Nice day
Of course the IPCC’s preferred idea is that the Sun can be ignored as a variable in climate influence, and all attention should focus on minor trace gases (mainly CO2 at 0.04%) in the atmosphere. A recent study by Spencer & Christy weighed in on a related topic: Our new climate sensitivity paper has been published, which proposes that actual observations indicate significant IPCC over-estimation of (theoretical) non-solar climate factors.
– – –
A new international study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, by 20 climate researchers from 12 countries suggests that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might have substantially underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming, says Ceres-Science.
The article began as a response to a 2022 commentary on an extensive review of the causes of climate change published in 2021.
The original review (Connolly and colleagues, 2021) had suggested that the IPCC reports had inadequately accounted for two major scientific concerns when they were evaluating the causes of global warming since the 1850s:
The global temperature estimates used in the IPCC reports are contaminated by urban warming biases.
The estimates of solar activity changes since the 1850s considered by the IPCC substantially downplayed a possible large role for the Sun.
On this basis, the 2021 review had concluded that it was not scientifically valid for the IPCC to rule out the possibility that global warming might be mostly natural.
The findings of that 2021 review were disputed in a 2022 article by two climate researchers (Dr. Mark Richardson and Dr. Rasmus Benestad) for two main reasons:
Richardson and Benestad (2022) argued that the mathematical techniques used by Connolly and colleagues (2021) were inappropriate and that a different set of mathematical techniques should have been used instead.
They also argued that many of the solar activity records considered by Connolly and colleagues (2021) were not up-to-date.
They suggested that these were the reasons why Connolly and colleagues (2021) had come to a different conclusion from the IPCC.
This new 2023 article by the authors of the 2021 review, has addressed both of these concerns and shown even more compelling evidence that the IPCC’s statements on the causes of global warming since 1850 are scientifically premature and may need to be revisited.
The authors showed that the urban component of the IPCC’s global temperature data shows a strong warming bias relative to the 98% of the planet that is unaffected by urbanization. However, they also showed that urbanized data represented most of the weather station records used.
While the IPCC only considered one estimate of solar activity for their most recent (2021) evaluation of the causes of global warming, Connolly and colleagues compiled and updated 27 different estimates that were used by the scientific community.
Several of these different solar activity estimates suggest that most of the warming observed outside urban areas (in rural areas, oceans, and glaciers) could be explained in terms of the Sun. Some estimates suggest that global warming is a mixture of human and natural factors. Other estimates agreed with the IPCC’s findings.
For this reason, the authors concluded that the scientific community is not yet in a position to establish whether the global warming since the 1850s is mostly human-caused, mostly natural or some combination of both.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Ronan Connolly, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings:
“In scientific investigations, it is important to avoid beginning your analysis with your conclusions decided in advance. Otherwise you might end up with a false sense of confidence in your findings. It seems that the IPCC was too quick to jump to their conclusions.”
Full press release here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Periodic forcing of the climate system by solar related cycles is more convincing if it the forcing entrains powerful energies of internal excitable chaotic dynamics. Solar forcing and chaos working together. It’s a much more difficult ask for solar forcing to entrain a passive climate:
The ipcc was not impaneled to study climate change.
The ipcc was impaneled to study human causes of climate change.
It comes as no surprise that they do not include solar forcing of climate change. That ain’t their mission n
or reason for existing.
Re Phil Salmon’s ‘The Dimensional haircut’ – a quick reply.
Figure 2 is a sawtooth, an indication that dynamically the system is unstable. The trend from an interglacial peak is a slope to deep glacial, however the slope is jagged with ‘friction’ effect, a chaotic character.
The reference to MIlankovitch is not a wise explanation since Milankovitch assumed an obliquity changing based on Stockwell’s calculation, again based on assumed polynomial. The system has abrupt changes as are clearly indicated by the ‘friction’. The last major abrupt change in obliquity occurred in 2346bce, quite a short time ago when compared to a cycle time of about 100k years.
melitamegalithic is oldmanK; the new WordPress change does not seem to allow a different name once one is logged on.
[reply] noted
Nicola Scafetta’s new paper:
Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records
Highlights
• The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated with diverse models.
• The Earth’s climate likely influenced by the Sun through a variety of physical mechanisms.
• Balanced multi-proxy solar records created and their climate effect assessed.
• Factors other than direct TSI forcing account for around 80% of the solar influence on the climate.
• Important solar-climate mechanisms to be investigated before developing reliable GCMs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172
– – –
Most GCMs excluding Russian ones easily overshoot the satellite temperature observations, and continue to do so. Obviously their forecasts then fall under suspicion as well.
Scafetta: ‘The dichotomy between empirical and GCM-based studies is very challenging and it is crucial for correctly interpreting climate change.’
Getting blinkered people to put aside their blinkers is challenging 🤔
Rod, above there is totally correct. They decided on a result and then threw out anything that did not support humans as culprits.
They have another scam related to the UHIE. They have shut down a majority of weather stations in the boonies and rely heavily on them in cityscapes and at places of black asphalt, airport runways with jets taking off, etc. They then “estimate” the temperatures elsewhere using the UHIE temperatures as basis.
They’ve been caught slipping in outrageous temperatures at places no one would look like Central Wisconsin farm county with an “adjusted” temperature of 450 degrees!! The whole thing is a giant grift and scam. The pols love it because they can use it to take away our freedoms.
Scaffeta’s paper above can be summarized thusly:
By design, climate models exclude solar forcing of earth’s climate,
and perform poorly without it.
“About 80% of the solar influence on the climate could be generated
by processes other than direct TSI forcing. If this result is correct,
several solar-climate mechanisms must be thoroughly investigated
and fully understood before reliable GCMs can be developed.”
Scaffeta’s paper above can be summarized thusly:
By design, climate models exclude solar forcing of earth’s climate,
and perform poorly without it.
“About 80% of the solar influence on the climate could be generated
by processes other than direct TSI forcing. If this result is correct,
several solar-climate mechanisms must be thoroughly investigated
and fully understood before reliable GCMs can be developed.”
This recent paper by Connolly et al. is an extension of a paper by Soon et al. published in a Special Issue of MDPI’s journal Climate that I’m a Guest Editor of:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
The conclusions reached by the authors in this most recent study have not changed despite the use of a much larger dat set of TSI and Surface Temperature records: There is no solid evidence that the warming since 1950 has mostly been caused by human carbon emissions as claimed by IPCC.
The paper in Climate upset top climate scientists such as the NASA GISS Director Gavin Schmidt and a Senior Editor of Scientific American. These fellows filed FOIA requests with USDA (the Agency, where I work) asking for email communications between me (as a Guest Editor) and any of the 37 authors of the Climate paper. Apparently, they were trying to dig up dirt on me and make the case for a retraction of the paper. But they returned empty-handed from this quest!
[reply] well done Ned!
This chimes with the paper published two years ago by myself and two German colleagues, in which the climate sensitivity to CO2
miscalculatedis calculated to be just 0.5degC using the HITRAN spectrographic data base.http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 .
Should of course be “is calculated” not “miscalculated” Fat finger syndrome again!
I suggest this UHI/Solar comment is, as it reads, a bit of wordy waffle. And a total distraction from the reality of how climate changes. So I reply with my own, wordy but plainer English reality. Possibly.
Of course the system is chaotic, not passive. The Earth is also spherical, blue and green, etc. So…..what? The stochastic(noisy) internal workings are why we consider global change over a protracted period, to reduce it to passive, because the macro level inputs and outputs of the dynamic system over a reasonable geological period are the things we are interested in when assessing climate stability and change. Global climate is the sum of those dominant parts, and changes slowly, periodically and predictably. Mostly.
If it has an exceptional moment it recovers by itself. How?
The primary controls of the whole Earth system on a geological time scale have always had the last word, since they formed. One word. Oceans. Climate control is not about the land, it’s about the oceans. Land temperatures? Forget about ’em. So even debating UHIs is a distraction from the dominant reality of oceanic control, as is most of this debate, which is conducted down the rabbit holes of pseudo scientists, worrying about noise of 1.6W/m^2 as if its was big thing. It ain’t.
Meanwhile the serious controls that dwarf this miniscule effect are either denied or ill considered in the assertions, false attributions and presumptions of the climate priests overtly partial models.
Earth climate stability and the change of the system set point is not substantively about such small internal perturbations to the dominant system. Climate change is what happens In the long run. And that is simple to describe, it’s the global average ocean temperature that nature imposes to ensure planetary thermal equilibrium is maintained. Energy in = energy out. It’s self stabilising. Simples!
But how does it do dat?
No real secret, unless you follow the UN pseudo science narratives that overtly are of no scientific merit, versus the obvious ones and also the test of the reality we measure, that their models get wholly wrong, by massive margins. Year after year. Always coming son, like the second coming. Rarely achieved, except on video.. The calculation of the reality using an empirical approach is more probably accurate, because its based on what happnes that we can measure. Real, not made up. NASA radiation data means we now KNOW what Maxwell suggested to be the case in the late 19th Century. Earth’s climate stability is powerfully controlled by massive oceanic negative (stabilising) feedbacks that are sod all to do with the temperatures on land, where all the surface heat isn’t.
So to my two points relating to this debate, which I suggest is pointless, because it’s looking the wrong way while the real answers are behind you.. Which I hope I have made clear using plain language:
The land temperatures are not what control climate, the land is 30% of the Earth’s surface and holds less than 10% of the surface heat, has 1% of the thermal capacity. The land modifies the climate set by the thermal transfer engine of the dominant oceans. The land is simply a part of the noise in the fundamentally oceanically controlled, chaotic/stochastic/noisy by nature system. Takes me back to the socio functionalism they tried to teach us at business school. ‘ollogy bollocks. When I look back, at all the crap, I learnt in business school, it’s a wonder, I can think at all….. etc.
Back to real science. The control of planetary climate must be where all the stored energy of the planetary surface is. It’s in the oceans, stupid! The oceans control the powerful response to SST by the phase change of water to vapour and back as clouds, evaporation and its convective adiabatic transport to the Troposphere, forming the clouds (104W/m^2) that create more albedo (50W/m^2). It just is. Sit on a beach in the Tropics and watch it happen every day. There is about 150W/m2 of total negative feedback control right there, varying at 7% per SST degree to overcome daily imbalances, and also any perturbations of TSI, GHE, waddayagot?
The land is largely irrelevant in this dominant system, has bog all enrgy to lose, and only the much less sensitive Stefan Boltzmann related negative feedback losses to add. THe land and other negative feedbacks by radiative loss are useful feedbacks but not on the scale of global oceans’ water vapour transport to the Tropopause and its albedo consequences. So what matters are OCEAN temperatures, terribly badly measured by the terrestrial data series sources. As are the UHIs, but UHIs don’t matter because they don’t really don’t create a significant perturbation to the overall global system heat flow.
As regards the best observations of OCEANIC temperature, where the action is, the only effects with serious merit since 1979 are the dense/ pervasive oceanic radiative and other heat flows as measured in the atmosphere above the surface, most by common satellite instruments in a Polar orbit, the temperatures in particular carefully calibrated by radio sondes and each other, at sea and on land. By FAR the best technology to determine the observational reality of what is happening in the primary control system. Which the land isn’t.
THis threat to the pseudo science made up in models and denied by the measurements is why satellite measurements are dismissed as “unreliable” and claimed to disagree with each other so wrong – by the promoters of the inadequate terrestrial data using legacy technologies they can and have manipulated to match the narrative, sorry “corrected”. In the oceans where it really matters legacy terrestrial data is suspect, it comes from a few widely scattered measurements where there are ships, using legacy technology to measure WATER, not air temperatures, using engine intake temperatures and rope and bucket tech from the 19th Century – plus a few high tech ARGO boys, also widely scattered around the oceans, which the modelers and the catastrophist academics fail to point out spend most of their time submerged and are again measuring surface water temperatures, not air temperatures 2m or whatever clear of any error inducing surface effects.
So the terrestrial oceanic record is sparse, of variable quality and hardly the relative Tsunami of consistently measured data from ubiquitous satellites, also because it misses out large areas of the ocean that they interpolate, which guesses can be adjusted later.
Satellites just measure, everywhere, all the time, and are separately and very comparably reported by three different professional organisations, NASA-STAR, RSS and UAH, and all show a rather different story, which is of no statistically significant change in 25 years now.
The supposed differences between satellite data say a lot less than their contrast with terrestrial data. The differences between them are small compared to the satellite vs terrestrial data. Because one is much righter than the other is wronger. The terrestrial data set has been adjusted until it is of no real merit, as Mototaka Nakamura recently pointed out, quietly, in Japanese. By contrast the satellite data is hard to doctor after recording.
Which is why we are told to believe the must less competent terrestrial temperatures, mostly from the land, with woefully inadequate data from the oceans where most to the transfer in and out happens, at the surface and in the Troposphere above the 70% oceans where over 90% of the source energy is stored FFS. Gimme a break. Arguing UHIs is playing into their hands, having their diversionary debates instead of leading the argument with the truth. They can’t handle the truth. No answers to reality.
Making it more complex than it is and debating details that are second or third order in the reality of the overall system is so clearly the deceit of magician’s misdirection, or starting a war somewhere to bury problems of civil unrest at home.
It works with stupid people, It shouldn’t work here. But it seems it does. The wrong man, beating up the wrong guy, as David put it so well. Look at those cave men go…. etc.
The blob simply releases a smoke screen of obsfurcation to distract any discussion of the blindingly bloody obvious. The oceans control, they sweat and reflect. They dominate the other internal effects, adjust for changes in input and cosmic rays changing cloud formation rates, etc, even for the volcanoes above and below, with their opposite effects, BTW.
The oceans have our backs. Obs. Nothing to see here. And an anuvver fing…….
We know solar winds are most likely the primary cause of the natural 1Ka compound cycles, by varying cosmic ray flux hence cloud formation in the atmosphere, as demonstrated by the Svensmarks, Shaviv, Scafetta, Ludecke and Weiss, et al.
SO closely correlated to the C-14 and Be-10 Isotopic formation rates over thousands of years since records really began that it makes the pathetic long term correlation between CO2 and warming, often negative and mostly lagging, look almost fraudulent…
The isotopic evidence is a unique indicator that something energetic this way comes. “Cosmic rays brake for no one”, etc. Except they can get blown off course by a big bunch of lesser Solar rays AKA the low energy protons of a lesser Star, ours. The denial of solar cycles by Mudellers are somewhat exposed for the deceit they are by these correlations and also the well established links between global climate and some of the cycles, most of which are very well observed and real, but denied by modelers, while so well known they are named after the people who observed them again and again over hundreds of years. So denying the reality of solar cycles and their effects is k like denying the Earth goes round the Sun, as their religion often tries to support with a quickly commissioned bit of pseudo science is created to deny natural change to keep the models alive.
So I suggest the best approach to the IPCC bad science (BS) is to simply point out what really controls global climate AND WHERE. And why CO2 cannot be a problem.
What the dominant controls are, the relative size of causes and effects that keep Earth’s climate so strongly stabilised in space and can easily rebalance the tiny imbalances humans can create. Leave the UN pseudo scientists to argue about the noise that is AGW in fact.
It simply doesn’t matter, because what they predict from their dodgy models, based on fraudulent presumptions as to parameterisations, doesn’t happen in measured fact, and has probably caused a fraction of a degree in ocean temperature warming. The whole IPCC scam of attributing all of the mostly natural climate change we observe to the tiny effects of human activity, which cannot cause such a change from the actual radiative perturbation they propose, is based in junk science of the lowest quality.
It may then be appropriate to say why….. point out the UN objective is to attack the higher levels of energy use and modern farming in Western nations that we rely on totally to maintain the wealth and food required to support a prosperous hence free and safe developed society, for entirely political ends.
Nothing to do with the tiny change in the global temperature from the CO2 that has entered the atmosphere so far, which will have an ever diminishing effect as it increases further. And is insignificant when measured against the well known change in Earth’s known geological history, since natural records we can now interpret really began. Millions of years ago.
