Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

Two Dozen Top Scientists: IPCC “Premature” Blaming CO2 Emissions…Warming Mostly From Natural Cycles

by P. Gosselin, Aug 18, 2021 in NoTricksZone


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 solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal  (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.

The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed

by R. McKitrick, Aug 18, 2021 in ClimateEtc.


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.

The abstract of my paper reads as follows:

New Confirmation that Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming

by R. McKitrick, Aug 17, 2021 in ClimateEtc


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.

New Study: 2000-Year Precipitation Reconstructions Expose Climate Models Still Of Junk Grade

by Atwood et al., Aug 18, 2021 in NoTricksZone


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.”

Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery Surprises Scientists… Classic Disinformation Technique Of Not Reporting

by P. Gosselin, Aug 15, 2021 in NoTricksZone


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:

How to build your hockey stick graph

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.

La cerise catastrophiste du GIEC

by ScienceClimatEnergie, 13 août 2021


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.

The UN IPCC buries two millennia of fluctuating temperatures

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.

Climate Scientists Admit Climate Models Exaggerated Warming

by V. Jayaraj & E.C. Beisner, Aug 12, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


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.

Yet even theories universally embraced (for example, that continents don’t move, or that all ulcers are caused by excess stomach acid arising from too-acidic foods or anxiety) are not immune from new challenges or improvements and have been discarded.

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.

Climate Scientists: Yes, the Models are Wrong

….

THE IPCC’S LATEST CLIMATE REPORT IS ANTISCIENCE AND ANTIHUMAN — REJECT IT

by Cap Allon, Aug 12, 2021 in Electroverse


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).

Here We Go Again: UN Climate Panel Continues Decades-Long Climate Fear Porn Tradition

by J. Vazquez, Aug 9, 2021 in mrcNewsBusters


Run for cover! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is warning that we only have a few years to save the planet — a nugget of fear porn the United Nations and the media have been peddling for decades.

Liberal outlet The Guardian ran a climate propaganda story headlined “Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet.” The outlet took a nosedive into absurdity by blaming humanity for “climate crimes”: “IPCC’s verdict on climate crimes of humanity: guilty as hell.” The outlet took the IPCC report and screeched that unless “rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade” are initiated, temperatures would rise by “more than” 1.5 degrees Celsius “above pre-industrial levels,” bringing a “climate breakdown” of “widespread devastation and extreme weather.” President of the 2021 U.N. Climate Change Conference Alok Sharma fearmongered that failing to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “‘catastrophic.'” [Emphasis added.]

The IPCC’s latest scare tactics reflect the words of University of Southampton Professor emeritus John Brignell, as reported by Climate Depot: “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.”

Hoover Institution visiting fellow Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out on Twitter, “UN routinely warns us that we have just a few years left until catastrophe.” The U.N. has a sorry record of those predictions failing to materialize.

Does Scientific Data Show Humans, CO2, And Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming?

by J. Heller, Aug 10, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Another day, another dire warning about global warming.

The press and its taskmasters could essentially Xerox a copy of what they printed for the public in the Washington Post in 1922, or a UN report in 1989, or a UN report in 2019 for this report here:

U.N. climate report likely to deliver stark warnings on global warming

As always, journalists just print and repeat these never-ending reports to scare the public into submission with no questions asked.

For decades, journalists, educators, scientists, bureaucrats, and other Democrats have colluded to spread these dire warnings, (misinformation) without scientific evidence, to scare and control the public.

We are repeatedly have been told that we only have a few years left to solve the problem.

The end date always evolves. No matter how wrong these dire predictions are they just repeat them and say the science is settled to cut off debate. Why are people who are always so wrong considered experts?

Many CEOs, Republicans, and others repeat the same claims without evidence because it is so much more pleasant to go along instead of being called anti-science, or worse still, “deniers.”

In D.C., and throughout the country, politicians are using these dire forecasts to pass policies to destroy thousands of industries and millions of jobs.

Joe Biden and his administration have been in office for seven months and are working as fast as they can to remake and destroy America.

He has signed executive orders to stop a pipeline, stop drilling and force people to buy vehicles powered by the poisonous, very combustible pollutant Lithium. These anti-oil policies greatly harm the poor, middle class, and small businesses with higher prices.

The Biden administration has rejoined the Paris climate accord where politicians and bureaucrats from around the world pretend they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if thousands of industries are destroyed and we hand them trillions of our hard-earned dollars.

Does anyone really believe that Iran, Russia, and other major oil-producing countries will give up oil? Isn’t it important that Biden let a pipeline proceed from Russia to Germany while stopping the pipeline from Canada to the United States?

Does anyone believe that China cares about its carbon footprint as it continues to build a large number of coal power plants? Here’s what’s going on in China:

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree

As the Biden administration works so hard to destroy industries, I have not seen one journalist as Biden, Harris, Kerry, Psaki, or anyone else in the administration who has been asked for evidence to support the claimed science that can justify what Biden is doing.

In a free society with independent journalists, we should see the reporters asking questions and doing research to see if what they are told is correct before they repeat talking points to the public.

Sadly, in the United States, we have seen, for decades, almost all journalists have essentially become campaign workers to elect Democrats and lobbyists to sell the radical leftist policies to the public.

Media outlets, especially the social media giants, work very hard to stifle debate and silence anyone who disagrees by repeating the talking points that we are anti-science and climate change deniers who should not be listened to.

It is an outright lie to call people who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and natural climate-change deniers. I have never seen anyone deny that the climate changes.

Inside The Acceleration Factory

by W. Eschenbach, Aug 11, 2021 in WUWT


Nerem and Fasullo have a new paper called OBSERVATIONS OF THE RATE AND ACCELERATION OF GLOBAL MEAN SEA LEVEL CHANGE, available here. In it, we find the following statement:

Both tide gauge sea level reconstructions and satellite altimetry show that the current rate of global mean sea level change is about 3 mm yr–1, and both show that this rate is accelerating.

So the claim is that tide gauges show acceleration. Let’s start with a look at the Church and White (hereinafter C&W) estimate of sea level from tide gauges around the world, which is the one used in the Nerem and Fasullo paper. The C&W paper is here.

How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality

by R. Pielke Jr & J. Ritchie, Aug, 4, 2021 in CO2Coalition


A failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future.

The integrity of science depends on its capacity to provide an ever more reliable picture of how the world works. Over the past decade or so, serious threats to this integrity have come to light. The expectation that science is inherently self-correcting, and that it moves cumulatively and progressively away from false beliefs and toward truth, has been challenged in numerous fields—including cancer research, neuroscience, hydrology, cosmology, and economics—as observers discover that many published findings are of poor quality, subject to systemic biases, or irreproducible.

In a particularly troubling example from the biomedical sciences, a 2015 literature review found that almost 900 peer-reviewed publications reporting studies of a supposed breast cancer cell line were in fact based on a misidentified skin cancer line. Worse still, nearly 250 of these studies were published even after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified in 2007. Our cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that researchers are still using the skin cancer cell line in breast cancer studies published in 2021. All of these erroneous studies remain in the literature and will continue to be a source of misinformation for scientists working on breast cancer.

In 2021, climate research finds itself in a situation similar to breast cancer research in 2007. Our research (and that of several colleagues) indicates that the scenarios of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the end of the twenty-first century are grounded in outdated portrayals of the recent past. Because climate models depend on these scenarios to project the future behavior of the climate, the outdated scenarios provide a misleading basis both for developing a scientific evidence base and for informing climate policy discussions. The continuing misuse of scenarios in climate research has become pervasive and consequential—so much so that we view it as one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the twenty-first century thus far. We need a course correction.

In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense. However, the reality and importance of climate change does not provide a rationale or excuse for avoiding questions of research integrity any more than does the reality and importance of breast cancer. To the contrary, urgency makes attention to integrity that much more important.

Scenarios and baselines

Pielke Jr. on AR6

by Pielke Jr. , Aug 9, 2021 in WUWT


IPCC AR6 WG1
Some initial comments
Think of these as working notes
Comments welcomed
Let’s go . . .

Let’s start with scenarios

This is rather huge
“In general, no likelihood is attached to the scenarios assessed in this Report”

So that means that users of the scenarios have to independently assess likelihoods

That said: “the likelihood of high emission scenarios such as RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 is considered low”

Is The Earth Actually Getting Hotter?

by V. Jayaraj, Aug 2, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


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

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

But are we really observing record hot years consecutively?

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

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

Strange Things: Readjusted Data Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In The 1970s Climate Modification Proposals Included Purposely Melting Arctic Sea Ice With Black Soot

by K. Richard, Aug 2, 2021 in NoTricksZone


In his 1975 book The Genesis Strategy, the late climate scientist Dr. Stephen Schneider reviewed contemporary climate modification proposals to reduce the severe 1960s and 1970s droughts, floods, and extreme weather…which were at that time associated with the ongoing global cooling. One proposal was to eliminate the Arctic’s sea ice by having aircraft dump black soot on the ice pack.

In 1974, Schneider reported that the Earth had warmed 0.6°C from 1880 to 1940, then cooled -0.3°C from 1940 to 1970. He suggested the warming could not have been due to human activity, but possibly the ongoing cooling might have been.

Are Climate Feedbacks Strongly Non-Linear?

by Bob Irvine, Aug 3, 2021 in WUWT


Is it possible that the Earth’s system is strongly buffered with strong positive ice and dust feedbacks prevailing at colder temperatures, and strong negative convection/evaporation feedbacks prevailing in warmer times?

Feedback Factor (FF) is defined as the total temperature change at equilibrium for a given forcing divided by the calculated “no feedback” temperature from that forcing.

The term CO2 will be used here to represent all the non-compressing GHGs. (CO2, MH4, N2O, CFCs, HCFs etc.)

China, India And 85 Nations Snub U.N. Deadline To Update CO2-Reduction Targets

by Dr. B. Peiser, Aug  2, 2021 in GWPF/ClimateChangeDispatch


In a warning shot across the bows of Joe Biden and Boris Johnson, China, India, and 85 other nations have decided to ignore a UN deadline to submit its pledges for cutting CO2 emissions in time for the UN climate summit in Glasgow later this year.

To underscore their opposition to Joe Biden’s and Boris Johnson’s Net Zero agenda, India has snubbed the UK’s climate meeting last week while China is rolling back its climate policies in an attempt to prop up its economy.

Meanwhile, South Africa has demanded that developed countries should set a target of $750 billion a year to help poorer nations transition to renewable energy.

The latest demands and developments look increasingly like a farcical repeat of the fiasco of the Copenhagen climate summit (COP15) in 2009.

As seasoned COP observers remember, after two weeks of deadlocked negotiations in Denmark’s capital, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the so-called BRICS nations) took charge of the climate summit which was on the brink of disaster and drafted the final communique behind closed doors.

A humiliated US President Obama had to gatecrash the meeting while the entire EU was excluded from the meeting and the final statement.

In many ways, Copenhagen’s diplomatic and political fiasco was a historical watershed that marked the turning point when 500 years of Western dominance was symbolically terminated by China and India.

If Boris and Biden are not very careful, they may face a very similar situation in Glasgow. If push comes to shove there is a pretty good chance that China and India (together with a number of emerging nations) could take over a deadlocked COP yet again and draft an agreement that suits them and humiliates the US, UK, and the EU.

There is, of course, one shrewd game plan to avoid a Copenhagen-type fiasco: Boris Johnson could simply pull the plug on current summit plans, turn COP26 into a virtual conference, and blame Covid for the failure to achieve a breakthrough.

After all, Boris has developed a habit of kicking irreconcilable issues into the long grass … just saying.

The New Pause lengthens again

by C. Monckton of Brenchley, Aug 3 2021 in WUWT


The New Pause has lengthened by another two months. Even though the brief la Niña that began in late 2020 has now ended, on the UAH dataset there has been no global warming for 6 years 6 months till July 2021. As always, the Pause is calculated as the longest period ending in the present that shows no warming trend, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies for the lower troposphere:

….

Record Coral Cover Of Great Barrier Reef Shames Climate Alarmists, Media

by P. Ridd, July 23, 2021 in WUWT


The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels.

Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.

Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years, and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.

This data is good news. It could hardly be better. But somehow, our science organizations have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. How has this happened?

“SNOWSTORM IN AFRICA!” — SOUTH AFRICA SMASHES *AN ADDITIONAL* 19 ALL-TIME LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS OVER THE PAST 24 HOURS

by Cap Allon, July 24, 2021 in Electroverse


Following on from the record-smashing cold that infected Southern Africa on Thursday, the SA Weather Service (SAWS) has confirmed that a further 19 low temperature records were broken in the past 24 hours alone.

The service had warned that the country to brace for the coldest night of the year; however, it turned out to be the coldest night in recorded history for many locales, with records set 20, 40 and even 60+ years ago falling by the wayside.

Below I’ve compiled a few of the fallen records:

Kroonstad logged a bone-chilling -8C (17.6F), toppling the city’s previous record of -7.7C (18.1F) set in 1990.

Warden’s all-time low from 1989 was beaten by 0.4C, and now stands at -6.7C (19.9F).

In Kimberly, a historic -9.9C (14.2F) was recorded.

Warmbad Towoomba’s 5.6C (21.9F) busted the previous low of -5.5C (22.1F) from 1964 (solar minimum of cycle 19).

While in Johannesburg, a reading of -7C (19.4F) smashed the old record of -6.3C (20.7F) set in 1995 (solar minimum of cycle 23).

New Study On Heavy Rainfall: “General Long-Term Trend For Whole Germany Consistently Not Evident”

by P. Gosselin, July 25, 2021 in NoTricksZone


We hear the message all the time from the German mainstream media and climate alarmists: Weather extremes are becoming more and more frequent, as the recent flood shows.

But a recent paper titled “Frequency Trend Analysis of Heavy Rainfall Days for Germany” by Deumer et al (2020) tells a very different story.

Hat-tip: Axel Bojanowski.

The two scientists from the renowned Leibnitz research network analyzed data and found no significant trends for the whole of Germany in terms of heavy rainfall.

The abstract:

Climate change is expected to affect the occurrence of heavy rainfall. We analyzed trends of heavy rainfall days for the last decades in Germany. For all available stations with daily data, days exceeding daily thresholds (10, 20, 30 mm) were counted annually. The Mann–Kendall trend test was applied to overlapping periods of 30 years (1951–2019). This period was extended to 1901 for 111 stations. The stations were aggregated by natural regions to assess regional patterns. Impacts of data inconsistencies on the calculated trends were evaluated with the metadata and recent hourly data. Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident. After 1951, stable positive trends occurred in the mountainous south and partly in the northern coastal region, while parts of Central Germany experienced negative trends. The frequent location shifts and the recent change in the time interval for daily rainfall could affect individual trends but were statistically insignificant for regional analyses. A case study supported that heavy rains became more erosive during the last 20 years. The results showed the merit of historical data for a better understanding of recent changes in heavy rainfall.”

Criminal Negligence? Authorities Failed To Heed Flood Warnings…”Let People Drown”…”Monumental System Failure”

by P. Gosselin, July 17, 2021 in WUWT/NTZ


Harsh criticism of German authorities failing to act is mounting in the aftermath of the recent deadly floods.

Germany’s New Orleans

Many of the over one hundred people died in the recent flood disaster in Central Western Germany could have been prevented – had the responsible institutions heeded the warnings that had been already issued days in advance by the weather services. Authorities had been warned days early, yet they did nothing to prepare to evacuate and mobilize resources. The media did nothing to warn.

Veteran meteorologist: “much could have been prevented”

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann told in a PULS 24 interview that “much of it could have been prevented” and that “people could have been warned”.

“The rainfall could not have been prevented” but the authorities and the “media could have warned the population.” The veteran Swiss meteorologist is surprised by the “surprise of the authorities” and says “people could have been evacuated or at least items moved to higher floors”.

Let people drown” as “they broadcast shit”

Kachelman also commented to Germany’s leading national dailyBild: “It hurts when the very people who would have the resources to accompany such a weather situation 24/7 do nothing to save lives. But they broadcast shit and let people drown.”

Unpreparedness becoming a German habit

Just 25 ‘mega-cities’ produce 52 per cent of the world’s urban greenhouse gas emissions — and 23 of them are in China

by I. Randall, July 12, 2021 in DailyMail


  • Researchers from Sun Yat-sen University recorded the emissions of 167 cities

  • The largest carbon emitters were found to be Asian megacities like Shanghai

  • Cities in Europe and the US emit more than those in most developing countries

  • Of 42 cities with data spanning 2012–2016, 30 showed emissions reductions

  • Yet the team warned we are not on track to meet global climate change targets

THE WORST EMITTERS

In their study, Dr Chen and colleagues looked at greenhouse gas emissions from 167 cities across 53 countries.

The worst 75 cities for total emissions were as follows (with figures in megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent):

  1. Handan, China (199.71)
  2. Shanghai, China (187.93)
  3. Suzhou, China (151.79)
  4. Dalian, China (142.51)
  5. Beijing, China (132.58)
  6. Tianjin, China (125.89)
  7. Moscow, Russia (112.53)
  8. Wuhan, China (110.86)
  9. Qingdao, China (93.56)
  10. Chongqing, China (80.58)
  11. Wuxi, China (76.88)
  12. Urumqi, China (75.32)
  13. Guangzhou, China (71.03)
  14. Huizhou, China (68.74)
  15. Shijiazhuang, China (67.80)
  16. Zhengzhou, China (66.16)
  17. Tokyo, Japan (66.08)
  18. Shengyang, China (64.10)
  19. Kaohsiung, China (63.64)
  20. Kunming, China (62.96)
  21. Shenzhen, China (62.91)
  22. Hangzhou, China (61.41)
  23. Hong Kong, China (55.90)
  24. Yinchuan, China (55.49)
  25. Chengdu , China (54.49)
  26. New York City, US (51.31)
  27. Manilla, Philippines (49.47)
  28. Bangkok, Thailand (49.22)
  29. Dubai, UAE (48.26)
  30. Seoul, Korea (48.06)
  31. Nanjing, China (47.94)
  32. Istanbul, Turkey (47.53)
  33. Frankfurt, Germany (45.73)
  34. Jakarta, Indonesia (43.86)
  35. Changchun, China (42.62)
  36. Guiyang, China (42.09)
  37. Saint Petersburg, Russia (42.07)
  38. Singapore, Singapore (40.38)
  39. Jinan, China (38.49)
  40. Perth, Australia (36.33)
  41. San Diego, USA (35.02)
  42. Jiaxing, China (33.94)
  43. London, United Kingdom (33.58)
  44. Houston, USA (33.41)
  45. Stuttgart, Germany (32.82)
  46. Caracas, Venezuela (31.77)
  47. Chicago, USA (31.48)
  48. Harbin, China (30.81)
  49. Mexico City, Mexico (30.69)
  50. Lanzhou, China (29.87)
  51. Lagos, Nigeria (29.33)
  52. Xi’an, China (28.15)
  53. Berlin, Germany (27.48)
  54. Taiyuan, China (26.73)
  55. Los Angeles, USA (26.55)
  56. Tshwane, South Africa (26.14)
  57. Nanchang, China (25.17)
  58. Sao Paulo, Brazil (24.95)
  59. Johannesburg, South Africa (24.72)
  60. Changsha, China (24.64)
  61. Hohhot, China (23.47)
  62. Durban, South Africa (22.68)
  63. Mumbai, India (22.57)
  64. Hanoi, Vietnam (22.42)
  65. Torino, Italy (21.86)
  66. Cape Town, South Africa (21.53)
  67. Yokohama, Japan (20.96)
  68. Nanning, China (20.90)
  69. Santiago, Chile (20.03)
  70. Osaka, Japan (19.76)
  71. Hamburg, Germany (19.45)
  72. Chennai, India (19.32)
  73. Hefei, China (18.81)
  74. Toronto, Canada (18.08)
  75. Rotterdam, Netherlands (17.54)