Norman Page is back at it with more predictions of global cooling.
If you recall, our friend Norman Page PhD keeps making predictions of global cooling that keep being wildly wrong. Yet he never learns.
In 2012 he wrote that his cooling prediction of 2003 was going great:
"My 2012 forecast of a cooling trend from 2003 on is looking good."
despite it looking like no such thing. That year he also wrote a on WUWT, titled "Global cooling in the near future," saying (in bold)
"the earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer."
Both these predictions have been absolutely wrong. Embarrassingly so, you'd think.
Worse, he tried to claim he was right all along.
And he's been at it still. First in 2017:
"The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers," Energy & Environment, v28 i3 (Feb 10, 2017).
in the journal that is the last recourse of deniers, Energy & Environment. In 2019 he wrote about this paper:
"The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650."
still claiming that it started cooling in 2003/4, when of course it has done anything but:
In fact, the 20-year trend of GISS monthly global surface temperature is 0.45°C/20yrs.
Here Norman is, doubling down again on Judith Curry's blog just the other day, saying scientists have a "CO2 derangement syndrome."
Some people just refuse to learn. I wonder if Norman's salary depends on ignoring the evidence.
Comical. I notice he's not keen to engage with you over are Curry's.
ReplyDeleteYeah. Today he wrote a weird post, full of some kind of data and whatnot, that seemed utterly irrelevant to the issue of predicting global cooling.
ReplyDeleteIt's a mess. What is he even saying? He seems to be doubling down on the notion that warming peaked in 2003. That's clearly ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteHopefully that's transparent even to the folks at Curry's blog.
Dave Here is my comment on Curry
ReplyDeleteDavid Check my post “The Rules of the Lebensraum game.”
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
Excerpts
“1. SUMMARY
A battle for Lebensraum, i.e. energy,land, and food resources, broke out when Russia invaded Crimea.An associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases now threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic in 1919 world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/ – an approximate four fold increase.
The IPCC and UNFCCC post- modern science establishment’s “consensus” is that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels is the main threat to human civilization. This is an egregious error of scientific judgement. The length of time used in making the models is much too small .
A Millennial Solar ” Activity” Peak in 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Peak at 2003/4 with a 12/13 year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Since that turning point Earth has entered a general cooling trend which will last for the next 700+/- years........
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog.There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate crisis.
Because of the areal distribution and variability in the energy density of energy resources and the varying per capita use of energy in different countries, international power relationships have been transformed. The global free trade system and the global supply The global free trade system and the global supply chains have been disrupted.
Additionally, the worlds richest and most easily accessible key mineral deposits have been mined first and the lower quality resources which remain in the 21st century are distributed without regard to national boundaries and differential demand. As population grows,inflation inevitably skyrockets. War between states and violent conflicts between tribes and religious groups within states will continue to multiply…………….
Latest UAH Satellite Data (7)
Global Temp Data 2003/12 Anomaly +0.26 :
2023/02 Anomaly -0.04 Net cooling for 19 years
NH Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly +0.37 :
2023/02 Anomaly +0.17 Net cooling for 19 years
SH Temp Data 2003/11 Anomaly +0.21:
2023/02 Anomaly 0.0 Net cooling for 19 years
Tropics Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly +0.22 :
2023/02 Anomaly – 0.11 Net cooling for 19 years.
USA 48 Temp Data 2004/03 Anomaly +1.32 :
2023/02 Anomaly + 0.68 Net cooling for 19 years.
Arctic Temp Data 2003/10 Anomaly +0.93 :
2023/02 Anomaly – 0.24 Net cooling for 19 years
Australia Temp Data 2004/02 Anomaly +0.80 :
2023/02 Anomaly – 0.12 Net cooling for 19 years ………”
This data was retrieved on 2023/2. Since that time an El Nino has developed and produced what will be short term deviations from the long term cooling trend.
“..............The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog. (13)
Stallinga 2020 (14) concludes: ” The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we……… find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. ……Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.” CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two.
Just look at the satellite data and the comment in the above ( Layzej too)
Your main argument is made from incredulity. It doesn't carry any weight next to the science. Further, the data doesn't back you up.
ReplyDeleteHere's satellite data superimposed over the surface station record. There's just no way to look at this and think that warming peaked in 2003.
If you look at the trend since 2003, it hasn't diminished at all from the overall trend.
UAH trend overall is 0.13C per decade. Since 2003 it's been 0.17C per decade. Here's a graph.
RSS trend overall is 0.21 per decade. Since 2003 it's been 0.21C per decade. Here's a graph
I notice the one paper he does site (Stallinga 2020) is published by a predatory journal where papers can be sent directly by email to the editors, bypassing a review process and being automatically accepted for publication.
ReplyDeleteI'm having doubts that 'Dr' Norman Page is really an academic.
Norman, you're being intentionally misleading by only posting UAH data.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, it doesn't measure the surface, which is where people live and deal with temperature. UAH is also an outlier of the six datasets that measure some kind of temperature (GISS, NASA, HadCRUT, JMA, UAH, RSS).
And writing things like
"NH Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly +0.37 :
2023/02 Anomaly +0.17 Net cooling for 19 years"
is just shameful. You're just cherry-picking a few months, severely. I can believe any educated person would try to pull such a dishonest stunt.
Of course no one is going to take you seriously when you write such nonsense....
Norman wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog.
Ozone is only 10 ppm in the ozone layer. But without it there'd be no life on Earth.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!
More nonsense. Much of it cut and paste from his previous comments.
ReplyDeleteI'm with David. How could an educated person think it's reasonable to establish a trend by taking two cherry picked points and drawing a line between them? It's so dishonest as to beggar belief.
Norman, is there one of these papers or points that you'd be willing to hang your hat on?
Do you have anything more convincing than Stallinga 2020? Enough throwing spaghetti. What's your most convincing case?
Norman, you didn't address your extreme cherrypicking to "conclude" global cooling is here. That's the most egregious part of your comment, and it really can't go unmentioned.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your response?
Norman wrote:
ReplyDelete"CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two."
Wrong. CO2 certainly leads temperature when we're pumping it straight into the atmosphere. Without regard to temperature.
Norman, do you only drive your car when the temperature has increased?
Or do you drive it, and pump CO2 into the atmosphere, when you need it, regardless of temperature.
The PETM 55 Myrs ago is another example of CO2 leading temperature. The CO2 came from volcanoes.
I just can't believe you don't understand this.
Norman wrote:
ReplyDelete"CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two."
Norman, do you accept the science of the greenhouse effect? Do you understand that science?
Have you seen videos of infrared radiation being absorbed by CO2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc
Norman wrote:
ReplyDelete"The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing (RF) arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures."
It's not an assumption! It's shown by science.
--
What is the link to Zhitomirskiy 2022?
Norman, is this the source of your Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy quote?
ReplyDeletehttps://independent.academia.edu/AleksandrZhitomirskiy
These papers aren't even journal papers, just some dude's blog posts! Not peer reviewed. That's not science, Norman, not even close. You should know that.
It appears you go out and find whatever information & data you think supports your claim, without critically evaluating it, and ignoring EVERYTHING else.
"First - Please comment on the References and statements in my in my post above"
ReplyDeleteI can't wade through nonsense piled on nonsense in search of something credible. I looked at the first two and they are complete nonsense.
Pick your best paper or point. Something you are willing to hang your hat on.
Do you have anything more convincing than Stallinga 2020? Enough throwing spaghetti. What's your most convincing case?
As always, as ever, the deniers go absolutely silent when presented with overwhelming evidence against their claims.
ReplyDeleteThey can't ever admit when they're wrong.
He retracted (erased) a few of his comments. That seems to indicate some level of self awareness.
ReplyDeleteDave/Layjez- " It appears you go out and find whatever information & data you think supports your claim, without critically evaluating it, and ignoring EVERYTHING else. "
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what you both do "I can't wade through nonsense piled on nonsense in search of something credible. I looked at the first two and they are complete nonsense"
Calling something non-sense doesn't address the data or arguments presented. Have another try at the substance of thrfollowing.
"CO2 -Temperature and Climate.
The whole COP Net Zero meme is founded on the flawed assumptions and algorithms which produced the IPCC- UNFCCC model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases.
The "consensus" IPCC models make the fundamental error of ignoring the long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 1
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog. (13)
Stallinga 2020 (14) concludes: " The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we...…… find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. ……Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.” CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing (RF) arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures.
Miskolczi 2014 (15) in “The greenhouse effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth's Atmosphere “says "The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water.”
AleksanderZhitomirskiy 2022,(16) says:
"The molar heat capacities of the main greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases are of the same order of magnitude. Given the low concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their contribution to temperature change is below the measurement error. It seems that the role of various gases in the absorption of heat by the atmosphere is determined not by the ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation, but by its heat capacity and concentration. "
Zaichun Zhul et al 2016 (17) in Greening of the Earth and its drivers report “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated Leaf Area Index (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area from 1982 - 2009. ………. C02 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend.”
Policies which limit CO2 emissions or even worse sequester CO2 in quixotic CCS green-washing schemes would decrease agricultural food production and are antithetical to the goals of feeding the increasing population and bringing people out of poverty.
The tropical rain forests and tropical oceans are the main source of the atmosphere's water vapor and the rainfall essential to life and agriculture on land. Potable and agricultural water supplies are now stretched to their limits in many areas because of the differing national demographics of global population increase. Temperature limits and Net Zero CO2 targets as set in the Paris Accords to ameliorate future temperatures are completely useless when formulating policies relative to adaptation to the actual real world problems. These require more local inputs for particular regional ecosystems delineated by coastlines, major river basins and mountain range limited intra-continental divides.
I had hoped you could pick one item that you'd be willing to hang your hat on. Instead you are throwing spaghetti to see what sticks.
ReplyDeleteNo matter. Let's see how far down your list we can get before we hit nonsense.
Claim 1 is: The "consensus" IPCC models make the fundamental error of ignoring the long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91
That is clearly incorrect. Section 2.2.1 of the AR6 addresses magnitude and rates of changes in solar and orbital Forcing. Section 7.3.4.4 deals with effective radiative forcing from solar variation. This was hardly ignored.
So not even one correct item before we hit nonsense. Not great.
Layzej Thanks for your derailed response. I'll get back to you in about 10 days - I'm taking a break for my 90th Birthday celebrations - I've had a lot of direct experience with climate change.
ReplyDeleteHappy birthday! 90 years is quite an accomplishment! Enjoy your time with your loved ones :)
ReplyDeleteLayzej/David.Birthday bash was a big success But I tested positive for Covid afterwards.Fortunately I have no discernable symptoms I jog/run 4 miles every AM.
ReplyDeleteThe global heat wave has produced an outpouring of comment and analysis See eg
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/#more-30374
and https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf
I'm working on a new paper I plan to submit to Nature Climate Change.
As to our discussion
would either of you care to comment on https://www.academia.edu/27946994/The_Greenhouse_Effect_and_the_Infrared_Radiative_Structure_of_the_Earths_Atmosphere?email_work_card=view-paper
Which states
"The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.
The Miskolczi 2014 paper seems to rely on the finding that TPW has declined over the previous decades based on reanalysis of NCEP-NCAR (R1). Mears, et al. 2018 finds the opposite using satellite data. Which one is right?
ReplyDeleteMiskolczi's findings leave recent warming unexplained and so he concludes we need to "find and establish the real causes and the true trends in global temperature change".
It may be more likely that further review of TPW will align with the Mears 2018 findings.
All previous discussions on these matters have been made irrelevant by the current temperature extremes which ace obviously related to the Hunga Tonga Underwater eruption
ReplyDelete"Long-term surface impact of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai-like
stratospheric water vapor injection
Martin Jucker1
, Chris Lucas2
, and Deepashree Dutta1
1Climate Change Research Centre and Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes,
University of New South Wales
2Bureau of Meteorology
August 4, 2023
Abstract
The amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere after the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) was unprecedented, and it is therefore unclear what it might mean for surface climate. We use climate model simulations to assess the long-term surface impacts of stratospheric water vapor (SWV) anomalies caused by volcanic eruptions. The simulations
show that the SWV anomalies lead to strong and persistent warming of Northern Hemisphere landmasses in boreal winter,and austral winter cooling over Australia. Thus, SWV forcing from volcanic eruptions like the one from Hunga Tonga-Hunga
Ha’apai can have surface impacts on a decadal timescale. We also emphasize that the surface response to SWV anomalies is more
complex than simple warming due to greenhouse forcing and is influenced by factors such as regional circulation patterns and
cloud feedbacks. Further research is needed to fully understand the multi-year effects of SWV anomalies and their relationship
with climate phenomena like El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation.
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Volcanic eruptions typically cool the Earth’s surface by releasing aerosols
which reflect sunlight. However, a recent eruption released a significant amount of water vapor-a strong
greenhouse gas-into the stratosphere with unknown consequences. This study examines the aftermath of the eruption and reveals that surface temperatures across large regions of the world increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas experience cooling close to 1°C. Additionally, the research suggestsa potential connection between the eruption and sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific , which warrants further investigation."
https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/145195/preprint_pdf/d140f3a4e12d5a7006f31ec5e95cf16b.pdf
Dr Page: "All previous discussions on these matters have been made irrelevant by the current temperature extremes which ace obviously related to the Hunga Tonga Underwater eruption"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's so obvious. The hottest year was in 2016 - well before the latest Hunga Tonga eruption.
There's been a fairly linear rise in temp since 1980. Hunga Tonga may increase the size of the wiggles around that linear trend for a year or two, but the real culprit is that steady rise of 0.21C per decade since 1980.
One important thing to note about the Jucker/Lucas paper is that the finding is regional anomalies, not global warming/cooling. Important findings (if correct) for those regions over the next 3-7 years, but globally it doesn't seem to move the needle.
ReplyDeleteThis recent study calculated the monthly change in Earth’s energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035°C over the next 5 years. That’s a large anomaly for a single event, but it’s not outside the usual level of noise in the climate system.
ReplyDelete