What more do you need? A few more numbers?
AGW as they claim it to be cannot have an effect of more that 1/10 of the 1.5 deg since 1850 we observe, which suggests the balance is natural, which is what the actual measured change suggests, just like the pervious 1,000 year cycles, plus a small bit, possibly. Net oceanic feedback is around an average 10W/m^2 deg SST, which is what I make it without too much brain cell stressing, easy to calculate taking an empirical approach using well known NASA data and the basic properties engineering knows of how water works as well. But no one does this, as far as I see. Except me?
When we have such a simple and obvious empirical description of what actually happens, as regards the long term stability of our oceanic planet Earth, why are people always arguing other people’s agendas that are quickly exposed by their half baked data and partial science , like UHIs, that are mostly of little relevance to planetary scale climate. It’s another distraction. Just tell people how the climate really works, not the way modelers make it up, but how we know it must happen, and as we measured it to be. Nothing to do with CO2 controlling anything, just a small perturbation to the dominant system that the oceans determine, and where all the Greenhouse effect is, from water vapour.
Have the right argument. Don’t argue about CO2 and what happens on land. Climate happens at sea. The effects humans have created by development on land are so small they are easily stabilised by the dominant oceanic system of feedbacks, that have stabilised everything nature can throw at planet Earth since there were oceans, as we orbit our sun in an ever changing orbit in the absolute zero and absolute vacuum of space. IMO
AGWs in the model may be smaller than they appear.
Contains only natural unadulterated facts. No models were harmed in the preparation of this argument
Your climate may vary.
© Brian RL Catt Oct 2023 free reproduction allowed with attribution if not for profit.
An explanation of why/how CO2 has no significant effect on climate:
Water vapor is a transparent gas that, molecule for molecule, is more effective at absorb/emit of earth-temperature infrared radiation (IR) than carbon dioxide. From Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 NASA/RSS accurately measured and reported monthly the global average water vapor as Total Precipitable Water (TPW). The anomaly data are reported at [1]. The nominal value is about 29 kg/m^2 so trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade.
Given that at ground level, average global water vapor is about 0.8% or 8,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is about 0.0136 * 8000 * 3.5 = 381 ppmv. From Mauna Loa data at [2] the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70 ppm. Per ideal gas laws, ppm = ppmv. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 381/70 = 5.4 times faster than CO2 molecules. Thus, regardless of the initial source of warming, water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules. The idea that CO2 starts the increase is ludicrous.
Further analysis shows that the determination by molecule count that increased CO2 influence on the climate has been only about 1/5 as much as the increased water vapor influence is still high. Radiation from water vapor molecules can be in any direction but, because of the steep decline with altitude of the population gradient of water vapor molecules, the distance traveled by a photon before it encounters another water vapor molecule is greater towards space than towards earth so the prevailing direction of IR flux is towards space. This is shown on a Top of Atmosphere (TOA) graph of radiation flux vs wavenumber (wavenumber is the number of wavelengths in a centimeter) by the jagged line below about wavenumber 600 [3]. Because of the characteristic absorb/emit signature of every gas no other gas can significantly absorb or emit radiation in this wavenumber range occupied by water vapor. The line is jagged because radiation that reaches TOA/space is from water vapor molecules at different temperatures/altitudes.
References:
1. NASA/RSS measurements thru Dec 2022 of Total Precipitable Water anomalies https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt
2. Mauna Loa data for CO2: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
3. Figure 1 in Theory of Redirected energy: https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
[mod] rescued from spam bin
But 2% of earth urban areas is almost 7% of land area, if you add all roads etc it almost goes to 10% covered with asohalt, concrete “passive batteries” that acummulate heat….a century ago urban area was maybe 0.1% of land…growth of urban areas is exponential…emission also all comes from this 2% urban areas…how can they affect other 98%…
CO2, there must be something hidden as code in that small name to evoke such passion amongst idiots.
How about this report from OXFORD; https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/new-research-finds-that-ancient-rocks-release-as-much-co2-as-volcanoes
So what are we doing with Crushed rock ( products AND Fertiliser ( Lime) ) and injecting CO2 into rock. …