Nir Shaviv: How climate change pseudoscience became publicly accepted

Posted: September 27, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, Emissions, Temperature
Tags: , , ,


Obsessing about tiny percentages of trace gases in the atmosphere may be a popular sport in some quarters these days, but it’s an unproductive one.

Political and corporate leaders gathered for the climate week in New York City have urged significant action to fight global warming, writes Dr. Shaviv in the Epoch Times.

But, given the high costs of the suggested solutions, could it be that the suggested cure is worse than the disease?

As a liberal who grew up in a solar house, I have always been energy-conscious and inclined toward activist solutions to environmental issues.

I was therefore extremely surprised when my research as an astrophysicist led me to the conclusion that climate change is more complicated than we are led to believe.

The disease is much more benign, and a simple palliative solution lies in front of our eyes.

To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning.

We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.

However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2—none. Mind you, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degrees C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.

In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations.

There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.

Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict.

However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.

In 2008, I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans, in sync with the 11-year solar cycle, is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected simply from changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so-called radiative forcing on the climate.

Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling).

In the decade following the publication of the above, not only was the paper uncontested, more data, this time from satellites, confirmed the large variations associated with solar activity.

In light of this hard data, it should be evident by now that a large part of the warming isn’t human, and that future warming from any given emission scenario will be much smaller.

Continued here.
– – –
Professor Nir Shaviv @nshaviv is the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    ‘We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.’

    Argumentum ad ignorantium.

    “We don’t know what’s causing it, so it must be Man.”

    Fails basic burden of proof test.

    What we actually know:

    “We don’t know what’s causing it.”

  2. ivan says:

    Maybe the human caused warming is because the temperature measuring sites are not well placed, like airports where they are heated by jet engine exhaust and cities where they are heated by industrial air conditioning exhaust and sunlight reflected from concrete.

    The US found no warming when they used the data from correctly placed measuring sites – strange that.

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    Global temperature increases are man made. BUT! not because the the Globe has warmed. The recording sites have changed. As cities and airfields have grown up around cow pasture sites and remote high country sites have been abandoned, for easier to service lower sites, the average recorded temperatures have increased a bit. Remote sites that have not changed in the last 100 years only show cooling! CO2 is not the cause of warming changes in the recorded averages! Poor attention to the methods of recording is…pg

  4. oldbrew says:

    Some amount of temp increase has occurred in Europe, if retreating glaciers for example are anything to go by. But that doesn’t prove anything about causation of course.
    . . .
    Paul Homewood’s new report for the GWPF…
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/09/UKClimate2018web.pdf

    ‘The UK’s key climate indicators have barely changed for 20 years. That’s according to a new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which rebuts claims that the weather is getting worse.’

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    I lived in Alaskan Glacier country for a couple of years. Glaciers advance and retreat because of snow fall amounts during the cold season and not temperature changes in the area. The interior of Alaska is COLD and dry, too cold for heavy snows and glaciers, while the “warm” , near freezing coast range, gets HEAVY snows, 20 to 100 feet! of wet snow. Anything much over 20 feet of accumulation by spring results in a permanent snow field and a building icebed that glaciates…pg

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    thus we have the new passive aggressive crusade to force us to pay more taxes – a mentally challenged child of artsy-fartsy parents who are self identified moonbats who proselytized the unfortunate child into having nightmares about “The End Of The World”.

    If you attack what she says it’s because she’s mentally handicapped and you are a cretin. St Thunberg The Innocent leading the armies of righteousness in the battle to save the world from the Satanic Gases!! Sort of like the idiot version of Joan d’Arc.
    —————
    “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from moonbattery.com

  7. oldbrew says:

    Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature

    No point in ‘decarbonising’ then.

  8. bonbon says:

    Excellent science again by Dr. Shaviv.

    One thing worries me though – the Epoch Times is highly political, anti Beijing, and praised by Steve Bannon, who presents his new anti-China movie there.

    Thus, Beijing will be extremely skeptical of anything published there.

    It would be a real pity if good science is undermined by a Falun Gong outlet like the Epoch Times.

    Beijing needs to see Shiviv’s research results!

    Although I do notice China research corroborating Dr. Shaviv.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Nir Shaviv had his recent interview at Forbes withdrawn – so with that attitude, why did they talk to him in the first place?

    Censorship: “My interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.”

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/25/israeli-astrophysicist-dr-nir-shaviv-how-climate-change-pseudoscience-became-publicly-accepted/

  10. Phoenix44 says:

    The basic truth is that the sensitivity to CO2 is unknown. There are models and estimates but none produce accurate forecasts if they hindcast accurately or vice-versa.

    Thus the fundamental thing we need to know in order to understand climate is still a mystery.

    The claims that the science is settled is just a joke.

  11. oldbrew says:

    A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans
    23rd September 2019

    Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged “with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”

    Other gross model simplifications include

    # Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics

    # A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.

    # Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”

    # Inability to deal with water vapor elements

    # Arbitrary “tunings” (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/

    Lots more where that came from.

  12. hunterson7 says:

    A brave scientist with integrity. So he is, sadly, a rare scientist as well.

  13. Gamecock says:

    ‘The UK’s key climate indicators have barely changed for 20 years’

    What is a ‘climate indicator?’

    The UK’s climate hasn’t changed in 200 years. It’s still Cfb (Köppen).

  14. oldbrew says:

    Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures

    Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the “Dust Bowl.” Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures#7
    – – –
    many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves

    How’s that for putting the cart before the horse 😆

  15. oldbrew says:

    SEP 27, 2019.
    More Proof That Catastrophic Modern-Day ‘Global Warming’ Doesn’t Exist

    With all due respect to the profession of mainstream journalism, there is no such thing as rapid, catastrophic “global warming.”

    In fact, there are vast land and sea areas that are not warming, which seriously counters publicized statements that the world is suffering from a “global” climate condition.

    And claims of rapid, catastrophic “global” warming are simply fictional derivatives of imagination.

    For example, the Southern Hemisphere’s and tropical-latitude oceans currently have sea temperature anomaly measurements that are essentially the same as those found during the period of 1997-1999, some 20+ years ago.

    And a critical example of a large landmass without significant warming is the contiguous landmass of the lower 48 U.S. states.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/proof-modern-global-warming-nonexistent/

  16. Gamecock says:

    EPA? What is the EPA doing fooling with ‘climate’ crap?

    ‘High and Low Temperatures

    This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.’

    There have been no changes in the generalized weather of any point in the U.S. in the last hundred years. It got hot in the ’30s. So what? ‘Unusually’ in itself shouts, “Not climate.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s