For thirty or so years, from 1980 to 2010, a good deal of my professional life was taken up with assessing applications for money to allow individuals and groups to carry out the research they wanted to do. That led me into the arcane world of peer review and careful assessment. I learned a lot — about intellectual mafias, about arrogance, about the search for knowledge, truth and beauty. I have written about some of it, in part in essays here (search for ‘peer review’ for example.
More recently I have come across a new aspect of peer review, essentially its shift into the world of politics, where a policy proposal is advocated on the ground that ‘the science’ or ‘research’ or the work of ‘scientists’ must make the implementation of the policy proposal imperative, as well as immediate. There was some of that thirty years ago, mostly in the world of social science: education, criminology, indigenous affairs, and the like. Here the world of peer review would produce quite contrasting assessments of the proposal, from total support to outright condemnation. Today the area where it is most obvious is ‘climate change’, and once again we find advocates calling on ‘science’ to support or defend policy proposals. But what ‘science’ are they calling on?
Much of it is based on computer models, which forecast dire futures if things are left to go on as they are. Climate science is so complex a domain, and the disciplines needed to make sense of it, let alone the disciplines necessary to change human behaviour to ensure that the implementation actually happens, are so many, that there are no real experts. Each scientist, each group, works away at a single aspect of the problem, hoping to throw light on it and its connections to the rest of the problem. And there is not really one problem, but many. Is the earth actually warming? Is the warming significant? Is the warming like to be beneficial or harmful? Would carbon taxes and their like make any difference?
As in the rest of the research world, there has grown a group of scientist/advocates (indeed, some of them are not natural scientists at all), who think their work is so important that they become politicians who see the end as more important than the means. So they exaggerate the importance of their work, do their best to prevent rival views from being aired or heard, and can be found lobbying MPs and Ministers to get their point of view accepted as ‘truth’, or, if that is too hard, accepted as orthodoxy. That the earth is warming, that the warming is harmful to human beings, that the cause is carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and that we will all go to hell in a handcart unless we move quickly to alternative sources of energy — these assertions have become the orthodoxy, and are powerful in the counsels of governments, even when governments know that there are other perspectives.
That these propositions have an uncertain status in the world of real science is not much talked about, partly because they arethe orthodoxy, and partly because rival points of view have been hard to find in the literature — editors can be reluctant to publish articles that are flatly opposed to orthodoxy, and most reviewers will feel the same. Not only that, as the Climategate emails showed, the orthodoxy were in a strong position to influence journals, and used their power accordingly.
More, some of the scientist/advocates claimed that the great body of climate scientists agreed with the orthodoxy — 97 per cent of them, was the claim. The claim was rubbish, and I wrote a few trenchant pieces (search for ‘consensus’) showing why that was so. Nonetheless, it persisted, and has become an article of faith. One of the paradoxes of this whole contested area is that as the orthodoxy grew in strength, so did rival perspectives find it easier to be published. That didn’t matter, as governments were now so committed to at least the talk of climate change that it was difficult for them to adopt contrary policies, at least quickly.
Pierre Gosselin, a climate realist or sceptic who has a background in engineering and science, has compiled lists of sceptical papers that have actually been published. You can read his analysis by following the link at the end of the essay. His personal view is that humans have had a modest impact on climate, and he is open to persuasion, but only on evidence, not on appeals to consensus or simple assertion. On his account, more than 500 such sceptical papers were published in 2018, and around 1500 peer-reviewed papers between 2016 and 2018.
What is his methodology? I’ll set it out in a long extract:
‘More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
Solar Influence On Climate (103)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (22)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (3)
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (36)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (76)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (16)
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (18)
Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (33)
Polar Bear (and other) Populations Not Decreasing (10)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (10)
Coral Bleaching A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (8)
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (7)
Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2)
CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes By 1000+ Years (3)
N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (27)
No AGW Changes To Hydrological Cycle Detectable (6)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12)
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (17)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (19)
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (20)
Global Warming Saves Lives. Cold Kills. (9)
Global Losses/Deaths From Weather Disasters Declining (2)
Gosselin goes on to make the obvious point that these papers do notsupport the orthodoxy:
‘In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1?uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough”, which means that “the time for debate has ended”.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.’
There is a link to each paper, and while I have not read them all, I have read enough of them to see that the attributions Gosselin has made seem fair. So the next time someone says something like, ‘Oh yes, and which peer-reviewed scientists have said that?’ you can provide a link. My take-home message is that we simply don’t know a great deal about climate change, but what we do know does not suggest that humanity is in crisis or danger. Gosselin says much the same.
A note on syntax
Having been taught to parse and analyse when I was small, I have respect for syntax. Alas, younger generations don’t seem to know what it is, or care. This is especially the case on TV news, where the text can sometimes seem like a string of subordinate clauses without a subject or predicate — or verb. And the outcome is sometimes hilarious, as on Channel 9 a few days ago, where a story about public support for retaining some old buildings at Circular Quay in Sydney began with (something like) ‘Looming over the harbour for decades, the public action group…’ Another had the judge being the criminal, rather than the offender. Syntax is actually important.
Doesn’t anyone edit these texts for sense, if not for syntax?
Link to Gosselin:http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
Join the discussion 116 Comments
I find what you just wrote really surprising. As you said you are not a physical scientist. You did however have some exposure to the scientific methid in your time at ARC. But I do recall folk who were somewhat surprised by your appointment and your decisions at that time.
And now you publish something that really is full of holes. I might try and get some of those old sceptics (of your bona fides) to comment in light of your current, now published, views on published science in this special field.
As I have written previously it looks like we do not have long to wait to have events prove you wrong. Things are changing much faster than under any postulated theory of natural influences.
“Things are changing much faster than under any postulated theory of natural influences.”
What “things” are those, stu?
Would one of those “things” be what your mate blith details below:
You know, that less-than-1.0c-warming since the LIA?
We’re still waiting for you to stop hand-waving and produce some evidence “things” to make your point.
Or are these “things” of yours too fake and embarrassing to specify?
‘ I do recall folk who were somewhat surprised by your appointment and your decisions at that time’. Really? Why were they surprised? I was the Chairman of the ARGC, the main body absorbed into the new ARC, a member of the Australian Science and Technology Council, and the Chairman of the Board of the Institute of Advanced Studies at the ANU, the second most important source of publicly-funded research after the CSIRO. I was in fact the obvious appointment unless there were someone the Minister wanted instead. As it happened, I didn’t know the Minister, and had no expectations, though he knew (because he had asked me) that I would like the job.
FASTS (the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies) wanted a ‘scientist’ to be the new Chairman, and organised a great write-in from its constituent bodies, all singing the praises of the one man. The Minister knew a snowball job when he saw one, and declined to follow FASTS’ nomination. Some of it leaders were outraged (outrage is commonly to be found in academic circles), and did their best for some time to make my life difficult. But ‘decisions’? Can you name one? I was a chairman, not a dictator, and my role was to lead and persuade. You can read about it all in my ‘Critical Mass. How the Commonwealth Got Into Funding Research in Universities’.
You say that what I have written is ‘full of holes’, and you go on to present no examples at all. Surely it would be easy to put up one or two? No? You take notice only of what ‘science’ says. Ah, of course. As another commenter says below, you are something of a hand-waver, aren’t you.
Don, I apologise and withdraw those comments. It is a case of very poor drafting on my part and partly hearsay.
Also I should not have been surprised by your views as they are reflective of the position you have already indicated through your writings in this space.
Perhaps what I should have written was that I am surprised that given your prior status you align with some of the more fringe elements of the debate, such as Patrick Moore. Many of these regularly quoted “experts” on climate science have no history of published papers on the subject.
You appear to me to be dismissive of the climate modelling. Published work generally indicates a fairly solid base for the hypothesis these models are testing. The models have been getting more rigorous but do need further work to increase the granularity of the cells and that takes lots of grunt. However over time, and with more horespower, they are showing increasingly accurate outcomes with reflecting historical change and therefore prediction.
You seem to be writing more which is I hope indicative of improving health. I do wish you all the best and did not mean to offend or impugn your reputation.
yes, your comment was not quite right. I spent a couple of years working with NBEET and saw the change-overs in appointments to the Schools Council and ARC. If there was any guts to your statement I would have heard about it.
The only questioning of an appointment, I gathered from before my time, was Carmichael’s predecessor (CH) for the ESFC
If anything the appointments from industry were less useful. One Board member (BF) told me they “had to be seen to be there” and they had to “do the business of business” first.
A very good post Don , but I think we’re comparing the pseudo science of a fantasy planet compared to the real planet earth.
Just look at numerous studies of Antarctica, Greenland, SLR, hurricanes, tornadoes, deaths from extreme events, human life expectancy today versus 50, 100, 200 years ago etc and we should understand that we live in a very benign climate.
And we can’t change anything even if we wanted to, but the mitigation con and fra-d seems to have sent most people into the realms of la la land and pixie dust science.
Here’s a recent video of maths/science expert Nic Lewis looking at the latest data/evidence for climate sensitivity or how much AGW for a doubling of co2.
Don’t forget that Nic and his hero Steve McIntyre have brought about the retraction of a number of PR studies over the last decade or so.
Thanks, Don, for this very necessary dose of reality.
Throughout my life of designing and building things that were breaking into new realms of thinking, I always found engineers such as Gosselin to be the first to understand what you were trying to do because they had that essential combination of theory and practice.
I have yet to encounter such a practical person who will try to tell you that there is any problem humanity is in crisis or danger with our current climate.
I think Nic Lewis is very intelligent and very bright, but I still go back to the HAD Crut 4 data before and after Jones’s 2010 BBC interview.
He showed that all the warming period trends were about the same, yet then they adjusted down the earlier trends and adjusted up the two later trends.
But there is still a warming trend from 1916 to 1945 that is 0.167 c/decade, but for how much longer will this trend last? I fear another DOWN adjustment waiting in the wings. Who knows?
But we also have the earlier warming period in the NH / Greenland etc to fall back on, unless that somehow suffers a similar fate.
Well done – you should go back to HAD Crut 4 data. You just have to look at global 30year trends.
Please print this out and stick it above your bed.
Chris that looks impressive, but it is still just 0.56 c/century after the coldest period for the last 10,000 years and still no warming in the SP for the last 40 years.
Oh and co2 levels are over 400 ppm at the SP and Greenland has had no unusual warming trends according to Vinther et al.
“Please print this out and stick it above your bed.”
I’ll bet you haven’t got yours there, blith.
If you did and were also sufficiently scientific of mind to realise it only represents ~ a quarter of the global Holocene temperature range [and the bottom quarter at that] it might just dawn on you that the world is well within the bounds of Nat Var and there is absolutely nothing to bed-wet about.
At least your mum would be pleased.
Do it for her sake.
Today’s School Strike for Climate is the end result of the doom-screaming, sandwich board wearers who have been at it for centuries but previously have never been able to convince many, other that similar Marxist loopies.
Many of these Marxist loopies today are school teachers and academics.
And now that they have brainwashed the kiddies [mainly because they have forsaken the real world for the virtual one] these loopies have risen in influence sufficiently to persuade politicians to cater to their requests.
And meanwhile, the kiddies are today having a ball dodging schoolwork and shouting advice.
The inmates are now in charge of the asylum.
As Greenpeace co-founder, Dr Patrick Moore says about AOC’s Green New Deal on climate change, it’s not just fake news, it’s fake science:
“And there is not really one problem, but many. Is the earth actually warming? Is the warming significant? Is the warming like to be beneficial or harmful? Would carbon taxes and their like make any difference?”
Here’s an honest alarmist who admits he really doesn’t know but predicts doom anyway:
“Fully modelling how the climate behaves in response to exponentially increasing carbon levels has the equivalent complexity of predicting where a toothpick will land after being dropped in a tornado.
“I believe I would not be doing this article scientific justice if I did not emphasize the uncertainty of Thermohaline trends in the scientific community. While a Thermohaline shutdown is frightning, data on Thermohaline slowdown is a reason for skepticism. The circulation is not constant and fluctuates in net flow. So while Bryden et al. may have noted a slow down, in such a short time frame (50 years is a short time frame relative to any global events) it’s not clear whether this event is correlated to global warming.
“This article by no means declares what will happen. It simply explores one of the more frighting possibilities proposed.”
If it wasn’t costing us trillions it would be hilarious.
You cannot assess global warming by looking at Greenland and the South Pole.
