Advertisements

CLIMATE CHANGE : The Unsettled Science Of “Settled” Science

HistoryOfSettledScience - Climatism

History Of Settled Science


The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

***

THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.

IN THEIR (UN IPCC) OWN WORDS:

*

ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been the key feature of the Left’s misanthropic agenda of depopulation deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls driven under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.

STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the anti-energy agenda that still underpins the global warming scare…

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellow

*

THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.

STRONG and the UN’s charter and agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the global warming narrative…

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

*

WHY CO2?

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.

LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

•••

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

MORE : Bureaucratic Dioxide | Climatism

*

SCIENCE Matters‘ Ron Clutz on the myth of CO2 as a significant driver of global warming climate change and our weather:

To believe humans are dangerously warming earth’s climate, you have to swallow a bunch of unbelievable notions.

  • You have to think the atmosphere drives temperature, instead of the ocean with 1000 times the heat capacity.
  • You have to disregard the sun despite its obvious effects from summer to winter and longer term.
  • You have to think CO2 drives radiative heat transfers, instead of H2O which does 95% of the radiative work.
  • You have to think rises in CO2 cause temperatures to rise, rather than the other way around.
  • You have to forget it was warmer than now in the Middle Ages, warmer still in the Roman era, and warmest of all during Minoan times.  And on and on.

The global warmist narrative is full of ideas upside down and backwards, including many reversals of cause and effect.

It is like a massive hot air balloon, so why doesn’t it deflate? Answer:  It is because so many interests are served by keeping it alive and pumping up public fears.

Self-Serving Global Warmism | Science Matters

*

EQUILIBRIUM CLIMATE SENSITIVITY (ECS)

WE are constantly told by the Climate Crisis Industry that the “science is settled”. Yet, the main indicator of a so-called climate “crisis” – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or ECS – the hypothesised amount of temperature increase per doubling of CO2, keeps shrinking even as carbon dioxide rises.

CO2 is Life with the rub…

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating?

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2000 CO2 Sensitivity 4.25°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2005 CO2 Sensitivity 3.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2010 CO2 Sensitivity 2.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2015 CO2 Sensitivity 0.50°C

(More)(Source)

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating? – CO2 is Life

*

OVERHEATED UN CLIMATE MODELS

THEN there are the failed CO2-centric UN CMIP5 climate models. Overheated climate models that do not accord with observed reality, and yet increase IPCC confidence in dangerous global warming despite ever-increasing divergence from satellite and weather-balloon data…

***

JUST as ECS declines as CO2 increases it becomes harder to see how policy makers can justify the deliberate deindustrialisation of the Western world driven by draconian, UN climate policies based on overheated UN climate models, fear, funding and mass propaganda.

DO politicians even look at empirical data or “the science” anymore? Or does the wicked truth expose their scam, hindering globalist intentions?

THIS eco-scare is strong and will not die quickly. Too many jobs, reputations and egos are now at stake. And, access to unlimited “Save The Planet” taxpayer trillions, completely immune to oversight.

••• Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE PLUNGE : Coolest September In The Last 10 Years


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
Fmr President of the UN Foundation

***

GLOBAL atmospheric temperatures continue their rapid decline off the record heights of the 2016 super El Niño, despite record and rising CO2 emissions.

UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14°C, down from +0.19°C in August:

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here.

The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

*

THE September anomaly represents a 0.72°C drop since 2016 super El Niño heights, bringing temps down now to ~1988 levels.

DON’T expect the mainstream media to report in this anytime soon. They are only concerned about hot and climbing temperatures to push their  global warming climate change agenda.

*

CO2 CONCENTRATION Vs TEMPS – Correlation?

 

CO2 Vs Temp Correlation 1979 - SEP 2018 - CLIMATISM

CO2 Vs Temp Correlation 1979 – SEP 2018 – CLIMATISM

*

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS – You Be The Judge!

Satellites Vs Land-Based Thermometers?

satellite-v-thermometer-628x353

Satellites Vs Thermometers?

SATELLITES

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, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur.

BEFORE 2016, UAH and RSS both tracked closely showing very little warming in their data sets which led to the identification and validation of “the pause” in global warming which has since become the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

From the RSS website:

“The simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming” – RSS

HOWEVER, by 2016, Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and who has used the pejorative “denialist” in various correspondence, decided that “the pause” was not a good look for the global warming narrative so RSS was massively adjusted upwards, conveniently eliminating “the pause” in the RSS dataset.

MEARS’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website:

MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.

Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

THE result…
Differences between the old version and new version of RSS:

(Data via WUWT)

*

UAH NASA SATELLITE (Featured)

UAH is the satellite data set featured in this post and is jointly run by Dr. John R. Christy –  Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. And Roy Spencer Ph.D. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

SPENCER commentary on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:

“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.

The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.

Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

And that is the most important point to be made.”

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

(Climatism bolds)

* Read the rest of this entry »


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 »


SCIENTISTS : Worst Climate Warnings ‘Will Not Come True’

Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 7.22.16 am

THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.

THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.

LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…

***

Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 8.21.31 am.png

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’

January 18 2018

Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.

It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.

Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.

However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.

The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.

The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.

“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.

“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”

Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.

“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.

“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.

“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.

“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”

He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’ | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

•••

Climatism Related :

ECS Related :