by S. Crockford, July 15, 2019, in WUWT/PolarBearScience
Summer sea ice loss is finally ramping up: first year is disappearing, as it has done every year since ice came to the Arctic millions of years ago. But critical misconceptions, fallacies, and disinformation abound regarding Arctic sea ice and polar bear survival. Ahead of Arctic Sea Ice Day (15 July), here are 10 fallacies that teachers and parents especially need to know about.
As always, please contact me if you would like to examine any of the references included in this post. These references are what make my efforts different from the activist organization Polar Bears International. PBI virtually never provide references within the content it provides, including material it presents as ‘educational’. Links to previous posts of mine that provide expanded explanations, images, and additional references are provided.
The cartoon above was done by Josh: you can drop off the price of a beer (or more) for his efforts here.
by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, July 13, 2019 in Physics.gen-ph
Abstract. In this paper we wil lprove that GCM-models used inI IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report . As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.
2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature
by G. Lloyd, July 15, 2010 in ClimateChangeDispatch
Sand deposits near the Gobi Desert in China may seem a strange place to look for evidence that cosmic rays can control how clouds are formed and the impact they have on Earth’s climate.
But Japanese scientists have measured the size of sand grains and the distance they traveled 780,000 years ago to add a new level of understanding to one of the questions that continue to baffle climate science: clouds.
The findings, published in Nature, point to big trends in natural variation of past and future climate that operate apart from greenhouse gas levels.
The study adds weight to a contentious theory by Danish researcher Henrik Svensmark, of the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen, which uses cosmic rays and clouds to question the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
by P. Gosselin, July 7, 2019 in NoTricksZone
By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated by P Gosselin)
Seven years ago, in our book “The Forgotten Sun”, we proposed using ocean cycles for medium-term forecasts. At the time, the climate establishment was strictly opposed to this. Today fortunately times have changed.
On March 15, 2019, a team led by George Krokos analyzed the temperature development of the Red Sea in Geophysical Research Letters, which has become noticeably warmer in recent decades. The researchers put this into a long-term context and found a strong correlation with the 70-year ocean cycle of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecade Oscillation).
Now that AMO has reached its peak, Krokos and colleagues expect the Red Sea to cool in the next three decades.
Natural Climate Oscillations may Counteract Red Sea Warming Over the Coming Decades
Recent reports of warming trends in the Red Sea raise concerns about the response of the basin’s fragile ecosystem under an increasingly warming climate. Using a variety of available Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data sets, we investigate the evolution of Red Sea SST in relation to natural climate variability. Analysis of long‐term SST data sets reveals a sequence of alternating positive and negative trends, with similar amplitudes and a periodicity of nearly 70 years associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. High warming rates reported recently appear to be a combined effect of global warming and a positive phase of natural SST oscillations. Over the next decades, the SST trend in the Red Sea purely related to global warming is expected to be counteracted by the cooling Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phase. Regardless of the current positive trends, projections incorporating long‐term natural oscillations suggest a possible decreasing effect on SST in the near future.
by P. Homewood, July 14, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
The US state of Alaska, part of which lies inside the Arctic Circle, is sweltering under a heatwave, with record temperatures recorded in several areas, including its largest city.
Temperatures reached 90F (32C) in Anchorage on Thursday, shattering the city’s previous record of 85F.
The report clearly implied global warming as the cause, with several references to climate change links throughout the article.
As I pointed out at the time, the all-time record temperature for Alaska was set as long ago as 1915, when an incredible 100F was measured at Fort Yukon.
This story follows the usual BBC recipe for Arctic heatwaves:
- Record temperatures = global warming
- Hot weather is unprecedented in the Arctic. Most people would believe that temperatures of 90F simply never used to occur in the Arctic, it just sounds so unimaginable.
Unfortunately for the BBC, it turns out that the Anchorage temperature is not even a record!
I have now had time to check through the NOAA data files, and have discovered that back in June 1931, the temperature actually reached 92C at Anchorage:
by Pielke et al., 2016 in PhysicsToday
To date, most reporting on climate has focused on the possibility of catastrophic warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The assessment of climate change risk has essentially been distilled to a single metric: the global average surface temperature. That reality was evident at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where the central negotiating point was whether the global temperature rise should be limited to 1.5 °C or 2 °C. Indeed, a 2016 opinion piece by Simon Lewis (University College London and the University of Leeds, UK) states that, “by endorsing a limit of 1.5 °C, the [Paris] climate negotiations have effectively defined what society considers dangerous.”
But the reality of humans’ impact on climate is exceedingly complex.2 Even if greenhouse gas emissions could be elimi- nated completely, other harmful anthropogenic sources of cli- mate change would remain. And even if global average tem- peratures were contained, human impacts on climate would manifest in other potentially dangerous ways.
One often overlooked human factor is land use. Deforestation, dry land farming, irrigated agriculture, overgrazing, and other alterations to the natural landscape can disrupt Earth’s natural balances and change weather patterns. As with the addition of CO2into the atmosphere, the effects can last for decades or longer and affect regions distant from the original offense. Given continued rapid population growth, they threaten to be irreversible.
by Susan J. Crockford, July 11, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch
This essay explains in simple terms why so many people still believe that polar bears are in peril when nothing could be further from the truth; it is an essential lesson that shatters the basis of the shameful indoctrination of young school children and undermines the baseless claims of activist protestors.
It was written and translated into French for a special climate change feature issue (July) of the monthly French magazine Valeurs Actuelles (reviewed here) and reprinted by the French hunting magazine Chasses Internationales.
It has also been translated into German for a dedicated climate change issue (11 July) of the Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche.
I have added a couple of figures to illustrate this English version of the essay.
by P. Homewood, July 10, 2019 in NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat
No Tricks Zone has the latest on the coldwave gripping much of Northern Europe. Following a new record low for July set in Lower Saxony last week, there are unconfirmed reports of a new record July low for the whole of the Netherlands:
From No Tricks Zone:
Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays.
The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing.
Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground surface frost yesterday morning. Source: Wetteronline.de
Yesterday morning ground frost hit parts of Belgium, Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic, as the above chart shows. Unsurprisingly, the media have been curiously silent about it.
Record Dutch July low
by Paul Matthews, June 30, 2019 in ClimateScepticism
The history of climate scientists adjusting data to try to make recent warming look greater than it really is goes back quite a long way – it’s a regular topic at Paul Homewood’s blogfor example. But climate scientists continue to do it, giving the sceptics plenty of ammunition. Here are three recent blog posts discussing how climate scientists continue to adjust data to exaggerate warming.
At Pierre Gosselin’s blog there’s a guest post by Kirje from Japan, on NASA GISS temperature adjustments. In the latest GISS version, V4, the supposedly “unadjusted” data sets are different from the unadjusted data in the previous version V3.
Tony Heller has a graph of the 2000, 2017 and 2019 version of NASA GISTEMP, showing that Gavin Schmidt and his team have managed to crank up warming, particularly in the era of the inconvenient pause. You can also see this effect in fig 2 and fig 4 of the GISS history page.
Here in the UK, the HadCRUT4 team are doing the same thing. Clive Best asks Whatever happened to the Global Warming Hiatus? The answer is that they have demolished it with a sequence of adjustments to the data. HadCRUT3, as published in 2014, shows a clear pause, with no warming from about 2001-2013, but the latest new improved data set HadCRUT4.6 cranks recent temperatures upwards. Clive thought that night be due to including different measurement stations, but checked and found that was not the case. The numbers have simply been adjusted.
Here the red diamond is the raw data, the green diamond is HadSST3, and the new HadSST4 is shown as the black line, with grey shading representing uncertainty. In the early years of the 20th century, there was global warming that doesn’t fit with the carbon-dioxide-controlled theory of climate scientists, so that is adjusted downwards. But look at the trend over the pause era, since 2000. The raw data shows literally no trend at all. HadSST3 adjusted the trend upwards to create warming, and HadSST4 adjusts things upwards again, roughly doubling the previous adjustment. And this is in an era when the data quality should be excellent, thanks to the introduction of the ARGO float system.
by Judith Curry, July 9, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch
It’s getting worse.
About 5 years ago, I wrote two blog posts on climate scientists’ pre-traumatic stress syndrome:
Mother Jones has a new article on the same topic: It’s the end of the world as they know it: The distinct burden of being a climate scientist.
The following scientists were interviewed: Kim Cobb, Priya Shukla, Peter Kalmus, Sarah Myhre, Jacquelyn Gill, Katharine Wilkinson, Eric Holthaus, David Grinspoon, Ken Caldeira.
Lots of ‘trauma,’ read the article to get a flavor. This sentence pretty much sums things up:
“There’s deep grief and anxiety for what’s being lost, followed by rage at continued political inaction, and finally hope that we can indeed solve this challenge. There are definitely tears and trembling voices.”
End of civilization?
The title of the article is: “It’s the end of the world as they know it.” Some selected quotes:
by K. Richard, July 8, 2019 in NoTricksZone
A new paper finds the performance of test-taking (cognitive, decision-making) “astronaut-like” subjects exposed to 5000 ppm CO2 was “similar to or exceeded” the performance of those exposed to baseline (600 ppm). This study follows up on a 2018 paper that determined submariners exposed to 15000 ppm CO2 performed just as well as subjects exposed to 600 ppm.
Those of us who own CO2 monitors know that indoor (bedroom) CO2 concentrations typically vary between about 600 ppm during the day and 1000 ppm overnight – the latter earning a frowny face air quality rating.
CO2 is a cognitively-impairing toxin?
In recent years there has been a push to create the impression carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or toxin. Consequently, there have been a few studies suggesting exposure to higher CO2 concentrations (~1500 to 2500 ppm) severely impair human cognitive and decision-making performance (Satish et al., 2012, Allen et al., 2016).
If true, this would be rather problematic for elementary school children, as they are routinely exposed to CO2 concentrations ranging between about 1500 and 3000 ppm in their classrooms (Corsi et al., 2002).
Driving alone in one’s vehicle could mean exposure to “3700 ppm … above outdoor [CO2] concentrations” (Satish et al, 2012), or about 4100 ppm.
This elevated-CO2-is-toxic-to-brain-functioning paradigm suggests the world’s highways are teeming with cognitively-impaired drivers.
by Claude Mandril, 13 mai 2019 in ConnaissanceDesEnergies
La capture et le stockage de CO2 (CCS(1)) est indispensable…
Les accords de Paris ont donné l’objectif : un réchauffement climatique « well below 2°C » d’ici 2100 par rapport aux températures de l’ère préindustrielle.
Le dernier rapport du GIEC montre par ailleurs qu’on serait « beaucoup mieux » à + 1,5°C, et que tout dixième de degré compte : + 1,7°C vaut mieux que + 1,8°C. Il faut donc, ajoute le GIEC, atteindre la neutralité carbone autour de 2050.
Or il est complètement exclu d’arrêter toutes les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et de loin ! :
l’AIE estime dans son scénario Sustainable Development (le plus contraignant)(2) que les énergies fossiles représenteront encore 60% de la fourniture mondiale d’énergie en 2040. Même si on juge l’AIE timorée, on est clairement hors limite ! ;
la capacité d’extraction charbonnière en Chine a augmenté de 6% en 2018 (selon la National Energy Administration en Chine) ;
- et surtout, n’oublions pas les émissions « de procédé » (ciment, sidérurgie, chimie, agroalimentaire).
Donc il faudra des « puits » de carbone. En premier lieu, les forêts mais à condition qu’elles soient exploitées et que les produits de cette exploitation donnent un stockage permanent. L’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris montre que ce n’est pas garanti… L’usage du bois en chaudière réduit les émissions en remplaçant des émissions de carbone fossile, mais ce n’est pas un puits (sauf avec CCS !).
Reste donc la CCS, qui est indispensable. D’ailleurs, sur les 4 scénarios du GIEC, 3 comportent le déploiement de la CCS, le 4e étant un repoussoir.
Et pourtant la CCS est complètement ignorée voire vilipendée, sauf dans une dizaine de pays.
Examinons les critiques ou les objections :
by Herman Harde, April 3, 2019 in Earth Sciences
Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over
recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising
temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically
scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative
concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional
with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really
human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just
opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are
responsible for any observed climate changes.
Keywords: Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, CO2 Residence Time, Anthropogenic Emissions,
Fossil Fuel Combustion, Land Use Change, Climate Change
by Edwin X Berry , June, 2019 in JAtmOceanSciences
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.