Art by Syaifulptak
Now that half the US knows that climate science has become a religion, let’s all thank the IPCC for working hard to convince the other half.
Here comes Fire, Brimstone, and Ticking Bombs again:
Like all successful bureaucracies, The IPCC is here to pretend to save you from problems it invented.
The taxpayer funded doomsday cult wants you to think of them as a brave bomb disposal team, putting their lives on the line to do anything humanly possibly to make storms go away, except for using a tried and tested technology with a 50 year record of zero emissions. Nobody say n.u.c….
IPCC climate scientists issue ‘a survival guide for humanity’, warning window closing to reduce emissions
“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which this week released its final “synthesis report”, marking six years of work by about 700 scientists.
“Today’s IPCC report is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,” he said. “It is a survival guide for humanity.”
Senior marketer of renewable energy, Sarah Prophet Kirkpatrick says we are all doomed unless we buy more Chinese solar panels, even though China is making most of them with coal:
University of New South Wales Associate Professor Sarah Perkins Kirkpatrick said it had to be done before 2030.
“Bottom line, we need to stop burning fossil fuels — 80 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions actually comes from burning fossil fuels [such as] coal, oil and gas,” she said.
Quick, buy my panels, she says, they come with nice weather eighty years from now after you’re dead, but only if you sign here by Friday.
The Perfect Doom Sale:
The panic is now perfectly tuned like a Boxing Day sale — stocks are limited but there is hope if you act fast. Every warning is the last chance, every catastrophe is ten years away, and every final clearance sale has a discount for early responders…
“This is the final warning to limit the climate warming,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.
“In the next 10 years, we’ll overshoot that 1.5-degree threshold, but then we can bring it back down again — with heavy climate mitigation, heavy investment in renewable energy and also carbon capture and storage,” she said.
Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes … “One of the things this IPCC report emphasises is that the window of opportunity for a safer climate in the second half of this century is closing rapidly, but it’s not yet closed,” she said.
16 years ago we had only ten years to save the world:
Pagan witchery and voodoo meets catholic guilt
The ABC include no evidence at all in this round of perfect panic — just the words “drought” and “flood” and gospel of the 700 scientists of the high realm of the IPCC is enough. The new IPCC report, is just like all past reports: it depends on climate models that ignore solar magnetic effects, solar wind, cosmic rays, and changes in the solar spectrum to pretend that CO2 causes all the changes they can’t otherwise explain. It’s argument from authority that depends on argument from ignorance with circular reasoning and it’s based on a simulated planet that has a tropospheric hot spot which 28 million weather balloons can’t find here on Earth, but nevermind. It’s only data!
But a foreign unaudited committee says “it’s unequivocal” and it will cost us trillions, and the ABC can’t see any problem with that.
Just lay on the guilt trip — what kind of evil person wants to send their own children to hell, I tell you…
Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes said what happens in the next seven years would be vital if we’re to leave a world that’s habitable for our children and grandchildren.
Think of the children! | Image by Garten-gg.
Gone are the days when the media would even try to communicate science. Now it’s like reality TV. Tug my heartstrings — one poor man in Torres Strait is being terrorized by witchdoctors in lab coats.
The ABC is exploiting his macabre fear of the bones of his parents being washed out to sea. This is climate science reporting in 2023:
On Australia’s Torres Strait islands, Warraber man Daniel Billy has been taking photos of what has already been lost as the sea creeps up on his homeland.
“Just to see a lot of the land mass taken out from the islands, it’s really sad,” he said. “It’s destroying places. “It’s very sad and it’s scary at the same time, as it’s slowly coming up to the community.”
Mr Billy is worried about the cemetery, metres from the shoreline, where his parents have been laid to rest. “I don’t want to pick up my parents’ remains from the reef,” he said. “I don’t want my children, or their children, my nieces and nephews to pick up my remains.”
Someone needs to show Mr Billy the study of 700 Pacific islands which are almost all growing (thanks to climate change). As long as he buried his parents on an inhabited island, they’ll be fine. The only islands disappearing are sand drifts with a population of zero that are just a hundredth of a square kilometer in size.
It’s war, I tell you, War! sayth NonScientist magazine:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global group of climate scientists, has released its latest report today. It yet again warns that without immediate and massive emissions reductions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be beyond reach.
“If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees,” says Peter Thorne at Maynooth University in Ireland, one of the authors of the report. “Really it’s a call to arms.”
Hyperbole knows no bounds.
REFERENCE
Synthesis Report, Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, Working Group I, II and III.
We are all going to fry/freeze/drown ( pick one ). These lunatics never get tired of this nonsense. However, I’m certainly very tired of hearing it. On Sky early this morning, there was the head idiot in charge of the UN, warning me that the ” ticking time bomb ” was almost upon us….again.
720
Fry/freeze/drown. And of course die of thirst.
And if none of them get you, old age is certain to get you.
None of us are getting out of life alive!
350
The urban heat influence will mask the real cause and the real problems. And current politicians never ask rural residents for their opinions (or votes)
110
Never have so many worked together to produce so little.
710
At such huge cost!
550
For such a long period of time
450
Agreed. And the cost to America, under John Kerry’s giveaway to “developing countries” is in the multi billions.
This whole thing is a giveaway and the citizens of our countries are being screwed.
110
In a demonstration of how useless our federal government has become I chanced to come upon a parliamentary broadcast while driving late yesterday.
A bloke gave a good put down of the global warming/renewables fantasy and he made sense.
In reply, a lady then got up and warned him and us that the end was nigh if we didn’t buy more junk renewables.
She obviously had no idea of the background science of the issue, but she excels at reading advertising material that justifies the fleecing of all hardworking taxpayers: the few that are left.
This is our national leadership at work.
Pray for us, we are in peril.
