A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience
“To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” may prove to be the most important scientific paper in the last 10 years.
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available HERE, and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends.
Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:
Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”
The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”
But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it.
What the Norwegians did was conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles potentially due to the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, the researchers gathered all the data from various sources, including those related to the four previous glacial and inter-glacial periods, and did a statistical analysis to see how more recent Global Climate Models (GCMs) compare.
In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.
The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones. Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer.
I was recently discussing the fact that Earth is warming from its last glaciation period. The Norwegian statisticians’ comprehensive temperature review takes the long view into account by looking at the last 420,000 years.
The statisticians take all the data, show their calculations, offer their explanations, and come to the following conclusion:
In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
I get to place another item in the “Leslie Was Right” files.
… Norwegian brains decided to double-check the work of the climate crowd, only to discover a massive fraud. The overly simplistic “greenhouse effect” account of rising CO2 levels correlating perfectly with rising global temperatures fell apart upon further examination.
…[W]e skeptics have been right all along.
Why are Norway statisticians bravely publishing this treatise destroying climate cult theology? Perhaps because their leaders now recognize that a civilized life is contingent upon having highly efficient energy sources… such as fossil fuels and nuclear power.
It’s also important for their nation’s security.
The Norwegian government is calling on energy giants to ramp up oil and gas exploration projects in remote regions like the Arctic Barents Sea, defying a sense of palpable frustration among climate campaigners as the Nordic country seeks to shore up its position as Europe’s largest gas supplier.
The rethink in strategy comes as Norway strives to keep up with growing demand for its energy exports in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Norway last year overtook Russia as Europe’s biggest natural gas supplier and says it is now seeking to maintain Europe’s energy security by exploring the Barents Sea for further resources.
“To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” may prove to be the most important scientific paper in the last 10 years.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How dare you!
Get with the progrom!. It’s how dare jew?
Freeman Dyson spent one year studying global warming and came to the same conclusion- in the mid 90’s (though his big controversial interview was about 2005?).
I believe that there is a limit of three when awarding a Nobel prize. Everybody agrees that if that were not the case he would have won a Nobel prize with Richard Feynman
Are you saying that the Sun has a bigger impact on the climate than I do? Surely you jest.
That’s ridiculous! Obviously man’s CO2 output of a trace gas is far more important than the giant ball of burning hydrogen that’s over 300,000 times the size of the earth and that makes up over 99% of the solar system’s mass. What effect could that possibly have on the plant’s climate? None, I tell you! None!!!
As if rational thinking people didn’t already know that the GlobalWarmingCoolingClimate religion was a smokescreen hoax.
My dad would say, “When the politicians figure out a way to tax the air, they will.”
And they did, using fake push studies to do it. Anyone wholesale trusting some PhD academic Chicken Little is being played as a fool.
Add to that using ‘climate emergency’ as way to reward allies and punish enemies via subsidies for X while imposing absurd regulatory standards for Y. Not to mention the potential for grift, graft and good old fashioned payola for the politicians and their ne’er do well family members who want a no show job.
Yup…and manufacturers and the propane folks are suing the state of NY and Hochul for her asinine “no gas appliance” bravo sierra. I hope they prevail.
That was my peer review error #2, you can’t tell a trend from a cycle without data long compared to the cycle to be eliminated, just as a mathematical fact.
Peer review error #1 was that you can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations so the models are crap.
But if you could solve Navier Stokes…riches!
The Navier-Stokes equations are solved numerically in the form of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models to provide useful if imperfect weather forecasts for periods as long as 10-14 days.
It is well known that errors build up over time due to chaos in the atmosphere. So whether those same solutions can be used for long-term climate prediction is of course debatable. I think the physics is largely correct, but the tuned response to CO2 is grossly exaggerated, which is what this study demonstrated.
In 2D the navier stokes equations are easy because a quantity called vorticity is conserved. In 3D vortices kink and then you have no solution, numerical or otherwise, because motions cascade to shorter and shorter scales, beyond any grid spacing; yet short scale motions affect large scale motions (transfer of x momentum in y direction etc, in effect a tensor viscosity) so those aren’t any good either.
3 days is about how long it takes for a major atmospheric system vortex to kink and is about how long numerical weather predictions are good for.
The truth is the models were always over simplified and data was cherry picked to reach conclusions. I have been modeling much less complex systems for a decade now, with far more data points, and many more independent variables, and we are only right on average for the most part. The ecosystem is vastly more complex, and the purposefully leave out variables that are clearly important and they leave out feedback systems which mitigate warming due to CO2. The thing is, panic produces money and power for politicians and corporations. Only the last sentence reflects a statistically significant and impactful variable in the climate models.
Ahhh! Humility, surely earned through kick in the ass experience. But when grants are to be had by uttering the right incantation, no alternative but to go with the …
If you understand the Milankovitch cycle you already know that.
They have never had any actual evidence to support this theory.
Correct. Models are not “evidence,” and they’re certainly not “proof.” Models, at best, can demonstrate how a theory (human activity is altering the climate) might work in the real world. Evidence could have been found by doing a study like this one, and showing that natural causes could be ruled out. But this is why climate alarmists always cite “extreme” weather taking place in limited time periods (e.g., “in the last 100 years,” and “since the 1950s”), because they knew longer-term analysis wouldn’t support their theory. This is how they got the infamous “hockey stick,” the climate record on a geological time scale had to be altered in order to support the theory, because they knew there was no support for the theory in it. (This is also why climate researchers were hiding their data and calling historically warm periods “inconvenient” and why they tried to devise ways to eliminate these periods from their data because they were “embarrassing.”)
DaveGinOly: Models are not “evidence,” and they’re certainly not “proof.”
Models are the equivalent of hypotheses, not evidence, which is observational. Science doesn’t deal in “proof,” but generally hypothetico-deduction.
This is true. And the observations don’t match the hypothesis. Any of them. Wake us up when they come up with a model that accurately postdicts the record (the real record, not the fudged one). Then we can discuss what it predicts for the future.
Milhouse: This is true. And the observations don’t match the hypothesis.
You ignored the link. Lucky guess?
More particularly, there are a large number of interlocking hypotheses, starting with the physics of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface temperature would average a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. The oceans would be frozen. Nor can the historical record be explained without considering how changes in greenhouse gases affect the climate system.
The real observations, not the ones that James Hansen has deliberately falsified.
Milhouse: The real observations, not the ones that James Hansen has deliberately falsified.
Multiple independent lines of evidence support the warming trend. For instance, satellite and surface observations, which rely on completely different types of data, show a warming trend.
Furthermore, greenhouse warming is supported by the fundamentals of heat physics, as has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Are you suggesting there is no greenhouse effect? Or that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increase the effective greenhouse effect?
But, but, our vaunted media and leftist, power grabbing leaders said it was true!!!
And backed up by the “ladies” of the View!!
“Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.”
The GCM reflect the biases of the people programming them and, more importantly, of those that are paying the bill. In other words, GIGO.
Biden green new deal is trillion dollar fraud.
Won’t lower temps by 1 degree.
The trademark of the Biden regime; fraud and corruption.
Most people are aware of Eisenhower’s warning of the potential threat from the “military-industrial complex”.
He also wanted us to be aware of public/government policy driven by the “elites”.
https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhowers-warnings-against-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation
Four reasons the GCM models are scientifically invalid:
1. All GCM models dependent on CO2 as a driver forecast a hot spot over the tropics where none exists.
2: The models forecast temperature increases of 0.26 degrees centigrade per decade; actual experience appears to be 0.14 degrees C per decade.
3: The models forecast temperatures increasing with increasing CO2 which has been increasing steadily, but temperatures have been increasing in fits and starts, with long pauses between increases that appear to occur in some El Nino events.
4: The errors in the models build up as they iter as te forward in time, so after a while the error. bands become so wide as to make the models not fit for purpose.
In 4, “iter as te” should be “iterate.”
My kingdom for an edit button.
You can’t fix stupid. Just like the Russian hoax, climate change from man is never going to be unbelieved. Many more intelligent people will eventually read about the climate hoax and go about their lives with this knowledge, but many will never see or hear the truth and then respond to it if they do. The greenhouse effect will be with us until we die because of ignorance and the msm.
Cut off their funding. Doxx them. Problem gone within 30 days.
Arguing facts is pointless. These people have an agenda and nothing will stop them. Do you think mandated automobile mpg targets or new building construction insulation requirements are going to be rolled back because of this report? Fat chance.
Tomorrow, a report from the other side will contradict today’s report. So the way to look at this is that there are people who know a lot more than I do about climate science who have contradictory evidence. And since they know more than I do, I have what is called Reasonable Doubt when government cites the evidence of one side and demand I enlist in poverty to save the planet.
The MPG requirements have been good for us. Would you rather be paying for $5/gallon gas while driving a car that gets 24mpg or one that gets 12mpg? Also, lower MPG cars drive up the demand (more gas is needed for the same number of miles traveled), and this likely would have resulted in even higher prices than we see now. The government could really have put the screws to us in their effort to get us off the road entirely, and be sure they would have taken advantage of low-MPG vehicles. I’m sure there are many Americans who would have been driven from the road already, but for the fact they can still afford gas because their cars are so efficient.
If they had already had a plan to take Americans’ cars off the road, they didn’t think this (mandating more efficient vehicles) through. More efficient cars help people to keep driving when the price of gas skyrockets.
Up to a point sure no one is gonna argue that MPG improvement since the 1970’s is bad. The question is where does diminished returns begin? Getting above current average levels of MPG and lowering emissions as the climate cult demands is gonna be costly to manufacture and for consumers to purchase. Then add in the costs of injury due to lighter, smaller vehicles interacting with bigger, heavier vehicles. My point is there are some reasonable tradeoffs that make good sense overall but there an awful lot of very unreasonable, much less realistic, tradeoffs coming down the pike.
And how much more do cars cost because of the increased mpg requirements? There is tradeoff between operating costs and capital costs. It is much like windmills. The operating costs may be low (wind is free) but the capital costs are staggering.
With the price of gas rising the consumer market would have demanded higher mpg cars and the manu’s would have responded in true capitalism free market behavior.
Of course, the gov’ts are messing with the price of crude oil See: Biden and fracking/pipelines/leases.
Who makes the most money off a gallon of fuel? The government.
Who makes the most money off the taxes on the hyperinflated car prices? The government.
The gov’t says “make it so,” but offer no funding to manufacturers to comply with their arbitrary regulations. We would have better, more efficient and cheaper cars if the government got out of the way and let the free market do its magic.
The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed. Nor does it offer a “real analysis.” The analysis doesn’t even attempt to account for greenhouse gases or combine those effects with other drivers of climate. The paper also cites approvingly several claims that have already been shown to be in error, while discounting or ignoring the findings of scientists far outside their own field of study.
Essentially, what the paper does is look at the curve and say that it could be natural because natural changes can cause large fluctuations. While true, that doesn’t mean that the current warming isn’t due to greenhouse gases.
rhhardin: That was my peer review error #2, you can’t tell a trend from a cycle without data long compared to the cycle to be eliminated, just as a mathematical fact.
Observe the diurnal change in the temperature in a pot of water over time. Now, put the pot on a fire.
rhhardin: Peer review error #1 was that you can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations so the models are crap.
One doesn’t “solve” Navier Stokes equations, but model them, such as in models used to project the path of a hurricane.
2smartforlibs: If you understand the Milankovitch cycle you already know that.
Milankovitch cycles are too slow to account for the current warming trends. Regardless, Milankovitch cycles show a slight cooling not warming.
2smartforlibs: They have never had any actual evidence to support this theory.
There is substantial evidence for greenhouse warming spanning many different fields of study. You might start with the basic physics. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface temperature would average a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. The oceans would be frozen.
PaddyM: The GCM reflect the biases of the people programming them and, more importantly, of those that are paying the bill.
Lucky guess?
I will keep this simple. When phenomenon fall well within possible norms, and even multiple historical reconstructions, one does not go screaming out into the night demanding destruction of society and the elimination of freedom of person and thought as cultists might.
You are not sufficiently hysterical. Stop the reasoning.
puhiawa: When phenomenon fall well within possible norms,
“Norms” include ice ages and ice-free ages. Notably, you didn’t address the comment to which you replied.
(Our posts often take several hours to appear, in case you don’t see our latest comment.)
Indeed. During the last interglacial period, sea levels were 15-18 feet HIGHER than they are now. Who will we blame for that, mastodon methane?
Dimsdale: During the last interglacial period, sea levels were 15-18 feet HIGHER than they are now.
The Milankovich cycles and volcanic activity are the primary causes of climatic change over the last hundred millennia. However, those are not the cause of the current warming trend. If we separate out natural and anthropic effects, the Earth’s surface would be slightly cooling, rather than rapidly warming as observed.
Of course the problem is, much of the “sky is falling” predictions depend on computer modeling in a “what if” situation that can’t possibly account for every variable, not actual hard evidence. What scientists don’t know about how the earth and how the planet reacts to subtle changes could fill a library the size of NYC. What we do know, could fit on a 3X5 index card in comparison.
Sanddog: What we do know, could fit on a 3X5 index card in comparison.
Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. We have strong scientific evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s surface to warm, and at a rate faster than would naturally occur. We also know, from historical climate change, that relatively small changes in mean surface temperature can cause large changes in climate. With even a low emissions pathway, global temperatures will increase about a third of a “Ice Age unit”. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021.
I was hoping some wild-eyed rad-environmentalist would have offered their reasons for disputing the thesis in this excellent study.
It’s often both useful and interesting to hear what they’ve been told to believe.
I’m no skeptic, but I do have a SCIENCE BASED DEGREE and have never bought into to ARTS educated people crying over their emotions about this obvious globalist attempt at a generational power grab…
Same here.
Back around 79/80, my science teacher talked about how planet Earth had not yet recovered from the last ice age, and temperatures should be rising.
People who were actually paying attention, shouldn’t be at all surprised by this study.
In the ’70s, all the scientific talking heads were warning of impending doom due to “the coming ice age,” and there wouldn’t be enough fuel/energy to keep us warm.
https://youtu.be/1kGB5MMIAVA?si=0gOewbepM5kKVHkY
The real danger of Global Warming is that it will give government and those in charge control over every aspect of our economy and create a tyranny in the hands of Democrats.
Anyone who has shoveled their roof is not crying over less snow. So people can’t go skiing, they now have a longer growing season and lower heating bills. Seems like a good tradeoff to me
Given the current price of heating oil in the Northeast, any kind of warming is a mercy.
Algore and his masseuse oils not be reached for comment. John F. Kerry was found drunk on one of Tuh-ray-zuh’s private jets drunk on spiked ketchup.
It is a preposterous hoax used to prop up political power and financial corruption.
I mean carbon dioxide?
Really?
That is your villain?
Well, that’s awkward. Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland and were growing grapes in Newfoundland several hundred years ago but we are supposed to believe the current temperature is warmer than usual?
But the rubes suck it up because that is all they hear from the state press, and gov’t only funds “appropriate” research.
And the current Climate Change Quislings in the Norwegian political establishment will try to bury that paper and ruin those researchers because their findings contradict the absurd orthodoxy that maintains the political power that the Quisling Kids have over their population. Ugh……
With out serious rise in global temperatures, my gorilla ranch will not succeed!