Archives par mot-clé : Global Warming

New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’

by Lightfoot & Ratzer,  Mar 14, 2022 in NoTricksZone/JBasicApplSci


In analyzing UAH global temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 records from 1979 to 2021, climate researchers Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022) report there has been “little, if any” correlation between these two variables during this period.

They assert that between 91 and 98% of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect is from water vapor, as CO2 and other trace gases contribute less than 5% to greenhouse gas forcing.

A solar minimum has just began in the current solar cycle 25. The declining solar output is projected to eventually lead to a ~1 to 1.2°C cooling over the next 30 to 40 years. Solar minimum periods are also accompanied by crop failures due to frost and weather extremes delivering excessive heat.

The authors conclude by suggesting the popularized conceptualization of CO2 as a driver of global warming has proven to be “obsolete and incorrect”.

Northern and Southern Hemisphere Warming

by A. May, Mar 18, 2022 in WUWT


As shown in Figure 1, the Hadley Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT5 temperature dataset suggests the Northern Hemisphere warmed 0.74°C (1.3° F) more than the Southern Hemisphere from 1979 through 2021. The UAH satellite temperature lower troposphere record is directionally similar but the difference between the hemispheres is much less, as shown in Figure 2. Both figures have identical vertical scales of 1.4°C. The UAH global satellite warming difference, from 1979 to 2021, between the hemispheres is about 0.2°C (0.4° F), less by more than a factor of 3.

Conclusions

The UAH and HadCRUT5 records both show the Northern Hemisphere warming more rapidly than the Southern, but the amount of extra warming in the HadCRUT5 record is anomalous. While the Southern Hemisphere satellite and surface rates are similar, the Northern Hemisphere rates are very different.

The global UAH lower troposphere and HadSST4 warming rates are both 0.14°C/decade from 1979 to 2020, the same to two decimals, as shown in my previous post. The oceans cover 70% of Earth’s surface and the HadSST4 dataset is used in combination with the CRUTEM5 land-surface temperature record to produce the curves in Figure 1. Given this, the large difference in Northern Hemisphere warming rates between Figures 1 and 2 is very hard to explain. Frankly, it suggests there is a problem with CRUTEM5. Figure 3 suggests the problem is getting worse in recent years, not better. This topic is discussed in more detail in my latest book: The Great Climate Change Debate: Karoly v Happer.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018

by Kenneth et al. 2022, Feb 2022 in HealthPhysics


Abstract

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t)since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

New Research: “CO2 Influence On Global Temperature Development Since1860 Only Half As Large As IPCC Estimate!

by  F. Vahrenholt, Dec 14, 2021 in NoTricksZone


On November 3, 2021, the renowned scientific journal Climate published a paper on solar influence on climate.

The paper by the renowned solar researcher Dr. Frank Stefani from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf is entitled: “Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: A Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions” and concludes that the influence of CO2 on the development of global temperatures from 1860 until today was only about half as large as the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed.

As a reminder, the IPCC concludes that 98% of the warming ( 1.07 degrees out of 1.09 degrees) is human-induced. According to Stefani’s analysis, the solar influence accounts for 30-70%.

Stefani examined the course of the geomagnetic aa – index, which reflects the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. This index has been measured in Cambridge and Melbourne since 1844 and reflects the influence of solar activity. In earlier publications, Stefani had already been able to prove that the 11-year solar cycle is triggered by the gravitational forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter, which are in orbital resonance every 11.07 years (here, here and here).

Since the Sun – influenced by all the planets (especially Jupiter and Saturn) – also moves around the center of gravity of the solar system, solar cycles arise that have become known in temperature history as the 193-year Suess-de Vries cycle and the 90-year Gleissberg cycle.

Physicists: Climate Model Error Overestimates CO2 Impact On Global Temps By Factor Of 5

by K. Richard, Nov 22, 2021 in NoTricksZone


A new study suggests CO2 molecules have little consequential impact affecting outgoing radiation, and that climate models attribute global temperature effects to CO2 that are fundamentally erroneous.

Russian physicists (Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021) have published a peer-reviewed paper in the Advances in Fundamental Physics Special Issue for the journal Foundations.

