Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

better to know...?, climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

Recent Scientific Work on Climate

by D. Siegel, December 199, 2019 in MediumWork

In this piece, I’m going to summarize some of the more recent work by scientists and statisticians on climate. It’s important to understand that …

better to know...?, climate-debate, COP25

Who Is Winning The Climate Wars? (Part Two)

by F. Menton, December 18, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A few weeks ago (November 22), in a post titled “Who Is Winning The Climate Wars?”, I undertook to begin documenting the ever-growing chasm between the unhinged rhetoric of climate campaigners and the reality out there in the world.

Let’s collect a few data points over the past several weeks.

You probably know that the UN held its annual big climate conference this year in Madrid during the first two weeks of December.

That event provided the occasion for many campaigners to ramp up the volume of their claims, trying once again to stampede government representatives into agreeing to impoverish their people.

A few examples:

…

The fact is that outside of some wildly guilty European countries and the loons in the U.S. Democratic Party’s far Left, fewer and fewer people pay any attention whatsoever to the absurd climate apocalypse rhetoric.

climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

The List Grows – Now 100+ Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate

by K. Richard, December 12, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from <0 to 1°C. When no quantification is provided, words like “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate. The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.

Link: 100+ Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

A few of the papers published in 2019 are provided below:

…

climate-debate

NEWLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER TEARS GLOBAL WARMING AND THE IPCC TO SHREDS

by Cap Allon, December 11, 2019 in Electroverse

A scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated.

The published paper –available in full HERE— sets out its intent:

Climate change is NOT a new phenomenon. The palaeo-climatic studies reveal that during the Pleistocene and Holocene periods several warm and cold periods occurred, resulting in changes of sea level and in climatic processes like the rise and fall of global average temperature and rainfall.

…

climate-debate

CMIP5 Model Atmospheric Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations

by Roy Spencer, December 12, 2019 in WUWT

I keep getting asked about our charts comparing the CMIP5 models to observations, old versions of which are still circulating, so it could be I have not been proactive enough at providing updates to those. Since I presented some charts at the Heartland conference in D.C. in July summarizing the latest results we had as of that time, I thought I would reproduce those here.

The following comparisons are for the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product, with separate results for global and tropical (20N-20S). I also provide trend ranking “bar plots” so you can get a better idea of how the warming trends all quantitatively compare to one another (and since it is the trends that, arguably, matter the most when discussing “global warming”).

From what I understand, the new CMIP6 models are exhibiting even more warming than the CMIP5 models, so it sounds like when we have sufficient model comparisons to produce CMIP6 plots, the discrepancies seen below will be increasing.

Global Comparisons

First is the plot of global LT anomaly time series, where I have averaged 4 reanalysis datasets together, but kept the RSS and UAH versions of the satellite-only datasets separate. (Click on images to get full-resolution versions).

…

climate-debate

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HOLDING STEADY FOR TWO DECADES

by Climate Science, December 13,  2019

Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).6You will never see that in the mass media.

2018 is the 3rd year in a row of cooling global temperatures – So far 2018 was the third year in a row that the globe has cooled off from its El Nino peak set in 2015.

Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year (in 2018) continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming ‘pause’ of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

While 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 were declared the “hottest years” or “near -hottest,”  based on heavily altered surface data by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.” 7

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”

In 2015, the Associated Press was forced to issue a “clarification” on “hottest year” claims, stating in part: “The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high  – and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.”

Climatologist Pat Michaels explained that, in any case, the world’s temperature “should be near the top of the record given the record only begins in the late 19th century when the surface temperature was still reverberating from the Little Ice Age.”

“Hottest year” claims are purely political statements designed to persuade the public that the government needs to take action on man-made climate change. In addition, the claims of “hottest year” are based on surface data only dating back to the late 19th century, and also ignore the temperature revisions made by NASA and NOAA that have enhanced the warming trend by retroactively cooling the past. 8

6 The Pause Lives on: Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 – Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer – January 4, 2017
7 Dr. David Whitehouse noted the ‘temperature pause never went away’ – January 19, 2017
8 Climate analyst Tony Heller – Real Climate Science – February 14, 2017

climate-debate

A Geological Perspective on Sea Level Rise Acceleration

by David Middleton, December 9, 2019 in WUWT

There have been at least three recent peer-reviewed papers asserting an anthropogenic acceleration in the rate of sea level rise (SLR): Church & White, 2006 (CW06), Church & White, 2011 (CW11) and Nerem et al., 2018 (N18). N18 only covers the satellite era (since 1993) and might actually be correct, albeit irrelevant. The primary culprits in the SLR acceleration scam are CW06 and CW11. Two other recent peer-reviewed papers clearly shoot down the notion of a recent anthropogenic acceleration: Jevrejeva et al., 2008 (J08) and Jevrejeva et al., 2014 (J14). This post will focus on CW11 (updated through 2013) and J14.

J08 and J14 indicate that the acceleration, to the extent there is one, started 150-200 years ago, consistent with the end of neoglaciation and that a quasi-periodic fluctuation (~60-yr cycle) is present. CW06 and CW11 also note the 19th Century acceleration; but also assert a more recent acceleration, presumably due to anthropogenic global warming. This SLR acceleration is, at worst, innocuous.

Figure 1. Jevrejeva et al., 2014 (red) and Church & White, 2011 (green).
….
climate-debate

Cartology Affirms Relative Sea Levels Were Similar To Or HIGHER Than Now During The Little Ice Age

by K. Richard, December 5, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Surprisingly accurate nautical maps created the 17th to 19th centuries strongly suggest coastal land area in both hemispheres were quite similar to today’s. There is even evidence relative sea levels were higher than now back then.

Image Source: Etsy.com

Globally, coasts have grown since the 1980s

Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km²  more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).

This means more coastal land area is above sea level today than in the 1980s.

This surprises scientists, as they “expected the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise,” but instead they observed “coasts are growing all over the world.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Scientists: Mars Has A 95% CO2 Atmosphere…But ‘There Is Little To Retain Heat On The Planet’

by K. Richard, December 2, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Earth’s atmosphere contains 400 ppm CO2 (0.04%). Mars has a 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 atmosphere. But Mars has surface temperatures that are about -75°C colder on average than Earth’s because atmospheric density, or pressure, is the “game changer” largely determining planetary temperatures.

Surface temperatures on Mars

The average surface temperature of a planetary body is significantly determined by its distance from the Sun.

According to the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mars is close enough to the Sun to have its surface temperatures reach 35°C (95°F) at the equator during summer.

During winter, however, the Martian temperature dips to -90°C (-130°F).

The average surface temperature for Mars is about -60°C (-80°F).

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climatologist On The State Of Climate Change Ahead Of COP25

by J. Curry, December 2, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid provides an important opportunity to reflect on the state of the public debate surrounding climate change.

The UN Climate Conference (COP25) is beginning today in Madrid. I’ve been invited to write an op-ed for a newspaper in Madrid, which I assume will be published sometime this week (in Spanish). Below is the text of my op-ed.

JC op-ed

The UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid provides an important opportunity to reflect on the state of the public debate surrounding climate change.

Most of the world’s governments are prioritizing energy security, affordability and industrial competitiveness over commitments made for the Paris climate agreement.

Continuer la lecture de Climatologist On The State Of Climate Change Ahead Of COP25 →

climate-debate

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

by P. Homewood, November 29, 2019 in NotaLotoPeopleKnowThat

…

Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.

I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” anyone who pushes back against exaggeration.

With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.

…

 

See also: Michael Shellenberger: Apocalypse Cancelled?

climate-debate

Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Influence

by K. Richard, November 21, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Observational uncertainty, errors, biases, and estimation discrepancies in longwave radiation may be 100 times larger than the entire accumulated influence of CO2 increases over 10 years. This effectively rules out clear detection of a potential human influence on climate.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis rides on the fundamental assumption that perturbations in the Earth’s energy budget – driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 — are what cause climate change.

According to one of the most frequently referenced papers advancing the position that CO2 concentration changes (and downward longwave radiation perturbations) drive surface temperature changes, Feldman et al. (2015) concluded there was a modest 0.2 W/m² forcing associated with CO2 rising by 22 ppm per decade.

Again, that’s a total CO2 influence of 0.2 W/m² over ten years.

In contrast, analyses from several new papers indicate the uncertainty and error values in downwelling (and outgoing) longwave radiation in cloudless environments are more than 100 times larger than 0.2 W/m².

In other words, it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate.

 

1.  Kim and Lee, 2019   Measurement errors of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) reach 11 W/m², more than 50 times larger than total CO2 forcing over 10 years. Cloud optical thickness (COT) and water vapor have “the greatest effect” on OLR – an influence of 2.7 W/m². CO2 must rise to 800 ppm to impute an influence of 1 W/m².

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Forget Climate Excuses: Environment Agency Ignored Flood Warnings For Years–The Times

by P. Homewood, Nov. 21, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

As flooding spread across the country yesterday, the Association of Drainage Authorities said that warnings had been issued each year since 2007 at its annual conference, attended by Environment Agency staff.

The warnings were made by the association’s members in South Yorkshire, including John Duckitt, a farmer and elected commissioner of the drainage board that covers Fishlake near Doncaster, where parts of the village are still submerged more than a week after flooding began.

Speaking from his home yards from the Don, Mr Duckitt, 83, said that his concerns fell on “deaf ears”. He claimed that the agency “chooses to do as little as possible” and had allowed trees and plants to grow on the side of the river narrowing the channel after “ignoring local knowledge”.

“They knew about the problem and chose to ignore it,” he said. “This made the floods worse. Fair enough this flood was unprecedented but the Environment Agency, through lack of maintenance on the river, protracted the flood. It didn’t get away fast enough and did more damage.”

better to know...?, climate-debate

Thugs bully Munich Conference Center – Force Cancellation of Climate Skeptic Conference

by Anthony Watts, November 19, 2019 in WUWT

Reprinted with permission from No Tricks Zone

Just like the 1030s, and again Munich. There’s no question that freedom of science and speech are under heavy attack in Germany after dozens of distinguished but dissenting scientists have seen their long planned science conference cancelled due to intimidation by leftwing extremists.

 

This latest climate conference cancellation comes just after leftists coerced the University of Hamburg to disinvite political leaders from making speeches.

The same has also just occurred at the famed University of Göttingen.

The problem of suppressing open discussion has deteriorated to such an extent across Germany over the recent years that even according to leftist Spiegel 75% of journalists and writers are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the state of free speech in Germany!

Free speech in Germany is in state of crisis.

Munich NH Congress Center bullied, cancels at last minute

The latest free speech suppression and intimidation has unfolded in Munich: The 13th International Climate and Energy Conference, sponsored by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and CFACT, has seen its contractual agreement torn up, and was booted out of the conference facility at the last minute.

…

Also : Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation

better to know...?, climate-debate

Judith Curry: Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

by Charles the moderator, November 15, 2019 in WUWT

As we approach the tenth anniversary of Climategate and are deluged with whitewashing and revisionist history, we will post a few articles, but cannot counter everything.

As far as we are concerned the tenth anniversary is on November 17th, the day I personally received the files.

The following post by Dr. Curry is one of the best historical retrospectives I’ve seen on the topic.~ctm

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 121 Comments

by Judith Curry

My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.

Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see  [link]  Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.

While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.

Now I see that, at least in the UK, the 10 year anniversary looks to be rather a big deal. Already we are seeing some analyses published in the mainstream media:

Two starkly different perspectives. While I personally think Delingpole’s article is a superb analysis, it would not surprise me if the ‘establishment’ media in the UK is looking to rewrite history and cement the ‘exoneration,’ especially with this forthcoming one hour BBC special Climategate: Science of a Scandal, set to air November 14.

According to Cliscep  (not sure what the source of this information is), McKitrick and McIntyre were both interviewed for the BBC special, but apparently McKitrick was cut completely. Lets see how they edit McIntyre.

…

…

 

Also:  It’s Officially the Tenth Anniversary of Climategate – and they’ve learned nothing

Also : Climategate: 10 Year Anniversary Reading List

better to know...?, climate and geology

Climategate And Post-Normal Science

by Michael Kile, November 16, 2019 in WUWT

It was an important moment in the Climategate saga. Yet few remember Jerome Ravetz’s damning critique of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) posted on WUWT in early 2010.

Ravetz is an eminent American philosopher of science and an Associate Fellow at Oxford University’s James Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation. (Personal web page here; Oxford pages here and here.) For much of his career he has been challenging claims of scientific objectivity and developing a concept of “post-normal science” (PNS).

We can understand the root cause of Climategate as a case of scientists constrained to attempt to do normal science in a post-normal situation. But climate change had never been a really ‘normal’ science, because the policy implications were always present and strong, even overwhelming.  Indeed, if we look at the definition of ‘post-normal science’, we see how well it fits:  facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.  In needing to treat Planet Earth like a textbook exercise, the climate scientists were forced to break the rules of scientific etiquette and ethics, and to play scientific power-politics in a way that inevitably became corrupt.  The combination of non-critical ‘normal science’ with anti-critical ‘evangelical science’ was lethal. (J Ravetz, WUWT, 9 February, 2010)

Some environmentalists had been using Ravetz’s PNS concept to drive a looser – more subjective – approach to decision-making under uncertainty, urging greater use of the so-called “precautionary principle”, a “principle” of pseudoscience, not genuine science.

The late Stephen Schneider (1945-2010), then Stanford University professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and editor of the journal Climatic Change, was one of them. He was also an IPCC lead author. Schneider advised other lead authors how to deal with uncertainty in a climate context in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Réflexion sur la pétition des 11 000 ‘scientifiques’

by Paul Berth, 15 novembre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

La “pétition des 11 000” a été publiée dans le journal BioScience le 5 novembre 2019. Dans un style ultra-alarmiste, Ripple et ses collaborateurs nous apprennent que le CO2 et les gaz à effet de serre (GES) sont à la base de tous nos problèmes. Rien de nouveau ici : rappelons que le même auteur a publié un article très semblable il y a deux ans, en novembre 2017, et ce dans la même revue (BioScience). Il avait cependant fait mieux il y a deux ans puisqu’il avait récolté 15 000 signatures. Au total, 4 000 scientifiques se sont donc désistés cette année… Avant de lire le présent article, commencez par l’analyse de 2017 (cliquez ici). Comme vous le verrez, les conclusions tirées peuvent être appliquées au nouvel article de 2019.

La solution proposée par Ripple et ses “suiveurs” est simple : il faut arrêter immédiatement d’extraire du pétrole, du gaz et du charbon et laisser tout cela dans le sous-sol.Comme charité bien ordonnée commence par soi-même vous pourrez déjà vérifier, en consultant la liste des pétitionnaires, que les 234 scientifiques belges signataires de la pétition vont travailler le matin à vélo et se chauffent aux éoliennes. Dans le présent article nous allons analyser le nouveau texte publié dans BioScience.

1. Le journal BioScience

…

…

Also : An Analysis Of The 11,000 ‘Micky Mouse’ Climate Scientists

climate-debate

170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

by T. Bjorklund, October 16, 2019 in WUWT

Key Points

1. From 1850 to the present, the noise-corrected, average warming of the surface of the earth is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade.

2. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. Recent increases in surface temperatures reflect 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation climate pattern.

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships between surface temperatures from 1850 to the present and reported long-range temperature predictions of global warming. A crucial component of this analysis is the calculation of an estimate of the warming curve of the surface of the earth. The calculation removes errors in temperature measurements and fluctuations due to short-duration weather events from the recorded data. The results show the average rate of warming of the surface of earth for the past 170 years is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The perceived threat of excessive future global temperatures may stem from misinterpretation of 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern in the eastern Pacific Ocean. ENSO activity culminated in 2016 with the highest surface temperature anomaly ever recorded. The rate of warming of the earth’s surface has dropped 41 percent since 2006.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Paris Won’t Cut Emissions–Bob Watson

by P. Homewood, November 10, 2019 in NotaLotofPeople KnowThat

It’s apparently taken ex IPCC Chair Bob Watson four years to work out that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce emissions.

It’s a pity he did not read this blog, because I was saying the same thing when it was signed!

Steve Milloy reports:

 

The truth behind the Paris Agreement climate pledges

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030

UNIVERSAL ECOLOGICAL FUND

  • Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
  • China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase
  • U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change
  • Almost 70 percent of the pledges rely on funding from wealthy nations for their implementation

Almost three-quarters of the 184 climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to slow climate change, and some of the world’s largest emitters will continue to increase emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists. It is these increasing greenhouse emissions that are driving climate change.

