by Tony Heller, March 5, 2020 in RealClimateScience
Over the past 30 years, NOAA has been rapidly losing US thermometers. In 1989, 1,205 stations reported some daily temperatures, but last year only 871 stations reported some daily temperatures.
Thirty-five percent (424) of the stations in 2019 were zombie stations, meaning that NOAA estimated data for all twelve months. This is done even for some of the thermometers which reported at least a little data in 2019.
by Anthony Watts, February 29, 2020 in WUWT
In a report generating substantial media attention this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed January 2020 was the hottest January on record. In reality, the claim relies on substantial speculation, dubious reporting methods, and a large, very suspicious, extremely warm reported heat patch covering most of Russia.
The January 2020 Climate Assessment Report, released by NOAA’s National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI), was accompanied by a map showing a giant red menace of extraordinary asserted warmth extending from the Russian border with Poland well into Siberia. Yet, the asserted hot spot appears nowhere else.
Figure 1: Map of temperature departure provided by NOAA/NCEII. Note the huge red spot over Russia.
Continuer la lecture de NOAA Relies on ‘Russian Collusion’ to Claim January Was Hottest Month on Record
by P. Berth, 28 février 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Selon un récent article du Guardian, des scientifiques ont mesuré pour la première fois la température de 20,75°C le 9 février 2020 sur l’île Seymour, une île située au large de la péninsule Antarctique. Cette île comporte la station de mesure Marambio où les relevés ont été réalisés. Bien entendu, cette nouvelle a été reprise par les médias, Greta Thunberg en tête. Cependant, en analysant objectivement la situation vous pourrez constater qu’il n’y a pas lieu de s’alarmer.
1. Localisation de l’île Seymour et température moyenne annuelle
L’île Seymour est située au large de la péninsule Antarctique (Figure 1), la région la plus au nord du continent Antarctique et, quasiment, la seule partie d’Antarctique s’étendant au-delà du cercle polaire.
– Pour comprendre ce qu’il se passe dans un jeu de données de température il ne faut pas considérer une seule mesure comme le fait l’article du Guardian; il ne faut pas non plus considérer une seule station de mesure.
– Si l’on désire faire passer des droites parmi les données de température, les plus longues séries disponibles sont celles de la station Orcadas (depuis 1902), qui est quand même assez éloignée de la péninsule Antarctique. On constate alors un réchauffement d’environ + 2°C en 110 ans (la courbe de tendance coupe –5°C en 1900 et –3°C en 2010). Cependant, en considérant des courbes polynomiales dont le coefficient de détermination est meilleur on constate que les températures moyennes chutent depuis les années 2000, comme dans toutes les stations de la péninsule Antarctique présentées dans cet article.
– Les phénomènes naturels suivent rarement des droites. Ils sont généralement cycliques, avec des périodes et amplitudes très variables. Il est donc permis de conclure que la péninsule Antarctique ne se réchauffe pas depuis 25 ans. Ceci est confirmé par d’autres analyses (voir ici et ici) et il est dommage qu’une fois de plus les médias ne fassent pas plus preuve de rigueur et se permettent des raccourcis donnant une information inexacte à 100%. En sont-ils seulement conscients ?
by Craig Idso, February 26, 2020 in ClimateChageDispatch
Huang, J., Ou, T., Chen, D., Lun, Y. and Zhao, Z. 2019. The amplified Arctic warming in recent decades may have been overestimated by CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters 46: 13,338-12,345.
Policies aimed at protecting humanity and the environment from the potential effects of CO2-induced global warming rely almost entirely upon models predicting large future temperature increases.
But what if those predictions are wrong? What if a comparison between model projections and observations revealed the models are overestimating the amount of warming?
Would climate alarmists admit as much and back away from promoting extreme policies of CO2 emission reductions?
Probably not — at least based upon the recent rhetoric of each of the candidates seeking the Democrat Party’s nomination for President of the United States, all of whom continue to call for the complete elimination of all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use within the next three decades, or less.
But for non-ideologues who are willing to examine and accept the facts as they are, the recent work of Huang et al. (2019) provides reason enough to pause the crazy CO2 emission-reduction train.
In their study, the five researchers set out to examine how well model projections of Arctic temperatures (poleward of 60°N) compared with good old-fashioned observations.
More specifically, they used a statistical procedure suitable for nonlinear analysis (ensemble empirical mode decomposition) to examine secular Arctic warming over the period 1880-2017.
Observational data utilized in the study were obtained from the HadCRUT4.6 temperature database, whereas model-based temperature projections were derived from simulations from 36 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models (GCMs).
Figure 1. Observed and model-predicted rates of nonlinear, secular warming in the Arctic (60-90°N) over the period 1880-2017. The black and red dashed lines indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles for temperature means. Adapted from Huang et al. (2019).
As indicated there, the model-estimated rate of secular warming (the solid red line) increased quite sharply across the 138 year period, rising from a value of around 0°C per decade at the beginning of the record to a value of 0.35°C per decade in the end.
by Poppallov, February 24, 2020 in Electroverse
In an editorial piece published in the Investor’s Business Daily Saturday 11th February 2017, we are told about a United Nations climate report that environmentalists undoubtedly don’t want anybody to read. It states in plain English “that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be doomed…”
When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was “the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.” And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.
But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to “save the planet.”
According to the latest annual UN report on the “emissions gap,” the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.
The measures submitted included: “Boosting renewable energy’s share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for “climate action.”
Central to the report, “phasing out coal consumption … is an indispensable condition for achieving international climate change targets.” That means halting all new coal plants shutting down those currently in use.
Which is quite a big ask, as there are currently 273 gigawatts of coal capacity under construction around the world, and another 570 gigawatts in the pipeline, according to the UN. That’s a 42% increase in global energy production from coal. Which doesn’t consider the 22 coal-fired power stations to be built at 17 locations in Japan to replace their aging nuclear plants. These new installations will on their own produce more carbon dioxide annually than all the passenger cars sold in the United States each year.
So, with all the hype in the media about “climate change” and with NOAA admitting to data manipulation, as well as acknowledging that the climate has been cooling for the past 10 years, when is the UN going to shut-up shop and call an end to this panhandling charade?
by Prof. F. Vahrenholtz, February 20, 2020 in ClimateChaneDispatch
A few days ago, an international research group from the USA, Canada, and Switzerland led by Lorenzo Polvani of Columbia University (New York) published a sensational study in Nature climate change, which attributes a large part of the warming of the 20th century to CFCs (“Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances“).
Using ten climate models, the researchers calculated the global and Arctic temperature development, once with CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in the atmosphere and once without.
According to these models, from 1955 to 2005, global temperatures increase by 0.59°C with CFCs and by 0.39°C without CFCs. One-third of the warming is therefore not caused by CO2 but by the CFCs.
If the remaining warming for CO2 is converted over the five decades, average warming of 0.08°C per decade remains. Not exactly a lot. CFCs have a 19,000-23,000 times stronger forcing than CO2.
Half of Arctic warming due to CFCs
Continuer la lecture de Study: Large Part Of 20th-Century Warming Caused By CFCs
by P. Gosselin, February 17, 2020 in NoTricksZone
In Germany there have been rumors that the alleged Antarctic Seymour Island “all-time Antarctic record high” of 20.75°C set on February 9th is a hoax – originating by the AFP news agency and then spread by The Guardian.
The alleged 20.75°C was supposedly logged by Brazilian scientists and was supposedly almost a full degree higher than the previous record of 19.8C, taken on Signy Island in January 1982, The Guardian blared with much alarm, citing its own rush job chart.
Currently the WMO is seeking to obtain the actual temperature data for Seymour Island, part of a chain of islands off the Antarctic peninsula.
WMO cites media as source!
The WMO website itself is citing the media as its source, writing: “Media reports say that researchers logged a temperature of 20.75°C. Mr Cerveny cautioned that it is premature to say that Antarctica has exceeded 20°C for the first time.”
Thermometer data show only 16°C!
According to German Facebook site Klima.Wissen here and its readers, the “all-time record high reading” of 20.75°C appears to have its origins from the AFP news agency. It was then picked up by the always climate sensational The Guardian. But now the whole story is beginning to appear as just big sensational hoax.
First, WetterOnline.de here shows that the high temperature on February 9th at the Seymour Island station (Base Murambio) was merely 16°C!
by Tony Brown, February 15, 2020 in WUWT
This is the third examination of Central England Temperatures (CET) in a series that commenced in 2015 and which has charted the recent decline in temperatures from their highest values. The two previous articles in this series are referenced here;
The Rise and Fall of Central England Temperatures; Part 1 covering 2000 to 2015
The Rise and Fall of Central England Temperatures; Part 2 covering 2000 to 2017
When referencing any ‘decline’ we need to put that into context against CET’s overall substantial rise in recent decades. The official CET dataset used in this article, which is compiled by the UK Met office is linked here and shown in Figure A);
It should be noted that the values between 1538 and 1658 are my own reconstruction and are not used at all in this current paper.
Note: Weather comprises the day to day events that we all experience. Climate is officially the trend of the weather (often temperature and rainfall) taken over a continuous thirty year period. The two terms have sometimes been used in an interchangeable manner here, when a period of more than a year is being examined.
According to the Met office; ‘Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming: currently a correction of -0.2 °C is applied to mean temperatures.’
by P. Gosselin, February 15, 2020 in NoTricksZone
In her latest panic attack, teenage Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg – citing the Guardian – once again appeared to be proclaiming the end of the world was a step closer when she tweeted Antarctica has set a new record high temperature:
Two new warm records
According to the Guardian, “The 20.75C logged by Brazilian scientists at Seymour Island on 9 February was almost a full degree higher than the previous record of 19.8C, taken on Signy Island in January 1982.”
That reading, the Guardian reports, follows the February 6 record of 18.3C recorded at the Argentinian research station, Esperanza measured.
As is the case with most alarmists, every warm single datapoint anomaly gets uncritically accepted with open arms as solid evidence of man-made global warming while cold trends get dismissed or downgraded as “natural variability”.
Seymour Island has been cooling for over a quarter century
So we have two recent warm records set at and near the Antarctic peninsula over the past week or so and that means the region there is heating up, alarmists like Greta and the Guardian want us to believe. But what are the real TRENDS there? Do the 2 recent warm records mean the region is heating up.
Looking at official data from NASA, it turns out that warming isn’t true. And because climate is always changing, the temperature in the region in question has also not remained completely steady. The only possibility left? COOLING.
by P. Homewood, February 13, 2020 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
It’s been a mild start to the year here in England. In fact, according to the CET, it’s been the 14th warmest January since the start of records in 1659.
No doubt fingers will be pointed at global warming, but as the above chart shows, we have simply had mild weather of the commonly seen before. The difference is that it lasted virtually all month.
Moreover we have had warmer Januaries way back in the past. The warmest was in 1916, followed by 1921, 1796 and 1834.
Continuer la lecture de Climate Crisis Update–England As Warm As 1736 Last Month!
by SCE-INFO, 7 février 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Nature, l’une des plus célèbres revues scientifiques à l’échelle mondiale, vient de publier un article assez inattendu. Celui-ci se permet une analyse critique des scénarios climatiques proposés dans les rapports du GIEC (scénarios RCP, i.e. “Representative Concentration Pathways”). Comme on peut le constater chaque jour en consultant les médias, ce sont toujours les scénarios les plus catastrophiques qui sont relayés. Continuer la lecture de Climatologie actuelle, un (petit) pas vers plus de réalisme ?
by David Middleton, February 5, 2020 in WUWT
This is a sort of a spin-off of Rutgers University Global Snow Lab and “the Snows of Yesteryear” and A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet. And, yes, there are a lot more than five charts in this post… And, none of them were all that easy.
There is a general scientific consensus that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing ice mass since the Little Ice Age (LIA). This should come as no surprise, since the LIA was quite likely the coldest climatic episode of the Holocene Epoch. Although it does appear that the GrIS may have gained ice mass during the mid-20th century global cooling crisis.
According to Mouginot et al, 2019, the GrIS was gaining an average of +47 ± 21 Gt/y from 1972–1980, then began to lose ice mass after 1980:
-51 ± 17 Gt/y from 1980–1990
-41 ± 17 Gt/y from 1990–2000
-187 ± 17 Gt/y from 2000–2010
-286 ± 20 Gt/y from 2010–2018
Figure 4. Central Greenland temperature reconstruction (Alley, 2000).
by K. Richard, February 3, 2020 in NoTricksZone
A new 5680-year tree-ring temperature reconstruction for southern South America (Lara et al., 2020) reveals (a) no clear warming trend in recent decades, and (b) the 18th and 19th centuries (and many centennial-scale periods from the last 5680 years) had much warmer temperatures than today.
In addition to finding modern temperature changes in southern South America fall well within the range of natural variability in the context of the last 5680 years, Lara et al. (2020) assess solar forcing to have contributed to climate variations for this region of the Southern Hemisphere.
by K. Richard, January 23, 2020 in NoTricksZone
A new reconstruction (Martin et al., 2020) shows peak mean annual temperatures (14°C) were 7°C warmer than today (7°C, 2009-2017) ~7800 years ago in France. In the last 200 years temperatures have fallen by ~3°C.
by P. Berth & A. Préat, 24 janvier 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Depuis le début des mesures thermométriques directes, les 4 principales séries de température que nous possédons (thermomètres terrestres et satellites) nous montrent que la température globale de la basse troposphère a augmenté de ± 0,8°C en 138 ans (entre 1880 et 2018). Cela correspond à ± 0,28°C en 50 ans soit 0,006°C/an(actuellement environ 0,01°C/an pour les 30 dernières années). Les médias nous rappellent chaque jour que cette hausse est exceptionnelle et que le CO2 anthropique en est à l’origine, c’est-à-dire est le grand coupable suivant la terminologie consacrée.
Mais cette vitesse d’augmentation de la température, est-elle vraiment exceptionnelle? Dans les lignes qui suivent, nous allons vous démontrer qu’il n’en est rien. Au cours de la dernière période glaciaire, alors que l’espèce humaine existait déjà, la température moyenne a parfois augmenté à une vitesse vingt fois plus élevée, et ce à de nombreuses reprises. Ces phénomènes particuliers, qui n’ont pas fait disparaître la vie sur Terre, et que nous vous avions déjà mentionnés sur SCE (ici), sont appelés évènements de Dansgaard-Oeschger ou ‘DO’ (des noms des deux scientifiques -danois et suisse- qui furent les premiers à les mettre en évidence) et sont reconnus par le GIEC. Comme nous allons vous le montrer dans le présent article, le taux de CO2 n’aurait qu’un rôle mineur dans ces évènements.
Figure 1. Stratigraphie isotopique de l’oxygène à partir des glaces du forage GRIP (Groenland).
En ordonnée valeurs du δ18O en ‰ et en abscisse profondeur en mètres du forage (Cronin, 2010). Les compositions isotopiques de l’oxygène sont un indicateur de la température. La figure montre de manière très claire que l’interglaciaire actuel (Holocène, moitié gauche du graphique) est caractérisé par des fluctuations thermiques de faible amplitude (si l’on excepté un épisode plus froid vers 8,2 ka) alors que le Dernier Glaciaire (moitié droite du graphique) montre des changements climatiques fréquents, rapides et de grandes amplitudes (de 8°C à 16°C suivant les δ18O) enregistrés pas les événements ou ‘cycles’ DO (Dansgaard-Oeschger events). Nb: YD pour Younger Dryas, correspondant à un refroidissement il y a 12800 ans BP (non discuté dans cet article).
by Cap Allon, January 22, 2020 in Electroverse
According to NOAA’s own historical data, of the 50 U.S. state all-time record high temperatures, 23 were set during the 1930s, while 36 occurred prior to 1960 — climate change proponents are feeding us a fairy tale, and I’m sick of it…
The maniacal sociopaths of the world may have won control of the narrative, but they seemingly have little sway over the will of the people. You need only browse the comment section below any “climate change” article or social media post to see the wave of folks resoundingly rejecting the scam-of-a-world-view assembled before them (one of the few positives of SM).
The man-made global warming rejection is likely down to two things: the first being that the so called “scientific consensus” has been failing for far too long — you can’t start warning people in the 1980s that we have 10 years left to save the planet, only to keep repeating that prophecy for the next 4 decades. This is probably the reason our youth have become the new target — kids don’t have this history of failure to draw-upon when browsing the bullet points of the latest IPCC report -for example- meaning they’re far easier to manipulate.
by Roy Spencer, January 15, 2020 in WUWT/Ch.Rotter
The increasing global ocean heat content (OHC) is often pointed to as the most quantitative way to monitor long-term changes in the global energy balance, which is believed to have been altered by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge is that long-term temperature changes in the ocean below the top hundred meters or so become exceedingly small and difficult to measure. The newer network of Argo floats since the early 2000s has improved global coverage dramatically.
A new Cheng et al. (2020) paper describing record warm ocean temperatures in 2019 has been discussed by Willis Eschenbach who correctly reminds us that such “record setting” changes in the 0-2000 m ocean heat content (reported in Zettajoules, which is 10^^21 Joules) amount to exceedingly small temperature changes. I calculate from their data that 2019 was only
0.004 0.009 deg. C warmer than 2018.
Over the years I have frequently pointed out that the global energy imbalance (less than 1 W/m2) corresponding to such small rates of warming is much smaller than the accuracy with which we know the natural energy flows (1 part in 300 or so), which means Mother Nature could be responsible for the warming and we wouldn’t even know it.
The Cheng (2017) dataset of 0-2000m ocean heat content changes extends the OHC record back to 1940 (with little global coverage) and now up through 2019. The methodology of that dataset uses optimum interpolation techniques to intelligently extend the geographic coverage of limited data. I’m not going to critique that methodology here, and I agree with those who argue creating data where it does not exist is not the same as having real data. Instead I want to answer the question:
If we take the 1940-2019 global OHC data (as well as observed sea surface temperature data) at face value, and assume all of the warming trend was human-caused, what does it imply regarding equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)?
Fig. 1. Deep-ocean temperature variations 1940-2019 explained with a 2-layer energy budget model forced with RCP6 radiative forcing scenario and a model climate sensitivity of 1.85 deg. C. The model also matches the 1940-2019 and 1979-2019 observed sea surface temperature trends to about 0.01 C/decade. If ENSO effects are not included in the model, the ECS is reduced to 1.7 deg. C.
by Willis Eschenbach, January 4, 2020 in WUWT
How much is a “Whole Little”? Well, it’s like a whole lot, only much, much smaller.
There’s a new paper out. As usual, it has a whole bunch of authors, fourteen to be precise. My rule of thumb is that “The quality of research varies inversely with the square of the number of authors” … but I digress.
In this case, they’re mostly Chinese, plus some familiar western hemisphere names like Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann. Not sure why they’re along for the ride, but it’s all good. The paper is “Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019“. Here’s their money graph:
Figure 1. Original Caption: “Fig. 1. (a) Upper 2000 m OHC from 1955 through 2019. The histogram represents annual anomalies (units: ZJ), wherein positive anomalies relative to a 1981−2010 baseline are shown as red bars and negative anomalies as blue. The two black dashed lines are the linear trends over 1955–86 and 1987−2019, respectively.”
So here’s the hot news. According to these folks, over the last sixty years, the ocean has warmed a little over a tenth of one measly degree … now you can understand why they put it in zettajoules—it’s far more alarming that way.
Next, I’m sorry, but the idea that we can measure the temperature of the top two kilometers of the ocean with an uncertainty of ±0.003°C (three-thousandths of one degree) is simply not believable.
Also Ocean Warming Scares
Also : New 80-Year Deep-Ocean Temperature Dataset Compared to a 1D Climate Model
by Kirye, January 12, 2020 in NoTricksZone
Global warming alarmists like claiming that a certain place is seeing more warming and climate change than everywhere else. Remarkably, they say that about almost everywhere, which of course makes no sense.
Today we look at Canadian temperature trends using the data from the Japan Meteorological Institute (JMA) for stations where they have data available going back to at least the mid 1990s.
First we look at December mean temperatures. What follows is a chart depicting the results of 9 stations across Canada:
Of the 9 examined stations, seven show no warming taking place at all in Canada over the past quarter century for the month of December. Data: JMA.
by Poppaloff, January 10, 2020 in Electroverse
If the historical data is anything to go by, magnetic reversals/excursions often lead to large-level extinction events. Mounting evidence also suggests that our sun micro-novas every 12,000 years, or thereabouts, and that these two events are linked. Earth’s temperature has been on a downward trend since the sharp-warming that followed the end of the Younger Dryas, indicating that this coming Grand Solar Minimum could steer us back into a major glaciation period, and another extinction event.
In their 2014 paper, a group of scientists which included UC Santa Barbara’s James Kennett, posited that a comet collision with Earth played a major role in the extinction. Their hypothesis suggests that a cosmic-impact-event caused the Younger Dryas period of global cooling close to 12,800 years ago. This cosmic impact resulted in abrupt environmental stress and degradation that contributed to the extinction of most large animal species then inhabiting the Americas. According to Kennett, the catastrophic impact and the subsequent climate change also led to the disappearance of the prehistoric Clovis culture, known for its big game hunting, and to human population decline.
by Van der Bilt et al. , December 3, 2019 in GeophysResLetters
Arctic climate is uniquely sensitive to ongoing warming. The feedbacks that drive this amplified response remain insufficiently quantified and misrepresented in model scenarios of future warming. Comparison with paleotemperature reconstructions from past warm intervals can help close this gap. The Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka BP) is an important target because Arctic temperatures were warmer than today. This study presents centennially resolved summer temperature reconstructions from three Svalbard lakes. We show that Early Holocene temperatures fluctuated between the coldest and warmest extremes of the past 12 ka, exceeding the range of instrumental observations and future projections. Peak warmth occurred ~10 ka BP, with temperatures 7 °C warmer than today due to high radiative forcing and intensified inflow of warm Atlantic waters. Between 9.5 and 8 ka BP, temperatures dropped in response to freshwater fluxes from melting ice. Facing similar mechanisms, our findings may provide insight into the near‐future response of Arctic climate.
by Willis Eschenbach, December 27, 2019 in WUWT
People sometimes ask me why I don’t believe the endless climate/energy use predictions of impending doom and gloom for the year 2050 or 2100. The reason is, neither the climate models nor the energy use models are worth a bucket of warm spit for such predictions. Folks concentrate a lot on the obvious problems with the climate models. But the energy models are just as bad, and the climate models totally depend on the energy models for estimating future emissions. However, consider the following US Energy Information Agency (EIA) predictions of energy use from 2010, quoted from here (emphasis mine):
The only thing that seems clear about all of those questions is that the answer is not “CO2”. Here’s another look at Greenland, this time with CO2 overlaid on the temperature:
by P. Gosselin, December 20, 2019 in NoTricksZone
A plot of ice core data from Greenland reveals that CO2 does not drive temperatures.
At Facebook, Gregory Wrightstone posted a chart plotting atmospheric CO2 concentration reconstructed from Dome C Ice Core versus temperature that was reconstructed from the GISP 2 Ice Core.
According to global warming scientists, there’s supposed to be tandem movement between the two magnitudes.
CO2, they say, drives global temperature.
But over the past 8000 years, the data show that temperature in reality has moved in the opposite direction of CO2 and thus of what climate alarmist scientists have told us.
If anything can be drawn from the plotted data, it is that there’s an inverse correlation: As CO2 rises, temperature drops. But of course there’s a lot more to it. CO2 is not that huge major climate driver that alarmists like having us believe it is.
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.