MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !
via PA Pundits…
UPDATE via Climatism:
MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.
There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.
Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.
It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.
Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.
By Andrew Bolt ~
Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.
From the abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.
John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…
View original post 93 more words
GWPF Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse takes a close look at some recent developments in the long-running global temperature ‘pause’ controversy.
A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing.
It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. They say that four years after the release of the IPCC AR5 report, which contained much about the ‘hiatus’ it is time to see what can be learned.
One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago.
Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the…
View original post 324 more words
It must have something to do with the new coal-fired power stations that China and India are putting online every day of the week, for the past ~10 years and many more in the pipe.
The question is, how far will temperatures further plunge by the time India brings online its planned 2,600 coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. ?
…let alone China.
Global temperatures have dropped 0.5° Celsius in April according to Dr. Ryan Maue. In the Northern Hemisphere they plunged a massive 1°C . As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus aka “the pause” is back with a vengeance. He writes:
Some good news to end April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C today (snapshot) … graphic is like stock market trace
Global Ocean Temperatures Drop To Pre-El Nino Levels
Despite widespread denial among climate activists, a growing number of scientific research papers in recent months have confirmed the global warming hiatus, trying to explain its possible reasons (for the latest studies see here, here and here). The latest study claims that the Southern Ocean played a critical role in the global warming slowdown.
h/t to the GWPF
Dr. Roy Spencer says while…
View original post 320 more words
Surprise, surprise again…
“Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.”
by Chris White
A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.
He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.
“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in…
View original post 244 more words
A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…
Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything
global warming climate change.
7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:
1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)
They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.
They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.
Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.
3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)
The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.
According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I make that 1.6%, not 97%.
Full details are here.
Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.
But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.
If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.
Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:
The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)
Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.
They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.
In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…
And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.
For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:
The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.
As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.
They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)
They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.
As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.
5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con
“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”
There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.
Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.
National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?
Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:
Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.
So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.
As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:
- The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
- It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.
Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.
Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.
Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.
Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.
Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.
6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”
In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.
When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.
7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!
1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?
Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.
For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.
Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.
2) Switch to renewables
They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.
The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.
Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.
The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.
3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.
Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.
BP Energy Review 2016
4) We can do something about it!
Who is this WE?
In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.
Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.
BP Energy Review 2016
Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.
This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.
Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.
National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :
- You Were Lied To About Arctic Sea Ice Disappearing | Climatism
- What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California | Climatism
- National Geographic : Global Warming Makes People Throw Acid In Each Other’s Faces | Climatism
- National Geographic Goes Full Criminal | Climatism
- National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty? | Climatism
- Spectacular Climate Fraud From National Geographic | Climatism
- Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic | Climatism
- National Geographic Exposes Their Real Agenda | Climatism
Australia’s warmist agency BoM (Bureau of meteorology) removed the very warm temps of the late 1800’s and begins Australia’s temp record at 1910. This correlates with warm Cape Town (Southern Hemisphere) temp data, pre-1909, removed by NASA to maximise upward trend in temps, promoting the “man-made” global warming narrative.
BoM also smoothed out (removed) 1940-1970’s cooling in many regions of AUS, as seen in the Cape Town record, to create an overall warming trend.
“Man-Made” global warming, by pen and *not* CO2, indeed.
Playing around with my hometown data, I was horrified when I found what NASA had done to it. Even producing GISTEMP Ver 2 was counterfactual.
Guest essay by Philip Lloyd
The raw data that is fed to NASA in order to develop the global temperature series is subjected to “homogenization” to ensure that it does not suffer from such things as the changes in the method of measuring the mean temperature, or changes in readings because of changes in location. However, while the process is supposed to be supported by metadata – i.e. the homogenizers are supposed to provide the basis for any modification of the raw data.
For example, the raw data for my home city, Cape Town, goes back to 1880:
The warmest years were in the 1930’s, as they were in many other parts of the globe. There was then a fairly steep decline into the…
View original post 191 more words
“The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.”
2016 tied with 1998. Therefore if all things in the climate system are equal, this would suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero! Perhaps even negative considering a third of all human emissions since 1750 have been emitted over the past 18 years – with zero warming to show.
Add to this, La Niña has not even kicked in yet. A rough 2017/18 ahead for the global warming faithful.
By Paul Homewood
RSS have also now released their temperature data for December, which, as with UAH, shows a big drop from the month before.
Annually, RSS co9me to the same conclusion as UAH, that 2016 was 0.02C warmer than 1998.
As Roy Spencer has pointed out, the margin of error is 0.1C, so statistically 2016 is tied with 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.
The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.