Yes, it’s the annual fraudulent Lancet report on climate change!
New diseases are spreading, the hayfever season is starting earlier and even the hours in which it is possible to practise sports are changing.
The common denominator behind all these and other changes to human health is climate change.
A new report in the Lancet has found that warming temperatures in Europe have far reaching impacts on health.
It tracks the links between climate change and health across the region, exploring 42 indicators.
As scorching summers hit the continent, heat-related deaths per 100,000 people have increased by 30.8 per cent from the period 2003-12 and 2013-22, according to the report.
Now 68 people per 100,000 are estimated to die of heat related issues, up from 50.8.
“Climate change is here, in Europe, and it kills,” the 2024 Europe Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change said.
From raging wildfires in Greece to near-record high river flows in major basins, including the Rhine and Danube, 2023 saw a record number of days with “extreme heat stress”, according to the World Health Organization.
It caused the number of adverse health impacts related to extreme weather and climate events to rise.
In 2022, which also saw extreme heat, upwards of 70,000 people in Europe were killed during the summer months.
The Lancet report found that Southern Europe tends to be more affected by heat-related illnesses, wildfires, food insecurity and drought.
It also said that Southern Europe is also “more vulnerable” to climatic suitability for various climate-sensitive pathogens and disease vectors.
Research has found that environmental changes, like rising temperatures, can amplify disease risk in a variety of ways.
Climate change can alter animal movements and habitats, bringing new species into contact and allowing them to swap pathogens.
Newly introduced species can bring new pathogens with them as they move north from warmer climates.
Regular physical activity could also be in jeopardy.
Risky hours for exercise have been expanding into hours beyond the hottest part of the day over time for both medium, such as cycling, football, and tennis, and strenuous, such as rugby or mountain biking, activities.
Comparing 2012–22 to 1990–2000, the mean annual risky hours per person for moderate intensity activities falling outside the hottest four hours of the day increased by 107 per cent in eastern Europe, 382 per cent in northern, 94 per cent in southern and 101 per cent in western.
The report highlighted that this could “result in reduced physical activity” and therefore increase the risk of “non-communicable diseases”.
It said that regular physical activity is a key component of a healthy sustainable lifestyle, but that exercising in hot weather poses a risk of heat-related illnesses, such as heat exhaustion or exertional heat stroke.
The Lancet’s “we are all going to die” message is rather undermined by their own study last year, which found that deaths from cold in Europe exceeded those from heat by a factor of ten:
Even in Southern Europe, five times as many died from cold:
The Lancet must be getting truly desperate, even claiming that people will get less exercise because of hot weather. The opposite is the case in most countries, as it is cold weather which stops people getting out and about.
They also mention wildfire activity, even though it has been reducing in Europe in recent decades, not increasing.
And their claims that cyclones are driving a surge in malaria fly in the face of the fact that cyclones are not becoming either more frequent or intense:
In other words, it is the sort of fraudulent report we see every year from the Lancet.
The report is not about science, it is all about politics, as they themselves admit:
In a climate discourse saturated with the axiom that global warming is the harbinger of unidirectional catastrophic changes, a recent study from Nature Geoscience stands out—not for its groundbreaking insights but for the peculiar manner in which it contorts observations to fit the prevailing climate change narrative. The study, focusing on the Himalayan glaciers, notably those around Mount Everest, reveals a cooling phenomenon, where localized areas experience temperature drops despite the global trend of rising temperatures.
The Paradox as Presented
Abstract
Understanding the response of Himalayan glaciers to global warming is vital because of their role as a water source for the Asian subcontinent. However, great uncertainties still exist on the climate drivers of past and present glacier changes across scales. Here, we analyse continuous hourly climate station data from a glacierized elevation (Pyramid station, Mount Everest) since 1994 together with other ground observations and climate reanalysis. We show that a decrease in maximum air temperature and precipitation occurred during the last three decades at Pyramid in response to global warming. Reanalysis data suggest a broader occurrence of this effect in the glacierized areas of the Himalaya. We hypothesize that the counterintuitive cooling is caused by enhanced sensible heat exchange and the associated increase in glacier katabatic wind, which draws cool air downward from higher elevations. The stronger katabatic winds have also lowered the elevation of local wind convergence, thereby diminishing precipitation in glacial areas and negatively affecting glacier mass balance. This local cooling may have partially preserved glaciers from melting and could help protect the periglacial environment.
The authors of the study document a decrease in maximum air temperatures and a reduction in precipitation in the glacierized areas of the Himalayas, a pattern observed over the past three decades. The narrative quickly turns to global warming as the prime mover of this paradox, attributing the local cooling to enhanced katabatic winds driven by increased glacier melt—a consequence of global warming.
“We show that a decrease in maximum air temperature and precipitation occurred during the last three decades at Pyramid in response to global warming.”
This explanation, however, smacks of a rationalization crafted to align with the larger narrative of climate alarmism. The irony of glaciers cooling their surroundings, even as they melt, should prompt a reevaluation of our assumptions about climatic responses to global warming, not reinforce them under the guise of novel mechanisms.
A Critique of Convenient Conclusions
The assertion that glaciers, through their melting, induce local cooling effects that then counteract the very warming causing their melt, serves as a perfect emblem of the circular reasoning often pervasive in climate science discussions. The study details complex interactions between atmospheric conditions and melting glaciers leading to this cooling:
“Katabatic winds arise from adiabatic warming due to air subsidence and cooling of the near-surface air by sensible heat exchange with the glacier surface… This process generates a divergence of air masses along the northern and southern Himalayan valleys and causes further drying of the katabatic winds.”
While the mechanics described are scientifically plausible, their portrayal as a direct outcome of global warming stretches credulity. It exemplifies the trend in climate research to frame every observed change in the environment, however contradictory or counterintuitive, as a consequence of global warming. This not only stifles genuine scientific inquiry but also muddles the public understanding of climate dynamics.
The Broader Implications of Misframed Research
The implications of such studies extend beyond academic circles into policy making, where they can lead to misguided efforts based on oversimplified models of climate interaction. The localized cooling and drying around these glaciers, while scientifically fascinating, are presented with an undue emphasis on their supposed linkage to global warming, potentially skewing policy responses to these phenomena.
This framing might distract from more pressing environmental issues or lead to policies that fail to address the actual complexities of regional climate dynamics. It is crucial to not shoehorn every observation into the global warming narrative.
Conclusion
This study, while contributing to our understanding of high-altitude climatic processes, also highlights the problematic tendency in climate science to conform observations to established narratives. True scientific progress requires the dispassionate assessment of data and phenomena, free from the compulsions of ideological conformity. In the realm of climate science, as in all fields, skepticism should not just be a tool but a fundamental stance, ensuring that our understanding of the world remains as unbiased and grounded in reality as possible, something that is becoming exceedingly rare in this age of ideological conformity.