They assesses the role of CO2 molecules in the standard atmosphere and assert “we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”

Key points from the paper include the following:

1. Climate model calculations of CO2’s impact on global temperatures are in error by a factor of 5 as a result of “ignoring, in climatological models, the Kirchhoff law” which says radiators are “simultaneously the absorbers.”

2. Change in the concentration of an optically active atmospheric component (like CO2) “would not lead to change in the outgoing radiative flux.”

3. CO2 molecules “are not the main radiator of the atmosphere.” Water vapor molecules are, and thus they “may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.”

Is The Earth Actually Getting Hotter?

by V. Jayaraj, Aug 2, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Every year, climate-change enthusiasts tell us the earth is getting hotter. Phys.org warned the world, “New ‘hottest year on record’ likely to occur in the next five years.”

C2ES informed readers, “It’s certain: The Earth is getting warmer, and human activity is largely to blame.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ headline read, “Broken record: The planet is getting hotter. And hotter. And hotter.”

But are we really observing record hot years consecutively?

While global warming is real and has been happening since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 18th century, the claims surrounding unprecedented temperatures are, at best, highly dubious.

Reality and some climate change claims differ as much as day and night. Here are two examples.

Strange Things: Readjusted Data Points

A few official agencies across the globe are widely considered “leaders” or “authoritative” in disseminating climate data.

Among them is the Met Office in the UK and top U.S. state agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

However, these agencies have used their near-invincible status to adjust climate data points as they please, often resulting in an exaggerated warming trend.

NASA has been found to have adjusted past temperature data downward to make the present temperature levels look comparatively warmer.

In July 2021, geologist Roger Higgs demonstrated how NASA lowered the 2016 data point for annual global mean temperature.

NASA carried out the supposed downward shifting of data points so that the temperature levels for 2020 (which were about the same as 2016) would now appear more extreme. Higgs revealed the downward shifting on Researchgate.

Why did NASA adjust the 2016 data point to make it appear that 2020 beat it by a larger margin than originally appeared? You decide.

Growth of Glaciers: Greenland Registers Historic Increase in Surface Mass Balance for July 2021

Greenland ice has been a topic of discussion ever since climate change became a headline item in news circles. The reduction of ice mass is often projected as proof of global warming.

Hansen’s 1988 global-warming prediction was thrice observation

by C. Monckton of Brenchley, Apr 21 , 2021, in WUWT


James Hansen is often debited with having stirred up so much alarm with his notorious 1988 prediction of runaway global warming in front of the U.S. Senate that IPeCaC was hastily founded later that year, so as to Save The Planet.

His prediction ran to 2020. How, then, did fantasy-land compare with more than two decades of sober, observed reality? The graph, zeroed so that the 1988 HadCRUT4 observed anomaly lies between Hansen’s three scenarios, shows that observed warming was closest to Hansen’s Scenario C.

However, the assumption underlying Scenario C is that everyone would be so scared following Hansen’s Senate testimony that what is now called “net-zero” would be achieved by 2000. Well, it wasn’t. And it won’t be, even by 2050. The chief reason is discernible in the Texas electricity grid collapse.

The Lone Star State, which ought to have had more common sense, decided that once it had carpeted the state with windmills (14th-century technology to fail to solve a 21st-century non-problem) and solar panels (produced by slave labor in China) it could reduce its dispatchable thermal grid capacity.

However, as any grid manager will tell you, you can’t do that. Not the least of the reasons why unreliables are so cripplingly expensive is that it is necessary to maintain the entire pre-existing grid regardless of how many unreliables are bolted on to it. Unreliables, therefore, inflict not only a deadweight cost but also a deadweight surplus capacity to the grid, to say nothing of the costly instability caused by giving unreliables precedence over thermal in meeting demand.

Is Climate Change Real?

by Robert Lyman,  March 23, 2021 in FriendsofScienceCalgary


Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2021 Full bio here.

Is climate change real? Journalists in Canada have had a field day with that question since it was debated at the Conservative Party policy meeting on March 20, 2021. It is the perfect question to ask if you want to boil a mind-numbingly complex set of issues into a simple question that can be used to misinform and confuse people. The proper answer to that question is another one. To what part of the climate policy conundrum are you referring?

You see, the “realness” (or truthfulness, or even importance) of climate policy depends on the answer to several questions, not one. Let’s break them down, and comment ever so briefly on the possible answers.

Is global warming occurring?

The global climate has been changing for millions of years, with temperatures rising and falling. They were as high as they are today during Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period. Since 1850, global average temperatures have risen slightly more than one degree Celsius.

Major February global temperature drop reveals the real climate control knob

by J. Bastardi, March 7, 2021 in CFACT


By now all of you know my belief ( bias) that it’s the oceans, and more so the tropical oceans, that are the biggest control knob of the weather and climate. If you really wanted to make this a controlled classroom experiment (nature is not a classroom with easy controls)  then I venture to say that the real way to know man’s influence is to have SST’s return to where they were in the 1970s, give it a couple of years for the water vapor adjustment, ( and if I am right. co2 will adjust as warmer oceans outsource it, so the outsourcing to the air will decrease) and see the difference there. And there you may be able to make an irrefutable argument for man’s contribution, Unfortunately for those who will not look at anything else,  that is likely to be quite small, but on the other hand, unlike the warming we have had which is really in the coldest driest places and more so at their coldest driest time of the year, you would likely find the lions share of what warming would be where life thrives.. As small as that has been, less than .25C of the numbers we see all the time that tell us that at. a bit over 59 degrees the planet is overheating, it is liable to be even less detectable and certainly as or more adaptable than what we seemed to have adapted to nicely here.

But the fear of course is runaway warming which is interesting since it counters Le Chateliers,  which I never hear anyone bring up, most likely because it’s a simple explanation. And a simple explanation would impact a lot of things relying on a done deal, complex explanation that the public must accept because they could never understand.

Does “global warming” mean it’s warming everywhere?

by C. Kennedy, Oct 29, 2020 in NOAAClimate.gov


No, “global warming” means Earth’s averageannual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.  It’s like your grades. If one semester you get all Bs and Cs, and the next you get all As and Cs, your grade point average rises, even though you didn’t improve in every class.

That’s the way it is with Earth’s near-surface temperature as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels climb. Temperature trends across the entire globe aren’t uniform because of the diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate variability. When you’re zoomed in on a particular place, you may not be able to see the overall trend.

It is only when scientists calculate the average of temperature changes from every place on Earth over the course of a year to produce a single number, and then look at how that number has changed over time that a very clear, global warming trend emerges. In other words, it’s only when we “zoom out” to the planet-wide scale that the trend is obvious: despite a few, rare areas experiencing an overall cooling trend, the vast majority of places across the globe are warming.

 

 

The reason a “zoomed out” view makes the long-term trend so clear is that Earth’s annual average temperatures from year to year are found to be very stable when nothing is forcing it to change. Today, though, every decade since 1960 has been warmer than the last, and the last three decades each have been the warmest on record. Relative to geologic time, the warming that has occurred—1.8°F (1°C) over a span of about 120 years—is an unusually large temperature change in a relatively short span of time.

Claim: The Temperature Spike Just Prior to the Little Ice Age can Teach Us about Modern Global Warming

by E. Worall, Jan 7, 2021 in WUWT


According to Patric Seifert, a tropospheric researcher at the Leibniz Institute in Germany, a large scale temperature spike occurred just before the onset of the Little Ice Age. Seifert does not think global temperatures are about to crash, but he thinks conditions in Europe are similar enough to the 14th century that historical reconstructions of this medieval heatwave, the Dantean Anomaly, can help us understand what we will face as the world continues to warm.

Extreme 14th Century Droughts May Provide Insight Into Our Climate Change Crisis 

CARLY CASSELLA
9 JANUARY 2021

Scientists are studying a major, once-in-a-century drought from Medieval Europe to better understand how extreme weather events indicate rapid climate changes.

In the years leading up to the Little Ice Age, between 1302 and 1307, many regions on the European continent were facing exceptional heat and drought, according to historical records and data collected from tree rings and sediment cores.

These extreme natural events, while not driven by human emissions, hold similar characteristics to recent weather anomalies, and they could help us better predict the course of modern-day climate change.

“Even if it was a phase of cooling in the Middle Ages and we are now living in a phase of [hu]man-made warming, there could be parallels,” says Patric Seifert, a tropospheric researcher at the Leibniz Institute in Germany.

“The transitional period between two climate phases could be characterized by smaller temperature differences between the latitudes and cause longer-lasting large-scale weather patterns, which could explain an increase in extreme events.“

NYT: “What happened to Global Warming?”

by E. Worrall, Dec 17, 2020 in WUWT


NYT rolling out the tired global warming makes winter storms more extreme narrative.

How climate change is affecting winter storms.


By John Schwartz

The major winter storm that hit the Eastern United States on Wednesday and Thursday probably prompted some people to ask, “What happened to global warming?”

But although it’s becoming increasingly clear that climate change does have an effect on storms, the relationship can be complex and, yes, counterintuitive. “There were these expectations that winter was basically going to disappear on us,” said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at AER, a company that provides information to clients about weather and climate-related risk.

Although winters are becoming warmer and somewhat milder over all, extreme weather events have also been on the increase, and especially in the Northeastern United States, as Dr. Cohen pointed out in a recent paper in the journal Nature Climate Change. From the winter of 2008-9 until 2017-18, there were 27 major Northeast winter storms, three to four times the totals for each of the previous five decades.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/climate/climate-change-winter.html

If global warming to date has caused a three to four fold increase in severe winter storms, imagine the bitterly cold weather the next few decades of global warming will bring.

We must act now, before global warming causes us all to freeze to death!

WHY CARBON DIOXIDE CAN’T CAUSE WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE, BY PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF GEOLOGY AT WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

by Cap Allon, July 5, 2020 in Electroverse


ABSTRACT

A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.

The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas.

Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.

Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming.

The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing–warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING DESTROYED IN 500 WORDS, BY GEOLOGIST DR ROGER HIGGS

by Cap Allon, May 27, 2020 in Electroverse


INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE IPCC) THREE PILLARS OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING: COLLAPSED — by Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil Oxford, geology, 1982-86), Geoclastica LtdTechnical Note 2020-7, 25th May 2020, amended 26-5-2020 on ResearchGate.

The IPCC says ongoing warming is due to man’s CO2 emissions, hence ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW). However, the 3 pillars on which they base this claim are unscientific and quickly disproved.

Continuer la lecture de MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING DESTROYED IN 500 WORDS, BY GEOLOGIST DR ROGER HIGGS

Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment

by Pielke R & Richtie J, April 21, 2020


Abstract

Climate science research and assessments have misused scenarios for more than a decade. Symptoms of this misuse include the treatment of an unrealistic, extreme scenario as the world’s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories. Reasons why this misuse arose include (a) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy relevant pathways, (b) the evolving role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which effectively extended its mandate from literature assessment to literature coordination, (c) unforeseen consequences of employing a nuanced temporary approach to scenario development, (d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility, and (e) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of policy. As a consequence, the climate research community is presently off-track. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked. The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy. Until reform is implemented, we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue. However, because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios, there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested – even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment.

Keywords: climate, scenarios, assessment, research integrity

How much human-caused global warming should we expect?

by Andy May, March 21, 2020 in WUWT


C3S20 asks, how much human-caused warming will occur if we do nothing, that is, continue “business-as-usual?” It’s unfortunate, but the IPCC, for all their work, do not adequately answer that question, their projections are all based on abstract “scenarios.” C3S20 break this overall question into five parts:

  1. What would greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) be, if we did nothing and continued normally?
  2. For each GHG, how do emissions relate to the change in atmospheric concentration?
  3. What would the global temperature be if GHG concentrations were at “preindustrial” levels?
  4. How sensitive are global temperatures to GHG concentrations?
  5. How much warming should we expect if we do nothing?

C3S20 tell us the Paris Agreement conclusion that we need to limit global warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels suffers from several unknowns.

