3 thoughts on “Warmist Hayhoe: ‘Scientists have been aware for nearly 200 years that human activities alter climate’”

  1. H’m. Dr. Hayhoe’s Tweet says something that isn’t at the link, the idea that scientists have known for 200 years that human activity changes climate. But 200 years ago, there was very little information about climate and very little understanding of the systems that affect the climate, the forcings.
    We have more information now but precious little understanding. We also have, most crucially, a claimed warming that begins well before human production of CO2 was anywhere near large enough to influence climate or heat-trapping.
    Dr. Hayhoe’s comment about a secure energy system makes more sense than do her other comments in the link. Too bad she works so hard against a secure energy system.

  2. From Dr. Katharine Hayhoe’s essay linked:

    “To summarize: for natural cycles, the sun, or volcanoes to be driving the recent warming of the earth’s climate would violate the fundamental laws of physics and no one, to date, has explained how this could be the case. Other plausible explanations, such as cosmic rays, have proven inadequate to explain both the magnitude of the warming as well as to explain how increasing levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are not warming the planet.”


    # # #

    “no one, to date”. Poor Katharine, she’ll have to update her essay in light of the recent papers e.g. Kosaka and Xie (Pacific cooling, ocean oscillations), Meehl et al (in press – similar to K&X), Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers, and IPCC AR5 “leaks” re the sun , volcanoes and aerosols (i.e. they’re still “puzzled”) in respect to the pause/hiatus/divergence, all terms now firmly esconced in the literature.

    I’m also curious how “the sun” …… “to be driving the recent warming of the earth’s climate would violate the fundamental laws of physics” ? The sun, ignoring geo, is the sole energy input to the earth’s climate system. Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Trenberth independently find planetary inertia (sun-ocean-atmosphere thermal lag) to be predominantly around 10 – 14 years (14, 12, 10 respectively), Abdussamatov using thermodynamic principles (“fundamental laws of physics”). Any variation to solar input MUST eventually transmit a response to the atmosphere contrary to Hayhoe’s waffle.

    Kosaka/Xie/Meehl et al and the IPCC are only starting to address short-term (60 yr) oscillations to explain the last 30 years climate but what about long-term supercycles? Timo Niroma presents a 2000-year historical perspective here:


    Even the IPCC’s solar go-to guy Mike Lockwood acknowledges the uncertainty in solar reconstruction studies ranges up to 6 W.m2 since the Maunder Minimum and that historically, climate change has been slow when the sun gains intensity from Grand Min (MM) up to Grand Max (like late 20th early 21st C) and “abrupt” when it goes into recession (like right now).

    Not that he, Jones and Stott use that range in their paper dutifully cited in AR5 Chapter 8 (they use least-case instead) and apparently (according to Jones, Lockwood and Stott), CO2 forcing will only minimally offset the projected warming even though natural variation, of which solar is a looming factor, has offset all of it in the 21st Century so far.

    Dr. Katharine Hayhoe obviously has a lot to learn before she can describe herself as a “Climate Scientist” as she has done for her essay.

  3. Only 200 years? Surely the overtly Christian Dr. Hayhoe remembers that several thousands of years ago, badly behaving humanity caused the Genesis flood which God used to destroy all but the righteous?

    The theme of immoral behaviour causing environmental catastrophe is present in hundreds of ancient traditions and has been a force magnifier of immense value to those who define the “immorality” of the day.

Comments are closed.