Debate over what influence (if any) solar variability has had on surface air temperature trends since the 19th century has been controversial. In this paper, we consider two factors which may have contributed to this controversy:
1.
Several different solar variability datasets exist. While each of these datasets is constructed on plausible grounds, they often imply contradictory estimates for the trends in solar activity since the 19th century.
2.
Although attempts have been made to account for non-climatic biases in previous estimates of surface air temperature trends, recent research by two of the authors has shown that current estimates are likely still affected by non-climatic biases, particularly urbanization bias.
With these points in mind, we first review the debate over solar variability. We summarise the points of general agreement between most groups and the aspects which still remain controversial. We discuss possible future research which may help resolve the controversy of these aspects. Then, in order to account for the problem of urbanization bias, we compile a new estimate of Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends since 1881, using records from predominantly rural stations in the monthly Global Historical Climatology Network dataset. Like previous weather station-based estimates, our new estimate suggests that surface air temperatures warmed during the 1880s–1940s and 1980s–2000s. However, this new estimate suggests these two warming periods were separated by a pronounced cooling period during the 1950s–1970s and that the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period was comparable to the recent warm period.
We then compare our weather station-based temperature trend estimate to several other independent estimates. This new record is found to be consistent with estimates of Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) trends, as well as temperature proxy-based estimates derived from glacier length records and from tree ring widths. However, the multi-model means of the recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate model hindcasts were unable to adequately reproduce the new estimate — although the modelling of certain volcanic eruptions did seem to be reasonably well reproduced.
Finally, we compare our new composite to one of the solar variability datasets not considered by the CMIP5 climate models, i.e., Scafetta and Willson, 2014’s update to the Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 dataset. A strong correlation is found between these two datasets, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.
The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is regularly presented as benefiting from a solid scientific consensus. What proves the solidity of this consensus? A scientific article, published in 2016 by Cook and colleagues, proposed a synthesis of the work: from the examination of studies available at that time, the authors showed that the consensus on the reality of climate change was shared by 90%-100% of scientific climate experts. An estimate that we find widely relayed in the media today. In 2019, Powell said he found consensus to be 100%. In this article, we propose to analyze the potential biases in the work of Cook and colleagues, in order to understand how these biases could affect the claimed level of consensus. We also deal with Powell’s recent assert of 100% consensus and enlighten potential cognitive & methodological biases in his approach.
Every IPCC report is accompanied by this kind of ritual dance. The IPCC itself declares in somewhat woolly language (because the IPCC is officially policy neutral) that it is 2 minutes to 12 after which activists, politicians and the media go wild and declare that it is already 2 minutes past 12. This time it was no different.
Now that the media hype around the report has subsided somewhat, it is time to take a calm look at some of the claims in the new IPCC report and also at what the IPCC leaves unsaid or gives less attention to in its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I made a first attempt last week in an interview in the popular Studio BLCKBX: “Alarmist IPCC report offers hope” (in Dutch but with English subtitles).
Hockey stick Back to the opening words in our national news program: “climate change is accelerating”. Most people will let these words pass almost without thinking and will assume “it must be true”. For insiders like me, however, this new conclusion in the IPCC report was downright surprising! The claim is based on a brand new hockey stick graph (the graph at the very top of this article). This graph was the opening graph in the Summary for Policy Makers. So it is a piece of evidence that the IPCC wanted to give a lot of attention. Coupled with yet another graph – with which the IPCC claims to ‘prove’ that the warming since 1850 is mainly due to greenhouse gases – the message was the following: “due to human influence (read: CO2 and other greenhouse gases), the earth has warmed at a rate unprecedented in the last 2000 years”.
Without exaggeration, I would not be writing this article now if, way back in 2004, when I worked at the popular science monthly Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, I had not been asked by my chief editor to write an article about “a hockey stick graph”. It became the beginning of a two-month quest that ended with a long article (English version here) in which the hockey stick graph in the third IPCC report in 2001 was smashed to smithereens by two Canadian researchers (Stephen McInytre and Ross McKitrick). This experience and especially the reactions to it from the field (the unwillingness to acknowledge the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick) triggered me to start investigating more climate claims, which eventually led to the publication of my book (in Dutch) De Staat van het Klimaat.
The controversy surrounding the hockey stick, especially to be found on Stephen McIntyre’s blog climateaudit.org was a central theme in the climate debate for years. It was ultimately also the cause of climategate, an affair in which thousands of e-mails from prominent IPCC authors were hacked and put online. The emails were examined by various committees of enquiry but were ultimately dismissed as a storm in a teacup. But in my book, I show that several emails do shed a very questionable light on the integrity of the IPCC authors involved.
In any case, there is even a hefty book on this matter written by Andrew Montford and it would be going too far to go into it all again. After climategate, all those closely involved became fed up with the subject. And in the fourth (2007) and fifth (2013) IPCC reports, the IPCC did not publish a prominent hockey stick either. But lo and behold, in the sixth IPCC report the hockey stick is back in all its glory. Or as McInytre puts it: “the IPCC is addicted to hockey sticks”.
Where does this attraction to the hockey stick come from? A long time ago, in 1995, a climate researcher once wrote: we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. There is much historical evidence that around the year 1000 it was also warm on Earth. The Vikings went to Greenland, called it Greenland (and not e.g. Iceland), farmed there and managed to survive for several centuries. This kind of information is unwelcome (for the IPCC) because this warm period suggests that even without CO2 emissions it was warm on Earth in the recent past. How warm exactly? Warmer than now? And if so, what caused the warming? There is no simple answer to these questions, but with the introduction of hockey sticks the IPCC suggests there is. Take a closer look.
The 30-60N latitude band gets lots of attention in paleoclimate collections – probably more proxies than the rest of the world combined. The 30-60S latitude band is exactly the same size, but it is little studied. It is the world of the Roaring Forties and Furious Fifties, a world that is almost entirely ocean. The only land is New Zealand, Tasmania and the southern coast of Australia facing Antarctica, the tip of South Africa and the narrow part of South America: southern Chile and Argentina. But 96% or so is ocean.
…
…
Conclusion
Given that the 60-30S latband is almost entirely ocean, it seems logical that IPCC and PAGES2K should use data from ocean proxies to estimate past temperature in this latitude band. But this isn’t what they’ve done. Instead, they’ve purported to estimate past temperature from a few scattered tree ring chronologies, only one of which reaches earlier than AD1850; and an idiosyncratic singleton pigment series. Ironically, the only 30-60S proxy series in PAGES 2019 that reaches back into the first millennium – the Mount Read, Tasmania tree ring series – was used by Mann et al 1998-1999, Jones et al 1998 and numerous other supposedly “independent” multiproxy studies. Neither of the two series reaching back to the medieval period permit the conclusion that modern period is warmer than medieval period. Caveat: I’m not saying that it isn’t; only that this data doesn’t show it, let alone support the big-bladed HS cited by IPCC. High-resolution alkenone measurements from ocean cores offshore Chile show a consistent decrease in ocean temperatures over the past two millennia that is neither reported nor discussed by IPCC (or PAGES 2019).
To be clear, some of the technical articles on 30-60S ocean core proxies by specialist authors are truly excellent and far more magisterial than the IPCC mustered, in particular, several articles on offshore Chile. Here are a few:
Mohtadi et al, 2007. Cooling of the southern high latitudes during the Medieval Period
and its effect on ENSO link
Killian and Lamy 2012. A review of Glacial and Holocene paleoclimate records from southernmost Patagonia (49-55degS) link
Collins et al 2019. Centennial‐Scale SE Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Variability Over the Past 2,300 Years link
Les températures extrêmes observées en juin 2021 en Colombie britannique et dans le Nord-Ouest américain s’expliquent quantitativement et de manière classique par le gradient vertical de 9,8 K/km de l’adiabatique sèche, associé à une baisse d’altitude de 2 km, par l’intermédiaire d’un phénomène de foehn autocatalytique.Les concepts de « dôme de chaleur » et de Global Warming ne sont donc d’aucune utilité pour interpréter les observations.
De manière plus générale, le phénomène de foehn peut être déclenché par la présence de hautes pressions dans le voisinage d’une chaîne de montagnes. La chaîne des Montagnes Rocheuses est particulièrement sujette à ces phénomènes depuis la Colombie britannique jusqu’à la Californie, mais elle est loin d’être la seule, comme le montre le Tableau 13. Le vent de foehn chaud et sec favorise également les incendies de forêts.
La genèse des hautes pressions peut résulter du passage d’ondes planétaires, mais également du passage d’AMP en provenance du vortex polaire. Ce dernier est particulièrement renforcé lorsque le vent solaire – ou l’activité aurorale qui lui est équivalente – faiblit, comme c’est le cas entre la fin d’un cycle solaire et la montée de l’activité du cycle suivant (Schlamminger 1990). Ceci explique pourquoi les hautes pressions et les vagues de froid sont particulièrement intenses au début du cycle solaire, comme déjà observé entre 2009 et 2013, et comme attendu entre 2019 et 2023. Il est donc probable que les phénomènes extrêmes et les incendies de forêts se poursuivront dans les 2 ou 3 années qui viennent.
Enfin, les différents phénomènes physiques évoqués se situent non pas dans un contexte de réchauffement, mais bien dans un contexte de refroidissement global qui a démarré avec le 21ème siècle (van Vliet 2020) et que le printemps froid et l’été pluvieux de 2021 rendent particulièrement visible en Belgique, en France, en Angleterre et en Allemagne.
Dans cet article, une analyse quantitative simple nous a conduit à la conclusion que les températures extrêmes et les feux de forêt sont d’origine naturelle : l’homme n’y est donc pour rien, sauf pour la gestion de la couverture végétale et … l’allumage. Il est faux de juger l’homme coupable comme le font systématiquement l’ONU et le GIEC.
Oser prétendre que la transition énergétique améliorera cette situation relève d’une alliance contre nature entre le monde politique, le marketing insensé des énergies renouvelables et la propagande écologiste.
A new study suggests British Columbia (Canada) relative sea levels remained 10 meters higher than they are today until they fell to their present levels in the last ~1800 years. Two other new studies suggest sea levels were still 0.8 to 1 meter higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period.
After the peak of the last glacial about 20,000 years ago, relative sea levels subsequently rose from 120 meters below modern sea levels to heights of 90 meters above today’s by ~14,500 years ago in the Douglas Channel near British Columbia, Canada (Letham et al., 2021).
Sea levels proceeded to fall 75 to 80 meters over the next 3000 years, or about -2.5 meters per century (-25 mm/yr), and then they remained 10-15 m above present for the next ~9000 years.
“We determine that central Douglas Channel was ice-free following the Last Glacial Maximum by ∼14,500 BP and RSL was at least 90 m higher than today. Isostatic rebound caused RSL to fall to 21 m asl by 11,500 BP, though there may have been a glacial re-advance that would have paused RSL fall around the beginning of the Younger Dryas. RSL fell to 10–15 m asl by 10,000 BP, and continued to drop at a slower rate towards its current position, which it reached by ∼1800 years ago.”
A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance (TSI).
A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change over the last 150 years.
It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA).
The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.
The researchers compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC.
They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.
…
…
Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES):
“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”
by P. Homewood, Aug 16, 2021 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.
The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”
But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.
Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC “premature,” the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”
Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.
“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.
“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.
The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed.
According to the latest IPCC Assessment Report 6 (AR6), the observed temperature increase and the calculated temperature increase according to climate models have been almost the same 1.3 °C from 1750 to 2020. The report shows a strong positive trend in solar shortwave radiation from 9/2000 to 6/2017, but its impact has been omitted in post-2000 warming calculations which explains the high temperatures since El Nino of 2015-2016.
For example, the temperature effect in 2019 is about 0.7 °C according to the AR6 science. Actually, the IPCC models give a 2019 temperature increase of 2.0°C (1.3°C + 0.7°C). This 54 percent error is due to the positive water feedback applied in climate models, which doubles the impact of other climate forcings and which, according to this natural experiment by climate, does not exist.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 32% since 1750. According to the AR6, this is only due to man-made anthropogenic emissions staying there (remain, accumulate) by an average of 44% per year and the rest has been absorbed by oceans and vegetation.
Approximately 25% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide changes annually from the oceans and vegetation. As a result, less than 6% of the initial amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains after 10 years, and therefore the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot be entirely anthropogenic origin with a permille value of -28%. The IPCC remains silent on permille values, as in the AR6 there is no word “permille”, which is a measure of the ratio of carbon isotopes and it has been used to analyze the origin of carbon dioxide, suitable for validating carbon cycle models.
Cover-up
The cover-up of this issue continues with the anthropogenic carbon dioxide lifetime in the atmosphere, which is now vaguely from hundreds of years to thousands of years. The removal rate of radioactive carbon from the atmosphere (a perfect tracer test for anthropogenic carbon dioxide) after 1964 is only 64 years. The recovery time of the total atmospheric amount of carbon dioxide to the level of 1750 can be estimated to be similar to that of its accumulation period, i.e. just under 300 years.
The AR6 report no longer shows the IPCC’s very own definition of the greenhouse effect, except in the glossary. The definition no longer contains the description for how greenhouse gas absorption of 158 Wm-2, which causes the greenhouse effect, creates downward infrared radiation downwards on the ground of 342 Wm-2. This is against fundamental physical laws because energy comes from nothing. The radiation to the surface consists of four energy fluxes, which according to the IPCC’s energy balance are: greenhouse gas absorption of 158 Wm-2, latent water heat 82 Wm-2, sensible heat (warm air) 21 Wm-2, and solar radiation absorption in the atmosphere 80 Wm-2. The three firstly mentioned energy fluxes totaling 261 Wm-2 maintain the greenhouse effect.
by P. Homewood, Aug 19, 2021 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
…
…
McIntyre is promptly on the job again. Here is his post of August 11, basically dismantling the new Hockey Stick. If you have a taste for a lot of technical detail, I urge you to read the whole thing. But the gist is actually simple. This time these people were not going to get caught furtively “hiding the decline.” Instead, they announce boldly that they are simply going to exclude any data that do not fit the narrative that they are putting forth.
McIntyre goes through multiple of the data series that contribute to the “shaft” of the new stick. Most just appear to be random fluctuations up and down. But then there are the few key series that show the sharp 20th-century uptick needed to support the Hockey Stick narrative. One such series is the McKenzie Delta tree ring series from Porter, et al., of 2013. McIntyre goes back to that Porter article and quotes the passage that describes how the researchers chose those trees that would contribute to the series:
The PETM or Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was a warm period that began between 56.3 and 55.9 Ma (million years ago). The IPCC AR6 report (actually a draft, not a final edited report), released to the public on August 9, 2021, suggests that this warm period is similar to what is happening today and they expect to happen in the future (IPCC, 2021, pp. 2-82 & 5-14). During the PETM, it was very warm and average global surface temperatures probably peaked between 25.5°C and 26°C briefly, compared to a global surface temperature average of about 14.5°C today, as shown in Figure 1.
….
oday we have tens of thousands of daily temperature measurements around the world and can calculate a fairly accurate global average surface temperature. To construct a global average for the PETM we must rely on proxy temperatures, such as oxygen isotope ratios, Calcium/Magnesium ratios in fossil shells, and fossil membrane lipids that are sensitive to temperature like Tex86. Proxy temperature values are sparsely located and have a temporal resolution, 56 Ma, of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Thus, in terms of rate of temperature change, they are not comparable to today’s monthly global averages.
Before diving into the PETM, we will provide some geological perspective. According to Christopher Scotese, the highest global average temperature in the Phanerozoic (the age of complex shelled organisms, or the past 550 million years) was the Triassic hothouse event, following the end of the Karoo Ice Age, around 250-300 Ma. Global average surface temperatures peaked then at about 27.9°C.
Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. This new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they assessed the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.
A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.
The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solarphysics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.
Scientists come to opposite conclusions recent climate change causes
The researchers compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.
One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.
My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years. Wherever you begin in the Optimal Fingerprinting literature (example), all paths lead back to AT99, often via Allen and Stott (2003). So its errors and deficiencies matter acutely.
Two new peer-reviewed papers from independent teams confirm that climate models overstate atmospheric warming and the problem has gotten worse over time, not better. The papers are Mitchell et al. (2020) “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” Environmental Research Letters, and McKitrick and Christy (2020) “Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” Earth and Space Science. John and I didn’t know about the Mitchell team’s work until after their paper came out, and they likewise didn’t know about ours.
Mitchell et al. look at the surface, troposphere and stratosphere over the tropics (20N to 20S). John and I look at the tropical and global lower- and mid- troposphere. Both papers test large samples of the latest generation (“Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 6” or CMIP6) climate models, i.e. the ones being used for the next IPCC report, and compare model outputs to post-1979 observations. John and I were able to examine 38 models while Mitchell et al. looked at 48 models. The sheer number makes one wonder why so many are needed, if the science is settled. Both papers looked at “hindcasts,” which are reconstructions of recent historical temperatures in response to observed greenhouse gas emissions and other changes (e.g. aerosols and solar forcing). Across the two papers it emerges that the models overshoot historical warming from the near-surface through the upper troposphere, in the tropics and globally.
A new study by Atwood et al (2021) published in the journal of Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology found there’s “poor agreement” between precipitation reconstructions and model simulations over the past 2000 years. This means future projections made by current models are unreliable.
…
Models and reconstructions don’t agree
These comprehensive reconstructions show that from 800 to 1000 CE there was a pronounced drying event relative from the eastern Pacific and parts of Mesoamerica.
Also the period “1400–1700 CE is marked by pronounced hydroclimate changes across the tropics, including dry and/or isotopically enriched conditions in South and East Asia, wet and/or isotopically depleted conditions in the central Andes and southern Amazon in South America, and fresher and/or isotopically depleted conditions in the Maritime Continent.”
The study’s abstract also notes how there’s a glaring disagreement between the simulations done by models and what the reconstructions show: “We find notable dissimilarities between the regional hydroclimate changes and global-scale and hemispheric-scale temperature reconstructions, indicating that more work needs to be done to understand the mechanisms of the widespread tropical hydroclimate changes during the LIA.”
by F. Menton, Aug 16, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch
What with the ongoing catastrophe in Afghanistan and the earthquake in Haiti, among other news, you may have failed to notice that the UN IPCC came out on Monday with substantial parts of its long-awaited Sixth Assessment Report on the state of the world’s climate.
This is the first such assessment issued by the IPCC since 2014. The most important piece is the so-called “Summary for Policymakers,” (SPM), a 41-page section that is the only part that anyone ever reads.
The IPCC attempts to cloak itself in the mantle of “science,” but its real mission is to attempt to scare the bejeezus out of everyone to get the world to cede more power to the UN.
Beginning with its Third Assessment Report in 2001, the lead technician for the IPCC to generate fear has been the iconic “hockey stick” graph, supposedly showing that world temperatures have suddenly shot up dramatically in the last 100 or so years, purportedly due to human influences.
The 2001 Third Assessment Report thus prominently featured the famous Hockey Stick graph, derived from the work of Michael Mann and other authors. Here is that graph from the 2001 Report:
…
…
McIntyre comments:
They took “hide the decline” to extremes that had never been contemplated by prior practitioners of this dark art. Rather than hiding the decline in the final product, they did so for individual trees: as explained in the underlying article, they excluded the “divergent portions” of individual trees that had the temerity to have decreasing growth in recent years. Even Briffa would never have contemplated such woke radical measures.
Decide on your desired conclusion and then just exclude any data that refuses to go along. This is the “science” on which our world leaders are off spending multiple trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Just two years ago, many of Germany’s mainstream media outlets declared sea ice at the South Pole was melting at an “astonishing” rate. For example, the left of center, Munich based Süddeutsche Zeitung,
German national daily Süddeutsche Zeitung (above) reported in June, 2019, that Antarctic sea ice had “shrunk 1.8 million square kilometers”, writing: “the massive disappearance of ice is astonishing”.
But many readers here, who are aware of the real data, know nothing of the sort over the long term has happened since satellite measurements began over 40 years ago.
Massive sea ice rebound goes unreported
Today, two years later, German climate science site Die kalte Sonne looks at recent sea ice developments in Antarctica – noting that the climate-ambulance chasing mainstream media like the Süddeutsche Zeitung have since mysteriously stopped reporting on Antarctica. Here’s why:
by Dr H. Masson, Aug 16, 2021 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Introduction
This note is a reaction to the reintroduction by IPCC in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) of AR6 of a hockey stick curve, initially introduced by Michael Mann in AR4, and that disappeared in AR5, after the devasting analysis made by Mc Intyre and Mc Kritick, showing the methodological flaws made by Michael Mann. This new curve does not seem to appear in the extended report AR6, inducing some doubt about its scientific meaning, but at the same time underlying the political use IPCC intends to make of it, as a weapon of mass manipulation aimed to alert the media and afraid people.
All this justifies some deeper insight in the methodologies used by IPCC to generate this figure.
…
…
Conclusion
The hockey stick graph given in fig 6, which is supposed to be a reliable image of the “raw data” presented in fig 2, is a “fake” and results from misuse of data mining techniques, based on fairy hypotheses that cannot longer be accepted. As an exercise in critical thinking, the reader is invited to find the intentional methodological bugs introduced in this parodic note.
Il fallait faire fort et ils l’ont fait : la toute première figure du résumé pour décideurs (SPM) du dernier rapport du GIEC (l’AR6), reproduite ci-dessous (Figure 1), est une véritable cerise sur leur gâteau catastrophiste. La courbe est destinée à faire peur au public, par exemple aux étudiants qui ne connaissent rien (ou très peu) de la science climatique (démonstration ici) et qui ont déjà décidé de faire grève en début d’année scolaire. Elle est également destinée aux décideurs trop occupés à leurs affaires politiques pour pouvoir se permettre d’analyser la courbe en profondeur. N’oubliez pas que le Royaume-Uni accueillera la 26eConférence des Parties des Nations unies sur le changement climatique (COP26) à Glasgow du 1er au 12 novembre 2021. Le SPM tombe donc à pic pour influencer les décideurs qui devront voter.
….
…
Conclusions
En comparant des pommes et des poires (raison n°1), en effaçant des chapitres entiers des livres d’histoire (raison n°2) et en jouant sur l’échelle du graphique (raison n°3), la Figure SPM.1 du GIEC remplit parfaitement son rôle : faire peur aux gens qui ne prennent pas le temps de réfléchir. Et cela marche, les manifestations ne font que commencer. Bravo le GIEC!
Mais ce super tour de passe-passe, ne suggère-t-il pas que le GIEC a perdu les pédales, est à bout de souffle et ne sait plus quoi inventer pour sortir de l’impasse? S’agirait-il d’une première forme de ‘suicide scientifique’? Espérons quand même que de nombreux scientifiques ne seront pas dupes, sinon il y a vraiment de quoi désespérer.
En ce lundi 9 août 2021, le dernier rapport du groupe I du GIEC, l’AR6, est enfin disponible sur le site internet de l’organisation internationale (ici). Il s’intitule : « Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis » et est, bien entendu, hyper alarmiste, du moins dans son résumé pour décideurs (SPM). Ne manquez pas de lire la présentation de ce nouveau rapport par le GIEC lui-même.
L’arrivée de ce nouveau bébé a été célébrée en grande pompe par tous les médias, comme par exemple le site alarmiste RTL-info, qui a réussi à publier 8 articles différents sur le sujet en une seule journée[1]. Ces articles comprennent bien entendu une interview de J.P. Van Yperseleet de Greta Thunberg. L’alarmisme climatique ferait-il grimper les recettes publicitaires?
Ce nouveau rapport AR6 sera bien entendu analysé en détail par l’équipe SCE et nous ne manquerons pas de vous faire part de nos observations. Nous vous proposons déjà deux remarques importantes.
Remarque 1.
Le nouveau rapport du GIEC (AR6) fait 3949 pages (et la majorité des figures ne sont pas encore disponibles). Si vous lisez 10 à 11 pages par jour vous mettrez exactement un an pour le finir. Il faut bien entendu avoir une certaine base scientifique et savoir lire l’anglais sinon vous aurez beaucoup de mal à comprendre quoi que ce soit… Qui va donc lire ce rapport dans son entièreté? Très peu de monde, et certainement pas les décideurs qui n’ont généralement pas le temps. Un résumé de 41 pages (le SPM) leur est donc destiné. Toutes les nuances et les incertitudes du rapport de 3949 pages seront donc gommées dans le résumé de 41 pages, comme nous vous l’avions démontré pour l’AR5 (ici).
by P. Homewood, Aug 16, 2021 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
….
That there has been 1.1°C of warming since 1850 is not especially controversial. There is some disagreement about the degree to which it reflects the “recovery” from the mini-Ice Age (when there were Ice Fairs on the Thames among other events not seen today) and the effects of increased CO2 emissions.
The controversial part is the removal of temperature oscillations commonly thought to have occurred over the course of the past 2,000 years. These include warming that was known to have occurred in Roman times and again in the tenth century when the Vikings colonised Greenland until 1250, and the cold period 1400-1700. Such events are downgraded as being either exaggerated or localised.
The earlier iteration of the IPCC 2021 picture was the notorious hockey stick fabrication by Michael Mann. Mann cherry-picked data from tree rings and spliced together incongruent data sources, and reported his “findings” in a 1998 paper. Like the latest IPCC report, this showed a flat temperature trend until the 20th Century, then a sharp rise.
The IPCC in its 2001 report used Mann’s graph as its poster child to substantiate human-induced global warming. In the years after 2001 the IPCC quietly dropped Mann’s “hockey stick”. Its discreditating was completed by 2009 release of confidential emails (dubbed “Climategate”), which showed Michael Mann as the conductor of other climate scientists seeing a need to eradicate the “medieval warming period” in order to make the case that the modern warming is unique.
The chicanery under which this strategy was conducted resulted in legal cases. Canadian scientist Tim Ball called Mann a fraud, Mann sued and the subsequent court case lasted a decade before finding against Mann. (Mann has managed to string out another case that he brought against Mark Steyn for even longer).
But in the 2021 climate review the “hockey stick” is again the main feature.
Last week, a group of scientists sent shockwaves through the climate science community. They boldly pointed out that current climate models exaggerate greenhouse warming.
In other words, they confirmed what climate skeptics have been arguing all along: that most computer climate models forecast unrealistic warming — warming not observed anywhere in the real world.
Could this be a turning point for climate science? Has the hitherto staunch resistance to any kind of scrutiny regarding the dangerous warming narrative come to an end?
Scientific Method
Science is not a body of facts. It is a method of finding facts — a method that is inherently skeptical. Not cynically skeptical, but humbly skeptical.
It insists, as the motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba, roughly translated “take nobody’s word for it,” that a scientist’s every claim be tested — over and over and over.
Thus, as the philosopher of science Robert K. Merton put it in 1938, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
A scientific hypothesis is carefully studied and checked against the available evidence. The process of establishing a scientific truth involves the scientific community’s continuous effort to falsify it until so many such efforts have failed that the community provisionally accepts it — with emphasis on provisionally.
In the age of celebrity culture, though, people easily assume that theories celebrated scientists — or large numbers of scientists, or scientists associated with government authorities — embrace are above challenge.
Even the most celebrated scientists have been wrong. As EarthSky editor Deborah Byrd notes,
Einstein’s [General] Theory of Relativity implied that the universe must either be expanding or contracting. But Einstein himself rejected this notion in favor of the accepted idea that the universe was stationary and had always existed. When [Edwin] Hubble presented his evidence [the red shift] of the expansion of the universe, Einstein embraced the idea. He called his adherence to the old idea “my greatest blunder.”
It is now understood that the universe is constantly expanding.
Today, climate science finds itself in turmoil. Theories of catastrophic global warming driven by carbon dioxide emissions have long escaped careful scrutiny — just as the theories of acid-caused ulcers and stable continents long did.
The IPCC are still ignoring the influences of the sun, even in 2021. Their latest report pays it such little mind that it may as well not be there — and soon, I wouldn’t put it past these jokers to completely deny its existence.
They do have a section called “solar forcing” in the report, but this feels more of a placating inclusion rather than a genuine scientific inquiry. It appears to only get a mention so it can be immediately dismissed — but such lip service is often all it takes to fool the unthinkers into believing a topic has been covered, when in fact it most certainly has not.
As with their previous reports, when it comes to the sun, the IPCC’s focus is on “irradiance“.
This is an intentionally narrow-minded stance which excludes ALL secondary forcings, which are plentiful.
The IPCC purposefully ignore the global electric circuit; they fail to mention earth’s waning magnetic field; they don’t touch on auroras (i.e. solar wind/flares/CMES) which have been found to heat the planet; and they sidestep the influx of cosmic rays during times of low solar activity, which have been found to nucleate clouds (global cooling) AND heat the muons in the subsurface (volcanic and seismic uptick, with the former also leading to cooling).
The new IPCC report: climate change 2021 – widespread, rapid, worsening climate change
The new IPCC 6th Assessment Report published on Monday, August 9th, makes a clear statement in the title of its “Summary for Policymakers”: Climate change is continuing to spread rapidly at an accelerated pace.
What are the main changes compared to the 5th Assessment Report of 2013?
1. Global warming from 1850 to the present is reported to have been 1.07 °C. The warming from 2011 to 2020 increased by 0.19°C since the last reporting period from 2003 to 2012.
2. There are new models (CMIP6), but some of them produced completely implausible results (Science, Paul Voosen: U.N. Climate Panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming). Since CO2’s influence was assumed to be too strong, the backward modelling of the temperature development of the last millennia of some models led to unrealistically cold temperatures. Looking into the future, many models ran too hot. Even Gavin Schmidt of the NASA GISS Institute, who is close to the IPCC, stated: “insanely scary – and wrong”.
As a result, the models relied on by the IPCC were constrained. Nevertheless, the holy grail of climate research, the climate sensitivity ECS (temperature increase with doubling of CO2) was raised. Until now, the IPCC calculated a temperature increase range of 1.5° to 4.5° Celsius with a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm (1850) to 560 ppm in the future. Against the background of the new models, the IPCC now gives a temperature range of 2° to 5°C, with a narrower confidence interval of 2.5°C to 4°C. They even venture so far as to assign a mean value for climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
Entire Holocene warmth gets airbrushed
3. Surprisingly, the IPCC has deleted the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 900 to 1200 from the climate report and thus from humanity’s climate memory. The first graph in the report, SPM.1, shows the temperature curve for the last 2000 years. From year 1 onwards, the curve shows a steadily decreasing trend until 1850, after which the temperature rises sharply until today. A new hockey stick has been created. So the IPCC can claim that it has never been as warm as it is today for 125,000 years.
Numerous scientific publications (I was involved in five of them) document that the Medieval Warm Period was about as warm as today (as described in the 5th State of the Climate Report).
But now even the period of 6500 to 8500 years ago is also rewritten as cold. That was the time when hippos roamed the Sahara and shortly afterwards, Ötzi wandered over the Ötztal Alps. Dozens of publications had proven that the temperatures at that time were 3 degrees higher than today. All no longer true. (see “Unwanted truths”, p.34 to p.54). In the last IPCC report of 2013 it was still stated: “On a continental scale, temperature reconstructions of the medieval climate anomaly (years 950 to 1250 show with high confidence intervals of decades that were as warm in some regions as in the late 20th century.
…
…
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse
