• Home
  • Current News
  • Climate Science Consensus Finds Global Warming Below Earlier Periods

Climate Science Consensus Finds Global Warming Below Earlier Periods

Written by C3 Headlines

Scientists associated with the UN’s IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only “unprecedented” global warming but also dangerous “runaway” warming, which would then produce “tipping point” climate change.

The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK’s global HadCRUT4) confirms it. 

As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don’t even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart – an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)

The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious – how was the IPCC so wrong?

And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC’s climate science orthodoxy.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Read more at www.c3headlines.com

Trackback from your site.

Comments (13)

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    David Appell says –

    “PS: Heat-trapping does not necessarily mean there are less emissions to space. The surface is heating up in order to restore energy imbalance, i.e. to restore the energy in = energy out conservation relationship.”; and,

    “I like to calculate these things for myself. Thanks.”

    I’m sorry but You just cannot expect to be taken seriously if you make simplistic statements like “to restore the energy in = energy out conservation relationship” without qualifying what you actually mean when you say energy in = energy out ?

    Are you agreeing that there are HIGHER emissions to space ?

    Because I take this as a certainty if one is using radiant emissions to measure temperature !

    Every law of radiation physics explicitly says a hot object emist higher emissions than a cold one and this is EXACTLY the basis of remote temperature sensing !

    The Earth’s surfaces are being heated because they are being prevented from cooling by “heat trapping” ?

    Do you mean energy INTO the coupled Earth /atmosphere system MUST EQUAL the energy out ?

    If we assume the Earth is not losing its internal “heat” to any large extent then the “extra” energy causing the emitted energy anomaly shown by the Nimbus systems over 26 years MUST be coming from the Sun.

    I’ll quote this from a paper written a few years ago:-

    “Here is the important point to remember: No matter what the composition of the atmosphere is, the irradiance from the surface temperature of earth at the equator plus the reflected irradiance cannot exceed the total blackbody irradiance, which is equal to the solar irradiance.”

    I would have thought that was straightforward physics !

    Perhaps I am wrong so as you claim “I like to calculate these things for myself” why don’t you show us the equations you use to establish that “The surface is heating up in order to restore energy imbalance, i.e. to restore the energy in = energy out conservation relationship.”

    Write a submission on this for posting here and we can all examine whether you are correct rather than using meaningless simplistic statements which sound “sciency”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    David Appell says:-

    “Yes, I know where UAH data is.

    But those data are not measurements of emissions to space.

    So kindly point me to the latter data, please.”

    Seriously ?

    I didn’t want to turn this into a competition over semantics but your statement “But those data are not measurements of emissions to space” is absurd !

    Let’s tick the boxes !
    .
    I assume the satellites are in space ! Tick 1 for me.

    I assume the satellites do not directly measure the temperature of anything as being in space means there is virtually no contact with anything which has any real temperature. Tick 2 for me.

    I am told they measure the spectral radiance in various wavelength bands received at the sensor and use the equations of radiation physics to infer the emitting temperatures. Tick 3 for me.

    Again, your statement “But those data are not measurements of emissions to space” is absurd semantics.

    The actual emissions to space actually do exist – ask NASA or the European Space Agency for them. I don’t have them.

    But your diversion tactic means nothing – if the satellite data shows changes in temperature it is ONLY because the emissions to space are changing !

    To claim otherwise is absurd beyond belief !

    And, as they ALL show a warming trend the emissions to space MUST HAVE increased – to claim otherwise is also absurd beyond belief !

    Besides all of this BS semantics I did actually provide one link to the Nimbus 40th anniversary page which purportedly shows increased emissions to space in terms of a W/m2 anomaly and the satellites that recorded the data !

    I assume they aren’t lying and accept the positive anomaly is real – ask them for the data !

    The only question I have for them is what is the basis for the Zero point for the anomaly they show in their graph ?

    I assume the period from 1965 to 1979 has been used to establish this as there is nothing else in existence.

    And I still say they clearly indicate a positive anomaly of radiant emissions to space totally inconsistent with “heat trapping”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    David,
    Other than that one bristle cone pine tree from the mountains just east of the Sierra Nevadas, is there any evidence you would like to contribute?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter F Gill

    |

    It is not atypical for the UK to have a negative temperature gradient from the South Coast of England to the northern tip of Scotland of 10 Degrees C. This means that if one is not happy with an increase in temperature of 0.78 C then one answer would be to move 70 miles north.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Appell

    |

    There are newer data available, HadCRUT 4.5. It shows warming from 1954-2013 to be +0.73 C, much larger than what’s above. Moreover, it includes that last few years, which are record highs. For the 60 years ending in 2016, the warming is +0.78 C.

    Also, it shows the 1894-1953 period to have lower warming, only +0.48 C.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      Funny how every data set “proved” human induced global warming/climate change and each was the “gold standard” of its time. However, more recent versions still “prove” human induced global warming/climate change whilst the changes show the old ones are now just wrong. Of course, the new ones are now the “gold standard” of their time – until the next revision upwards !

      CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume and is at least 90% “transparent” to all the IR frequencies emitted by Earth’s surfaces.

      CO2 or any greenhouse gas is incapable of “trapping heat” as is confirmed by every satellite record since the beginning of the satellite era. EVERY satellite record shows an increase in emissions to space NOT less as is required by the hypothesis of “heat trapping”.

      That alone should indicate “heat trapping” is not occurring.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        What scientist says any dataset is the “gold standard?”

        I suspect C3 Headlines did a poor calculation using HadCRUT 4, but I am not interested enough to go back and redo that specific calculation.

        HC 4.5 certainly do not support his argument, as I showed. If you have better calculations, show them here.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        Rosco says:
        “EVERY satellite record shows an increase in emissions to space NOT less as is required by the hypothesis of “heat trapping”.”

        Where are these data? Please post them here.
        Thanks.

        PS: Heat-trapping does not necessarily mean there are less emissions to space. The surface is heating up in order to restore energy imbalance, i.e. to restore the energy in = energy out conservation relationship.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          David Appell says “Where are these data? ” as if I am making this stuff up – a typical attack response.

          They are easy to find and surely you know what I say is true.

          I find it interesting that apparently you cannot find any data for satellite sensing. A simple Google search reveals several. You MUST have heard of Roy Spencer for one.

          Given that everything emits radiation in proportion to its temperature then something hotter will emit more than something cooler.

          If the “greenhouse effect” acts as a radiation shield then the amount of radiation emitted to space will be lower than if such an effect did not exist.

          This is indisputable logic, well substantiated in every physics text I have read – radiation shields REDUCE radiant emissions from a system. You must have heard of Dewar flasks.

          Unfortunately “EVERY satellite record shows an increase in emissions to space NOT less as is required by the hypothesis of “heat trapping”.

          I will give one reference that I find interesting – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

          The page “celebrates” the 40th anniversary of the commencement of the Nimbus series of satellite monitoring – strange that they present not 40 years of data but 26 years commencing their graph in 1979 not 1965.

          The graph shows a positive anomaly for most of the period from 1979 to 2005. I don’t see any heat trapping there. The periods with a negative anomaly are associated with large volcanic eruptions which are explained as increasing the albedo which means less solar input.

          The graph shows a positive anomaly of over at least 2.5 W/m2 for the majority of the period shown, ~5 for the early 90’s on and reaching peaks close to 10 during the 97/98 El-Niño.

          What value do K&T give in their radiation budget – 0.9 isn’t it ?

          Your statement – “The surface is heating up in order to restore energy imbalance, i.e. to restore the energy in = energy out conservation relationship.” means you accept that energy from the colder atmosphere transfers heat to the warmer surfaces – a notion proven incorrect by experimental work involving radiation more than 2 centuries ago.

          No-one disputes the atmosphere has mass and thermal properties BUT greenhouse aficionados seem to believe 99% of the atmosphere has no thermal properties at all because of the limited absorption of the IR spectrum associated with ambient air and surface temperatures.

          Yet CO2 transmits almost ALL of the same IR spectrum at almost 100% and it constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere.

          Professor Wood summarised the situation perfectly when he wrote:-

          “The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the VERY LOW RADIATING POWER OF A GAS. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

          No one can doubt that ALL of the gases in the atmosphere heat and cool every day but greenhouse aficionados claim 99% plays no part in radiative exchanges at all.

          If this is true then GHGs are the major cooling mechanism for Earth and its atmosphere and increasing concentrations can only lead to higher emissions NOT less. Just how do greenhouse aficionados claim 99% of the atmosphere ever sheds thermal energy ?

          It obviously must because of those “400,000 atomic bombs every day” accumulating endlessly.

          As Alan Siddons once wrote –

          “Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There’s nothing unique about CO2. Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles of physics: Heat ’em as much as you wish, but they’d never radiate in response.”

          PS any emphasis in quotes is mine.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Again, where are the data?

            I like to calculate these things for myself. Thanks.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Yes, I know where UAH data is.

            But those data are not measurements of emissions to space.

            So kindly point me to the latter data, please.

          • Avatar

            Macha

            |

            Appell…lazy bugger. Do it yourself as youmso profoundly claim youmlike to do….

Leave a comment