Dramatic new and improved evidence points to temperatures on Earth rising before an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The new findings are causing considerable concern in the ‘settled’ world of climate science where a political narrative promoting Net Zero demands that it is undeniable that temperatures rise after humans burn fossil fuels. The controversy has been building for about a year since initial findings were first published by the U.K. Royal Society.
The latest work from four scientists uses sophisticated stochastic or change-formulated causality techniques to examine data from numerous temperature and CO2 data sets over the last 60 years. As with the initial findings published by the Royal Society, they found the causality link placing a CO2 rise ahead of temperature cannot be scientifically supported since it is clearly shown that temperature precedes CO2 by six or more months. “All evidence resulting from the analysis suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with temperature as the cause and CO2 as the effect,” they state.
The collectivist Net Zero project relies on the assumption that humans operate a climate thermostat by burning fossil fuel. The UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change promotes the suggestion that all variation in the climate since 1900 has been caused by humans. But the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change was always shaky since no scientist can prove the actual amount of warming to be expected, while scientific observations going back 600 million years offer little proof of a conclusive link.
It will be hard for activists and alarmists to debunk these findings since the scientific process demands the need to critically examine and justify every proposed causal link. Of course given the initial involvement of the Royal Society, the cancellation weapon may be considered as a late option. However the scientists have noted that their current and more detailed work was developed after critical review in the Royal Society journal. “Some concerns expressed by critics, such as lengths of time series, effect of seasonality, effect of timescale, are dealt with in this new paper. No-one has however developed any critique of the methodology,” they note. The mathematics involved are complex and readers can access the full workings in the paper, which is linked in the first paragraph of this article.
The lead author is Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis from the University of Athens and there are three others contributors from Athens, London (Imperial) and Poznan. The paper is titled ‘On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere’. The reference to hens and eggs highlights a basic, age-old concept in the scientific process. What is the sequence of cause and effect – what came first, the hen or the egg?
This paper may well hasten the breakdown of the always shaky hypothesis that humans hold the climate thermostat, and can control it by regulating their own CO2 production. Ironically the recent rush to don sandwich-board doomsday placards by activists and media after a warm summer suggests its ‘settled’ days may be numbered. If human-caused CO2 was causing the climate to warm, it would only be detectable over a longer period. But the longer period does not offer much evidence of a direct link, with the last 150 years showing rises, falls and pauses in the global temperature record. Instead alarmists have had to fall back on anomalies which show one-off departures from the norm. It is impossible to link human-caused CO2, or indeed any CO2, to an outlier over a month or so. Of course this has not stopped pseudoscientists using computer models to claim they can link an individual weather event to the long-term trend.
The above graph, recently tweeted by the science writer Andy May, demonstrates how unscientific the use of individual outliers to prove a doomsday prediction can be. It shows the global temperature measured by satellites since 2015, and reveals a small downward trend over the last eight years. But there are departures from the norm, both higher and lower over the period including a spike upwards this year. When doomsters start to catastrophise the heat spikes but ignore the trend, it is time to start counting the spoons. When the Guardian runs a front page story titled ‘“Gobsmackingly bananas”: scientists stunned by planet’s record September heat‘, it might even be time to call for the men in white coats.
The Koutsoyiannis-led scientists are adamant that it is not possible to attribute climate change to just one human agent. Not least, such a suggestion fails to explain 4.5 billion years of changing climate. While not the main scope of the paper, the authors observe that natural CO2 changes due to temperature rises are larger by a factor of three than the 4% produced by humans.
The biosphere is noted to be more productive at higher temperatures with more biochemical reactions – in other words, plant growth. This leads to a ‘greening’ of the planet which in its turn produces even more of the so-called carbon fertilisation effect. It might be additionally noted that this has occurred over the last few decades with 14% more plant growth observed across the planet, a process that has undoubtedly led to less global famine.
