It's actually very complicated: earth's solar radiation budget depends on where clouds are (tropics or mid-latitudes), what they are (thin, high clouds or dense, low clouds) and in which season they appear (or fail to appear, as the case may be). What drives variability in global and regional cloud cover is also very complicated, dependent upon changing global and regional circulation patterns linked to the upper atmosphere jet streams, the Brewer-Dobson global circulation governing the position of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and ozone chemical reactions in the stratosphere.
The thing to note though is that direct solar radiative forcing of the climate via variability in cloud cover is at least an order of magnitude greater than CO2 greenhouse gas forcing. Over short periods (of the order of decades and years), alleged 'man-made climate change' can easily be lost in the noise.
I might also add that Hunga Tonga threw our climate scientist 'experts' a genuine googly which they are still trying to (unsuccessfully) figure out!
Yes, indeed. And, in spite of that complexity, the signal relationship between cloud coverage in general and surface temperature is still quite apparent? As the authors say, we should be focussing on cloud research if we were really that concerned about the planet going through one of its natural temperature up-cycles?
Again reduced cloud cover (and reduced albedo) is not a forcing- it's a result of warming. Yes the positive relationship between cloud coverage and temperature is of course apparent!
Show an alarmist a chart of cloud coverage changes preceding surface temperature changes along side a chart of surface temperature changes preceding CO2 changes, and what do they respond? My eyesight may be deteriorating as I get older but my acuity isn't it.
Joel, we've been through this before. Changes in both cloud coverage and atmospheric co2 are both causes and consequences of changing surface temperature. I may be getting older but I can still grasp simple, observable concepts. Yourself, not so much, you seem to prefer playing with words.
'Alarmist' may be better than 'climatard' though my preference is scientist.
Changes in cloud cover is also not a forcing so it's magnitude is irrelevant.
"albedo-change (from slightly reduced cloud cover, possibly from Pacific warming) is not a forcing. That's the first big mistake in this myth. Instead it is a very good example of a climate feedback process. It is occurring in response to an external climate forcing - the increased greenhouse effect caused by our carbon emissions. Due to that forcing, the Arctic is warming quickly and snow/ice coverage shows a long-term decrease. Less reflective surfaces become uncovered, leading to more absorption of sunshine and more energy goes into the system. It's a self-reinforcing process.'
If you look at satellite images of the planet, you will notice the clouds in weather-systems appear bright. Cloud-tops have a high albedo but it varies depending on the type of cloud. Wispy high clouds do not reflect as much incoming sunshine as do dense low-level cloud-decks.
Since the early 2000s we have been able to measure the amount of energy reflected back to space through sophisticated instruments aboard satellites. Recently published data (2021) indicate planetary albedo, although highly variable, is showing an overall slow decrease. The main cause is thought to be warming of parts of the Pacific Ocean leading to less coverage of those reflective low-level cloud-decks, but it's early days yet.
Albedo is an important cog in the climate gearbox. It appears to be in a long-term slow decline but varies a lot over shorter periods. That 'noise' makes it unscientific to cite shorter observation-periods. Conclusive climatological trend-statements are generally based on at least 30 years of observations,"
Changes in the regional distribution and global net cloud cover resulting in an increase or decrease in net solar radiation penetrating to the earth’s surface is very much a climate forcing and its magnitude is very relevant, exceeding greenhouse gas radiative forcing by at least an order of magnitude, even over multi-decadal time scales.
Net cloud cover is so variable that the recent detected decrease in albedo (which may also be due to decrease in aerosols and changes in land use) can't be claimed to exceed anything yet. However, you raise an important point about magnitude. The direct climate sensitivity of doubling co2 is about an increase of 1 degree C though when the reinforcing feedbacks (or forcing as you call them) are added the rise is tripled to 3 Degrees C for doubling co2.
No it is not a forcing. The consequences of warming (less albedo from ice and cloud) may exceed co2 warming by a very large magnitude - it doesn't let the cause of the warming off the hook. You're being illogical.
Yes, it is a forcing. Cloud cover changes are a radiative forcing, aka a natural external climate forcing, which is almost certainly linked to internal climate forcings (e.g. the multidecadal Atlantic and Pacific oscillations). I'm not being illogical.
Yes the PDO may have flipped in 2015 (maybe for 'natural' reasons other than emissions warming) leading to the sharp decrease in albedo from loss of cloud cover and thus causing warming. But the increases in the PDO and sea surface temps off coast of North and South America were in decline by 2020.
This also doesn't explain the warming since 1850 particularly from the 1980s. You are being disingenous.
IPCC says all warming since 1950 is man-made. The planet COOLED from 1950 until the late 1970s. In 1976, after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, AMO and PDO both moved into positive phase and warming accelerated from the early 1980s until 1998. Warming stalled from 1998-2015 (the Pause) - which was subsequently erased by retrospective 'adjustments' to the global surface temperature datasets. Warming took off again in 2015/16, sparked by the super El Nino of that year. Thus, it can be reasonably argued that the majority of warming post 1976 is natural, due to internal variability, not GHG warming. The period 1910-1945 also saw very sharp warming, comparable to 1976-98. GHG emissions cannot explain this early warming, because there was not enough CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the early 20th century spurt in warming was also natural. So tell me, who is being disingenuous?
You may ban me now, and delete my comment, if you are just another delusional Sheeple Grabble, shill!!!🤣🤡🌎😎 I do like screenshots to shame the ones lost in the sauce, of there jew masters!
I've just read the best explanation of how the CERES data- showing the decrease in albedo from decreases in air pollution (occurring well before 2020 marine engine oil clean up) means that it's not JUST co2 driving warming-it's also loss of albedo meaning that the moderates position of 1 to 2 degrees are way underestimating the future warming.
Yes short term can get lost- that's why more than decades is useful.
Hunga Tonga is accounted for some warming, but not much.
It's not complicated. Albedo has decreased due to the melting of ice (caused by human emissions). Clouds of course affect the climate and whizz around and keep change, that's why trends are looked at.
'In their Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC also points out that the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere has markedly increased since the pre-industrial era. As a consequence, clouds now reflect more incoming Solar energy than before industrial times. In other words, aerosols released by human activities have had a cooling effect. That cooling effect has countered a lot of the warming caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions over the last century. Nevertheless, they also state that this counter-effect is expected to diminish in the future. As air pollution controls are adopted worldwide, there will be a reduction in the amount of aerosols released into the atmosphere. Therefore, cloud-top albedo is expected to diminish. Hansen merely suggests this albedo-reduction may already be underway."
Especially when statistical analysis shows that changes in CO2 concentration lag changes in temperature on all relevant time scales. But violating causality appears to be no problem for those claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the tail wagging the climate dog!
yes, let's hear it for Central Planning! You know that one central office in Switzerland can make the BEST decisions for all people everywhere. Yep, they can tell the people halfway around the world what to do and those people will comply because Central Planning Knows Best!
LOL. Look up 'measured reality'. The so called 'small' percentage of carbon dioxide, yes, well done it is around 0.04%, in the atmosphere, especially when amplified by water vapour, goes a big, long way.
If it didn't and there was no greenhouse effect caused by co2 absorbing heat at verifiable wavelengths then the temperature would be about -17 degrees C and there wouldn't be human life as we know it. What part of observable reality are you not buying?
Yeah but Jo it's not 0.04% is it, it's the 3% of the 0.04% that's the problem or the 12 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 in the atmosphere. Hide behind the sofa if you wish, pay more tax, pay for higher electricity, welcome more centralised planning for those 12 molecules but leave us alone.
When I'm Benign Ruler of the World, I intend doing various things to improve the lot of my grateful subjects. One of the first things is to get rid of all researchers who publish things that say "as commonly believed". Anything that is merely "commonly believed" will never be subjected to nonsense decisions based on what is clearly simply an article of faith. "CO2 is destroying the world and that excess CO2 is caused by humans so we must stop everything we do and aim to get rid of the excess CO2" is merely an opinion or a belief. "It's the sun and the clouds wot done it" is another opinion is it? As Benign Ruler, I will stop all belief systems imposing their views on the rest of the world - let the climate do its thing which is has been doing long before we arrived. Want to save the planet? Stop spraying it with toxic chemicals. Easy.
WHAT! The sun affects our weather? Goodness gracious me! Who would have thought? … The answer is of course; everyone excepted Climate Change Nutters! Then there’s the inconsistent orbit of earth around the sun. When the earth is closer to the sun it warms, farther away it cools. No, but you say this to a Climate Change Nutter, they dis agree and say “We got to stop farming, all those cattle farting are causin’ climate change!” :/
There are no climate change nutters saying that the earth's orbit, sun, ice, clouds and albedo (and Hunga Tonga) do not affect the climate. This is a strawman fallacy and pathetic.
True. “Climate change nutters” believe the giant lie told to them: that climate change is primarily and overwhelmingly caused by CO2 emissions. And looking at that statement in the context of all the other variables affecting warming is quite nutty.
While admittedly my comment is brief. It does capture the essence of the “climate change enthusiasts” position; that being, their primary focus, anthropological driven climate change ie food production in the form of “farming” which of course uses ‘fossil’ fuel tractors etc. So, while you called my comment a strawman argument, I would ask that you more carefully consider my point. I’m sorry about the “nutter” slur. I’m just so fed up with the one dimensional argument. Which in the end, comes to depopulation in the cruelest ways.
My beef is not with the fact that climate change exists, it’s the idea that it’s anthropogenically driven. And somehow, with all the variables acknowledged, the minuscule contribution mankind can possibly make in the attempted changing of the weather, is at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world, the poor! It’s inhumane!
Try the following experiment. On a hot sunny day, put your hand on a black asphalt road, driveway or roof. Then put your hand on some grass, or on a leaf of a tree. Big difference. Now imagine how much heat is being generated by the millions of square miles of sun absorbing black stuff with which we have replaced the forests and grasslands It adds up. CO2 is a red herring that Wall street has figured out a way to profit off of with carbon credits. That's why it is pushed.
CO2 is definitely a red herring, and a very profitable one at that! The latest CO2 theory pushers’ solution is to … wait for it … cut down and bury whole trees! And they get paid to do that by corporations that are “offsetting” their “CO2 footprint.” Beyond ridiculous, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
Not to mention massive amounts of air conditioning, the mnet effect of which is WARMING, The electricity and refrigerant operated AC units that pred\imate not being 100% efficient.
Have read that the climate “scientists” have also lowered the height that the earth’s temperature is now measured at, which will read at higher temperatures which then distorts data when compared historically.
Have I read this? Scientists get dissed when they adjust for changes in stations, heights and times of day and dissed for when they don't. The oceans accounted for 90% of warming and don't have any of these issues. Take a look at what's happening there.
Even the skeptics have not challenged the role of C02 for some warming, the amount of warming that CO2 was contributing has been the point of contention. Then the models amplified (positive feedback) the ~1C warming from C02 to 3 to 8 C of warming. So this theory is indeed controversial but the nevertheless there is agreement that CO2 is not the primary driver of warming or climate change. Models, they will tell you whatever you like or pay for.
Human emissions of GHGs are the main causes of the climate crisis. You get what you pay for if you listen to the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.
When certain large countries are allowed to go on building coal fired energy plants while smaller countries that produce very small amounts of greenhouse gasses are forced to decimate their own economies by not using their own natural resources, further weakening their own sovereignty-I call this a huge hoax that has other intents rather than to fight “climate change”. If it looks like a wealth transfer and smells like a wealth transfer and functions as a wealth transfer-then what is it?!
Calling it a 'myth' isn't useful. The climate has changed constantly for millions of years. In fact several researchers suggest that the past 10,000 years have been unusually stable.
I fear we'll never get to the bottom of it ...
a) (even) more complex than 'COVID'
b) a fraud lasting for decades not years.
An academic friend says that he believes 'climate scientists' were fairly honest up to the 1970s or early 80s. That still leaves 40 years in which corrupt influences were brought to bear.
“Calling it [climate change] a myth isn’t helpful”. I don’t think it’s worth quibbling over. In everyday parlance the phrase “climate change” is almost always used to mean or imply anthropogenic climate change due to man-made CO2 emissions. I believe the propagandist UN IPCC deliberately muddied the waters by defining “climate change” to mean either natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change.
Joel's message is essentially the truth, it could be softened to not insult someone but the tone of your reply could also be more collaborative. Sometimes frustration gets the best of us, but also shows we care or we wouldn't say anything to those that may not have the full picture, which none of us really do.
Joel's message may be completely truthful, although he spoke down to those who cannot see a couple of times on this feed.
I honestly don't feel frustrated in this, just saddened.
In the middle of all the insanity. And all the teasing apart of the pieces that needs to done, the one piece that concerns me is the division, separation I see. (which I believe is a very large part of the present day agenda against all life on earth)
Some are diving deep into historical narratives to see what may be more truthful but with some this looks like finger pointing. People desperate to find the culprit, the scapegoat.
This is separate from the climate narrative and indoctrination piece. Which I find more relevant in the moment.
We live on a planet with a lot of other humans. Some, many, most, cannot see the bigger picture but characterizing them as low information I don't think is healthy. I also don't think it's true.
I think we need to be careful how we speak about each other. We need to reach for understanding even when it's hard.
I'm sorry you felt what I wrote was not collaborative. It's not my intent. I was just speaking to one small but exceedingly important piece.
The feeling of frustration doesn't begin to speak to how I am feeling.
I looked up the definition of "myth" and actually based on the information John presents it is a fitting title.
Myth: "A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal"
I've attempted to fill in some of those 40 years...just logging data points as I research:
January 18, 1998 was when, via a simple email from NASA's James Hansen, the global average temperatue "fell" from 15 degrees C to 14 degrees C, creating instant global warming! NASA changed all the historical temperature data (see links below). In Vital Signs 1997 report a new "zero point" appeared on the graphs.
Clauser shows the "the climate science" is based on flawed data, it is so bad it is laughable, that is what I did as he explained the "bad penny" that keeps turning up.
This is on a par with 'it's lab leak'! A perfect excuse to continue with the 'solar radiation management'... 'never mind CO2, we gotta increase those clouds, folks!'
If you believe in contagion, disease, pandemics, you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you believe your actions are destroying the environment, the climate... etc... you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you're reading anything about what's happening in the world from mainstream media you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you're listening to alternative, more truthful perspectives, you're likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you already had traumatic experiences in your past (which I would guess is more the norm than not), than present day insanity is likely coupling up with insanity from the past, no matter your perspective.
If we cannot understand the work of being human we will never make our way forward.
The issue is not especially whether there is climate change, of course there is. Climate has changed drastically over the history of the earth. The question is what risk does human activity pose to the climate and most importantly, is said change such a grave threat to humanity that we need to submit to corrupt Totalitarian rule: 15 minute cities, eating insects 🐜, eliminating cows, having our water usage seriously limited, drinking recycled sewage, demanding “carbon sequestering” farming practices, world governance with any dissent defined as hate speech subject to imprisonment or worse, large transfers of wealth from developed countries to 3rd world countries because of “climate equity”, eliminating fossil fuels even though the replacement energy sources are even more problematic, only being able to buy 3 new outfits a year, one short haul flight allowed every three years, 500 mandatory vaccines, most of the earth not accessible to plebs. And on and on.
No. No. A thousand times no. Even though big ag and oil are corrupt like all corporations.
Exactly. Full stop no to totalitarian “solutions” for the masses while those like Bill Gates go on whizzing around the world on their private planes telling us how virtuous they are since they spent 8 or 9 million dollars on bio fuel and are buying up properties at sea level while spouting fear about rising ocean levels.
Given the power of nature and the ability of the planet to maintain homeostasis (for itself) I doubt the effect of anything anthropogenic will have much impact on it... though what it does impact is us and our living, immediate environment... which the planet then has to rectify, via, e.g opening up the ozone layer to 'cleanse' or in other ways we don't fully understand, analogous to a human's fever or mucus secretions or inflammation.
Yes. anything that uses energy contributing to warming, especially HVAC systems, industrial manufacturing, and engines of all sorts. I would expect they dwarf the effects of CO2.
The part of this that never (or at least rarely) gets discussed is the locations where these temperatures are taken. When data from RAWS (remote automated weather stations) are used the difference is much less, and often shows a decline in "average" temperature. However, many stations that were once remote, are now within urban heat islands, and they skew the data to show a positive delta in temperature.
The climate change folks will use, manipulate and often generate, whatever "data" that supports their religious belief, and ignore that which "clouds" it.
How indeed can a gas that makes up a tiny % of the atmospheric composition be THE major driver of climate change? It's not like we have an atmosphere or nearness to the sun anything like Venus, to which those who parrot the great oxymoron that "the science is settled" evidently believe this very low concentration gas among other much greater effects is transforming our planet.
I'm pretty sure Venus' atmosphere is hot because it's so thick, not because it's carbon dioxide. We know this because the temperature only changes a degree or two over the course of the Venusian night. Venusian. Now that's a nice word. Anyway, the Venusian night is like 100 days long or whatever, but it doesn't really cool in that timeframe. I don't think any amount of greenhouse gas warming by carbon dioxide could possibly do that, no matter the amount of carbon dioxide. There's only so much radiation available in the appropriate spectrums. But I don't know. And no one ever argues the point on the climate alarmist side. They just make their claims unchallenged, which is, of course, par for the course for the global warming crowd.
The only actual empirical experiment re human emissions just concluded. The pandemic caused a drastic reduction in emissions globally for almost a year -- some 30%. This would be all but impossible to achieve in normal times. The NOAA data show atmospheric CO2 levels rising during that period at precisely the same rate as they have for decades, and still today. There isn't even a slight blip corresponding to the pandemic.
Of course this received almost zero press coverage. Can you imagine if it had been the reverse? If pandemic cuts had shown a major effect on CO2 rates then we'd be bombarded with that news daily: "see! We can make a difference!"
The whole bandwagon has now fallen completely off the road.
The invented culprit of global warming, co2, was likely used because of its vagueness. Any claims could be made around it with hazy scientific personages, studies, and forecasts only requiring top authorities of periodicals, government heads, academia and the everywhere making trouble wormy NGO"S.
Kids are brainwashed non-stop with the propaganda from early childhood and as we have seen as of late, people of all ages and backgrounds would rather go along to get along rather than swim against the current. The Big Lie relies on people's apathy not to question what is taken for granted and their goodwill intentions towards others.
The deceivers, in their greed for control and self-justification, will receive their just rewards upon death.
Wow you’re doing a lot of very patient leg work in a room full of people desperate to believe something contrarian.
Sometimes I read articles and comment threads like this just to see what is being said by or fed to climate conspiracists. Just thought you deserved some applause. 👏👏👏 good luck changing minds with hard data, IMO this is a belief problem, but it all needs doing I suppose!
It's actually very complicated: earth's solar radiation budget depends on where clouds are (tropics or mid-latitudes), what they are (thin, high clouds or dense, low clouds) and in which season they appear (or fail to appear, as the case may be). What drives variability in global and regional cloud cover is also very complicated, dependent upon changing global and regional circulation patterns linked to the upper atmosphere jet streams, the Brewer-Dobson global circulation governing the position of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and ozone chemical reactions in the stratosphere.
The thing to note though is that direct solar radiative forcing of the climate via variability in cloud cover is at least an order of magnitude greater than CO2 greenhouse gas forcing. Over short periods (of the order of decades and years), alleged 'man-made climate change' can easily be lost in the noise.
I might also add that Hunga Tonga threw our climate scientist 'experts' a genuine googly which they are still trying to (unsuccessfully) figure out!
Yes, indeed. And, in spite of that complexity, the signal relationship between cloud coverage in general and surface temperature is still quite apparent? As the authors say, we should be focussing on cloud research if we were really that concerned about the planet going through one of its natural temperature up-cycles?
So now we admit we're inn an up-cycle?
Again reduced cloud cover (and reduced albedo) is not a forcing- it's a result of warming. Yes the positive relationship between cloud coverage and temperature is of course apparent!
Show an alarmist a chart of cloud coverage changes preceding surface temperature changes along side a chart of surface temperature changes preceding CO2 changes, and what do they respond? My eyesight may be deteriorating as I get older but my acuity isn't it.
Joel, we've been through this before. Changes in both cloud coverage and atmospheric co2 are both causes and consequences of changing surface temperature. I may be getting older but I can still grasp simple, observable concepts. Yourself, not so much, you seem to prefer playing with words.
'Alarmist' may be better than 'climatard' though my preference is scientist.
Name calling won't get you anywhere.
In the middle of “plunderers of the earth” by Julius reuchel. What an eye opener!
Changes in cloud cover is also not a forcing so it's magnitude is irrelevant.
"albedo-change (from slightly reduced cloud cover, possibly from Pacific warming) is not a forcing. That's the first big mistake in this myth. Instead it is a very good example of a climate feedback process. It is occurring in response to an external climate forcing - the increased greenhouse effect caused by our carbon emissions. Due to that forcing, the Arctic is warming quickly and snow/ice coverage shows a long-term decrease. Less reflective surfaces become uncovered, leading to more absorption of sunshine and more energy goes into the system. It's a self-reinforcing process.'
