Normally in science when there are difference points of view on a subject, scientists are eager to debate each other. But this never happens these days in climate science. One exception to that was a debate that took place in New York 10 years ago. The debate didn’t go so well for the CO2 cause climate catastrophe promoting scientists.
As a result of this debate, the leading climate alarmist scientists made a policy decision to never ever have a debate with any qualified global warming skeptic, which sometimes have led to comical situations. Of course, by declaring that there is a scientific consensus on the subject and that the debate is over, they are saying to critics shut up. This is a very effective method to keep the climate hysteria going.
Here is a none debate between Roy Spencer and Gavin Schmidt. Roy Spencer is a scientist which is responsible for a satellite temperature record called UHA. Gavin Schmidt is a scientist at GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies which is a NASA organization that is responsible for the most often used temperature record based on surface temperature stations. Over time the GISS temperature data record has been adjusted so that old temperature records have been adjusted down and resent temperature records has been adjusted up. This reason for this, it is claimed, is because stations sometimes has been moved or the time of day for the recordings has been changed. At the time of this recording the director of GISS a man called James Hansen. He has been a climate alarmist guru for the environmental movement. He was several times arrested during demonstration sit-ins during his time as a director of GISS. Today the director of GISS is Gavin Schmidt and thus the adjustment of the GISS data record has been accelerated.
What happens when one studies historical climate data? Answer: One finds that the climate is cyclical.
Nature doesn’t care where the CO2 increase comes from.
But what if I tell you that the increase of CO2 is mostly natural and that the human contribution on that increase is just a small fraction. You maybe think I’m mad.
The most bizarre thing about climate hysteria is that the dangerous human caused global warming threat doesn’t exists in the first place and even more bizarre is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has little to do with human activity. In fact, data from stomata from fossilized leaves show that at the end of the Medieval Warm Period about year 1300 AD. the level of CO2 was about the same as today, 400ppm. Stomata is the breathing opening on leaves, by which they absorb CO2 and exhale O2 and H2O. The size of the opening of the stomata depends on the CO2 level in the atmosphere. The 400ppm level was sustained for 200 years after 1300 even though the climate cooled down after 1300.
Here is an explanation for why humans have little to do with the CO2 increase. The increase is caused by warmer surface water.
But, first I like to summarize what the video show. The residence time of CO2 in the 60ties was only about 5 years based on C14 measurements after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests ban. The increase of CO2 is about 2 ppm/year but varies greatly depending on variations in sea surface temperature. This, in itself, shows that the increase is mostly natural.
Conclusion: Either the scientist in this field are incompetent or they have been corrupted by environmental activism.
The fact that politicians use gigantic amount of tax money to try to fight “global warming” while the threat from dangerous human caused global warming doesn’t exist and that the bulk of the increase of CO2 is not caused by humans are not crazy enough, it gets even crazier.
The real climate driver, the electromagnetic activity of the Sun now show rapid decline which is a sure sign of coming global cooling. The electromagnetic balance between the north and south of the Sun show signs of more and more imbalance and is an indication that the next solar cycle is going to be even weaker and that we are likely to enter a new Maunder Minimum like period as we did between 1645 and 1710.
The recent strong El Niño caused the temperature spiked which showed up, not only on temperature stations, but also on satellite and weather balloon measurements. Some climate activist scientists claimed that only about 0.2-0.1 C of the peak was due to the El Niño but the rest was caused by human greenhouse gases. This was the proof they have been waiting for. Now the anthropogenic global warming at last is taking off, as they had predicted.
This is all nonsense of course.
In fact, nearly all of the temperature spike can be directly attributed to the recent El Niño which was also long lasting with a weak mid Pacific centered El Niño the year before. Because of this long lasting El Niño forcing, which also affected the tropical waters of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean, the temperature spike created a record spike. Similar ENSO mechanisms exist in the Indian Ocean and in the Atlantic although with other response time and with weaker temperature forcing.
This created a huge reaction by the media, among climate activists and among climate scientists as this article pointed out that the cause of the warming was the El Niño. To claim this was regarded as heresy and a challenge against their narrative. So, the accused this article to be full of lies, while in fact it just presented facts.
The British newspaper The Guardian has become a fake news outlet for the green agenda. Yes, they admit this themselves as they have abandon journalism and changes their policies to green advocacy. They claimed falsely that the recent temperature spike was mainly caused by human causes.
Note: the temperature graph they use in the guardian is from NASA/GISS which use temperature surface station which has a lot of problems and are open to manipulations. So, for example, there has not been any measured temperature increase since 2000 if the effect from the recent El Niño is removed. This conclusion is based on data made from satellite and from weather balloon. So, this show no statistical temperature increase for this century so far. Note however that we are talking about small temperature changes which is within statistical noise. According to satellite measurement, the recent temperature spike that was about 0.02 C “earth shattering” warmer compared to the temperature spike during the 1997-98 El Niño.
Temperature comparison between different temperature sets. Here you can see NASA/GISS temperature is higher than the other sets in what is called the divergence problem and recent temperature manipulation of the NASA/GISS record.
Here is additional information on the recent temperature manipulations.
After all, El Niño is the most influential weather phenomena on Earth and it should be a vital component in making valid climate models. But, despite massive research into the El Niño phenomena and its index or what it is also called ENSO “El Niño southern Oscillation”, the forecast capability of dynamic and statistical ENSO models is limited to only a few months, at the most.
However, ENSO has a semi oscillation dynamic feature. The basic mechanism of ENSO is that heated surface water is drifted by wind and sea currents to the western tropical Pacific Ocean where warm water over time accumulates down to several hundred meters beneath the surface creating. This over time, forms a pocket of warm water. Normally the trade wind is blowing in an easterly direction pushing up the sea level about half a meter in the Western Pacific. Eventually, the trade wind in the western part of the tropical Pacific slackens or change direction. This then push back some of the warm water which then moves under the surface to the east. After about 2 to 3 months this warm water may resurface at or near the South American coast which then act as a fuel for an El Niño.
Scientists use buoys that are positions along the equator to monitor movements of this water and can therefore make predictions a few months in advance what is likely going to happen. But, sometimes this water is dispersed and never reach the surface.
El Niño thus act as a ventilation mechanism, releasing heat which originate in the western pacific by moving this warm water to the eastern pacific surface. This heat then warms the atmosphere over the pacific. The conclusion made by scientists working is this field is that the triggers for ENSO variations is caused from chaotic weather fluctuations, which can’t be predicted.
This is talked more about in this Congressional briefing. At about 26 minutes in this video Clara Deser declares that long term ENSO forecasting is impossible.
However, her conclusion is wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the dynamic models are working quite well in describing the dynamic features of ENSO. It’s just that they don’t include the triggers. They don’t have a clue, yet these triggers are the dominant underlining drivers of ENSO variability.
Who has discovered what triggers ENSO variations? I have!
Here is my latest ENSO forecast, based on my findings.
The question then arises, why haven’t they discovered these fundamental drivers, despite all the money and manpower used in El Niño research?
I think, that one reason is that these drivers which are external to internal dynamic weather fluctuations is outside the area of expertise for most climate scientists.
Also, it appears that it is a sort of taboo to look for outside forces relating to gravitational and solar effects.
Both dynamic ENSO and climate models are suffering from what I call “the black box syndrome”. What I mean with that is that they ignore data coming from outside of Earth. In other words, their models are incomplete and thus wrong. It doesn’t matter if they use more powerful computers with smaller increments in both time and space. They still get the wrong answers.
Because they have missed to discover these drivers for ENSO, the questions become why haven’t they included these forces in GCM climate models that are supposed to calculate global temperatures 100 years into the future?
When I started to consider climate science I noted their reliance on computer models. But for me, because of my background, I have built computer models in other fields, the idea that these models were reliable seemed to me to be a bit bizarre. There are too many unknown factors for that. It took me a long time before I realized to computer models for most people means something reliable and trustworthy and that these models are one reason that so many people believe in the dangerous human caused global warming theory.
Computer models can’t be wrong, can they?
There are other reasons for many people to believe in AGW, trust in authority. Also people need paychecks, especially in academia.
It’s not a smart career move in academia to put a question mark of the validity on the theory dangerous human caused global warming. Your academic credibility then will become in question.
Can the main drivers for ENSO be identified and established?
These are some of the questions I have spent on researching in recent times.
First I examined the forcing factors for global temperature as measured from satellite.
As you can see from my research, variations in the solar wind seem to be one of the most important temperture drivers. However it is possible that this correlation I got could also be caused by the sensor equipment on the satellite.
To my surprise I found that the main driver for ENSO variations is from small variations in the tidal force.
Because the tidal force for the future is known it is possible to know whether ENSO is going to be in an El Niño phase, La Niña or in a neutral phase at a specific time in the future and long range predictions into the future can now be made.