New batch of Farmer interviews from rural Michigan coming.
Above, a clip from the highly respected Centennial Farmer and Former County Chair, John Tuckerman of Lenawee County, MI.
After initial skepticism, Tuckerman is convinced human activity is behind the climate change that he’s seen over the last 45 years, and clearly he’s been doing some reading on it.
Watch for new material soon.
Meanwhile, the human cause of climate change has not gotten thru to far too many – but my experience leads me to believe the issue is always in the room when clean energy is discussed, and even professional anti-clean energy shills have had to adjust their messaging to account for that creeping anxiety – hence the “renewables don’t really help climate change” talking points that have become part of their schtick.
Below, once again, researcher John Cook and others underline the overwhelming consensus among scientists.
Three new peer-reviewed (in prestigious journals) papers refute AGW. https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1750085483860804044
As I’ve been saying for 15 years, AGW is a scientific fraud. Even the AR4 admits that the warming comes first, then the rise in CO2 (thus AGW denies causality itself).
Just goes to show Joseph Goebbels was right. The Big Lie eventual becomes the truth. Here the big lie is AGW.
The Epoch Times.
When Breitbart just isn’t batshit crazy enough.
I see you are a science denier. All climate alarmists are, as it turns out.
List the papers, not a video. Put up or shut up.
I don’t want to overload your febrile brain. Here’s one to start:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
Response to Willie Soon’s paper from Gavin Schmidt:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/
Not peer-reviewed. Just a blog.
Gavin’s rebuttal is basically a presentation of old data predating 2023 many years.
You posted a paper from Willie Soon of all people:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
There isn’t going to be paper in response to Soon’s paper – because scientific papers are usually original research. Instead of just dismissing Schmidt’s detailed response to Soon’s paper, what part of it do you find at fault? Did you read it? Or just look for a convenient excuse to ignore it off-hand?
By such logic, no comment here could possibly refute Soon’s paper, as blog comments tend not be peer reviewed and published as scientific papers. Usually, anyway. But, there are plenty of papers that get peer-reviewed and published. It doesn’t mean any one paper, especially not from a corporate-funded author, is inviolate truth.
In matters as large as climate change, it’s the preponderance of evidence, sifted over decades, to build generally accepted consensus – which is what anthropogenic climate change is:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Nothing more than that, but also nothing less.
But, you, some rando commenting on a blog, know better than Gavin Schmidt, thousands of other climate scientists working for decades, and every major scientific institution involved in this question agrees with. It’s all a big hoax apparently, requiring a century plus of intricately composed lies and deep conspiracy, rather than simply being the accepted scientific truth.
Personally, I don’t mind you posting on this blog. Makes it interesting when there is a denier commenting here who thinks they are blowing our minds with their incredible insight and intelligence. To us it’s just a re-hash of the same old talking points we’ve been examining the past decade. And invariably, as Peter has pointed out before, the commenter outs themself without any help at all.
The preponderance of evidence argument is that the warming happens first, then the rise in CO2 levels (reference my earlier 5 citations to that effect, 6 if you include the IPCC AR4). Thus AGW violates causality. The other problem with the AGW thesis is in fact the exact opposite, namely the lack of evidence for it, to wit, the lack of any experiment demonstrating that more CO2 in the air from here will lead to more warming. As the scientific method requires experiment, AGW is thus in opposition to the scientific method. There is plenty of evidence that more CO2 in the air will NOT cause more warming (e.g., Van Gardingen, 1995).
I won’t get into the weeds about Soon’s paper (co-authored by 36 scientists) vs Gavin Schmidt’s rehash of old data, because 1) it’s unnecessary to refute AGW given my above; and 2) ultimately it hangs on which data you look at.
I like to keep it simple: Violating causality and spurning the scientific method are sufficient reasons to dismiss AGW as pseudo-science.
David Hamilton Russel: “There is plenty of evidence that more CO2 in the air will NOT cause more warming (e.g., Van Gardingen, 1995).”
You can’t possibly be referring to this paper: “Carbon dioxide emissions at an Italian mineral spring: measurements of average CO2 concentration and air temperature”. Are you?
