It’s ‘study suggests’ time again. NZW: They say (p 4283) it’s a credible hypothesis that global temperature trend changes since 2000 could be “arising largely from internal variability.”
— These results definitely won’t please the climate obsessive tendency.
– – –
A new study by a team of leading climate scientists suggests that the effect of carbon dioxide this century might be small when compared to natural climate variability, says Net Zero Watch.
Global surface temperature is, and always has been, the key climate parameter.
Whatever is happening to the Earth’s climate balance, it must, sooner or later, be reflected in the global annual average temperature, and not just in regional variations.
But therein lies what is to some an inconvenience, as the changes in the global temperature this century is open to differing interpretations including the suggestion that increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not needed to explain the changes we have seen in the last 20 years or so.
It’s a conclusion that many would dismiss as coming from climate “sceptics,” or downright deniers. But what if it’s the view of scientists from two of the world’s leading institutes researching climate change; the University of Oxford and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. Then it must be taken seriously and not dismissed offhand.
It is important research because it is the trend in the increase of global temperature caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that is most important variable for policymakers considering the scale and timescale of action in the coming decades.
However, this vital parameter is uncertain because recent decades have shown that we are living through a period of considerable natural climate variability.
Full article here.
“They say that most of change in trend is not due to greenhouse gasses but to aerosol emission reductions”
Fascinating!
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.
Hard to extend any credibility to these barnyard prognosticators when they can’t get their basic units correct. There are no degrees in Kelvin temps.
Beklagelig, there is no Atoz (STOS) to send them back in time to join the dinos with their higher CO2/O2/temps. Blame them.
CatW… yes, I remember when increasing aerosols (polution) were going bring on the next ice age. So are all those stories about Chinese, Indian and all other countries whose cities have high smog levels actually decreasing the risk of Global Warming©?
That must be it! After all the only other explanation is that the effect of rising CO2 has been much exaggerated.
JB: Just because (warm blooded) dinosaurs survived for over 200 million years at CO2 levels way higher (1000 – 2700 p.p.m.) than the current ‘danger level’ of 550 p.p.m. doesn’t mean anything tothose who think the world started in 1979.
What they are saying is not new – diminishing impact as CO2 increases has been discussed for 20 years to my knowledge. But perhaps the Overton Window is opening..
The Asian Brown Cloud aka Atmospheric Brown Cloud @ Wikipedia
Global warming and dimming
The 2008 report also addressed the global concern of warming and concluded that the brown clouds have masked 20 to 80 percent of greenhouse gas forcing in the past century. The report suggested that air pollution regulations can have large amplifying effects on global warming.
. . .
Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion–dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud#Global_warming_and_dimming
– – –
Pick the bones out of that 🤔 (‘masked’?)
NASA says (c. 2007):
This study shows that unless they take into account the greater area covered by clouds when aerosols are present, scientists may be seriously underestimating the climate-forcing potential of aerosols. [bold added]
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5727/aerosols-increase-clouds-brighten-atlantic-skies
The reason we should all be sceptical is because we do not know. We don’t know whether it’s natural variability, we don’t know the ECS of CO2, we don’t know about feedbacks, we don’t know about the various climate cycles, we don’t know about aerosols, we don’t know about obliquity, we don’t know about clouds and cosmic rays and we don’t know whether there’s other stuff we don’t know about.
Climate science is a vast preponderance of ignorance, yet climate scientists are so absurdly certain.
‘Teh Skiense’ isn’t settled? Oh no!
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.