21st century warming trend change may not be due to greenhouse gasses, leading climate scientists say – Net Zero Watch

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.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen rejects ‘climate change’ as ‘a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd ‘scientific’ narrative’

Dr. Lindzen – a long-time critic of IPCC-sponsored climate theories – argues, among other things, that ‘Changes in mean temperature are primarily due to changes in the tropic-to-pole difference, and not to changes in the greenhouse effect.’ Unfortunately decades at the forefront of climate research don’t count with some people unless you’re making the right alarmist noises.

H/T Climate Depot
– – –
Dr. Richard Lindzen’s new paper: An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative. – Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation – September 22, 2022:

Climate change is “a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd ‘scientific’ narrative. The policies invoked on behalf of this movement have led to the US hobbling its energy system.” –

“The Earth’s climate has, indeed, undergone major variations, but these offer no evidence of a causal role for CO₂.”

“Unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, this is likely only to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonization of CO₂.”

Source here.

Researchers reveal variations in Arctic amplification effect during past millennium

Arctic sea ice [image credit: cbc.ca]

The researchers find ‘a significantly declining AA effect on the millennial time scale’ — but then attempt to link that to anthropogenic forcing in recent times, according to the article at least. That seems illogical if the argument is that humans are playing a part. In any case if the effect has been shown to occur over at least a millennium, that in itself casts doubt on claims that humans must be the prime (or any) cause of the most recent observed changes.
– – –
The recent amplified warming in the Arctic during the last decades has received much attention, says Phys.org.

But how Arctic amplification (AA) has varied on longer time scales and what drives these variations remain unclear.

Recently, a study has provided a new perspective on the AA effect during the past millennium based on the best available paleoclimate data and novel data assimilation methods.

Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Tallbloke writes:
Ned Nikolov has produced a video explaining what’s wrong with the currently fashionable radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis and laying out his and Karl Zeller’s better alternative theory which is supported by empirical data from across the solar system, rather than relying on the conjectures of C19th scientists.

Everyone should make the time to watch the whole presentation right through, but knowing how hard it is to find 75 uninterrupted minutes in the frenetic world we live in, Ned has kindly provided these links to the sub-sections:

00:00 – Introduction
01:46 – The Greenhouse-Effect Hypothesis
06:28 – Critical Analysis of the Greenhouse Hypothesis
19:56 – The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
43:27 – Greenhouse-Effect-In-a-Bottle Experiment
52:11 – Summary of Greenhouse-Effect Issues
56:23 – Nikolov-Zeller Climate Discovery
01:04:13 – Implications of the Nikolov-Zeller Discovery
01:08:07 – Nikolov-Zeller Peer-Reviewed Paper
01:08:43 – Pressure Heating & Cooling in the Atmosphere
01:12:48 – Expansion of the Nikolov-Zeller Model
01:14:21 – Greenhouse Hypothesis vs. NZ Climate Concept
01:16:44 – Conclusion

This video is also available on Vimeo:

Please review and comment on the presentation. Ned will be around to provide answers to questions and argue his case, so have at it. Support, criticism, suggestions for improvement are all welcome in our open peer review here at the Talkshop.
– – –
Ned Nikolov comments:
This video convincingly demonstrates the physical insolvency of the current climate theory and the COP26 attendees need to pay attention. They should reconsider the present societal response to climate change, which needs to be based on a new understanding of how the Solar system’s climatic systems really work.

Greenhouse Saturation Research Could Kill The “Climate Emergency”

.

Lunar temperature data also offers little comfort to greenhouse theorists.

PA Pundits International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

The “climate emergency” appears to have died, far out on the scientific frontier. Word of this death has yet to reach the mainstream.

Professors William van Wijngaarden (Canada) and William Happer (USA) have published some extremely important research on the radiation saturation of the major greenhouse gases. Their first report is titled simply “Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”. It makes use of a major breakthrough in radiation physics.

Until recently the estimates of greenhouse potency were based on approximation bands of absorbed radiation wavelengths. Now the authors have done line by line spectral analysis, looking at over 300,000 individual wavelengths within these bands.

It turns out that saturation occurs much sooner than previously thought. In particular the primary greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, turn out to be “extremely saturated” at present atmospheric concentrations.

These results strongly suggest that the dangerous multi-degree warming assumed…

View original post 695 more words

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure

Image credit: livescience.com

It’s not as hot as we thought, they could say. That’s been obvious for a long time, but the defensive bluster of modellers has finally dried up, it seems. Time to dump the pointless and ‘implausible’ extreme scenarios and think seriously about some of the assumptions, such as greenhouse gas theory and its supposed climate consequences, and other suggested shortcomings.
– – –
Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot, reports The Australian (via The GWPF).

“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science ­magazine.

The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural ­cycles in the earth’s climate.

It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.

Warmist researchers agonise over air conditioners

Cooling off in Amsterdam [image credit: Amsterdamian]

Once you start believing that a change to 0.01% of the atmosphere of the Earth is a big issue, all sorts of climate hobgoblins appear on the horizon. The example here is the increasing use of air conditioners in Europe, which gets blown up out of all proportion to its importance. Enjoy the fine weather when you get it.
– – –
“Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun,” Noel Coward famously sang in 1931, mocking British colonials who ventured out into the scorching midday sun at the hottest time of day.

“The Dutch also still think the sun is their friend,” says researcher Lenneke Kuijer. During the August 2020 heat wave she investigated how Dutch households deal with hot weather, reports TechXplore.

“It’s time for change while it’s still possible,” she believes. “Less air conditioning, more outdoor shading and a different way of dealing with heat.”

Dutch court gets climate science wrong

Credit: planetsave.com

Embarrassing. Whatever the true science may be, it’s not what the court claimed. Is an appeal against their verdict in order?
– – –
A recent Dutch Court decision is getting international attention because it commands climate action.

The case itself is like angels on a pinhead, so of little interest, says David Wojick @ CFACT.

Shell Oil proposed to cut CO2 emissions by 40% and the Court made it 45%, both targets being stupid. The real concern is the precedent of Courts making climate policy, so this decision is worth looking at.

Turns out the Court’s version of the science is amazingly bad.

Pick Your A-Team: Arrhenius or Ångström

.
.
Since Arrhenius was mentioned in the ‘conversation with Roger Pielke Senior’ post this week, let’s look at his science efforts a bit more closely — with Ron Clutz.

Science Matters

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana 1905

Interesting that Svante Arrhenius was elevated as the founder of AGW belief system. He was ignored for many decades after Knut Ångström and his assistant Herr Koch showed that reducing CO2 concentrations did not affect the amount of IR absorbed by the air. That’s almost as interesting as discovering that shutting down the global economy over fear of Covid19 has little effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

As a fellow Scandinavian, Ångström agreed with Arrhenius that his projected warming would be a good thing, even in the lower estimates Svante made later on. Still, Ångström had two objections to Arrhenius’ conjecture about global warming from increasing CO2. In 1900, Herr J. Koch, laboratory assistant to Knut Ångström, did not observe any appreciable change in the absorption of infrared radiation by decreasing the concentration of CO2 up to a…

View original post 3,210 more words

Following Arrhenius on global warming

Svante Arrhenius

The eternal question – was the Arrhenius climate theory erroneous? Still looking for convincing evidence of it, the author concludes.
– – –
But he did change his mind …

This 1912 newspaper article (here) shows that a century ago the worthy citizens of Warkworth were followers of Svante Arrhenius’s new theory that global warming would be caused by mankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases, says Richard Treadgold @ Climate Conversation (NZ).

Forty years earlier Tyndall had identified CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Arrhenius followed up with newly available data in 1896 and calculated that doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 5°C or 6°C. In 1906 he reduced it to 4.0°C.

Cold air rises—what that means for Earth’s climate

Tropical beach

Are these researchers proposing a kind of reverse greenhouse effect in the tropics?

Conventional knowledge has it that warm air rises while cold air sinks, says Phys.org.

But a study from the University of California, Davis, found that in the tropical atmosphere, cold air rises due to an overlooked effect—the lightness of water vapor.

This effect helps to stabilize tropical climates and buffer some of the impacts of a warming climate.

The study, published today in the journal Science Advances, is among the first to show the profound implications water vapor buoyancy has on Earth’s climate and energy balance.

NASA satellite ends 17-year mission measuring the sun’s impact on climate

NASA claims humans now have 50 times more influence on temperatures than the Sun, according to this report. But they don’t link to any supporting evidence so we’re back to alarmist assertions and numbers pulled out of the sky, as usual.

NASA has shut down a spacecraft that measured the amount of solar energy entering Earth’s atmosphere for 17 years, more than three times the mission’s original design life, reports Spaceflight Now.

The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment, or SORCE, mission ended Feb. 25 after the spacecraft labored through battery problems for years until NASA could launch a replacement.

Light Bulbs Disprove Global Warming

.
.
To go to the technical discussion, search for ‘Overview’.

Science Matters

Dr. Peter Ward explains at The Hill Greenhouse gases simply do not absorb enough heat to warm Earth Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Science is not done by consensus, by popular vote, or by group think. As Michael Crichton put it: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

The drive to demonstrate scientific consensus over greenhouse-warming theory has had the unintended consequence of inhibiting genuine scientific debate about the ultimate cause of global warming.

Believers of “the consensus” argue that anyone not agreeing with them is uninformed, an idiot or being paid by nefarious companies. The last thing most climate scientists want to consider at this point, when they think they are finally winning the climate wars, is the possibility of some problem with the science of greenhouse-warming theory.