Gavin merely picks his own data set, but consider the following summary of Soon et al (2023):
Soon, et al, 2023
Soon et al. did a regression study of solar, volcanic, and human forcings on two Northern Hemisphere datasets, one with rural temperatures and one with a blend of rural and urban datasets.[17] This paper is an extension of Soon and colleague’s earlier solar/CO2 regression study.[18] They used two solar forcing datasets, the TSI[19] dataset recommended by the IPCC, and another that was ignored in AR6.[20] They found that the choice of temperature and solar forcing datasets made a large difference in the study outcome. The temperature and TSI datasets are all possible, none are established as better or worse than the other, yet how much warming is attributable to human activities or nature depends on the datasets used. This casts doubt on the IPCC conclusion that humans have caused all, or nearly all, recent warming. (link)
It is important to realize that nearly everyone recognizes that urban areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside and urban areas have been growing rapidly globally over the past century, surrounding previously rural weather stations. This casts doubt on warming trends generated with combined rural/urban datasets. Further, there is no definitive record of solar radiation output (TSI), there are both low and high trend TSI datasets and no way to tell which is correct since proper records are too short and inaccurate. Thus, a proper study would use both, as Soon et al. do. Soon et al. found that 85% of the 1850-2018 warming, using their “rural-only” dataset could be explained by solar and volcanic forcing.
Soon’s “it was the sun” and solar cycle length correlation with temperatures fails to explain the increase in Arctic average temperature that’s out of sync with the “sun” (see link below).
Willie fails to explain how a variation in solar insolation of 0.07% from average to maximum can cause a relatively rapid increase in average global temperatures.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/soon2005_ext-600×472.png
First, let us consider that the Arctic is only 6% of the earth’s surface, and only 30% of that is land (where the thermometers are). So we’re talking less than 2% of the earth’s surface.
Second, the chart in your link shows incredible tracking of temps to the sun except for the very end. This suggests something unique has happened recently (which of course that couldn’t be CO2 related as that has not had any step change recently).
So we have a bit of a mystery in the last couple of years in a very tiny part of the world. Maybe it’s related to ocean currents. But for sure this lends no support to the AGW thesis.
You are grotesquely wrong. The world has warmed for different reasons at different times — and on different time scales. But basic thermodynamics makes GHGs do what they are doing: they absorb heat that would otherwise be radiated back into space and radiate it randomly (i.e. both downwards and upwards). This reduces the rate at which heat leaves the earth and forces our planet to increase its average temperature until the energy that escapes is increased enough to reach equilibrium with the energy coming in from the sun. We’re behind on that curve, so there’s still more warming ‘built into’ present GHG gas levels than what we’re experiencing now. If there’s a Goebbels involved here, he’s speaking for the oil and gas industry and its most poorly informed, fanatical fans.
You have the story down pat. But that’s all it is…. a story. CO2 radiates about 5 miles up and at that altitude it acts as a global coolant. Close to the surface, IR absorbed by CO2 is almost all conducted away via collisions with other nearby molecules almost 2 orders of magnitude more frequent than the time the IR excited molecule could re-radiate a photon.
More CO2 emitted from the surface into the air from current levels has no effect on surface temperatures as is observed in Van Gardingen et al, 1995. Also see F.K Reinhart (2017) bottom of page 4.
The stake in the heart of the AGW thesis is that the warming occurs before the rise in CO2, demonstrating that the AGW thesis violates causality.
Vostok ice core data (and other similar ice core studies) indicate several hundred years of CO2 rise delay compared to the temperature rise. Henc it appears as if It CO2 is not a cause !
Turns out 97% of scientists need new jobs, ones where honesty and integrity are not required.
The Ham sandwich believes anything on Twitter that confirms his delusions. What a surprise!
I am not a user of Twitter. Just so happens this link was sent to me by a friend. I don’t attack the messenger. Do you blame the Post Office when you get bad news in the mail? Duh.
You just posted a twitter link, genius.
You might benefit from taking a reading course before posting to me again. From my above post: “Just so happens this link was sent to me by a friend.” Now don’t you feel silly?
You quoted verbatim from a Twitter post with links to a well-known right-wing disinformation site to buttress your ludicrous assertion that AGW has been disproven. You are as intellectually lazy as every other pompous right-wing climate denier I have seen.
FFS, educate yourself! Start here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Laugh out loud ~ our increasingly sophisticated automaton has reached puberty …
In response to MEV: Yes, that’s the link. The team measured temps and times over several weeks both over the CO2 emitting springs and nearby where CO2 levels were 360 pmm 24/7. The temps in both places were EXACTLY the same at the time of max and min CO2 leves over the springs, to wit 750,000 ppm in the early morning and 1000 ppm in the late afternoon.
This proves that more CO2 in the air has no temp impact. QED.
Same paper “At night, concentrations at the bottom of the bowl-like depression can increase to levels approaching 75%. In the morning, this high concentration of CO2 is associated with a rapid temperature increase of over 10°C before the CO2 disperses.”
“This proves that more CO2 in the air has no temp impact. QED.” Amazing, you actually think that whatever analysis and science was used to reason out local temperature effects of local CO2 concentrations negates all the science of GLOBAL CO2 concentrations all thru the troposphere and stratosphere.
Yes, of course. No other conclusion is possible. Besides, there was of course no analysis, only measurements, the parts you leave out, to wit:
You left out the most telling part, to wit that the temperature over the spring at 750,000 ppm CO2 was exactly the same at the time as over the nearby temp where ppms were 360 24/7. Ditto when the ppms over the spring were at 1000 vs 360 nearby.
As Einstein once said in response to the publication “100 scientists who say Einstein is wrong:” — it only takes one fact to prove me wrong.
You are leaving out the most telling part: “In the morning, high concentration of CO2 is associated with a rapid temperature increase of over 10°C before the CO2 disperses.” Why was there an increase in temperature in the morning? Why it did decrease when the CO2 dispersed, when it should be warming? QED!
In response to Gingerbaker. John Cook is a charlatan as is evidenced by his bogus “97% of scientists believe…” paper totally debunked by Legates. You quote a blog run by a former cartoonist which no one takes seriously anymore, and I cite 5 peer-reviewed studies (plus the IPCC AR4). That makes you a climate denier.
To MEV: The sun. Duh.
Again to MEV: You don’t seem to focus on my point. It’s not that temps at 7am where the same as at 4 pm. It’s that at both times the temps over the CO2 emitting springs were the same as over land nearby with constant 360 ppm 24/7 (but over the springs were 750,000 ppm at 7am and 1000 ppm at 4pm).
I realize it’s hard to adjust intellectually and emotionally when long held theories turn out to be wrong, as with AGW.
Again, read what the investigator said. Why was it warmer by 10 degrees C when the CO2 values were high and then the temps lowered (unlike what you pointed out that the sun should be increasing the temperature) after the CO2 dispersed? Why did the temps go DOWN.
I understand how denialists ( your are not a skeptic) have to hold onto non-scientific beliefs. Their whole identity is supported by “beliefs”. Take that away and you crumble. But it will be ok.
You either misread the paper or you are lying. The temperatures were EXACTLY THE SAME over the CO2 emitting springs at their max and min CO2 levels (750,000, 1000, respectively) as temps nearby at the identical times where CO2 levels were 360pmm 24/7.
You don’t have to be more than 10 years old to know that on a sunny day, it’s always warmer at lunch time than at sunrise (unless a cold front is moving in). About 4pm is the warmest part of a typical day. Duh!
It’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you merely misread that days get cooler from sunrise to afternoon. Lying is the last resort of climate alarmists. It’s always advisable if you’re going to lie, to at least make up plausible lies.
I quoted from this paper: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Volume 73, Issues 1–2, February 1995, Pages 17-27 “Carbon dioxide emissions at an Italian mineral spring: measurements of average CO2 concentration and air temperature”
From the abstract [verbatim]:
“In the morning, this high concentration of CO2 is associated with a rapid temperature increase of over 10°C before the CO2 disperses. ”
In other words, it gets hotter as the sun rises. Duh!
Or as the Democrat Carville might say, “It’s the sun, stupid” (just as I pointed out).
You lose.
So I could believe you that it is the sun, or the lead author, who you have been quoting, that says the rise in temperature is associated with the high level of CO2. You actually believe you have and are using the grey matter between your ears. Self delusion is your name. Here, let me respond with something you would understand: You loose! Or how about this one: QED!
Perhaps I’ve misjudged you. Maybe you’re just deranged…..or possibly mentally impaired. Van Gardingen et al (1995) proves dispositively that more CO2 over the CO2 emitting springs has no impact on temperature (“Proof” is perhaps an odd locution, since it merely observes that the additional CO2 has no impact on temps which are identical in both places at the time of max CO2 and again at the time of min CO2 over the springs).
And of course the temp at 4pm is much higher [in both places] than at 7am, as reported. I’m going with you’re mentally impaired.
I eagerly await your next idiot post.
I’ve not misjudged you. You’re just deranged…..or possibly mentally impaired. Van Gardingen et al (1995) proves that there is a transient rise in temperatures due to the high CO2 concentrations and the temperature decreases as the CO2 disperses. Can you not read? Maybe apprehension keeps you from understanding that your “beliefs” are unfounded.
Sunspots in 3, 2 …
like taking crazy pills.
These days everyone seems to think everyone else is crazy (that don’t agree with their beliefs). It’s dangerous, unsustainable, and I fear will end in violence.
not unless you are thinking of hurting yourself.
I advise therapy.
Therapy is about as scientific as AGW or chiropractic.
Walked right into that one, aeh?
To MEV: You don’t disappoint. Your latest is you digging this hole you’re in deeper. Since you can’t read with comprehension, there’s really nothing that can save you from the abyss of delusion.
The sun rises. Temps go up. That’s why the 750,000 ppm dissipates. That’s what the author says. Indeed, that’s the only thing that makes sense.
What? As the sun continues to shine and CO₂ disperses the temperature drops. Why would temperature drop while the sun continues to shine as it rises in the sky? Because CO₂ effects the temperature. When it disperses, the temperature drops.
Are you really having a difficult time comprehending the obvious?
To David H. Russell: You actually “believe” you know more than the authors of this paper. They clearly state the association of higher temperatures to CO2 levels. I quoted their exact statement. Unlike you. Please quote exactly from the paper where they say the temperature increase was from the sun and not CO2. Don’t state your “belief”, quote the exact words of the authors.
As an example of your own delusion. The authors are talking about temperature increases associated with high CO2 levels IN THE MORNING. You reply with well it is warmer at 4pm due to the sun. Completely ignoring their statement about the morning, completely ignoring that the temperature decreased before the sun warmed the local area, completely ignoring that it coincided with the lowering of CO2 levels. Do you only read every few words, creating new sentences to try and back your beliefs?
Unlike you, I know what they say, namely that the warming sun after 7am dissipates the 750,000 ppm CO2, so that by 4pm the ppms are down to 1000 and the temps have risen quite a bit.
I don’t suspect these authors know anything close to what I know regarding the hoax of AGW:
I know that AGW has never been experimentally demonstrated and thus violates the scientific method.
I also know that AGW violates causality, as the warming occurs first, then the rise in CO2 (and cite 5 recent scientific papers to that effect, 6 if you include the [older] AR4).
I know a lot more. For example, the alarmists claim 93% of the ‘excess heat’ goes into the oceans, and yet the oceans are generally 1-3C warmer than the air above them and the 93% claim thus violates the 2nd Law. Indeed, it’s the sun that warms the oceans and the oceans provide the preponderance of atmospheric warming from Earth’s surface.
Also I know there’s no “tropospheric hotspot.’
I also know (and cite 5 sources in my recent “10 points that refute AGW” paper that actual experiments disprove the official “CO2 warming” (climate sensitivity) claims. Of course climate sensitivity claims are all over the map to begin with, ranging from 0C to up to 8C. I’ve provided hereon on example (Gardingen et al, 1995) that demonstrates that temps over CO2 emitting springs where CO2 ppms are 750,000 at 7am are no different than temps at 7am nearby where ppms are 360 all the time.
Finally, I know that you can’t read with comprehension.
Post the exact quotes from Gardingen that backup your statement. Why is that so hard?
The exact quotes are not in dispute. What the quotes mean is in dispute.
Let’s try the argumentum at absurdum. According to you, the hot early morning temperatures are associated with the 750,000 ppm CO2 levels and as the day progresses and the ppms get down to 1000 (by 4pm) it gets hotter. Therefore rising temps cause CO2 ppms to decline. This would be consistent with more CO2 in the air causes global cooling.
Are you going to seriously maintain that? You seem stuck with it nonetheless. What a buffoon.
Too bad you know so much that just ain’t true.
You can’t be sincere. No one can be so ignorant as to completely misunderstand that the paper shows, that despite warming from the sun early in the morning, temperatures dropped as the CO₂ dispersed.
Why did the temperature rise so rapidly when the CO₂ levels were extremely high yet drop as the CO₂ quickly dispersed in the morning as the warming from the sun continued?
Note: CO₂ doesn’t generate heat. It merely slows the escape of heat to space by absorbing heat and then emitting heat in all directions. As the sun started warming the surface in the morning, the extremely high levels of CO₂ slowed the escape of heat from the surface thereby rapidly warming the surface. As the CO₂ dispersed more heat could escape the surface causing the surface to cool despite continued warming from the sun. Once CO₂ levels stabilized at the much lower concentration the cooling stopped. Warming from the sun then caused the temperature to start rising again.