  1. The preindustrial period is not formally defined. The preindustrial temperature and greenhouse gas level are not specified. In fact, several time periods, temperatures and GHG levels are used as “preindustrial” in the latest IPCC AR5 report.

  2. The assumptions that warming is bad and increasing levels of CO2 are bad, are not supported with any data. Numerous studies have concluded that some warming is good for humankind and additional CO2 is good for plants.

  3. The penultimate draft of AR5 identified the period 1850 to 1900 as the preindustrial baseline for CO2 and temperature. This was the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest periodin the last several thousand years. Why use that period as a baseline (Luning and Vahrenholt 2017)? This is not explained, and the final draft of the report removed the reference to the 1850 to 1900 baseline.

  4. If the UNFCC and the Paris Agreement assume “climate change” and “Human-caused Climate Change” are synonymous, how do they explain that climate has change much quicker and much more dramatically many times in the past 13,000 years before human civilization began and well before industrialization?

Débattre du climat : quel contenu ?

by M. de Rougemont, 25 février 2020 in EuropeanScientist


Dès lors que la moindre critique est faite à propos de la doxa climatique son auteur se verra systématiquement désigné comme négationniste. Si, par-dessus le marché, ladite critique est pleine de bon sens, alors des caciques de ce système s’empressent de publier une tribune publique afin de mettre l’intru au pilori, évitant bien d’entrer en matière et de traiter des questions posées. Il s’agit de bien rappeler qui a droit à la parole et de rappeler aux non-sachants que le débat est clos car la cause est entendue. Un bizarre syndicat international de presse dictant la bien-pensance climatique a d’ailleurs décidé que laisser s’exprimer des voix critiques serait leur faire une part trop belle. La célérité et le ton de ces répliques témoignent pourtant d’une grande inquiétude car faire taire l’intrus n’a jamais été une manifestation de force et de tranquillité. Cela laisse même à penser que s’il y avait complot, ce serait plutôt celui destiné à éviter à tout prix la nécessaire dispute autour d’un sujet si important.

Nonobstant la clôture bien prématurée de ce débat jamais initié, il faut en décrire les chapitres qui devraient le composer.  Ce drame climatique se déroule sur trois scènes : scientifique, stratégique et politique.

SCIENCE ET PSEUDO-SCIENCE

Les données issues de moins de deux siècles d’observations directes, dont moins de cinquante ans par satellite, et de la paléoclimatologie nous enseignent les variations passées et certaines corrélations ou manques de corrélation. Ces données ne font pas l’objet de réfutations majeures et fondées. Un réchauffement est donc bien constaté depuis la fin du petit âge glaciaire coïncidant avec le début de l’ère industrielle ; il est de l’ordre de 0.8 à 1 °C avec des fluctuations dont certaines restent encore inexpliquées.

Continuer la lecture de Débattre du climat : quel contenu ?

Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

by Andy May, February 23, 2020 in WUWT


Why have uninformed celebrities and politicians been telling everyone, who will listen, we are all going to die in a climate catastrophe in 10 to 30 years? U.N. General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés of Ecuador warned us…

 

However, these absurd statements are not supported by even the most fanatical climate alarmists, like Kate Marvel (NASA), Gavin Schmidt (NASA), Katharine Hayhoe (Texas Tech), or Andrea Dutton (University of Florida) (link). The original inspiration for these statements came from a 2018 IPCC report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C. Even the alarmist Scientific American does not think the world is ending in twelve years.

We will discuss this IPCC report below, but first let’s look at some critical evidence that is not in the report. As usual the IPCC dodges the current benefits of warming and additional CO2, so we need to fill in this gap.

A little over two years ago I posted an essay entitled “Calculating the Cost of Global Warming,” it did not calculate a cost, but discussed calculations made by others. Global warming and the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are not existential threats to mankind or to nature. Global warming will not go “runaway,” this idea, discussed here, has been discredited by climate change skeptics and by climate alarmists alike (see here and here for examples). So, given that global warming and additional CO2 will not harm us, we are reduced to a discussion of the economic impacts and benefits, both positive and negative, of global warming and additional CO2.

 

Figure 2. A graph of CMIP5 global tropospheric temperatures (5-year averages) versus satellite and weather balloon observations. These predictions are for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, a moderate case. Source: House of Representatives report by Dr. John Christy.

Climate Change is not a problem: Unless we make it one.

by Martin Capages Jr., February 11, 2020 in WUWT


INTRODUCTION

As long as humans have been on Earth, they have been adapting to changes in regional climates. A regional climate is the average of the weather for a relatively long period of time, usually 30+ years, at a particular location on the planet. The natural periodicity of prolonged regional weather variations has been documented in various ways by humans for eons. For a comparison of human civilization in the northern hemisphere to Greenland ice core temperatures for the last 18,000 years see here. Some of the means of documenting changes in long term weather patterns, i.e. climate change, include crude prehistoric cave drawings of the animals and plants, paintings of frozen rivers (see Figure 1 of ice skating on the River Thames in 1684), and archaeological digs. There are also written records of climatic conditions as early as 5,000 years ago, perhaps even earlier. Ice, subsea, peat and lake bed cores are also used, for a more detailed discussion of the methods used see here and the links therein.

Figure 1. Ice skating on the River Thames in London in January 1684, during the Little Ice Age. Museum of London, link.

 

Continuer la lecture de Climate Change is not a problem: Unless we make it one.

Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming

by P. Lange & K. Gregory, February 8, 2020 in ClimateEtc.


A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.

In this blog post we reproduce the Abstract, Policy Implications and Conclusions and parts of the Introduction, Results and Discussion. We encourage you to read the entire paper.

Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation.

Gavin’s Falsifiable Science

by Willis Eschenbach, January 18, 2020 in WUWT


 

Folks are interested in why the temperature of the planet changes over time. That’s at the center of modern climate science. My theory, on the other hand, arose from my being interested in a totally different question about climate—why is the temperature so stable? For example, over the 20th Century, the temperature only varied by ± 0.3°C. In the giant heat engine that is the climate, which is constantly using solar energy to circulate the oceans and the atmosphere, this is a variation of 0.1% … as someone who has dealt with a variety of heat engines, I can tell you that this is amazing stability. The system is ruled by nothing more solid than waves, wind, and water. So my question wasn’t why the climate changes as it does.

My question was, why is the climate so stable?

And my answer is, there are a host of what are called “emergent phenomena” that arise when local temperatures go above some local threshold. They include the timing and strength of the daily emergence of the cumulus cloud field in the tropics; the development of thunderstorms; the emergence of dust devils when temperatures get hot; the action of the El Nino/La Nina pump moving warm water to the poles; and various “oscillations” like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

These emergent phenomena arise out of nowhere, last for some length of time, and then disappear completely. And acting together, they all work to prevent both the overcooling and the overheating of the planet. And as mentioned above, I say that these phenomena acted to reduce the length and the depth of the effect of the Pinatubo volcano. See my post called “When Eruptions Don’t” for another look at how the climate system responds to a decrease in incoming solar energy due to volcanic eruptions.

 

I originally published this theory in the journal Energy and Environment. I followed that up with a posting of the same ideas here at Watts Up With That in a post called The Thermostat Hypothesis.

Figure 2. Global stratospheric temperatures measured from space.

Climate models continue to project too much warming

by Dr. J. Lehr & J. Taylor, January 6, 2020 in CFACT


A recently published paper, titled “Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections,” mistakenly claims climate models have been remarkably accurate predicting future temperatures. The paper is receiving substantial media attention, but we urge caution before blindly accepting the paper’s assertions.

As an initial matter, the authors of the paper are climate modelers. Climate modelers have a vested self-interest in convincing people that climate modeling is accurate and worthy of continued government funding. The fact that the authors are climate modelers does not by itself invalidate the paper’s conclusions, but it should signal a need for careful scrutiny of the authors’ claims.

Co-author Gavin Schmidt has been one of the most prominent and outspoken persons asserting humans are creating a climate crisis and that immediate government action is needed to combat it. Again, Schmidt’s climate activism does not by itself invalidate the paper’s conclusions, but it should signal a need for careful scrutiny of the authors’ claims.