The authors go on to provide other reasons for climate change, many of which will be familiar to regular readers including oceanic heat exchange, solar and geological activity. They conclude on a note of realism, seemingly lost in the mainstream rush to attribute all climate change to humans:
Causal links in complex systems may form endless sequences… it is naïve to expect complete answers to problems related to complex systems, or to assume that a complex system is in permanent equilibrium, and that an external agent is needed to ‘kick’ it out of the equilibrium and produce change.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This evidence was known….about 100 years ago. The entire ‘greenhouse gas effect’, and the 4 parts per million Co2 as a temp knob was eviscerated long ago. Truth it appears needs to be constantly rediscovered so this is good news, but very old truth indeed. The original hypothesis by Arrhenhuis in the 1880s that the trace chemical causes temp, has never been proven. $cientism. Follow the money and power as ‘science’ expands its remit to control all of society. Water vapour, oxygen, volcanoes, deep sea vents, soon to be placed on the toxic list to join carbon, Co2 and methane (nat gas).
Indeed. The Alarmists tend to worship Arrhenhuis, correctly pointing out his excellent work on rates of chemical reaction. He also had a go at studying the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (notably infrared) by gases, which was also pretty good. This led him to speculate about whether his “test-tube” work might be a useful input to modelling heat flow in the global atmosphere. His speculations turned out to be wrong, or at least not of major significance to climate or carbon dioxide. (In particular, convection wasn’t part of his work, nor was biology and the role of phytoplankton. Also he opined that warming would be beneficial.) That hasn’t deterred armies of Alarmists for whom Arrhenhuis is a saint who could speak no wrong.
Even Stephen Hawking got temporarily side-tracked into climate pseudo-science!
Exactly, there is nothing new. Fancy words to describe a method of analysis that needs correlation analysis. It has been done on the ice core data. More importantly, the physics of a greenhouse effect is also wrong and this was also proven by experiments done by Prof R W Wood more than a century ago. We had the BBC nonsense with glass tubes, a candle and a thermal camera as a modern interpretation of Tyndall’s experiments. The thermal camera used was tuned to detect carbon dioxide to effective create a magic trick rather than a scientific experiment. It was created for the BBC by Sussex University. Tyndall did not understand radiation because the science was at its early stages and so, whilst often quoted, he was wrong.
The above, I think, is the most convincing argument against man-caused climate change being a crisis or requiring an emergency response.
The world’s climates are not in a static equilibrium but change over time due to various interacting feedback mechanisms. More water vapour in the atmosphere (from the Tonga volcano, for example) both captures more heat (greenhouse effect) but also increases the albedo of the planet to reflect more of the Sun’s radiation back into space.
Everything living on the planet has evolved to this point through many changes of climate. The idea that our living conditions have been teetering on a knife edge just waiting to fall off one way or the other at the slightest push from mankind is rank stupidity, that sort of equilibrium does not survive long in nature.
CO2 from the Tonga volcano and the water vapour therefrom doesn’t count, it’s natural – only ManMade stuff has any (detrimental) effect on the climate, environment, universe.
Unless, of course, the Global Boiling has upset the ice balance on the tectonic plates in Antarctica which has resulted in meltwater lubricating the fault-lines and causing continental slippage which set off the Tonga volcano.
See. It can be our fault if we try hard enough.
Ah, the touch of sarcasm is wonderful, Monty Python could be resurected to describe the “Climate idiots” so well. I’ll have a word with John Cleese!
Well us deniers have known about it since Antarctic ice core data showed it a couple of decades ago.
Indeed. When I was at UEA nearly a couple of decades ago it was known as the “flat beer” model. If you have an unopened can of beer then when it is cold in the fridge the carbon dioxide in the space above dissolves into the beer; when you warm it up the carbon dioxide moves back into the space. (It is related to Henry’s Law.) In the Antarctic Ice cores the concentration of carbon dioxide and the [proxy for the] temperature were measured over a period of around 800,000 years. It was found that temperature changes preceded carbon dioxide changes by a few hundred years. Therefore it could not be the case that carbon dioxide changes were causing temperature changes, as cause must preceded effect.
