German Analysis: ‘Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product’ – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!
German Analysis: “Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product” – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!
Climate cycles and their extrapolation into the future By Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle (Translated/edited by P Gosselin) As the reconstruction of the climate’s development in the past by proxy data shows, there’s a series of temperature cycles that appear to be unknown, or ignored by many climate scientists. Among these are the larger climate cycles of 150 million to 180 million years (see Part 1 and Part 2), but also the shorter and for us the more important following cycles: 1000 years (900-1100) Suess cycle with +/- 0.65°C 230 years (230-250) deVries cycle with +/- 0.30°C 65 years (60-65) Ocean cycles with +/- 0.25°C In principle these cycles are sinusoidal in behavior as depicted in Figure 1. Bob Tisdale has also shown how the temperature increase of the 65-year cycle from 1975 to 1998 led to the assumption that it is due CO2 emissions because they too happened to be parallel. This has been naively extended all the way to the year 2100 and forms the basis for the climate models and the invention of the so-called “climate catastrophe”. Figure 1: Sine wave characteristic of the 60/65-year ocean cycle (Source: Bob Tisdale at WUWT). In this analysis we will attempt to see how the temperature development could be over the next 700 years, assuming of course that the mentioned climate cycles of the past will continue on into the future. This should not be (mis)understood as a forecast for the future climate. Up to now there is only the IPCC forecast that the global temperature will rise by 2 to 5°C by the year 2100 – based only on the expected CO2 increase. However that theory has failed to work over the last 18 ears because the various natural climate factors and cycles never got considered, or they were not allowed to be considered in the climate models. Included among these factors are the mean cloud cover (albedo) and the resulting effective solar insolation (watts per sqm) at the earth’s surface, or the sea surface, which is decisive for the temperature development.Next Figure 2 below depicts the 1000-year cycle and the 230-year cycle, which have been reconstructed from historical proxy data. They stem from a combination of results from various publications in the field of paleoclimatology over the last years. The …
Warmist Joe Romm: ‘Of Course Paris Climate Talks Won’t Keep Warming Below The Dangerous 2°C Limit’
Of Course Paris Climate Talks Won’t Keep Warming Below The Dangerous 2°C Limit
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/05/3619717/paris-climate-talks-2c/
The recent climate deal between the U.S. and China sets the stage for an even bigger global deal in Paris. Such a deal would, finally, sharply shift the trendline for carbon pollution. Some in the media seem confused about what the big international Paris climate talks in December could or could not achieve. Both the U.K. Guardian and Slate suggest that the Paris talks will be a failure if they don’t keep warming below the limit of 2°C, which scientists have said is the limit if we are to avoid dangerous impacts. I have argued for years that we must stabilize as close as possible to 2°C — and preferably below it. But as made clear in the chart above by Climate Interactive and MIT, using their C-ROADS model, the world has been headed to the beyond catastrophic RCP8.5 pathway, which would take us ultimately to 6°C warming or more. We have been ignoring climate scientists for so long — more than a quarter-century — that there was never a possibility that one agreement could change our emissions pathway so sharply. That’s particularly true because the individual national commitments are geared toward 2030 (or 2025). To stabilize anywhere near 2°C, you would need firm commitments from all of the major countries for steady post-2030 cuts that ultimately leading to zero global omissions by 2100. That was never going to happen. So does that mean Paris will be a failure? EU climate chief Miguel Arias Canete says no: “2C is an objective. If we have an ongoing process you can not say it is a failure if the mitigation commitments do not reach 2C.” Slate says you can say it is a failure because 2°C “is the entire goal of the U.N. climate negotiations. That’s it. That’s what the world is fighting for. All of the eggs have been put in that basket.” I don’t think one can call Paris a failure merely because it doesn’t create an agreement that would limit warming to 2°C, much as we ultimately need to keep to that limit. Let me use an example I have written about many times before, “the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,” which is widely viewed as having saved the ozone layer from being destroyed by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chemicals. The …
Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong
Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong
New data show strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons From The Earth Institute at Columbia University: Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up […]
— gReader Pro…
Here Are the 56 Percent of Congressional Republicans ‘Who Deny Climate Change’
…‘We must rely on forecasts by computer models. Are they reliable?’
