by P. Homewood, July 10, 2019 in NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat
No Tricks Zone has the latest on the coldwave gripping much of Northern Europe. Following a new record low for July set in Lower Saxony last week, there are unconfirmed reports of a new record July low for the whole of the Netherlands:
From No Tricks Zone:
Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays.
The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing.
Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground surface frost yesterday morning. Source: Wetteronline.de
Yesterday morning ground frost hit parts of Belgium, Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic, as the above chart shows. Unsurprisingly, the media have been curiously silent about it.
Record Dutch July low
by Paul Matthews, June 30, 2019 in ClimateScepticism
The history of climate scientists adjusting data to try to make recent warming look greater than it really is goes back quite a long way – it’s a regular topic at Paul Homewood’s blogfor example. But climate scientists continue to do it, giving the sceptics plenty of ammunition. Here are three recent blog posts discussing how climate scientists continue to adjust data to exaggerate warming.
At Pierre Gosselin’s blog there’s a guest post by Kirje from Japan, on NASA GISS temperature adjustments. In the latest GISS version, V4, the supposedly “unadjusted” data sets are different from the unadjusted data in the previous version V3.
Tony Heller has a graph of the 2000, 2017 and 2019 version of NASA GISTEMP, showing that Gavin Schmidt and his team have managed to crank up warming, particularly in the era of the inconvenient pause. You can also see this effect in fig 2 and fig 4 of the GISS history page.
Here in the UK, the HadCRUT4 team are doing the same thing. Clive Best asks Whatever happened to the Global Warming Hiatus? The answer is that they have demolished it with a sequence of adjustments to the data. HadCRUT3, as published in 2014, shows a clear pause, with no warming from about 2001-2013, but the latest new improved data set HadCRUT4.6 cranks recent temperatures upwards. Clive thought that night be due to including different measurement stations, but checked and found that was not the case. The numbers have simply been adjusted.
Here the red diamond is the raw data, the green diamond is HadSST3, and the new HadSST4 is shown as the black line, with grey shading representing uncertainty. In the early years of the 20th century, there was global warming that doesn’t fit with the carbon-dioxide-controlled theory of climate scientists, so that is adjusted downwards. But look at the trend over the pause era, since 2000. The raw data shows literally no trend at all. HadSST3 adjusted the trend upwards to create warming, and HadSST4 adjusts things upwards again, roughly doubling the previous adjustment. And this is in an era when the data quality should be excellent, thanks to the introduction of the ARGO float system.
by Judith Curry, July 9, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch
It’s getting worse.
About 5 years ago, I wrote two blog posts on climate scientists’ pre-traumatic stress syndrome:
Mother Jones has a new article on the same topic: It’s the end of the world as they know it: The distinct burden of being a climate scientist.
The following scientists were interviewed: Kim Cobb, Priya Shukla, Peter Kalmus, Sarah Myhre, Jacquelyn Gill, Katharine Wilkinson, Eric Holthaus, David Grinspoon, Ken Caldeira.
Lots of ‘trauma,’ read the article to get a flavor. This sentence pretty much sums things up:
“There’s deep grief and anxiety for what’s being lost, followed by rage at continued political inaction, and finally hope that we can indeed solve this challenge. There are definitely tears and trembling voices.”
End of civilization?
The title of the article is: “It’s the end of the world as they know it.” Some selected quotes:
by K. Richard, July 8, 2019 in NoTricksZone
A new paper finds the performance of test-taking (cognitive, decision-making) “astronaut-like” subjects exposed to 5000 ppm CO2 was “similar to or exceeded” the performance of those exposed to baseline (600 ppm). This study follows up on a 2018 paper that determined submariners exposed to 15000 ppm CO2 performed just as well as subjects exposed to 600 ppm.
Those of us who own CO2 monitors know that indoor (bedroom) CO2 concentrations typically vary between about 600 ppm during the day and 1000 ppm overnight – the latter earning a frowny face air quality rating.
CO2 is a cognitively-impairing toxin?
In recent years there has been a push to create the impression carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or toxin. Consequently, there have been a few studies suggesting exposure to higher CO2 concentrations (~1500 to 2500 ppm) severely impair human cognitive and decision-making performance (Satish et al., 2012, Allen et al., 2016).
If true, this would be rather problematic for elementary school children, as they are routinely exposed to CO2 concentrations ranging between about 1500 and 3000 ppm in their classrooms (Corsi et al., 2002).
Driving alone in one’s vehicle could mean exposure to “3700 ppm … above outdoor [CO2] concentrations” (Satish et al, 2012), or about 4100 ppm.
This elevated-CO2-is-toxic-to-brain-functioning paradigm suggests the world’s highways are teeming with cognitively-impaired drivers.
by Claude Mandril, 13 mai 2019 in ConnaissanceDesEnergies
La capture et le stockage de CO2 (CCS(1)) est indispensable…
Les accords de Paris ont donné l’objectif : un réchauffement climatique « well below 2°C » d’ici 2100 par rapport aux températures de l’ère préindustrielle.
Le dernier rapport du GIEC montre par ailleurs qu’on serait « beaucoup mieux » à + 1,5°C, et que tout dixième de degré compte : + 1,7°C vaut mieux que + 1,8°C. Il faut donc, ajoute le GIEC, atteindre la neutralité carbone autour de 2050.
Or il est complètement exclu d’arrêter toutes les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et de loin ! :
l’AIE estime dans son scénario Sustainable Development (le plus contraignant)(2) que les énergies fossiles représenteront encore 60% de la fourniture mondiale d’énergie en 2040. Même si on juge l’AIE timorée, on est clairement hors limite ! ;
la capacité d’extraction charbonnière en Chine a augmenté de 6% en 2018 (selon la National Energy Administration en Chine) ;
- et surtout, n’oublions pas les émissions « de procédé » (ciment, sidérurgie, chimie, agroalimentaire).
Donc il faudra des « puits » de carbone. En premier lieu, les forêts mais à condition qu’elles soient exploitées et que les produits de cette exploitation donnent un stockage permanent. L’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris montre que ce n’est pas garanti… L’usage du bois en chaudière réduit les émissions en remplaçant des émissions de carbone fossile, mais ce n’est pas un puits (sauf avec CCS !).
Reste donc la CCS, qui est indispensable. D’ailleurs, sur les 4 scénarios du GIEC, 3 comportent le déploiement de la CCS, le 4e étant un repoussoir.
Et pourtant la CCS est complètement ignorée voire vilipendée, sauf dans une dizaine de pays.
Examinons les critiques ou les objections :
by Herman Harde, April 3, 2019 in Earth Sciences
Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over
recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising
temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically
scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative
concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional
with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really
human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just
opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are
responsible for any observed climate changes.
Keywords: Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, CO2 Residence Time, Anthropogenic Emissions,
Fossil Fuel Combustion, Land Use Change, Climate Change
by Edwin X Berry , June, 2019 in JAtmOceanSciences
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
by James E. Kamis, July 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch
Volcanism, primarily ocean floor in nature, is the most feasible and plausible cause of recent alterations to the Bering Sea physical and biological systems, not climate change.
Since 2014, multiple changes to the Bering Sea’s physical and biological systems such as a rise in seawater temperature, sea ice melting, alteration of commercial fish migration patterns and the very sudden die-off of certain sea bird species have made front-page news.
Many scientists have been quick to attribute these supposedly ‘unnatural’ events to human-induced atmospheric warming or climate change without mentioning or giving due consideration to emissions from active volcanic features that circumvent the entire Bering Sea and populate its seafloor.
This immediate jump to a climate change cause and event effect relationship is especially difficult to understand knowing that frequently during the last five years we have been informed of yet another eruption from a Bering Sea area volcano located in either Russia, Alaska, or on the Bering seafloor.
So, let’s take a moment to review Bering Sea volcanic activity and its likely effect on the area’s physical and biological systems.
by François Gervais, 6 juillet 2019 in LaSynthèse.OnLine
Conférence de M.François GERVAIS, Lauréat du Prix Yvan Peyches de l’Académie des Sciences, (6 Juillet 2019)
La vague de chaleur ayant traversé la France lors de la dernière semaine de Juin 2019 a donné lieu à une prolifération d’âneries proférées par certains médias, ainsi que, malheureusement, par certains hommes politiques. Les mêmes qui refusaient de prendre en compte les records de froid de l’hiver 2018-2019 dans l’hémisphère Nord, le record de surface de la banquise dans l’Antarctique du 21 septembre 2014 et le record de froid près du Pôle Sud (-98°6 C en 2018), en disant « Ne mélangez pas météo et climat » se sont mis frénétiquement à brandir des records de chaleur comme des scalps, oubliant au passage le bon conseil qu’ils donnaient eux-mêmes il y a 6 mois… Cette augmentation de la variabilité des températures, qui revient régulièrement dans l’histoire du climat de la Planète Terre, est un phénomène naturel où l’Homme, monté sur ses ergots, joue un rôle bien plus faible que clamé urbi et orbi par ceux qui s’enrichissent, au sens propre, du « climat de peur » qu’ils génèrent.
Pour nourrir le débat de faits scientifiques, recensés par des études menées par des scientifiques renommés, dont les références sont citées sur chaque slide, nous avons demandé à M. François Gervais, ancien Directeur de l’UMR 6157 du CNRS, et expert reviewer du rapport AR5 du GIEC, l’autorisation de reproduire sur La Synthèse les 52 slides projetées lors d’une Conférence qui eut lieu le 13 décembre 2018 (NDLR).
Pour accéder aux 52 slides, résumant les enjeux de la transition énergétique, merci de cliquer sur le premier lien en bas de page.
Pour accéder à la biographie de M. François Gervais, auteur de plus de 230 publications dans des revues scientifiques à comité de lecture, cliquer sur le deuxième lien en bas de page.
Pour assister à la Conférence du 13 décembre 2018, cliquer sur le lien ci-dessous (durée : 59 minutes) :
by John Christy, June 18, 2019 in GWPF
This is a full transcript of a talk given by Dr John Christy to the GWPF on Wednesday 8th May.
When I grew up in the world of science, science was understood as a method of finding information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you went back and started over again. What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say.
OK, so what are we talking about? We’re talking about how the climate responds to the emission of additional greenhouse gases caused by our combustion of fossil fuels. In terms of scale, and this is important, we want to know what the impact is on the climate, of an extra half a unit of forcing amongst total forcings that sum to over 100 units. So we’re trying to figure out what that signal is of an extra 0.5 of a unit.
Here is the most complicated chart I have tonight, and I hope it makes sense:
by Cap Allon, July 5, 2019 in Electroverse
On the back of the well documented 3-days of heat last week, Germany is now setting multiple new record low temperatures as the anticipated and long-lasting Arctic front begins to take hold.
The mercury in Rotenburg, Lower Saxony plunged to 2.9C (37.2F) on Thursday morning — low enough to break the town’s all-time record cold temperature for the month of July which had stood since 1946, according to wetter.com.
The new record low temperature comes just days after Germany logged an all-time record high — serving as further evidence of the swings-between-extremes brought on by low solar activity and the associated weakening of the jet stream.
Along with Rotenburg, many other regions of Germany also registered record-low temperatures on Thursday morning.
I’ve listed a few below (data again courtesy of wetter.com):
- Quickborn: 4C (39.2F) — lowest July temperature since 1999.
- Göttingen: 4C (39.2F) — lowest July temperature since 1996.
- Soltau: 4.1C (39.4F) — lowest July temperature since 1986.
- Friesoythe: 4.7C (40.5F) –lowest July temperature since 1971.
- Lippstadt: 4.8C (40.6F) — lowest July temperature since 1990.
- Diepholz: 5.1C (41.2F) — lowest July temperature since 1971.
In addition, the village of Deutschneudorf in Saxony reported ground frost this week — an event that’s only occurred on six previous occasions throughout all of Germany during the month of July.
by Lüning et al., July 6, 2019 in NoTricksZone
For a long time it has been said that the Medieval Warm Period was a purely North Atlantic phenomenon. This has proved to be wrong.
On 29 June 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica appeared in the trade journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Here is the abstract:
With the publication of this paper, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) has now been confirmed on all four continents of the southern hemisphere.
While the largest part of the southern hemisphere apparently experienced a warm phase during the MCA, there were also isolated areas that cooled down. To the latter regions belong, for example, coasts, where cold water from the depth rose increasingly. In other areas so-called climate seesaws or dipoles were active, as we know them from today’s climate. One end of the “seesaw” heats up, the other end cools down.
Another result of the studies is that the medieval climate history of huge areas in the southern hemisphere is simply unknown. A task force urgently needs to be set up to fill in this climatic “empty space” with information on pre-industrial temperature development. This information is urgently needed to calibrate the climate models on the basis of which far-reaching socio-political planning is currently taking place.
What follows are publications on the Medieval Period climate of the southern hemisphere as an overview:
Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251
by Zharkova et al., June 24, 2019 in ScientificReportsNature
Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350–400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo. In addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a running averaging filter to suppress large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles. Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its maximum at 2600 to be followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries. This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.
by Charles the moderator , July 6, 2019 in WUWT
Higher reactivity could explain temperature drop before last ice age
GFZ GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Helmholtz Centre
From time to time, there have been long periods of cooling in Earth’s history. Temperatures had already fallen for more than ten million years before the last ice age began about 2.5 million years ago. At that time the northern hemisphere was covered with massive ice masses and glaciers. A geoscientific paradigm, widespread for over twenty years, explains this cooling with the formation of the large mountain ranges such as the Andes, the Himalayas and the Alps. As a result, more rock weathering has taken place, the paradigm suggests. This in turn removed more carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, so that the ‘greenhouse effect’ decreased and the atmosphere cooled. This and other processes eventually led to the ‘ice Age’.
In a new study, Jeremy Caves-Rugenstein from ETH Zurich, Dan Ibarra from Stanford University and Friedhelm von Blanckenburg from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam were able to show that this paradigm cannot be upheld. According to the paper, weathering was constant over the period under consideration. Instead, increased ‘reactivity’ of the land surface has led to a decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere, thus cooling the Earth. The researchers published the results in the journal Nature.
by K. Richard, July 5, 2019 in NoTricksZone
Geothermal heat flux can foment upper mantle temperature anomalies of 800–1000 °C, and these extreme heat intensities have been found to stretch across 500 km of central-east Greenland. This could result in “a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland” (Artemieva et al., 2019).
Evidence of more than 100,000 formerly or currently active volcanic vents permeate the Earth’s sea floor (Kelley, 2017).
Active volcanoes spew 380°C sulfuric acid and “metal-laden acidic fluids” into the bottom waters of the world ocean on a daily basis. In other words, literal ocean acidification is a natural phenomenon.
The carbon dioxide concentrations present in these acidic floods reach “astounding” levels, dwarfing the potential for us to even begin to appreciate the impact this explosive geothermal activity has on the Earth’s carbon cycle (Kelley, 2017).