Might want to bookmark this one.
Above, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Gavin Schmidt grapple with the unexpectedly hot extremes of 2023.
Below, Science YouTuber Sabine Hossenfelder describes a current controversy around climate models that are “running hot”.
Hossenfelder discusses a paper by James Hansen and colleagues which argues for a higher climate sensitivity, and thus a planet that crosses catastrophic thresholds sooner than we thought.
Below, Michael Mann pushes back.
Let me preface my commentary by saying that I have nothing but the greatest respect for James Hansen. He has been a fundamental contributor to the advance of our science and a personal hero to me and many other climate scientists of my generation. I believe (and have stated) that he was wronged by the Nobel committee in not sharing in the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for fundamental contributions to climate science.
It has always been risky to ignore his warnings and admonitions. I say as much in my profile of Jim (a short excerpt of which is shown above) from my 2015 book Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change. So it with no pleasure whatsoever that I find myself in a position to have to criticize his latest work.
Jim and his co-authors are very much out of the mainstream with their newly published paper in the journal Oxford Open Climate Change. That’s fine, healthy skepticism is a valuable thing in science. But the standard is high when you’re challenging the prevailing scientific understanding, and I don’t think they’ve met that standard, by a longshot, for the following reasons:
1. Let’s take the title itself, “Global Warming in the Pipeline”. The latest science on this, including state-of-the-art models that deal with the complexities of the ocean carbon cycle, conclude that the “zero emissions commitment” or “ZEC” (how much warming is expected when emissions reach zero), is ZERO degrees warming, i.e. warming stops when carbon emissions reach zero. This understanding goes back more than a decade (see e.g. Matthews and Solomon, “Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable”, Science, 2013 for a review of the science) (Watch this space for significant further developments regarding ZEC in the coming weeks!)
It is the basis of the concept of a “carbon budget” (i.e. the notion that there is a specified amount of cumulative carbon emissions up to a given point in time that keeps warming below a specified level), including the widely-cited rule of thumb that we must reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 to avoid more than 1.5C warming. There is uncertainty about the effect of radiatively active shorter-term agents other than carbon dioxide (e.g. methane, black carbon, ozone, aerosols, etc), but the estimates are that in most scenarios these likely cancel out, and it pretty much comes down to just the carbon dioxide emissions. See e.g. this graphic from the IPCC (2018) special report on 1.5C and 2C warming:
So our best estimates today are that surface warming stops when carbon emissions stop, i.e.that there is no additional surface warming in the pipeline when emissions reach zero. The notion that there are decades of committed surface warming after emissions reach zero is based on outdated simulations that did not take into account the interactive role of the ocean carbon cycle. While the science on this is more than a decade old, this significant paradigm shift in our understanding of committed warming has still failed to be widely understood or recognized in much of the public discourse over climate science (see this op-ed I co-authored in the Washington Post about that last year). The point is that whether or not the 1.5C target is reachable is a matter of policy, not climate physics, at this point. It’s fine for Jim and his colleagues to explore scenarios where we do not act soon enough, and carbon emissions are not lowered adequately to avert specific warming targets such as 1.5C or 2C, but it should be clear that the differences in their conclusions are a result of those policy and behavioral assumptions, not climate physics.
2. The claim that the energy imbalance is increasing is not supported by ocean heat content data. As reported in the Guardian earlier this year, the latest estimates (by a group of scientists of which I am a member–see our publication here) demonstrate a very steady, rather than accelerating, increase in ocean heat content during the past few decades, as shown below. As I like to say, the truth is bad enough!
As nearly all (roughly 90%) of the global energy imbalance goes into ocean heating, a constant rate of increase in ocean heat content implies a constant, rather than increasing planetary energy imbalance, in contradiction of the claims by Jim and co-authors. Admittedly there is a range of estimates by different groups (both with respect to ocean heat content and other satellite-based measures of energy imbalance), but it is speculative at best to argue that there is a robust and statistically-significant increase in planetary energy imbalance.
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, virtually all the world’s nations pledged to limit global warming to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels and also, if possible, “pursue” efforts to cap warming at 1.5C. At present, the world is not close to being on track to meet either target.
While the growth of global emissions has slowed in recent years, there is a large and growing gap between current commitments and what would be needed to avoid exceeding these global temperature limits.
Here, Carbon Brief provides an analysis of when the world is expected to pass these limits in the absence of large future emissions reductions. This is based on the latest generation of climate models – known as ”CMIP6” (see Carbon Brief’s explainer) – that are being run in the lead up to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) sixth assessment report expected in 2021-22.
Our analysis shows that:
- The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
- The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
- In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.
The information provided by Sabine Hossenfelder is truly scary
Canadian columnist Gwynne Dyer wrote a piece on the James Hansen/Michael Mann debate last year. As he says ‘But how are we lesser beings to choose between their arguments? Hansen has been kind enough to give us a tool. He has predicted that there will be a big jump in the average global temperature (up to half a degree more than El Nino would account for) by this April or May.’ https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/301033365/2024-the-year-it-got-really-hot
Uh huh.
