As far as the literature of climate change studies is concerned it can be said that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary culprit for climate change

The term "climate change" is a substitute for "global warming". The "greenhouse gases" (mostly CO2) are blamed for "global warming" because they absorb infrared radiation (CO2 mostly absorbs in the band 14-16 um but then almost immediately re-emit it).

Not going deeper here into the physics of radiation and its effect, consider this Food for Thought:

On Jan 12, 2023, NASA posted a press-release 23-005

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues

These are some quotes from this release:

- “Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, global temperatures in 2022 were 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.89 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA's baseline period (1951-1980), scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York reported.”

- “This warming trend is alarming,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.

- “NASA is deepening our commitment to do our part in addressing climate change. Our Earth System Observatory will provide state-of-the-art data to support our climate modeling, analysis, and predictions to help humanity confront our planet’s changing climate.”

- “NASA’s global temperature analysis is drawn from data collected by weather stations and Antarctic research stations, as well as instruments mounted on ships and ocean buoys.”

“NASA scientists estimate that La Niña’s cooling influence may have lowered global temperatures slightly (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.06 degrees Celsius) from what the average would have been under more typical ocean conditions.” (What an amazing accuracy-0.06 C!!??-my comment-AK).

Now, let’s pay attention to the accuracy of these claims.

Global temperature anomaly calculation results can contain no more decimal places than the least precise temperature input.

The average global temperature anomaly is about 0.9 - 1.0 deg C at 2017 or 2018 or so. NASA claims 0.89C for 2022. However, for the temperature sensor in the U.S. Climate Reference Networks (USCRN), the error was found to be 0.2 to 0.3C over the range -25 to 50 deg C (a single decimal!!).

The Weather National Service established Requirements and Standards for weather observations, see

https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf.

On page 9 of this official document, it is stated in the Table "Air Temperature Measurement Performance Standards": the accuracy at reference temperature is from +/-1 F to +/-2F = 0.5C to 1.1C (90 - 95% confidence). Compare that requirement with the NASA claimed accuracy of the produced global temperature change!!.

Thus, the reported temperature anomaly easily falls within the range of natural variability as well as the margin of measurement error for a long-time span. In fact, the margin of error for any temperature measurement exceeds the entire supposed total increase in temperature anomaly of ~0.9-1.0 C since the pre-industrial age!

See, e.g. Lin et al "Sensor and Electronic Biases/Errors in Air Temperature Measurements in Common Weather Station Networks" Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, v. 21, 2004.

Conclusion: The scientific establishment (NASA/GISS) spends billions of dollars to produce just temperature noise reports rather than developing real metrics (signals) of global warming (calling it climate change).

Yes, the scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of climate change. The increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), in the Earth's atmosphere is primarily caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. These gases trap heat within the Earth's atmosphere, leading to the greenhouse effect and resulting in global warming and climate change. While natural factors also influence the climate, human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are considered the primary factor contributing to the current changes in climate patterns.

“The reason for the warming trend is that human activities continue to pump enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the long-term planetary impacts will also continue,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of GISS, NASA’s leading center for climate modeling. you may consider this in link "https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues/"

No. Aerosols generated by humanity are.

Mainly biomass burning but the gas flares in the oil fields near Basrah especially Rumaila are ferociously bad examples.

Here is a link to a forthcoming presentation that addresses this issue:https://ams.confex.com/ams/104ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/428660

The presentation is entitled "The Climate Change Deniers are Wrong: Evidence from NOAA's Barrow Atmospheric Observatory in Alaska"

Kevin F. Forbes I wonder how was the average annual temperature at the BRW calculated? Was it like, 1st, the daily average calculated as

Tday average=(Tmax day +Tmin day)/2 for each day, and then, the annual average as (T day 1 av +Tday 2 av +...)/365?

Or another method was used?

Alexander Kolker , Thank you for your question. The average annual temperature was calculated using the hourly data reported by the observatory.

Kevin F. Forbes How was it calculated from the hourly data? Using the arithmetic average formula as I guessed above? Or from the hourly temperature data as (T1 +T2+....T24)/24? Please be specific if you know the answer.

The barren soils of countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, UAE, etc. are a major contributor to Global Warming, and if replanted with a cover of native plants, would insulate the soil, so that the sun's heat coming off the barren lands would then NOT be trapped by the atmospheric CO2.

Picture shows the insulating effect of a single native grass plant in our Mojave desert, and also see https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html

And after the barren deserts are replanted, the Carbon Credits that those plants produce, could be used by the Ministry of Oil in Iraq, as offsets to be able to sell Carbon Neutral fossil fuels to the countries who have a desire to become Carbon Neutral at some time in the future.

By Iraq's oil customers buying Carbon Neutral products, they can become carbon neutral right now, instead of waiting another few decades. And would not need to go completely off fossil fuels to get there.

Kevin F. Forbes Since you did not reply to my questions above, I assume you don't know the answer. I'll do it here for you.

According to the NOAA site

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normals-daily&timeframe=15&location=AK&station=USW00027502&month=0

the daily average T day av is calculated as the average of daily T max and T min. For example, for Barrow Post Rogers Ap, Alaska, for January 2006, day 1, Tmax=-2.7 F, Tmin=-15F and the average is-8.9F rounded to 1 decimal, and so on.

Now, the annual average for the BRW location is (T1 day av+T2 day av+... +T365 day av)/365.

For 2015-2020 in your Abstract, the calculated average for this 6-year period is 3.37 C higher than that for the period 1985-1990 (The difference of the two averages).

Now, let's take a look at the temperature measurement errors and the average temperature calculation errors.

The Weather National Service established Requirements and Standards for weather observations, see https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf.

On page 9 of this official document, it is stated in the Table "Air Temperature Measurement Performance Standards": the accuracy at reference temperature is from +/-1 F to +/-2F = 0.5C to 1.1C (90 - 95% confidence).

The calculated difference of two 6-year averages is a typical case when another variable is calculated using those measurements.

In this case, a propagation error is the square root of the sum of squares of separate errors of each measured (independent) variable, i.e., it becomes directly proportional to ~sqrt (N) where N is the number of additions (and/or subtractions) to calculate that another variable functionally related to the measured variables. Thus, the propagation error of the calculated variable (the difference of two 6-year averages) is getting directly proportionally to sqrt(N), in contrast to the Standard Error of Mean (SEM) of each variable which is proportional to 1/sqrt(number of repeated measurements at the same conditions).

Below is an elementary example to illustrate:

Suppose that one managed to measure max daily temperature 20 C with an error +/-0.2C which is much lower than the standard indicated above. Min daily temperature is 10+/-0.2C (errors of these measurements are defined by the thermometer’s design and its calibration).

The daily average is reported (wrongly, of course) as the arithmetic average 15C. The propagated error of additions needed to calculate the arithmetic average-not to measure it- is the square root of the sum of squares of separate errors, i.e +/-sqrt(2)*0.2=0.28~0.3 (must be rounded to a single decimal). Thus, the reported daily average should be 15+/-0.3C. The propagated error (0.3C) is greater than each separate measurement error (0.2C). The same propagation error rule is applied to subtraction needed to calculate the difference of averages.

Now, in the calculation of the 6-year averages, there are 364*6 =2184 additions of daily temperatures for each 6-year period. Hence, the total calculation propagation error (or calculation uncertainty) for the difference of two averages for each 6-year period will be at least +/- 0.2*sqrt(2184) *2 ~ +/-18 C !!

Even if we assume a much smaller error of each separate temperature measurement, say, +/-0.1 C, the total calculation error (uncertainty) for the difference will be ~ +/-9 C.

Thus, your claimed difference 3.37 C for two 6-year averages is completely covered by the total calculation uncertainty, i.e. it is meaningless!! It is a temperature measurement noise!!

If you'd want to reduce the calculated average difference uncertainty to, say, +/-0.01 C (to justify 3.37+/-0.01 C result with two decimals), you'd need each individual temperature measurement error to be ~ +/- 0.0001 C !! This is impossible for the field measurements.

Conclusions:

1. One small measurement error on an independent temperature measurement, when applied to a function of those temperatures, (say, a formula for the arithmetic average difference) is going to result in orders of magnitude larger error than the original measurements.

2. To get a reasonably small calculating error of multiple additions and subtractions (as needed for calculating the global arithmetic average difference) an error of each temperature measurement must be several orders of magnitude smaller than the desired resulting calculation error.

This applies to conclusions of all organizations that produce similar data for global average temperature increase, such as NASA/GISS, NOAA, Hadley Center Climate Research Unit, Berkley Earth, et al.

3. No small-scale upward trend (or equally a downward trend) of the global average temperature anomaly can be demonstrated, such as +/-1 or 2C or so. Putting all other issues aside, it would require an impossible individual temperature measurement accuracy in the field.

4. Your claim in your Abstract that "The Climate Change Deniers are Wrong:" is unsubstantiated and misleading.

GIGO principle (Garbage in- Garbage Out) is totally applied to your Abstract.

I did reply to your question. I indicated that the annual values were based on the hourly temperature values reported by the NOAA observatory. Here is a link to the hourly data: https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/data/index.php?category=Meteorology&site=BRW&frequency=Hourly%2BAverages

Accordingly, your claim about the data I employed in my study is incorrect.

My claim is not temperature hourly data used in your study. My claim is your wrong treatment of these data, a lack of statistical measurement errors and, therefore, the wrong conclusions reported in your study.

All models are wrong, but some models are useful. My model for Barrow Alaska is useful given that the out-of-sample predictions are highly accurate with predictive accuracy being significantly lower if the estimated CO2 effects are ignored.

My model for the Hawaiian data set is also useful for the same reasons.

Thank you for your feedback

Kevin Forbes

Abdul Haleem Ali Al-Muhyi -- If you change your question from "Climate Change" to "Global Warming" then where you are located in Iraq is the perfect place to do experiments to see that CO2 is NOT the driver of Global Warming in your part of the world. It is basically five things as I outlined at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html

1.) The lack of an insulating layer of native vegetation. Sun hits the bare soil absorbs heat, that heats the air, that then the CO2 traps. Insulate the soil and no heat gets trapped.

2.) The lack of Ecological Restoration Preserves, like the 200M hectares that the Saudis have set aside and are in the process of planting 10 BILLION trees to start sequestering carbon. The conclusion will be that native plants planted in desert regions, will be the best carbon removal method in the future.

3.) Lack of Pseudomonas host plants, that produce the rain clouds for an area. See the Discover magazine article at https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/does-rain-come-from-life-in-the-clouds For example along the Caspian Sea in Iran, and in the mountains of Salalah in Oman, there are "Cloud forests" that produce rain clouds.

4.) The oil, gas and coal countries of the world –except for the 24 members of the “Middle East Green Initiative”--are not taking advantage and replanting the desert lands, and then using those carbon credits to for their fossil fuel industries be able to sell Carbon Neutral products to their customers.

5.) When you replant the native plants to hold the soil, and stop the atmospheric dust clouds from forming, that will lower a lot of the Global Warming effects that the dust contributes, feeding heat to the CO2 in the air. Pure air is an insulator, whereas only 40 micrograms of dust per cubic meter will hold heat in the air very well.

Robert Holmes

If we wrap our minds around the fact that fossil fuels were put away underground a long, long time ago, and we very smart primates have found methods to extract that carbon and burn it, should make us consider that we may be opening a Pandora's Box of surprises, and we may be signing our warrant for the extinction of our species.

The experts say about half a trillion tonnes of carbon have been consumed since the industrial revolution. To prevent a 2C rise, the total burnt must be kept to below a trillion tonnes. On current rates, that figure will be reached in 40 years. Story at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/29/fossil-fuels-trillion-tonnes-burned#:~:text=The%20experts%20say%20about%20half,be%20reached%20in%2040%20years.

So if we stop the dust storms in North Africa and the Middle east, then people can eat their lunches without grit in their teeth? If we plant more native plants in the desert, that will insulate the soil and cool those parts of the world.

If we plant the local native "rain trees" which produce the local rain clouds with the Pseudomonas bacteria that live on their leaves, cools that part of the world and increases the rainfall for local agriculture.

So, we can all utilize Global Warming, and not worry about the cause, just find natural solutions to cool things down, so we can all have better lives. If we keep arguing about the reasons we have Global Warming, or we do or do not have it, it will be an excellent excuse for us to never take action.

If we believe that the source of global warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases as a result of human activity, what is the explanation for the exposure of the planet Earth to ice ages and other warm ages? Have these eras ended and will not return? Did greenhouse gases play a role in them?