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, a new report published by the Universal Ecological Fund, examines in great detail the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement, the first collective global effort to address climate change.

…

climate-debate

Scientists and Their Petitions

by Donna  Laframboise, November 11, 2019 in BigPictureNews

Many scientists are now activists. They’re just another flavour of politician. Armed with a particular worldview, they’re willing to do questionable things to advance that worldview – including dragging the good name of science through the mud.

As I’ve explained recently, this isn’t a new phenomenon. It was well underway by the 1970s. Those of us who are aware of this history aren’t likely to get overly excited by the latest 11,000 scientists say it’s time to panic headlines (see here, here, here, and here).

The typical journalist, on the other hand, is a babe in the woods, totally lacking in historical perspective. Every iteration of this very old song gets treated like something fresh and new.

2019’s statement/petition is published in BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Down in the ‘Conclusions’ section we read the following. The bolding has been added by me:

As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future…such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being…prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency…

Nope, these people don’t have a messiah complex. If all of humanity drops whatever it’s doing and follows their advice, they won’t just save us from the climate emergency. They promise to toss in universal justice and equity, as well.

…

climate-debate

New Paper: Ocean Temperature Changes Are Uneven And Uncertain

by DR.  B. Peiser, Nov. 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation looks at how scientists monitor changes in ocean temperatures and finds a story of huge uncertainties and surprising findings.

For example, while warming might be expected to be fairly uniform, measurements suggest that it is regionalized, with parts of the South Pacific, in particular, warming more than elsewhere.

As the report’s author, Dr. David Whitehouse, says, it is hard to draw firm conclusions about what is happening in the seas:

“The oceans can absorb far more heat than the atmosphere, so temperatures changes are extremely small and therefore hard to measure reliably.”

“The energy that would raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 4 degrees C would only raise the ocean temperature by thousands of a degree, barely detectable.”

“Measuring changes in the ocean heat content are at the limits of our current capability and are made with significant uncertainties and unknowns.”

A recent claim that warming of the oceans was accelerating had to be withdrawn after errors were found in its uncertainty estimates by an independent scientist.

Cold Water? The Oceans and Climate Change can be downloaded here (PDF)

better to know...?, climate-debate

How Bad Science & Horrific Journalism Misrepresent Wildfires and Climate

by Jim Steele, November 9, 2019 in WUWT

As one wildfire expert wrote, “Predicting future fire regimes is not rocket science; it is far more complicated than that.” But regardless of accuracy, most people are attracted to very simple narratives such as: more CO2 causes global warming causes more fires. Accordingly in the summer of 2019, CNN trumpeted the headline California wildfires burn 500% more land because of climate change. They claimed, “the cause of the increase is simple. Hotter temperatures cause drier land, which causes a parched atmosphere.” CNN based their claims on a scientific paper by lead authors Park Williams and John Abatzoglou titled Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California. The authors are very knowledgeable but appear to have hitched their fame and fortune to pushing a very simple claim that climate change drives bigger wildfires. As will be seen, their advocacy appears to have caused them to stray from objective scientific analyses.

If Williams and Abatzoglou were not so focused on forcing a global warming connection, they would have at least raised the question, ‘why did much bigger fires happen during cooler decades?’ The 1825 New Brunswick fire burned 3,000,000 acres. In Idaho and Montana the Great Fire of 1910 burnt another 3,000,000 acres. In 1871, the Great Michigan Fire burned 2,500,000 acres. Those fires were not only 6 times larger than California’s biggest fire, they occurred in moister regions, regions that don’t experience California’s Mediterranean climate with its guaranteed months of drought each and every summer. If those huge devastating fires occurred in much cooler times, what are the other driving factors of big wildfires?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say “panic now”

by JoNova, November 2019

Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

To stop storms we apparently need to reduce the global population, stop mining “excessive” minerals, eat more veges,  and we need to preserve biodiversity, reefs, forests and greenery at whatever it was in 1685 or whenever the sacred preindustrial year of Life On Earth is declared. You know the drill — coal and oil are demon spirits. Exorcise them now! Then rinse, repeat and …hand-wash your undies.

…

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?

…

Also here and  here

climate-debate

New climate models – even more wrong

by P. Matthews, Nov. 5, 2019 in ClimateScepticsim

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”

Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website.  The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.

Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.

…