Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
The ACWT record, to quote the authors, reveals the existence of "two distinct warm periods from the late 1920s to 1950s and in the late 1980s-90s and two cold periods, one at the beginning of the record (until the 1920s) and another in the 1960s-70s." The SAT record depicts essentially the same thing, with the peak temperature of the latter warm period being not quite as high as the peak temperature of the former warm period. In the case of the ACWT record, this relationship is reversed, with the peak temperature of the latter warm period slightly exceeding the peak temperature of the former warm period; however, the most recent maximum temperature is very short-lived and rapidly declines to hover around a value that is about 1C cooler over the last few years of the record. What it means
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age , the Medieval Warming , the Dark Ages and the Roman Period , also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
The spatio-temporal pattern of peak Holocene warmth (Holocene thermal maximum, HTM) is traced over 140 sites across the Western Hemisphere of the Arctic (0180W; north of ~60N). Paleoclimate inferences based on a wide variety of proxy indicators provide clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 of these sites. At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6 +- 0.8 deg C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century), but the warming was time-transgressive across the western Arctic. As the precession-driven summer insolation anomaly peaked 1210 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), warming was concentrated in northwest North America, while cool conditions lingered in the northeast. Alaska and northwest Canada experienced the HTM between ca 11 and 9 ka, about 4000 yr prior to the HTM in northeast Canada
The fallacy in this logic is of course that when energy is lost it has a cooling effect not a warming effect. But the AGW logic has flipped reality upside-down so that atmospheric warming is caused by the energy being lost to space which is really in actual fact, cooling.
Answer: Almost certainly nothing , for the same reasons as above, and also since CO2 is unlikely to be revealed as the main driver (or even one of the main drivers) of global warming.
Whether the ice caps are melting and whether this is due to global warming or not is not the issue. The issue is whether it is something we can prevent and simply it is not. I have yet to be convinced that CO2 warming effect is significant enough to be responsible for the temperature rises alarmist automatically attribute, without any scientific proof, to CO2, and particularly anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If it is any other reasons to the alarmists presumptions of CO2, then the solution to the global warming problem changes from one of prevention to remedial action. However, thanks to the alarmist everyone is now looking at the wrong solution to the problem.
Despite an estimated spend of well over $100-billion since 1990 looking for a human global temperature signal, assessed against geological reality no compelling empirical evidence yet exists for a measurable, let alone worrisome, human impact on global temperature.
The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO 2 and CH 4 , but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!
However, these two increases did not take place together. Much of the observed temperature rise of 0.5 C occurred before 1940, whereas most of the additional carbon dioxide (over 80%) entered the atmosphere after 1940. Increased greenhouse gases cannot explain a temperature rise that occurred before the major increases in these gases existed in the atmosphere.
We find that there is no requirement to invoke greenhouse gas driven mechanisms to explain the temperature changes that are recorded in the ice core record. Instead, we show that changes in the reflection/absorption of sunlight by atmospheric dust are plausible in both an historical sense, by correlation, and in terms of the basic physics of radiative transfer.
Is not evidence about what causes global warming. Proof that global warming occurred is not proof that CO2 was mainly responsible.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has caused global warming, or causes damage to
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that support the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Therefore, even some of those scientists Lord Monckton relies upon agree with PSI that any increase in CO2 actually cools the atmosphere contrary to the some warming assertion his lordship monotonously repeats.
CO2 is not climate-relevant; from ground-based measurements, climate change and warming cannot be shown to be caused by increasing Co2 .
Geoscience professors Dr. Ole Humlum and Dr. Jan-Erik Solheim have described a simple, empircal harmonic climate model that accurately explains global temperature observations since 1850, without incorporating any forcing from man-made CO2 or aerosols. According to the authors, " What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols." " I f we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950.There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as the IPCC claims in their reports, thus the assumed CO2 effects in IPCC climate models are exaggerated.The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data."
The Greenhouse Gas Theory (GHGT) which please know, is nothing but a theory was invented 200 years ago and repudiated 100 years ago.
Even more important is the mathematical and observational proof that the effect of CO2 on climate is effectively nil.
On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue1, 2, 3.
Conversely, our understanding that human greenhouse gas emissions are driving global temperatures has a proverbial mountain of supporting evidence. Too bad that every single "line of evidence" that Dana1981 has offered was a negative one.
Even so, CO2 constitutes a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere. There is no evidence CO2 plays any role in the Earth?s global temperature.
7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cant cause warming anyway. They claim things like, the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated, or something else very technical. . While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more should cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But Im still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.
As per my article this week , forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the blackbody numbers supporting the theory didnt add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
As more and more scrutiny is applied to the world-wide climate scientists data, methods, peer-review system, and agenda, it is apparent that there is no cause for alarm over CO2 emissions, or any other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. The entire basis for CO2 causing the Earth to warm catastrophically is false. There are cities in California that show a pronounced cooling even while CO2 continues to rise Eureka, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. San Francisco shows a gradual increase in temperature that corresponds to population growth, but not to CO2 in the atmosphere. see this.
Surface Radiation: I set this in accordance with the NASA 2011 energy budget since the other two energy budgets hugely exaggerate this to accommodate their huge back radiation values. I showed in my analysis in the paper Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature that there was an upper bound of 5.8% on the amount of back radiation incident on the surface. This was without even invoking the fact that heat flows from warm to cool surfaces and conditions when the air is warmer than the surface other than within a very few tens of meters are infrequent. Because I set the back radiation warming at an estimated value of 1%, the Surface Radiation is (51 + 1 - 7 - 24)% = 21%.
The last result does not look obviously compatible with the theory that world-wide warming has been caused by CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases. If that were true, the intra-seasonal correlations would be higher, as CO2 concentration has a strong seasonal component: instead, they are generally even lower than the link between, say, Winter temperatures to Spring temperatures.
1. Convection accounts for approximately 67% of the total amount of heat transfer from the Earth's surface to the troposphere, the condensation of water vapour for 25% and radiation accounts for only 8%. As the heat transfer in the troposphere occurs mostly by convection, accumulation of CO2 in the troposphere intensifies the convective process of heat and mass transfer, because of the intense absorption of infrared radiation, and leads to subsequent cooling and not warming as commonly believed.
our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.
You can wrap a heat source with as much insulation as you want. All that will happen is that the insulation will reach the temperature of the heat source, and the heat source willnot rise in temperature. Insulation is just matter, just material like anything else. When exposed to heat, it will warm, and will conduct that heat outward via diffusion.
In the stratospherethe absorption of sunlight by the plentiful ozone trace gas is the main source of heat. Naturally the absorbed radiative energy must be given off once again. In the stratosphere this occursfor the most part through heat radiation into space by CO2 molecules. Therefore CO2in the atmosphere has a cooling effect, ozone a warming effect!
What happens to an air parcel when a CO 2 molecule absorbs an IR photon? Since the molecule can only exist in specific discrete energy states it jumps to a higher (excited) energy state. However in this process the translational energy of the CO 2 molecule does not change. The average speed of the molecules of the air parcel containing this CO 2 molecule has not increased. Since temperature is related to the root mean square speed of the molecules the temperature of the air parcel does not increase. CO 2 does not trap heat.
Yet all the while Hertzberg, Latour, Postma, Kleespies and other non-partisan scientists are telling us is that there is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect. If you study their writings you will see how they openly address the complexities within the physics and thermodynamics to show that our planets surface temperature can be explained without the chicanery concocted behind closed doors. We can see that there is no need to postulate an additional radiative GHE, and that the entire concept is based on a misinterpretation and an incorrect comparison of physical metrics.
Early Earth stayed warm because its ocean absorbed more sunlight; greenhouse gases were not involved, Stanford researchers say. See more about the Faint sun paradox here . A video clip follows.
(6) EVUETIPTCTHODTEOAPTs might conclude that the small increase in the level of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 is known by mankind to be harmful to the Earth??s environment,
This is the so-called logarithmic effectadding more and more CO2 has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response.
IN recent years, a major advance in our understanding of the physical dynamics of the climate process has come from the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. For the present note I am calling his discovery the climatically saturated greenhouse effect. I use these words to mean that the saturation of which I speak is not the classical static saturation of an isolated system, but is saturation in a specially extended sense for an open system in a thermodynamically-non-equilibrium dynamic steady state.
2. Closer examination of the last century using better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled at about 0.1C/decade while atmospheric carbon increased. But any warming effect of atmospheric carbon is immediate. By 2003 or so we had discovered global dimming, which might be adequate to explain this 35-year non-correlation. But what had seemed like a good fit between recent atmospheric carbon and global warming now looks shaky, in need of the recently-discovered unquantified global dimming factor to explain 35 years of substantial cooling. I reckon the last century of correlation evidence now neither supports carbon emissions as the cause nor eliminates it. Further quantitative research on global dimming might rescue this bit of evidence, or it might weaken it further.
4.They claimed an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Every single record of any duration for any time period shows the opposite. Temperature increases before CO2. It is not driving temperature or climate change.
Of the two periods of global warming this century, the first, and warmest, occurred before rise in carbon dioxide;
In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
With that in mind, in early 2009, we started carefully studying the science behind the man-made global warming theory, and analysing the data for ourselves. Our research has revealed that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in atmosphere does not cause global warming.
If carbon emissions rise faster than anyone predicted, but the rise in global air temperatures is about 90percentless than expected, and if we are told that we should be seeing more droughts whereas there is actually a decrease, then so-called scientific forecasts about carbon dioxide emissions are woefully wrong.
The most obvious reason is that CO2 lags temperature. Changes in ocean temperature have driven the changes in atmospheric CO2, as explained here . CO2 is not the driver.
The temperature increases or decreases come first, and it is only after 500-1500 years that the CO2 follows. Fig 3 shows the data from the termination of the last Glacial Cooling (Major Glaciation) that ended some 15,000 20,000 years ago through the current Interglacial Warming of today. The four instances where the temperature changes precede the CO2 curve are clearly shown. All the Vostok data going back some 420,000 years show exactly the same behavior. Any objective scientist looking at that data would conclude that it is the warming that is causing the CO2 increases, not the other way around as Gore claimed. I am indebted to Guy Leblanc Smith ( guy.lbs@rockknowledge.com.au ) for granting permission to use Fig. 3 as it was published in Viv Forbes web-site www.carbon-sense.com .
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Ghostly artistic images of water vapor using data from the Aqua satellite's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder. NASA. Without such a theory it is impossible to predict changes in atmospheric circulation, it is impossible to predict changes in the hydrological cycle, it is impossible to predict storm frequencies, intensities and tracks. Future climate cannot be predicted without a theory explaining how climate works, yet the IPCC has confidently made predictions regarding changes in storms, precipitation and climate for decades, even centuries into the future. If something as seemingly simple as water vapor can have such complex and bewildering impacts on Earth's climate why does the IPCC and the climate crisis crowd continue to insist that all fault lies with CO 2 ? It could be that even they realize that blaming global warming on water vapor would give them no political leverage. After all, 70% of our planet's surface is covered with water and not even the most wild-eyed geoengineering proponent would propose we attempt to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Like water vapour, carbon dioxide also absorbs some incident Solar radiation, particularly in the 2.7 micron band. So it prevents this radiation from reaching and warming the surface. However, the atmosphere has only about 0.04% carbon dioxide, compared with about 1% to 4% water vapour. Each water vapour molecule absorbs and radiates in a far wider range of wavelengths than each carbon dioxide molecule and so, as some have estimated, the overall effect of all the carbon dioxide could be as little as 0.1% that of all the water vapour. And that effect is likely to be a net cooling effect anyway.
Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot ). The alarmists keep very quiet about the missing hotspot.
