based on the ensemble mean of 18 global climate-change projections. The largest increase is projected to occur in the Western Atlantic, north of 20°N.”
OK, those are modelling studies, so what is happening on the ground?
Elsner et al (2008, Nature) titled “The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones” in which they find that:
“We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones”
Webster et al. (2005, Science) analyzed satellite data from the past 35 years
and found a “large increase in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching category 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the N. Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans.” Hoyos et al. (2006, Science) came to a similar conclusion.
What Roy also fails to point out is that while the potential for stronger hurricanes is increasing with time because of warming oceans, that intensity will not necessarily be realized every year because of other factors such as ENSO.
Roy,
“What I worry about is what will happen if we get another Hurricane Andrew (1992) which hit Miami as a Cat 5, or Camille in 1969, also a Cat 5. The reporters will probably have heart attacks.”
You seem to be suggesting that the media overhyped Irene. Is that your position?
Roy,
You say “Well, what *I* deny is that we can say with any level of certainty how much of our recent warmth is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability.”
What an intriguing statement because you, on this very blog have asserted very confidently that:
“The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!”
And you are also on the record saying that:
“A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend.“
So you seem to believe that one can state confidently and with much certainty that most of the observed warming is attributable to internal climate variability, but that one cannot state with any level of certainty how much of the warming is attributable to the radiative forcing from anthro GHGs. A very curious belief that you hold there, and yet another logical fallacy.
Also, what do you then think of the claim made by Loehle and Scarfetta (2011) that,
“About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by this natural 60-year [solar] climatic cycle during its warming phase.”
Now this is getting confusing Roy, because “skeptics” are claiming with much certainty that 60% of the observed warming is because of natural variability of external forcing. So there is a problem and inconsistency here, you are claiming confidently that this is because of internal forcing or variability, while other ‘skeptics’ are loudly claiming that the warming is from an external forcing cycle. So which is it? By your logic Loehle and Scarfetta must be wrong– if so, I and others would agree with you.
I am sure that I could find many more examples of such inconsistencies and logical fallacies made by self-styled ‘skeptics’.
You also make this unsubstantiated claim:
“I would say that it is Mr. Gore who is the “climate denier”, since he denies the role of nature in climate variability”.
Even if what you claim is true, more relevant though is that this is not a position held by your fellow climate scientists, and you know that. You are arguing a strawman Roy.
Obscurity, I’ve got a direct question for you and hope you won’t ignore it. I see you are willing to spend much of your time here writing long posts with tons of links trying to refute almost every word of Dr.Spencer. Yet, you just disappear when (like some 2 weeks ago) somebody points out that refuting Dr.Spencer and his model is not an evidence that IPCC models are right and the main problem is that those models not only fail to fit observed reality but they don’t even agree amongst themselves. I just wonder why you didn’t answer…
Hello Bertrand,
I am here to speak to Roy, this is his blog after all and he is the one making the assertions as the blog post in question was authored by him. Now un less you are his personal representative, please let Roy speak to or defend his own words.
Concerning the models– it seems that you wish to go off topic and trey and detract from Roy’s failings– I actually missed the post by Rob to which you are referring. An important point that you and roy keep forgetting in your zeal to try and undermine the credibility of climate science–the climate models are not the IPCC models per se, rather they are the models from modelling agencies around the world whose results are included in the IPCC assessment reports.
Scientists who work with and who understand models do not expect climate models to agree with each other (the same holds true for NWP models and they are actually incredibly useful), the fact that you think because they do not is some sort of “win” for those in denial about AGW or for “skeptics” is rather peculiar and shows that you do not understand how AOGCMs work. The models are unique, use different forcings (e.g., some include volcanic aerosols while others do not), use parameterizations, and use different grid resolutions et cetera. Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 has an excellent overview of this.
If you want to read a real paper on the subject of models and OHC and how the models measure up, read Dominigues et al. (2008). Turns out how well the models perform is very sensitive to whether or not the forcing from volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere (i.e., a driver/forcing not necessarily the model, although the models obviously have limitations) is included in the simulations or not, with models that do take the impact of volcanic aerosols into account faring much better than those which do not. Interestingly, Cai et al. (2010, GRL) speak to the fact that some models included in CMIP3 ensemble underestimate the amount of warming in the top 2000 m and through some careful research (using NCAR’s PCM1 model conclude that “indirect effect of aerosols, not volcanic aerosols alone, is the reason for the bulk of weaker modelled OHC trends”. So aerosols (the forcings), both natural and anthropogenic are important, and a reason why the loss of the GLORY satellite earlier this year was so unfortunate.