Catherine Salgado provides unreported news from Climate Experts: ‘Global Warming’ Makes Ecosystems Thrive at PJ Media. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
Three climate experts have called out the “global warming apocalypse” narrative and the totally failed record of climate alarmists’ predictions. A warming climate helps ecosystems thrive, and climate models predicting global crisis have consistently over-predicted.
CO2 Coalition Executive Director Greg Wrightstone, Heartland Institute President James Taylor, and Junk Science’s Steve Milloy all spoke during a media call last week about climate alarmist lies and the truths woke media and government don’t want you to hear. These include the fact that moderate warming has actually been found beneficial for ecosystems, including for plants (and food crops) and animals.
Both the last eight+ years of a cooling trend and the last century and a half of moderate warming portend no imminent catastrophe, but should be celebrated.
That’s just one hard truth the experts highlighted during the call, providing data that illustrates climate alarmists aren’t concerned with science or reality; rather, they are manipulating data or making unverifiable claims for political or financial reasons. Taylor stated emphatically, “There is no climate crisis.”
Wrightstone particularly highlighted the decrease in natural disasters, including fires, and especially the “significant decline” in global droughts. According to Wrightstone, ecosystems are showing the beneficial effects of a lengthy trend of warming. Taylor provided further context on why “global warming” should be no big concern. “We are currently experiencing the second and the third strongest El Niño ever recorded,” he said, noting that this can increase temperatures; but El Niño and La Niña always and normally create a cycle of warming or cooling effects.
“Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, that ended about 150 years ago,” Taylor said. “Temperatures should continue to set ‘records’ so long as climate activists define the ‘record’ as the past 150 years or so, recovering from the Little Ice Age.” In other words, the globe should be warming— and the current “records” only hold if one ignores the temperatures from the previous cooling period!
Taylor continued that, for much of human civilization, “temperatures have been significantly warmer than today, and humans and nature fared just fine.” And therefore, in fact, comparatively speaking, the globe is currently “unusually cool.” Milloy added his support to the arguments of the other two experts by noting that “global warming” isn’t man-made, either. Indeed, despite the oft-repeated assertion that every emission causes the planet to heat up, April 2024 was a third of a degree Farenheit cooler than April 1981 despite decades of emissions, Milloy added. In fact, in reality, carbon is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary for all life on earth, including humans.
No major climate prediction for 50+ years has come true; often, the predictions are wildly wrong. As Milloy noted, it’s a hallmark of science to be able to make reasonably accurate predictions, and yet climate alarmists never do — more typically, they make temporarily unverifiable predictions or claims about the past and far into the future. Greg Wrightstone agreed, “One of the things driving these failed predictions [is] they’re … basing a lot of these forward-looking projections on climate models, climate models that we know for a fact over-predict warming significantly.”
He continued, “And if you look at the 100+ models that are used, there’s only one that has accurately predicted the temperature into the future compared to actual temperatures, and that’s the Russian model. The others, we see, [on] average, over-predict warming by 2.5 to 3 times too much.” If climate alarmists really followed the scientific method, they’d have to admit that their hypothesis is not supported by evidence and needs to be reformulated. Unfortunately, climate alarmists find their narrative too convenient a political tool to surrender to reality.
2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season – will be very active with 20 Named Storms and 6 landfall Hot-Spots.
Tampa-Ocala, Florida, United States, February 1, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ —
The Atlantic Hurricane Seasons have been extremely active since 2016 – and will continue to be abnormally active for the next several years. This is not due to a global warming cycle – but instead– it is due to the naturally occurring Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) that enhances a cyclical ClimatePulse Cycle.
During the current AMO warm ocean cycle (warmest portion in 2016), the United States has experienced 40 named storms making landfall, with 20 of them being hurricanes – 9 of which were major hurricane landfalls. This very active hurricane cycle – will likely continue for another 10 years.
What Should We Expect in 2024
An average hurricane season has 12-13 named storms and 6 hurricanes. The combination of the AMO warm ocean water cycle, favorable atmospheric conditions, and the enhanced ClimatePulse Cycle – will provide favorable conditions for a very active and destructive hurricane season in 2024.
Professor David Dilley is predicting 20 named storms, 8 hurricanes with 3 to 4 of them being major hurricanes. The United States and Caribbean will have 6 Hot-Spots with 3 to 4 United States hurricane landfalls expected, and 1 or 2 in the Caribbean. In addition, there is the potential for 1 or 2 major hurricane landfalls.
GWO’s Hot-Spot Predictions 2023
Background Post: David Dilley: Signals of Global Cooling
Tom Nelson interviewed David Dilley last month and the video is above. For those who prefer reading I provide below a transcript from the closed captions, along with the key exhibits from the presentation.
Synopsis: Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming down we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10, 15 years. The cold cycle’s going to take about 20 years to bottom out. We’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States. So it’s going to be very cold.
TN: I have David Dilly here, and David could you tell us a little bit about yourself?
DD: I’m a meteorologist, climatologist, for which I have about 52 years of experience, and I’m still trying to figure that out because I’m only 30 years old. But but I’ve been in the business a long time. I was a weather officer in the Air Force in the National Weather Service. Then I left to set up my own company called Global Weather Oscillations; the easiest way to remember it is global weather cycles.com.
So we’re going to take a look today at something that NOAA is really talking about: the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Cycles. They’re just talking about today’s carbon dioxide values as far as the fossil fuel is concerned. You’re not going to see this out there anywhere on the web. It’s 78% of the atmospheric gases is nitrogen of all things, 21% is oxygen, 0.9 is argon that is 99.99 percent the atmospheric gases. That doesn’t leave much that’s just about all of what we call dry air. To be non-dry air includes the greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases now are variable regarding how much of it is water vapor how much of it is carbon dioxide. Water vapor is anywhere from one to four percent of the atmospheric gases, that’s quite a bit. It can be zero percent of the Arctic and Antarctic because that’s a desert, but it can be all the way up to four percent. So one to four percent we’ll say.
Carbon dioxide of all things it’s a trace gas it’s less than .05%, a lot less than than water vapor. less than .05 now to put it in perspective, let’s just look at the greenhouse gases here and what we see is water vapor we’re gonna do the average of it two percent that’s 20 000 parts per million. Natural carbon dioxide what I’m going to show you later on in the presentation is 380 parts per million.
Now NOAA and the IPCC say it (natural CO2) is down around 285 parts per million, we’re going to show you that’s false.
And so the natural is point zero four percent of the atmospheric gases, while fossil fuel I’m going to show you it’s only 35 parts per million; that’s point zero zero four percent or four one thousands of a one percent. And do you think that can cause climate change?
Of course not. We go down to Vostok in the Antarctic and there is a very deep frozen lake where they drill down fifteen thousand eight five hundred and eighty eight feet down to the bottom. That’s a long ways down over 500 000 years. So I take core samples and with the core samples they figure out how how much it is carbon dioxide what the temperatures are. These are approximate, but what they they get from a core sample is a an estimate of the temperatures and carbon dioxide during the past 500 000 years.
If we go back say 450 000 years, the red line is temperature. So what happened, we came quickly just in a few thousand years out of a deep Ice Age into a interglacial warm period. You can see the temperatures really slid up and the ice cores estimate the carbon dioxide to be right around 280 parts per million. Then we slide down out of the warm period into a deep Ice Age and you can see that the carbon dioxide is actually staying up high there. If carbon dioxide caused global warming, why did the temperatures drop; it does not make sense.
Eventually the carbon dioxide goes down because it’s being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans keep absorbing it over the course of a hundred thousand years. Then when you come up on your next interglacial warm period 338 000 years ago, the temperature goes up and the carbon dioxide is released from the oceans back into the atmosphere. And you can see the carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise and actually when you hit the peak of the temperature back 338 000 years ago, the carbon dioxide does not Peak out until 7000 years later. It takes quite a while but carbon dioxide peaked out at 298 parts per million. But look at that temperature then dropping quickly into an ice age while carbon dioxide is at its peak.
That’s proof right there the carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
As we come over on the right hand side of the graphic this is about 18 000 years ago. It’s 11 000 years ago we came out of the glacial period, we warmed up quickly, we got up to about to 190 parts per million.
Then we started to take records in Hawaii in the 1950s and the instruments there said: Wow, all of a sudden now we’re up to 412 parts per million. We’ve never been that high before. This is what we’re going to investigate: what is going on with the glacial periods and also the core samples. This is a graphic of the carbon dioxide. The peak of The inter glacial warm periods is every 120 000 years ago we’re going back 800 000 years.
Now do we have other research that will confirm what I’m saying. This is about a year ago and they’ve been adding papers to it and this corrects NOAA’s calculations of the rise in carbon dioxide since 1850. It’s in a radiation safety Journal Health physics journal and this is the name of the paper itself. The authors are professors of radiological Sciences. They’re retired and that’s a big thing because if you’re not retired, if you’re at a university, you can’t do research like this because of federal grants and everything. You have to wait until you’re retired and then you can do real science when they were working they were at the department of physics at University of Massachusetts. It’s Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French and here is what they found.
This is extremely important. Since 1850 the red here is saying the increase due to fossil fuel, and they’re showing all of that is the increase due to fossil fuel. Now how do we determine that well up on a high mountain in Hawaii we have a infrared spectrometer since 1958 it’s been been taking measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However three Isotopes of Carbon are 12, 13 and 14. and the spectrometer is taking the total of all three. It’s not separating what is natural from what is fossil fuel.
Because the ice core samples say we’ve never been above 300 parts per million NOAA is assuming that the rise above 300 parts per million is all fossil fuel.
An assumption is all it is. It’s assumed by trying to take averages of how much CO2 is taken back in by the oceans how much of it is a given not from industry. Taking those assumptions some physicists made a formula to determine how much is fossil fuel and how much is natural going back all the way back to 1750. These red lines again are what NOAA says is the increase by fossil fuel.
Well their formula separates the carbon 12, 13 and 14 to determine what is what and this is their findings as I switched everything over to green. Green is the natural increase in carbon dioxide all the way up to 1958. Now remember it’s a paper going back to 2018, but it says the increase has been from 280 parts per million up to 408 and NOAA says it is all from fossil fuel. This research paper says No, it is nearly 80% natural just like what I showed on my formulations, eighty percent natural, onlyabout 20% industrial. That’s not enough to cause climate change.
Now I’m going to show you one last paper that will also verify the findings and this is using a different method fossilized plant leaflets and as you can see in this picture there’s little cells in there they call these stomata cells which are like the lungs in a human being. So they look at the fossilized plant leaflets and unlike the ice core samples where you’re taking an average over one thousand or four thousand years, the fossilized plant leaflets can give you the exact year going back the past thousand years so you can determine each year what is going on.
So the stomata cells are like the lungs in a human being or in animals but he’d found that if the leaflet has a lot of stomata cells it means a lot less carbon dioxide in the air at that time. When CO2 is plentiful, plants don’t need more oxygen lung power to get the carbon dioxide; if it has fewer cells that means there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the air.
And the beautiful thing about plant life taking in carbon dioxide is the byproduct is oxygen which we drastically need. What the plant stomata cells show during the past 1200 years: back in 800 A.D it says we were way up to 375 parts per million natural carbon dioxide and then dipped way down to 325 in one thousand A.D. Then it dipped way down to 230 and it dipped up down, up down, up down up, down. In year 2010 it was up at 375 parts per million.
Let’s look at the plant stomata that could be pretty darn real and also if you take a mean value of the plant stomata over the course of a thousand years you come out 301 parts per million. The main value of ice cores over a thousand year period 297 parts per million really darn close to being the same as now. Let’s take the plant stomata readings of the atmospheric carbon dioxide and overlay it onto our global warming and cooling Cycles during the past 1200 years. We have had six global warming Cycles during the past 1200 years as noted here in the red. This is back around 850 A.D and then you can see it cools down then we warm up again, cool down warm up cool way down and so on for six global warming cycles. People don’t talk about that but we have had six of them.
When we overlay the plant stomata atmospheric carbon dioxide, guess what: We see a perfect fit. The high values in carbon dioxide peak on global warming cycles, so that brings a lot more credibility into the plants stomata cells for recording carbon dioxide.
So putting it all together we since 1850 NOAA and the IPCC say that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is 100% due to fossil fuel and human activity. The three studies I just showed you and the corrections I made on the ice core samples all show it’s 80% natural rise. Far too little fossil fuel effects to cause climate change, it is almost all natural.
Here we are today over here on the right the average is a global cooling cycle comes about every 230 years and the global cooling cycles last for a good 100, 150 years. So here we are right now, average for the return of the global cooling cycle is 230 years and the last global cooling cycle began in 1794. Add 230 to that and you calculate the year 2024.
This is 2023. so we should be sliding into a global cooling cycle, a natural global cooling cycle.
And we have signals that it is beginning. Global warming Cycles begin in the Arctic and the Antarctic when they warm up over the course of 20, 30 years or so. And as the Arctic and Antarctic warm up there’s less cold air available through the mid-latitudes. So over time the mid-latitudes warm up so that’s where global warming spreads.
In the next phase, global cooling also begins at the Arctic and the Antarctic.
What has happened just this past year, the spring and summer in the Arctic was the coldest on record. You had that during a global warming period, so that’s a signal that the Arctic is drastically cooling down. In 2021 the Antarctic had the coldest winter on record. How you have two records like that if you’re not sliding into global cooling? There’s more cold air available and it’s going to cool down the mid-latitudes and that starts our global cooling cycle. And we’re coming into that right now. Winter 2020 was a third coldest January and February on record from Alaska through Central Northern Canada into Greenland. Antarctica as I indicated winter of 2021 coldest on record. Arctic 2022 coldest spring and summer on record since 1958, and the most Arctic Ice extent in 8 to 16 years.
The real main point is carbon dioxide increase is mainly natural, it is not causing a global warming cycle. It’s a natural global warming cycle and we’re sliding back into a natural global cooling cycle.
TN: If you had to make a prediction what would you think of the cooling between now and 2050. Do you think it will cool between now and 2050 are you fairly confident?
DD: Actually we’re going to see a pretty good cool down here into January. The whole atmospheric circulation is beginning to change the La Nina out in the Pacific is now fading it’s going to be gone here by mid to end of January, and we can see changes in the atmospheric circulation going on now. The cold air in Canada is going to start making its way down more into the United States during late January.
For this year we do see the drastic change and what we’re going to see really well through 2050 or so. The IPCC and NOAA say that the oceans are going to rise anywhere from eight to 26 inches during that time period. I say it may rise an inch, maybe not even that much because we’re going into a global cooling cycle now. The poles are cooling down.
Pacific Ocean has phases going back to the year 1580. For past 500 years we’ve seen these warm phase and cold phase Cycles in the Pacific Ocean which last for anywhere from about 25 to 40 years. The Pacific has been in a 40-year warm cycle which ties the record going back uh 500 years. Pacific is sliding into a cold or a cool phase ocean water cycle, and that’s going to help to cool down ,especially up around Alaska. And the Atlantic Ocean will be going into a cool phase of its own right after 2030 or so.
Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming in we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years.
The global warming cycle took about a 20-year period to peek out warming from about the year 2000 up to about 2021 so it took 20 years to hit the peak; the cold cycle is going to take about 20 years to bottom out also at the coldest and that’s going to be around 2040 or so. Unitil the late 2030s so we’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States.
TN: Is there any sort of a simple explanation as to what causes that 230 year cycle that you mentioned?
DD: The simple explanation is our glacial periods and interglatial periods become about every 120 000 years are due to the Earth path around the Sun; where the Earth swings out further away from the Sun and also the tilt of the earth also changes.
New data out is showing that we’ve actually been cooling down during the past five to six years. So this is all looking like we are already going gradually into a global cooling Cycle. But we’re going to see a more dramatic change in the cooling cycle.
What NOAA and IPCC are doing, their science is political science while we’re looking here today at real science. There’s a huge difference. Keep your eyes open the next few years and all of a sudden in a few years people are going to be saying: Wait a minute, what are we doing here? We’re down the wrong path we need to wake up.
Comment:
The underlying issue is the assumption that the future can only be warmer than the present. Once you accept the notion that CO2 makes the earth’s surface warmer (an unproven conjecture), then temperatures can only go higher since CO2 keeps rising. The present plateau in temperatures is inconvenient, but actual cooling would directly contradict the CO2 doctrine. Some excuses can be fabricated for a time, but an extended period of cooling undermines the whole global warming mantra.
It’s not a matter of fearing a new ice age. That will come eventually, according to our planet’s history, but the warning will come from increasing ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Presently infrastructures in many places are not ready to meet a return of 1950s weather, let alone something unprecedented.
Public policy must include preparations for cooling since that is the greater hazard. Cold harms the biosphere: plants, animals and humans. And it is expensive and energy intensive to protect life from the ravages of cold. Society can not afford to be in denial about the prospect of the current temperature plateau ending with cooling.
The world is on the verge of a climate abyss, the UN has warned, in response to a Guardian survey that found that hundreds of the world’s foremost climate experts expect global heating to soar past the international target of 1.5C.
A series of leading climate figures have reacted to the findings, saying the deep despair voiced by the scientists must be a renewed wake-up call for urgent and radical action to stop burning fossil fuels and save millions of lives and livelihoods. Some said the 1.5C target was hanging by a thread, but it was not yet inevitable that it would be passed, if an extraordinary change in the pace of climate action could be achieved.
The Guardian got the views of almost 400 senior authors of reports by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Almost 80% expected a rise of at least 2.5C above preindustrial levels, a catastrophic level of heating, while only 6% thought it would stay within the 1.5C limit. Many expressed their personal anguish at the lack of climate action.
“The goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C is hanging by a thread,” said the official spokesperson for António Guterres, the UN secretary general. “The battle to keep 1.5C alive will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of political and industry leaders today. They need to realise we are on the verge of the abyss. The science is clear and so are the world’s scientists: the stakes for all humanity could not be higher.”
I clicked the link to the personal reactions link, see if there was anything interesting. I didn’t bother reading all of it, because most of it seemed to be the usual rehashed tedium. They’re all sad and depressed because we are not doing what the scientists tell us to do. Not one word about nuclear energy, the zero carbon energy source which actually works. From what the Guardian wrote they want us to embrace climate communism (restricted choices, social change) and renewables.
I tried finding the UN source of the climate abyss comment, but all I saw were previous UN “climate abyss” warnings. Or maybe it’s the same warning, but the abyss is still really close but at the same time many years away.
World on the verge of climate ‘abyss’, as temperature rise continues: UN chief
The Earth’s temperature continues to rise unabated, with 2020 being one of the three warmest years on record, as extreme weather events combine with the COVID-19 pandemic, impacting millions.
According to the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) flagship State of the Global Climate report, the global average temperature in 2020 was about 1.2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial level.
Lest we forget, this entire tedious, repetitive clown show is being funded by your tax dollars.
Next time you come up short trying to pay inflated green energy bills, take a moment to write to your congress critter and see where they stand on this nonsense. If your representative doesn’t promptly point out a long track record of trying to pull the plug on climate funding, primary them and find someone who will. Because as long as politicians don’t make ending all this a priority, the climate clown show will continue, and your tax dollars will continue to inflate your energy bills, enrich left wing donors, and pay for the tearful public performances of the crying climate scientist industry.
For an audio discussion of the pros/cons of global warming, listen to this podcast with Kyle, Partner @Grant&Co fundraising consultant in Africa, and Amo Rebecca, Behavioral Scientist.
People often ask me, “Do you believe in global warming?” as if it’s a religion. But “belief” is not how reality works. More useful questions could be: What’s the probability that the
climate is changing?
change is bad?
change is worse than the alternative?
It’s worth thinking about to see if we understand the world properly. I researched this topic for strategic reasons for our business—is climate something we want to invest in? Anyone who has a more accurate prediction of the future has an advantage.
