In the last 4 months, 40 more graphs taken from 30 more new peer-reviewed scientific papers have made their way into the ever-growing volume of evidence that today’s climate is not only not unprecedented or unusual in the context of the last millennium, but modern temperature values are still among the coldest of the last 10,000 years.
A number of authors, including the IPCC, have argued that climate models have systematically overstated the rate of global warming in recent decades. A recent paper by Millar et al. (2017) presented the same finding in a diagram of temperature change versus cumulative carbon emissions since 1870.
In the climate debate, though, it pays to read the small print. Official climatology does not usually admit its many errors: instead, we are ordered to obey the “consensus”, as the Party Line is these days rebranded. On reading the headlines, I suspected at once that the true purpose of the latest admission, by Millar et al. in the current issue of Nature Geo“science”, is to minimize and thus to conceal the true magnitude of past over-predictions.
L’incroyable nouvelle a été annoncée par Mathieu Vidard dans l’émission La Tête au carrésur France Inter, le 20 septembre 2017 (ici, très brièvement, à partir de 10’, il faut bien viser) :
Maintenir le réchauffement climatique en dessous de 1,5°C, c’est encore possible, c’est l’objectif qui avait été fixé par les Accords de Paris à l’issue de la COP 21. La bonne nouvelle vient d’une équipe de recherche internationale. D’après leurs analyses, l’ampleur du réchauffement climatique qui a déjà eu lieu a été surestimée et la quantité de carbone que l’humanité peut émettre à partir de 2015 en restant en-dessous de ce seuil de 1,5°C serait trois fois supérieure à ce qui avait été annoncé.
Results indicate climate models where the initiation of glaciation depends strongly on CO2concentrations over astronomical controls significantly overpredict the duration of the present-day warm period compared to past interglacial analogs.
The study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of scientists led by Richard Millar of the University of Oxford. It has recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above temperatures seen in the late 19th century. It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable, but the new study would appear to give us much more time to act if we want to stay below it.
Various sources, scientists publishing their opinion in the media, claim that Tropical Storm Harvey, recently landed in Texas, is one more signal of the influence of global warming on such catastrophic events. These claims are based on model calculations. Let’s examine the facts.
by Paul Homewood, September 2, 207 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Indeed, it could be that the last 20-years of temperature recordings by the Bureau will be found not fit for purpose, and will eventually need to be discarded. This would make for a rather large hole in the calculation of global warming – given the size of Australia.
In this study we investigate statistical link between external climate forcings and modes of ocean variability on inter-annual (3-year) to centennial (100-year) timescales using de-trended semi-partial-cross-correlation analysis technique. To investigate this link we employ observations (AD 1854–1999), climate proxies (AD 1600–1999), and coupled Atmosphere-Ocean-Chemistry Climate Model simulations with SOCOL-MPIOM (AD 1600–1999). We find robust statistical evidence that Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) has intrinsic positive correlation with solar activity in all datasets employed. The strength of the relationship between AMO and solar activity is modulated by volcanic eruptions and complex interaction among modes of ocean variability.
Detailed pattern correlation of Earth’s temperature changes during the past 450 kyrs reveals observations about several cyclic climate patterns. The past four glacial cycles are increasing in duration from 89 kyrs to 119 kyrs. Within these glacial cycles, two warm periods occur about 200 kyrs apart and have strikingly similar temperature characteristics.
During the last 450 kyrs, the five major warm onsets with rapidly increasing temperatures are triggered by increases in the eccentricity, obliquity, and precession of Earth’s orbit. The nearly concurrent increase in these three astronomical forces appears a necessary component for a major warm onset. Obliquity is the dominate control for ending these major warm periods and entering a cooling phase.
We provide a new confirmation for the link between solar activity and climate cycles by wavelet analysis showing a remarkably good agreement of the power of the ~190 – year period for temperatures and solar activity over 9000 years (see Fig.4. lower panel). As (Fig.2 and Table 2 ) show, the periods of ~1000 and ~460 years are also apparently common in records of temperatures and cosmogenic nuclides.
Now that the alarmists have had their day trumpeting the IPCC’s worst case scenario (it’s unlikely and becoming more so), let’s look at their best case scenario (hidden by journalists). The risk probabilities are asymmetric: the good news is more likely than the bad news. This is inspirational, telling people that we can make a better world.
A new study shows that difference in water temperature between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans together with global warming impact the risk of drought and wildfire in southwestern North America.
As a new scientific paper (Turney et al., 2017) indicates, the Southern Ocean encompasses 14% of the Earth’s surface. And according to regional temperature measurements that have apparently not been subjected to warming “corrections” by data adjusters, the Southern Ocean has been cooling in recent decades.
Dec 14, 2009 : New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2014, Al Gore said today at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen.
This paper has been added to a growing volume of peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously question estimates of a high climate sensitivity to significant increases in CO2 concentrations.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
There are two main groups that use essentially the same NASA and NOAA satellites to estimate global temperatures. In the last year, they’ve both made adjustments, one down, and one up, getting further apart in their estimates. In ClimateWorld this is a big deal. Believers are excited that now a satellite set agrees a bit better with the maligned “hot” surface thermometers. But UAH still agrees more with millions of weather balloons. The debate continues. Here’s my short synopsis of the Roy Spencer (and John Christy) from the “Comments on the new RSS lower tropospheric temperature set.” (If something is wrong here, blame me).
In understanding climate change risk, and deciding on the ‘if’ and ‘what’ of ‘action’, we need to acknowledge that we don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will play out (Deep Uncertainty, folks). Four possibilities:
It is possible that human-caused climate change will be swamped by much larger natural climate variability.
It is possible/plausible that the sensitivity of the climate is on the low end of the IPCC envelope (1.0-1.5C), with a slow creep of warming superimposed on much larger natural variability.
It is possible/plausible that the IPCC projections are actually correct (right for the wrong reasons; too much wrong with the climate models for much credibility, IMO).
It is possible that AGW and natural variability could conspire to cause catastrophic outcomes
After 30 years of failure to gain support of the US public for massive public policy measures to fight climate change, climate activists now double down on the tactics that have failed them for so long. This post explains why it will not work. Nor should it. Instead they should trust the IPCC and science, showing both the good and bad news.
Over at Dr. Curry’s excellent website, she’s discussing the Red and Blue Team approach. If I ran the zoo and could re-examine the climate question, I’d want to look at what I see as the central misunderstanding in the current theory of climate.
This is the mistaken idea that changes in global temperature are a linear function of changes in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation balance (usually called “forcing”).
A new paper in Science Advances by Cristian Proistosescu and Peter Huybers “Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity” (hereafter PH17) claims that accounting for the decline in feedback strength over time that occurs in most CMIP5 coupled global climate models (GCMs), brings observationally-based climate sensitivity estimates from historical records into line with model-derived estimates. It is not the first paper to attempt to do so, but it makes a rather bold claim and, partly because Science Advances seeks press coverage for its articles, has been attracting considerable attention.