If you look at satellite images of the planet, you will notice the clouds in weather-systems appear bright. Cloud-tops have a high albedo but it varies depending on the type of cloud. Wispy high clouds do not reflect as much incoming sunshine as do dense low-level cloud-decks.
Since the early 2000s we have been able to measure the amount of energy reflected back to space through sophisticated instruments aboard satellites. Recently published data (2021) indicate planetary albedo, although highly variable, is showing an overall slow decrease. The main cause is thought to be warming of parts of the Pacific Ocean leading to less coverage of those reflective low-level cloud-decks, but it's early days yet.
Albedo is an important cog in the climate gearbox. It appears to be in a long-term slow decline but varies a lot over shorter periods. That 'noise' makes it unscientific to cite shorter observation-periods. Conclusive climatological trend-statements are generally based on at least 30 years of observations,"
Changes in the regional distribution and global net cloud cover resulting in an increase or decrease in net solar radiation penetrating to the earth’s surface is very much a climate forcing and its magnitude is very relevant, exceeding greenhouse gas radiative forcing by at least an order of magnitude, even over multi-decadal time scales.
Net cloud cover is so variable that the recent detected decrease in albedo (which may also be due to decrease in aerosols and changes in land use) can't be claimed to exceed anything yet. However, you raise an important point about magnitude. The direct climate sensitivity of doubling co2 is about an increase of 1 degree C though when the reinforcing feedbacks (or forcing as you call them) are added the rise is tripled to 3 Degrees C for doubling co2.
You don't really know that.
No it is not a forcing. The consequences of warming (less albedo from ice and cloud) may exceed co2 warming by a very large magnitude - it doesn't let the cause of the warming off the hook. You're being illogical.
Yes, it is a forcing. Cloud cover changes are a radiative forcing, aka a natural external climate forcing, which is almost certainly linked to internal climate forcings (e.g. the multidecadal Atlantic and Pacific oscillations). I'm not being illogical.
Yes the PDO may have flipped in 2015 (maybe for 'natural' reasons other than emissions warming) leading to the sharp decrease in albedo from loss of cloud cover and thus causing warming. But the increases in the PDO and sea surface temps off coast of North and South America were in decline by 2020.
This also doesn't explain the warming since 1850 particularly from the 1980s. You are being disingenous.
IPCC says all warming since 1950 is man-made. The planet COOLED from 1950 until the late 1970s. In 1976, after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, AMO and PDO both moved into positive phase and warming accelerated from the early 1980s until 1998. Warming stalled from 1998-2015 (the Pause) - which was subsequently erased by retrospective 'adjustments' to the global surface temperature datasets. Warming took off again in 2015/16, sparked by the super El Nino of that year. Thus, it can be reasonably argued that the majority of warming post 1976 is natural, due to internal variability, not GHG warming. The period 1910-1945 also saw very sharp warming, comparable to 1976-98. GHG emissions cannot explain this early warming, because there was not enough CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the early 20th century spurt in warming was also natural. So tell me, who is being disingenuous?
Global net cloud cover my ass, I'm a fuckin' Globe Denier!😂😊😎https://open.substack.com/pub/merrick1/p/jew-trek?r=1hywhr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You may ban me now, and delete my comment, if you are just another delusional Sheeple Grabble, shill!!!🤣🤡🌎😎 I do like screenshots to shame the ones lost in the sauce, of there jew masters!
Warmer water evaporates faster and creates more clouds.
I've just read the best explanation of how the CERES data- showing the decrease in albedo from decreases in air pollution (occurring well before 2020 marine engine oil clean up) means that it's not JUST co2 driving warming-it's also loss of albedo meaning that the moderates position of 1 to 2 degrees are way underestimating the future warming.
https://richardcrim.substack.com/p/the-crisis-report-95
Yes short term can get lost- that's why more than decades is useful.
Hunga Tonga is accounted for some warming, but not much.
It's not complicated. Albedo has decreased due to the melting of ice (caused by human emissions). Clouds of course affect the climate and whizz around and keep change, that's why trends are looked at.
'In their Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC also points out that the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere has markedly increased since the pre-industrial era. As a consequence, clouds now reflect more incoming Solar energy than before industrial times. In other words, aerosols released by human activities have had a cooling effect. That cooling effect has countered a lot of the warming caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions over the last century. Nevertheless, they also state that this counter-effect is expected to diminish in the future. As air pollution controls are adopted worldwide, there will be a reduction in the amount of aerosols released into the atmosphere. Therefore, cloud-top albedo is expected to diminish. Hansen merely suggests this albedo-reduction may already be underway."
Sorry, Jo. Still not buying that 0.04% of CO2 is driving much of anything. But, for sure, more communism will help.
Especially when statistical analysis shows that changes in CO2 concentration lag changes in temperature on all relevant time scales. But violating causality appears to be no problem for those claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the tail wagging the climate dog!
Jesus, yes Co2 is both a consequence (lag) and a cause of warming (otherwise the Earth would be -17 degrees- very chilly).
Your explanation does not explain why centuries past Co2 was in the thousands yet the temperature was very low
err which centuries are these? for the past 400,000 years co2 (in 100s parts per million) and temperature have been in lock step.
yes, let's hear it for Central Planning! You know that one central office in Switzerland can make the BEST decisions for all people everywhere. Yep, they can tell the people halfway around the world what to do and those people will comply because Central Planning Knows Best!
And definitely paying more taxes will help…
Still not buying that lack of trace elements of a tiny bit of arsenic can kill you?
LOL! Look up "false equivalency"
LOL. Look up 'measured reality'. The so called 'small' percentage of carbon dioxide, yes, well done it is around 0.04%, in the atmosphere, especially when amplified by water vapour, goes a big, long way.
If it didn't and there was no greenhouse effect caused by co2 absorbing heat at verifiable wavelengths then the temperature would be about -17 degrees C and there wouldn't be human life as we know it. What part of observable reality are you not buying?
Yeah but Jo it's not 0.04% is it, it's the 3% of the 0.04% that's the problem or the 12 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 in the atmosphere. Hide behind the sofa if you wish, pay more tax, pay for higher electricity, welcome more centralised planning for those 12 molecules but leave us alone.
Of course they are quite right. Here is a similar study by Professor Ole Humlum covering the global warming period of the 1980s and 90s: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/04/29/global-temperatures-and-reduced-cloud-cover/.
To borrow the misused phrase of arch climate alarmist Al Gore, this was one of many “inconvenient truths” I used in my recent debunking of the climate change hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
When I'm Benign Ruler of the World, I intend doing various things to improve the lot of my grateful subjects. One of the first things is to get rid of all researchers who publish things that say "as commonly believed". Anything that is merely "commonly believed" will never be subjected to nonsense decisions based on what is clearly simply an article of faith. "CO2 is destroying the world and that excess CO2 is caused by humans so we must stop everything we do and aim to get rid of the excess CO2" is merely an opinion or a belief. "It's the sun and the clouds wot done it" is another opinion is it? As Benign Ruler, I will stop all belief systems imposing their views on the rest of the world - let the climate do its thing which is has been doing long before we arrived. Want to save the planet? Stop spraying it with toxic chemicals. Easy.
WHAT! The sun affects our weather? Goodness gracious me! Who would have thought? … The answer is of course; everyone excepted Climate Change Nutters! Then there’s the inconsistent orbit of earth around the sun. When the earth is closer to the sun it warms, farther away it cools. No, but you say this to a Climate Change Nutter, they dis agree and say “We got to stop farming, all those cattle farting are causin’ climate change!” :/
There are no climate change nutters saying that the earth's orbit, sun, ice, clouds and albedo (and Hunga Tonga) do not affect the climate. This is a strawman fallacy and pathetic.
True. “Climate change nutters” believe the giant lie told to them: that climate change is primarily and overwhelmingly caused by CO2 emissions. And looking at that statement in the context of all the other variables affecting warming is quite nutty.
Right. They claim all those factors that are of orders of magnitude greater somehow finely "balance out".
So because climate is affected a lot by some things it can't be affected a little or a lot in terms of the window for human civilisation?
While admittedly my comment is brief. It does capture the essence of the “climate change enthusiasts” position; that being, their primary focus, anthropological driven climate change ie food production in the form of “farming” which of course uses ‘fossil’ fuel tractors etc. So, while you called my comment a strawman argument, I would ask that you more carefully consider my point. I’m sorry about the “nutter” slur. I’m just so fed up with the one dimensional argument. Which in the end, comes to depopulation in the cruelest ways.
Tell me more, my good woman. You seem to have an interesting option.
Opinion or option. I do have an interesting option- it's called looking into these nutty old tropes, from the fossil fuel industry, that have been going round for years. If you really want to know more rather than just accepting this nonsense then please have a read https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
My beef is not with the fact that climate change exists, it’s the idea that it’s anthropogenically driven. And somehow, with all the variables acknowledged, the minuscule contribution mankind can possibly make in the attempted changing of the weather, is at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world, the poor! It’s inhumane!
Well unfortunately it is anthropogenically driven.
Address the ‘elephant in the room’! “…at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world, the poor! It’s inhumane!”
😂😂😂
Try the following experiment. On a hot sunny day, put your hand on a black asphalt road, driveway or roof. Then put your hand on some grass, or on a leaf of a tree. Big difference. Now imagine how much heat is being generated by the millions of square miles of sun absorbing black stuff with which we have replaced the forests and grasslands It adds up. CO2 is a red herring that Wall street has figured out a way to profit off of with carbon credits. That's why it is pushed.
CO2 is definitely a red herring, and a very profitable one at that! The latest CO2 theory pushers’ solution is to … wait for it … cut down and bury whole trees! And they get paid to do that by corporations that are “offsetting” their “CO2 footprint.” Beyond ridiculous, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
Yes carbon offsets are a total scam and disgrace. And?
Not to mention massive amounts of air conditioning, the mnet effect of which is WARMING, The electricity and refrigerant operated AC units that pred\imate not being 100% efficient.
Have read that the climate “scientists” have also lowered the height that the earth’s temperature is now measured at, which will read at higher temperatures which then distorts data when compared historically.
Have I read this? Scientists get dissed when they adjust for changes in stations, heights and times of day and dissed for when they don't. The oceans accounted for 90% of warming and don't have any of these issues. Take a look at what's happening there.
Even the skeptics have not challenged the role of C02 for some warming, the amount of warming that CO2 was contributing has been the point of contention. Then the models amplified (positive feedback) the ~1C warming from C02 to 3 to 8 C of warming. So this theory is indeed controversial but the nevertheless there is agreement that CO2 is not the primary driver of warming or climate change. Models, they will tell you whatever you like or pay for.
Human emissions of GHGs are the main causes of the climate crisis. You get what you pay for if you listen to the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.
When certain large countries are allowed to go on building coal fired energy plants while smaller countries that produce very small amounts of greenhouse gasses are forced to decimate their own economies by not using their own natural resources, further weakening their own sovereignty-I call this a huge hoax that has other intents rather than to fight “climate change”. If it looks like a wealth transfer and smells like a wealth transfer and functions as a wealth transfer-then what is it?!
The fossil fuel industry is all in on the climate change narrative. Check their web sites.
Yes clever clogs Rockefeller and Big Oil has been controlling both sides of the narrative for decades.
Rockefeller is a big fiinancial supporting of the climate narrative, of course this support has no strings attached.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-over-usd-1-billion-to-advance-climate-solutions/
Yep.
And this recent presentation by Dr John Clauser
https://rumble.com/v5a9379-climate-change-is-a-myth-john-clauser-phd.html
Calling it a 'myth' isn't useful. The climate has changed constantly for millions of years. In fact several researchers suggest that the past 10,000 years have been unusually stable.
I fear we'll never get to the bottom of it ...
a) (even) more complex than 'COVID'
b) a fraud lasting for decades not years.
An academic friend says that he believes 'climate scientists' were fairly honest up to the 1970s or early 80s. That still leaves 40 years in which corrupt influences were brought to bear.
“Calling it [climate change] a myth isn’t helpful”. I don’t think it’s worth quibbling over. In everyday parlance the phrase “climate change” is almost always used to mean or imply anthropogenic climate change due to man-made CO2 emissions. I believe the propagandist UN IPCC deliberately muddied the waters by defining “climate change” to mean either natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change.
No-one understands the low-information masses like the globalists!
Calling folks "low information masses" doesn't really help the situation.
Most, many... have been indoctrinated for generations on so many fronts.
Raising oneself above others is likely the most horrifying agenda of all.
Separating ourselves, judging, pointing fingers... etc. etc.
If this needs to be teased apart and many need to be educated, so be it.
But you will never help another understand or entertain different perspectives if you have no respect for those you hope to teach.
And around and around we go and a whole lot more blah blah blah...
Joel's message is essentially the truth, it could be softened to not insult someone but the tone of your reply could also be more collaborative. Sometimes frustration gets the best of us, but also shows we care or we wouldn't say anything to those that may not have the full picture, which none of us really do.
Joel's message may be completely truthful, although he spoke down to those who cannot see a couple of times on this feed.
I honestly don't feel frustrated in this, just saddened.
In the middle of all the insanity. And all the teasing apart of the pieces that needs to done, the one piece that concerns me is the division, separation I see. (which I believe is a very large part of the present day agenda against all life on earth)
Some are diving deep into historical narratives to see what may be more truthful but with some this looks like finger pointing. People desperate to find the culprit, the scapegoat.
This is separate from the climate narrative and indoctrination piece. Which I find more relevant in the moment.
We live on a planet with a lot of other humans. Some, many, most, cannot see the bigger picture but characterizing them as low information I don't think is healthy. I also don't think it's true.
I think we need to be careful how we speak about each other. We need to reach for understanding even when it's hard.
I'm sorry you felt what I wrote was not collaborative. It's not my intent. I was just speaking to one small but exceedingly important piece.
The feeling of frustration doesn't begin to speak to how I am feeling.
No-one understands the low-information masses like the fossil fuel and animal ag industries.
I looked up the definition of "myth" and actually based on the information John presents it is a fitting title.
Myth: "A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal"
I've attempted to fill in some of those 40 years...just logging data points as I research:
https://totalityofevidence.com/climate-change/
I've been logging data points (screenshots and links) while exploring the Global Warming > Climate Change topic.
https://totalityofevidence.com/climate-change/
Key stand out date (see link above for more):
January 18, 1998 was when, via a simple email from NASA's James Hansen, the global average temperatue "fell" from 15 degrees C to 14 degrees C, creating instant global warming! NASA changed all the historical temperature data (see links below). In Vital Signs 1997 report a new "zero point" appeared on the graphs.
Compare:
https://totalityofevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vital-Sign-1997-ave-global-tems-zero-point-introduces.jpg
https://totalityofevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/1998-ave-global-temp.jpg
Clauser shows the "the climate science" is based on flawed data, it is so bad it is laughable, that is what I did as he explained the "bad penny" that keeps turning up.
Spraying the place with aluminum, strontium, barium and whatever hasn't helped eh? Go figure that.
This is on a par with 'it's lab leak'! A perfect excuse to continue with the 'solar radiation management'... 'never mind CO2, we gotta increase those clouds, folks!'
Hopefully, once all these truth threads are pulled, even the lowest cognitives of society will see that the whole thing is a pack of lies.
Lowest cognitives of society- I think you're projecting Joel.
Cognition is deeply affected by trauma.
If you believe in contagion, disease, pandemics, you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you believe your actions are destroying the environment, the climate... etc... you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you're reading anything about what's happening in the world from mainstream media you are likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you're listening to alternative, more truthful perspectives, you're likely very traumatized at this moment.
If you already had traumatic experiences in your past (which I would guess is more the norm than not), than present day insanity is likely coupling up with insanity from the past, no matter your perspective.
If we cannot understand the work of being human we will never make our way forward.
They won't, at least not for a decade after "...all these truth threads are pulled,...."
Yes solar radiation management will be a disaster, that doesn't mean there isn't anthropogenic climate change.
The issue is not especially whether there is climate change, of course there is. Climate has changed drastically over the history of the earth. The question is what risk does human activity pose to the climate and most importantly, is said change such a grave threat to humanity that we need to submit to corrupt Totalitarian rule: 15 minute cities, eating insects 🐜, eliminating cows, having our water usage seriously limited, drinking recycled sewage, demanding “carbon sequestering” farming practices, world governance with any dissent defined as hate speech subject to imprisonment or worse, large transfers of wealth from developed countries to 3rd world countries because of “climate equity”, eliminating fossil fuels even though the replacement energy sources are even more problematic, only being able to buy 3 new outfits a year, one short haul flight allowed every three years, 500 mandatory vaccines, most of the earth not accessible to plebs. And on and on.
No. No. A thousand times no. Even though big ag and oil are corrupt like all corporations.
Exactly. Full stop no to totalitarian “solutions” for the masses while those like Bill Gates go on whizzing around the world on their private planes telling us how virtuous they are since they spent 8 or 9 million dollars on bio fuel and are buying up properties at sea level while spouting fear about rising ocean levels.
Given the power of nature and the ability of the planet to maintain homeostasis (for itself) I doubt the effect of anything anthropogenic will have much impact on it... though what it does impact is us and our living, immediate environment... which the planet then has to rectify, via, e.g opening up the ozone layer to 'cleanse' or in other ways we don't fully understand, analogous to a human's fever or mucus secretions or inflammation.
Yes. anything that uses energy contributing to warming, especially HVAC systems, industrial manufacturing, and engines of all sorts. I would expect they dwarf the effects of CO2.
The part of this that never (or at least rarely) gets discussed is the locations where these temperatures are taken. When data from RAWS (remote automated weather stations) are used the difference is much less, and often shows a decline in "average" temperature. However, many stations that were once remote, are now within urban heat islands, and they skew the data to show a positive delta in temperature.
The climate change folks will use, manipulate and often generate, whatever "data" that supports their religious belief, and ignore that which "clouds" it.
Oh god the old urban stations nonsense again https://jowaller.substack.com/p/response-to-john-dees-nonsense?utm_source=publication-search fortunately 90% of warming is in ocean which doesn't suffer from urbanisation.
I am so glad that we finally have a study to tell us if clouds reflecting sunlight can cool the earth.
Naturally I wouldn't have known otherwise.
I always thought the big white fluffy things were marshmallows that god was roasting over our boiling oceans.
When I was young we saw dreams in the white wispy things
Today we see poached marshmallows.
How indeed can a gas that makes up a tiny % of the atmospheric composition be THE major driver of climate change? It's not like we have an atmosphere or nearness to the sun anything like Venus, to which those who parrot the great oxymoron that "the science is settled" evidently believe this very low concentration gas among other much greater effects is transforming our planet.
I'm pretty sure Venus' atmosphere is hot because it's so thick, not because it's carbon dioxide. We know this because the temperature only changes a degree or two over the course of the Venusian night. Venusian. Now that's a nice word. Anyway, the Venusian night is like 100 days long or whatever, but it doesn't really cool in that timeframe. I don't think any amount of greenhouse gas warming by carbon dioxide could possibly do that, no matter the amount of carbon dioxide. There's only so much radiation available in the appropriate spectrums. But I don't know. And no one ever argues the point on the climate alarmist side. They just make their claims unchallenged, which is, of course, par for the course for the global warming crowd.
The only actual empirical experiment re human emissions just concluded. The pandemic caused a drastic reduction in emissions globally for almost a year -- some 30%. This would be all but impossible to achieve in normal times. The NOAA data show atmospheric CO2 levels rising during that period at precisely the same rate as they have for decades, and still today. There isn't even a slight blip corresponding to the pandemic.
Of course this received almost zero press coverage. Can you imagine if it had been the reverse? If pandemic cuts had shown a major effect on CO2 rates then we'd be bombarded with that news daily: "see! We can make a difference!"
The whole bandwagon has now fallen completely off the road.
The invented culprit of global warming, co2, was likely used because of its vagueness. Any claims could be made around it with hazy scientific personages, studies, and forecasts only requiring top authorities of periodicals, government heads, academia and the everywhere making trouble wormy NGO"S.
Kids are brainwashed non-stop with the propaganda from early childhood and as we have seen as of late, people of all ages and backgrounds would rather go along to get along rather than swim against the current. The Big Lie relies on people's apathy not to question what is taken for granted and their goodwill intentions towards others.
The deceivers, in their greed for control and self-justification, will receive their just rewards upon death.
Yes Big OIl relies on apathy and gullibility in belief in globalists.https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-wef-agenda-of-depopulation-and
Wow you’re doing a lot of very patient leg work in a room full of people desperate to believe something contrarian.
Sometimes I read articles and comment threads like this just to see what is being said by or fed to climate conspiracists. Just thought you deserved some applause. 👏👏👏 good luck changing minds with hard data, IMO this is a belief problem, but it all needs doing I suppose!
Cheers to Henrik Svensmark !!!
Good to see you Joel. Been missing you.