The discussion of climate has become muddied due to conflicts of interest. We can’t trust the coal miner or the conservative politician when they say “Global warming is a non-issue,” nor can we trust the left-wing or solar startup that global warming is the biggest threat to humanity.
“You cannot get a man to understand something that his salary depends upon him not understanding.”
Meanwhile, we sit somewhere in the middle: environmentalists in the traditional sense and we do raise funding from climate-related groups.
Is the climate changing?
Climate activists say99% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and humans are responsible for it. But that disguises the consensus. Are all of those scientists 100% convinced? Or are they 51% convinced? If they are truly 100% convinced, then I’ll happily make a 100:0 bet with them as I would have no downside. No one so far has taken me up on this offer.
Is it bad?
The Dutch have built dykes since the 1300s. 40% of the Netherlands was reclaimed from the sea, and even today, some of their land is still as much as 7 meters below sea level. Can we, with 21st-century technology, also build dykes to protect land that is 1 meter below sea level?
But, people say, what about places like Africa, which are most affected? Yes, but a well and irrigation would make people resilient to decreased or unreliable rains. These are known, albeit costly, solutions, and thus, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
We can handle the immediate effects of a warmer climate, but, people argue, global warming can spiral out of control: the warm weather melts more ice, less ice means less sunlight reflected and a positive feedback loop that makes the planet warmer ad infinitum until the whole planet is drier than the Sahara.
But there are also negative feedback loops; more carbon dioxide and warmer weather means more plant growth. Plants sequester carbon and reduce temperatures. In fact, the world has become greener over the last few decades with increased forestation in Europe, North America and China, and more greening (think tree crops+forest) in Brazil and Southeast Asia.
Forests in China, Scotland, France, Costa Rica and the US bounced back. Brazil, Peru, and DRC forests are still in steep decline. The world’s net forest cover is in decline, but the decline is slowing with every decade; at this rate, there will be a net increasing forest cover by 2050.
So climate change is possibly neutral to possibly very bad. But good and bad don’t exist in isolation. There are pros and cons of every choice…
Was there a better alternative?
We did pump a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, but carbon-based fuels have saved billions of lives in the last 2 centuries through advances in medicine and sanitation, not to mention improved quality of life for billions more. There wasn’t a viable alternative to carbon-based fuels to have saved those lives at that time. So would we rather have a 1-3°C temperature increase or 1-5 billion dead?
People often say climate change could kill millions of people. But what if it’s more complicated than that. What if modern technology, made possible by fossil fuels, saves millions of people. Just look at the data.
It’s almost as if the same thing that increases CO2 levels also decreases climate disasters. Based on 1920s Climate-related Death Rate of ~0.25% and considering there are 8b people on earth now, 20m people each year are saved compared to 1920s levels.EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain (2023)
This is not just a question of the past—billions still remain in energy poverty. Is it fair to prevent them from saving perhaps a billion more lives?
Let’s look at the environmental alternative. Is global warming better than global cooling? This is not an idle remark. In the 1950s, climate scientists noticed there wasglobal cooling. In fact, due to the predictable changes in the earth’s orbit and axis of rotation, we can (very roughly) predict when we would possibly have had an ice age. The period of ice ages is about21,000 years. The last ice age started about 21,000 years ago. Did we just narrowly miss having another ice age? We can never know for sure. But would we rather have 1-3°C warming than an ice age where the average global temperature dropped by 14°C and glaciers came all the way down to New York?
I just read Why the West Rules…For Now, detailing human development from 14,000BCE to present and a shocking number of times civilization collapsed right as we had a mini ice age. A worthwhile read.
Maybe we don’t want the world to get 1-3°C warmer. But we definitely don’t want it to get 14°C colder. If we could modulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to stay somewhere around what we have now AND relieve energy poverty around the world, that would be great. If only there was a way to maintain our current lifestyle AND carbon dioxide concentration…
When will we get this magical zero-carbon energy?
We already have it! Nuclear power isabundant, reliable, safe and cheap (if the government just allows a plant to be built). Climate change is a solved problem (technically). Politically, there are still roadblocks. But politics is just made up of people like you and me. If you say let’s use nuclear and I do too and a billion other people do, then we could maintain slightly elevated levels of carbon dioxide to stave off an ice age. I have little sympathy for environmentalists against nuclear power; We can have our cake and eat it, too. At COP28, 22 countries committed to increasing Nuclear Power 3x by 2050.
What should we actually worry about?
I’m concerned that by 2100, we will have moved from a Military-Industrial Complex to a Carbon-Industrial Complex; we will have created an entrenched group of lobbyists and special interests that incentivize removing carbon from the atmosphere even though doing so is no longer needed. This could create a bullwhip effect that overcompensates and pushes us back towards too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing low plant growth and another ice age. I have not heard anyone talk about a Carbon-Industrial Complex before, and hopefully, people a century from now will laugh at my wrong-headed theory. But maybe not… History rhymes—if there’s one thing I’m 100% sure of, it’s that humans have proven repeatedly successful at overcompensating.
Closer to home than 2100, consider the parable of the Baptists and the Bootleggers. The religious baptists wanted to ban alcohol in the US in the 1910s to 1920s. Who could blame them? Less alcohol abuse seems like a good thing. But whenever there is someone with good intentions there is someone else who hides under good intentions. Who else wanted alcohol to be banned? The bootleggers! Originally environmentalists had good intentions. Hell, I’m an environmentalist who previously ran a biogas company and attempts permaculture farming when I can. But then the “bootleggers” (*ahem* power-hungry statists) saw the opportunity to centralize power by applying a moral purity test under the guise of environmentalism. It’s too soon to really sort out who are baptists and who are bootleggers but people who conveniently became concerned about the climate right when it benefitted them are suspect. Just like communism, “we need to control people for their own good.” How many climate bootleggers are there? We don’t know. But we know there are power hungry people who would do anything to get what they want so there are certainly some.
I try to be pragmatic. If carbon credits can raise capital for entrepreneurs who can replant trees or provide funding for rural solar projects, I’m all for it—for better or worse, such projects are a drop in the bucket for global carbon. However, I have not heard the unintended consequences of carbon credits discussed. Like giving away free clothes in Africa, thereby destroying nascent textile businesses, there are always unintended consequences.
This article was published in Korean on the Epoch Times Korea, May 6, 2024
Seok Soon Park, Ph.D. Former President of Korea National Institute of Environmental Research, Professor of Environmental Science & Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul Korea
On March 8, 2007, the British TV Channel 4 aired a documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” This film was the complete opposite of the fourth report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in February of the same year. It also directly challenged the documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” by the 45th Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, released in 2006. At that time, fear of man made global warming was sweeping across the world due to the IPCC report and Al Gore’s film.