What are we to make of all this gobbledygook? First, 2023 had nothing to do with CO2 emissions for the simple reason that CO2 emissions have not gone through (and are not going through) a step change. Second, with all this talk about oceans, atmospheric CO2 cannot warm the oceans for the simple reason that the oceans are warmer than the air and thus the air warming the oceans violates the 2nd Law.
There’s no empirical/experimental demonstration of the GHE. It’s assumptions all the way down. Worse: the warming generally precedes the increase in CO2 which suggests the warming causes the rise in CO2 rather than the reverse. Indeed the claim that the CO2 rise causes the warming violates causality itself, as causes do not occur aftereffects.
Earths surface cools itself to the Space environment by radiating in the infrared through the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means less infrared gets through the atmosphere, so the surface must, as a consequence, warm up. 70% of Earth’s surface is ocean. So the ocean warms, as does the land, because it has a radiating surface that has less of a ‘view’ to the Space environment, while it’s ‘view’ of the Sun environment is unchanged, because that radiation is in the visible spectrum and CO2 doesn’t interfere with that. One method of correcting this situation is to interfere with Earth’s ‘view’ of the Sun environment by placing solar absorbing aerosols in the stratosphere, i.e. geoengineering.
“the warming generally precedes the increase in CO2” says who? A link, perhaps. Exiting a glacial period, the Poles warm before the increase in CO2, but the Earth as a whole does not. When the Poles warm, ocean currents are impeded, causing the southern ocean, after several hundred years, to release more CO2, warming the rest of Earth. The average Earth temperature doesn’t rise until AFTER CO2 rises.
Just as much IR gets through the atmosphere to outer space whatever the CO2 levels are.
The ocean warms from above solely from sunlight.
Regarding the warming happening first:
“Oddly, while the principal direction suggested by the models is ΔIn[CO₂] → ΔT, the explained variance is impressively low (10-15%) in this direction and impressively high (reaching 90%) in the opposite direction, at ΔT → ΔIn[CO₂].” − Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
One of the most basic concepts in physics is that causes precede effects and effects follow causes. Determining the directionality sequence is thus essential in any causality analysis.
The assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported
The assumption in climate models is that CO₂ causes changes in temperature, or T. More specifically, it is assumed modern global warming has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.
However, scientists (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023) have now expanded upon last year’s 2-part study on stochastics-formulated causality published in The Royal Society (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (1) and Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (2)) where they notably contend:
“Clearly the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO₂] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.”
A year later these same authors have again conspicuously demonstrated the assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported because observations clearly show that variance in T leads or precedes growth rate variance in CO₂ by 6 or more months.
“All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T [temperature] as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect.”
Observational evidence overrules modeled assumptions, regardless of how compelling or mainstream the conventional wisdom.
Here is more:
The sequencing observation clearly supports the conclusion that variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months (Humlum et al., 2013, Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022). Effects can only lag – not lead – causes.
Wang et al. (2013) further estimate only 10% of the variance in global CO2 growth rates can be explained by fossil fuel emissions. Instead, there is a “strong and persistent coupling (r² ≈ 0.50) between interannual variations of the CO2 growth rate and tropical land-surface temperature during 1959-201
Building on this temperature→CO2 directional causality, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi (2023), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, have used existing CO2 and temperature data to calculate an 83 ppm CO2 increase associated with a 1°C surface temperature increase. The authors suggest this 83 ppm/°C value is consistent with Henry’s Law and CO2 residence time calculations. [DR note: Henry’s Law is why warm soda bubbles]
Kauppinen and Malmi further assess the warming in recent decades has been predominantly (90%) driven by the increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the downward trend in cloud cover.
“variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months”
Is the subject still ‘climate’ here? A decade is a minimum time period for climate results. You seem to be talking about a seasonal effect: Spring growth leads to Fall decay (and release of CO2). In any case it’s not climate. This is a graph of the relationship between 20th century temperature and CO2. In it, temperature LAGS CO2 by 21 years, to fit the best correlation. That’s reasonable, as it takes a couple decades for the mass of the ocean to catch up to the ‘forcer’, which is the radiant imbalance caused by growing CO2 in the atmosphere. Note an R2 value of almost 90%:
https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/temperature-vs-log-CO2.png
You may have overlooked the pressure factor in Henry’s Law.
Uncapping a soda water releases the pressure above the soda water resulting in the fizz as the carbon dioxide in the soda water coming out of solution as it is at a higher pressure than the air above the water surface.
Henry’s Law constant changes as the temperature increases.
To outgas the extra carbon dioxide in the ocean since industrialization would require the average ocean temperature to rise by 10 to 11 degrees Celsius.
Henry’s Law applies to about 1% of carbon dioxide in the ocean as the rest is in ionic form being in a carbon dioxide-water-carbonic acid chemical equilibrium.
Now you can explain to everybody why the stratosphere is cooling. We’re waiting….
My interest is in debunking AGW which occurs in the troposphere. The stratosphere is elsewhere.
Koutsoyiannis et al, 2022/2023 conclusion that temperature is the cause and carbon dioxide is the effect is based on an invalid assumption made on 70-years of data.
That is, the same mechanism must dominate in all timescales and in both hemispheres.
The following illustrates that point.
Looking at the monthly data for the period 1961-1990, the annual peak for CO2 at Mauna Loa occurs in the month of May while the global monthly temperature peaks in July.