This was of course in violation of Mann’s Law, which states that Everything Is Caused By Global Warming. Therefore anybody who promoted the flat beer model was taken out and shot.
I presume that similar laws exist in Virus Science.
Oh dear, don’t get me started on “virus science”, it is remarkably similar to “climate science ™”. It has zero facts, settled science, computer models, zero experimental results from isolated objects, no photographs and no controls, and entirely circular arguments about the wholse lot. Deniers are treated in similar ways, and an awful lot of money is involved! Gosh, who would have thought it!
I heard a comment that the weather in UK was warmer than somewhere else that was generally associated with higher temperatures.
It was claimed that this was a consequence of global warming, but of course global warming would have increased temperature there too. Duh, as they say.
Not necessarily. Because global warming can do everything didn’t you know? It can make it hotter, colder, wetter, drier, and everything it does is bad. It is NEVER good. Nothing that might get warmer is ever good or beneficial to anyone. ——-But the problem is that when everything that ever happens is because of their theory than they are no longer indulging in science. When nothing they say can be falsified then it isn’t science. Which leaves them free to make all manner of claims with zero evidence and then insist that it is all science and all scientists agree. ———Nope, they do NOT.
That’s the beauty of ‘The Science’ and particularly ‘The Settled Climate Science’, anything that cannot be proven, cannot be falsified.
The first tennat of science is that any result CAN be falsified if there is evidence. Climate science(tm) has removed this principle because nothing they say can be proved aor therefore falsified. In fact the whole lot is simply a cult belief.
Quick! Someone tell the dopey Prince William, who appears to be following his dopey dad with dire prognostications regarding man made climate change. “It really is appalling”, as ‘The Eye’ would say.
I like William and Kate. They show up for their work unlike those other two parasites in California. But it isn’t just William who finds himself in this position of having to be always seen to be on the right side of this narrative. Popes and Kings, Pop Stars and Actors all chip in with their pretend to save the planet nonsense. I honestly don’t think they realise themselves what they are doing. Does the Pope eg ever sit down and scrutinise climate data or read anything other than “official science” or ever listen to other points of view other than the phony consensus we see every day on our TV news? ——But in any case the Pope has no mandate from the Lord to pontificate on matters of science. If it ever was all about science in the first place. —–Which it isn’t.
Pontificate. Excellent.
Somebody tell Galileo he’s been given an apology.
Can you expect anything else from the Pontiff? (note to me 2 F’s)
I agree, I quite like W&K, but as Harry Callahan opined, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” Pontificating on AGW like ‘Brian’ his pater is outside his remit/level of competence so perhaps he shouldn’t do it. It diminishes him.
Whatever the truth, it was the Poe’s boss wot dun it not us mere mortals.
“their work”. Right.
Like all the friends I cheekishly asked sofar, not one of them will have even the slightest idea about the basic facts and relationships here, i.e. the 0.04%, the ice core data or the solar cycle existence.
One of them alone already unmasks the whole narrative as a con to anyone with either an IQ above room temperature or not benefitting from the hoax.
And I am constantly surprised by the lack of knowledge of basic facts about climate change on this site eg. thinking that the low concentration of CO2 is relevant.
I thought you’d be along soon to spread dissent
Is that a bad thing?
It’s really sad that such basic tenets of our existence are not explained in school science lessons even if it was in passing. I don’t see much education occurring in this and other respects.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree
Housekeeping! A large brush over here please; and lift the edge of this carpet!
And when you’re done, there are some excess deaths over there which are beginning to smell.
They are caused by the heat from climate change, and smoking.
This hasn’t been in doubt.
