Further holes have been blown in the ‘settled’ scientific view that humans are responsible for all or most of the changes in the climate by burning hydrocarbons. Three scientists, including Atmospheric Professor Yi Huang of McGill University, have reduced by nearly 40% the basic amount of warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – a figure commonly used to promote the global warming scare. In addition they cast doubt on the ability of CO2 to heat the atmosphere beyond the levels already passed in the pre-industrial age. “Transmissivity in the CO2 band centre is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated,” they note.
If correct, of course, this work destroys the ‘settled’ climate science that back the collectivist Net Zero project. The findings are likely to be ignored by the mainstream media. Indeed, on past form some activist journalists and scientists may seek to get the paper retracted. For the time being, it is published by the American Meteorological Society in its Journal of Climate.
Another sensational finding is that higher levels of CO2 seem to actually cool Antarctica. “The [doubled CO2] forcing in polar regions is strongly hemispheric asymmetric and is negative in the Antarctic,” write the scientists. None of this will be a surprise to regular readers since it would appear to be confirmed by observations that the region has shown “nearly non-existent warming” over the last 70 years. The recent “mind-blowing’” scare over low levels of winter sea ice has been debunked by evidence from early weather satellites showing similar levels in 1966.
The main paper is behind a paywall but an excellent summary of its contents is provided by the science blog No Tricks Zone. The science is complex with the ‘Abstract’ explaining that the paper evaluates the “spatiotemporal variation of the instantaneous, longwave CO2 radiative forcing at both the TOA [top of the atmosphere] and surface”. In plain terms, the work investigates the rise in temperature at three levels in the atmosphere as the Earth adjusts its thermal balance from heat trapped by so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases. Using a watts per square metre formulation (3.7 W/m2), it is commonly held by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a rise in temperature at the TOA of 1.2°C. The scientists have reduced this number to 2.26 W/m2, a 39% reduction down to a temperature rise of 0.72°C. At the surface, the rise is only 0.55°C. Large parts of the globe are measured at 0 W/m2 including below zero for Antarctica.
The inconvenient idea that CO2 ‘saturates’ above certain atmospheric levels, possibly at levels lower than current concentrations, has long been dismissed, but it does have the advantage of explaining the higher gas levels seen in the past. Carbon dioxide only absorbs heat in narrow bands on the infrared spectrum and it commonly overlaps with other warming gases such as ubiquitous water vapour. “The water vapour and CO2 overlapping at an absorbing band prevents absorption by additional CO2,” observe the authors. The water vapour usually damps the doubled CO2 forcing by reducing the energy additional CO2 can absorb, they add.
The W/m2 figure is a vital building block in attempts to put a figure on the final temperature rise caused by a doubling of CO2, a process known as climate sensitivity. Scientists also point to other influences, or forcings, on climate and these include feedback from many sources such as evaporation, ice albedo (reflection) and clouds. For a ‘settled’ scientific narrative, it is remarkably little understood how such feedback actually happens. In fact, it is probably beyond accurate measurement in a chaotic, non-linear atmosphere. The results of climate models over 40 years would appear to confirm that last statement.
None of this has stopped activist scientists claiming double CO2 warming between 2-6°C. It is essentially a made-up figure often called an hypothesis – science-speak for an opinion. Despite claims it cannot be ‘denied’, it is not a ‘theory’ or a ‘law’. It is an opinion that has remained unproven for over 50 years. Not a single science paper can tell us what the climate sensitivity figure is – activists are free to speculate that temperatures will rise by up to 6°C, but others suggest it is well below 1°C and indistinguishable from natural climate variation. Despite all this, a majority of science papers preach climate doomsday scenarios using RCP 8.5 ‘pathway’ modelled data that suggests the global temperature will rise by up to 4°C within less than 80 years. Other activists use computer models to claim that they can attribute single bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate.
All of this is pseudoscience since it’s non-falsifiable and hence doesn’t meet the test of a scientific hypothesis. It is however the lynchpin of the argument that there’s no point in debating climate science and all heretics should be silenced in the interest of drastic Net Zero-inspired economic and societal control.
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.
These idiots are fast approaching my debanking/defunding list. We are members, but I am sick of their morbid stupidity, endless simpleton wokisms, racisms, and climate bollocks. Just take care of the god damn buildings and heritage sites and shut the hell up. Or watch your membership dwindle.
Ferd I’m amazed you haven’t left yet. The NT has always frozen their property in aspic, a form of living death.
The problem is, whether or not I remain a member, The National Trust does own large swathes of coastline in the South West and it is this National Trust coastline that keeps us a members, otherwise I think I would leave.
I did not renew my membership after purchasing one of their leaflets describing walks around Hawkshead in the lake district.
In the leaflet they described Vikings as Scandinavian refugees.That was the last straw for me.Even the kids asked what on earth are they on about?
Presumably, that’s because they believe the refugees of today are repeating what the Vikings did in the past.
:->
Yep———-Ironically the Swedes today are now paying for their multicultural dogma as 20 times more sexual crimes are committed by the latter day rapists than by indigenous Swedes. —-But so determined are they that this isn’t true that they make it a crime to talk about it.
Yes I believe the Vikings were put up in castles at taxpayers expense, and I had always thought they were rapists and pillagers. Sorry I now admit I was wrong and that we should pay money for past injustices to all red haired people.
The NT has set its course and there is no rowing back for them now despite your displeasure or any number of members displeasure. There is no way that their proscribed agenda will be allowed to be perceived by the public to have been overturned by a members revolt. Money will be found either from lottery, government or billionaire funding sources to ensure that a popular revolt of this kind fails – God forbid, the people may apply the same democratic principle to all manner of things.
“Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director at the trust”
Who the F. thinks these job titles up? Doubtless another waster on a couple of hundred grand a year. He belongs in the bottom block. A complete Next Tuesday.
Probably a relation of the useless lefty economist David Begg. He was one of the crazies desperate to bounce UK in to the euro. Essentially a useful idiot. Once yr in the woke aristocracy these sinecures become rather easier to obtain.
Thanks
I think there should be a competition for the most ridiculous job titles in the wake of the climate alarm, HP.
You are right Aethelred.
Former member of NT here. The main threat to ‘their’ properties is haemorrhaging support. They keep telling us about the slave-owning history of the builders and owners of the houses – so why don’t they burn them down to demonstrate their contempt more fully?
A Minister for Management of Civilisational Decline would be more useful.
Congratulations Minister. Yours is the only department to achieve its targets.
The Ministry for Silly Talks?
I suggest a Minister for Deaeration of Woke Windbags.
Thanks for then new word.
Maybe the droughts and wildfires will be offset by the floods. It just needs a longer term perspective than most marketing plans.
Make no mistake, this is marketing and not true concern for environments that have suffered all these “hazards” in past years.
Not yet another bloody government department about the climate alarm. We need that new Argentinian prez Javier Milei to do one of his – “Ministry of Climate Adaptation? OUT!” actions. Honestly, the NT are losing it…drought, heavy rain, wildfires? But not today or tomorrow but by 2060! For god’s sake, just get a deckchair and some wellies.
Why the hell are we worrying about 2060. The so-called Tory dupes have caused enough damage to this country these past fourteen years. It’s 2023, can we pay attention to NOW?
Apparently the planet might be a couple of degrees warmer by 2100. Well if anybody is still on this planet in 2100 lucky them, personally I would appreciate those two degrees NOW.
And I won’t be here in 2060 so actually I CGAF about effing global boiling, flooding, freezing or whatever other nonsense they come up with.
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
https://documents.nationaltrust.org.uk/story/annual-report-2023/page/2/1
I haven’t had a good look yet but I am sure this will be interesting
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
Tomorrow is something the people of tomorrow will have to deal with tomorrow. People who claim they are solving the problems of tomorrow by creating problems today just want to distract from the latter. They don’t know anything about the real problems of tomorrow and the people of tomorrow obviously haven’t appointed them as their representatives. Conveniently, they just cannot yet object to what’s supposedly being done in their name.
Excellent
It’s a shame that they appear to be jumping onto the bandwagon using “climate change” in lieu of normal extreme weather events and the need to maintain various structures, both old and new. I am actually a member of it. The original reason why I joined was doing the sums for parking at a number of their sites. In effect, paying up front, but less than non-members have to pay given the number of times I go to them.
I’ve often parked without paying. Don’t think their fines are enforcible anyway. I feel eternal shame that I belonged to this organisation for a couple of decades. I should be flayed like Henry the second was in Canterbury cathedral and be forced to sleep on the floor with no blanket.
..and lo the grift continues unabated.
….”“the single biggest threat” to the charity’s mission”, is your organisation’s woke-ism, Mr Begg.
I used to be a member. I looked at moving my subscription to the RSPB, but they’re almost as bad.
Do not support any of them.
I don’t. I want to support the wildlife, our heritage etc., but unfortunately, no organisation can be trusted it seems.
The charity […] said approximately 71% of the places it looks after could be at medium or high risk of climate hazards by 2060.
Attempt to translate this into English: Hazard means risk. Hence, the last bit is
climate risks in 37 years.
Combining this with the bit in front of it yields
above-average risk of climate risks in 37 years.
Then, we have the could, a subjunctive, ie, another risk. We’re now at
there’s a risk of above average risk of climate risks in 37 years
Filling in the last bit now gives the complete sentence:
Modelling has shown that there will be a risk of above average risk of climate risks for about 3/4 of the places the National Trust is currently administrating in 37 years.
What’s that’s supposed to mean – beyond No climate-related damage expected until at least 2060 – is anybody’s guess. Presumably, the point is to repeat risk combined with climate as often as possible to convey the impression of a serious danger. Someone demanding anything based on a statement like this should be unceremoniously shown door and told not to come back until he has at least managed to make up his mind about what he’s actually afraid of.
So far the evidence is the greatest danger to the fabric of the buildiungs and their contents arises from the incompetence of the NT which allows them to burn to the ground.
Interesting that they demand a minister for climate adaptation. In some ways I agreenm with adapting to changes in our environment. Stop wasting huge resources on trying to change the temperature, which is impossible but, as required, adapt to changes – which is what humans have always done. Is the National Trust finally bending to the obvious?
We need to “tackle” Climate change…..so give us some more money.
It’s hilarious how they use “adaptation” and not ‘mitigation’, as these clowns think we can control the weather.
Translation: Systems going well…. Send more money.
Where does this National trust gets its information from? ——-Do they ever question any of it? ——-Very unlikely. Rent seekers question nothing. After all if you need money for something, being alarmist about climate is a great way to get it. If you are a coral island in the pacific what better to get big sums of money from the eco socialist western world than claim you are going to vanish beneath the waves. If you are animal rights activists who think we should all eat vegetables and locusts, what better way to stop people killing animals for food than to claim the animals destroy the climate. If you build turbines or smart meters, what better way to farm all the subsidy than claim your products save the planet. etc etc etc………”Climate Change” —–The gift that keeps on giving. But the gifts are all paid for by us.——– And it is costing trillions.