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/02/02/computer-models-forecasts-reliability-climate-77514/…
‘Climate Science’s Long List Of Failed Predictions’
Tim Flannery “Has Plenty Of Company In The Dunce’s Corner” …Climate Science’s Long List Of Failed Predictions
Good article at Quadrant magazine here on the background behind the many failed predictions of disaster in climate science and the strange characters behind them. Hat tip: reader Stefan. ======================== Warmists Take the Hardest Hits Anyone can be a prophet of doom…. Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince the public that the scare underwriting its meal ticket is real? Even the CSIRO’s annual survey last year showed that 53% of Australians reject the official story. And even on the CSIRO’s figures, Aussies rank climate fourteenth out of sixteen concerns overall, and we rate it only seventh out of eight even among environmental concerns. In Britain, more of the same, with a new survey showing those who describe themselves “very concerned” about climate change falling to 18%, down from 44% in 2005. Partly to blame is that dratted 18-year halt to global warming, even as man-made CO2 continues to pour into the skies. But my theory is that the global warming industry has made itself so ridiculous over the past 30 years, so hyperventilatingly ludicrous, by predicting ever-more-dire catastrophes by the year 20XX. But then year 20XX comes and goes and life continues as normal. … Continue reading here…
— gReader Pro…
Climate Science Fiction: IPCC Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming 8X Greater Than Reality
Climate Science Fiction: IPCC Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming 8X Greater Than Reality
#tcot #youngcons #gop We’ve said it before…climate models can’t predict squat…current scenarios of global climate temperatures and level of temp change already reveal a massive failure…policymakers and taxpayers should completely disregard the virtual computer simulations of climate doomsday proposed by…
— gReader Pro…
Analysis: ‘Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy’
The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism: Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy & ignore encouraging data
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-alarming-thing-about-climate.html
The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data. By BJORN LOMBORG Feb. 1, 2015 6:14 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected. Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies. Yes, Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the models expected. But models also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease, yet it is increasing. Yes, sea levels are rising, but the rise is not accelerating—if anything, two recent papers, one by Chinese scientists published in the January 2014 issue of Global and Planetary Change, and the other by U.S. scientists published in the May 2013 issue of Coastal Engineering, have shown a small decline in the rate of sea-level increase. We are often being told that we’re seeing more and more droughts, but a study published last March in the journal Nature actually shows a decrease in the world’s surface that has been afflicted by droughts since 1982. Hurricanes are likewise used as an example of the “ever worse” trope. If we look at the U.S., where we have the best statistics, damage costs from hurricanes are increasing—but only because there are more people, with more-expensive property, living near coastlines. If we adjust for population and wealth, hurricane damage during the period 1900-2013 decreased slightly. At the U.N. climate conference in Lima, Peru, in December, attendees were told that their countries should cut carbon emissions to avoid future damage from storms like typhoon Hagupit, which hit the Philippines during the conference, killing at least 21 people and forcing more than a million into shelters. Yet the trend for landfalling typhoons around the Philippines has actually declined since 1950, according to a study published in 2012 …
Greenland Approaches A Record For Mass Gain
After Another Record Snowfall, Greenland Approaches A Record For Mass Gain
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI Greenland just gained 12 billion tons of snow in one day, and is approaching a record amount of mass gain. This is the part where alarmists say “glaciers are calving faster than new ice … Continue reading →
— gReader Pro…
Temperature Adjustments Transform Arctic Climate History
Temperature Adjustments Transform Arctic Climate History
By Paul Homewood We are told that the biggest sign of “climate change” is the rapidly warming Arctic, even called the World’s thermometer, proof that global warming cannot have stopped. Certainly, the evidence of this from GISS is persuasive. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=1212&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol Yet it is well established that the Arctic warmed up rapidly during the 1930’s and 40’s, before temperatures plunged in the 1960’s and 70’s. James Hansen, himself, recognised this, as the graph below from his 1987 paper Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature , showed. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff_1.pdf So how much is what we have been seeing in recent years just part of that cycle? How much warmer is the Arctic now than it was 80 years ago? Quite a lot, according to GISS. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt But can we trust their figures? We saw previously how the temperature history for Paraguay, and a large slice of the surrounding region, had been altered as a result of temperature adjustments, which had significantly reduced historic temperatures and changed a cooling trend into a warming one. I can now confirm that similar “cooling the past” adjustments have been carried out in the Arctic region, and that the scale and geographic range of these is breathtaking. Nearly every current station from Greenland, in the west, to Siberia,in the east, has been altered in this way. The effect has been to remove a large part of the 1940’s spike, and as consequence removed much of the drop in temperatures during the subsequent cold decades. The stations affected range from Nuuk, (51W), to Turuhansk (87E). In other words, nearly half way around the Arctic. In the Appendix, there is a full set of the GHCN pages for each station, showing the size of the adjustments, but these two animated graphs, for Nuuk in Greenland, and Salehard, in Siberia, give a flavour. Note how the adjusted temperatures are suppressed for the period around 1940. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=222233300000&dt=1&ds=12 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=222233300002&dt=1&ds=1 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431042500000&dt=1&ds=12 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431042500000&dt=1&ds=1 Altogether, out of the stations currently operational and with records since 1940, and located in Greenland, Iceland, northern Norway, Russia and Siberia (for the latter three, above 65N), there are 19 stations that have been adjusted this way to produce an artificial warming trend, and only 4 stations that have been unadjusted. No stations at all have been adjusted the other way. Adjustments of a degree centigrade or more are common. Temperature Adjustments Can …