Under these circumstances, British brave director Martin Durkin produced and aired a documentary on TV denying man made global warming, based on interviews with world-class scientists and the Earth’s climate history. This film featured compelling interviews with several prominent scientists, including Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT in US. Even now, 17 years later, director Durkin’s outstanding screenplay and interviews with scientists are enough to argue that “global warming is a large-scale fraud.”
On the other hand, big lies were hidden in the IPCC’s fourth report and Al Gore’s film. Notable examples include the ‘Himalayan glacier gate’ and the ‘Antarctic Vostok Ice Core fraud.’ However, these lies passed scrutiny by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2007. The Nobel Committee stated that their awarding was for their efforts in raising awareness of the seriousness of global warming and urging action to address the issue. Furthermore, the Committee linked their efforts to maintaining world peace, stating that “excessive competition for the Earth’s resources leads to global warming and, as a result, increases the risk of violent conflicts and wars.“
The ‘Himalayan Glacier Gate,’ which came to light after the award, is a lie that the huge Himalayan ice cap will melt by 2035. Taking advantage of this lie, Rajendra Pachauri, then chairman of the IPCC, received research funds of 2.5 million and 310,000 pounds from the European Union and the Carnegie Foundation, respectively, to his Indian research institute TERI(The Energy and Resource Institute). The justification was that the melting of all Himalayan glaciers would cause serious problems in drinking water supply for nearly 2 billion Asians. However, sceptics continued to raise suspicions, and in 2010, the IPCC admitted that it was a lie. The IPCC’s excuse was that the number of years 2350 described in a Russian paper was written as 2035 in typos. Misleading the world into climate panic and receiving large amounts of research funds due to the number typo is the absurdity level of the UN IPCC report.
Al Gore’s Vostok Ice Core fraud is even more ludicrous. In his film, Al Gore showed data from ice core in the Vostok station of Antarctica, as if CO2 had raised the Earth’s temperature, proclaiming, “The increasing CO2 will turn the Earth into a furnace in the future.” However, this was a blatant lie. It had already been proved by the peer reviewed papers in 1999 and 2003 published in the famous ‘Science’ journal, that the Earth’s temperature rose first, followed by a subsequent increase in CO2 levels several hundred years later. These papers also explain the reason with the perfect scientific theories. He reversed the cause and the result to deceive the world. Furthermore, during the Eemian interglacial period 120,000 years ago, the CO2 concentration did not reach 300ppm which is much lower than today, but the temperature was 8 degree Celsius higher than today. This is solid proof that CO2 doesn’t drive the Earth temperature increase. Yet, Al Gore ignored this solid proof to deceive the world.
Martin’s 2007 film was sufficient to expose to the world the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize, given without scientific validation, was nothing more than a shabby and shameful emblem. Not only that, but the film also wielded another remarkable power. A London truck driver who watched the film filed a lawsuit against the British government for attempting to screen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools, arguing that “the decision to show a politically one-sided film in schools is wrong.” He didn’t want his two children, who were attending school, to be exposed to “An Inconvenient Truth.“
The London High Court, which took charge of the ruling, examined the scientific truths behind Al Gore’s claims in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Ironically, the court released its judgment outlining nine scientific errors on October 10, one day before the announcement of Nobel Peace Prize. These errors included assertions made by Al Gore himself in the film, such as predictions of a 6-meter sea level rise and the submergence of Pacific atolls in near future due to global warming. The court pointed out that the film was produced in the context of “alarmism and exaggeration,” and that science had been manipulated for political advocacy purposes by politicians and publicity experts. In particular, some of the nine errors were deemed closer to falsehoods than exaggerations. While allowing the use of “An Inconvenient Truth” as a teaching resource in schools, the court also emphasized the importance of presenting opposing viewpoints to prevent one-sided arguments. The government received an order from the court to send 77-page guidelines for correction containing these contents to all schools.
In March of this year, after 17 years, Director Durkin released “Climate the Movie: the Cold Truth”, the Sequel to the 2007 “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Collaborating with American producer Tom Nelson, they crafted a more meticulous and solid script using scientific data released since then. It features interviews with world-renowned scientists such as the 2022 Nobel Prize laureate in physics Dr. John Clauser, along with William Harper, Steve Koonin, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, and others. The film has been uploaded on YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute, with subtitles in 29 languages, including Korean and Japanese, so that people around the world can watch it.
The film begins by explaining scientific facts such as the Earth’s climate history, the role of carbon dioxide, the true causes of climate change such as sun and cloud, and the trends in extreme weather events. In the latter part, it exposes the deceitful agreements, the climate bandwagon, and hidden politics behind the emergence of the ‘climate crisis’ narrative. It highlights how individuals’ freedoms and impoverished nations are severely affected. The film concludes in the final remark by stating, “There is a suspicion, or perhaps realisation, that climate change is an invented scare, driven by self-interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic, publicly-funded establishment, hungry for ever more money and power. An assault on the freedom and prosperity of the rest of us.”
The film also reveals the basic truth that the climate scam was initiated by the environmental movement that regarded the free-market economy and industrial capitalism, which have brought prosperity to humanity, as it’s sworn enemy. The climate alarmists have been pouring increasingly apocalyptic narratives over the past 30 years, claiming that the catastrophes are imminent. However, none of the catastrophes has occurred, and casualties from climate disasters have rapidly decreased. They put people around the world under mass hypnosis called the ‘climate crisis’ with blatant lies. There is a Korean proverb that says, “Even the hard bank of a large reservoir can be easily collapsed by a small ant hole, if there is a flaw inside.“ The tremendous impact of this film, now accessible to audiences worldwide, is eagerly anticipated.
※Professor Seok Soon Park translated the subtitles of “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth” into Korean. He currently serves as the South Korean ambassador for the World Climate Declaration by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (www.clintel.org) and a member of the CO2 Coalition (www.co2coalition.org). In 2021, he translated “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone and “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” by Patrick Moore into Korean. In 2023, he co-authored “Climate Apocalypse: the Greatest Scam in Human History,“ with British non-fiction writer David Craig, and wrote “[Fact Check] The Climate Crisis Myths” in Korean. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New Jersey USA) in 1983 and 1985, after his B.S. from Seoul National University (Seoul, Korea) in 1980.
The traditional theology of the Judaeo-Christian world has a useful concept known as invincible ignorance. It is an ignorance so profound, so all-pervading, so irredeemably, pig-headed, so irremediably scatter-brained, that nothing can be done to save its victims from themselves except to smile, shake the dust of their one-horse dorp off one’s cowboy boots, get astride one’s Ducati and thunder off to the next dorp.
One of the most difficult and highly specialist tasks in the counter-intelligence community is that of interdicting the agents of influence of hostile powers so that they cannot create or maintain a climate of invincible ignorance by deploying linguistic warfare, gaining control of our news media, suppressing freedom of speech, corrupting the minds of young people in schools and universities, canceling those who dare to speak the truth and eventually prosecuting or even executing the few brave and independent souls who continue to commit the gravest of all mortal sins against hate-filled totalitarianism: to dare to step out of the Party Line and politely suggest that the Emperor’s valet must have been off duty this morning.
But what if invincible ignorance has become so well established that the enemies of liberty and democracy, free markets and prosperity do not have to do anything except sit and wait until the hated free West collapses all by itself?
Here is perhaps the most spectacular instance of invincible ignorance I have come across in a long career studying this phenomenon and working to prevent its weaponization and deployment by those who mean harm to democracy. Here is a verbatim clip from a recent interview. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to guess who the interviewee is.
Interviewee: “The US government can’t go bankrupt because we can print our own money.”
Dim interviewer: “Like you say, they print the dollar, so why does the government even borrow?”
Interviewee: “Well, um, the – er – so the – I mean – again, some of the stuff gets – some of the language that the – erm – some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money, and it definitely lends that money, which is why – erm, er – the government definitely prints money, and then it lends that money by – er – by selling bonds – er – is that what they do? They, they – erm – they – yeah, they, they – erm – they sell bonds – yeah, they sell bonds, right, so as they sell bonds and people buy bonds and lend them the money – yup – so a lot of times, a lot of times – at least to my ear – with MMT the language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing, but there is no question that the government prints money and then it uses that money to – um, er, uh – er – so – um – yeah, I – I – I guess I’m just – I don’t – I can’t really talk – eh, I don’t – I don’t get it – I don’t know what they’re talking about, like, ’cos – it’s like – the government clearly prints money, it does it all the time, and it clearly borrows, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this that ’n’ defic – conversation, so I don’t think there’s anything confusing there.”
I’ll give you a clue. It could have been (but wasn’t) the Cellar-Dweller, for he has given fewer interviews than any other President (real or purported) in my lifetime. It could have been (but wasn’t) his gibbering, cackling, grossly inadequate deputy, la Harris.
Some further clues. It wasn’t a typically ill-informed, inarticulate Communist undergrad trying and failing to debate Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA on campus.
It was a graduate in music from the Manhattan School of Music. He also holds a Master’s degree in “social” “work” from Hunter College and a Diploma in “social” “work” from Columbia “University” School of “Social” “Work”.
Give up? OK, I’ll tell you. The interviewee was one Jared Bernstein, of whom the world has hitherto justifiably heard little. Believe it or not, our Jared is a member of the U.S. Cabinet in his incapacity as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. I kid you not. That’s his job title.
I should explain that “MMT”, mentioned by Bernstein, is “Modern” “Monetary” “Theory”, which, like “Critical” “Race” “Theory”, is a non-subject manufactured by the shrieking far Left to advance its fell political objectives.
The purpose of MMT – which is not modern, is not monetary and is not a theory – is to induce the West to complete its continuing decline and eventual collapse by abandoning all monetary and fiscal discipline and bankrupt itself by overspending, over-borrowing, over-taxation and excessive money-printing.
It should be clear to all from the above verbatim transcript that Jared the Jejune is not the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors because he knows anything about economics. He is there because he is a Party Line footballer, and for no other reason.
Throughout history, the spend-borrow-tax-print regime has been tried over and over again, and has failed over and over again, from late imperial China via medieval England to the Weimar Republic. It doesn’t work. And that is precisely why it is so attractive to the West-hating far Left.
There is a visible overlap between the invincible ignorance of the Jareds of this world on how many beans make five and the invincible ignorance of the wider governing class in the West on the climate question.
Imagine trying to explain to the U.S. government’s musical “social” “worker” why it is that every cent squandered on interfering in the energy marketplace in the name of Saving The Planet from warmer weather is a cent entirely wasted.
The table shows that even if the Party Line on how much warming we may cause were correct, and even if all nations went directly from here to net zero by 2050, the world would be only 0.2 degrees cooler by then than if our influence on global temperature continued its near-linear increase of the past third of a century over the 26 years to 2050.
After adjustment for the fact that for 34 years global warming has occurred at half the predicted midrange decadal rate, the world would only be 0.1 degrees cooler than now if all nations actually achieved net zero emissions by the target date.
What of the cost? The least unrealistic figure I can find for what it might cost to get to net zero by 2050, the target year, is that of the UK’s National Grid, which has estimated that just to net-zero the UK grid will cost $3.8 trillion. But grid emissions are only a quarter of UK emissions, and UK emissions are only 0.8% of global emissions. So the pro rata cost of net-zeroing the entire planet would be of order $2 quadrillion.
Now for a question way, way over puir wee Jared’s head: value for other people’s money. The candy-cane question is the central question in economics. Tom Sawyer goes into a sweetie-shop, slaps a handful of sticky coins on the counter, points to a pile of candy-canes and says, “Gee, miss, how many candy-canes can I git fer this?”
By the age of ten, most kids know the value of the candy-cane question. Jared hasn’t gotten there yet. So let’s slap a sticky $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on the counter and ask, “Gee, miss, how many degrees’ global cooling by 2050 can I git fer this?”
Spend $1 billion and buy just one 20-millionth of a degree of global cooling by 2050. Even by the low standards of the far Left, that is surely the worst value for money in the history of macroeconomics since the construction of the Great Wall of China. Now we know why the male equivalent of a Karen is a Jared.
Contrast Jared’s invincible ignorance with the alertness of the preceding administration. One day President Trump’s then chief of staff asked me to send the President a brief on a scientific result obtained by my team. The main points of the brief are in two simple slides.
First, if temperature-feedback strength has not changed since 1850, final warming by doubled CO2 – roughly equal to all anthropogenic warming this century – will be 1.1 K, not 2 to 5 K.
Secondly, if the feedback strength has changed since 1850, one cannot use feedback analysis to predict global warming at all, because an increase of just 0.01 in the feedback multiplier would be enough to put up this century’s warming from 2 to 5 K.
Since uncertainties in data and in process understanding altogether prevent the constraint of feedback variables to any such precision as 0.01, feedback analysis cannot be used to predict global warming. But the methods of prediction that do not use feedback analysis tend to predict far less warming than those using that incorrect method, and using it incorrectly.
For instance, the total anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing in the industrial era is about equal to the forcing from doubled CO2. But the warming since 1850 is only 1.1 K. Since the sensitivity-relevant feedbacks are short-acting (days to years), 1.1 K (not IPCC’s predicted 2 to 5 K) is the final warming we may expect this century from anthropogenic causes. And that is the end of the climate “emergency”.
Climate change is being driven by a change in the orientation of the Earth to the Sun rather than carbon dioxide emissions, new analysis of data from Berkeley Earth shows.
The analysis is set out in full below. The highlights:
Analysis of Berkeley Earth data shows a significant difference in the rate of temperature increase between summer and winter in Greenland, with winter warming over four times more rapidly than summer.
Significant seasonal variation in the rate of warming is not specific to Greenland but is a global phenomenon at similar latitudes.
There is a correlation between warming rate and latitude, with a decreasing trend in warming rate as we move from north to south.
This analysis suggests that it is the change in orientation of the Earth to the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, that is the primary driver of climate change.
These findings raise questions about the credibility of the existing climate change narrative.
Berkeley Earth offers comprehensive land surface temperature data for the entire planet. It calculates temperature anomalies by comparing the actual temperature to the average temperature during the period from 1950 to 1980. In a previous article I used data from this site to show that there was minimal evidence of a significant increase in global temperatures, contrasting it with the magnitude of seasonal variations. While it is undeniable that our planet has warmed over the past 150 years, what is the root cause? Could it be attributed to the orientation of the Earth to the Sun, considering it is the only heat source?
I had already downloaded data for some specific regions, and as this is available in monthly increments it was a relatively simple task to interrogate the data to see if there were any seasonal variations in the rate of temperature increase.
To clarify, I am analysing the Berkeley Earth data from 1860 to 2020 by dividing them into three-month periods to calculate the average seasonal anomaly. For instance, winter includes December to February, spring includes March to May, and so on. I then graph these data and calculate the temperature change rate using a linear trend line. Comparing seasons each year is a dependable method because it allows us to draw conclusions based on the relative seasonal warming rates at specific locations. This approach reduces the risk of complications caused by factors like urban warming or thermometer inaccuracies.
I was expecting any seasonal differences to be minimal but to my surprise this was not the case. This is the analysis for Greenland for the period of high carbon dioxide emissions (Fig 1):
The chart clearly shows a significant difference in the rate of temperature increase between summer and winter (4.6 times greater). This difference intrigued me, prompting me to investigate if this pattern is consistent globally. Here is a map of the world (Fig 2) comparing the average annual warming rate (in black) with the seasonal variation (in purple) expressed as a percentage relative to the mean (relative standard deviation) for the four seasons. Higher values for both metrics indicate a more pronounced rate of warming and seasonal variation.
The key takeaways from the above (Fig 2) are as follows:
A clear decreasing trend as we move from north to south in terms of warming rate and a decreasing seasonal variation. This lack of seasonal variation was expected at the equatorial latitude but not for the northern and southern hemispheres.
Warming rates are consistent across latitudes that are at different ends of the earth.
(Data for Antarctica are only available from 1956 onwards so as this is not a comparable data set it has not been included.)
To try and shed further light I have taken four cities and regions from the furthest north, furthest south and proximity to the equator and taken the mean seasonal warming rates for the locations represented by red, green and orange dots respectively above (Fig 3).
This chart confirms that the difference between winter and summer seen in Greenland was not specific to this region but a global phenomenon at this latitude. In this analysis, using four locations, winter is warming nearly four times (3.8 times) more rapidly than summer. This seasonal trend is evident, albeit to a much less extent, at the equator and in the southern hemisphere.
If we examine the observation that the warming rate was changing with latitude using these 12 data sets, we get the following graph (Fig 4):
We can see that there is a reasonable degree of correlation between warming rate and latitude (R2 = 0.7797; a value of 1.0000 equates to a perfect correlation). There are many other factors that influence local climate. Air and ocean currents have a strong bearing and can change on a seasonal basis, but the locations above span the globe.
To further examine this annual cycle of the rate of warming at different latitudes I have taken Greenland as the most extreme and plotted the monthly rate of rise and compared this with New York, the southern hemisphere (Southern Chile) and the equator (Singapore) (Fig 5):
There remains a significant correlation between the time of the year and the rate of warming. For Greenland the difference between the monthly maximum (January) and minimum (July) rate of warming is a factor of 6.5. This large difference indicates that the Earth’s change in orientation to the Sun is playing a crucial role in the warming seen from 1860 to 2020. There is also a clear trend as we move from north to south in the maximum and variation of monthly warming. The second order polynomial curve fit has been determined using Excel.
This analysis suggests that climatic warming in the far northern hemisphere is highly seasonal, with Greenland exemplifying the most extreme winter-to-summer variations. Variations in warming rates across latitudes also point to the Sun’s proximity and angle as the primary driver of planetary warming during the period 1860 to 2020. These changes to the Sun’s orientation to the Earth are known as Milankovitch cycles. The changing seasons occur because the Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical path and is tilted on its axis. Greenland’s average seasonal range is approximately 26°C and as we are looking for something that can increase the warming rate by 0.011°C per year this simple explanation is hardly far-fetched.
Climate scientists admit their models fall short in explaining past rapid temperature shifts in Greenland, which were much more extreme than what we are currently experiencing. Professor William Happer co-wrote a paper, released in 2020 but largely overlooked, that questions the concept of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas at its current levels. These findings and many others prompt unanswered questions regarding the credibility of the existing climate change narrative.
The outcome and implications of this analysis took me by surprise. As I was citing the work of Professor William Happer I asked him to perform a sanity check. He replied that the analysis “looks reasonable to me”. He added:
What has caused the warming of the past two centuries is still open to debate, but I think the evidence is pretty solid that much of the warming was a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and had little to do with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Others have pointed out that the warming has been more pronounced at nights and at near polar latitudes. But it is nice to see this quantitatively confirmed in this analysis.
It is good that you point out strong evidence that the dogma that CO2 is the control knob of Earth’s climate is certainly wrong. But it is being used as an excuse for suicidal economic policies supported by glassy-eyed fanatics and clear-eyed opportunists. This is bad news for humanity.
Guest Post by: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.
Editor’s note: This summary serves as a fact check on the biggest false claims made in the media in April, 2024.
But real-time global surface station data report that the cooling trend since January 2015 remains intact, despite about 500 billion tons or so of emissions:
As usual, we warn that these and other “average temperatures” are highly uncertain guesstimates that have no physical meaning and were exclusively invented for the global warming con. Our take on the apparent slight warming that has occurred since 1980 is that it has been driven by the natural phenomena of periodic El Niños, one of which we have been experiencing since mid-2023. On to this month’s fact checks.
But in March 1996, then-NASA chief climate scientist James Hansen claimed the global temperature was 59.7°F during December-January-February of 1995-1996:
“Global temperature” for December-January-February is not the same as March, but March is always warmer than December-January-February. So March 1996 must have been warmer than 59.7°F. Now, if every emission warms the planet, then March 2024 (57.9°F) should certainly have been warmer than March 1996 (59°F). But that does not appear to be the case. Something is clearly amiss with global temperature guesstimating.
Until next month, check out these additional great fact checks.
Originally posted at JunkScience.com, reposted with permission.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
