William Gray: In climate change, we are not to blame

An important process with regards to weather/climate change is the prevalence of naturally occurring multi-decadal periods of up-and-down swings in temperature, precipitation and other climate elements. The usual period of these variations is about 50 to 60 years or roughly 25 to 35 years between low to high or high to low periods.

The weather 25 to 35 years ago can often seem different from what we experience today. I have heard many adults say the weather/climate now is different than when they were kids. And this is often true. Such multi-decadal periods of up-and-down variations have been well documented backward in time for thousands of years in paleo-climate data sets of various kinds. Surface temperature measurements during the past 130 years indicate that our globe’s mean surface temperature experienced weak cooling periods between 1885 to 1910, 1945 to 1975 and the slight global cooling since 1998. Periods of global surface warming have occurred between 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998.

These roughly 30-year-long up and down changes in climate are due to the natural back and forth swings of the globe’s deep ocean circulation patterns which are primarily driven by ocean salinity differences. These salinity changes are caused by precipitation and evaporation differences and have no direct association to the CO2-induced radiation changes. The Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, advocates want us to believe that these natural multi-decadal changes have a human component related to greenhouse gas buildup. This plays into the hands of those not knowing the causes of such natural climate changes.


6 responses to “William Gray: In climate change, we are not to blame

  1. Please, leave out all the extra words – just write “It’s Magic!” Human industrialization has absolutely NO impact on air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemical and heavy metal pollution, climate change, etc. The evidence is just trumped up mass hysterical numbers. These phenomena are all simply natural, recurrent, magical changes that just…happen! Idiots.

    • Odd. I didn’t notice Gray mention anything but climate. Did you post this in the wrong place?

    • These problems were brought to our attention in the 60s and 70s. We addressed them and fixed them.

      Then the environmentalists didn’t go away. They kept on pouting. It would seem that “air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemical and heavy metal pollution” wasn’t really the issue at all. Just a prop to attack humanity.

  2. It’s pretty common for a twelve year old to feel temperature differently than a forty seven year old!

    Oceans transfer (redistribute) heat (or cool) but they do not cause a net increase or decrease in global temperature. Oceans in of themselves cannot — I repeat, cannot generate energy (heat); they can only transfer. If there is a long term increase in global temperature it is unrelated to the oceans.

    If you’re going to discount global climate change you need to scientifically debunk the effects of higher and higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 on heat retension, and I’ve seen nothing of that.

    I wonder Mr Gray, do you ever feel any remorse, shame or guilt for your shallow and incompetent analysis? When you give your followers such an absurd argument you seem like a defense attorney reaching for any claim or alternate theory to exuse or hide the client’s guilt. You do us all a grave disservice.

    • Boy, what a burst of drivel modalitas.

      Changing ocean currents alter global temperature by a number of mechanisms – transport of equatorial heat to high latitudes, for example, not to mention delivering warmer water close to western continental coasts increasing precipitation and shading of the more insolation absorbent land and so on. Let’s not forget changes in upwelling involved in El Niño Southern Oscillation phases and the world’s heating an cooling associated with that.

      That you haven’t seen rebuttals of extreme “heat retention” from added greenhouse effect simply means you haven’t been paying attention. Had you paid any at all you would have seen that the IPCC’s climate sensitivity formula of change in surface temperature divided by change in forcing (∆Ts/∆F = λ) when applied to Earth’s natural greenhouse effect 33°C/330(W/m2) = 0.1°C/(W/m2) and that their formula for 2xCO2 5.35LN(2) = 3.7 W/m2, thus 2xCO2 is only expected to deliver ~0.4°C warming, not the absurd PlayStation® fairy stories of multiple degrees warming from an insignificant trace gas and marvelous magical multipliers, which Earth’s native greenhouse effect demonstrates to be negative rather than positive.

      Of course no one feels remorse or shame pointing out the utter failings of PlayStation® climatology and climate hysteria, although CAGW promoters and profiteers surely should.

    • “If you’re going to discount global climate change”

      Did the marketing department tell you to stop saying “global warming?”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s