CO2 No Longer The Control Knob

After telling us for years that CO2 is the control knob of climate, alarmists are now telling us that view is “moronic.”

David Hanselman on Twitter: “Just bc you deniers can only think in the simplest terms, doesn’t mean bona fide scientists are so limited. https://t.co/pGdhVCK8vJ… https://t.co/DVfvCYctWs”

“A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth”

.

NASA GISS: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to CO2 No Longer The Control Knob

  1. Gator says:

    Come on Tony, you don’t really expect the cheerleaders to study the playbook, do you?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      You are not fair to real cheerleaders. They are at least easy on the eye. And forget the playbook. The global warming clowns didn’t even bother to learn the basics of the game. They are just waving “bona fide scientists”, “tens of thousands of scientists”, and “consensus” like pompoms. And when the other side scores they get mad, stick out their tongues and moon them.

  2. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, your post inspired me to write a follow up that you may appreciate:

    NASA: CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature? Really?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/nasa-co2-the-thermostat-that-controls-earths-temperature/

  3. Ari says:

    I’m amazed how Tony can take all the alarmists tweeting him the same graphs, diagrams and articles from all the sites he as already debunked.

  4. rah says:

    Now all of a sudden there is more than CO2 at work? You mean like natural variations? You know all of those factors that are so complex and variable in their interactions that no climate model anywhere claims to have properly factored them all in or to even have been able to accurately quantify the forcings that result from their interactions? You mean that kind of complexity?

    LOL! Face it. The CO2 coming to kill us all meme is dying!

  5. paul courtney says:

    Dear Tony Heller: This might get interesting if the press, or even a single “journalist” would follow up by asking Mr. Hanselman how the “complicated” situation is solved by simple solutions like “stop burning fossil fuels”? He doesn’t realize how his new position blows a hole in the heart of his movement. However, he can rest assured that he won’t be exposed in the press. Maybe occasional skepticism from a reporter would help them stay on script?

    • R Shearer says:

      Yep.

    • Gator says:

      Being “on script” is the entire problem. They’re not supposed to be actors.

    • arn says:

      “Stop burning fossil fuels” is so 2018.
      “Farting Cows” are the new it girls in town(or the next horseman of the apocalypse.
      Besides the farting cows(no oun intended miss cortez)
      the new green deal appeared perfectly right in time
      presented by a new Obama(AOC)
      The perfection is that we have exactly 12 years to save the earth.
      Starting in January 2019 those 12 years end in dec. 2030.
      And 2030 is Agenda 30(formerley known as agenda 21.

      • spike55 says:

        ““Farting Cows” are the new it girls in town”

        Gees, I’ve told y’all before.

        A cow cannot ” put out” as farting, belching, or meat any more “carbon” than it takes in by eating .

        COWS ARE CARBON NEUTRAL !!! :-)

        • Jason Calley says:

          Ah, but spike! The cow may be carbon neutral, but the carbon it puts out is the Godzilla of greenhouse gases, killer methane! (Just make sure that we all ignore the fact that methane has a half life of only about 7 years before it is spontaneously oxidized.)

  6. Rud Istvan says:

    The IPCC itself shows the net AGW effect is not complicated. There is the primary CO2 forcing ‘control knob’ with an ECS ~1.15-1.2. There is a water vapor feedback, which should be positive but is overestimated in models by about half (based on model/observed precipitation), so Bode f ~0.25-0.3, not 0.5. And a cloud feedback close to zero (as Dessler’s 2010 paper showed contrary to his claims about it), not Bode f~0.15. (CMIP5 Bode f is about 0.65 with ECS about 3.)
    IPCC itself (both AR4 and AR5) shows everything else nets out to about zero.
    Bode f 0.3 on primary CO2 ECS 1.2 means system ECS is ~1.7, just as the Lewis and Curry observational energy budget methods estimate.
    An ECS of 1.7 means there is no C in CAGW and we can all go home.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      ECS is much more likely to be 0.7 C/doubling or less. That fits with the overall impact of the grand solar maximum last century and the ocean cycles.

      So you can demote mostly harmless CO2 back to completely harmless.

  7. Mark Fife says:

    I am on that thread. These guys are complete idiots. They talk in endless circles. One of them even doxed me. It was awesome! When they go to the effort to find out who you are that means you have really torqued them up.

    Listen, this is very much a reality. The very basis of the science is a sleight of hand trick. The process where by they convert measured temps to anomalies is flawed. Because it represents a very basic sampling bias. Converting it to anomalies doesn’t change the shape of the graph, it just moves the plot so zero shows up in 1951 to 1980. That is basic math you can easily verify.

    Their result is nothing more than a simple average of all the raw numbers with a more or less arbitrary number, the 1951-1980 average, subtracted from each annual average. When you understand what this means the you understand the crap they are pulling. The results are a product of what station records exist, were reported, or perhaps were included in the data set.

    This sampling bias is clearly visible in their completed charts. This conclusion is really inescapable.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Mark, good chart. I am sure that you are also familiar with Tony’s reports of how much data is “interpolated”, “estimated” and “infilled” — all of which are euphemisms for “we made it up.” The last figure I remember (and someone please correct me if I am incorrect) for the US data was about 60% of new numbers are not real. I seem to also remember some of Tony’s reports analyzing the supposed readings where he found that the made up numbers (note that I cannot bear to call it “data”) consistently run hotter than the measured data.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Jason,

        I understand and agree with your concerns. Just one point of concern, as a former professional photographer in the early days of digital photography. (I know, I know, what does that have to do with any of this?) Interpolations are calculated estimates for data voids that are adjacent to or between actual data.

        A (possibly) boring story:
        At the start of this century, Fujifilm had a 3-megapixel sensor that produced 6-megapixel images. Then in 2002, they produced a 6-mp sensor that produced 12-mp images. In both sensors, half of the final product was from interpolation. In both cases, the sensor was phenomenal, rendering images that beat both Canon and Nikon at that time. And in both cases, Nikon sold the rights to FujiFilm for a has-been film Nikon camera body in which to put that sensor.

        For a short few years, Fujifilm, using a slow, outdated Nikon FILM camera body, they took on the digital SLR business by storm, producing the best digital images from any 35mm-sized SLR available at that time. Both of those two wretched hybrids had very slow buffers and they were a bit laborious to use. Nevertheless, for a very short while, they produced the very best digital SLR images a photographer had available to them (that is, those who couldn’t afford and weren’t buying the $30k digital Hasselblads). Mom and Pop wedding photogs bought those Fujifilm hybrids in droves.

        However, Nikon and Canon began to build better sensors and quickly left Fujifilm eating their dust. Nikon also refused to sell FF the rights to any more older bodies. Subsequently, FF digital SLRs became quickly antiquated and fell out of the digital SLR business just about as fast as it shot up into it. But for that short window, there are hundreds of thousands of beautiful wedding albums with beautiful images produced from a camera that had interpolated TWICE the data that it actually recorded.

        Back to climate. IMHO, your “we made it up” claim comes into play because, as Tony has pointed out, there are no data from which a computer algorithm could possibly make an interpolation. (If there are no data next door, you have nothing from which to interpolate.) I believe that is what Tony Heller has been harping about, especially with the Africa data, year after year – Gavin really seems to be making it up – not interpolating from adjacent data.

        So, I don’t mind interpolation. It has its place, because it’s based on something (adjacent data). I believe a scientist should show his/her work if they have done so, so we all can see how they came to it.

        To date, it appears the CAGW fraudsters don’t seem real interested in being that transparent.

  8. Anon says:

    I am surprised we have not seen this argument from yet; to explain all of the cold weather and the increasing ice in the Arctic:

    How CO2 Can Make Things Cold

    CO2 cartridges are highly compressed cylinders of liquid carbon dioxide. As the liquid CO2 is released, it turns into a gas and makes your cartridge ice cold.

    This would be a great Bill Nye demonstration!

  9. Colorado Wellington says:

    David Hanselman is right, of course. Anthropogenic global warming is a complex process that can only be explored through the application of intersectionality in the study of earth, water, air and patriarchy.

    Why we need intersectionality to understand climate change
    by Elizabeth Walsh
    June 8, 2016

    https://intercontinentalcry.org/need-intersectionality-understand-climate-change

    —————

    The Intersectionality of Climate Change

    Climate change has historically been considered a scientific topic of discussion; a reality once understood only by scientific minds. However, as exemplified in this weeks readings, the climate change discussion is becoming increasingly more accessible as it begins to bleed over into other areas of human interest– namely arts and the humanities– creating an intersectional space in which it can exist. In his essay, “The Climate of History: Four Theses” Dipesh Chakrabarty addresses the immediate need for this intersectional space, arguing that, “the crisis of climate change calls on academics to rise above their disciplinary prejudices, for it is a crisis of many dimensions.” (Chakrabarty, 45)

    While it may be clear that understanding climate change is critical for our existence as the human race, this understanding on a grand scale can not exist unless the scientific reality disseminates throughout the public in a way that resonates. Baucom and Omelsky highlight that journalists played an introductory role in translating the scientific intricacies to the public, though the focus has now moved on to more complex modes of translation. (Baucom and Omelsky, 9) Artistically motivated spaces for climate conversation have come into play, perhaps most interestingly noted by Baucom and Omelsky in John Luther Adams’ symphony: Becoming Ocean. As a musician I take particular interest in this fusion of science and the arts. In an interview about this piece, Adams explains that it was in part an attempt, “to re-connect with the larger, older world that we still inhabit but that we forget.” After listening to several minutes of the symphony, I understand better the importance of crossing science with art; the undulating sequence of notes and dynamics certainly evoke the spirit of the ocean. This symphony, among other pieces of environmental, experimental art, could perhaps act as the catalyst for caring about climate change to those individuals for whom scientific terminology or the written word doesn’t necessarily resonate. Such modes of discussion are inaccessible for much of our population– to understand science you must have at least some formal knowledge and understanding of basic scientific principles. To consume art, however, requires no such prerequisite. In this way, the intersection of climate change and art makes the reality of our planet’s future more widely accessible than science alone can ever hope to accomplish.

    That being said, is it possible that this full-immersion of climate change knowledge into our society could in fact diminish its intended effect? If climate change is present in everything we do, does it then become less striking, less impactful? Do we become sensory-blind to it’s devastating reality?

    Media: https://artistsandclimatechange.com

    Artists & Climate Change is blog that tracks the initiative taken on by artists all over the world to translate the realities of climate change into the artistic sector. This website displays climate-focused art that spans across a wide variety of mediums, ranging from sculpture to music to comics to performance art.

    https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/engl-484-fall2017/2017/09/12/the-intersectionality-of-climate-change

  10. Windsong says:

    After looking at David’s timeline, noticed he does a lot of retweets. Note sure he knows what he is talking about. For certain he didn’t know who he was dealing with.

  11. Dave N says:

    I would not be surprised if other alarmists start calling Hanselman a “denier”.

  12. JPinBalt says:

    Such stupid non-science nonsense in NASA article, e.g. “… water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%”

    Try like 95% for H2O, and while increasing water vapor and clouds does trap more LWR than low humidity and clear skies, it also blocks the sun’s ray from hiting earth. There is a real good opposite negative relationship with cloud cover and surface or tropospheric temperatures. What garbage, clouds account for 25% of greenhouse effect – yea, right, sure, it is hotter on cloudy days my ass. Maybe they should walk outside on a cloudy or sunny day and do an experiment looking at a thermometer.

    Clouds and humidity do have a massive effect on incoming and outgoing radiation, less in and less out, especially humidity, CO2 has no statistically significant impact, it is such a small band, moreover, data on LWR escaping earth shows it has not changed, AGW is proved wrong since LWR would be theoreticaly decreasing. It is really not hard to look at outgoing LWR and do a statistcal analysis, or look at trend where there is non. AGW is a religion, just amazes me how many people drank the cool-aid and belive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *