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.
For instance, the Introduction starts “A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend…” which sounds like more of the same, especially from a government agency. Until you read:
“A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.”
And if the mere mention of natural temperature cycles of extraordinary magnitude is not enough to have Michael Mann piling tinder around a stake, the authors continue:
“Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.”
And while you might think these troubled waters are about to be oiled over when they say “At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made)”, they immediately add snidely “This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.” And then footnote Steven Koonin and Judith Curry, and keep on going.
Including warming a historian’s heart by complaining that while global climate models (aka GCMs) attribute most warming since 1950 to humans:
“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.”
We won’t quote the entire paper, tempting as it is because of its reference, for instance, to:
“The preceding four interglacial periods… at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present.”
It is more history. And yes, a huge problem for climate breakdown alarmism is that the long term presents both variability and warmth greater than anything we’ve experienced to which those ignorant of the past attach the pejorative “unprecedented”. But an even bigger problem, given the state of debate, is that agencies that can hardly be silenced by smears and threats of professional ruin are now putting such things forward frankly and boldly.
As for various attempts to kill off more recent warmings, the authors insist that temperature reconstructions in Greenland:
“with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles… indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010).”
The point is not just that there was no breakdown, no tipping points and no annihilation of cute creatures at that temperature level. It’s that there really was a Minoan Warm Period warmer than today, with CO2 much lower and humans contributing little or nothing to it.
The heresy continues, with frank discussions of the sun’s impact on temperature and that of clouds. And a stinging review of the computer models’ incapacity even to predict the past after we know what happened.
The paper wraps up by summarizing the outcome of its investigations and its heresy thusly:
“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. 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.”
Meaning, if nothing else, that it is impossible to attribute nearly all of it to humans so the science is not settled. But it does mean more. Including that CO2 is not a convincing explanation. And that those who insist that it is and lash out at anyone who raises questions are ignorant as well as vicious.
Oh well, some may say, let the debate begin and the alarmists may well be vindicated. But our view is that the ferocity of their efforts to exclude such questions from mainstream settings, from universities to newspapers to legislatures, including the Guardian hurriedly rubbishing an Australian politician who dared express doubts (the journalist in question having a “diploma” in “Newspaper Journalism” so not a “climate scientist”), indicates their unease at what will happen if they are forced to lay down their halos and scriptures and start discussing actual science.
So thank you Statistics Norway, and let’s hear from Statistics Canada.
Truth will out. Eventually. The question is, how much more pain must we collectively endure before we can consign this rubbish to the waste bin of history, because " everyone knows", like "everyone knows the Earth is spheroidal".
STOP IT!!!!! All these d@mn facts are hurting my brain.
The party is over you global climate warming change shills, please take your drunken constituents home with you when you skulk out the back door.
I applaud John and his dedicated band of researchers for continuing to unearth the real oil on the ongoing charade of Climate Alarmism.
Maybe somtime soon we can stop scaring the crap out of our kids and start to address real issues about the health of our glorious home planet
Norway must be both conflicted and bipolar because it's citizens buy 'green' zero emission Teslas to save the planet from roasting by means of the huge volumes of oil that they sell to pay for their conscience saving ,hydro electric, powered Teslas
typo in last comment "conscience salving' not saving (or maybe both ...)
Stefan & Boltzmann discovered that a black body radiates in proportion to the FOURTH POWER of the absolute temperature (two square laws combined), so for a doubling of the temperature, the energy radiated increases 16 times. Thus, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is only 0.75°C for a doubling of CO2...
The reason "we" buy electric cars in Norway ( I don't) are solely for tax benefits. Lately the government has revoked some of the benefits, and sales of electric cars drops huge.
Used diesel and petrol car sales are increasing.
Haha
Statistics Norway is admitting what every supporter of CDN,FoS,and like-minded sites have been saying for years.
That paper is written by authors with higher engineering degrees. Everyone knows that their background in heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid properties, fluid mechanics, statistics, linear programming, computer programming, and project economics makes them useless (/s) to the climate glitterati. Since they aren’t “climate scientists” , their works will be slagged on Desmogblog as being the party line from a petro-state, not see the light of day in any COP conference proceedings, and CoverinClimateNow will issue over 400 emails to their “members” telling them to not publish anything about the Norwegian report lest it give “deniers” a platform. If you can find it at all using a search engine, you will get a banner stating that it is not factual….
Put more coal into the fire and it gets colder. I fear the statisics used were not the appropriate one or the selection of data insufficient.
Can you please provide a valid link ?
November is the 20th Anniversary of McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2003). "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series". Energy & Environment. 14 (6): 751–771.
No discussion of the slight climate warming since 1979 is valid if the role of anthropogenic waste heat (5x10^20 Joules per annum ) released into the earths near surface energy reservoirs is ignored.
Once the coming Gore Minimum is well established the actual climate science deniers will not waver, They will say, look it's working! We must keep on shutting down coal power stations. If we don't we're all gonna fry, all gonna die! I'm not against religion per se (I'm a Baptist). But this fake climate religion is the work of the devil.
Doug Mackenzie says:
October 6, 2023 at 2:12 pm
"That paper is written by authors with higher engineering degrees. Everyone knows that their background in heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid properties, fluid mechanics, statistics, linear programming, computer programming, and project economics makes them useless (/s) to the climate glitterati. Since they aren’t “climate scientists” , their works will be slagged on Desmogblog as being the party line from a petro-state"
My comments: The atmosphere has a greenhouse effect that can be estimated at 30 degrees Celcius. Without atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be -15 degrees, but with the atmosphere it is +15 degrees. All greenhouse gases are responsible for 3% of these 30 degrees = 0.9 degrees and water vapour in the atmosphere is responsible for 97% = 29.1 degrees. CO2 accounts for 0.04% of all greenhouse gases. Who can credibly explain how it is possible that small variations of CO2 in the atmosphere control the global climate? The answer to that question is: NO ONE! For decades, countless climate experts have tried to find explanations with the help of advanced computer programs, which simulate the impact of greenhouse gases on the global climate. The results of the thousands of experiments have not been confirmed by comparisons with data on historical changes in the climate and changes in the variables that experts have assumed to have affected the changes. Has replaced knowledge with probabilities, unverifiable hypotheses. The climate experts have failed. The question is whether these many failures have strengthend the likelihood that the hypotheses that small changes in CO2 have a decisive impact on the climate or likelihood has weakened. For normal thinking people, the conclusion is obvious. The many failurs have reduced tha probability significantly. At the same time the probability in favor of other explanations has increased. If one thinks along lines that are not hidden in computer programs, that are depending on many debatable assumptions and mathematical formulas incomprehensible to the general public, one can arrive at more plausible explanations. For example: The atmosphere is the Earth's perimeter protection and works partly as the thermal insulation in a residential building. The thicker the insulation, the better the protection against heat and cold outside, resulting in less variation in indoor temperature between day and night. Most people know from their own experience that the sun's heat is stronger at high altitudes than on low land, and that nights are colder at higher altitudes than on low land because the atmosphere is thinner at higher altitudes - the insulation is thinner higher up. Since the 1960s, nations have made great efforts to purify the atmosphere with great success. and in the 2000s, emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases began to be reduced. It has not been very successful largely because many governments have decided that nuclear power is dangerous and have been removed in the belief that this can be compensated for by a global expansion of wind power. That has proven to be impossible. The countries that have pursued that strategy to the bitter end are Germany, Denmark, California and many more. In Europe, there is a widespread shortage of electrical power and the worst-affected countries do not require their neighbours to deliver more than they can spare. They also demand that they should phase out nuclear power and certainly not build new nuclear power. What to think of politicians like that?
Das wird die Jünger der CO2 Verteufelung wenig beeindrucken, die Meinungsspaltung ist bereits vollzogen und es gibt keinen Konsenz mehr. Die Massen werden weiter betrogen, weil man mit der CO2-Hysterie unglaublich viel Geld verdienen kann. Weiterhin ist das eine perfekte Methode, die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel der menschengemachten Klimakatastrophe, für einschneidente Veränderungen gefügig zu machen. Somit weiterhin mit Vollgas in die gesellschaftliche Katastrophe.
Can you elaborate on who has ignored it?
From translator in Firefox.: This will not impress the followers of the CO2 demonization, the split in opinion has already taken place and there is no longer any consensus. The masses continue to be deceived because you can make an incredible amount of money with the CO2 hysteria. Furthermore, this is a perfect method to make people compliant for drastic changes under the guise of man-made climate catastrophe. So we continue at full speed towards social catastrophe.
Agree.
My previous question was directed to Erwin Unger on who was ignoring industrial waste heat.
I recall seeing it published nearly a decade ago that the null hypothesis of random variation as the cause of any observed warming in recent years could not be disproved at any reasonable level of confidence (and all these hundreds of billions of dollars of spending are, in fact, based on models). In other words, there is nothing about the AGW hypothesis that is based on science, as that term is generally understood. Individual small pieces, yes, but the global aggregate has always failed to pass the test because of the missing elements -- feedback loops, variables held constant by assumption, etc.
For a deeper explanation of the thermodynamics of alleged CO2-induced warming, read "Global Warming: The Great Deception" by Guy K. Mitchell, Jr.
Sea creatures and plants combine CO2 with calcium to make bones and shells and beautiful cocolithophores, which ultimately become eternal limestone. As a result, the CO2 content of the atmosphere declined on a nearly straight trajectory from 2,500 parts per million (ppm) 150 million years ago, at a rate of 14.6 ppm per million years, to 280 ppm in 1750. Plants die at 150 ppm. The Earth was scheduled to die in nine million years. Fortunately, the Industrial Revolution has raised the concentration to 415 ppm, extending Earth's lease on life to eighteen million years. Reducing CO2 is exactly the wrong thing to do. Read "Fake Invisible Catastrophes" by Dr. Patrick Moore, and at least Chapter 3 at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Whence-Energy.html
True, I just got a facebook note stating that fact checkers have pronounced this "partly false."
However, it is also becoming known that the Climate Agenda is not about the weather, but it is about mandating specific global human behavior. I just found some info about the Controligarchs that have been working on this for more than a century.