The paper examines predictions made by 17 climate models dating back to 1970. The paper asserts 14 of the 17 were remarkably accurate, with only three having predicted too much warming.

One of the paper’s key assertions is that global emissions have risen more slowly than commonly forecast, which the authors claim explains why temperatures are running colder than the models predicted. The authors compensate for this by adjusting the predicted model temperatures downward to reflect fewer-than-expected emissions. Yet fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions undercut the climate crisis narrative.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already reduced its initial projection of 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming per decade to merely 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Keeping in mind that skeptics have typically predicted approximately 0.1 degree Celsius of warming per decade, the United Nations has conceded skeptics have been at least as close to the truth with their projections as the United Nations. Moreover, global temperatures are likely only rising at a pace of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade, which is even closer to skeptic predictions.

Even after the authors adjusted the model predictions to reflect fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions, there remains at least one very important problem, which immediately jumped out at us when carefully examining the paper’s findings: The paper’s assertion of remarkable model accuracy rests on a substantial temperature spike from 2015 through 2017. A strong, temporary El Niño caused the short-term spike in global temperatures from 2015 to 2017. The plotted temperature data in the paper, however, show that temperatures prior to the El Niño spike ran consistently colder than the models’ adjusted predicted temperatures. When the El Niño recedes, as they always do, temperatures will almost certainly resume running colder than the models predicted, even after adjusting for fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions.

Another problem with the paper is that it utilizes controversial and dubiously adjusted temperature datasets rather than more reliable ones. The paper relies on temperature datasets that are not replicated in any real-world temperature measurements. Surface temperature measurements and measurements taken by highly precise satellite instruments show significantly less warming than the authors claim. The authors rely on temperature datasets that utilize controversial adjustments to claim more recent warming than what has actually been measured, which further undercuts their claim of remarkable model accuracy.

Contrary to what has been written in many breathless media reports, the most important takeaways from the paper are that greenhouse gas emissions are rising at a more modest pace than predicted, the modest pace of global temperature rise reflects the modest pace of rising emissions, and climate models have consistently predicted too much warming—even after accounting for fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions. A temporary spike in global temperatures reflecting the recent El Niño does not save the models from their consistent inaccuracy.

Climate change and bushfires — More rain, the same droughts, no trend, no science

by JoNova, December 24, 2019


To Recap: In order to make really Bad Fires we need the big three: Fuel, oxygen, spark.Obviously getting rid of air and lightning is beyond the budget. The only one we can control is fuel. No fuel = no fire.   Big fuel = Fireball apocalypse that we can;t stop even with help from Canada, California, and New Zealand.

The most important weather factor is rain, not an extra 1 degree of warmth. To turn the nation into a proper fireball, we “need” a good drought.  A lack of rain is a triple whammy — it dries out the ground and the fuel — and it makes the weather hotter too. Dry years are hot years in Australia, wet years are cool years. It’s just evaporative cooling for the whole country. The sun has to dry out the soil before it can heat up the air above it.  Simple yes?  El Nino’s mean less rain (in Australia), that’s why they also mean “hot weather”.

So ask a climate scientist the right questions and you’ll find out what the ABC won’t say: That global warming means more rain, not less. Droughts haven’t got worse, and climate models are really, terribly, awfully pathetically bad at predicting rain.

Four reasons carbon emissions are irrelevant

1. Droughts are the same as they ever were.

In the 178 year record, there is no trend. All that CO2 has made no difference at all to the incidence of Australian droughts. Climate scientists have shown droughts have not increased in Australia. Click the link to see Melbourne and Adelaide. Same thing.

3 degrees C?

by J. Curry, December 23, 2019 in ClimateEtc.


Is 3 C warming over the 21st century now the ‘best estimate’?  A reframing of how we think about climate change over the 21st century, and my arguments for 1 C.

There has been much discussion over on twitter of the new article by David Wallace-Wells:  We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future — and It’s n Not as Bad as it Once Looked.  ‘This article is interesting for several reasons, especially since Wallace-Wells has been ‘alarmist in chief.’

Simply put, it is now becoming more widely accepted that RCP8.5 concentration/emissions scenario is highly implausible.  See my previous post:

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.