Climate hype
The Manhattan Contrarian takes a look at some recently published research. The author of the article says ‘Data appears to refute, and certainly does not prove the endlessly repeated claims of impending climate doom from CO2 emissions’. (First part of article omitted below. See links provided for more about the studies and further discussion).
– – –
The climate science community calls its system for establishing causation “detection and attribution” studies, says Francis Menton (via Climate Change Dispatch).
The basic idea is to come up with a model (i.e., a hypothesis) that predicts global warming based on increased greenhouse gases, and then collect data that show a very close match between what the model predicted and the data.
Correlation with the model’s predictions is the claimed proof of causation. There are hundreds of such studies in the climate literature.
My January 2, 2021, post linked to a classic of the genre, a 2018 IPCC-sponsored article written by a collection of some 36 co-authors who constitute a virtual “who’s who” of the insiders of the climate science cult (e.g., Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, etc., etc., etc.).
The title is “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” Key quote:
There is a wide range of evidence of qualitative consistencies between observed climate changes and model responses to anthropogenic forcing, including global warming, increasing land-ocean temperature contrast, diminishing Arctic sea-ice extent, glacial retreat, and increases in precipitation in Northern Hemisphere high latitudes.’
Just get yourself enough “qualitative consistencies” with your hypothesis and proof of causation will be yours!
The authors of the two new papers beg to differ.
. . .
I would make this comment as to both the Sagsvik and Christofides work: They both are using the only available data, which is data emanating from government sources that have been tampered with and altered.
However, the important point is that even that data would appear to refute, and certainly does not prove the endlessly repeated claims of impending climate doom from human CO2 emissions.
Read more here at CCD, and/or here at Manhattan Contrarian..
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Have any of the CO2 causes global warming idiots ever been in a greenhouse where the grower pumps in extra CO2 to improve crop yield? Also those greenhouses don’t suffer from excess heat so why should the earth that isn’t a closed up greenhouse?
I have said it before and will again, the so called climate scientists should switch off their computers which suffer from the GI=GO and unvalidated models are not worth the time spent writing them and get out of their air-conditioned offices and look at the real world. If they did that and didn’t have blinkers on they would see the real world is very different to their computer game world.
Ivan, those greenhouses don’t suffer from excess heat so why should the earth that isn’t a closed up greenhouse? – that’s a great point – I’ll have to remember that one. ( is it as good as them sending more windmills to the fishpond where the herons have already flown ? ) https://gridwatch.co.uk/ only 13 % TODAY/ now
As a retired Civil Engineer, I learned long ago that unless a model can successfully predict past events, it is useless as a forecasting tool.
The models don’t work because the theory they’re based on is rubbish. As Ivan pointed out, Garbage In – Garbage Out.
There is no correlation between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing global average surface temperature (GAST) throughout every meaningful period of credible evidence. There isn’t even a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and GAST.
No correlation means no causation is possible.
Yet the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Clowns insists that, contrary to the clear evidence in nature, puny emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use are the “principle” cause of “climate change”… but of course, that is a nonsensical position at odds with reality.
We don’t need models when we have ample evidence in nature, half a billion years in the geologic record, 800,000 years in the ice core record that shows GAST changes BEFORE atmospheric CO2 (because oceans warm when climate warms and then emit relatively more CO2 to the atmosphere than during colder climate… just the opposite of the specious climate change theory. And we have sufficient credible global records since the latter part of the 19th century. All testify to the failure of climate change theory to agree with observed evidence. The scientific method, therefore, finds the human-caused-climate-change-theory completely invalid.
It is utterly insane to pursue costly economy-crushing solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Is it not that engineering models try to model reality, whereas climate models pretend to project the future?
Well, looking at another model – how many sides to it ? ( Worse than a fence – and that’s the problem with this stupid argument ). This is clipped from a Sales Brochure. Make of it what you will, I won’t because ‘what to do with hot air’
Your compressor as a sustainable energy source
• Use the right technology for your application
• Don’t compromise on the complete compressed air system
• Carry out air audits & specify the correct air receiver and downstream equipment size
• Avoid leaks and eliminate off-load running
• Choose variable speed to match air demand
• Recover heat for significant savings
• IIoT predictive maintenance coupled with the correct service agreement delivers total peace of mind
My point is that this is the kind of rubbish swallowed by the many in the Gl Warming thing. I don/t / WONT buy it. Time to shoot the salesman / destroy the Hydra. BTW Where’s the wind power today?
Facts about CO2
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you¥ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it. CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in. CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere; it is the 0.038% of it. There is no such a thing as greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 like the window panes in a greenhouse, but the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES. CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2 you didn ́t know it, did you?) You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER. CO2 is heavier than Air, so it cannot go up, up and away to cover the earth. The atmosphere, the air cannot hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic centimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times. This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles. Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it cannot. If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth. So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
I fully agree with what you say, except for the bit about there being no greenhouse effect. There is indeed a greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be a chilly 255Kelvin. The chief contributor to this effect is water vapour, providing over 90% of the warming to the current earth temperature. CO2 is in fact also a greenhouse gas contributing most of the remaining 10% of warming. The important point about CO2 is that its infra-red absorption bands are almost fully saturated to the point that a doubling of current CO2 levels will only increase temperature by a further 0.5degC. Please check for a full explanation at http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 .
There is no climate crisis and never can be.
The biggest problem is that for the last 25 years or so, average global temperature has not followed CO2 but has moved upwards and then downwards in relation to the ENSO. Similarly, it is quite clear that some of the “qualitative consistencies” are no longer consistent, notably artic ice, which has not continued a downward trend. Climate science does not understand and cannot explain the AMO, ENSO or PDO, yet it somehow knows that every event is caused by CO2. This is utterly absurd.
Ivan, I agree. the idea that an open system will act the same as a closed system is intellectual insanity.
Bob Webster … Climate models are successful at what they were designed to do – raise money for climate activists. That is why they will never be dropped or revised to reflect reality.
‘Correlation with the model’s predictions is the claimed proof of causation.’
Models don’t replicate the past, so what chance with the future?
Correlation with a model is meaningless. Particularly when models are based on invalid theory. There is 550 million years of good geologic evidence that unequivocally proves no correlation, therefore, no causation is possible, no matter what models claim to be producing.
The actually produce guesses based on assumptions, speculations, and unproven and often invalid theory. Climate models are useless except to those who try to deceive.
Correlation is not causation.
But maybe it’s castration?
Of the great green blob?
Aargh!