It is not relevant to claim “but it is still just 0.56 c/century”. This does not apply to the last century and will not apply to the next.
Most informed people do agree there is global warming, and have different views as to the rate. This is also not the key point.
The fact shown here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360 is an increasing rate for some time and then an apparent continuous linear trend since 1980.
This is entirely consistent with scientific theory that the relationship is logarithmic with exponential increases in CO2 due to future population and Third World development.
The linear slope is around a rise of 0.433 in temperature over a time frame from 1980 – 2005.
While there are temporary variations around 1910 and 1950, and this allows some to claim “cooling”, “hiatus”, “pause” etc, the underlying, long-term trend is clear and concerning.
We have an ongoing, unstoppable, global warming trend of at least 1.73 C per century.
This will continue the present trend to melt all the land ice on Earth and increase the number of days and sites experiencing temperatures over 50C.
This really is the end of the line.
If this “really is the end of the line”, then there is nothing to do but to enjoy the last 12 years granted to us by AOC. Eat, drink and be merry, for in 12 years we all die!
The points that you never address are not whether the climate changes (it has been changing for millenia, and will continue to do so regardless of anything that we do), nor whether there is anthropogenic influence (there logically must be if conservation of energy is valid), but whether the effect will be catastrophic.
The effects so far have been benign, even beneficial. Apart from computer models, do you have empirical evidence that doom will soon be upon us?
I do not allow myself be distracted by comments from such as AOC.
I use only data, not models.
I look at global, long-term trends.
I believe it reasonable to expect the current trend will continue into the future, and there is no stopping point in melting land ice.
By itself – this guarantees a catastophe for some, although the feedback of increased water vapour may cause even more trouble,
BJ, our blith “only uses data”.
Particularly the modern, well homogenised stuff.
And he denies observations.
As in the fact that his local sea levels are not rising.
Any good data that goes back a few centuries that shows it has all happened before, he doesn’t want to know about.
He’s into serious data denial of previous warm periods.
I think in an earlier incarnation one of Hannibal’s elephants must have stepped on his toe.
“We have an ongoing, unstoppable, global warming trend“, a comment that an alarmist onlooker would have made at the beginning of any of the ‘warm’ periods. But the trend did stop. On its own. Without human intervention.
“But the trend did stop. ”
You might want to be a trifle more circumspect in your language. Your reference shows nothing about prehistoric warm periods, of which there were two of note, the Roman, and the Medieval. Both ended without human assistance. As did the intervening ice ages.
Please stop playing tricks.
Of course temperatures go up (ie warm) and down (ie warming ends) over any number of timescales – inluding here:
There is a lot of volatility in temperature history but this is not relevant to the current rocketing of warming which will not “terminate naturally without assistance”.
This was your real point was it not – some claim or vague suggestion that the current warming will naturally terminate.
So to be clear:
Do you maintain that the current warming will terminate naturally (a lie)
Do you maintain that the current warming will NOT terminate naturally (a scientific conclusion).
Please do not try tricks with me.
“Do you maintain that the current warming will NOT terminate naturally (a scientific conclusion).”
If you wish. So you claim that the previous ‘warm’ periods did not terminate naturally? If they did not, who or what terminated them? And why would those same factors not terminate the current warming? You can either explain it by science, or you can explain it by belief. The “scientific conclusion” please.
If you agree that “current warming will NOT terminate naturally (a scientific conclusion)” then I am not sure what pointing to previous natural fluctuations up and down – all of which did terminate, was for?
No one disputes this.
Have you lost track of your own argument?
What is the point you are making?
I say there is no evidence that previous warm periods did not terminate naturally, and the current one will probably also terminate naturally. You disagree, but can propose no causative mechanisms that would not be capable of terminating the current warming trend. I note also that supposed ‘tipping points’ have been passed centuries and millenia ago, and mother earth is still rocking on, quite undisturbed.
For those who are a bit befudled about trends in the Antarctica.
“I look at global, long-term trends. I believe it reasonable to expect the current trend will continue into the future, and there is no stopping point in melting land ice.”
Here’s a nice, long term trend of continuous climate for the last 5 million years, blith.
What part of that 12c range of natural climate variability takes your fancy?
And while you ponder on it, please tell us where our current [and projected] “warming” is outside that historical range.
I know who’s telling the absolute lies.
“For those who are a bit befudled [sic] about trends in the Antarctica.”
You’re the befuddled one, blith:
The fact is that the noise of Antarctic ice melt is far greater than any signal and far from losing ice, as the new study thinks, Zwally’s 2015 analysis found the opposite, that the ice sheet was growing.
And you can also check those sea levels for yourself, if you really want to know, blith.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.
My point about the SP is that it has not warmed in the Sat data since 1979. Also unfortunately for Chris and other believers the Antarctica peninsula has been cooling for about 20 years.
See the BAS study of Turner et al and this was a poster child for Gore’s silly AIT book and movie. Also Dr Humlum shows no difference ( compared to 20th century trends) in SLR using both tide gauges and non-adjusted Sat altimeters.
Also the majority of island states have more land area today than they had just 30 years ago ( see Kench et al) and some global studies show increasing shoreline area over the same period. See the recent Netherlands study.
We know that a number of studies show a strong NH warm ( HAD 4 still shows global warming trend from 1916 to 1945) period in the earlier 20 th century, so it will be interesting to observe the changes when the AMO again returns to the cool phase.
I should add that GISS and BEST still show an earlier warming trend to match HAD Crut 4.
The current warming period will not terminate while ever CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere.
This is the causal mechanism you seek.
There is no point looking back to other natural fluctuations because they were not related to the new relatively modern industrial factor of CO2 emissions.
If you had been following what people have been saying, including scientists, you would know that the causal mechanism is fossil fuel CO2.
The tipping point occurred when all land ice started to continuously melt.
“Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. ” So CO2 levels must have fallen, by natural mechanisms, not by benevolent aliens scrubbing it out of the atmosphere.
CO2 levels only fell because the Earth’s distance from the sun changed.
CO2 levels were never, never, never near current levels.
Good to see you at least accept that temperature drives CO2.
But don’t forget we also had 2c greater warming with higher SLs during the Holocene with much lower CO2 than we have now.
How does that align with your CACO2 theory, blith?
Here’s the 2016 Dutch study as referenced by the BBC.
And reference to land and sea changes over just the last 30 years. NOTE these are observations by Satellites over this very short period of time. This is from the BBC article and note again “the coasts are growing all over the world.”
“Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
“We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.” Could SD be correct? Certainly there seems to be support for him from this study and the Dutch are SLR experts to say the least.
They’ve been in the land reclaiming business for a very long time.
This makes no useful point.
Reclaimation such as Dubai, does not cancel out the science of sea level rise due to global warming.
Neville, our blith pontificates:
“This makes no useful point.”
He could discover a useful point by simply checking king tides [which are the major sea level rise effect on our residential areas].
Locally they are not increasing at all and according to the most knowledgeable of sea level scientist, Nils Axel Morner, neither are the world’s sea levels.
But blith displays his utter hypocrisy by shouting catastrophe, bed-wetting and sceptic denigrating yet he won’t actually go outside and see for himself.
Do you think this is because he is a/ incapable, b/ brainwashed or c/ agenda-driven?
Or possibly all three?
“CO2 levels were never, never, never near current levels.”
Lay out your evidence.
Within the lifespan of primate evolution. No doubt if you go back far enough you may find similar levels BUT not within the millions of years it took for early humans to emerge and evolve into the modern species we are threatening today.
So “never, never, never” means rather less than never?
Just for interest sake here is the 1916 to 1945 warming from the 3 global data-sets and York Uni tool link. But I’m afraid I feel another cool change adjustment in the wind. Certainly more recent ( adjusted) human global warming from HAD Crut 4 after 2010.
GISS- 0.157 c/decade
BEST- 0.169 c/decade
HAD Crut 4- 0.167 c/decade
Yes, but of course the more recent 30 year averages are all much higher and we are overdue for a cooling fluctuation which as in the past will naturally reverse.
So if GHGs continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, future 30year averages will be even higher.
So Chris please answer the questions below and please no BS, just facts and data for a change. Perhaps they’ve missed something? BTW I can provide that list ( AGAIN) of scientists who advised the RS & NAS .
Chris – The ~60 year cycle is quite clear in a number of datasets, including HadCrut. Therefore using a 30 year average is erroneous.
This is what the IPCC did. They use a century from 1906 to 2005. As it happens 1906 was right at the bottom of the cycle and 2005 right at the top. So about 0.3-0.4 C of the rise last century was due to the cycle, not CO2.
If they included the cycle in their models, eg by using 120-130 years instead of 100, it would drop derived climate sensitivity by roughly half since the models are fitted to that century to derive ECS.
As for current trends the current trend in NH snow extent is flat. That tallies with the unadjusted temperature data but not the adjusted temperature data. Which strongly suggests the adjustments are in error.
The Rutgers snow extent data does not need adjustment since it can just be read off a satellite pic. The area of snow cover is an isotherm at 0 C. Since that isotherm hasn’t changed for a couple decades the real temperature hasn’t either.
I find this quite interesting.
Is there more context to this?
Surely as we are progressing into 2019 – temperatures (60 year average) should be falling?
There is a sine wave cycle visible, but it is not level – it is rising.
I think we may be going through some deceleration now or it should be due now if the cycle exists.
Can anyone tell us how to reduce co2 levels in the atmosphere and how long will it take. Bill McKibben and Dr Hansen think we should reduce it back to 350ppm ASAP, but somebody forgot to tell the non OECD countries.
The RS & NAS report tell us it would take many thousands of years EVEN IF we STOPPED all human emissions today. And even Nic Lewis seems to agree with this long lag time.
Certainly the ice cores show that co2 always follows temp and the lag time can be many thousands of years.
A pity someone didn’t inform the brainwashed kiddies before they went on strike. I mean according to their idiocy it can be changed back to the pre 1950s paradise within their own lifespan.
Anyway the non OECD will be building 100s of new coal fired stns for many years to come and incalculable millions tonnes more coal needed to produce steel products forever into the future.
OZ’s 0.006c of warming since 1800 looks horrific when compared to the above facts. SARC.
An entirely different question.
Can I assume that you accept the science of fossil fuel caused global warming currently at an accelerating rate as shown either by Cowtan or WoodForTrees or NASA?
If so I will take you off my denialist list?
I have never expressed any opinion as to the rest of your issues but once sees a problem then this becomes of interest. I certainly feel that current steps by government(s) are a complete waste of time.
I fully expect, given present state of affairs, that CO2 will increase forever even though per capita emissions may fall.
Chris to Neville
“An entirely different question.
Can I assume that you accept the science of fossil fuel caused global warming currently at an accelerating rate as shown either by Cowtan or WoodForTrees or NASA?”
“Brother, do you believe?”
Chris co2 emissions per capita have been falling since 1990 at least. That’s for OZ and all OECD countries but rising to at least EU levels in China, with rest of those countries to come.
The US co2 levels per capita have fallen a long way since 1990, but you’re correct that co2 levels will increase for a long time because of growth in non OECD emissions.
So what do we do about steel products and the coal used in that production? Non OECD countries or people also want to live longer/healthier lives and become more prosperous and own cars plus all the mod cons that make up a modern lifestyle. More air travel for most people in the not too distant future will be the norm.
Perhaps some new wonder plastics may be developed in the future to build cars, trucks planes, farm equipment, buildings etc . Who knows?
Here’s how they make steel with about 1.6 billion tonnes made in 2017. That uses a lot of coal and will increase by a huge margin in 20, 50 and 100 years. And don’t forget OZ only emits 1.3% of global emissions and our country absorbs many times that amount of co2 every year.
You anti change guys must be tearing your hair out with the way things are going on climate. Right or wrong the climate change argument is holding sway. Your twitching on the sidelines seems be having no effect and even ignored. The next generation won’t have a bar of your story. Even the Reserve Bank, insurance companies and Defence Forces are lining up. I think you may have lost the argument. It must be disheartening for you to be so treated. Oh well you can go back to anti-vacc where the fringe is gaining ground or maybe chem-trails.
Our stu fails to supply one iota of evidence to support his CAGW religion belief but is so certain it’s all happening.
When you don’t know the difference between consensual groupthink and facts it’s better to keep quiet, stu.
Even though the lefty academics are brainwashing the kiddies into your groupthink.
Teaching them “what” instead of “how” to think.
Particularly when this is “the way things are going”:
But I’m relieved to hear you admit: “Right or wrong the climate change argument is holding sway.”
It summarises your confusion beautifully.
Once again you cant read can you, or you dont want to. I did not attest to the efficacy of the AGW argument at all. Read again. I merely suggested that right or wrong the public perception argument was over, the game is moving on, you have lost, or will soon, the war.
Your hand wringing over temperature records is becoming irrelevant so far as the politics and action are concerned. Best you sell your fossil fuel shares and submit your invoices to whoever it is that is promoting your side. Forget proof and theories, just think weight of numbers.
But you can sit self satisfied in your corner believing you are correct and the majority opinion is totally wrong. Group think wins this time. But just maybe the next few years will show you are correct. I for one would welcome that outcome, but I am certain it will not be.
There, there, stu. We know you are doing your best for “Climate Crisis and a Betrayed Generation” but if you had two pieces of evidence to rub together it might help.
And please don’t patronise us by telling us you prefer logic and rationality,
Blither is your speciality.
It’s all you have got.
It’s all you ever had.
Once again you wilfully miss the point. Forget the science, forget your dodgy temperature history etc, the issue is that you are losing the argument in the public arena, the game is over. Your arguments have failed to convince, you are losing the debate. Never mind who is right or wrong, you are losing the argument of world opinion. That is what I am saying. You may be proved correct in your dodgy science but people have switched off and do not believe you.
Please discuss how you think you are winnIng.
What you are claiming is that at the moment the stu-pid groupthinkers are claiming the “votes”.
And that facts and science have been cast aside for the sake of Marxism.
Well, the SJWs are certainly making the most noise via the brainwashed kiddies.
But is that anything to applaud?
And telling lies is just standard procedure for SJWs:
It’s interesting that you admit to supporting all this corruption and fraud.
But maybe you go to confession regularly for absolution.
A response to Stu: Yes, there is something in what you say, though it is all about public opinion and politics, not science. But you should remember that no government is walking the walk. They are stuck with the talk, yes, and others are joining them. But no one is stopping coal exports, and in Europe there is obvious rejection of the alternative energy credo. Coal is with its for at least the next forty or fifty years, unless something quite new comes up — and it might. And public opinion is a fickle thing. So I wouldn’t be quite so triumphalist.
Perhaps inadvertently you might have exposed the nub of the whole CAGW hypothesis.
“Once again you cant read can you, or you dont want to. I did not attest to the efficacy of the AGW argument at all. Read again. I merely suggested that right or wrong the public perception argument was over, the game is moving on, you have lost, or will soon, the war.
Your hand wringing over temperature records is becoming irrelevant so far as the politics and action are concerned.”
You can’t attest to the efficacy of the argument, but gloat that the public perception favours it. Actual temperature records (that Chris assures he bases his argument on) don’t matter.
In essence, you are saying that the whole business is about politics, not the climate. You might ask yourself what is the aim of many politicians. The answer is simple. Power, from Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot to todays wannabes, power is the objective.
Might that explain that no matter how often I ask Chris and others to detail their solutions to the problem, they never offer coherent answers? If the aim is power, the problem is just the route to power, and does not need a solution.
But your mate George from the Guardian supports you in your confusion:
I bet you share your worldly goods with all and sundry like a good little Marxist, hey, stu?
SD thanks for the Moon bat find, I’d nearly forgotten about him. Here’s four 20 year trends from WFTs , two are Had Crut4 and two are UAH V6.
I’ve divided the both sets to cover 1979 to 2019.25 Sat data. The later Sat Data trend is lower than the earlier trend and even the later Had Crut 4 trend is slightly lower I think. So how is this the case?
Yes, good one, Neville.
And imagine if we were getting the raw data from early 20th century instead of the multi-mix-mastered data.
I hope blith is taking note.
The proselytizers of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming are like religious zealots.
For a better scale of reference please refer to the work of Christopher Scotese which are freely available here:
I would suggest Phanerozoic Global Temperature Curve
Some thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse
These papers (and others by Scotese) are easiily understood even by those with minimal ma thematic comprehension.
Making policy decisions on the basis of models, that even the IPCC have conceded to be inaccurate int that their margins of error are greater than the changes they purport to project, invites economic disaster.
What I find interesting about the brainwashed kiddies who strike for “Climate Crisis and a Betrayed Generation” is that they say they want to treat unborn generations to the same rights as the living.
But to the progressive socialist urgers who are organising them, these unborn generations not only don’t have the same rights, they simply don’t have any rights at all.
And what they did have once, these progressive SJWs have done their utmost to remove.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. If you follow the BOM and agree with their start date of 1910 for their database (#3?) then you have global warming. If you start at 1890 which includes the extraordinary heatwaves of 1896 then you have global cooling. Take you pick.
All jokes aside the analysis by Tinsdale is most illuminating. His results show that the maxima and minima for temperatures at all latitudes when plotted all end up flat lining – indicating that the patient warming idea is dead.
It’s interesting to note that the advocates of CAGW say that the science is settled. They have constructed models based on this settled science to make predictions of sea level rise. Remember the science is settled, there is no other explanation, carbon dioxide drives climate and increases in concentration will result in accelerated global warming.
The models have been constructed to reflect this science. In September 1988 it was reported in the Canberra Times that the Maldives 1196 islands would disappear under water in 30 years as a result of gradual sea level rise.
The government of the Maldives pleaded in the United Nations for climate action to save the country. There were regular media stories of the imminent danger to the Maldives and the government there was only too happy to hype the issue by conducting a cabinet meeting under water to dramatise the danger. There were no CAGW advocates contradicting this narrative.
So what did the government of the Maldives actually do in the face of this coming catastrophe predicted by settled science. They built a new international airport and 20 brand spanking new tourist resorts.
The 30 years was up last September and the Maldives still sit conspicuously above the waves with throngs of international tourists enjoying the beaches and reefs. It’s not what they say it’s what they actually do. They don’t believe the hype themselves but spouting the nonsense to get cash is OK.
Tuvalu has been put up as another example of a nation about to go under. A couple of weeks ago, Craig Kelly, a Liberal MP said that Tuvalu was increasing in size, not sinking. He was pilloried. The ABC decided to fact check his statement fully knowing it was rubbish. The result – fact check TRUE.
The Maldives case should be a classic case of the scientific method operating. The hypothesis (that is all it is) is tested and compared against experimental outcome, in this case a real world observation. Accelerated warming resulting from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide results in sea level rise which will inundate low lying islands in 30 years.
When the 30 years is up and the islands still sit above the waves, any honest scientist advocating the hypothesis would concede that the hypothesis was disproved and that another explanation for climate driver(s) was needed.
What was the action? They kept mute about the initial prediction but said in 2007 that the situation was worse than expected and carbon emissions were rising faster than expected and the Maldives wouldn’t survive passed 2100!!
This completely defies logic. One would expect if the science was settled and CO2 was rising faster than initially expected then the Maldives would be inundated faster not 82 years slower. The only conclusion one could draw would be that increasing levels of carbon dioxide stave off sea level rise.
Logic and science have nothing to do with this, however. It’s religious fervour. A sign at the kids climate protest said it all – The END Is NIGH!! For real.
Thanks for that, amortiser.
In response to this, sea level expert Dr. Nils Axel Morner wrote the open letter below to the President of the Maldives:
“You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements, Accordingly it is incorrect. Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest to its intended message.
In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.
When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.
Let me summarize a few facts (1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level. (2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today. (3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level. (4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise. (5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.”
His statement; (3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level. (4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise…. agrees with my own observations from building sea front infrastructure throughout my life around the SE coast of Qld.
But these island nations can see the giant honey pot and even though their shorelines are in fact growing, they won’t admit it.
There has been record snowfall in the Himalayas and of course it must be caused by climate change or is it global warming?
Who cares they just make it up as the go along.
Another good column from Lomborg with many links to back up his claims. But for how long must we listen to extreme points of view that are easily refuted?
It is truly embarrassing that so many people have been fooled by these religious fra-dsters and con merchants resulting in horrendous costs and all for a guaranteed zero return.
The Gosselin N(1) – N(4) and the following A(1)-A(4) statements well sum up the major points of difference between the contending groups. Very useful. Now all that is required is evidence. This post certainly stirred folk up.
There now seems to be a super abundance of polar bears after a low point in the 1960s.
Was the Gore con merchant correct about anything in the last 30 years ?
The Climate Sceptics party was the big winner in the latest Holland elections.
The religious extremists had stitched together a plan to reduce emissions by 49% and thereby ruin the economy.
What sane person wouldn’t vote against these anti- Holland traitors?
And heaps more snow in the NH. Seems that Gore, Dr Viner, Dr Hansen, etc were also wrong about the future of snow.
But don’t expect them to wake up any time soon.
Do you accept that if CO2 and water vapour increase in the atmosphere, then global temperatures will increase?
Chris as far as I know that may be correct unless the feedbacks are negative as some scientists suspect. Who knows?
I do know that you should be protesting over in China and non OECD countries if this is what keeps you awake at night.
BTW here’s that quote AGAIN from Prof Humlum about SLR at tide gauges. About 1mm to 1.5mm a year or 4 to 6 inches a century.
Check it out.
“Data from tide-gauges suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/yr, while the satellite-derived record suggest a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. The rather marked difference between the two data sets has still no broadly accepted explanation, but some of the difference is likely due to administrative changes introduced into the raw data obtained by satellites. See the paragraph below on temporal stability of the satellite-derived data”.
“Another factor that may explain some of the difference between tide-gauge and satellite data is probably that while any temperature-driven volumen expansion is recorded by the satellites, this change is not affecting tide-gauges at coastal locations, as the water depth here decreases towards zero”.
“Chris as far as I know that may be correct unless the feedbacks are negative as some scientists suspect. Who knows?”
Yes, Neville, who knows?
But when scientists can’t work out that the feedback from water vapour is negative when it accounts for 95% of the GHGs and that it totally overwhelms the 0.04% of CO2, you would think the might still be somewhat sceptical.
Particularly when they must know that, as with WV, CO2 causes warming, not vice versa.
If it did both then we certainly would be well past the tipping point.
There is an element of hypocrisy here. It is like saying that all races are equal unless there are some inferiorities “as some scientists suspect”.
The worth of this statement depends on the quality of what scientists suspect.
So what scientists suspect? and what do they suspect?
Who thinks that there are feedbacks that counter the warming of 410 ppm CO2 plus water vapour?
What is the evidence?
Neville, blith is trying to tell us he knows that warming causes Co2 and Co2 causes more warming.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, blith.
It’s up to you to supply the evidence otherwise.
“More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”
Germany has joined the eastern EU countries and they may now have no target for emissions by 2050.
At least this would be a small step in the right direction and of course no difference for the climate because the EU’s impact is too small.
Meanwhile China, India and the non OECD carry on with their soaring co2 emissions . IOW they couldn’t care less.
Just a thought about some of those trends for SLR by 2119 or next 100 years. Using Prof Humlum’s latest observed trend of 100 mm to 150 mm /century against Hansen&Gore’s possible 6,000 mm/cent, or Flannery’s possible 8,000 mm/cent or Robyn Williams possible 100,000 mm/cent seems like somebody’s wet dream.
Gore’s estimate would require a rapid change to 60mm/year, Flannery 80mm/year and Williams tops them all at one METRE a year until 2119. Does anyone seriously believe any of this nonsense?
If so when should we start to observe these extreme trends? It would need to start this year , because there is a lot of catching up to do.
Just think, Gore’s trend is 40 times higher than Humlum’s present (highest) observation, Flannery’s trend is 53 times and Williams trend is 666 times higher.
Shorten’s Labor party are completely loopy on their proposal to cut co2 emissions by 45%, but the US Democrats pushing the Green New Deal are totally barking mad.
It seems this AOC idiocy even frightens some of Dems and hopefully there may be some push back against this lunacy.
CLIMATE CHANGE SPLITS U.S. DEMOCRATS
“Centrist Democrats are pushing back on the fast-paced approach to climate change legislation preferred by “Green New Deal” supporters, arguing instead for a more gradual manner that they think will have a stronger chance of passing and reaching across the aisle.
climate change democrats
“The press by members of the New Democrat Coalition and other high-ranking lawmakers illustrates two competing views within the caucus: immediate, innovative legislation versus those who prefer slow, incremental legislating.
“The move is going to be gradual and we’re not going to do 100 percent [renewable energy] over 10 years,” Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), a leader of the New Democrat Coalition’s climate change task force, told reporters last week when asked what kind of legislation the group would pursue.
It’s a very different message than the one that came from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who both introduced the Green New Deal resolution in February.
Ocasio-Cortez called it a “comprehensive agenda of economic, social and racial justice,” while Markey referred to the resolution as a time for the party to be “bold once again.”
The party division is likely to slow work by Democrats on climate change, and advocacy groups are growing frustrated by the inaction almost three months into the new House Democratic majority.
Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to exploit the intra-party division with a Senate vote on the Green New Deal expected next week. The progressive plan, backed to some extent by every Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate, calls for transitioning the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Speaking to reporters last week, members of the new New Democrat Coalition’s task force on climate change laid out their plans to introduce what they branded realistic climate change initiatives.
“The Green New Deal is aspirational, but what we plan to do is offer tangible achievable things, not just a resolution,” Luria said. “The entire plan of the task force is to find ways to attack this incrementally.”
The lawmakers argued it’s better to take the time to draft complete, heavily vetted legislation with a clear focus, than charge forward with a bill that might have holes.
It’s a timeline that can’t be rushed, he added, pointing to the Clean Air Act of 1963, which he said was created “without a full understanding” of the science, and an exercise he didn’t want to see repeated”.
The AOC stuff lacks specifics. Maybe she regards nuclear as renewable energy?
So far her approach does not inspire confidence. However IF it was possible, why not?
There need not be much economic disruption if production is merely transferred from one form to another.
The earlier to start the transformation, the less radical it needs be.
Just eliminating fossil fuel land transport will get them well down the road and this can be achieved.
“Just eliminating fossil fuel land transport will get them well down the road and this can be achieved.”
Put suitcase-size nuclear reactors in trucks and bob’s your uncle, hey blith?
Too bad cleaning up after road accidents though.
You’d have to let them sit there for 10,000 years.
And just think of the terrorist possibilities….
Here’s another clown that’s fallen out of the US Democrat’s cupboard and he also believes the planet only has 12 years before the apocalypse. Just a pity he doesn’t understand simple kindy maths.
Fair dinkum where do they find these crazy fools? Certainly his smirking wife should be careful about his avocado offerings from now on.
The latest EIA 2019 report estimates that US co2 emissions will be 1 billion tonnes p.a lower in 2050 than the peak year of 2007.
Over this period of time co2 emissions from developing countries will increase by 14.5 bn tonnes p.a.
This is interesting news and proves that the Dem loonies haven’t got a clue. Nearly all the increases for the next 30 years will come from China, India and the non OECD countries. I’ve mentioned this again and again, by using the IEA (EU) data but this EIA confirmation is welcome.
But will our media be informing the public about this important recent data?
This is a global suicide note.
You mean via this system:
What our SJWs need to learn from Venezuela:
Lomborg supplies a graph to try and show the mythical 1.5 c of warming. Trouble is the RH blue line has to go down much faster than the black line on the left.
China and India apparently couldn’t care less, so this clearly is just another mission impossible. What a bummer.
Now we have a silly wish list to try and fix their obsession about their so called CAGW. Of this will not make any measurable change to temp or climate, but will waste endless trillions $ for a ZERO return for decades to come.
Greenland’s huge Jakobshavn glacier is not melting as much these days and NASA scientists admit they were shocked to discover this recent evidence.
The NAO has been changing back to the cool phase and sea temps there have dropped accordingly. Some time in the 2020s the AMO may also change to the next cool phase and Greenland +sea temps will probably drop further if it follows the previous cool phase in the 20th century. Who Knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.
BTW Bob Tisdale recently looked again at the BEST temp data for Greenland and found a slight cooling from 1925 to 2012 . I commented then at his post about the 200 year Vinther et al 2006 study that also found no warming over the last 100+ years in Greenland. ( up to 2000) See TABLE 8 at Bob’s link for my Vinther comment.
Also their climate models show a very poor relationship with the data, see fig 3 at the link.
Geeezzzzz these BS virtue signalers just love their pseudo scientific fra-ds. If any Uni investment fund stopped investing in fossil fuels it wouldn’t make the slightest difference and some other investor would always jump in and take their place.
Not only are they fraudulent, BS virtue signallers, they are extremely hypocritical and ignorant as well.
Sir James Bevan told the Waterwise Conference; “Within 25 years England will not have enough water to meet demand”.
These Greenies have forever been doing their usual tricks in obstructing water infrastructure improvements such as dam building. So reticulating the water to Britain’s immigrant-swollen population could be problematical. But that is on the head of the Greenies, nobody else.
And global warming has absolutely nothing to do with it. A warmer world would evaporate more water off the oceans and that would come down as INCREASED rainfall. Sir James must not have done even High School physics to be unaware of that:
How much blither like this does it take before there is a serious, world wide rejection of this puerile enuresis?
You have suggested that there are some feedbacks that negate global warming claiming that some scientists suspect this is the case.
So what scientists suspect? and what do they suspect?
Who thinks that there are feedbacks that counter the warming due to 410 ppm CO2 plus water vapour?
What is the evidence?
How do they account for the feedback of global warming leading to increased water vapour, which then adds in more warming?
What natural cause is there that generates CO2 accumulation up to and over 400ppm?
Do you think this will increase forever? What will stop it?
Time you put your head out the window, blith, as I’ve been suggesting for years.
In hot tropical regions particularly, when the sun comes up the tropical ocean starts to heat up. Before long, a fully formed cumulus cloud field forms. This field rejects a large amount of the incoming sunlight back to space.
Go and experience it for yourself.
It’s amazing the simple reality that will penetrate your tiny mind.
And have you ever experienced a thunderstorm, blith?
They work on the same basis as a refrigerator.
Using a standard evaporation/condensation cycle.
Pennies from heaven, blith.
Perhaps adaptation to any future climate may be the best policy? Lomborg, has been saying this for a very long time and you would think that we would start to wake up soon.
Some of their so called CAGW issues seem to have been blown out of the water and here’s a list of some of their favourite nightmares.
SLR so far not a problem, see Kench, Holland study and Humlum’s latest audit etc.
Polar bear numbers are 3 to 4 times higher than 50 years ago.
Antarctica and Greenland temps don’t seem to be a problem over the last 100 years and the AMO will probably change to cool phase in the 2020s. Let’s wait and see.
Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 98% since 1920. See Rosling, Goklany, Lomborg, Ridley etc quoting the proper data. Human 1920 pop about 1.8 bn and today about 7.4 bn. This statistic should wake up even the silliest CAGW extremist. But who cares about data?
Antarctic peninsula has cooled for the last 20 years, see BAS study, Turner et al.
Anyway China, India + non OECD will rapidly increase co2 emissions to 2050 while the OECD will see little increase. In fact the 2019 EIA report estimates that in 2050 USA will be 1 bn tonnes lower pa than their high in 2007.
The global average life expectancy today is about 65+ years and at about 80 in advanced wealthy countries. China’s average life exp is now about 76 and this has rapidly increased alongside their rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels and industrialization.
Here’s an interesting post from Dr Judith Curry via WUWT.
This is the typical “science” that is applied to all things “Climate Change” by our modern SJW academics
And the real science of Peter Ridd suffers the consequences:
Could Solar activity be the cause of much of our global warming since 1980? Here a new study using observed sat data ( not modeling) seems to point in that direction. Who knows?
Sun activity may have a slight impact but the proportional variation in energy is only less than .0008 over decades.
The GHG warming is the underlying trend by which sunspot minimums – each time – occur at a hotter and hotter point in Earth’s history.
2021 trend will be hotter than 2008
which was hotter than 1997
which was hotter than 1986
which was hotter than 1976
which was hotter than 1965
which was hotter than 1954.
Please stop uploading denialist stuff from websites you do not understand.
You have been tricked.
More information from the Manhattan Institute report that once again proves that S&Wind energy is just another fairy tale and should be laughed out of court.
But will they ever wake up? Very simple sums and yet nearly every country around the globe believes this mitigation idiocy. Check out the last paragraph that proves this is indeed a mission impossible.
Report: Green Energy Economy Is Simply ‘Impossible’
charles the moderator / 4 hours ago
A new report is out from The Manhattan Institute
Date: 03/26/19 Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute
Hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
The article continues.
A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant.
So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons.
This “new energy economy” rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency. But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information.
In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.
This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
A rather stark set of examples including:
* The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
The full pdf may be downloaded here.
What denialists spreading the sunspot canard will never show;
How does crazy sunspot theory explain stratospheric cooling?
denialists just cherry-pick some data and ignore what real scientists report.
A cooling stratosphere occurs because heat that once reach so high is now trapped by CO2 and water vapour at lower levels.
This is proff of GHG global warming.
Great links, blith.
So typical of your standard of cli-sci.
Chris go and read what Prof Humlum has to say on outgoing long wave radiation etc. But please tell us what we can do to reduce co2 emissions that would make any difference at all?
Of course you should move to China/India etc ASAP and lecture them about their soaring emissions. I’m sure they’ll welcome you with open arms and probably provide you with free accommodation and a very low fat diet for a few decades. Best of luck with your trip, you’ll need it.
You have no ability to deal with these issues.
You just make vague references to other blogs without even minimally understanding.
Your reference to Humlum’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation is a case in point.
If you read Humlum you would notice that this data derives from the infrared window. This part of the spectrum is not causing global warming.
This portion 10.5 micro metre – 12.5 micro metre is the area where most infrared radiation transmits through the atmosphere and is not trapped.
This is obvious to any informed soul – see here; https://www.climate4you.com/images/RadiationTransmittedByTheAtmosphere.gif
Did you uunderstand Humlum’s point?
What was your point?
Are you able to explain the increased OLR shown by Humlum here?
This trend is further proof of global warming.
Your point is silly . because you know there is nothing you can do about your so called problem. Look at the EIA and IEA data and then admit your argument is completely nonsensical.
Slandering people only shows you are immature.
I don’t know why you keep on trying to distract attention.
As you should know by now – if GHGs continue to increase, the earth will continue to heat thereby jeopardising future humanity.
It is so obvious, that even school children understand this better than you.
Chris I’ll stay with the EIA and the IEA and leave you with the kiddies, but don’t worry there are also a lot of brainwashed adults ( ????) out there who agree with you.
This is just more pixie dust science by silly fools who want to believe their latest fairy tales.
So tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW and please don’t forget China, India and non OECD countries.
Also don’t forget these little details from the Manhattan report above-
“In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.
This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
A rather stark set of examples including:
* The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced”.
“This is just more pixie dust science by silly fools who want to believe their latest fairy tales.”
Such slander means you would be expelled even from kindergarten.
All the science is robust, published in refereed journals, based on data, and available for cross examination by full range of colleagues.
Crude, slandering, voices are best ejected Ridd-like and soon. These people are unable to refute the science so they resort to disrupting the efforts of others.
There is no pixie dust science – it is all in your head.
The evidence is clear – the wingers loud – the truth overwhelming.
At the current rate of CO2e reduction Australia will be increasing the earth’s temperature for the next 1,000 years.
There’s your answer, Neville.
If it’s so obvious that even the kiddies can understand these unknowns, blith thinks he, and even we, surely must be able to, too.
SD check out this nonsense from McKibben’s 350.org site. His 5 points (their so called science????) are just more silly fairy tales and India, China and non OECD countries will be laughing all the way to their banks.
But Chris and the kiddies will love it, who cares about the little details that I’ve just linked to in my previous comments. Their 100% renewables must be the most clueless fantasy in the last few hundred years.
Our blith knows that if you have the right algorithm then cli-sci is a piece of cake.
Just do what the rich-listers do:
If the average temperature of the earth increases over the next thousand years, and that is not beyond the realms of the possible, it will not be for any actions or lack of actions in or by Australia.
Look to the oceans.
Look to sub sea vulcanism.
Look to clouds and the hydrology cycle.
And imagine the benefits.
Confused Old Misfit
If the temperature increases over the next 1,000 years, it will be a reversal of natural trends as, in the absence of human emissions, the Earth would be heading into another cooling cycle based on Milankovitch cycles.
The temperature increase will be in the order of 20C and there will be no net benefit that can possibly be imagined.
The blitherers are the real enemies of freedom. If the promoters of stupidity could only be made to live with the results…
Instead of the UN Agenda 21, blith, try Freidrich von Hayek:
“Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that “the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.” Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”