Another important result from the Cai et al. paper is that as shown in their Figure 1 when one includes all the forcings, the model that compares best with the Levitus ’09 data in terms of the depth?accumulative global OHC (for 1955-2009) between 0 and 700 m and that compares best with the 0-2000 m OHC (for 1960-2007 (Wijffels et al. 2008) is the MIROC HiRes model which has a EQS of 4.3 C for doubling CO2. Now this raises an interesting question, because in Roy’s spaghetti diagram the MIROC Hires model is shown to be much warmer than the Levitus data in the top 700 m, while in a peer-reviewed paper in GRL, the observed OHC trace and that predicted by the MIROC HiRes model are essentially indiscernible. So me thinks that Roy has likely made a mistake with his interpretation of the Levitus data which calls his whole analysis into question– there is a reason why one should be wary of blog science Bertrand, especially after after Drs. Bickmore and Smith have shown Roy’s blog science to be nonsense.
Anyhow, this is all going off topic, and does not speak to the latest round of erroneous statements made by Roy in this post, but I hope it sheds some clarity on the matter about the models.
Hello Obscurity,
Since I’m paid for something else than writing posts to this blog I will be much shorter than you were. I’m not in any way personal representative of Dr.Spencer, don’t want to “detract from his failings” and haven’t ever been defending his words. Besides, I’m not a US citizen, not living there, so every possible result of IPCC strive to get “their” money back from the government won’t make me any richer or poorer. I’m just interested in climate change stuff and found here some very interesting questions raised by Dr.Spencer which IMHO haven’t been reasonably answered by proponents of AGW theory, yet.
And still have some questions. You say “when one includes all the forcings, the model that compares best with the Levitus ‘09 data in terms of the depth?accumulative global OHC (for 1955-2009) between 0 and 700 m and that compares best with the 0-2000 m OHC (for 1960-2007 (Wijffels et al. 2008) is the MIROC HiRes model which has a EQS of 4.3 C for doubling CO2”
Are there any historical temperature data for 700-2000 m available or you just say you believe the model which fits the 0-700 m best will fit 700-2000m as well?
Obscurity , I am so glad you have showed that graph of temperatures you subscribe to, now I know beyond a doubt that you and that riduclous excuse of a graph for past temperatures, are full of BS.
Next you will be in denial of past Ice Ages and Interglacils. That is right the past global warming of last century was a one time event, oh how could I have not known that, and the sky is green and the grass in blue. Wow!
Hurricane activity versus ocean warming , I think not. If anything when the oceans were warming, because now they are cooling ,the hurricane frequency if anything for the globe showed a decline. Also intensity was little changed.
OBSCURITY , we are NOT claiming 60% of the warming is due to natural variablity ,try close to 100%.
It can be PROVEN through looking at the natural items that control the climate last century that all of them were in their warm phase, from high solar activity, to low volcanic activity, to an active sun with a decrease in cosmic rays, to a more zonal atmospheric circulation , to a warm PDO/AMO ,and many more El Ninos versus La Ninas.
That my boy accounted for almost all of the warming and the bad news for you and the fools that follow you, is that all of those items are now in a cold phase and guess what temperatures will be declining this decade, not next decade BUT this one, and that should shut you up, Al Gore up and the rest of your hapless pathetic crew.
I wish Dr. Spencer, myself, and others of knowledge such as Joe Bastardi/Joe D’ Aleo, to name a few could debate you ,Dr. Dessler ,the Weather Channel and your famous leader Al Gore ,in a public forum and then take a poll after the public heard from both sides to see how many agreed with your side versus our side.
That however is not going to be needed because we now have the perfect set up in place(all natural items phased into a cold mode) ,which will prove in a few short years which side is correct and which side is wrong.
OBSURITY please show us the positive feedbacks with this so called greenhouse warming? Show us ,and show us the temperature rise for the past 12 years, where is it?
Show us the more zonal flow, show us the stratospheric cooling. Show us the El Ninos and the warm PDO, and all the droughts forecasrted. Show us the less extreme climate your side had forecasted, not what we have presently, which is all due to global cooling. Show us.
Where is the tropospheric hot spot? Show us. Show us the connections so we can see where you are coming from,put it together.
How about past abrupt climate change? Oh Dear , I forgot that nevr happened, this is after all(this global warming ) a one time first time event. How stupid of me. Therefore you have no need to answer the question becasue it has never ever happened before.
We wil eat your side alive this decade, that is one prediction you can take to the bank.
Obscurity probably won’t respond to me, because Obscurity, has no answers to combat my assertions. Obsecurity , is one of those typical empty vessels that can’t backup or substanciate his /her position based on real past data,or anything else for that matter.
I am also afraid to say it, but even when the temperatures start to go down this decade they will probably be blaming it on global warming. Pathetic.
I have just started my quest to destroy the global man made warming theory hoax ,once and for all.
OBSCURITY, THE EXTERNAL FORCINGS CAUSE THE INTERNAL FORCINGS.
Dr. Spencer ,my suggestion is for you to ignore Obscurity.
I should have done the same but Obscurity’s ridiculousness,forced me to reply. I know I most likely wasted my time, but at least it makes things nice and clear, as to who is thinking what.
I glanced at the Hurricane BS article OBSCURITY, showed that came out in 2010. More backtracking changing their story, to make it fit the recent past which they continuously get wrong, which forces them to have to keep modifying what they say.
They are a bunch of lying pathetic phonies.Can’t even stick with their original predictions.
I suggest evryone should look up old articles from around year 2000 or so to see how much the global warmers have changed their story (predictions), in order to try to make what is gong on with earth’s climatic system , currently fit into their obsolete man made global warming theory. It is really amazing how they have back tracked on everything.
The theory as far as I am concerned has already been proven to be obsolete, from the atmospheric circulation predictions being wrong, to the lack of any evidence of positive feedbacks with CO2, from the lack of temperature increase,to the more extreme climate of late, from even the SOI index being wrong and the droughts that would be associated with that index in a deep negative mode,which they have insisted on as another one of their missing in action positive feedbacks.
A pathetic bunch, are they not???
Also please visit Joe D’ Aleo’s Icecap website ,if you search it, you will find a list of all the WRONG climate predictions the models have made. It is well over 30,and going up ,up and away.
ICECAP
To find out about HOW WRONG the models are:
FIRST– Go to left side , of website,click on, About Climate Change.
NEXT- Once you are clicked on to About Climate Change go to right side ,and you will see Historical Perspective.
Scroll down from there to you come to Greenhouse Scorecard, click that, and you wiLl come across 32 climate predictions the global warming models have made over the years. The scorecard being out of the 32 predictions the global warming climate models have made 1 is correct, 27 ARE WRONG, and 4 are to hard to determine presently, one way or the other.
What is nice about this, is it shows why and how the models are wrong, and by how much they are wrong. Just excellent,and it is a way to keep these BS liars honest, since they constantly try to change their story to make things always fit in with earth’s current climate situation.
Also KATLA VOLCANO , ICELAND, having many earthquakes of late, a 3.2 magnitude one today, watch out. TAMBORA VOLCANO,INDONESIA, raised to alert level 2.
If EITHER of these two were to go, it is a game changer for the climate, and it WILL BE associated with the prolong solar minimum , and the global warmers , are not going to get away with trying to say it is volcanic activity independent of the solar situation. I and others have been saying this for years, and they are not going to get away with it.
I am fed up with them ,and as you can see today is one of those days where I have the time to really express my thouhgts.
I have elaborated on Gore’s lies regarding Cape Verde & Rio de Janeiro:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-al-gore-in-cape-verde.html
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-hours-later-in-rio.html
Ecotretas
One of the problems is CO2 in atmosphere is pretty much a linear growth. Meaning not much variation year to year. A line only has 2 variables. So we can’t get much good info out of it by doing correlations against historical temperature.
Well, well….:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
“Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.”
Also,
“With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few.”.
Cue conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks and misdirection from those faithful to Spencer.
This just is further proof ,of the liars of global warming . They can’t take it.
Spencer. You’re a shill and an idiot. Stop trying to refute proven, scientific facts in the name of your corporate overlords. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am appalled you call yourself a scientist.
Dr Spencer – hopefully you will feel better (especially after reading the last commentator “Shill”) by reading the article from Brendan O’Neil of Spiked, which I found in the paper this morning:
Climate sceptics called every name in the book
As an empirical scientist I congratulate Dr Braswell and yourself for your papers. Eppur si muove!
@Obscurity: IMHO the media did over-hype Irene. I was just waiting for someone to start blaming “climate change” for it.
Climatologists have discredited themselves by failing to distance themselves unequivocally from Government/UN/IPCC.
The resignation of the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Remote Sensing indicates that he is an AGW activist and possibly that he perceives that he failed at his job. The Spencer/Braswell paper will probably receive the usual technical back-and-forth that typically occurs between skeptics and AGW believers.
The deficiencies in the climate models have been demonstrated in their total failure to predict the flat average global temperature trend since about 2001. I graph the average global temperature anomaly data by month as reported by all five agencies and the CO2 level from Mauna Loa. The data are provided by various government agencies and include both surface and satellite measurements.
Use of these sources avoids the delay, bias and de facto censoring of ‘peer review’. I compare the temperatures for validity and average them to avoid bias. The temperature trend has been approximately flat for a decade. In that same decade (through July 2011) the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by 23.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. How wide will this separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature need to get for some people to realize that maybe they missed something?
It is apparent that many ‘Climate Scientists’ are profoundly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect. I describe some of their resulting mistakes in the pdf made public 8/11/2010 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.
Their lack of skill in mathematics and computer modeling prevents them from understanding why their global weather models, which they mistakenly call global climate models, don’t work for predicting climate. It is woefully naïve to believe that all that is needed to turn a global weather model into a global climate model is to run it longer.
They tout (correctly) that CO2 absorbs a narrow band of long wave radiation (and has acquired the misnomer of a ghg) but are apparently unaware that, when each CO2 molecule has thousands of neighboring non ghg molecules, thermalization takes place. Thermalization is primarily what warms the air.
Although they frequently use what they call ‘feedback’, they apparently do not understand Feedback Control Theory very well. If they did they would recognize that long term temperature downtrends cannot change to long term up-trends (and vice versa as observed for example in the last glaciation) if there is significant net positive feedback from temperature.
They either ignore or are unaware of the findings of research of paleo climate. The best assessment available is that the planet plunged into and then recovered from the Andean-Saharan ice age when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level remained constant at over ten times the present. A graph showing this is at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
They also bizarrely rationalize the findings from the Vostok ice cores that atmospheric carbon dioxide change lagged temperature change by hundreds of years. I observed this lag years ago and show it in the second graph in http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html which was made public in 2008. The first graph in this paper shows multiple measurements of the continual progressive rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and the 32-year long down, up, down, up temperature trends. This lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.
Their deficient understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer apparently prevents them from recognizing that the indicated sharp month-to-month ups and downs of global temperature and ocean heat content measurements are impossible and instead are mere artifacts of measurement. They are impossible because of the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans.
Climate Scientists seem to be stuck on TSI as the only solar factor that could influence climate on earth. They apparently are completely unaware that by combining magnitude with time in the sunspot time-integral (appropriately reduced by the SB radiation from the planet) that an excellent correlation with average global temperature is obtained. The equation presented in the pdf made public 3/10/2011 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true calculates the temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy. This equation has only one independent variable; the sunspot number.
Could somebody with a scientific background check whether oceanic surface tension has a role in all this. As far as I can make out physical heat cannot be transferred from the atmosphere into the ocean at normal temperatures. But I’m not a scientist what would I know.
We need to call this what it is: The Climate Cult is a pagan religion. It is not science, and is not really about the environment. It is a cloak of pseudo science to hide its true identity: The Cult of Marxism, and a deeply disturbed Malthusian Cult of self destruction. We need only take note of WHAT the cult offers as “solutions” to this fantasy problem. The “solutions” are a self serving, unelected Global Marxist government, sucking taxes from every western country, and a deeply twisted, psychotic, Malthusian obsession to deny all mankind access to energy, food, and water.
So, Mr Gore wants to “reveal climate deniers”… or should it be “revile”? What are we going to call his 24-hour Blitz 20 years hence? Kristallnacht?
AlGore invented the massage parlor, as well as the Internet.
I’m sorry, but due to recent events all Race Cards are being… declined.
Dr. Spencer
Thanks for fighting the good fight. I was in attendance (virtually, or course) at Al Gore’s little web event. I tried to engage the tweeters asking them to just try to learn enough about the ‘deniers’ claims to get a balanced view.
Perhaps not too surprising, I found 99.9% of the online element were woefully ignorant of the very basics of logic associated with cause and effect, greenhouse gases and green energy economics. It’s no wonder that the likes of Al Gore and his ilk are able to manipulate the minds of these people for their own gain.
Most worrying is that these people were vehemently anti-growth, anti-capitalism, and in principle they all have a vote in their respective countries.
best wishes,
DrBobNM
Hi Bob,
I’m a truth crusader against Gore’s Hysterical money grabbing schemes.
Can you back this statement up:
“In contrast, Mr. Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars by preaching his message of a “climate crisis”. ”
I have video before congress where he clearly states he has
not received one penny for his Gw crusade.
I could use the info if you have it.
Thanks much , Ted
I find it almost LAUGHABLE that someone accuses someone else of not understanding the “Greenhouse effect”.
I’d refer that “oh so knowledgeable” person to Dr. Robert Woods, 1909 experiement with two “miniature greenhouses”, one with a “Rock Salt” window and one with a glass window.
This experient has been reproduced. The equilibrium temperatures reached in both “miniature greenhouses” are identical within experimental error.
There is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Read classic meteorology texts from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s (around the ’80’s this discussion dissapears, and is strangely ignored, hum…groupthink anyone?)
In those texts, oft times Dr. Wood’s work is cited. The fact that greenhouses heat up because they are CONVECTIVE BOUNDARIES is pointed out.
The warming of the Earth’s atmosphere that occurs because of CO2 and H2O (all other IR interactive gasses being minor in comparison) is properly called the “Atmospheric Effect”.
So when you throw stones, make sure you don’t live in a GLASS GREENHOUSE!
Whoops, sorry…too fast typing made my EXPERIMENTS look as though I can’t spell, and perhaps will make my credibility DISAPPEAR (also fumble finger mis-spelled).
Gore has commited Climattenact.
I sincerely believe that no one can or has ever measured the temperature of the earth. Nor can they measure the percentage of CO2 that comes from any major source. Nor can they calculate an accurate history of the earth’s temperature or of its CO2 fluctuations.
Not one of these ‘certainties’ can be defended in rational debate which is why there is so little of even pretenses of rational debate and why these simple questions are neglected in favor of detailed discussions of the debate protocol of the antagonists and, of course, of their motives and ancestry.
In a debate where both sides are arguing over something that both sides are totally ignorant of, both sides can make the most progress by finding fault in the other side’s baseless assertions. Here, the alarmists are at a distinct disadvantage since they provide the most extravagant supply of baseless assertions. But many deniers rush fearlessly into the same rhetorical trap by claiming to know the opposite of what the alarmists know.
What neither side can do is prove that they have a method for measuring the temperature of the globe. They do not and they will not any decade soon. The entire debate is built on an epistemological fantasy invented by subsidized and titled pretenders to science equipped with proxies, graphs, models, and generous funding of their magical basic premise which is that when you add up enough guesses, you arrive at a certainty.
The most telling thing for me about the Global Warming™ Nazis is that with evidence that the planet is getting cooler, precisely what they want to happen, they refuse to recognize it nor are they very happy about it (which most people would be considering their dire warnings). Instead they fight harder to prove their theory right. This leads me to believe that it is all about control not science.
Another thing. How do these guys know that this climate is the one that we need to save at all costs? It’s been a lot cooler and a lot warmer in the past and nothing untoward happened. So why get so wee weed up about this particular temperature?
I feel great while reading this article. It is full of wonderful information and because of this, I have learn more information. Thanks for sharing this!
https://sutherlandtreeremoval.com.au/tree-trimming/
Wow this article is so impressive! Thank you for sharing a wonderful information. Interesting article!
https://sutherlandtreeremoval.com.au/tree-trimming/
I appreciate how this article was made with full of information. I like how this one was compose also, big thanks for sharing this with me!
https://electricianguildford.net.au/
I appreciate how this article was made with full of information. I like how this one was compose also, big thanks for sharing this with me! electrician Guildford