Koutsoyiannis et al 2022/2023 excludes the possibility that changes in temperature and carbon dioxide might have an external third cause or even multiple causes.
As an illustration of the external third cause:
Data in steps of 1000 years show that very slow mechanisms caused by the Milankovitch cycles likely cause temperature changes that in turn cause increased [CO2]. Positive feedback is probably present from the mechanism that results in increased [CO2] causing increased T.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/abs_glnhsh.pdf
It seems you copied this from somewhere without understanding. We’re talking about which comes first, the rising temperature or the rising CO2. While there may be some variation of timescales, what we’re talking about is the timescale for CO2 emissions to be spread throughout the atmosphere…. the difference between one and two handfuls of fingers.
The point remains: the CO2 rises as a result of the warming.
I should reiterate that this is one of several studies I cited, all with the same conclusion: warming first.
Minor point:
Koutsoyiannis et al 2022 and 2023 was never published by or in any Royal Society peer-reviewed journal. It was published in MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Public Institute).
You can get an impression of the rigour and depth of the review of Koutsoyiannis et al 2022 and 2023 by reading the review reports for the papers.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35/review_report
Reply to your below. What’s this nonsense that climate is not weather? The radiative response to more CO2 in the air is virtually immediate…..months at most. Why would it be otherwise, as all the time needed is for the CO2 to be dissipated throughout the atmosphere?
To claim a 21year response as you do is risible.
FWIW, Humlum (2013) covers from 1980 to 2011, which is more than 21 years and finds the same short term response.
Nope, you’ll have to try harder.
“What’s this nonsense that climate is not weather?” Atmospheric Science is composed of Meteorology (weather) and Climatology (climate). It’s been that way for decades. The former has to deal with atmospheric energy storage in pressure differences (Lows and Highs). The latter doesn’t, as they average out over timescales of a decade or longer. Your links are describing a seasonal effect related to plant growth.
“The radiative response to more CO2 in the air is virtually immediate” But we are talking about the thermal effect, which must include heat capacitance, which for the ocean is gigantic.
Your first paragraph is just filler until the last sentence which is just wrong.
The seasonal fluctuations have nothing to do with any of the studies I cite. Furthermore, these cycles have been known of since the Keeling data were available starting 70 some years ago. No one would write a paper on those. Moreover, the seasonality is totally cyclical: In the summer with all the foliage CO2 is sucked up by the flora. In the winter with the die off of leaves the CO2 levels go back up. AND THEN THE CYCLE REVERSES and repeats.
Your point about the oceans is irrelevant. The oceans are not the air. What is the significance of the word “But”? The GHE is the putative thermal effect and it pertains to CO2 in the air not the oceans. I don’t see where you’re going with this.
Humlum et al 2013 use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support their conclusion. Their conclusion violates conservation of mass.
A Richardson critique of Humlum et al 2013 determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long-term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long-term trend of + 1.62 ppm/ yr.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908
Masters and Benestad also critiqued Humlum et al 2013 and showed Humlum’s conclusions stemmed from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.
M&B also found that Humlum et al 2013 incorrectly concluded that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused by outgassing from warming oceans rather than from the burning of fossil fuels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891
I’ve read the blog attempt to rebut Humlum (2013). It’s silly. Humlum removes extraneous factors (the long term trends) which are noise to get at what’s really going on in the times scale that matters.
The claim that Humum violates conservation of mass is just an assertion with no logic to it. Perhaps this assertion is a critique of his suggested explanations (namely warming oceans starts the warming periods). No matter what the cause, though, the fact remains the warming comes first, then the rise in CO2.
The whole notion that CO2 takes years, even decades to show up as warming is risible. CO2 emissions are fully dissipated through the atmosphere in a matter of months. Thus whatever impact they might have on temps is fully in effect in a matter of months. To suggest otherwise is to suggest all this extra surface radiation from the extra CO2 just is suppressed and then suddenly bursts out all of a sudden after years in radiation prison. You have to be pretty gullible to believe that (or already a true believer).
And the fact is that warming of earth BY ANY MEANS (natural or man-made) would result in 83 ppm of CO2 outgassing per 1C of global warming. This is an artifact of Henry’s Law applied to the oceans.
Van Gardingen (1995) was ignored I suspect because his field was far away from AGW. Humlum (2013) was attacked because he’s a player in the area. I’ve read the rebuttals. They are unconvincing. IF anything, they don’t attack the “warming first, then CO2 rise” conclusion itself, which is all I care about.
I respect that you’ve taken the effort to look things up though.
Wow, this repeated and unsupported assertion triggered a flashback to my days dealing with creationists who wouldn’t accept speciation (aka “macroevolution”) or the evidence from transitional fossils.
First question: Do you accept the basic laboratory evidence that shows which gases block which frequencies of light? If not, you’re just a pigeon pooping on a chessboard.
CO2 and some other atmospheric gases both absorb and release energy. However, that’s not enough to demonstrate the GHE. Of course there are multiple definitions/expositions of the GHE, but they all involve creating energy out of nothing. The most common variety of the GHE is the “back radiation” thesis, which is that the CO2 in the air captures some fraction of the IR from the surface and emits [half of] it back to the surface, thereby warming it. A neat trick, but it doesn’t happen. Instead near surface CO2 captured IR is decanted via collisions (conduction) to nearby [99% non-GHGs] which don’t radiate at atmospheric temperatures. Where CO2 radiates is where the air is thin, about 5 miles up, and such radiation serves to cool the planet.
Van Gardingen et al (1995) observed over CO2 emitting springs that at 7:00am with CO2 levels at 750,000ppms the temps were exactly the same nearby the springs at 7:00am with CO2 levels at 360ppm 24/7.
You keep mentioning that one part of one 1995 study, and I was curious about what the ecologist van Gardingen himself thought about climate change:
https://youtu.be/IAnbQEPKOow?si=SRD9TXNgLZmpF5lS&t=239
Clearly, he thinks it’s a real threat, so somehow he didn’t read the same thing in his data that you did.
Same with the fossil fuel industry dating back to 1954:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/30/fossil-fuel-industry-air-pollution-fund-research-caltech-climate-change-denial
But you know it’s a hoax, so everything’s fine. BTW, you are commenting on nearly every article in increasingly trollish ways. Is that your purpose here?
Climate change is outside van Gardingen’s field of expertise. Besides, it’s AGW, not climate change that’s at issue. To be precise, it’s the GHE that’s at issue. And to be exact, it’s “back radiation” that’s the question.
The 1995 study proved that more CO2 in the air does not create more back radiation…..does not produce warming at the surface.
The authors were interested in the impact of high CO2 levels on the behaviors/lives of spiders. I don’t imagine they even considered analyzing the fact that 750,000 ppm of CO2 at 7am over the CO2 emitting springs produced no temperature difference from temps measured at the same time nearby where ppms were 360 24/7.
I didn’t read your link to the Guardian article 41 years before van Gardingen (1995) because it couldn’t possibly be relevant.
My purpose is to spread truth, in this case that AGW is a scientific hoax and that renewables are an economically unviable non-solution thereto.
You see what you’re doing here, right? You keep quoting VG, who believes in AGW (watch the video), but then say he isn’t an expert in the science. He wasn’t interested in CO2’s impact on spiders but on how plants adapt to higher CO2 levels. MEV has pointed out that temps were higher in an extremely specific locality with higher CO2 in the study, which you’ve dismissed as completely invalid because it got warmer from the sun in the morning. But, that’s an assumption on your part, isn’t it?
You’re weighting this one part of one study very heavily. According to you, VG didn’t even know what he was implying with it. You’re the one hyper-focused on this one cherry-picked point – but ask him if the temperature was the result of the sun rising or if he thought it likely it was the higher localized CO2:
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/paul-van-gardingen
Besides which, one part of one study doesn’t prove anything. It suggests – nothing more – and then over time can be tested and examined by others.
Atmospheric CO2, as far as I’m aware, can’t be tested definitively – the laboratory is too large. In that way the question of AGW is not as easy to answer as a simple chemistry experiment, for instance. But how and why AGW is a real thing has been examined for decades by those certainly much more educated in the matter than myself. If anyone can measure infrared radiation and its effects in the atmosphere, it’s NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
‘Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.’
We know how this goes with the deniers who occasionally comment here. There’s always a reason why anything at all can be dismissed. The NASA quote above is surely part of the hoax to you. It’s therefore largely pointless to respond to you. It’s not that you’re right – it’s that you’ve convinced yourself that you are right. Which means you’re highly adept at rationalization. Bravo.
To us, this becomes more obvious the more you comment here. On future posts, don’t take the lack of responses to your comments as evidence of your argumentative superiority. It’s far more likely the silence is the result of deciding your comments aren’t worth the response.
[this is a response to your below response to me]
So I look up van Gardingen and he surely doesn’t sound like much of a climate science (ie, AGW) expert to me:
[quote]:
Corresponding author. Tel: + 44 31 667 1041. Fax: + 44 31 667 2601. Telex: 727-442 (UNIVED).
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, School of Agriculture Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
More documents by Paul R. van Gardingen
Provided by Scopus
Comparative social demography, livelihood diversification and land tenure among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania
Pastoralism, Volume 10, Issue 1, 1 December 2020
Nkedianye, D.K., …, Reid, R.S.
Livestock-wealth inequalities and uptake of crop cultivation among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania
World Development Perspectives, Volume 14, June 2019
Nkedianye, D.K., …, Reid, R.S.
Wildebeest migration in East Africa: Status, threats and conservation measures
bioRxiv, 11 February 2019
Msoffe, F.U., …, Boone, R.B.
[end]
I think this confirms my point that AGW is outside his field.
MEV can’t understand English. Apparently that’s something you two have in common. MEV claims the opposite of what the VG paper showed, to wit that as the temps at 7:00 am were hot because of the high CO2. But of course 7:00 am is cool, not hot, compared to 4:00pm. Furthermore the rising heat is what dissipated the CO2 from 750,000 ppm at 7am to 1000ppm at 4pm, WHEN ONCE AGAIN the temperature above the springs was exactly the same as nearby where the CO2 levels were an invariant 360ppm.
BTW, any 10 year old knows this, namely that the cool of the early morning fades as the warming rays of the rising sun ….. well…. warm.
I don’t have to ask VG what he thought. I’m only interested what he reported at the time (1995). And it wasn’t just VG. The paper had multiple authors.
I said as much that he probably didn’t give this part of his findings any thought. I expect the peer-reviewers didn’t either or this paper would have been suppressed.
Moving on, VG did not test for radiation, but rather for temp and CO2 levels. He really couldn’t have produced the paper at all if he had no means of testing the CO2 levels and temps are measured by thermometers you can buy retail.
The rest of your below is mere hand-waving.
Consciously or not, VG et all showed that more CO2 did not impact temperature in the real world, thereby disproving the ‘back radiation’ notion.
FWIW, I had several other citations in my “10 points’ paper which debunk back radiation.
I believe I have addressed all your rebuttal points below.
Thank you for a game attempt.
[a second response to your 2nd response below]
I don’t care what VG believes, only what his peer-reviewed paper observes with the consent of multiple authors, namely 750,000 ppm air over CO2 emitting springs has no impact on temperature. I didn’t say he wasn’t a scientist, only that AGW didn’t seem to be his forte, which my list his publications confirms.
Just as an aside, as a young man I thought, “Seeing is believing.” Now I’m convinced there’s a lot of “Believing is seeing.” Thomas Kuhn clarifies, namely that scientists are in the thrall of their current paradigms and ignore or don’t investigate data that challenges their beliefs.
Again, what’s with referencing a Guardian article from 41 years before VG, 1995? I have done my own research on these matters and have been writing about my findings since 2005. I consider myself an expert. So at this stage, I’m immune to the argument to authority. I want to hear the arguments, see the experiments, evaluate the data myself.
What I have found is that just about everything around AGW is BS or outright lies. I’ve provided scientific citations to demonstrate and support my conclusions. The fact that you can’t come to the same conclusion from the VG data as I do, shows that the delusion runs deep with you. Indeed, the findings are so devasting to the AGW thesis that the authors, the peer-reviewers, the publisher, and the entire thermageddonist community has ignored this paper’s findings for almost a quarter of a century speaks volumes as to how deranged this whole group is.
My purpose is to teach the truth.
van Gardingen et al (1995) did not find temperatures were exactly the same at nearby locations with different carbon dioxide concentrations. That conclusion would come from a misinterpretation of the abstract (summary).
Amongst other factors, the study recorded the temperature gradient and carbon dioxide gradient for the depression around a single spring.
From the page 7 of van Gardingen (1995) or an indicated page 23 of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (Journal 73) is the following statement which has supporting graphs of the relative gradients/times of day:
“The timing and shape of this gradient provide strong evidence that the temperature increase is associated with the high CO2 concentrations at the bottom of the bowl.”
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/100579274/0168-192328942902176-k20230402-1-5poe6m-libre.pdf?1680445205=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCarbon_dioxide_emissions_at_an_Italian_m.pdf&Expires=1706666508&Signature=g4CwECLwqkQQSZEvemzGAV57hu7XUqs3hURsQJ~qMp6kzFYXGuX6bBicWLppB~yZeKiQZq6-SI0aYOcmDBhJ5KNGEa1Ij1eYwQ-GEuvTox2A71dnZIsEvoGH8-a38tZwl5YXaNqxDI3uKuDD7SFBaOXbxg1pX9n7QE2b7WYQtwHYdvJEtCxU49gbNBKijkyDeimLxlR3EPgZQU83vSriwacvsw10J3DDeZrBVf3JMH-Ekau68mdJbrFnR1zznjkQ9~gwxLxitXZ51z~cnKVQ3mIhfF7PHHZM7vnGKHFSRb6boWiMOTZDlo~kJtA8kzAda1V1GfYgK-W2wUq3UGvzfw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
The ugly truth is that these scientists have no clue why the earth is getting warmer. It certainly has nothing to do with carbon emissions. Thus, there’s no reason to give any credence to their predictions about the future (which have always been wrong in the past, but that’s just a quibble — ha ha).
You’re not shy and retiring when provided criticisms but you’re lacking in providing explanations for your alternative interpretation.
In your opinion, are the earth’s atmosphere and oceans undergoing warming or cooling? What’s your predicted path for future warming or cooling?
More importantly, what do you think causes your perceived warming or cooling of the atmosphere and oceans, David?
I gave no alternative explanations, nor is it incumbent on me to do so. However, as regards to last year, how about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
The obvious answers to why the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850 include: 1) the end of the LIA itself, as one would expect; 2) changes in solar radiation TOA; 3) changes in surface solar radiation (TOA mediated by atmospheric aerosols): 4) changes in Earth albedo; 5) changes in ocean currents; 6) manipulation of the historical temperature record.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
You’re welcome.
One at a time. I can’t find any data that point to the changes in solar radiation TOA trending upwards. Can you point me to a graph or title of a paper?
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/
The Willie Soon paper is of course exactly that.
Have you thought of stand up comedy Dave? After a few drinks, your fake whataboutism zombie climate memes may be tired, but they are classic humour.
Seeing as you posted this reference, I assume you agree with it?
“A cooling effect of 0.1–0.5 °C (0.18–0.90 °F) was expected to last until spring (September–November) 2022”
So why was 2023 the hottest year on record globally, including a one off volcanic cooling?
Thank you for your reply.
As to last year, how about the January 2023 study that concluded the Tonga Hunga eruption increased temporarily by 0.035 deg C and increased the 50% chance of average global temperatures rising 1.5 deg C above 1850 levels by only 7%. That is, not enough to worsen climate change.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2.epdf?
Your Soon et al (Aug. 2023) paper actually dismisses volcanic emissions as a major player in explaining rising average global temperature. Soon uses the IPCC AR6 WG1 Annex III dataset for volcanoes which shows an average radiative forcing of approx. 0.2 Watts/sq. metre since 2000.
Moving on to the rest of your reply.
1. The ‘LIA has ended therefore temperatures are rising, as one would expect’ does not explain either why the earth is warming or why the LIA ended. What changed for that to occur?
2. From Soon et al (2023): Changes in solar radiation are typically less than 1 Watt/sq. metre (Malthes et al 2017) either side of an average insolation at TOA, 1360 Watt/sq. metre which equates to a variation of less than 0.07% from the average. Further, Malthes et al show the solar radiation is returning to the average in 2017. Since then, it has been in decline which is the opposite to what is happening to average global temperatures.
A 0.7% change in solar radiation is not going to produce a rapid change in temperature but would take centuries on its own.
3. Solar insolation at the earth’s surface? See the response to your point 2.
4. Changes in the earth’s albedo are seasonal and vary over the earth’s surface but satellite measurements show that it fluctuates around a global average (0.30) without displaying any up or down trend that would explain the heating of 2023.
5. Changes in the ocean’s currents doesn’t cause an increase in global average temperatures. It causes a change in the distribution of heat around the oceans and then to the atmosphere – some areas getting hotter is balanced by some getting colder.
6. You cite “manipulation of the historical temperature records” and yet you claim there has been “no warming since 2015” in a previous post. You’ve relied on ‘manipulated’ data to make that claim.
Not that it matters as your claim is incorrect according to your source, Dr. Roy Spencer’s (and John Christy’s) UAH satellite data set.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project also disagrees with your “manipulation of the historical temperature records”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
I notice you are silent on the various scientific citations I provide demonstrating that the warming happens first, then the rise in CO2. The consequent fact that the AGW thesis violates causality, seems a devasting criticism still standing even if all your points are correct. But I have quibbles with them all.
I also have pointed out that if 93% of the excess heat is in the oceans (as is claimed by the thermageddonists), then atmospheric temperature cannot be responsible, since the oceans are almost always warmer than the air above them and thus heat cannot flow from the air to the oceans.
With the above preamble, let us begin:
Let us start with “it is not incumbent on me to provide alternative explanations” (only to point out that CO2 emissions could not possibly be the explanation as CO2 emissions have not gone through some kind of step change).” This seems both obvious and dispositive to me.
Secondly, the Tongo Hunga ejection of water into the atmosphere is an atmospheric step change not withstanding any attempt to dismiss it.
Third, you misapply the Soon study. You asked for a solar record that provides an alternative explanation for global warming and when I point to Soon, you quibble about volcanoes. I never said (or even hinted) that Soon attributes long term global warming to volcanoes. Moreover, Tongo Hunga was not so much a volcano per se but rather a massive ejection of water vapor into the air phenomenon.
You are correct about my failure to explain why the LIA ended. Nonetheless, excess carbon emissions [from burning fossil fuels, or otherwise] played no role to my knowledge. I refer you to my first point above concerning how I view my role.
Regarding insolation: it’s not TOA insolation that matters, but rather surface insolation. Also the sun’s influence should also include variations in the solar wind which influence cloud formation (and thus surface insolation). Finally, what is clear from Soon is that there are more than one record of TOA insolation, none of which is provably superior to the others. The skeptic wins on this point, since he can merely claim “cherry picking.”
I don’t know what you mean by “See the response to your point 2”
Your point #4 is without support. Still one wonders what happens to all that water vapor released by Tongo Hunga. One may suspect a lot went to create more clouds.
Of course changes in ocean currents change global temperature. The global temperature impacts of the AMO/PDO cycles are well documented. Ditto with the ENSO cycles. There are other longer cycles like the MOC that might explain longer temperature fluctuations.
As for temperature manipulation, this is widely documented. I rely on the UAH satellite record for my claim. It has the best coverage and the most accuracy. Tony Heller demonstrated dispositively the manipulation in the historical record (ex the UAH).
My major criticisms of AGW remain unchallenged, to wit: 1) AGW has never been scientifically demonstrated (i.e., by experiment, which is required by the scientific method); and 2) the AGW thesis violates causality as the warming precedes the rising temperatures. I would add: 3) there is no way atmospheric levels of CO2 can impact ocean temperatures where allegedly over 90% of the global warming goes without violatin the 2nd Law.
Thank you for a polite and stimulating challenge. You are no dope.
I realize that more clouds from say Tonga Hunga would probably cool the earth unless they were high altitude clouds. So maybe Tongo Hunga doesn’t provide an explanation for 2023. But then neither do CO2 emissions or land use or any of the other climatatista theories, none of which underwent a step change at the time. We’re left with a mystery or perhaps “natural variation” (which is the same thing).
Thank you, again, for your considered response.
Your point about rise in OCO leading temperature is relevant if OCO is the only factor affecting temperature. It’s not but is one of a number of factors such as axial tilt, orbital variation, solar irradiance, albedo and other GHGs.
Changes in say, axial tilt or earth’s proximity to the sun, warms the oceans and triggers the release of dissolved OCO which amplifies the original change’s warming effect on the atmosphere. That happens even though the OCO didn’t initiate the original warming nor upset the original equilibrium of IR in and out.
The oceans are not in general being heated by the atmosphere but by the incoming solar radiation. However, NOAA’s heat flux data shows that heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean in some areas across the globe – the blue areas in the link.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/ocs/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/FluxStations.png
Your point “heat cannot flow from the air to the oceans” actually supports the “thermageddonists” contention that the ocean acts as a heat sink just like the water in a radiator on a vehicle.
Which is in keeping with the high specific heat capacity of water that is over 3,000 times (after allowing for densities) that of dry air meaning that the ocean can store over 3,000 times the heat that the atmosphere in order for the ocean’s temperature to rise by 1 degree.
TOA net radiation flux is important. The CERES satellite data show the incoming short-wave solar radiation exceeds the outgoing long-wave IR indicating there is a heat uptake by the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/HeatUptake.png
The impact of ocean currents on global temperatures is to redistribute the heat energy the ocean has absorbed.
El Nino does not create the heat per se but allows gravity to move the higher, warm water in the Western Pacific (surface and depths) to the Eastern Pacific. The moving warm ocean water transfers heat to the atmosphere above it.
The UAH data set shows that the temperature has increased since 2015 and continued an upward trend from 1979.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/
If the scientific method required an experiment for proof that would rule out almost all of the theories of Geology and Astronomy, such as Tectonic Plate Theory and Star Evolution Theory.
The Greenhouse Gas Theory does not rely on heat being passed from a colder body to a warmer body.
The Greenhouse Effect works by reducing the energy being radiated to space.
There is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a hotter body (all objects above absolute zero radiate thermal energy) – so long as there is a higher radiation from the hotter to the colder.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold.
Heat can be transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans by precipitation or contact with warm winds, but the oceans are primarily heated by solar insolation.
I think we can agree to disagree.
Enjoy the rest of your week.
Thank you for your considered response.
Your point about rise in OCO leading temperature is relevant if OCO is the only factor affecting temperature. It’s not but is one of a number of factors such as axial tilt, orbital variation, solar irradiance, albedo and other GHGs.
Changes in say, axial tilt or earth’s proximity to the sun, warms the oceans and triggers the release of dissolved OCO which amplifies the original change’s warming effect on the atmosphere. That happens even though the OCO didn’t initiate the original warming nor upset the original equilibrium of IR in and out.
The oceans are not in general being heated by the atmosphere but by the incoming solar radiation. Heat can be transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans by precipitation or contact with warm winds, but the oceans are primarily heated by solar insolation.
Regardless, NOAA’s heat flux data shows that heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean in some areas across the globe – the blue areas in the link.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/ocs/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/FluxStations.png
Your point “heat cannot flow from the air to the oceans” actually supports the “thermageddonists” contention that the ocean acts as a heat sink just like the water in a radiator on a vehicle.
Which is in keeping with the high specific heat capacity of water that is over 3,000 times (after allowing for densities) that of dry air meaning that the ocean can store over 3,000 times the heat that the atmosphere in order for the ocean’s temperature to rise by 1 degree.
TOA net radiation flux is important. The CERES satellite data show the incoming short-wave solar radiation exceeds the outgoing long-wave IR indicating there is a heat uptake by the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/HeatUptake.png
The impact of ocean currents on global temperatures is to redistribute the heat energy the ocean has absorbed.
El Nino does not create the heat per se but allows gravity to move the higher, warm water in the Western Pacific (surface and depths) to the Eastern Pacific. The moving warm ocean water transfers heat to the atmosphere above it.
The UAH data set shows that the temperature has increased since 2015 and continued an upward trend from 1979.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/
If the scientific method required an experiment for proof that would rule out almost all of the theories of Geology and Astronomy, such as Tectonic Plate Theory and Star Evolution Theory. It’s impossible to perform an experiment that shows subduction of tectonic plates produces volcanoes, etc.
The Greenhouse Gas Theory does not rely on heat being passed from a colder body to a warmer body.
The Greenhouse Effect works by reducing the energy being radiated to space. This is supported by data from radiation detectors pointing downward on satellites and radiation detectors pointing up on the earth’s surface that measures incoming and outgoing radiation.
There is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a hotter body (all objects above absolute zero radiate thermal energy) – so long as there is a higher radiation from the hotter to the colder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold.
I see my task as outing nonsense. Climate alarmism is a target rich environment.
Thank you for your considered response.
Your point about CO2 leading temperature is relevant if CO2 is the only factor affecting temperature. It’s not. It’s one of a number of factors.
Changes in say, axial tilt or earth’s proximity to the sun or solar insolation, warms the oceans and triggers the release of dissolved CO2. The released CO2 along with the CO2 already in the atmosphere amplifies the original change’s warming effect on the atmosphere.
This CO2 amplification happens even though the CO2 didn’t initiate the original warming nor upset the original equilibrium of energy in and energy out.
Your point about the oceans cannot be heated by the air is at odds with observational satellite data. NASA’s heat flux data shows that heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean in some areas across the globe – the blue areas in the linked png file.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/ocs/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/FluxStations.png
Heat can be transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans by precipitation (the decrease in gravitational potential energy of raindrops at terminal velocity is converted to heat) or contact with warm winds.
Your point about “it’s not TOA insolation that matters” overlooks the importance of TOA net radiation flux. The CERES satellite data show the incoming shortwave solar radiation exceeds the outgoing longwave radiation. Which indicates there is a heat uptake by the Earth’s atmosphere, etc. and supports the Greenhouse Effect theory or the reduction of heat being radiated to space.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/HeatUptake.png
Furthermore, the Greenhouse Effect does not rely on heat being passed from a colder body to a warmer body or vice versa.
On that point and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, there is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a warmer body (all objects above Absolute Zero temperature radiate thermal energy) – so long as there is higher radiation from the hotter to the colder body. Which is in accord with the 2nd law – the net sum of energy flows will be from hot to cold.
Your point about ocean currents heating the atmosphere overlooks the redistribution of heat energy across the oceans. Also, El Nino does not create the heat stored in the ocean. El Nino ‘allows’ gravity to move the warmer water in the Western Pacific (surface and depths) to the Eastern Pacific transferring heat to the atmosphere above the moving warmer waters.
Your point about UAH data (which ‘samples’ air temperatures from 0 to 12 kms in the atmosphere) not showing any increase since 2015 is at odds with the UAH graphic on WUWT.
Your point re the “thermageddonists” and a claimed “93% of heat stored in ocean” should be viewed in light of why the ocean can act as a heat sink.
The specific heat capacity of water is over 3,000 times that of air (after allowing for relative densities). Meaning the ocean can store over 3,000 times the heat that can be stored by the atmosphere before that heat causes a temperatures rise of 1 degree Celsius.
The Hunga Tonga event, as I suggested, whose effect I aver may have lasted longer. In any event it wasn’t CO2 emissions for the reason stated. If you don’t like my suggested explanation, take your pick of the other factors I listed or chalk it up to natural variability, which is another way of saying “nobody has a clue.”
Not sure why you think what I said was funny, other than “Hunga Tonga” has a funny sound to it.
Ok Elon, whatever you say … you’re a fawking jenius, you know everything there is to know all we gotta’ do is ask and you’ll tell us so. The greatest intellect to walk this earth, God quakes in your shadow
If you’re so goddamned smart, monkey, why don’t you provide us with some solutions?
Solutions to what? I view global warming as a good thing. The extra warmth and CO2 have resulted in global greening. Isn’t that what you environmentalists want? (or used to want?). Crops yields are breaking records these days. Warm periods throughout human history have always been times of great prosperity. And vice versa…. cold times lead to crop failures, starvation, misery. Also cold kills an order of magnitude more people annually that heat globally.
Finally, despite all the moaning about the earth on fire, deaths from extreme weather events are down 98% from 100 years ago.
Fact is that prosperity brings about cleaner environments. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act the US has reduced the 6 top air pollutants by an absolute and cumulative 74%….. despite our driving almost 2X the miles and generating almost 2X the electricity.
Stop whining.
Off topic – sorry about your Lions, Peter. I was rooting for DET as DAL flamed out (per usual). Still hold that Dan Campbell is too loose and free with fourth downs, but then, the Lions probably wouldn’t have been there in the first place without him.
Monbiot has commentary today about Trump supporters. I don’t hold to the pure ‘blank slate’ view of humanity that he does here, but I think he has some good insight into the personality types that flock to him. They like him because he is like them, as absurd as that sounds off-hand:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/29/donald-trump-americans-us-culture-republican
Great announcement from AMS today, responsible media outlets pledge to have any Climate Change materials validated by a partnership with respectable scientists, overdue but still very welcomed ..
“U.S. and international scientific associations will join with high-profile media outlets to sign a pledge of cooperation aimed at ensuring climate change-related communications are scientifically accurate, accessible, and actionable. ”
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/news/news-releases/global-science-and-media-organizations-to-sign-pledge-prioritizing-science-based-climate-change-communications/
Ah, der official climate dogma will be strictly enforced. No exceptions. Arbeit macht frei.
Canadian columnist Gwynne Dyer wrote a piece on the James Hansen/Michael Mann debate last year. As he says ‘But how are we lesser beings to choose between their arguments? Hansen has been kind enough to give us a tool. He has predicted that there will be a big jump in the average global temperature (up to half a degree more than El Nino would account for) by this April or May.’ https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/301033365/2024-the-year-it-got-really-hot
But of course anything that happens that soon would only be weather, not climate. Duh!!!
You do realize that the ENSO cycles are totally natural phenomena, do you not?
I dunno….
This post is all very interesting but I’ll wait until I can read what’s really going on in The Epoch Times.
Do you criticize the US Post Office when you get unpleasant news in the mail? All my citations are peer-reviewed science.