The Collapse of IPCC Credibility

Nope! Just the people quoting them

 

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Here's the conclusion of the Royal Society paper.

It is said that the only person who believes a model is the person who built it and that everyone believes an experiment/observation apart from the person who performed it. The challenge facing the AMOC community is either to reconcile the differences between climate models and observations or to better understand the reasons for deviation. Only with improved agreement and convergence will future IPCC reports be able to move from assessments of low confidence in this crucial climate variable.
We finish with a pessimistic statement: if it is not possible to reconcile climate models and observations of the AMOC in the historical period, then we believe the statements about future confidence about AMOC evolution should be revised. Low confidence in the past should mean lower confidence for the future! The IPCC AR6 report ranks it as very likely that the AMOC will decline in a changing climate. But, if these models cannot reproduce past variations, why should we be so confident about their ability to predict the future? Likewise, the IPCC AR6 reports medium confidence that there will be no collapse in the AMOC. But, with missing ice and freshwater dynamics, the processes that could initiate a collapse are unlikely to be simulated. We believe that progress needs to be made in understanding why models do not reproduce past AMOC variability and that this is the key to having confidence in the future evolution of this key climate variable.

 

Yeah. Your logic has been uniformally bad.

A further logic failure of yours here is assuming that your logic isn't bad, and that if people just examined your bad logic more, they would be swayed by your bad arguments. That is not the case.

If you'd like me to address a particular bad argument of yours, bring it up.

 

Let's just start fresh then, eh?
What's the solution to weaning the world's civilizations' dependence off of the Earth's organic reserves?

Electric Cars
At what point, let's take California for an example, do waste Li-ion batteries out strip the infrastructure to effectively recycle them?
Does it exist now? What are the plans to develop it? What organizations are receiving UN funding to make it happen?

Nukes
You would trade natural gas co-gen facilities for more nukes? Or for that matter any other fossil fueled power plant?

***
One thing alone stands consistent among folks I've noticed posting here an this subject.
Nary a single one offers any type of posts that display any thoughts regarding solutions or even a grasp apparently of the extent to which our civilization depends on the myriad number of ways that these organic reserves permeate so many of the things that support our worlds' population.

Your IPCC government sponsored "Science" does not even have a working group dedicated to solutions to replace organic reserves.

But, since you have chosen to address my character and ability to make logically sound arguments, I have to go to the bathroom now and take a s, and cry a little bit, that maybe you don't love me.

 

Live and learn.
Climate, CO2, and the Sun
Andy May
In my previous post on multiple regression of known solar cycles versus HadCRUT5, I simply threw the solar cycles, ENSO, and sunspots into the regression blender and…
Conclusions

These various multiple regression studies don’t prove anything, they aren’t even proper evidence of anything. But they do show that the IPCC assumption that the Sun had no effect on observed warming since 1750 is questionable. It also shows that their chosen TSI dataset and their assumption that the only impact of a changing Sun is the amount of radiation Earth receives is questionable. Both White and Haigh have established that amplifiers exist in Earth’s climate system that increase the impact of solar changes by a factor of four,[23] perhaps by a factor of ten,[24] yet this is ignored by the IPCC. The IPCC needs to go back to school and redo AR6 including all the research they ignored the first time.

 

More data points to refute the "consensus" of the IPCC.
New Study Finds The Post-1900 CO2 Rise Has Not Discernibly Altered The Greenhouse Effect
By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2023

Variations in the greenhouse effect are predominantly modulated by water vapor and cloud cover. CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so minor it cannot be discerned.
For decades scientists have reported that a CO2 concentration of about 300 ppm can only increase the downwelling longwave radiation (DLWR), or greenhouse effect, by about 1.5 W/m² at the surface. See, for example, the complementary studies by Ramanathan (1981) and Newell and Dopplick (1979).

“The infrared flux dominated by CO₂, as is well known, is only about 10% of that controlled by water vapor. The decrease in infrared flux from the surface to the atmosphere due to the increase in CO₂ ranges from 1.0 – 1.6 W/m².” – Newell and Dopplick, 1979

With the total DLWR value assessed as ~330 W/m² , this means that CO2’s 300 ppm (~1.5 W/m²) impact can only enhance the greenhouse effect by around 0.5%. Nearly all the rest is dominated by water vapor (and cloud). . . .

New research (Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023) published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal serves to further affirm the minor, even non-discernible role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect.
.
Using DLWR data from 71 globally distributed sites, these scientists assesses the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 ppm to 420 ppm) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect.”
.
If CO2 concentration increases were to enhance the greenhouse effect – and thus be considered the driver of modern warming – there should be a change in data point distribution (displacement) in alignment with CO2 increases along the equality line as shown in the DLWR data set chart (Figure 2). This has not occurred.
.
“An enhancement of the greenhouse effect, due to increasing CO2 concentration, through the years would be seen as a gradual displacement of the points from left to right with the progression of time. However, the alignment of the points of the different data sets does not show a gradual displacement from left to right. This means that the effect of the direct CO2 emission at the surface is smaller than the side effects…causing the variability in Figure 2, and thus it is impossible to discern.”


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
In fact, the opposite of what should happen with an enhanced greenhouse effect has been slightly more discernible in data sets. All-sky (clouds included) DLWR trends at the top of atmosphere (TOA) have actually been shown to be declining in 21st century CERES observations, as they are “slightly negative for all-sky.” In other words, the 2000-present greenhouse effect has been weakening despite increasing CO2 concentrations.


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
The declining greenhouse effect observed in recent decades has been reported by many other scientists.

“…the negative trend of G [greenhouse effect anomalies] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing, despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.” – Cess and Udelhofen, 2003

If the greenhouse effect has not been enhanced since the 1980s, it cannot be responsible for modern warming.

 

Now they're coming for natural gas. These idiots just won't be satisfied until they destroy humanity.

Which has always been the unspoken goal.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/un...as-production-global-climate-summit-kicks-off

 

The IPCC encourages endangerment of whales.
NAS study raises concern over offshore wind harming endangered whales
Guest Blogger
The proper course of action is to put this research ahead of any more offshore wind construction, not after it. . . .

 

So now the idiots of the IPCC can't define what the goal actually is.

Maybe because there isn't an average global temperature?

And yet people still revere them.

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-consensus-global-15c-scientists.html

 

"Climate Intervention Research".

Yet another way to piss away good money that could actually be useful elsewhere.

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-qa-scientific-ingenuity-clock-climate.html

 

Being Catholic, this is embarrassing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67599985

 

In a truly bold move, the EPA is coming after cow farms.

Again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-cut-methane-emissions-by-80-in-next-15-years

 

IPCC failure exposed, again.
New Study: The ‘Global Tropics As A Whole’ Were As Warm Or Warmer Than Today 10,000 Years Ago
By Kenneth Richard on 4. December 2023

“…by about 10 kyr ago, regional MST values consistently approached or exceeded today’s value of about 23°C” – Baxter et al., 2023
According to a new temperature reconstruction published in Nature, the Horn of Africa and “global tropics as a whole” were “1.6°C warmer than today” throughout the Early and Middle Holocene. This is “consistent with compilations from the global tropics.”
This region’s mean surface temperature (MST), 23°C, is nearly the coldest in the last 10,000 years. It was as warm or warmer than today not only 10,000 years ago, but also from about 55,000 to 30,000 years ago, when Earth was experiencing glacial conditions and CO2 concentrations were said to be below 200 ppm.


Image Source: Baxter et al., 2023

 

There is definitely an average global surface temperature. We just don't know how to measure it.

 

That's what's embarrassing about being a Catholic???

 

Pretty much. What else would there be?

 

Semantics.

 

Maybe pedophile priests?

 

Clarity.

 

Some portion of all humanity diddles kids. Being that the church is made up of human beings, I'm no more embarrassed by that than I am of the human race.

 

So it seems the climate does not react the way the IPCC says it should.
Simple Explanations Don’t Apply In The Complex Climate System
By P Gosselin on 28. January 2024

By Frank Bosse

During weather events, how often are we confronted with the simple claim: “More heat leads to more energy available, which leads to severe storms“?

This is so catchy that it can be understood with just a basic knowledge of physics.

So is the claim: “The warmer the tropical sea the more severe tropical storms, called hurricanes over the Atlantic or typhoons over the Pacific.” is often bandied about. The storms all occur over the ocean, and record surface temperatures were reported in 2023.


The temperatures (orange) already at the start of April 2023 were well above those of a year earlier . (Image: Climate Reanalyzer).

Following this logic, the energy in storms in 2023 should also have been at a record level and there should have been more strong storms than ever before. And we did indeed see a record last year:


Screenshot tweet by Ryan Maue (NOAA) at X.

Since the beginning of systematic satellite-based observations in 1982, the number of severe tropical storms globally has never been as low as it was last year, in 2023. This contradiction between record-high ocean temperatures and record-low severe tropical storm numbers makes it clear that it is never as easy as often suggested. If you look at the relationship between the global ACE (for “accumulated cyclone energy” in storms) and the surface temperatures of the oceans, you will find the correlation is highly pronounced in the El Nino region, elsewhere there are only very unclear signatures.


This means: globally many storms with El Nino, few with La Nina. The image was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.

However, the oscillation there is natural and “modulates” the temperatures with a pattern in the Pacific tropics and subtropics with global effects. Note: In the real climate system, nothing is so simple that it can be explained with elementary school knowledge. Whoever tries to do this: you have to be particularly careful not to be manipulated.

 

Roy Spencer has taken Gavin Schmidt to the woodshed. The weakness of IPCC claims has again been exposed.
Spencer vs. Schmidt: My Response to RealClimate.org Criticisms
January 31st, 2024
What follows is a response to Gavin Schmidt’s blog post at RealClimate.org entitled Spencer’s Shenanigans in which he takes issue with my claims in Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models. As I read through his criticism, he seems to be trying too hard to refute my claims while using weak (and even non-existent) evidence.

To summarize my claims regarding the science of global warming:

1. Climate models relied upon to guide public policy have produced average surface global warming rates about 40% greater than observed over the last half-century (the period of most rapid warming)
2. The discrepancy is much larger in the U.S. Corn Belt, the world-leader in corn production, and widely believed to be suffering the effects of climate change (despite virtually no observed warming there).
3. In the deep-troposphere (where our weather occurs, and where global warming rates are predicted to be the largest), the discrepancy between models and observations is also large based upon multiple satellite, weather balloon, and multi-data source reanalysis datasets.
4. The global energy imbalance involved in recent warming of the global deep oceans, whatever its cause, is smaller than the uncertainty in any of the natural energy flows in the climate system. This means a portion of recent warming could be natural and we would never know it.
5. The observed warming of the deep ocean and land has led to observational estimates of climate sensitivity considerably lower (1.5 to 1.8 deg. C here, 1.5 to 2.2 deg. C, here) compared to the IPCC claims of a “high confidence” range of 2.5 to 4.0 deg. C.
6. Climate models used to project future climate change appear to not even conserve energy despite the fact that global warming is, fundamentally, a conservation of energy issue.

In Gavin’s post, he makes the following criticisms, which I summarize below and which are followed by my responses. Note the numbered list follows my numbered claims, above.

1.1 Criticism: The climate model (and observation) base period (1991-2020) is incorrect for the graph shown (1st chart of 3 in my article). RESPONSE: this appears to be a typo, but the base period is irrelevant to the temperature trends, which is what the article is about.

1.2 Criticism: Gavin says the individual models, not the model-average should be shown. Also, not all the models are included in the IPCC estimate of how much future warming we will experience, the warmest models are excluded, which will reduce the discrepancy. RESPONSE: OK, so if I look at just those models which have diagnosed equilibrium climate sensitivities (ECS) in the IPCC’s “highly likely” range of 2 to 5 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the following chart shows that the observed warming trends are still near the bottom end of the model range:


And since a few people asked how the results change with the inclusion of the record-warm year in 2023, the following chart shows the results don’t change very much.


Now, it is true that leaving out the warmest models (AND the IPCC leaves out the coolest models) leads to a model average excess warming of 28% for the 1979-2022 trends (24% for the 1979-2023 trends), which is lower than the ~40% claimed in my article. But many people still use these most sensitive models to support fears of what “could” happen, despite the fact the observations support only those models near the lower end of the warming spectrum.

1.3 Criticism: Gavin shows his own comparison of models to observations (only GISS, but it’s very close to my 5-dataset average), and demonstrates that the observations are within the envelope of all models. RESPONSE: I never said the observations were “outside the envelope” of all the models (at least for global average temperatures, they are for the Corn Belt, below). My point is, they are near the lower end of the model spread of warming estimates.

1.4 Criticism: Gavin says that in his chart “there isn’t an extra adjustment to exaggerate the difference in trends” as there supposedly is in my chart. RESPONSE: I have no idea why Gavin thinks that trends are affected by how one vertically align two time series on a graph. They ARE NOT. For comparing trends, John Christy and I align different time series so that their linear trends intersect at the beginning of the graph. If one thinks about it, this is the most logical way to show the difference in trends in a graph, and I don’t know why everyone else doesn’t do this, too. Every “race” starts at the beginning. It seems Gavin doesn’t like it because it makes the models look bad, which is probably why the climate modelers don’t do it this way. They want to hide discrepancies, so the models look better.

2.1 Criticism: Gavin doesn’t like me “cherry picking” the U.S. Corn Belt (2nd chart of 3 in my article) where the warming over the last 50 years has been less than that produced by ALL climate models. RESPONSE: The U.S. Corn Belt is the largest corn-producing area in the world. (Soybean production is also very large). There has been long-standing concern that agriculture there will be harmed by increasing temperatures and decreased rainfall. For example, this publication claimed it’s already happening. But it’s not. Instead, since 1960 (when crop production numbers have been well documented), (or since 1973, or 1979…it doesn’t matter, Gavin), the warming has been almost non-existent, and rainfall has had a slight upward trend. So, why did I “cherry pick” the Corn Belt? Because it’s depended upon, globally, for grain production, and because there are claims it has suffered from “climate change”. It hasn’t.

3.1 Criticism: Gavin, again, objects to the comparison of global tropospheric temperature datasets to just the multi-model average (3rd of three charts in my article), rather than to the individual models. He then shows a similar chart, but with the model spread shown. RESPONSE: Take a look at his chart… the observations (satellites, radiosondes, and reanalysis datasets) are ALL near the bottom of the model spread. Gavin makes my point for me. AND… I would not trust his chart anyway, because the trend lines should be shown and the data plots vertically aligned so the trends intersect at the beginning. This is the most logical way to illustrate the trend differences between different time series.

4. Regarding my point that the global energy imbalance causing recent warming of the deep oceans could be partly (or even mostly) natural, Gavin has no response.

5. Regarding observational-based estimates of climate sensitivity being much lower than what the IPCC claims (based mostly on theory-based models), Gavin has no response.

6. Regarding my point that recent published evidence shows climate models don’t even conserve energy (which seems a necessity, since global warming is, fundamentally, an energy conservation issue), Gavin has no response.

Gavin concludes with this: “Spencer’s shenanigans are designed to mislead readers about the likely sources of any discrepancies and to imply that climate modelers are uninterested in such comparisons — and he is wrong on both counts.”

I will leave it to you to decide whether my article was trying to “mislead readers”. In fact, I believe that accusation would be better directed at Gavin’s criticisms and claims.

 

Roy Spencer has taken Gavin Schmidt to the woodshed for a second time. It is great fun to watch a pompous and misguided true believer get thrashed in public.
Gavin’s Plotting Trick: Hide the Incline
February 1st, 2024
Since Gavin Schmidt appears to have dug his heels in regarding how to plot two (or more) temperature times series on a graph having different long-term warming trends, it’s time to revisit exactly why John Christy and I now (and others should) plot such time series so that their linear trend lines intersect at the beginning.

While this is sometimes referred to as a “choice of base period” or “starting point” issue, it is crucial (and not debatable) to note it is irrelevant to the calculated trends. Those trends are the single best (although imperfect) measure of the long-term warming rate discrepancies between climate models and observations, and they remain the same no matter the base period chosen.

Again, I say, the choice of base period or starting point does not change the exposed differences in temperature trends (say, in climate models versus observations). Those important statistics remain the same. The only reason to object to the way we plot temperature time series is to Hide The Incline* in the long-term warming discrepancies between models and observations when showing the data on graphs.

[*For those unfamiliar, in the Climategate email release, Phil Jones, then-head of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, included the now-infamous “hide the decline” phrase in an e-mail, referring to Michael Mann’s “Nature trick” of cutting off the end of a tree-ring based temperature reconstruction (because it disagreed with temperature observations), and spliced in those observations in order to “hide the decline” in temperature exhibited by the tree ring data.]

I blogged on this issue almost eight years ago, and I just re-read that post this morning. I still stand by what I said back then (the issue isn’t complex).

Today, I thought I would provide a little background, and show why our way of plotting is the most logical way. (If you are wondering, as many have asked me, why not just plot the actual temperatures, without being referenced to a base period? Well, if we were dealing with yearly averages [no seasonal cycle, the usual reason for computing “anomalies”], then you quickly discover there are biases in all of these datasets, both observational data [since the Earth is only sparsely sampled with thermometers, and everyone does their area averaging in data-void infilling differently], and the climate models all have their own individual temperature biases. These biases can easily reach 1 deg. C, or more, which is large compared to computed warming trends.)

Historical Background of the Proper Way of Plotting

Years ago, I was trying to find a way to present graphical results of temperature time series that best represented the differences in warming trends. For a long time, John Christy and I were plotting time series relative to the average of the first 5 years of data (1979-1983 for the satellite data). This seemed reasonably useful, and others (e.g. Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems) also took up the practice and knew why it was done.

Then I thought, well, why not just plot the data relative to the first year (in our case, that was 1979 since the satellite data started in that year)? The trouble with that is there are random errors in all datasets, whether due to measurement errors and incomplete sampling in observational datasets, or internal climate variability in climate model simulations. For example, the year 1979 in a climate model simulation might (depending upon the model) have a warm El Nino going on, or a cool La Nina. If we plot each time series relative to the first year’s temperature, those random errors then impact the entire time series with an artificial vertical offset on the graph.

The same issue will exist using the average of the first five years, but to a lesser extent. So, there is a trade-off: the shorter the base period (or starting point), the more the times series will be offset by short-term biases and errors in the data. But the longer the base period (up to using the entire time series as the base period), the difference in trends is then split up as a positive discrepancy late in the period and a negative discrepancy early in the period.

I finally decided the best way to avoid such issues is to offset each time series vertically so that their linear trend lines all intersect at the beginning. This minimizes the impact of differences due to random yearly variations (since a trend is based upon all years’ data), and yet respects the fact that (as John Christy, an avid runner, told me), “every race starts at the beginning”.

In my blog post from 2016, I presented this pair of plots to illustrate the issue in the simplest manner possible (I’ve now added the annotation on the left):


Contrary to Gavin’s assertion that we are exaggerating the difference between models and observations (by using the second plot), I say Gavin wants to deceptively “hide the incline” by advocating something like the first plot. Eight years ago, I closed my blog post with the following, which seems to be appropriate still today: “That this issue continues to be a point of contention, quite frankly, astonishes me.”

The issue seems trivial (since the trends are unaffected anyway), yet it is important. Dr. Schmidt has raised it before, and because of his criticism (I am told) Judith Curry decided to not use one of our charts in congressional testimony. Others have latched onto the criticism as some sort of evidence that John and I are trying to deceive people. In 2016, Steve McIntyre posted an analysis of Gavin’s claim we were engaging in “trickery” and debunked Gavin’s claim.

In fact, as the evidence above shows, it is our accusers who are engaged in “trickery” and deception by “hiding the incline”

 

The research is turning against the alarmist climate narrative.
2023 Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On ‘Consensus’ In Climate Science
By Kenneth Richard on 5. February 2024

In 2023, hundreds of scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
There are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes.

For the last 9 years we have been compiling annual lists of scientific papers that support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/precipitation extremes…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough”, which means that “the time for debate has ended”.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, these 2023 papers support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. These papers do not do more than that. In other words, it is too ambitious to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been “debunked”.

Below is the link to the list of scientific papers published in 2023, as well as a few sample papers.

Skeptic Papers 2023
Matskovsky et al., 2023



Shaviv et al., 2023

The CR/climate relationship is the only one capable of explaining the magnitude of the observed solar-climate interactions. … The apparent effect that the CRs have on cloud cover automatically explains the size of all the observed solar-related climate variations. … The seven ice-age epochs…over the past billion years have taken place when the CR flux was higher, as the theory predicts. … Decreases in CO2 concentration and the increase in solar luminosity mostly cancel each other out.



Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023

An enhancement of the greenhouse effect, due to increasing CO2 concentration, through the years would be seen as a gradual displacement of the points from left to right with the progression of time. However, the alignment of the points of the different data sets does not show a gradual displacement from left to right. This means that the effect of the direct CO2 emission at the surface is smaller than the side effects…causing the variability in Figure 2, and thus it is impossible to discern. … Quantification of the greenhouse effect is a routine procedure in the framework of hydrological calculations of evaporation. According to the standard practice, this is made considering the water vapour in the atmosphere, without any reference to the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), which, however, in the last century has escalated from 300 to about 420 ppm. As the formulae used for the greenhouse effect quantification were introduced 50-90 years ago, we examine whether these are still representative or not, based on eight sets of observations, distributed in time across a century. We conclude that the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere, and that the original formulae used in hydrological practice remain valid. Hence, there is no need for adaptation due to increased CO2 concentration.



Posted in Climate Sensitivity

 

The IPCC keeps nattering on about sea level rise, and yet . . . .

New Study: Denmark Coast Has Been Expanding Seaward At A Rate Of +1.4 Meters Per Year Since 1900
By Kenneth Richard on 15. February 2024

Scientists have found evidence that the coastal land area grew (prograded) by 120 meters from 1900 to 1985 at a study site in central Denmark.
Per a new study, relative sea levels (RSL) in central Denmark were “~4.5 m higher than present between c. 6.6 and 5.9 ka ago.” After this highstand, RSL declined towards the present.

The 20th century rates of coastal expansion and retreating seas were similar to the declining RSL and progradation rates reached in the Middle Holocene.



Image Source: Riis et al., 2024