AGW Bombshell? from WUWT

More and more evidence of the AGW scam!

Watts Up With That?

graphic_esd_cover_homepage[1]From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as “An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union” comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn’t statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

This is a most interesting paper, and potentially a bombshell, because they have taken virtually all of the significant observational datasets (including GISS and BEST) along with solar irradiance from Lean and Rind, and CO2, CH4…

View original post 2,953 more words

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in AGW, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to AGW Bombshell? from WUWT

  1. hirundine608 says:

    That’s a lot of information and difficult for a lay-person to understand. Personally I do not care if the world is heating or not? What I care about is why the rapid polar melt and pollution by industry, is affecting the globe and the creatures that live on it. Why we are warned not to eat more than 2 cans of tuna a week, because of mercury/lead in the fish? Why the wild salmon stocks are dwindling from the levels, seen a hundred years ago? The plastic floating islands and overall man-made debris now found washed onto the beaches. The rising sea-levels, that are of concern to so many low-lying dwellings, of ordinary people. On and on. Are only symtoms of a society, gone mad with hedonism.

    My personal opinion about the rapid polar melt, increased volcanic and earthquake activity. The increase in storm levels and general temperature anomalies. The movement of earth’s physical pole and so on. My feelings about all of that, probably do not count? To even a hill of beans.

    Compare to that the industrialists who see the globe. As an infinite resource to grab for themselves and screw all the other people and creatures. That depend on them for their own living. That they are dominant in society. Does not make it anymore right.

    In the twilight of my working days. I have little power to do any more, than speak up. My personal belief is that as the solar system crosses the galactic rift. The reason for most of the extremes, previously outlined. That once the system passes the rift and our solar system begins to return to more normal condition. [BTW, IMO it would likely require little, to plunge Earth back into an ice-age?]

    Still after all that. This planet will still have pollution of all sorts, to deal with. Notwithstanding all of the radio-active wastes. Now stored, in barrels, around the world; to have to face. The list of problems will likely be larger than the benefits?

    That if the notion of reducing anthropogenic impact, on global warming, is a scam? – It would not be a big surprise? Yet when one adds up all the other scams perpetrated on the world’s tax-payers and society. There would be a list as long as your arm. If this is a scam? It almost pales in comparison, to the others.

    Thanks for the link to the site “watts up”. That it does make, to me, many good points. But I doubt it will ever find the 2.3 trillion dollars “lost” by pentagon?

    • Hi Jamie, caught up with this one at last.
      BTW your comments very much appreciated, they contribute meaningfully to this blog, thank you!

      Your “What I care about is why the rapid polar melt and pollution by industry”
      Is there a rapid polar melt? Maybe this subject requires further investigation?

      At the risk of talking at cross-purposes –
      I would refer you to my recent post which reblogged WUWT post “Antarctic warming courtesy of Mr. Fix-it
      This extract counters the media published claims of rapid melting due to temperature: “The manufactured “record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C.” That’s a 50% margin of error on the reconstruction that supposedly corrected the recording errors.
      I haven’t purchased access to the paper (nor do I intend to); however, the freely available supplementary information includes a graph of their reconstructed temperature record for Byrd Station. It looks very similar to the NASA-GISS graph that doesn’t show any significant recent warming trend.”

      Regards, Ken.

  2. NAC eye drops says:

    It’s true that the rich world has emitted the majority of the CO2 historically, though looking at current trends that may change surprisingly soon. Rich nations account for a rapidly diminishing minority of current emissions. This is true even if you account for imported and exported goods: the developing world took over in terms of total footprint in 2009 and the gap is growing. Hence, I suspect that the rich world’s share of historical emissions will fall significantly below half within this decade.But that doesn’t let the rich world off the hook – not one bit. For one thing, historical emissions figures don’t mean much unless you consider the proportion of the world population which emitted them and has benefited from them. If you divide historical emissions by current population, the data looks radically different. From 1850–2008, for example, the UK emitted around 1127 tonnes of CO2 for each current inhabitant . For China, the figure is just 85. So it’s perfectly obvious that the rich world has a responsibility to show leadership by going much further than it currently has, even before you consider factors such as capacity and the broader historical context.Ultimately, though, if we want to avoid disastrous climate change, we need to agree an all-time global carbon budget compatible with our 2C target. The current process has missed out this all-important step and negotiators are therefore arguing about how to divvy up an ever-growing pie rather than the ever-shrinking one that the evidence demands. This is profoundly worrying because it shows that our leaders are in denial about the scale of the risks and the scale of what’s required.

    • Your comment has been “rescued” from the spam filter because it seems to be a relevant opinion, even if somewhat contrary to what this blog argues.
      Your advertising web page reference has for obvious reasons, been deleted. This is not a commercial website. Further comments should be under a name, not a product.
      Further, I need to take you to task over your opening statement – “It’s true that the rich world has emitted the majority of the CO2 historically,” – you surely mean the majority of the increased CO2 due to fossil fuel burning – do you not?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s