https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

Global Warming

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

Solar Activity may affect temperature on Earth.

From:-

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.MszmnqS1.dpbs

Earth’s Mean Temperature Falling, Planetary Alignment Suspected As Driver Of The 11-Year Solar Cycle

By P Gosselin on 9. May 2020

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s Monthly Solar Report

The global mean temperature in April 2020 was again significantly lower than in February and March, at 0.38°C above the average from 1981 to 2010. The average temperature increase on the globe from 1981 to February 2020 was 0.14°C per decade. The further development promises to be interesting, especially since a number of research institutes expect a higher probability of a cooling La Nina in the Pacific towards the end of the year. March’s solar activity was very low with a sunspot number of 1.5.  Activity in April rose slightly to 5.4. The first sunspots of the new cycle are showing.

What causes the sun to have an 11-year cycle?

Since the Dessau pharmacist Heinrich Samuel Schwabe discovered in 1843 that the sunspots of the sun increase and decrease in an 11-year cycle, science has been puzzling over the reason why this cycle lasts 11 years and why the solar magnetic field also changes its polarity in this rhythm: the north pole becomes the south pole and vice versa.

In July last year, scientists at the Helmholtz Centre in Dresden Rossendorf made a little-noticed but exciting discovery. Every 11.07 years, the planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter are aligned quite precisely. At this point in time, their gravitational force acts jointly in one direction on the Sun.

“The agreement is amazingly accurate: we see a complete parallelism with the planets over 90 cycles,” explains Frank Stefani, one of the authors of the publication published in Solar Physics. Just as the gravitational pull of the Moon causes the tides on Earth, planets could move the hot plasma on the surface of the Sun. But the effect of a simple gravitational force is too weak to significantly disturb the flow in the Sun’s interior, so the temporal coincidence has long been ignored."

Cost Of ‘Net Zero’ Will Be Astronomical, New Reports Warn

From the Global Warming Policy Foundation:-

https://www.thegwpf.org/cost-of-net-zero-will-be-ruinous-new-reports-warn/
24th February 2020

Other Interesting Articles

http://www.ecomodernism.org/
A MANIFESTO TO USE HUMANITY'S EXTRAORDINARY POWERS IN SERVICE OF CREATING A GOOD ANTHROPOCENE.

From Matt Ridley:-

Ecomodernism and sustainable intensification

My Times column on eco-modernism:   In the unlikely event that the G7 heads of state are reading The Times at breakfast in Schloss Elmau in Bavaria, may I make a humble suggestion? On their agenda, alongside Ukraine, Greece, ebola and Fifa, is…

The planetary impact of people

I have written a longish piece about the human footprint on the earth, avaliable as a `ChangeThis' manifesto here Here are a few extracts:   I am going to argue that the ecological footprint of human activity is probably…

posted:  January 21, 2020 • Environment, Scotland

More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019  

Author:  Scottish Forestry

Australian Bush Fires

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/from-the-front-line-my-advice-for-the-bushfire-inquiry/

by Viv Forbes

Viv Forbes has long experience of bushfires in Northern Australia – lighting, fighting and cleaning up after them.

… We’ve had at least 57 bushfire inquiries since 1939, which is about one every two years. Anyone who bothers to read them will soon deduce what should be done. Nothing much has changed except there are more people living in fire-prone zones with no protection, and more forest and private land has been locked up with heavy fuel loads.

The current bushfire tragedy has occurred after 30 years of unprecedented government control of environmental policy at all levels. Many of these destructive policies have been imported under so called ‘international agreements’. As a result, ordinary Australians have been dragged into court for constructing firebreaks or removing dangerous trees on their own land. Governments and green advisers have assumed total stewardship of the environment and they own the results – massive destruction of lives, homes, property, animals and vegetation – over five million hectares and 2,000 homes burnt.

…

Here is a five-point plan which should come from Bushfire Inquiry number 58.

Firstly, reduce the fuel load especially in national parks and forests by cool season burning, grazing, timber harvesting, slashing/mulching and collecting dead firewood. Appoint trained and experienced foresters to maintain safe and healthy public forests. Private landowners should also be enabled and obliged to become fire safe. Green-tinged politicians and bureaucrats have prevented or hampered all of these reforms.

Secondly, create and maintain wide clear trafficable roads, tracks and firebreaks through the forests and around towns and private properties. In fire seasons, these patrolled fire-barriers will help to confine any fire to one sector and provide a prepared line from which to back burn if there is an approaching fire.

Thirdly, build more dams and weirs to provide water for fire-fighting and to provide fire havens for humans, animals and vegetation. Increase penalties for arson in times of high fire danger.

Fourthly, abolish all restrictions on responsible management of ‘protected’ vegetation reserves on private land – especially the private land sterilised to fulfil foolish government Kyoto Protocol promises or under government-enforced vegetation protection orders. Governments have created these fire hazards by trying to wrap vast areas of vegetation in cotton wool and green tape (both of which are flammable). Government ‘protection’ of flora and fauna has proved to be the fiery kiss of death.

Fifthly, decentralise fuel and forest management out of the cities and into the regions.

Are Government Rules Increasing Wildfires?

Are Government Rules Increasing Numbers of Wildfires?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/green-agenda-exacerbating-australias-wildfire-problem/
4th January 2020

... many are blaming the greens for exacerbating the fires by meddling in the time- honoured practice of burning off excess vegetation to mitigate wildfires.

From the Telegraph ... 

"All over the world farmers are being prevented by “experts” in government quangos from carrying out controlled burning to manage habitats prone to catching fire. Often the precautionary principle on climate is cited. Yet when Caithness’s Flow Country caught fire recently the fire brigade cited the lack of precautions in allowing moors to become overgrown.

And these wildfires massively increase carbon in the atmosphere because they set the underlying peat alight. While the Caithness fire was burning it was estimated that it doubled Scotland’s carbon emissions for the six days that it burned.

Upland land managers in England are currently in dispute with Defra over plans to restrict controlled burning on deep peat. It started with an RSPB challenge in the European courts based on highly questionable pre-2013 science, and EU habitat directives. This led to a voluntary code whereby farmers could only burn to strict criteria such as restoring habitat health. But a Natural England position paper in 2019 would effectively “nail it down so hard as effectively to stop it” according to the Moorland Association.

The science is hotly disputed but research has shown that so-called “cool burning”, the controlled burning of heather when conditions allow in winter, can – counter-intuitively – increase carbon sequestration by turning excess vegetation into charcoal and stimulating plant growth by regenerating sphagnum moss and moorland grasses that absorb more CO2. Breeding bird surveys have consistently pointed to strong correlations between endangered wading bird numbers and moorland that has been burnt. The golden plover, in particular, prefers to nest on recently burnt patches; their eggs are even camouflaged accordingly. And speaker after speaker at the 2019 Wildfires Conference in Cardiff spoke of the need to reduce vegetation in vulnerable areas."

Californian Wildfires

WILDFIRES

Is climate change driving blazes? Experts say no

Thomas Frank, E&E News reporter

Published: Thursday, January 9, 2020

https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-plaid-minor-role-in-californian-wildfires-experts-conclude/https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-plaid-minor-role-in-californian-wildfires-experts-conclude/

Early 20th century global warming - Overview of Judith Curry's observation on early 20th century warming:-

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/

Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | 377 Comments

by Judith Curry

A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950.  Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.

This is an issue that has long interested me.  Peter Webster wrote a previous post Mid 20th Century Global(?) Warming, which focused on the warm bump that culminated in the 1940’s.  My interest in this period was reignited while working on my report Sea Level and Climate Change.  Then, the recent paper by Zanna et al. discussed in Ocean Heat Content  Surprises further made the wheels turn.

In response to the Ocean Heat Content thread, David Appell posted a link to this paper on twitter:

The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes and consequences