View original post 1,268 more words

A question from Ned Nikolov

This looks self-explanatory, so here’s the graphic…

[click on image to enlarge]

Lava flows on Venus suggest that the planet was never warm and wet

Venus

As usual the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ theory rears its ugly head, and the event that supposedly led to it ‘forced massive amounts of CO² into the atmosphere’. But the huge atmospheric pressure of Venus (> 90 times that of Earth’s surface), combined with its being nearer to the Sun than Earth, can adequately explain the observed temperatures.

A new study on the volcanic highlands of Venus casts doubt on whether the planet ever had oceans, reports Universe Today.
– – –
Venus is often referred to as “Earth’s sister planet“, owing to the number of similarities between them.

Like Earth, Venus is a terrestrial (aka. rocky) planet and it resides with our Sun’s Circumstellar Habitable Zone (CHZ). And for some time, scientists have theorized that billions of years ago, Venus had oceans on its surface and was habitable – aka. not the hot and hellish place it is today.

However, after examining radar data on the Ovda Fluctus lava flow, a team of scientists at the Lunar and Planetary Institute concluded that the highlands on Venus are likely to be composed of basaltic lava rock instead of granite.

This effectively punches a hole in the main argument for Venus having oceans in the past, which is that the Ovda Regio highlands plateau formed in the presence of water.

Cattle methane madness

Or as the BBC prefers to put it: ‘How vaccines could fix our problem with cow burps’.
Our alleged problem, that is. We’re given some technicalities of methane reduction ideas, but the questionable theory of greenhouse gases ‘trapping heat’ gets a free pass as usual.

A hefty slice of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the burps and farts of livestock, says the BBC.

Can tinkering with the microbes in their guts help to save the planet from climate change?

NOAA on water vapor – 2019 edition

[click on image to enlarge]

NOAA’s latest offering on this topic is here. Of course we’re pitched into the world of ‘greenhouse gas’ theory. But it seems to be a world of considerable uncertainty, if the phrases highlighted (by the Talkshop) are anything to go by. Most attention is given to CO2 in the media, but it’s only a very minor player in the atmosphere (0.04%). There’s no accepted figure for ‘water vapor’ (NOAA uses US spelling) as exact data doesn’t exist, although ballpark estimates from various readings can be found. Why do greenhouse gas believers obsess about CO2 when they don’t know a lot about what’s going on with water vapor, which is on the face of it far more important to their theory?

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization.

The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

Oil and gas majors plan to spend $4.9 trillion on fuel exploration

North Sea oil platform [image credit: matchtech.com]

Stating the obvious, but they’re either going to find a lot of fuel or lose a lot of money. Chances of the demand fading any time soon still look remote, with global consumption at or near 100 million barrels of oil *per day*. Many believers in greenhouse gas theories of course continue to swallow the propaganda that climate disaster lurks around every corner.

Plans by oil and gas majors to spend $4.9 trillion on fuel exploration are “poles apart” from the goal of the Paris climate deal to limit the global temperature rise, a new analysis showed Tuesday.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb annually, a string of warnings from the world’s top climate scientists have questioned mankind’s ability to prevent the worst effects of global warming while sticking with an economy geared around fossil fuels.

In October, the UN’s climate change panel (IPCC) issued a landmark report saying that a 1.5 Celsius target laid out in the Paris accord could only be hit with near-immediate and drastic cuts in production and consumption of oil, gas and coal.

Natural climate processes overshadow recent human-induced Walker circulation trends

Credit: PAR @ Wikipedia

If you think you saw something about this a few days ago, you’re right. This article is a sort of follow-up that has appeared in Nature Climate Change on 1st April [sic] – abstract here. The ‘recent human-induced Walker circulation trends’ in the headline seem to be an artefact of some of the climate models, judging by the report. The authors make a telling point: ‘In contrast to the observed strengthening, the majority of climate computer models simulate a gradual weakening of the Walker Circulation when forced by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations’. So they got it exactly backwards? How unfortunate.

A new study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that the recent intensification of the equatorial Pacific wind system, known as Walker Circulation, is unrelated to human influences and can be explained by natural processes, reports Phys.org.

This result ends a longstanding debate on the drivers of an unprecedented atmospheric trend, which contributed to a three-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the western tropical Pacific, as well as to the global warming hiatus.

WCC4 Rome: Interview with Nikolov and Zeller

I got back from Rome last night following the highly successful World Climate Conference. Quite a number of CO2 sceptics gave presentations, which were politely received and discussed by all present. We even made a few converts. Here’s a short interview I made with Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller where they give their impressions and some insight into their paradigm shifting discovery of the temperature-pressure relationship which holds good across the entire solar system.

Ned and Karl’s two papers are here:

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect

They show that the uplift in temperature on Earth’s surface due to the presence of the atmosphere is not 33K as the current greenhouse theory states but 90K, and is due to atmospheric pressure at the surface, not the back radiation from ‘greenhouse gases’.

We’ve been following Ned and Karl’s work since 2010 here at the Talkshop. They are finally getting heard in a wider forum.