This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Thursday 10 February 2022
RESISTANCE TO NET ZERO GETS MORE ORGANISED
Another good article in the Daily Mail tells us that Conservative backbenchers are now getting more organised to resist the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to net zero. Here is the link:
whatever a person choses to believe, agw stays the same. Green house gases react to energy in the infrared spectrum that the earth cools in. The more we block infrared in the atmosphere, the more we send energy back to earth's surface, the more we wwarm. There is just no getting around it.
Those MPs who want to supply cheaper energy are working for the people. Wind farms and solar are just as much big business as fossil fuels.
RG - your explanation of the greenhouse effect is very basic. You fail to take into account all the other factors which determine the Earth's surface temperature, such as clouds, volcanic activity, water vapour levels, etc. Look at the historic levels of CO2 and you will see that it has been much higher than the present level without any catastrophic warming.
[You fail to take into account all the other factors which determine the Earth's surface temperature, such as clouds, volcanic activity, water vapour levels, etc.]
human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Solar activity Volcanic activity Human aerosol emissions The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
If you check this graph above and read the article, it's all human warming. Natural just is not warming the earth. It really is having a mild cooling effect. It is the human component (GHGS) that are warming the earth.
Human-Caused Global Warming Consensus The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).
Hi RG, your figures are all over the place. For a start CO2 levels in the atmosphere could not have had a significant effect before 1950, as they had barely risen above the pre-industrial level. So all the warming pre 1950 must have been natural. You say that "most estimates put the human contribution of warming between 75 and 90%", which is quite a wide range. Then you say it's well above 98% over the last 25-65 years. These are wide ranges and frankly I would not place much credence on such vague estimates. There are now so many alterations to the measured data (data tampering) that it is hard to accept a lot of it. The most credible figures are those obtained from the satellite measurements, as they cover a much wider area. As to how much of the small warming is natural, that is the big question and there is a lot of disagreement between scientists about it. The figures tell us that there is no increase in the rate of warming, it is stuttering along at around 0.13 degrees C. per decade, as can be seen from this link.
Lets do this again. Look to the graph that has the different colored bars that say human under them. Look to the left vertical axis that says percentage contribution. THe different colors represent different science studies of the grouping of human vs natural contribution of warming. Every study on this graph shows at least 100% warming by humans. Most of the natural influence studied is mildly cooling. So, HUMAN VS NATURAL, human is 100% responsible for the warming on earth. It may be hard to accept truth, but there it is.
Worldwide, 2016 was the warmest year on record, 2020 was the second-warmest, and 2011–2020 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began. Global average surface temperature has risen at an average rate of 0.17°F per decade since 1901 (see Figure 2), similar to the rate of warming within the contiguous 48 states. Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has warmed faster than the global rate.
That is the measurement of the air temperature. 93% of the warming on earth goes inot the oceans. During La Nina of the pacific ocean, the warming of the ocean continues on steadily if not a little bit faster. The last 5 decades have not seen any cooling. As a matter of fact the increase of earth's air temperature per decade is accelerating.
IF you look at the chart of decadal temperature increases, the air temperatures recorded are accelerating. So do you really think this is such a small thing?
So all the warming pre 1950 must have been natural. You say that "most estimates put the human contribution of warming between 75 and 90%", which is quite a wide range. Then you say it's well above 98% over the last 25-65 years.
Over a more than 100 year period the warming might appear gradual, only if you ignor the last 50 to 65 years. Again if you read to understand the bigger picture, this study also shows the acceleration of warming on earth. And humans did the warming by adding GHGs to the atmosphere. There is no period of history on earth, that warmed this strongly this fast. This is the stuff that mass extinctions are made of. So I have the NASA data showing acceleration of warming and the science studies showing human warming. This is what scientific consensus is made of. The different studies come to the same conclusion in different ways. This is wwhat the data says and that is what speaks to us.
You are ignoring the most comprehensive data set which is the satellite record. Look at Dr Roy Spencer's website and the graph of temperature anomalies over the last 40 years. There is NO acceleration. It is simply a massive exaggeration based on activist scientists who want the grant funding to keep on coming. There is much less warming than commonly believed. We are being bombarded with propaganda.