In its Endangerment Finding, the EPA produced no physical evidence of the existence of the hotspot. Further, with the divergence of atmospheric data from the surface data, which has been inflated to show a greater warming trend than before, it is doubtful if anyone can show the existence of a pronounced hotspot.
Naturally they claim this ancient forest was wiped out by global warming, somehow forgetting to mention that for hundreds of millions of years prior to the Carboniferous age atmospheric carbon dioxide had been somewhere north of 3,000ppm, possibly far north. The later Permian warming occurred when CO 2 was at about its lowest point in at least 300 million years the only other time it is thought to have been as dangerously low as todays meager levels.
Dr. Craig Idso , the founder, former president, and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, provided a plethora of information on exactly how CO2 affects the environment. Global warming alarmists should be comforted that they have a lot more to be happy about and should not be fretting that global catastrophe is knocking at the door.
Life plays a major role in determining the climate of the planet, and has for eons been able to maintain the globe's mean temperature within a range conducive to its continued existence. Peck et al . have illuminated one of the many phenomena that contribute to this grand homeostasis. References
Since 0.9 K warming has occurred since 1750 (Central England Temperature Record), the 2 K threshold beyond which we are told a net climate-related cost begins to arise may well not be crossed until the end of this century. A slow rate of warming is less damaging than a rapid rate, so even after 2100 the net disbenefit from the warming may be insignificant.
Of course were being told that global warming is bringing clouds closer to the ground, and that Falling clouds could counter global warming.
The conclusiontaking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptakeis this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6-1.7C (2.9-3.1F).
However, climate scientists and climate models instead falsely assume that the Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann laws can be applied to greenhouse gases and that they behave as blackbodies. Dr. Robitaille shows prior work from Hottel et al demonstrating that the emissivity of both of these greenhouse gases decrease with temperature , the opposite of the climate science assumption that greenhouse gases increase emissivity and absorptivity with temperature. For conservation of energy, emissivity must equal absorptivity for all materials and gases, therefore increases in temperature decrease both emissions and absorption of infraredradiation by the greenhouse gases water vapor and CO2, i.e. they become less 'greenhouse like' gases as temperatures increase, a self-regulatory mechanism that suggests less climate sensitivity to CO2 with increasing temperature.
Two new climate studies have delivered a critical blow to global warming alarmism. Estimates driven by old computer models projected an increase of 1.2 C in global temperature if carbon-dioxide levels double. However, new research relying on available empirical data shows the climate's sensitivity to higher amounts of carbon dioxide is much lower than previously thought as low as 0.02 C if carbon-dioxide levels double. With these modest temperature projections, perhaps the Chicken Little tendencies of climate alarmists will subside. READ MORE
What follows is quantitative evidence that suggests why this mix-up between cause and effect causes the illusion of high climate sensitivity. (The paper describing this evidence is under revision to be resubmitted to Journal of Geophysical Research after we address questions raised by the three reviewers of the paper). The causation issue can be illustrated with the following graph of 7.5 years of recent satellite-measured global ocean average variations in tropospheric temperature versus top-of-atmosphere total radiative flux (LW is emitted infrared, SW is reflected sunlight). Both of these datasets are publicly available.
The authors findings, as well as those of the other scientists they cite, provide strong support for the negative feedback phenomenon we outline in our Editorial of 10 October 2001 , which describes but one of the many different ways in which earth's biosphere tempers the tendency for global warming produced by man's CO 2 emissions. References
The sensitivity atmospheric temperature to CO2 from measured data, is therefore much lower than was predicted and that includes the argo data. Alternatively rather than a CO2 sensitivity misjudgement, all that heat that Dr. Trenberth is famously looking for, very well could be sitting in the deep ocean making too little impact over 100 years to actually measure and all it would take is a tiny bit more (or less) oceanic intermixing than models predict for that huge heatsink to be the true source of measured climate change. It could potentially have overwhelmed the CO2 effect without our knowing.
While Dessler and Trenberth (among others) claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics.