Advertisements

NO Australian Under The Age Of 40 Has Experienced Any Global Warming

AUSTRALIA Temps Vs CO2.png


NASA’s MSU satellite measurement systems, generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere (0-10 kms), which happens to be the exact place where anthropogenic global warming is meant to occur, according to anthropogenic global warming theory.

AUS MAY TEMPS -0.4C BELOW AVERAGE

UAH temperature anomaly for May was almost half a degree centigrade (-0.4C) below the 4o year average!

AUSTRALIA Lower Troposheric Temperature Anomaly 1978-2018 CLIMATISM

AUSTRALIA Lower Troposheric Temperature Anomaly 1978-2018

SATELLITES Vs LAND TEMPS

SATELLITES have the obvious benefit of measuring only the atmosphere and the effect that carbon dioxide emissions may be having on the atmosphere. Satellite data is not polluted by UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) – artificial heat generated from city infrastructure; asphalt carparks, airpots, highways, AC vents etc.

UHI (Urban Heat Island effect)

TONY Heller did a survey of the ten oldest stations in New South Wales And Victoria, circled below. Three rural stations were not included because of obvious problems with the data, but none showed any warming:

Screen Shot 2018-06-19 at 11.13.52 pm

UHI - Climatism - Sydney - Melbourne

The two urban stations at Melbourne and Sydney both showed strong warming, and both have disastrously poor siting of their thermometers in the middle of large cities.

Melbourne Temperature Anomaly CLIMATISM

Melbourne Temperature Anomaly

Sydney Temperature Anomaly CLIMATISM

Sydney Temperature Anomaly

By contrast, all of the rural stations show a long term cooling trend, with some recent warming. (Note that there is no data for the most recent years with some of the rural stations.)

Bathurst Temperature Anomaly CLIMATISM

Bathurst Temperature Anomaly

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

THE SUN : Climate Control Knob, Enemy Of The Climate Cult

THE SUN and Planets 2000px-Planets2013

THE Sun is 4.6 billion years old.

THE Sun has surface area is 11,990 times that of the Earth’s. Its diameter is around 1,392,000 kilometres (865,000 miles), about 110 times wider than Earth’s.

THE mass of the Sun is approximately 330,000 times greater than that of Earth. You can fit 1.3 million earths into it.

THE Sun contains 99.86% of the mass in the Solar System.

THE Sun generates huge amounts of energy by combining hydrogen nuclei into helium. This process is called nuclear fusion.

THE Sun’s surface temperature is ‎5,500 °C.

THE Sun’s core is around 13600000 degrees Celsius.

LIGHT from the Sun reaches Earth in 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

THE Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis are caused by the interaction of solar winds with Earth’s atmosphere. The solar wind is contains charged particles such as electrons and protons. They escape the Sun’s intense gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the Sun’s corona (a type of plasma atmosphere that extends into space).

*

ALL that power and life-sustaining magnificence! And yet, the Sun is completely dismissed as a key driver of climate by the climate crisis industry. Why? Because, you cannot control the Sun, therefore you would be laughed out of town if you tried to tax voters for climate changes or weather extremes caused by the Sun.

THEREFORE, your lifestyle and emissions are to blame – CO2 the patsy – tax away and obey!

“Scientists now claim that a 0.0001 mole fraction increase in CO2 over the past century controls the climate.  This is because the Sun can’t be controlled, scientists can’t pretend they know how to prevent bad weather, and politicians can’t use sunspots as an excuse to raise taxes and control energy policy.” – Tony Heller

*

CLIMATE alarmist outfit Union Of Concerned Scientists recognises the Sun as a key driver of climate only up until the late 1970’s, before politics, ideology, power and control entered the ‘science’ of climate. The late 1970’s also corresponds nicely with a cyclical rise in global temps following the well-catalogued 70’s “global cooling” scare :

“Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages).  However, changes in the rate of solar heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s.” – Union Of Concerned Scientists

BIAS BY OMISSION

WHAT the “Union Of Concerned Scientists” won’t show you is that there have been similar warming periods of equal magnitude before the era of ‘human emissions’…

THE 2013 UN IPCC report claimed with at least 95 percent certainty that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

“Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.”

Experts surer of manmade global warming but local … | Reuters

IDENTICAL WARMING TRENDS

THE 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:

  1. Which side is which time period?
  2. What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
  3. How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?

Read the rest of this entry »


The Pause Has Returned.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

from 2001

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001

Hadcrut now have numbers out for February, giving an anomaly of 0.523C, measured against the 1961-90 baseline, slightly down on January’s 0.556C.

This means that the last six months have been below 0.59C.

It is clear that temperatures are settling down at a similar level to the period between 2002 and 2007, following the record El Nino of 2015/16. Bear in mind as well that the degree of accuracy, according to the Hadley Centre, is about +/-0.1C. As such, it cannot be said that there has been any statistically measurable warming since 2001, or indeed previously.

It is possible temperatures may drop further in coming months, with weak La Nina conditions established, although these are predicted to disappear by the summer.

Satellite measurements from UAH also show a similar picture:

from 2001

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001

View original post


“THE PAUSE” Lives On : Global Temperatures Continue To Cool Despite Record And Rising CO2 Emissions

 

GLOBAL temps continue their cooling trend, rebounding off the 2015/16 Super El Niño – the strongest since accurate measurements began, caused by surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, west of Central America rising up to 3C warmer than usual.

THE latest UAH V6.0 February anomaly of +0.20 brings temperatures back to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Niño.

UAH Feb data and results here…

*

MEASURING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES – Satellites Vs Thermometers? Read the rest of this entry »


THE Great Global Warming “Pause”

THE Great Global Warming Pause - CLIMATISM


BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

BEFORE it “never happened” – established, peer-reviewed climate science was all over the pause.

IN fact, before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report…

*

1997 – 2015 TEMPS

 

*

PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”

Read the rest of this entry »


NEW STUDY: Global Warming “Pause” Confirmed, Climate Models Wrong

Scafetta et al.png

FOLLOWING on from the landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience that concedes the world has not warmed as predicted this century, comes a new paper from Scafetta et al, confirming that the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” indeed lives on!

via GWPF :

ABSTRACT

The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.

1. INTRODUCTION

As explained in part 1 of this study [1], in the last decade future climate scenarios have been used to develop and politically enforce energy expensive policies to contrast catastrophic climate warming expectations for the 21st century. This has been done mostly by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2, 3, 4]. Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).

However, before trusting GCM projections about future climatic changes, it is necessary to validate these models by testing whether they are able to properly reconstruct past climate changes. In Ref. [1], the authors have argued that since 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT [6]. However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences [11] and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14- 16].

To test the reliability of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) GCMs, in Ref. [1] it was shown that for the period 1860-2016 they predict an excessive warming relative to four independent global surface temperature reconstructions. This was a first significant discrepancy between observations and models. Then, it was noted that AGWT advocates had claimed that discrepancies between observation and modeled predictions could occur because of an unforced internal variability of the climate system that the same GCMs are able to predict [17].

These people were very explicit by providing the following scientific criterion to validate the models: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” [18].

By using such a 15-year interval criterion, in Ref. [1] we tested the CMIP5 GCMs against the observations in the periods 1922-1941, 1980-1999 and 200-2016. The first two periods were selected because they are characterized by a strong and compatible warming rate but by very different rate of anthropogenic GHG emissions. On the contrary, the 2000- 2017 period is characterized by a very strong increase of anthropogenic GHG emissions while the temperature has been quasi stationary. Our statistical analysis [1] confirmed with a 95% confidence that the GCMs fail to properly reconstruct the temperature trends in 1922-1941 and in 2000-2017. Thus, according to the very criterion proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, the GCMs used to support the AGWT are demonstrated to be flawed.

Herein, a detailed study of the natural climatic variability observed after 2000 in six available global temperature records versus the performance of the GCMs is carried out. We also critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 oC. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 oC: see Figure 2 in Ref. [1]. Finally, for the post 2000 period we compare the predictions of the CMIP5 GCMs used by the IPCC [2013], against that of two semi-empirical models proposed a few years ago [15,19].

These models were based on a specific number of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus an anthropogenic warming effect strongly reduced by 50% relative to the GCM predictions. We stress that the latter result is consistent with recent scientific literature findings [20] confirming that the real climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about half, that is between 1 oC and 2 oC, than what predicted by the GCMs supporting the AGWT, which is about 3 oC [4].

Full paper

Warmist paper Millar et al confirming the warming slowdown in the first fifteen years of this century, contradicting UN IPCC Climate model simulations :

100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

Times CMIP5.png

AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES

IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.

Christy CMIP5

UN IPCC CMIP5 Climate models Vs Observations – presented by John Christy PhD to US Senate Congress on Climate Change

 

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dr. Christy was 100% correct …

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at , September 26, 6.46.02 AM

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” Myles Allen – professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford 

 

SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.

cagw.jpg

The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop

AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?

DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :

The pause is alive and well!

 

 

There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.

I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!

But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.

Climate change predictions — what went wrong? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :