“The IPCC remains addicted to hockeysticks”
In the 6th dimension of Intergovernmental Climate Propaganda, which arrived last week, the long discredited Hockeystick is not just a sidenote, it’s the very first graph the IPCC uses in their Summary for Powerful people (the ones who make policy).
As per usual, hundreds of years of warmth has been retro-extinguished. Thousands of proxies around the world all deviated from the real temperature and non-randomly in the same direction. It’s a conspiracy I tell you! Luckily the IPCC has found scientists who can correct these simultaneous errors of proxiness which mostly they do by just tossing out the results they don’t like. They ignore whole series they don’t like, delete the years that don’t work for them, and flip that data upside down if they need to. And if that’s not enough they use trees that grow larger rings when CO2 is higher.
And when they are not deleteing data, they’re using the wrong trees. No one is even pretending anymore. They’ve done it all before and no one went to jail or even lost a job.
As Steve MacIntyre tells it the PAGES2017 data set winnowed down the thousands of proxies to their 692 favorite ones. In PAGES2019, instead of getting more data, they got less, and now there are only 257 proxies.
You might think they were the 257 longest or best proxies, but about 25% of the ones that made it through are short coral studies which often have steep rises in the last 50 years, but no information at all for the two thousand years before that, that mattered.
Figure 1, IPCC 6AR. page 8 PDF
Steve McIntyre slices and dices the Zombie Hockeystick.
The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick
Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter – the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks: lo and behold, Figure 1a of its newly minted Summary for Policy-makers contains what else – a hockey stick diagram. If you thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick was bad, imagine a woke hockey stick by woke climate scientists. As the climate scientists say, it’s even worse that we thought.
To give the average punter an idea of just how industrial-grade the cherry picking is, McIntyre picks a random assortment of proxy histories the IPCC filtered out in order to discover the modern Hockeystick marked in Red.
The Black graphs disappeared, the blue graphs lived on, and the red line is the politically correct history of the temperature on Earth.
Random selection of proxies that didn’t show unprecedented global warming in PAGES 2017. The IPPC interpretation in Red.
Curiously, Cape Ghir (bottom right) off Morocco actually has a hockeystick, but its one of unprecedented cooling. It’s an alkenone proxy, which McIntyre describes as being good for estimating ocean temperatures, and used so often they have boilerplate formulas to convert the values into temperatures. However this is clearly wrong, the IPCC heroes know the temperatures were rising (how could it be any other way?) so they flip the graph to “discover” the warming. Up is down, black is white, you know the drill, Winston. They’ve done it before.
And a quarter of the cherries that were picked were the brief coral studies which tell us nothing about the Medieval Warm Period:
Coral Temperature Proxies
Hiding the decline
Since about 1960 tree rings and other proxies “diverge” from thermometers probably because tree rings are often not good thermometers, and sometimes thermometers are not good thermometers either — especially when they are put near exhaust vents from air conditioning units.
MacIntrye:
They took “hide the decline” to extremes that had never been contemplated by prior practitioners of this dark art. Rather than hiding the decline in the final product, they did so for individual trees: as explained in the underlying article, they excluded the “divergent portions” of individual trees that had temerity to have decreasing growth in recent years. Even Briffa would never have contemplated such woke radical measures.
Say hello to Divergence-free regional chronology?
“…rather than excluding divergent series altogether,
we exclude only the divergent portions of these series.“
If you don’t like your data, you can delete your data.
See the bump around World War II in the top graph? It’s gone…
…
The warming around WWII was “divergent” from climate models and government grants. It was deleted.
The 2021 Zombie Hockeystick also includes that famous tree that responds to increasing CO2 levels by growing larger rings.
Five different PAGES2019 series use stripbark bristlecones…
By confusing cause with effect the stripbark pines are the ultimate tool to find warming at exactly the same time as CO2 rises.
Read it all: https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
REFERENCE/ PROPAGANDA
IPCC Summary for Policy Makers round 6. Page 7 , Figure SPM-1
IPCC and our ‘experts’ hate history and will not listen or acknowledge anything beyond their own propaganda.
Instant data defined behind our politicians payments for a fictional narrative…
To scare you…boo.
420
The Pages 2K datasets have been peer-reviewed, cross-checked, and validated many times by researchers all around the world. Invalidated proxies have been removed for a reason. There is no conspiracy to cook the books, it would be impossible to keep everyone (bar one) onside. All of the data is in the public domain and available for anyone to analyse, even if they don’t necessarily understand limitations within the data.
248
Yes, peer-reviewed by MacIntyre and other
…. and found to be a load of total garbage.
Thanks for pointing that out, Simon.
Its either a conspiracy, deliberate fràùd, or gross incompetence.. which do you think.
The data is in the public domain, it has been analysed and found to be biased and unrepresentative of reality.
Your limitations in understanding and comprehension are exposed in every post you make, simple one.
441
Tell us what you think – is it “conspiracy, deliberate fràùd, or gross incompetence”?
62
Yes..
… and add in groupthink adherence.
90
Could you explain this a bit more – if it’s “gross incompetence” how can it be conspiracy or deliberate fràùd”?
16
driven by the hip-pocket nerve.
60
The indoctrination of the masses.
30
All the above?
30
Exactly! and there is no reason to exclude same.
Science my as*.
00
Junk in.. Junk out. !
240
Simon, you and a few others enjoy negative reputations. If you say all is well then it gives people used to what you write confirmation that all is very wrong.
Be a better troll!
191
Yes, he’s one of those strange little people that is provably wrong with basically everything they type.
Is it intentional.. or just bad luck ! ?
170
So please point us to the reasons behind removing the 1940s warm period. If the data is validated, then there must be a valid reason to completely remove this big bump of warming from 1910 to 1940. If you recall the Tom Wigley email to Phil Jones (link below), then you’ll remember how they discussed removing this warm period back in 2009.
http://sealevel.info/FOIA/1254108338.txt
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”
Well, it looks like Dr Phil has outdone himself with the new report because the entire warming has now been removed, not just 0.15 deg C and no one has ever explained anything.
180
Every global temperature reconstruction over the past 25 years has been a hockey stick for the simple reason that the observed warming over the past 100 years has been much faster than can be explained by Milankovitch or solar cycles. Group think, fraud, or incompetence has nothing to do with it.
It is unsurprising that rejected proxies show patterns inconsistent with those that have been validated and accepted.
225
MWP was warmer LIA was colder
Nearly all the Holocene was significantly warmer than now.
We are lucky to have climbed slightly out of the coldest period in some 10,000 years.
Group think, fraud, and incompetence have everything to do with it.
Its what holds the AGW scam together.
And you fall for it so gullibly, because you don’t have the ability to reason or think for yourself.
You still haven’t produced any science. just waffle.
110
Roy Spencer doesn’t have a hockey stick.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2021_v6.jpg
30
UAH shows a temperature rise of 0.6°C in only 40 years. Overlay that on top of the paleoclimatic series and you will get a hockey stick.
13
Wrong again… Real paleo series show a much warmer MWP, they also don’t have a resolution of 50 years, so adding them on at the end is mathematical and scientific nonsense..
Just what we expect from you.
20
Huh. Roy as good as he is, had pretty limited satellite info in those Paleo years didn’t he Simon?.
00
” has been much faster”
lol, Was faster between 1900 and 1940 in pre-agenda-adjusted data.
And no, there is not enough data resolution from previous times to make that “has been faster”, except as propaganda.
Other warming periods have been just as fast and much more protracted.
What you really mean is that the smearing of urban temperatures and the manic “mal-adjustments” of temperature once-was-data, are more rapid since the AGW scam started.
One day you will make up a fantasy to explain how tree stumps are found under retreating glaciers, trees aged at only 1000 or so years old. A lot more warming is needed before trees grow in those now-glacial areas again.
60
Absolute nonsense. Peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn’t happen.
15
So you have no counter, just whimpering appeals to pal review non-science.
What about those trees found under glaciers.. have you got your fantasy yet?
We all really want to hear it, just for the comedic value.
30
‘… warming over the past 100 years has been much faster than can be explained by Milankovitch or solar cycles.’
Exactly, its down to ocean oscillations, in and out of sync, but lets talk about what is being observed in real time. This his not in the AGW songbook.
Typhoons have been tracking down since the middle of last century.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/13/hot-air-coming-from-ipcc-at-tropical-storm-levels-typhoons-trending-down-since-1951/
Tropical cyclones are also trending down, global warming has a lot to answer for. Nothing on this in AR6.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
30
Solar cycles rule, tree rings take us back to the middle Holocene.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379119306924
10
To say AR6 is peer reviewed is like saying the ABC has independent fact checkers.
160
Or that fact checkers are independent
60
Go on then Simon,
Tell us why the datasets they kept had hockeysticks, whilst the ones they chucked out didn’t.
This’ll be fun…
30
Simon you have not answered Serge Wrights question : what is the so called ‘valid reason ” for the removal of the 1940’s warm bump in the MDRC – all trees dendrochronology series ? Tom Wigley’s ClimateGate email clearly recommends tendentiously [ ” we are still left with why the blip “] erasing the 1940s blip in the land thermometer record and now they have smoothed the ” divergent” 40’s warm blip from the IPCC’s tree ring series …. This is data tampering and you are condoning it . What is it about ” we exclude only the divergent portions of the series ” that does not perturb you ?
40
No maggot-burgers and prison cells for this lot, if they lie enough they’ll get their mortgage paid-off.
410
Yep.
Back in the day when I was in IT, the common saying was
And it was true.
Big computer systems were very expensive and there was a well founded danger associated with considering something other than ‘mainstream’.
Where have I heard the term ‘mainstream’ before . . .
140
The modern day prophet, George Orwell, perfectly prophesied this scenario:
640
In a nutshell.
“The future is certain – it’s the past that keeps changing.’ Russian saying.
470
Quite so David. The problem is that sane people interpreted the book as a warning. The politically ambitious interpreted the book as a guide.
150
I don’t like the term “climate scientist”.
It gives real scientists and science itself a bad reputation.
An alternative term is needed. Perhaps “global warming propagandist”.
510
It’s not just the scientists, but the field itself. Calling anything that must conform to obvious propaganda ‘science’ is an embarrassment to all legitimate science.
The first thing the IPCC did when they weaseled their way into becoming the arbiter of climate science based on what they decide to publish was to deprecate the scientific method.
480
Climate scientist is an oxymoron
170
no oxy… !
90
New paper affirms that solar energy drives the climate, not CO2
http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/download/4920/6080
311
Unable to get this limk, c.
30
Odd, its working for me.
Try going to here http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080
And click on “download this pdf file”, just below where it says Vol 21 No 6
50
What browser are you using? I use Safari and had no trouble with the link originally posted by clarence.t. No problem with Firefox either but couldn’t open it using Chrome
40
The link opened in Chrome for me.
10
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/08/tuesday-open-thread-69/#comment-2455417 describes a similar experience of the link.
10
second link above should work.
30
My experience is click the (original first) link and the document downloads automatically then you open your downloads option from your navigation bar, select and click the file and it opens. Depending on how you have set out your navigation bar the symbol that is a downwards arrow pointing into a tray is the icon you want.
30
I had to copy and paste it into my browser to make it work,
20
Easy to get a hockey stick if you select just the series that show one. By the same token we could get the MWP or the Roman warm period, just as warm or warmer than today. So the method is worthless.
Statistical theory says you must take a RANDOM sample, because statistical reasoning is based on probability theory. This HS junk is the exact opposite of a random sample of the thousands of available proxy series.
Picking just the data that supports a hypothesis is scientific fraud.
Also Steve Mac says that nowhere is the actual method explained, which makes the result impossible to replicate.
561
A quote by Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”
210
According to the full methodology published alongside the 2019 report it is all above board.
But click bait rules
353
Except its not. Its a selected cherry-picked farce. As proven.
You seem to fall for even the most basic of propaganda, don’t you PF the Gullible
411
CO2 helps plant growth.
What they are showing is the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 on tree growth.
Trees are bad as a temperature proxy because they have been limited by low atmospheric CO2 for a long time.
421
ha ha, proof? you have none, you just post exxon talking points
014
Are you saying CO2 has not risen over the last 100 or so years.
Are you saying that CO2 doesn’t just affect, but is actually totally essential for plant growth.
Are you saying CO2 hasn’t been at very low levels for a long time.
Have you any more ignorant comments you want to share with everybody ?
140
ha ha, proof? you have none, you just post exxon talking points
018
A parrot would have more thinking power than you can ever muster, PF
Ignorance of plant biology is no excuse for your mindless gibbering.
110
Amazing Clarence, a parrot came to my mind, before I read your comment.
40
I didn’t know they were Exxon talking points. Well done Exxon
Great to see that Exxon were correct, and that you can provide absolutely nothing to counter these facts.
Seem to be the way you post. Basically zero content, ever.
80
Except many of the later tree proxies show reduced growth because of acid rain and other stresses, many of which are anthropogenic in origin. The CO2 fertilisation effect is real but it is often overwhelmed by other factors.
137
Acid rain.. LOL.. !
Great that you reaffirm that tree rings are not an appropriate proxy for temperature, simple one. !
Again, “overwhelmed by other factors” blah, without any proof whatsoever.
301
Except many of the later tree proxies show reduced growth…
Acid rain was a late 20th Century phenomena, tree growth in earlier centuries was unaffected. Dendroclimatology is a well established science, you can tell a lot from growth rings. Density and earlywood/latewood bands provide seasonal information, you can even identify individual volcanic eruptions and their short-term climate effects.
110
lol, you really are just making garbage up now, aren’t you.
You have already admitted that trees are not a good proxy for temperature because there are so many other things that affect them.
Do try to solve your empty minded cognitive dissonance.
Do you deny that low CO2 is a limiting fact in tree growth ! really !
Read the comments below about “acid rain” before you make even more of a fool of yourself.
50
Mr. Simon: I’m so happy for you, you can rely on the well-established science of your choice so you know the future (unlike us lesser beings). Problem for the likes of you is, the past changes so fast you have trouble keeping up.
30
“show reduced growth”
So, as these are summer growth species in cool climates, far from major civilisation… it could be from a shorter growing season
Thanks, simple one.
231
Oh come off it Simon, acid rain ceased to be an issue anyone mentioned during the very early 1990s, it came to an end. Carbonphobia.
260
It became an issue again in the 2010s because of the mandated diesel engines in France. The move to high compression engines meant we had swapped a fixable problem with (removable) sulphur dioxide (SO2, turns into H2SO4 sulphuric in the water/rain) to NO2 (forms nitric HNO3 in the water/rain). Dictatorial Green mania in government had replaced an historic problem with a new one. So they introduced a city tax on diesels. Which is why the maillot jaune protests. Idiotic Green bureaucrats keep inventing problems, forcing people to buy diesel cars and then punishing them for doing so.
And Volkswagen were made the villains for giving legislators what they demanded, lower pollution with zero acceleration. Green diesels. Bureaucrats saving the planet. Too bad about reality.
This reminds me of the transfat tragedy where America legislated the swap from saturated animal fats to caring, green hydrogenized vegetable oil and pilloried McDonalds and others for not swapping fast enough. Then it became clear that transfats were lethal, carcinogenic disasters and McDonalds became heroes.
I wonder if mandatory vaccination will produce a similar tragedy, with mandatory innoculation of young people, even children who do not need innoculation. Herd immunity is a myth, a retrospective popular explanation for why viruses die out when the real reason is a rapidly spreading benign mutation because there was never an innoculation for H1N1.
We were told this year that we all had to be innoculated for the latest flu because a flu epidemic was likely. In fact no people have died from the latest flu mutation in Australia this year and there is no epidemic. Nor was one expected but hundreds of millions of dollars were spent. For nothing.
What I would love is that we become more aware of the dangers of flus and other communicable diseases and bring back health checks at every point of entry, as we used to have when we still remembered the problems, the pandemics which spread so rapidly with air travel. But now we have the UN/WHO to protect us.
But the WHO and IPCC are under the control of the United Nations, 40,000 unelected people doing the work of the 75% of world governments which are military dictatorships. And still pushing an utterly discredited Hockey stick as if it had any relationship to reality. Meanwhile Tedros Adhonom has not said sorry for telling the world with all his authority that Wuhan Flu was not infectious, ‘person to person’. He lied. He and his friends and President Xi and his generals should all be on trial for crimes against humanity. 4 million dead and no one is saying sorry. He did however rename it to avoid the China military weapon connection, which has always been so obvious. Wuhan flu was released in exactly the way any country would launch WWIII. Unfortunately for Xi, Trump and Johnson survived.
Hockey sticks and world pandemics, brought to you by the UN. At your expense in every way. Plus acid rain, again.
250
Was that the same greens that gave us plastic shopping bags, because the paper ones were ‘ decimating all the lovely trees’.
180
Reminds me of the “Eco” button in a Prius … which no one ever uses. It’s enviro credentials are based on using eco-‘mode’ but owners don’t want a car that accelerates like a sloth.
Bit like anti-knock leaded-fuel being replaced with high-sulfur ULP fuel. Was working on a survey boat off North QLD’s coast that year, when you spend weeks at sea your sense of smell becomes very sensitive. So when returning to Cairns we got just south of Cape Tribulation and close-in to the coast, and I could smell Port Douglas from that distance. A mixture of garlic from the restaurants and the smell of a small number of ULP cars in town … from 15 km away.
120
My real concern with acid rain was not the fish in America’s lakes, as debunked later by David Maddison but the mass destruction of our heritage, so many beautiful buildings made from limestone (London, Paris, Odessa). Westminster Abbey is one. In Melbourne, much of the ornate sandstone of St. Paul’s Cathedral had to be completely replaced in the 1990s. Older structures such as 900 year old Norman Gothic Cathedrals are just ruined. The faces go missing first.
The environmental concern is quite fake. Acidity at this level is nothing to wildlife. Humans drink Coca Cola and do not vanish. The dying fish from carbon dioxide is debunked as well and the JCU business Dr. Phillip Munday and students with carbonic acid from Ocean Acidicification has proven to be fake research. But JCU says he has left. And they found no fault with his research. Where Ridd was obviously fired for spilling the beans.
However the beautiful sandstone and limestone and marble buildings fall apart in a few decades. And that is a real loss to everyone. Nothing to do with fish and the environment. And the concrete pipes do not appreciate acidic water either and tend to make it basic, at a loss to the concrete.
110
Just use a fluorinated alkylsilane.
Protects all limestone!
20
All rain is acidic to a greater or lesser degree depending on the constituents of the atmosphere it falls through.
What was labelled “acid rain” had much higher than normal levels of sulphur and nitric compounds (sulphuric and nitric acids which are not particularly friendly to life forms) dissolved in it.
Volcanic action causes highly acidic rain from the release of sulphur. The problems caused by these are temporary. There was a certain reason behind the Green idea of banning sulphur but it was fatally flawed and totally stupid: there is no way we can prevent or control volcanoes. They happen.
See David Maddison below.
20
There was a major problem with Venezuelan oil. It was very high in sulphur. You could tell which countries were using it from the stench.
But sulphur is now extracted and Venezuela has the biggest oil supplies in the world, which is why it is Socialist, the people are broke, government gangs and foreign soldiers control the country and the Chinese and the Russians and the Cubans are all in there helping their comrades take the oil while the people lack power, petrol, hygiene, jobs and it has gone from a first world country to a third world country in a few years. Socialism, it turns first world countries into third world countries overnight.
60
Simon, the climate gods took away the myth of “acid rain” and gifted you the myth of “the hole in the ozone layer” before giving you the gift of “anthropogenic global warming”.
Get with the program.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603
DR WILLIAM REVILLE UNDER THE MICROSCOPEWhatever happened to acid rain? Back in the 1970s and 1980s it was killing our forests, acidifying lakes so they could no longer support life, and leaching metals out of soil into waterways where they could attack human health. Feelings ran high.
….
What made the acid rain myth finally evaporate?
DR WILLIAM REVILLE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE Whatever happened to acid rain? Back in the 1970s and 1980s it was killing our forests…
Thu, Mar 6, 2008, 00:00
DR WILLIAM REVILLE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
Whatever happened to acid rain? Back in the 1970s and 1980s it was killing our forests, acidifying lakes so they could no longer support life, and leaching metals out of soil into waterways where they could attack human health. Feelings ran high.
In 1993, John Gummer, UK secretary for the environment was called a drittsekk (“sack of sh1t”) by Thorbjorn Bernsten, Gummer’s Norwegian counterpart, for failing to take air pollution seriously.
Nowadays we don’t hear of acid rain. Have we solved the problem, and how big was it anyway? The answer to the first question seems to be a qualified yes, and to the second – not very big.
Acid rain was mainly caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere from coal-fired power stations, and by emissions of oxides of nitrogen from various sources. These gases, combined with water in the atmosphere to form sulphuric and nitric acids. The acids fell to earth as acid rain and studies purported to show acid rain damaged trees, polluted streams, lakes and rivers and damaged wildlife and buildings. It was estimated that 4,000 lakes in Sweden were acidified to the extent that no fish could survive and thousands of lakes in America were likewise “killed”. In the UK, acid rain was blamed for destroying toads and for eroding the structure of important buildings.
Acid rain was dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s. By switching from coal to gas and installing “scrubbers” to clean up power station and factory emissions, huge reductions were made in acid rain pollution in Europe. Catalytic convertors on car exhausts reduced nitrogen oxide emissions. The US Clean Air Act Amendments, designed in part to control sulphur dioxide emissions, were passed in 1990.
Emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are now under control in Europe and America generally, but emissions from shipping still cause acid rain in coastal areas. Some experts warn that increasing acidity of the oceans could destroy all coral by 2065. Also, acid rain persists in China, which now burns half of all coal burned in the world annually.
How dangerous was acid rain? The most comprehensive study was commissioned in 1980 by US president Jimmy Carter. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP) examined the damage caused by acid rain and recommended solutions. In 1982 president Ronald Regan raised the annual budget for NAPAP to $100 million. The final cost of NAPAP, the most costly environmental study in US history, was $537 million.
The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900. It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America. Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again. The study also found that in many cases forests were suffering debilitation due to insects or drought and not acid rain.
The NAPAP reported in 1990. The findings were explosive: first, acid rain had not injured forests or crops in US or Canada; second, acid rain had no observable effect on human health; third, only a small number of lakes had been acidified by acid rain and these could be rehabilitated by adding lime to the water. In summary, acid rain was a nuisance, not a catastrophe.
SEE LINK FOR REST
320
Reduced growth because of acid rain, maybe. SS is not a good choice but I’m happy to debate it.
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
01
Funny, isn’t it.
They say there tree ring proxies diverge, but they show a minimum around the late 1970s
Which is exactly what NH temperatures do.
The thing that diverges from reality is their faked temperature fabrication.
60
This was exactly my point. Instead of attributing the divergence of northern tree ring proxies to acid rain I probably should have said air pollution and external environmental stresses.
13
Attributing, fantasising you mean.
No evidence… just make it up .
10
The NH is polluted to a great degree, so we should stop using tree proxies from there.
00
We should stop using trees as proxies for temperature.. period.
10
This is what happens when you remove CO2 starvation affected tree proxies…
https://i.postimg.cc/43DKyyc1/lanser-holocene-figure11.png
10
Yes, tree rings are most affected by water stress. Small rings if hot and dry OR cold and dry. Large rings if warm and wet and mild (within limits) and wet. Tree rings tell you the available moisture at the time more than anything about temps. A grape vine will grow faster at 20c with lots of water than at 30c with inadequate water. Plant rings are hopeless as proxies for temps.
50
“many of the later tree proxies show reduced growth”
So they just erased the part they didn’t like…
That is not just cherry-picking, they take the whole darn branch as well.
And they even state as much in their papers.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/f28d2-porteretal.png
The ultimate in scientific mal-faeces… ie fräüd.
10
Absolute nonsense. You have no sense of anything excepting trash representations which suit your unenquiring mind. Have you any idea of critique?
130
I do not recall the name, but about five years ago (give or take), a young lady botanist would post on an irregular basis over at Anthony’s. She got into several discussions about tree rings, and related subjects, so at one point, I asked her point-blank, “Are tree rings usable proxies for temperature?”
Her answer could not have been more succinct: She said, “No.”
There were very few posts after that, and then finally, she left the forum.
And, yes, she professed a belief in AGW and CAGW. Not a friend of Anthony’s, or Jo’s, or of mine.
I promise, that was her entire post, viz. “No.” No elaboration, no discussion, no nothing. Just, “No.”
One person’s opinion; make of it what you will,
V. t. I.
200
“According to the full methodology published alongside the 2019 report it is all above board.”
Maybe maybe not. I have always found Steve McIntyre a straight shooter who is very even handed in his reports. It is unlikely that his assessment is biased.
110
Reply has vanished as so often happens
10
As per usual original reply miraculouslyappears when I post again
10
Keep refreshing your browser… seems to work
40
Yep. The world is out to get you Ian. Check that your tin foil hat is well secured. Works for me!
30
Ian is correct, the system is playing up. If my words disappear I say something else and bingo they all pop up again.
10
If the US government can fake the whole moon landing then they can give blog posters grief without even trying. Hence the need for a tin foil hat.
40
I don’t know why anyone would bother taking any notice of what the IPCCC says, they are all corrupt.
240
More to the point they’re consistently wrong about everything they predict on top of being inveterate fraudsters and rapacious crooks.
210
The physics of the atmosphere would dictate that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to the remaining 99.96% of he atmosphere, and dealt with by the normal process of the pressure driven lapse rate.
Recent data shows this conclusively to be correct.
Increased CO2 does not retain energy in the atmosphere.
Data proves that while there is a decrease of OLR in the narrow CO2 band, as expected, it is more than compensated by an increase in a much wider band of OLR in the atmospheric window.
The absorbed energy in the CO2 band is being thermalised to the rest of the atmosphere and rejected at a different frequency, exactly as atmospheric physics controlled by the gravity based lapse rate would dictate.
https://i.postimg.cc/FRtCjkyG/Radiative-change.jpg
OLR is increasing, in line with atmospheric temperatures
https://i.postimg.cc/76VcwYzV/OLR-increase.jpg
The only way this can happen is if the energy causing the mild but highly beneficial warming is from an exterior source.
This is actually that big hot shiny object in the sky, which we call The Sun, but also affected by a decrease in cloud cover over the tropical oceans, thus helping fuel the El Nino events that are the coincident with the only warming since 1979 in the satellite temperature data.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Also if we look at Solar intensity, we see that we have just had a period of the highest solar activity in a very long time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
New paper also shows that if you use unadulterated data, solar energy is responsible for all the
small but totally beneficial temperature rise in the last 150 or so years
http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/download/4920/6080
270
Nicely put.
Particularly liked the material about the “lost” energy in the associated CO2 emission frequency being accounted for in the rest of the IR spectrum and presumably at a lower, less intense frequency.
PW IR in the upper atmosphere has only one place to go on its slide down the energy gradient; deep space.
80
Good, but “helping fuel the El Nino events” is not likely. The huge heat sinks on the planet, the ones which control and generates and change our weather are the oceans. As I always point out, with 340x the mass and 1400x the heat capacity of the air, the ocean temperature and specifically the ocean surface temperature generates ALL our weather. There would be no weather without water, just dust storms on a dead planet.
But the ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO, ..) are not just on the surface or in swirling patterns horizontally or 2D but also 3D as currents hit continents and bounce upwards or sink. Oceans are up to 7km deep! Welling up of even slightly colder or warmer water from below can be a slow process, but likely to be a consequence of big oscillations, like a swimming pool on a boat in a storm (always fun and amazing).
Until the vaunted Hockey stick computer models include the massive and dominant amount of energy in the oceans and the incident solar energy, they always will be wrong.
Otherwise all the Hockey Stick predictions are based on the 0.1% of the solar energy stored in the tiny atmospheric system. How anyone thinks such a model will work at all for long term climate predictions is beyond reason. As I point out so often, Professor Weiss’ mathematical analysis was perfect, a fit for the last 250 years. And he only needed one solar cycle (De Vries 260 years) and the AMO/PDO to get a perfect fit. CO2 is irrelevant.
But this comment is about the idea that the incident energy creates or alters El Nino cycles or any of the other big ocean oscillations. I would be surprised. The oceans hold tens of thousands of years of radiant solar energy and never freeze as they moderate climates all over the planet. And if one of them should actually change, say the Gulf Stream, it would be a disaster, but it is also very unlikely. Homo Sapiens has not been on the planet long in geological terms to be so unlucky.
If we all drive Teslas, rely on windmills and solar panels though, we are told climates will never change and we will have no bushfires in Australia, Greece, California, Russia, no hurricanes or tropical storms or tidal waves or volcanoes. How reassuring is that? Looked at that way, Teslas are a bargain.
100
““helping fuel the El Nino events” is not likely”
The tropic oceans are the regions where the highest intensity of solar energy is absorbed.
60
Thanks Jo for highlighting the latest AR6 hockey stick warming fiasco and these con merchants must be the greatest cherry pickers of all time.
I hope this helps to drive a stake through the heart of their dubious AR6 report and the sooner the better.
Great commentary from Jo and full marks again to the wonderful Steve McIntyre.
I’m still waiting for Shellenberger ( new AR6 reviewer) to take a stand on this and if not why not? I only hope that Bolt, Dean, GWPF, Lomborg, Christy, Spencer, Koonin, Pielke Jnr+ Snr, etc start to make a noise as well.
220
Whether the media will give them space may be a problem. It may well be unprecedented if they gave them that.
70
Yes Glenn but that’s why I included the name Shellenberger and Sky New’s Bolt, Dean etc.
If they highlight this problem their clueless ABC and other media might not be able to resist the bait and respond.
Hopefully the controversy then starts to build and perhaps have a life if its own.
Also see my reference to Roger Pielke Snr below. I’m sure his son will pursue this if it has legs.
91
Back in the day when real science and critical thinking used to be taught, the mistreatment of data by the IPCC and their Leftist apologists would have been used as a CLASSIC example to young students of how not to misinterpret or misuse data and an excellent example of “How to Lie with Statistics” (book by Darrell Huff, 1954, still in print).
250
An interesting recent comment from Roger Pielke Snr at Judith Curry’s blog and his link. He is referring to IPCC AR6 and he provides a link .
The period he refers to is 3.5 decades ( 1979 to 2014) and that would be an extra warming of 0.35 c ( at least ) over that time. Or perhaps another 1.0 c of make believe warming in the next 100 years?
So is Dr Pielke correct? And has anyone here have any comments? Over to Dr Pielke Snr.
“Roger Pielke Sr | August 10, 2021 at 9:55 am | Reply
“we assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”
From
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
“If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount”.
100
“an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.””
Tropical SST are highly regulated by the evaporative water cycle. They are limited to around 30C
iirc, Nino 34 shows almost zero trend
60
ps, If models show an increase in Nino34 SSTs, it shows that they are not treating the water evaporation cycle correctly..
oops !! they failed again !
90
The energy uptake of the oceans is limited by an ocean surface thermostatic process that results from the formation of ice above 7000m in the atmosphere. That process is observed as monsoon, which can develop into tropical cyclones at latitudes greater than 10 degrees. Monsoon cloud limit ocean surface temperature to an annual average of 30C and short term peak of 32C.
The loss of ocean heat is limited by an ocean surface thermostatic process causing the formation of sea ice at -2C. Sea ice is highly insulating and results in a dramatic reduction in heat loss once the sea ice forms. The temperature of the water interface below a thin layer of sea ice is -2C.
The two temperature limits are observable any day of any year for the past 50M years since the surface pressure has been close to what it is today:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
The addition of CO2 does not alter the surface pressure so cannot alter the upper ocean temperature limit. It depends entirely on the behaviour of water (liquid, solid and gas) in the atmosphere:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
Temperature measurement of the troposphere are likely to show some influence from CO2 but that is unrelated to ocean surface temperature and the global energy balance because they are functions of precise thermostatic processes. I believe the trend in the UAH TLT data set shows a CO2 signature.
If “the science” of global warming was settled, the IPCC could have stopped at the First Assessment Report and made a 4 page summary each year showing how well the models predicted the current situation. Such a comparison would show how poor the models are. Instead IPCC AR6 is a 4000 page pile of manure. Any journalist reporting on the IPCC should be asked a simple question – have you read the report? If they had they would know it is layer-upon-layer of manure.
What is not stated in any IPCC report is that Earth’s orbit is constantly changing. There are significant orbital changes year-to-year and longer trends. The Southern Hemisphere has been getting less sunlight for the last 400 years and the Northern Hemisphere more sunlight. But there are seasonal changes as well. For example, Sydney is getting 1.2W/sq.m less in October now than in 1850 but 1W/sq.m more in March. The change since 1850 in New York is 0.6W/sq.m more in March but 0.6W/sq.m less in August.
The climate is ever changing but literally NOTHING to do with CO2 as an atmospheric gas.
150
“I believe the trend in the UAH TLT data set shows a CO2 signature. “
Whereas, I think its coming from a widening of max 30C region.
40
UAH departs from the zero trend over the Nino34 region. The NOAA/NCEP SST data set, which uses satellite data to interpolate between the tropical moored buoys, is trendless over the Nino34 region during the satellite era:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/isstoi_v2_-170–120E_-5-5N_n_a.png
UAH over the Nino34 has similar upward trend of the full dataset:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_-170–120E_-5-5N_n_a.png
40
There would be air movement from outside the Nino34 region influencing atmospheric series slightly
Looks like the UAH data would only trend upwards because of the bulge at the end from the extended 2015 El Nino.
Doesn’t look like there is much in it, really.
30
Air movement over the Nino34 region at 500Hpa, where UAH detects, is predominantly east to west:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-165.04,-0.15,442/loc=-163.421,-0.478
That flow is from cool too warm.
The
is the warming trend that UAH shows that does not exist at the surface. Assuming the data is not biased, its trend is showing the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
People who consider UAH as the gold standard of temperature are usually unaware that it is measuring temperature around 0C. It is always presented as an anomaly, never the actual inferred temperature.
Moored buoys offer the least corrupted temperature data. Sadly, the buoys are not as well maintained as they should be.
02
“its trend is showing the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
There is no evidence of that.
70
Combine that with this comment I made this morning:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/17/climate-hype-hurts-the-environment-and-undermines-our-society/
You’ve got to ask why anyone is listening to the IPCC anymore? They have been wrong about everything since their first assessment report in 1991. And in 1991 they were predicting a 1 meter rise by 2100, but by 1993 they has moved it up to 1.1 meters rise by 2100. Just 2 more years on and it varied towards the hysterical end by another 10 cm! What a clown show.
BTW, tropical cyclones can form at latitudes as low as 5 degrees, the northern coastline of eastern Papua does get struck by Cat 1 cyclones, but rarely.
50
I was reading an article this morning where a journalist cancelled their short flying trip holiday because they did not want to ruin the planet and be answerable to their grandchildren. As he wrote, the evidence was in.
When the UN/IPCC says the planet is burning and Wuhan Flu is not infectious, people believe them. There is no science. It is just lies by the communists who run the place. Helen Clarke who gave New Zealand a carbon tax has been second in command for years. It’s all about the money and the power. Like the UN. Of course they call socialism ‘redistribution of wealth’, like every criminal in history.
40
And you get our communist leader, Generalissimo Danial Andrews who legislated his own private army to arrest people indefinitely without warrant or any judicial oversight. It actually passed our parliament to be made law but was stopped by two Green votes in the upper House. And it takes a lot to get the Greens to stop anything, but he nearly had his own private army under his command. It happened in 1933 in Berlin too. Fascism was socialism.
Even now Andrews has the whole city of 5 million in a 9 to 5am curfew! For our own safety.
Why? Because he can. And no medical person can explain the curfew, nor the police.
And the Victorian police are supposed to arrest children and parents if they dare go near a playground on the weekend, masks or no masks.
This is the man who signed ‘his’ state up to the Chinese Communist Belt and Road deal in a private deal, even though under the Federal Constitution has no such power to make international agreements of any sort. And I would be arrested by his storm troopers and disappeared forever, except for two Green votes. It’s that bad.
So while we puzzle over the amazingly in your face criminal rehabilitation of the utterly discredited hockey stick, remember some people believe that everyone in power means well. Not Daniel Andrews and not their UN/IPCC/WHO. I am counting 4 million dead from the WHO lies alone. And their rich ABC says nothing, because the idi*ts are part of the problem.
40
Cherry trees need cold weather to grow …
https://www.sgaonline.org.au/cherries/
60
Thanks for the article Jo, just the usual fearmongering and headline grabbing by the IPCC. It’s bad enough people are struggling with the misinformation (if any) about Covid, the fear mongering by most media, the coverups on effects of vaccines etc, now we have this trash dropped on us. So weary of lies, lies and more lies. Truth is now the major victim of the Communistic Left.
150
Most of us prior to early 2019, would have been unaware that around 3000 people died annually of the flu, and there were over 3000 suicides in OZ alone, now we get panicked news of ONE person in Broken Hill or woop woop getting covid delta.
110
The Canadian health authorities have said for years that 3000 Canadians die annually from the flu, but Canada has roughly double the population of Australia. Now something looks fishy about those numbers to me.
30
CJ Hopkins
140
Jo since this first effort Steve McIntyre has now pursued the Asian trees sector with more of his forensic abilities.
And even more , clear evidence that these dubious, fantasy world hockey sticks are distorting the real data of planet Earth.
Could anyone forget the Pages 2019 Asian tree ring chronologies? And built on 2013, 2017.
Steve tried to replicate their HS and instead found a down tick.
And of course their selected trees are a very small number, so perhaps more BS to add to this mystery?
No doubt about it these people are world champs at cherry picking THEIR data.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/15/pages19-asian-tree-ring-chronologies/
110
I enjoyed that few days when the IPCC/UN went all “code red” drama, drama and the Biden Administration (if thats what you can call what they are doing) immediately started berating OPEC to produce more oil so they can import it. Badly off piste with the narrative there Joe.
110
Afgahnis falling from a departing US cargo plane at altitude would be inclined to push the IPCC “code red” out of news headlines.
However the weather reports over the last couple of days have made wild claims that July 2021 was the hottest EVAH.
70
Kabul Skydiving Club, founded August 2021.
50
Ross McKitrick and Dr Christy look again at the extreme model’s warming bias in AR5 and now AR6. Why wasn’t this fantasy removed for AR6 and why can’t they just use the actual OBSERVATIONS of warming before we waste further trillions of $ on this nonsense? And all for a 100% guaranteed ZERO return.
Here’s their conclusion and the link.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/17/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming-2/
“Concluding remarks
“I get it that modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, and no one faults the scientific community for finding it a tough problem to solve. But we are all living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric warming, in addition to running grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios (e.g. RCP8.5). Back in 2005 in the first report of the then-new US Climate Change Science Program, Karl et al. pointed to the exaggerated warming in the tropical troposphere as a “potentially serious inconsistency.” But rather than fixing it since then, modelers have made it worse. Mitchell et al. note that in addition to the wrong warming trends themselves, the biases have broader implications because “atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients.” In other words when the models get the tropical troposphere wrong, it drives potential errors in many other features of the model atmosphere. Even if the original problem was confined to excess warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, it has now expanded into a more pervasive warm bias throughout the global troposphere.
If the discrepancies in the troposphere were evenly split across models between excess warming and cooling we could chalk it up to noise and uncertainty. But that is not the case: it’s all excess warming. CMIP5 models warmed too much over the sea surface and too much in the tropical troposphere. Now the CMIP6 models warm too much throughout the global lower- and mid-troposphere. That’s bias, not uncertainty, and until the modeling community finds a way to fix it, the economics and policy making communities are justified in assuming future warming projections are overstated, potentially by a great deal depending on the model”.
80
CNN and the rest of the LW MSM in the US hate FOX News with a vengeance.
If only McIntyre, Christy, McKitrick, Curry, etc could get some air time there this could still blow up and become a festering sore for their AR6 report.
The seeds of doubt need to be planted early in the public’s mind. I’m sure Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean will take this up soon, but I could be wrong and Sky News coverage would be great but not the same seismic shift as FOX News coverage.
90
“sometimes thermometers are not good thermometers either — especially when they are put near exhaust vents from air conditioning units.”
if the aircon units are split system, the thermometers near such air con units work both ways. In summer the unit exhausts the hot air from the room and in winter the air con unit exhausts the cold air from the room so a thermometer near the exhaust vent will show as hotter in summer and colder in winter.
70
And sometimes cigar tubes are just cigar tubes. – Bill Clinton
10
Atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass takes on the L W loonies and their dopey claims of climate change attribution over the US Pacific N West.
Again he just refers to this recent hot weather and natural variability.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/17/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather-now-heres-a-scorcher-of-a-reality-check/
40
Off topic yet hokey-schtick nonetheless:
Ja-ja Cinders & comrades now blame a ‘NSW connection’ for their decision to lock-up all of NZ for the next 3 days (7 days for Auckland). Operation Delta Dawn Storm has now commenced.
Sometimes methinks her agenda is to lock everyone indoors so they can’t see (with their own eyes) the YUGE SNOWFALLS burying the Southern Alps and Mount Ruapehu. Big, cold snow on the way this weekend for TAS, Vic, NSW, and maybe even southern Queensland, again.
Oh, for some of that [long overdue] missing Code Red ‘heat’.
70
Cradle Mtn in Tassie covered in snow.
50
You need to get on message – July 2021 was the warmest EVAH. That is what was reported during our nightly weather forecast in Melbourne yesterday. But then went on to show chilly wind over the bay suggesting today would also not be good beach weather.
20
July 2021 has been identified as the warmest month since records began, not “ever”. And via the same data, the ten warmest years have occurred in the last 16 years.
(Note: at this point I do not need the stock responses that NOAA is as corrupt as their data – and anyway – to reject inconvenient data is just what the IPCC crew are being attacked for in today’s post).
My main concern with the arguments put here, is the obsession with data, almost to the exclusion of everything else. You almost literally only have to look around you, at the shrinking Arctic sea ice, the permafrost melt, temperature records being set in many places, fierce floods and wildfires, sea-level rise, and much else.
Just one example – the dramatic and close to catastrophic decline in the water volume of the Colorado River, resulting from much-reduced snowpack in the Rocky Mountains. Tens of millions of people rely on a river that simply cannot deliver any more.
I remain sceptical of those who are sceptical about the IPCC figures. If it’s a dodge that means there are an awful lot of scientists who are being fraudulent … it’s very difficult to accept.
I have no doubt the planet is getting hotter – and reasonably rapidly too – within the scale of a century or so, or even just one long human lifetime. Weather events such as snow in NZ or on Cradle Mountain, or a cool breeze across Port Philip Bay, are not contradictory evidence … it’s just wintry weather.
The challenge is, what to do about it. in a sensible timely way, before we are forced into even worse choices. Personally I would like to see us wind back the hyper-complexity, hyper-materialist, and hyper-consumerist mad world we’ve created – or had imposed upon us.
I’m not saying we all have to head back to the garden like well-behaved hippies, but simplifying things would be a good start.
When you see mindless people queue all night, just for the privilege of handing over huge sums just to get the “latest” iPhone, then you do shake you head in wonder …
04
“July 2021 has been identified as the warmest month since records began”
So start with a lie. Then refuse to admit the massive mal-adjustments..
So Funny. Talk about denial. !
Then ten warm years, so what… not caused by anything humans have done, just luck.
Be very thankful for those 10 warmer years. Barely a bump above the coldest period in 10,000 years. I bet you choose to live somewhere that has nice warm summers and mild winters. Most people in the world do.
You do know that there is massive evidence that California has had much longer droughts in the not too distant past, and that they waste lots of that water from their dams to save a fish that hasn’t been seen for ages. Are you ignorant of that as well?
Yes we know cold is just “weather” and warm is a signal of catastrophe… that’s the AGW mantra
You are still totally bereft of any evidence of CO2 causing warming.
You live in a brain-washed fantasy world where science and evidence is trumped by non-science propaganda.
30
“much-reduced snowpack in the Rocky Mountains. ”
Are you aware,
That the “snowpack” you refer to has been melting for the last 17,000 years?
The other significant factor, that your tragically childish “science” doesn’t appreciate, is that the rate of meltdown has been lower over the last 7,000 years and this has led to an extension of the time that running water has been available.
The South pole, by contrast has been packing on ice and saving it for a rainy day, so to speak.
That’s life.
Perhaps Kevin 07 could sell them one of our unused desalination plants? That would be a win win situation.
KK
30
Yes – I’m well aware that the world is in an interglacial period, and that in fact all of human civilisation has occurred and is occurring within one.
But it seems it is always brought up as an “argument” when others wish to address global warming that is occurring on a much smaller scale, brought about by industrialisation, and the rapid release of carbon dioxide. I don’t think the long-term climate patterns add to this discussion.
Rapid Arctic sea-ice shrinking, large-scale permafrost thaw, and receding glaciers – these (and many other indicators) are much more important.
01
WRONG as always, just suppositional BS backed by absolutely nothing.
Arctic sea ice is far above what it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
LIA and late 1970’s were the anomaly in extreme high levels of sea ice
Current levels aren’t even down to MWP yet.
Receding glacier, that didn’t even exist in the MWP, exposing tree stumps some 800-100 years old.
“I don’t think the long-term climate patterns add to this discussion.”
Yes, you have to ignore climate history to remain in your AGW fantasy bubble.
But its totally unrelated to anything resembling actual science.
It will have to get a lot warmer than now for trees to grow where they used to grow.
And of course, there is absolutely no evidence of warming caused by human CO2
You keep proving that by your continued waffling and faffing about trying to avoid posting any evidence
Keep living in your brain-washed fantasy world, Tilda,
Science has zero meaning to you.
20
“brought about by industrialization”
Only warming brought about by industrialization is Urban warming , which is actually a very small part of the planet
There is no scientific evidence of warming by human released CO2
You have proven that by your total inability to actually present any.
There is absolute evidence that CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere
… see https://joannenova.com.au/2021/08/hockeysticks-dont-die-they-just-get-more-corrupt/#comment-2455376
I know the comprehension of actual science and measurements is totally beyond you due to your abysmal lack of education and your brain-washed gullibility…
… but you could at least try !
20
We also see the rapid glacial advance in the period of the cold late 1970s in Switzerland and Italy
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Alps-glaciers.png
10
“much-reduced snowpack in the Rocky Mountains. ””
Poor tilda is showing ignorance yet again
Mt Baker advanced until the cold period on the late 1970s, then retreated
https://i.postimg.cc/pTwpZhW8/mt-baker.png
Swiss galciers retreat and expand with the AMO
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTESu2aHx3neo2ninM8DUhDRb8cdIGX1KKusw&usqp=CAU
Glaciers retreated much more in the late 1900s and around the 1940s
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Glacier-Retreat-Rates-Alps-Since-1800-Sigl-2018.jpg
10
Atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has also written a very good essay of the Global warming religion and here are his main points and the link.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/17/climate-hype-hurts-the-environment-and-undermines-our-society/
Summary
“An apocalyptic future looms before us, but it has little to do with increasing greenhouse gases.
A future with catastrophically burning forests, of media providing increasingly apocalyptic warnings, of polluted coastal areas and poisoned shorelines, weakened democracy, attenuated and undermined science, omnipresent fear of the future, increasing power blackouts, and decreased equity in society.
But we do not have to have this future.
But to do so will require that we honor diversity of viewpoint and refrain from demonizing folks with different ideas or political backgrounds. That we stop politicizing science and use the best science to guide our adaptation and mitigation activities. That we stop pushing a false apocalyptic vision to encourage the “unanointed” to do the right thing. That we support technological research and considering the value of nuclear power as part of the energy mix. And that the media, such as KNKX and the Seattle Times, move from advocacy to providing coverage that is both factually correct and representative of the diversity of ideas in the real world.
I am convinced that global warming is a technical problem that will be solved with technical innovation. And that using it as a wedge issue to promote political and ideological goals will not only fail, but undermines our society in profound ways”.
40
“I am convinced that global warming is a technical problem that will be solved with technical innovation”
An imaginary problem, that only exists in models and agendas.
You can’t solve imaginary problems with technical innovation, only by facing reality.
80
I don’t believe at all that Arctic sea-ice loss, permafrost thaw, glacier retreat, and record high temperatures in many places, are imaginary at all.
03
Most of the Permafrost melted away thousands of years ago, it used to be down to around 42 degrees North which is in mid europe.
Arctic summer ice has been little to zero for centuries at a time in the early interglacial period, Polar Bears are still with us anyway.
Glaciers retreat is to be expected when it grew a lot during the LIA, now it has been warming for the last 3 centuries. Glacier bay was fully filled in 1760 sticking out into the pacific ocean, melted out in just 100 years time.
It was much warmer 6,-8,000 years ago yet here we are.
40
Arctic sea ice is far higher than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
The late 1970s was a period of extreme sea ice extent, up there with the extents during the LIA.. That was the anomaly, current levels are only partly returned to the Holocene norm.
Were you ignorant of that, like you are of everything else?
Glacial retreat often reveals tree stumps and human artifacts, around 1000 or so years old.
Please explain how those trees grew there.
Record high temperatures.. lol.. mostly in heavily urbanised areas with substandard or unfit for purpose instrumentation.
Did you know that the recent so-called record in Spain was in a badly weathered grey screen with no door on it,.. Seriously.. how much worse can surface data get !
Hot records by a tiny fraction of a degree in urban areas with fast reaction time instruments, surrounded by asphalt and sheds etc.. a joke., ..
… whereas a lot of recent cold records have been by whole degree values.
It will need significant extra warming for trees to grow again where those tree stumps have been found.
Many of those glaciers didn’t even exist in MWP times, they are the product of the LIA.
The world has, very thankfully, warmed small amount of that coldest period in 10,000 years
All your comments about climate are based on a total ignorance of climate history.
Is that ignorance deliberate, or are you just incompetent and brain-washed.
30
“I don’t believe …. are imaginary at all”
Yet you still haven’t produce one single bit of scientific evidence of human CO2 causation.
Why is that… ?
CO2 warming only exists in climate models.
There is zero evidence of it in reality.
Still waiting for you to prove otherwise.
Increased CO2 does not retain energy in the atmosphere.
Data proves that while there is a decrease of OLR in the narrow CO2 band, as expected, it is more than compensated by an increase in a much wider band of OLR in the atmospheric window.
Now read the actual science in comment #9 above
And either produce some scientific evidence or stop your brain-washed ignorant comments.
10
More facts about glaciers.. do try to learn something , tidla.
https://www.whatcomexcavator.org/the-dredge/mt-baker-glaciers-disappearing-a-response-to-the-seattle-times
10
As far as the IPCCCCC is concerned there’s only one place for a hockey stick.
50
Uncomfortably so !
60
One of the flaws of this site is that it is impossible to find comments made in previous posts without actually going into each one and searching.
I was intending to repost a comment I made (with a link) concerning how the people creating the models for the IPCC warned that they would forecast excessively high temperature increases because the guesses they made for the effects of cloud cover were incorrect. They warned that the extreme cases should not used in the 6th Report but the IPCC put them front and center in their presentation, anyway.
30
Oh well, I found the source article that I based my previous comment on so let’s start again
Even Gavin Schmidt had to admit they got things wrong
So they admit that the and behaviour and hence effect of clouds is guessed at and shoved into the models
And the recommendation to the IPCC was to ignore the extreme end of the forecasted temperature rises
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
Of course they IPCC didn’t pay any attention to the scientists who were honest enough to find issues with their own work.
50
I think we’ve had a laugh at their upside down use of data before.
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2nh/from:1900/mean:12/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1900/mean:12/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1900/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1900/mean:12
It’s a plot of the SST from the Hadley Centre going from v2 to v3. Best looked at with a 12 month moving mean. Red and Blue are the northern hemisphere while green and magenta are the southern.
Everybody makes mistakes, but science is the art of realising that you are wrong. A large number of scientists worked (supposedly) on what was a reconstruction of the data set that you needed to get a global average, from a record not fit for purpose. The checking so as to not introduce an artificial trend must have been extremely thorough. No?
Swapping them back so that they match up, and you see another issue that screams ‘botched job’. These are averages of anomalies – the average for a particular month of a year minus the average for the same month in all the years of the base period from 1961 to 1990. As you can see, there were large changes to the beginning of the base period but little deviation either side of it.
Then you have how all of them line up around the time of the 1998 El Nino.
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2nh/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990/mean:12
Looks more like the reference period for the reconstruction.
And lastly, without the 12 month moving mean
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2sh/from:1990/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1990
The SH v2 and NHv3 suddenly get a seasonal signal in the anomalies, and because it’s only the difference from the average of the same month in the base period, it shouldn’t be there. Oops. Start again, except it’s there again in version 3 (although now north, colours are changed on the plot so check the legend)
And for some strange reason, I have to accept this as robust science or some Swedish teenager will huff and puff.
50
Back in 1900 there were two guys in a rowing boat going offshore from Falmouth to get the daily SST – known as the Falmouth duo. It is quite reasonable to think that there are more than a single daily reading now but does it matter when making comparisons back to 1900.
Making any claim about SST going back to 1900 with the present is so far fetched it is riduluous and deserves ridicule. I don’t care what the colours are, the basis of the temperature reading is pure nonsense. No way the Falmouth duo got down to 60S to get SST readings amongst the icebergs.
The BoM do not even trust land temperatures before 1920 and they are far more reliable than readings from the Falmouth duo.
30
Q. If there really was a “code red” global warming apocalypse happening, would you really need 243 climate scientists and a thousand+ page report to point it out?
A. No.
Like the dreaded lurgy, you wouldn’t know you have it unless they test you and tell you.
90
As the saying goes: Ask no questions, hear no lies.
30
Corruption is endemic at the UN.
60
Climate models have zero skill wrt precipitation
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/17/new-study-2000-year-precipitation-reconstructions-expose-climate-models-still-of-junk-grade/
As if we didn’t already know that. !
90
Climate models are magic with regard precipitation and evaporation. The modellers do not bother with trivia like mass balance.
I integrated the precipitation minus evaporation for the mean of the CMIP5 and found the atmosphere was magically creating water after 3 years. For year-to-year mass balance, the sum of the pie curve should be near zero:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_pme_Amon_modmean_rcp45to85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++_2015:2020.png
It is clear in the plot that precipitation dominates so the atmosphere runs dry after three years. They have more precipitation than evaporation every year – magic.
Climate models are a sad joke on society. The cretins who play with them are so far removed from reality it beggars belief.
60
Pages 2019 data contradicts their own ocean data and previous fabrications
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/17/new-study-2000-year-precipitation-reconstructions-expose-climate-models-still-of-junk-grade/
“Other global ocean (Gebbie and Huybers, 2019) and land (Northern Hemisphere, Büntgen et al., 2020) reconstructions also contradict PAGES 2k (2019), as they show both a globally coherent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.”
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Global-Ocean-Heat-Content-Gebbie-Huybers-2019.jpg
50
BHP gone all woke, just waiting for them to go broke.
60
BHP cannot lose. They are one of the largest suppliers of iron ore in the world. Times could never be better. As the developed world heads into erecting monuments to the wind, the demand for Chinese steel is skyrocketing. All that steel needs a lot of iron ore. The profit margin on Australian iron ore is magnificent – money for dirt. The price has come back off its highs above USD200/t but it costs less than USD20/t to put on a ship.
10
The Coles advert on tv at the moment where they claim they will be fully renewable by 2025.
A fully electric truck delivery fleet by 2025?
They should be on the road by now.
Even a few.
Tell ‘em they’re dreaming.
30
Linfox: “Today Coles still relies on our expertise to deliver on the growing demands of its customers.”
https://www.linfox.com/industries/retail/
Nope. Not an electric vehicle in sight.
40
Ask them what the trucks (and the roads) will be made from.
10
They don’t sell retail, they are immune. They don’t have a lot of choice, they depend on a workforce that has ascended above unionism and operate in small communities
expectdemand “free stuff”.20
Considerate pick for Ocean2kHR-PacificQuinn 2008 Rabaul, which is an active volcano in Papua New Guinea that sits on the waters edge of the city of Rabaul.
30
No wonder politicians and ‘scientists’ of the new order can say : ‘The science is in!’
They simply forgot to tell everyone they were talking about the NEW science!
The new science is brilliant. Instead of working a lifetime to maybe find an answer to a puzzling question, the brilliance of the new science is, one knows the answer and simply by homogenisation and a bit of poetic license along the way, one simply finds the data – any data – to suit the answer. That’s the reverse of the slow old system, and so much more productive, and the data proves the argument! Doesn’t it? Instead of risking a lifetime of hard yakka, and finding no result, the new methodology is guaranteed to suit the answer at least every 5 years.
It is really a brilliant system that no disbeliever can ever question, because every non professional person knows it is precise and right. The data says so! Time shouldn’t be wasted listening to those believing any alternative.
80
“The science” is quite distinct from science.
“The science” is a phrase that should always make you pay extra attention to the intent of the message rather than the message itself.
70
Is the IPCC AR6 report statistically flawed and have so much of the previous 20 years of IPCC reports suffered from the same problems. Here’s a new essay by Ross McKitrick and an early part of the essay.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#more-27816
“The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed
Posted on August 18, 2021 by curryja | 1 Comment
by Ross McKitrick
“One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.
My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years”.
40
It is time to review those peers,
Who concur with the unfounded fears,
Of the I.P.C.C.,
As they nod and agree,
And have done for the last thirty years.
50
Golden Oldie Time
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
30
This one’s my favorite (yes, I was a Monkees fan, back in the day … … … )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F08dzQwO1LY
20
I spotted a comment about clean air the other day in another blog and started to think on it and expand its relevance.
Basically, the hockey stick correlates quite easily to the period when CFCs were banned and when catalytic converters arrived and when diesel engines became a whole lot cleaner.
Could it just be that the atmosphere just got a whole lot cleaner so that much of the Sun’s radiance was NOT bounced back to space?
True or not I am going to use to annoy climastrologers who can’t deny my theory while at the same time cannot explain the hockey stick – except for CO2.
20
Remember that the IPCC has nothing to do with climate change, only with the spreading of global socialism. These bozos must be desperate if they are pushing the Mann “hockey stick” scenario again. The unfortunate thing is that gullible governments (eg; Australia) are throwing $$$ at these snout-dipping pigs.
30