The UAH data set is what brought the confidence level of humans warmed the climate to 5 sigma. Dr. Roy Spencer has done his best to confuse climate information, but ultimately his efforts are for naught
Generally, the five-sigma level, or five standard deviations, is used in particle physics as the threshold before a discovery can be declared. Because many of the observations from particle physics can occur by chance rather than from, say, a newly discovered type of particle, physicists tend to set the bar high. When an observation meets the five-sigma level, it means that only once out of 3.5 million times could the observation have occurred by chance. This threshold was used to declare the discovery of the Higgs boson and the first detection of gravitational waves.
One in 3.5 million chance that happened randomly. This same very level was used in particle physics and detection of gravitational waves. I don't think an economist can intimidate scientists into his way of thinking.
This paper was about statistics. There is an old saying about lies, damned lies and statistics. Who better to understand and debunk this than an expert statistician like McKitrick.
Mckitrick just doesn't get the science right. Swiss RE insurance giant disagrees with Mckitrick. CO2 is significant in its effect on earth's climate. That is what the IPPC volunteers are telling us while the fossil fuel paid PR people are saying the opposite. Mckitirick is quite active in the Heartland Institute in the United States that takes money from fossil fuels. Clearly he is an advocate of fossil fuels.
https://www.desmog.com/ross-mckitrick/
Ross McKitrick is an endorser of the Cornwall Alliance‘s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states: [5]
“We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.” [6]
Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns Poor nations would be particularly hard hit, but few would escape, Swiss Re said. The findings could influence how the industry prices insurance and invests its mammoth portfolios.
That’s the Tories - working for big business whilst paid for by the tax-payer.
ReplyDeletehttps://electrek.co/2022/02/07/us-could-save-56b-a-year-coal-to-solar-study/?fbclid=IwAR3IBmFOYI-yyp5dX2MM4cdBY6tS7swq6BQJ11-PiJhUu2Gl0jkKQo1xfiw
whatever a person choses to believe, agw stays the same. Green house gases react to energy in the infrared spectrum that the earth cools in. The more we block infrared in the atmosphere, the more we send energy back to earth's surface, the more we wwarm. There is just no getting around it.
ReplyDeleteThose MPs who want to supply cheaper energy are working for the people. Wind farms and solar are just as much big business as fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteRG - your explanation of the greenhouse effect is very basic. You fail to take into account all the other factors which determine the Earth's surface temperature, such as clouds, volcanic activity, water vapour levels, etc. Look at the historic levels of CO2 and you will see that it has been much higher than the present level without any catastrophic warming.
[You fail to take into account all the other factors which determine the Earth's surface temperature, such as clouds, volcanic activity, water vapour levels, etc.]
ReplyDeletehuman greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Solar activity
Volcanic activity
Human aerosol emissions
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
https://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib50-65.png
If you check this graph above and read the article, it's all human warming. Natural just is not warming the earth. It really is having a mild cooling effect. It is the human component (GHGS) that are warming the earth.
Human-Caused Global Warming Consensus
The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).
Hi RG, your figures are all over the place. For a start CO2 levels in the atmosphere could not have had a significant effect before 1950, as they had barely risen above the pre-industrial level. So all the warming pre 1950 must have been natural. You say that "most estimates put the human contribution of warming between 75 and 90%", which is quite a wide range. Then you say it's well above 98% over the last 25-65 years. These are wide ranges and frankly I would not place much credence on such vague estimates. There are now so many alterations to the measured data (data tampering) that it is hard to accept a lot of it. The most credible figures are those obtained from the satellite measurements, as they cover a much wider area. As to how much of the small warming is natural, that is the big question and there is a lot of disagreement between scientists about it. The figures tell us that there is no increase in the rate of warming, it is stuttering along at around 0.13 degrees C. per decade, as can be seen from this link.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib50-65.png
Lets do this again. Look to the graph that has the different colored bars that say human under them. Look to the left vertical axis that says percentage contribution. THe different colors represent different science studies of the grouping of human vs natural contribution of warming. Every study on this graph shows at least 100% warming by humans. Most of the natural influence studied is mildly cooling. So, HUMAN VS NATURAL, human is 100% responsible for the warming on earth. It may be hard to accept truth, but there it is.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature#:~:text=Since%201901%2C%20the%20average%20surface%20temperature%20across%20the,1970s%20%280.31%20to%200.54%C2%B0F%20per%20decade%20since%201979%29.
ReplyDeleteWorldwide, 2016 was the warmest year on record, 2020 was the second-warmest, and 2011–2020 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began. Global average surface temperature has risen at an average rate of 0.17°F per decade since 1901 (see Figure 2), similar to the rate of warming within the contiguous 48 states. Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has warmed faster than the global rate.
That is the measurement of the air temperature. 93% of the warming on earth goes inot the oceans. During La Nina of the pacific ocean, the warming of the ocean continues on steadily if not a little bit faster. The last 5 decades have not seen any cooling. As a matter of fact the increase of earth's air temperature per decade is accelerating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_decades
IF you look at the chart of decadal temperature increases, the air temperatures recorded are accelerating. So do you really think this is such a small thing?
So all the warming pre 1950 must have been natural. You say that "most estimates put the human contribution of warming between 75 and 90%", which is quite a wide range. Then you say it's well above 98% over the last 25-65 years.
ReplyDeleteOver a more than 100 year period the warming might appear gradual, only if you ignor the last 50 to 65 years. Again if you read to understand the bigger picture, this study also shows the acceleration of warming on earth. And humans did the warming by adding GHGs to the atmosphere. There is no period of history on earth, that warmed this strongly this fast. This is the stuff that mass extinctions are made of. So I have the NASA data showing acceleration of warming and the science studies showing human warming. This is what scientific consensus is made of. The different studies come to the same conclusion in different ways. This is wwhat the data says and that is what speaks to us.
You are ignoring the most comprehensive data set which is the satellite record. Look at Dr Roy Spencer's website and the graph of temperature anomalies over the last 40 years. There is NO acceleration. It is simply a massive exaggeration based on activist scientists who want the grant funding to keep on coming. There is much less warming than commonly believed. We are being bombarded with propaganda.
ReplyDeletehttps://bigthink.com/hard-science/certainty-human-driven-climate-change/#:~:text=Now%2C%20lead%20author%20Santer%20claims,other%20reason%20than%20human%20activities.
ReplyDeleteThe UAH data set is what brought the confidence level of humans warmed the climate to 5 sigma. Dr. Roy Spencer has done his best to confuse climate information, but ultimately his efforts are for naught
Sorry, but the Ben Santer paper has been thoroughly debunked. See here.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.desmog.com/ross-mckitrick/
ReplyDeleteMcKitrick is not a scientist. He is an economist. And yet he has a lot to say about global warming.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/certainty-human-driven-climate-change/
Generally, the five-sigma level, or five standard deviations, is used in particle physics as the threshold before a discovery can be declared. Because many of the observations from particle physics can occur by chance rather than from, say, a newly discovered type of particle, physicists tend to set the bar high. When an observation meets the five-sigma level, it means that only once out of 3.5 million times could the observation have occurred by chance. This threshold was used to declare the discovery of the Higgs boson and the first detection of gravitational waves.
One in 3.5 million chance that happened randomly. This same very level was used in particle physics and detection of gravitational waves. I don't think an economist can intimidate scientists into his way of thinking.
This paper was about statistics. There is an old saying about lies, damned lies and statistics. Who better to understand and debunk this than an expert statistician like McKitrick.
ReplyDeleteMckitrick just doesn't get the science right. Swiss RE insurance giant disagrees with Mckitrick. CO2 is significant in its effect on earth's climate. That is what the IPPC volunteers are telling us while the fossil fuel paid PR people are saying the opposite. Mckitirick is quite active in the Heartland Institute in the United States that takes money from fossil fuels. Clearly he is an advocate of fossil fuels.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.desmog.com/ross-mckitrick/
Ross McKitrick is an endorser of the Cornwall Alliance‘s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states: [5]
“We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.” [6]
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy.html
Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns
Poor nations would be particularly hard hit, but few would escape, Swiss Re said. The findings could influence how the industry prices insurance and invests its mammoth portfolios.