The novel situation now is we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere not just Nature
so not unreasonable to say ‘not sure of consequences’
not worth destroying prosperity for
but we should be taking steps to live cleaner
fission
synth fuels
As quickly as it came US shale will be gone
what replaces diesel?
Remember “peak oil”? Even Moonbat admitted it was nonsense
Peak oil was a Club of Rome invention and hoax.
Some interesting info on that and this monster’s important role in pursuing the technocratic elite’s takeover goals can be found here:
https://drjacobnordangard.substack.com/p/why-the-president-of-the-club-of?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1015075&post_id=137660903&utm_campaign=583200&isFreemail=true&r=97oj4&utm_medium=email
“1978, a meeting was held at Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, with heads of state and government to discuss how the problems highlighted by Club of Rome could be solved.
At this meeting, the main obstacles to the fulfillment Club of Rome’s utopian vision were identified as a) democracy; b) labour unions; and c) the striving of individuals to create a better lives for themselves. Therefore, both persuasion and fear would have to be used.”
It’s back apparently.
How about harnessing unicorns into a treadmill. A practical, nett-energy-gain fission power station is as likely. Our best fission energy source is the sun.
Fusion.
Fusion ITYM.
Have you considered the efficiencies of the various synthetic fuel production techniques. All the practical ones required a lot of electricity for electrolysis and hence are likely to be pretty inefficient in terms of nett energy production.
None of these things are nett energy producers – we’re just transforming one energy store into another and making losses at each step. The production of synthetic fuels is so inefficient that it only really makes sense if the energy we use to do it is more or less free. Or at least if the marginal cost of the lost energy is more or less zero.
Converting wind energy into usable electricity seems attractive but it’s in no way ‘free’. There’s the cost of building and maintaining the windmills (note to Libya about the importance of maintenance) the cost of the loss of agricultural or building land and the non-monetary cost of the loss of habitat and ‘blight’ on the landscape. It’s also sufficiently intermittent to require another backup energy store – which adds to the practical cost of using it.
I do think electric vehicles are in our future – but I’m pretty sure that whatever replaces Wikipedia in the future will mock our early attempts to use Lithium ion chemistry as the energy store.
No ‘we’ are not putting CO2 into the atmosphere – it was always there. Where do you think it comes from?
There is a finite amount of CO2 on the Planet. The CO2 released from fossil fuels came out of the atmosphere in former periods of Earth’s history, and is now being returned whence it came. Which is the correct state, before it was removed, or after it was removed?
The Earth’s atmosphere is not a balloon. The CO2 released from fossil fuels is reabsorbed by the seas and plant life in just over 3 years as part of a natural cycle.
Unreadable. Try punctuation.
These four scientists must all be working for evil oil companies. They should quit working for them and apply for jobs with Renewable Energy companies who are all sweetness and light. ———-But joking aside, it is a distraction to argue all day about science. This is not about science. While people are all arguing that CO2 is this and it is that, and it doesn’t do this and it doesn’t do that, the technocrats are getting on with the real stuff that has nothing to do with science. Science is just their excuse for the politics. There has long been this symbiotic relationship between government and scientists. Governments wheel out the scientists because they know the general public are unlikely to challenge the boffins. Who is going to argue with experts who have studied this all their life, and who will want to suffer the humiliation of being told accompanied by some sniggering, “So you think you know more than the scientists”? ———But actually if you ask any of those sniggering brainwashed dreamers to name a climate scientist they will look at you as if you are from Mars. This is the power of propaganda. People will believe things they know nothing about as long as they get told it often enough and they think it has something to do with “science”. ——Except what we hear all the time about the climate is only a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. What is to happen in 50 or 100 years is not based on any science. It is based on the output from speculative models that do not include many of the parameters, either because they are poorly understood or because they are simply unknown. Computer model projections full of assumptions are NOT SCIENCE.——-So wake up people you are being played. There is no climate emergency. No science supports that idea. I like to quote Judith Curry at this point. —–“Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earths climate are not equal”.
Global warming, climate change, global boiling etc, etc, etc is complete Bollox and I have been saying this since joining DS.
In 1972 the Club of Rome published ‘Limits to Growth’ which amongst much else decided that the world population had to be reduced and brought under control. In order to achieve control people had to placed in a permanent state of fear / crisis and one of the mechanisms to achieve this would be Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) simply because a whole industry of fake $cience could be built around it.
AGW is really about depopulation and control of the survivors and nothing more.
In purely scientific terms we won this argument donkeys years ago. I suppose to some extent we still have to keep refuting the $cience garbage but we must always keep in mind what this shyte is really about.
This is very far from being a proof that temperature has caused CO2. It is a purely statistical technique which uses a new way to try and detect cause and effect in stochastic systems. Like all statistical techniques it can only show patterns which suggest causality, it can’t prove causality. In the case of temperature and CO2 it runs up against the rather big objection that there is overwhelming direct evidence that the enormous recent leap in CO2 was caused by fossil fuel emissions not temperature rise.
Shame that there’s no correlation, LONG or SHORT term between CO2 & temperature. Not to mention that the ability of CO2 in the atmosphere to radiate heat is all but played out. Which leaves the climate loonies with just ECS to explain why their models make it hotter than it actually is (proven many times, and recently admitted as true)
And if the actual rise in temp since 1850 (when the LIA ended) scares you, seek help…
Facts are a bugger eh?
I can’t answer all these replies so I will stick to this one.
None of your responses actually address my comment which was on the significance of the piece of research in the article. But you bring up some well-worn memes which are worth addressing on a Sunday morning.
there’s no correlation, LONG or SHORT term between CO2 & temperature.
That’s false. Your charts cover two timescales:
The multimillion year timescale. The correlation is there if you allow for the fact that over these timescales there were immense but very slow moving effects such as the sun being dimmer and the continents moving.
Since 1850. Your chart is very odd. The CO2 level concentration is straightforward but the temperature scale seems to go from -80 to to +80. Was the global average temperature really -70 in 1877? See later for discussion about the source). In any case there are many charts showing reasonable correlation in that period bearing in mind that in a short time scale like this there will be considerable random variation in the global temperature. There is rather neat animated graph showing this here: https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1094656134835781633?s=20
A period you have omitted is over 100s of thousand of years. This is short enough not to be affected by tectonic shift or changes in the strength of the sun but long enough to iron out random fluctuations. This can be tracked with some confidence using Antarctic ice cores (more so for CO2 then temperature). There is very good correlation. I attach the chart and here is the reference: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
Not to mention that the ability of CO2 in the atmosphere to radiate heat is all but played out.
This could refer to two things.
Climate scientists agree that the temperature/CO2 level relationship is logarithmic so you get a linear increase in temperature for a given percentage increase in CO2. This has always been accepted. However, over the range of CO2 increase we are considering this makes little difference. See here for a link: https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html – chart attached.
There is also the argument that the current CO2 has absorbed all the radiation at the relevant frequency so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. This is one sceptical argument that I respect. The reason why more CO2 matters is complicated and depends on a detailed understanding of atmospheric processes which is rarely explained. Here is one of the better explanations although even that is not crystal clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY
And if the actual rise in temp since 1850 (when the LIA ended) scares you, seek help…
The current rise is not a big concern. What matters is the future. However, your charts are very confusing and misleading. Chart 4 shows the same -80 to +80 swing and refers to Hadcrut 4 but I can’t find any such graph on the Met Office web site so I can’t imagine what is going on. Anyhow the effect is to make increase in average temperature invisible. But you can make any increase invisible by choosing a bg enough scale. Why not go the whole hog and do it from absolute zero? What mattersis the effect of the rise, not how it compares to some arbitrary scale. Average global temperatures have increased about 1C since. That is not the end of the world. But an increase of 2C would be very disturbing – bear in mind that going the other way the last ice age was only about 5C colder.
From your link to ‘Carbon Brief’:
“The Earth’s climate has been quite stable over the past 11,000 years, playing an important role in the development of human civilisation. ”
This is false.
The earth’s climate has not been stable over the last 11,000 years.
Well “stable” is a subjective word but compared to the ice age that preceded it the holocene has been stable http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html#:~:text=By%205000%20to%203000%20BC,Optimum%20or%20the%20Holocene%20Optimum.
Do you have a reference for a refutation?
Your own reference has charts that support the variability of climate.
So, do you think that you have “proof” for what you think is true? Remember it is “proof” you are being asked about. Not Climate Models full of assumptions. –I am certain you realise that there are no “proofs” in the physical sciences. So why are asking for proof? —But did you really mean what you said in your first sentence? —Because temperature most certainly causes a rise in CO2. But the whole question about CO2 and it’s effect on the planet is a question of degree. To what extent will CO2 cause dangerous changes? If there are no dangerous changes then the trillions spent are all for nothing. Then there is the obvious thing that the solution is likely worse than the problem. This isn’t a black and white issue. It isn’t the case that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You might be correct, but the problem may be much less than you think. You seem to be always trying to claim certainty where none exists, and there are huge uncertainties which activists never even want to discuss. In science, if that is what this is really about, you question everyting.
Did I miss the bit where the warmists have proved the link between manmade CO2 and temperature, or are you relying entirely on coincidence.
Measurement based stats or entirely artificial mathematical models – discuss.
I FoI’ed the CCC asking for formal proof that CO2 directly controlled temperature, noting – see post above – that real world data is absolutely clear that it does not.
I was referred to the IPCC.
All you need to know.
Ever wondered how Hannibal got his elephants over the Alps?
Bang in the middle of the Roman Warm Period – which was warmer than now
Experiments never prove a theory. They debunk competing theories. In the case of the theory that carbon dioxide changes cause temperature changes the debunking was the study of the Antarctic Ice cores, which showed that the correlation (although it is rather weak: some say uncorrelated) between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature temperature changes was in the “wrong” direction. Since causality implies that cause must precede effect, it could not be the case that carbon dioxide was causing temperature changes, though it did not prove that temperature changes cause carbon dioxide changes.
On a time scale of a million years, the Flat Beer Model works best: as oceanic surface temperature rises, carbon dioxide diffuses into the atmosphere, and then re-dissolves when the surface temperature falls. On a much larger timescale (hundreds of millions of years) there is no correlation. Other models then are needed to explain changes in carbon dioxide levels, such as the proliferation of various forms of life, especially vegetation and phytoplankton.
I wouldn’t try to deny a big jump in C02 is caused by mankind. CO2 comes from many different sources, including burning fossil fuels. However, assuming what they have done is correct, this surely is pretty good evidence (proof, whatever that means) that CO2 isn’t driving temperature, at least at these levels of C02 and temperature.
There have been far higher levels of CO2 before. And when cooler. Go figger…
When the world was very different, ie the continents which also changes the climate and is another confouding factor. Better to look at Schwrzchild curves which explains the limiting effects of C02 warming:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I&t=78s
Your logic could also be turned around to show that CO2 causes a change in temperature.
I am afraid I have lost track of which of my comments you are referring to and therefore which “logic”. I don’t pretend that the Koutsoyiannis proves that CO2 causes warming. And it is widely accepted by climate scientists that warming increases CO2 to some extent. However the warming since 1850 isn’t remotely enough to account for the 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over that period while the burning of fossil fuels accounts for it nicely and also accounts for the change in C14 isotope over that period.
It is conjecture to state that the warming since 1850 has been due to the burning of fossil fuels.
I’m very pro-science.
Computer models are not science.
To convince me those who say that they know enough about the climate to state that humanity has caused the recnt variability in climate should make a hypothesis and then prove it.
For example, they should make a prediction of what the exact climate will be for each small section of the earth at for a near future date e.g. 2025 (not a far off date that everyone will forget about when that date is reached).
This has to be an exact prediction of the climate, not wetter, warmer etc., and for each small section of the earth.
Then on that date we can see if they are correct.
This sort of argument comes up pretty regularly. It depends on the assumption that to be “scientific” in any field practitioners must be able to make very precise predictions otherwise the science cannot tell us anything about that field. The paradigm there is something such as astronomy where scientists can indeed make extraordinarily accurate predictions. But not all science is like that. When it is applied to complex stochastic systems such as a biological organism, an ecosystem, or the flow of traffic in a town then science can make broad predictions but it cannot predict in detail. This doesn’t mean the science is useless. It is helpful to know that smoking will probably damage your health even though it is not possible to predict how, when, or even if, it will happen. Predicting the climate is more like that – scientists can identify the key elements and make broad probabilistic predictions but they can’t tell you exactly what the climate will be like in the UK in 2030 – especially as this depends on human decisions.
The earth’s climate is in constant flux and has never been stable or ‘settled’ for that matter!
We happen to live in an era that is generally stable compared to most.
But the earth’s climate doesn’t give a flying one about how much minority gases are present, there are far greater reaching effects from other big influences like the sun!
Which is why the IPCC, climate crazies and models all ignore the sun. Not just TSI, but activity…
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/10/06/has-the-suns-true-role-in-global-warming-been-miscalculated/
“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:
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.”
Love to know what the graph in the Graphical Abstract means. In particular the annual average temperate Jan to Dec on the left axis, and annual average co2 Jul to Jun on the right axis.
It’ll be withdrawn, the authors will be cancelled, and the scam will continue.
This has been known for a very long time from geological investigation.
In the Gore movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ a graphic was shown with CO2 trailing temperature done by inverting the curves so it just appeared that way.
This was ruled by a judge in the UK as being one of a number of untruths.
It isn’t that suddenly this has become clearer, the issue is it has been long known and lied about (like everything else) by the criminals pushing the narrative.
Prof Richet got cancelled for saying this a few years ago. Worth a look.
https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/2021-05-26_hgss-2021-1_latest-version-of-the-manuscript.pdf
But discussion in the mainstream appears to be suppressed- possibly by the weight of money.
The logic looks like this:
They guest posted on their series of papers on Judith Curry’s blog a couple of weeks ago: https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
There is a very good (and very long) discussion BTL, which Demetris Koutsoyiannis engaged with.
This is as good as anywhere to ask. JeremyP99 included this chart in a comment. I think I have seen it before and I am sure it is popular in the sceptical community but I cannot find the source. Does anyone know where it comes from? It mentions the met office and Hadcrut4 but I can’t find anything like it on either website.
Also can anyone explain what the temperature lines mean? They appear to go from an incredible -80 to +80C which is surely absurd.
They need to get greater clarity on the affects of removing anthropogenic Sulphur Dioxide from the Atmosphere following the introduction of the Clean Air Acts in the 1970’s. It’s weird they seem to have stopped reporting this from 2010….I wonder why? SO2 causes cooling by creating clouds so its removal would cause warming. It makes one wonder why temperatures started to rise from about 1980 on onwards.
It is fiction that the earth’s climate has ever been in stable equilibrium.
The earth’s climate has always been in a state of flux.
The true “Scientific method” always knew that Science, could by definition, never be settled. It is only idiots and warmists (some connection there?) who claimed that it can. If the World is waking up to the enormous fraud (again) on the population, we need to start considering the penalties for the flow of our moneythat has taken place. It is rather more than a little fraud, they have tried to crash the World economy to their advantage. I suggest the Davos Mob, and associated alleged scientists, should receive the ultimate punishment (from the Hitch-hikers Guide) of being the first against the wall of the firing squad. They must be stopped dead, literally.