770
IPCC (International Plotters and Plonkers) Give it up guys you’re just highlighting the persistent prediction failures. Even Ms Thongburg has been exposed as a shill for WEF.
460
“said what happens in the next seven years would be vital if we’re to leave a world that’s habitable for our children and grandchildren.”
He is actually correct.
If we continue down the idiotic anti-CO2 Net-Zero” path, the world will be a much more difficult place to live in for the next generations.
710
Well they will already be so deep in debt that they will be serving some kind of master their entire lives…at a much reduced standard of living as compared to their parents – the first generation ever that were forced to go backwards by their parents. Ponder that…but then they have been ostracised enough by this virtuous generation Z and their enablers that there will be no moral qualms about any harm caused to them, especially the boys.
90
This is the Final, Final, Final, Final………………………..Final Warming Scare Campaign. Until the next one that is.
480
It’s as if they are stuck in eternal re-run repeat ranting mode, a la King Charlie whatshisname & Flim-flam Flannery & Fat Albert & a thousand screaming hysterical 16-year-olds stamping their feet when they don’t get what they demand…
… but wait – freezing snowy whiteout blizzard now slamming the South Island closing roads & causing power outages bang-on Autumn Equinox (today): Winter arrived early in 2023, brrrr…
450
Early winter? What’s that if it’s not irrefutable evidence of global warming?
Surely it isn’t just weather!
190
Well the warnings date back a bit.
1864 Tipping Point Ecologist Warns of “Climatic Excess”
1960 New Scientist Dec.1 1960; The world temperature has gone up 1.66℃ in the LAST 100 YEARS. Since 1910 the mean winter temperature
around Spitzbergen (now Svalbard) has risen 7.8℃.
1967 Already too Late: Dire Famine Forecast by ’75
1970 New Ice Age coming Kenneth Watt (founder of Earth Day) said that the Earth is cooling – by 1990 will be 2.2℃ colder and 6℃ in 2000
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’ Professor T. M. Donahue University of Michigan testifying to Congress, said that he and other researchers were not even sure that they had exhausted the inventory of possible horrors that would result
1981: Scientists (including Steven Schneider) warn global warming would see Buckingham Palace 7 feet underwater
1982: UN Earth near Tipping Point (within 10 years)
1987: NASA’s James Hansen predicts world 3C warmer by 2020. The Seychelles would be underwater by 2018
1989: 10 Years to solve Climate Crisis Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000 – UN
2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020
2007 U.N. Scientists say only eight years left to avoid worst effects
2007 IPCC Chairman Pachauri ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late
2008 Only 8 years to save the world from runaway warming.
2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet
2014: Only 500 days before ‘climate chaos’
360
Here’s an appropriate song by the Hee Bee Gee Bees summarising the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YV1Qs4TIo
50
The Conversation headline is about the future, how we must save the world for our children, but it offers hope as it says the UN objectives can be achieved,
‘It can be done. It must be done’: IPCC delivers definitive report on climate change, and where to now“
The 666 mantra adds to the scare.
200
The anti christ is Xi.
80
I can think of a few others competing for that title.
150
Cant find the very funny Benny Hill song but heres the lyrics
THEY SAID THAT
IT COULD NOT BE DONE
by
Benny Hill
( A parody of ‘It Couldn’t Be Done’
by Edgar A Guest 1881-1959 )
They said that it could not be done,
He said, “Just let me try.”
They said, ‘Other men have tried and failed’,
He answered, ‘But not I.’
They said, “It is impossible,”
He said, “There’s no such word.”
He closed his mind, he closed his heart…
To everything he heard.
He said, “Within the heart of man,
There is a tiny seed.
It grows until it blossoms,
It’s called the will to succeed.
Its roots are strength, its stem is hope,
Its petals inspiration,
Its thorns protect its strong green leaves,
With grim determination.
“It’s stamens are its skills
Which help to shape each plan,
For there’s nothing in the universe
Beyond the scope of man.”
They thought that it could not be done,
Some even said they knew it,
But he faced up to what could not be done…
And he couldn’t bloody do it!
100
And China lays back and laughs at us and says ‘Bring it on Baby!’ we are making a fortune while these idiots destroy themselves!
400
These people are reprehensible. Leslie Hughes for more children frightening prognostications in particular. These obscurantists should nbe on trial for abuse of minors. The only up point is that this could be crying wolf once again. Unfortunately there are too many suckers out there that wish to be saved by mother state.
190
Just working my way through Ian Plimer’s “Green Murder”. He lists numerous examples of end-of-world warnings which always fail to eventuate.
A perfect antidote to the Marxists, sycophants, computer modellers and fools that seem to control climate debate.
430
Excellent book!
I well remember how John Howard took the bit between his teeth about a year before the election and, using firm data, sold the argument for the GST.
He believed in it, he researched it and he sold it.
Peter Dutton has got so many good scientists that he could muster, Ian Plimer and Peter Ridd being just two, that could give him all the information he needs to sell a policy to destroy Net Zero and restore our power economy to what it was 20 to 30 years ago, but he does not seem to have the ticker to even think about it, never mind support the likes of Matt Canavan.
O me miserum!
30
Now if only I could use that hyperbole for a nice garden salad,* it would be of some practical use.
* Accompanied by a nice thick steak, of course.
110
Funny, I was thinking in terms of ‘hyperbowl’ when I started to read this article. Thanks ‘Outsiders’.
40
Here’s a synopsis of their “survival guide for humanity”:
No new coal and the phasing out of coal by 2030 in OECD countries and 2040 in all other countries.
Ending all international public and private funding of coal.
Ensuring net zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed countries and 2040 for the rest of the world.
Ceasing all licensing or funding of new oil and gas – consistent with the findings of the International Energy Agency.
Stopping any expansion of existing oil and gas reserves.
Shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to a “just” energy transition.
Establishing a global phase down of existing oil and gas production compatible with the 2050 global net zero target.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2023/03/20/united-nations-demands-economic-ruin-to-diffuse-the-climate-time-bomb-n2620894
Before any of this nonsense is entertained, UN-IPCC needs to publish the “Grid Synchronization, Frequency, Voltage, and Reactive Power Plan” handbook. Grid tie inverters “follow” the synch pulse of the synchronous grid. An islanded microgrid can be synched if and only if there is a robust communications network to support that. And if the grid is down, how does that comms network get powered?
In ‘theory’ inverters can be paralleled without a synchronous freq signal, but if anything goes awry, you’d better like darkness and fireworks.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9757217
None of the IPCC nonsense is physically, financially, grid stable or proven to be achievable in a 7 to 27 year horizon as they demand. If people actually go down this road, get ready for total grid blackout without the possibility of restart.
280
These clowns clearly have no idea whatsoever. They fail totally to understand that their utopia is an impossible dream as there is not, nor can their be, even a tiny fraction of the raw or recycled material they need to create their false Eden.
Some have tried to explain to them in words a primary school student could understand but as Simon Micheaux has said, they acknowledge and agree with his argument, but then turn around and ask how else they can make it happen. He tells them it can’t be done but they continue with their lunacy expecting “magic: to happen before 2030 or 2050.
Proponents of renewables are either making money from it, or are useful idiots helping China destroy the West.
220
Or think of them as innumerate. The counting system is 0 to 10 then “big”.
What’s the difference between a billion and a trillion, only zero’s, don’t worry about it.
120
“No new coal and the phasing out of coal by 2030 in OECD countries”
China is building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. 72% of all new plants are in China. They already output 56% of the world’s CO2, more than all other countries combined.
You would think if CO2 was a problem, someone would be critical of China.
It never happens. So it’s fake. Worse, it’s driven by China who are the very substantial beneficiary of the flight of manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, rare earths, steel, machinery, cars, windmills and solar panels and they are channeling their massive profits into their war machine. And no one in the IPCC/UN/EU says a thing. If you do, you are xenophobic. Remember the Wuhan flu? Send the bill to China. Except no one says anything. Certainly not the WHO they control.
260
Ah but China…
2009: China to cut emissions 40-45% below 2005 level by 2020; India to cut 20-25%.
2020 Reality: China 2020 emissions ~85% HIGHER than 2005; India ~150% HIGHER.
Famous Failed Predictions: UK Offshore Wind Edition
The Grauniad: Wind energy to power UK by 2020, government says Louise Radnofsky and agencies 10 Dec 2007
Thousands of new offshore wind turbines could power every home in Britain by 2020, the government announced today, as it set out new wind-energy plans.
According to BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2019 the UK generated about 20% of its electricity from wind power.
40
According to BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2019 the UK generated about 20% of its electricity from wind power.……. Occasionally
There, fixed it!
30
“Ensuring net zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed countries ”
oh, they’ll win with that one! It’ll be zero electricity generation alright!
40
Humans have been flourishing for a long time and the more recent huge increase in population + life expectancy + higher food intake + a 95% drop in deaths from extreme weather events etc proves the case.
AGAIN Willis Eschenbach supplies the data and his HONEST, ACCURATE report costs us NOTHING compared to the wasted TRILLIONs of $ for the IPCC BS and FRAUD con tricks.
Are we really this stupid and will we just roll over AGAIN and accept their delusional nonsense?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
171
Neville, to answer your question- sadly, yes. For the last 3 years I witnessed essentially the whole of the Australian population do absolutely crazy stuff regarding COVID, mostly because the so-called “experts” and government told them to do so. Hence, more of the same.
300
And maybe not –
“Column: The Humanitarian Horror That ‘Electrify Everything’ Would Unleash”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/20/column-the-humanitarian-horror-that-electrify-everything-would-unleash/
And
“NY Climate Act Cap and Invest Plan Going Off the Rails”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/20/ny-climate-act-cap-and-invest-plan-going-off-the-rails/
Descriptively
“The Eggheads Vs The Doers”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eggheads-vs-doers
80
It is indeed.
It is Green idolatrous religion, some of it based on worship of Gaia.
Some of Gaia worship is based on the reinterpretation of Gaia by James Lovelock that sees the earth as a “superorganism”.
They have destroyed belief in Western Judeo-Christian religion and its moral values and substituted it with their own religion, complete with costly sacrifices.
170
The end times are a cyclic phenomenon imbedded in western political culture.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1462317X.2019.1637993?journalCode=ypot20
50
the whole ‘for the children’ shtick is logically unsound.
we are all extant at/in the same time and place
and everybody(all at once) are somebody’s children
in my case, there four generations on that continuum alive today
the priests say, “enslave the living to save the un-born”
they say, “use a wind-mill to winnow the old from those that are yet to be”
and, “it’s noble to sacrifice yourself for a brighter future”
like so many Malthusian Tim-Lords that read too much sci-fi
… if only they really could time-travel and save the planet
90
Just as the “global warming” mantras became “climate change” mantras, a new mantra will be spun when the catastrophist’s current campaign looks like falling apart.
Dealing with Australian electricity blackouts will ultimately need to be addressed with nuclear power, a development that should never have been stalled. That’s also a reality that Labor may accept before the Coalition, even though it requires Energy Minister Bowen to be booted from parliament.
The world desperately needs a Fourth Estate that will step up and better educate itself and everybody else. The sooner that happens the better.
180
The only thing you can say about the IPCC and their predictions is they are consistent. Which is one of the golden rules of marketing/advertising. Make your claim and make it consistently. So much so that every time they make these loony predictions a % more people get sucked in to the narrative. Those same people then decide they could probably do something about it. So, getting fooled by all the illusory advertising around a huge range of products they might indeed eg. change their phone plan to a company advertising carbon neutral plans. Perhaps buy one of those germy “keep” cups from their local coffee shop. Or worse still, front up to an election booth having passed about half a kilometre of Teal/ Greens banners proclaiming “vote for us on Climate Action” and then tick the box for the Teal or Greens candidate. That’s what happened at the last fed election in Australia and probably will happen again in the forthcoming NSW election.
120
I suspect that human IQ is descending . You have as much hope of fixing stupid as you have of altering climate . I’m reading “Green Murder” too and are reassured that the truth is out there…
120
“I suspect that human IQ is descending ”
You are quite right, researchers have found it is dropping with each generation. Maybe its the diet of modern people, or the pollution, or the vast ocean of radio wavelengths we swim in, or its just the way children are taught to handle life. Lawyers that can’t spell or use correct grammar, science graduates who are functionally illiterate, a total lack of deductive reasoning to solve a problem and a complete reliance on Youtube.
10
Think of the children, they are drowning in a sea of propaganda.
‘My only concern in this ridiculous charade, is for the naive younger people who take these warnings seriously, and feel distressed that older people are not acting, are not showing any sense of urgency about preventing the imminent end of the world.’ (Eric Worrall)
00
So AGAIN more data from the UN and here’s Human life expectancy since 1950. All countries average life exp.
In 1950- just 45.5 years.
In 1970 just 56.5 years.
In 2023 now 73 years.
BUT African life exp…..
In 1950 just 36.5 years.
In 1970 just 46 years.
In 2023 64 years or 27.5 years higher than global average life expectancy in 1950 and 1970.
AGAIN African population in 1950 just 227 million.
In 1970 365 mil
In 2023 1400 + million. So where’s their EXISTENTENTIAL THREAT for Humans?
Both Life Expectancy and population have boomed since 1950 and 1970 and 1990.
And why does the UN refuse to quote their own DATA since 1950? This only takes a few minutes, so why does the IPCC also ignore their own data since Dr Hansen’s 1988 speech or since 1990?
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
161
I shudder to think what the future will hold for all our children and their children if the IPCC and Greens get their way.
No child (and esp not Greta) will be thanking decision makers for utterly destroying affordable reliable energy supply and the complete destruction of production and of the economy (if it is not already self-destructing) and handing their precious lives over to ownership and enslavement by a totalitarian state (likely the one we borrow and buy from the most).
The constant false climate change propaganda is the genuinely “unprecedented” element. That is what needs to be prevented, and sooner than within the next 10yrs.
170
I like the “666th” final warning or it’s hell
120
Just a little thing I notice
“Really it’s a call to arms.”
Why is it that our side simply says something like “fight” against this anti-science, anti-human, apocalyptic BS, and we are accused of potential incitement?
I’ve been moded here for mentioning pronged hay distribution devices.
No one is gonna to tell hem to tone it down in case some ER brainwashed fruit loop might take this literally.
We dance around being measured and civil while they ramp up the hyperbole to 11.
150
“Really it’s a call to arms”
More precisely, a call to ALMS!
We are supposed to give up everything we have, on the basis of pseudo-religious superstition!
61
Actually,
“ALMS” is incorrect.. it means giving to the poor.
AGW is all about giving your money and your freedom, to the very rich . !
21
This is new
“80 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions actually comes from burning fossil fuels ”
What is being said is that the next targets are concrete, steel, agriculture. And what after that? Animals, insects, fish, breathing?
And nowhere does anyone talk about the effects of all this sacrifice on CO2. All they ever talk about are ’emissions’. Are they connected? No.
150
What does it matter if we eliminate ALL CO2 from the biosphere, in fact the whole biosphere. No plants, no fish, no animals, no insects, no bacteria, no fungi, no phytoplankton.
Guess what? CO2 would still be there. And CO2 would go up and down with ocean surface temperature.
But does anyone recognize this simple fact? Is it in any model? No.
210
Sure. What is also being said is that 70% of the population will live in high rise urban centres. Without concrete, steel, glass, etc, how do we live in high rise modular “smart” buildings?
60
They are all in the group of the 215 “Biggest Polluters” who now have to reduce their business by 5% per year until 2030 at least, starting 1 July 2023. As they CANNOT reduce their CO2 use, the will have to shut down or pay millions in ‘carbon credits’ which are completely fake science. Extortion.
Consider one of the targets, Victorian Country Train line V-LINE. They use diesel engines. That means half as many trains can run in 2030. But who cares? It’s public transport Victoria and public transport by rail in Victoria will happily shut down. It loses money anyway. Brought to you by the Greens!
50
I wonder when the big trucking companies will be told to stop using diesel or switch to batteries or simply stop transporting animals, wheat, food, goods? This is the shutting down of democratic society to show to the world we mean no business.
40
Without concrete, steel, glass, etc, how do we live in high rise modular “smart” buildings?
how would we continue get increasing temperatures due to the urban heat accumulation?
20
The ratio of CO2 between water and air is 98:1. No one disputes this!
So what happens to our CO2 emissions? They are distributed between water and land, 98:1. And so vanish. No one disputes this either.
What then is the problem.
Incredibly the IPCC claims CO2 is nearly insoluble and CO2 will take 80 years for even half to dissolve. Which must make you wonder why is the ratio 98:1 water to air if CO2 is so difficult to absorb? More difficult than oxygen which is mostly in the air? The fact is CO2 is 30x more soluble than oxygen, which is why 98% is dissolved in the ocean. So the IPCC is telling porkies.
You are told that while all life on earth breathe out CO2, CO2 is insoluble? Which makes you wonder how breathing works to take CO2 dissolved in your blood back into the air through the 200m2 of wet thin membranes. CO2 generation and very rapid transfer from salty water is what is powering you now and you are asked to believe this is a very slow process?
Everything the IPCC say is science nonsense. Without photosynthesis there would be no life on earth and all life is sunpowered, CO2 powered, hydrated carbon dioxide powered, (Carbohydrate). And all these filthy dirty CO2 emissions must be stopped. To save a ball of molten rock in space. For whom?
190
Never have I read in an IPCC report of Henry’s Law which describes the behaviour of dissolved gases like CO2. Where is the science?
Why then does no one mention the one real law which governs the amount of CO2 in the air? It is not a static thing. CO2 like O2 is going in and out of the water all the time. You have all seen this from a boat, the mass of bubbles.
The amount of CO2 which goes in and out of the oceans every day is many times our fossil fuel production. Fossil fuel CO2 joins the flow very quickly. The myth of a static piling up of allegedly deadly industrial CO2 pollution is a complete denial of reality.
Basically all things being the same like air pressure, the proportion of a dissolved gas between air and water is determined by only one variable, temperature. So if the ocean surface warms even slightly, a huge amount of CO2 leaves the oceans. Warming increases atmospheric CO2. It’s an incredibly convoluted feat to come up with any science explanation for CO2 producing ocean warming. In fact there is none. The Greenhouse story only works over land.
And I am extremely frustrated that people discuss CO2 endlessly, carbon pollution, biggest polluters, hydrogen, sequestration, free wind and solar, capacity factors, distribution and no one actually talks about the reality that CO2 is in constant massive flux between air and sea. And our piffling contribution makes no difference at all. It’s a form of megalomania to believe otherwise.
Whether or not CO2 causes any warming is a moot point. We do not and cannot control the amount of CO2 in the air by any mechanism known. It is determined by Henry’s Law.
And in total contradiction of what the IPCC says, CO2 has not damaged but dramatically increased agricultural output and as NASA and the CSIRO agree resulted in a massive greening of the desert areas of planet by the same amount, 14% since 1988 about the size of Brazil. Increased CO2 is fantastic for the Greens, food supply and has had almost zero impact if any on temperature.
190
Thou heathen den!er, TdeF – ye dispute the sacred WORD of the chosen high-priest things from their UN-Wholly Noman Climate Church Cult*? Thou sins of emissions have arisen and stench’ed the Holey Places (where the above believers lurk and linger)… Enter at your own risk.
In the cell-block called ‘New Zealand’, the Cultists repeat NZers are the dirtiest sinners by far – by population statistical trickery – so Bad Kiwi must adorn sackcloth and throw ashes upon the sins of their grandfathers’ emissions… all 0.00000272% of them.
*Their time must be short, for they are diverse.
110
According to Henry’s the direction and rate of CO2 transfer between atmosphere and sea surface is determined by the respective partial pressures of CO2 with the partial pressure at the sea surface proportional to the mole fraction of CO2 with a proportionality constant which varies inversely with temperature.
There is consequentially a great variation by time of day, by latitude, and seasonally, both in CO2 rate of transfer and daily direction of net transfer.
The trend in recent times of warmer sea surface temperatures in high latitudes has the effect of reducing the uptake of CO2 by the oceans where it has the greatest effect on net global transfer.
30
Sure but not inversely. You know what you happens when you boil water. It leaves as a gas at 100C. Gases leave solution as the temperature increases. CO2 leaves your beer, champagne, spritzer, cola very quickly and much faster if warm.
Yes, CO2 transfer both ways varies with surface temperature which varies with time, latitude, summer, winter and of course air pressure, but the parameter is temperature which determines Henry’s Constant. It is always bidirectional so the rule is about the net effect.
And it is the fact of this world wide massive continuous exchange which is being ignored. Our human output of CO2 is about 0.5% of the total CO2 in the air which is about 2% of the amount already in the water and easily added to the daily exchange as it is relatively near the water surface. Which is why the South Pacific bloomed with phytoplankton after the prevailing Westerlies took the CO2 from the NSW bushfires over the water. The ignorant scientists say it added ‘nutrients’. Rubbish. What plants need is CO2. It is their entire food.
No matter how much evidence you give the ‘climate scientists’ they always get it wrong. The blooming is confirmation both of the need for more CO2 and the fact that CO2 is very quickly, even immediately absorbed by the oceans!
60
That is beside the point.
You misunderstand Henry’s Law.
A simplified explanation of the law in the case of the solubility of carbon dioxide in water at the surface:-
The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is directly proportional to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the liquid.
The partial pressure is equal to the product of the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air and the atmospheric pressure. The gas will dissolve in water until an equilibrium is reached at a certain ratio of the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air to its mole fraction in water. The proportionality constant for the carbon dioxide in the water is the Henry’s Law Coefficient for carbon dioxide at that temperature.
The Henry’s Law coefficient for carbon dioxide in water decreases with an increase in temperature. But that does not mean carbon dioxide always leaves water when the temperature increases.
10
“The climate time-bomb is ticking”
Climate Time Bomb eh?
No wonder the kiddies are terrified of this gerbil warming scam.
I would like to think that with all the failed predictions of the scaremongerers that common sense will prevail…but alas, with the MSM, teachers, politicians and bureaucrats barracking for this lunacy I fear that is not going to happen.
Everone involved in this ideology is now too heavily invested in the scam. They do not want to admit they are wrong for to do so would be to admit that they were all conned.
The gullible are in control…what next I ask?
Men can have babies?
There are 113 genders?
Black people cannot be racist?
Windmills are cheap, cheap, cheap!
Believe in all the above or you will be ostracised and condemned.
The public have largely ignored or gone along with this lunacy for the last 20 years or so…. when will they say enough is enough?
200
The climate time-bombers are ranting.
30
Here’s a chance for all the green left true believers, frantic about the 666th warning that we are all going to hell in a handbasket. On March 25th, Earth Hour, you can do something for the planet the fragile blue marble, at 8:30 all of you hold your breath for an hour, all 8 billion of us exhale copious quantities of CO2, now is your chance to achieve something real for the planet, the children and the UN, just do it, you know you want to.
130
An hour seems excessive. A minute would likely exceed Australia’s entire CO2 emissions.
90
True, TdeF
But if all the Gaia worshipping greenies held their breath for an hour there would be significant, beneficial side effects.
70
An hour does seem extremism. Five minutes would be a good compromise.
10
I realize an hour does seem excessive, but to be sure, you know, just in case.
10
The I.P.C.C. is at it again,
Just like Penny the fairy tale hen,
With a last warning call,
That the sky’s going to fall,
But always advancing the when.
230
Putting the scaredy cats, perpetually anxious, green virtue signalers and all the other useful idiots to one side, this lie is mostly perpetuated by filthy rich elites who want to be even richer. It’s all about MONEY.
Same with Covid. The same bedwetters and pathologically furious marched on command, but the root cause of the madness was, yet again, MONEY.
It’s a basic rule of life. The larger the sums of money involved, the more corruption lies behind it, and all the big scares benefit somebody, somewhere. And of course those uber wealthy elites, like the leading senators of Rome, keep the generals and lesser politicians in line with bribes and sweeteners.
Need it be said? FOLLOW THE MONEY!
140
Please excuse this deviation from the topic but on the general application of science and mathematics to the weather, as exemplified by the IPCC, the BOM has this prediction for Melbourne today.
Possible rainfall: 1 to 10 mm Chance of any rain: 80%
So rain will be between 1 and 10 mm but with a 20% chance of 0mm.
A bit like the IPCC summary in the Australian today, that world wide droughts are becoming more frequent. Droughts by definition cannot become more frequent or they will join up and reduce in number or they become shorter and shorter until they are not droughts. No mathematicians were harmed in the writing of the IPCC report.
This drought story is exactly what innumerate science fiction writer Tim Flannery said. His view was that droughts were now permanent but being interrupted by heavy rain. And of course that even the rains which fall will not fill the dams, which nearly lead to the catastropic collapse of the Wivenhoe dam and the loss of all of Brisbane and a million lives. We could do without such profound advice from science ignorant people.
The IPCC has the same view that they are right and when they are demonstrably wrong, it is simply the interference by natural cycles. Which are presumably just inconsiderate.
140
Why 2030? What science gives that certainty? Why not 2031 or 2029 and what month, January, June, September? If we decarbonise the world does that mean the end of all carbon based life?
90
Why decarbonise, depopulate is an other way, following some non gouvernemental freaks, or even gouvernemental, and it’s on the way:
Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors
Do COVID-19 RNA-Injections Affect Male Fertility? Latest Facts and Perspective
Pfizer Fever Threatens Fertility in Men
That’s only the male side…
130
“Why decarbonise, depopulate is another way.”
My plan addresses this exactly, see post #29.
00
The most interesting thing about all these pronouncements is that most of the folks writing them, and writing about them, will be alive to watch them not happen.
Of course, some will die of various reasons totally unrelated to The Climate™. Some may die of weather events.
Unfortunately, I will likely die of old age, but not before 2030. So, I get to watch as these experts realize they joined a cult, or they move the goals again, and again.
As an aside, sea level will have to rise about 23 feet for Buckingham Palace to be poking out of 7 feet of water. See comment #6.2 by Graeme No.3. {I’ve missed that prediction by SS, and will have to look it up.}
120
John:
It was broadcast by (Thames TV) 1981:
“Scientists (including Steven Schneider) warn global warming would see Buckingham Palace 7 feet underwater.”
He was one of the earlist to switch from The Coming Ice Age to Global Warming will melt Arctic Ice.
40
Likely in one of the clips here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change/
I haven’t had time to watch.
00
And so the gravy train continues. Good grief!
70
It is the Cult of Calamitous Climate,aka the League of Gang Greenous Gentlemen.L.O.G.G.G
And they are addicted to Other Peoples Money..
These are addicts who make Crackheads seem like law abiding civil citizens.
O.P.M, an addiction so foul,that the sufferer will commit any atrocity and volunteer for all types of self abuse..as long as they gets their fix of O.P.M..
As the Caroonist Josh used to show…
“Where’s my money..”?
Evil is just stupid on steroids..
Climate Change is the perfect religion for willfully stupid people..
Because you have to be willfully obtuse,deliberately ignorant of Basic biology,physics and chemistry to believe..
And an understanding of geology would destroy the faith in seconds flat..
Not to mention human history..yah have to ignore that too to worship the revolving crucifixes of Doom..
What was that German Comedy Show of a few years back?,commenting on the Germans Governments massive spending,to produce energy poverty ..
The days of living fat and lazy are over.
Tolerance for our own stupidity is drying up.
Because we have come to worship stupidity in every aspect of daily life,bringing those hard times upon ourselves.
Aim higher,strive to be less stupid,for there is no cure..
But embracing stupidity creates the evil of Gang Green and our Parasitic Overload…
Team UN IPCC has an amazing success rate.
100% wrong for 40 years..
That is not a trivial accomplishment.
That kind of failure rate is statistically significant.
80
“Team UN IPCC has an amazing success rate.
100% wrong for 40 years..
That is not a trivial accomplishment.
That kind of failure rate is statistically significant.”
It takes real talent and dedication to achieve statistical results like that, no trivial feat indeed.
10
Good title! Gave me a laugh for the morning. Thanks! Keep up the good work.
80
I assume there is sensible and good science in the IPCC reports. Like the WHO in the person of the first non medical doctor revolutionary leader Tedros Adhonem did the bidding of his real boss President Xi and announced that Wuhan Flu created in a military bioweapons laboratory in Wuhan was ‘not infectious person to person’ in late January 2020, the opinions of the ‘Intergovernmental Panel’ overwhelm and often contradict those of the scientists.
So Prof Judith Curry now runs her own climate consultancy and is entirely quoting from the IPCC reports. And the summary is wrong. Her careful professional reading of the reports is that the world is now cooling, driven by the ocean currents which contain 99.9% of the surface energy and the sun which contributes 100% of new energy. No surprise there.
What happens by the time it reaches UN President Gutterres is damnation and hell fire unless we cough up the climate cash. No surprise there either. Like NASA, the UN was becoming irrelevant without an international scare to provide cash.
And the communist way is to infiltrate and control from the top. As in Iran with the Mullahs. Rarely does the top reflect the views of the organization and that applies to the BOM, NASA, CSIRO, American Society of Physicists, Royal Society and our own Chief Scientist.
China gets it all very cheaply too. The United States funds most of the UN and China controls it by controlling every key position. And America itself though its allies in the Biden family and Mitch McConnell and so many all who receive money from China in which every company is a front for the CCP. And surprise of surprises, the infamous Dr Fauci was funding gain of function research at a Chinese military laboratory. He was less than forthcoming at the time.
The infiltration and control of the committees of government by well rewarded friends of China is well planned. In Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews even signed an international agreement with China, which was illegal under our constitution. Morrison had to pass a law to cancel it. Like most federation, international agreements by states are forbidden. It is the exclusive right of the Federal body.
So its not about the climate. Its about communism. Climate is an absurd, unbelievable scare to keep everyone’s frightened and distracted. And extremely profitable for China while destroying the West’s ability to fight. As is the war in Ukraine, again over energy.
My point is that the scientists at the IPCC are irrelevant. They are just used as props. Some have resigned over this. And buried in the volumes is some good science which says there isn’t a climate problem at all. And even Greta Thunburg is starting to change her tune, taking up indigenous rights. How dare she! Cultural appropriation.
120
I would recommend reading the report itself, not the opinion pieces which form the basis of this post. Remember this is the report of the physical sciences, and is based on research, whereas the left and right opinions are not.
/hat tip to me (yesterday) for bringing this up
217
I would recommend ignoring the steaming pile of bovine excrement report from the Unified Nitwits Proposing Poppycock.
The reality, based upon resource limited, time constrained, labour force constrained, legally constrained, permitting constrained, 3 phase AC grid constrained, SCIENCE , means that absolutely nothing from the Insipid Psychotic Criminal Cretins ought be given a passing thought.
The resources to do what is proposed do not exist. The time to do it doesn’t exist. The waste streams and eco damage to do it aren’t costed. The grid to do it doesn’t and won’t exist.
Peter, do the maths. None of this BS will ever happen. It is nothing but childish whining backed by criminal hustling. Stop defending the indefensible and impossible. Mass Stupidity Psychosis does not change Reality, Physics, Economics, or Engineering.
180
I would recommend reading the report itself, not the opinion pieces which form the basis of this post
I’ll correct that for you:
I would NOT recommend reading the opinion-based report itself,
not the opinion piecescheck the data from the 28 million weather balloons which form the basis of this postThe IPCC report depends entirely on the opinions of the CMIP6 modellers that make up the assumptions and ignore the major variables.
121
Peter F >”I would recommend reading the report itself, not the opinion pieces which form the basis of this post. Remember this is the report of the physical sciences, and is based on research…”
Climate modeling may be research but it is certainly NOT physical science. But when the likes of Peter Thorne (see post) says “If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees”, his basis is climate modeling, or more specifically CMIP6.
So yes, I have read The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology’s report on CMIP6 (MPI-M, see comment #44 downthread) and turns out the only way they can reconcile their model with observations (HadCRUT4) is to lie – blatantly.
Current observations are well below the MPI-ESM model and far below Peter Thorne’s “1.5 degrees” which, oddly, MPI-M calls a “target”.
If 1.5 degrees actually is a “target” then MPI-M are now well off-target despite their claim of “excellent agreement” with observations.
100
so you did not read that report, but you feel happy to comment on it?
17
You didn’t read it either.
At best you have read the “Political Agenda Summary”.
Did you actually “believe” a single word in it!
Or did you pick it, correctly, as pure unsubstantiated propaganda.
11
>”so you did not read that report”
If you mean AR6 SYR SPM, see #40.4 downthread.
Light on physical science, heavy on political science.
30
>”Light on physical science, heavy on political science.”
BASTASCH: The UN’s Newest Climate Report Is A Woke Dumpster Fire Masquerading As Sciencehttps://dailycaller.com/2023/03/21/opinion-the-uns-newest-climate-report-is-a-woke-dumpster-fire-masquerading-as-science-michael-bastasch/
“Any scientific credibility the new UN report might have otherwise had is immediately called into question by its extensive use of “woke” buzzwords.
Variations of the words “equity” and “inequity” appear 31 times in the 36-page document. Variations of “inclusive” and “inclusion” appear 17 times. The document even mentions “colonialism” and repeatedly refers to climate and social “justice” for “marginalized” groups.
“Equity,” if you remember, is that word then-candidate Kamala Harris famously described as a system where “we all end up in the same place.” Sounds a lot like socialism, doesn’t it?
The UN report also contains an entire section titled “Equity and Inclusion,” which states “[e]quity remains a central element in the UN climate regime.” The report goes on to state that “[r]edistributive policies … that shield the poor and vulnerable, social safety nets, equity, inclusion and just transitions, at all scales can enable deeper societal ambitions and resolve trade-offs with sustainable development goals.”
In other words, the “woker” the policies, the better. How’s that for science?”
10
>”you feel happy to comment on it [the report]?”
You referred to “physical sciences” and “research” but I pointed out that the basis of Peter Thorne’s statement was climate modelling which although research is certainly not physical science.
Obviously then the place to look is a report on CMIP6 modelling, one of which I found:
“So yes, I have read The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology’s report on CMIP6 (MPI-M, see comment #44 downthread) and turns out the only way they can reconcile their model with observations (HadCRUT4) is to lie – blatantly”
At least Gavin Schmidt didn’t stoop to MPI-M’s outright statistical fraud (see #44.3) but he’s still struggling with the same structural fault in CO2-forced models – they are junk and they are not modelling 21st century observations.
Given the CO2-forced models employ anthropogenic GHG forcing theory then the theory is busted by experiment.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman
20
!! Thank you for pointing out the difference between Research and Science.
10
i read the report
but couldn’t find a transfer function for money -> (-)temperature
did I read it wrong?
100
Peter F >”Remember this is the report of the physical sciences”
AR6 SYR SPM
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
Equity and Inclusion
“C.5 Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development.”
Are you sure this is physical science?
50
>”Are you sure this is physical science?”
Among the SPM authors – Bronwyn Hayward (New Zealand)
“Bronwyn Mary Hayward MNZM is a New Zealand political scientist.[1] Her areas of research are democracy, sustainability and young people.[2] She was a lead author on a United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronwyn_Hayward
So, a “political” scientist. That’s not physical science.
50
>”Are you sure this is physical science?”
Box SPM.1 The use of scenarios and modelled pathways in the AR6 Synthesis Report
“20 Modelled scenarios and pathways19 21 are used to explore future emissions, climate change, related impacts and 22 risks, and possible mitigation and adaptation strategies and are based on a range of assumptions, including socio23 economic variables and mitigation options. These are quantitative projections and are neither predictions nor 24 forecasts. Global modelled emission pathways, including those based on cost effective approaches contain 25 regionally differentiated assumptions and outcomes, and have to be assessed with the careful recognition of 26 these assumptions. Most do not make explicit assumptions about global equity, environmental justice or intra27 regional income distribution.”
Still not physical science.
20
Researchers, here, are not practicing Science.
10
AR6 SYR SPM
“B.1.2 Discernible differences in trends of global surface temperature between contrasting GHG emissions scenarios (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 vs. SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) would begin to emerge from natural variability32 19 20 within around 20 years.”
Seriously?
They are admitting “discernable differences” between global surface temperature and IPCC scenarios will emerge “within around 20 years” – so the scenarios are junk?
With a myriad of SPM authors I would have thought they could have got the SPM wording actually ON narrative.
But we don’t have to wait 20 years to see their admitted “discernible differences” between global surface temperature and IPCC scenarios – the difference is obvious right now.
Now that the 2016 El Nino spike (“natural variation”) has passed through the system, global surface temperature (HadCRUT4) is now well below all of those “scenarios”.
See comment #44 downthread.
50
And not one bit of actual science that proves even the most basic fallacy of the whole AGW nonsense.. That of CO2 causing warming
Everything is based on that one FAKE ASSUMPTION. !
The models are based on the FAKE ASSUMPTION.
The 1.5C target is pulled out of someone’s nether regions..
it is meaningless, especially considering that the planet has been at least a few degrees warmer in the last 10,000 years.
In fact… ITS ALL FAKE !
51
“not the opinion pieces which form the basis of this post”
I take it that you mean the “Political Agenda Summary”! (ie.. Summary for Policy Makers)
41
“I would recommend reading the report itself”
Why do you recommend it? Have you read it?
I went through one years ago and found what I wanted, their explanation for the build up of CO2 in the air, that CO2 is insoluble with a half life of 80 years. Which is just ridiculous. And that this is their gold standard for all greenhouse gases, which is equally silly. But it suits their purpose, telling the world that CO2 is stuck in the air because it’s not soluble. Amazing chutzpah.
In another place I found the opinion that CO2 was stuck in the air for ‘thousands of years’. Bit a nuisance that it is 30x more soluble than Oxygen and fish breathe. And of course it contradicts their official opinion, which confirms both are made up.
60
Hat tip to you, nah, I think an uppercut would be more like it.
00
They continually make these statements simply because their jobs depend on it. Also goes for the so called 700 scientists that contribute to the cause.
110
Again, I wonder how much of the “Summary for Political purposes” matches what little actual science exists in the rest of the IPCC report.
Not much, if its anything like previous reports.
100
“If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees”
When people tell me this, I ask them what the current temperature of our planet is.
The silence that then follows says it all.
150
Does it matter if the average person does not know this?
212
Yes.
40
“Does it matter if the average person does not know this?”
Yes, because they’re paying for it… and it is not known, the “science” behind it is just a convenient fiction to arrive at a number. We don’t live where satellites measure, so what they read doesn’t affect us. The thermometer readings have been shown to be rubbish time and time again.
The main aim of politicians and bureaucrats is to keep the average person so busy they don’t have time to really see what is going on as they get fleeced..
10
what is the current temperature of the earth?
311
Depends on ENSO.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2023_v6.jpg
50
“what is the current temperature of the earth?”
A lot less than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years. !
41
The estimated mean temperature of the whole earth, the estimated mean of its 3-dimensional surface, or the fictitious modelled 1-dimensional surface temperature anomaly?
90
Peter F >”what is the current temperature of the earth?”
According to NCEI 20th century average was 13.9°C and 2022 was 0.86°C above that so 14.76°C.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
I’m sure y’all appreciate the precision.
20
I bet basically EVERY AGW stall-wart uses their coal-fired electricity air-conditioning to keep the temperature WELL ABOVE 14.76C !
10
My temp is currently 35°F.
Hope that helps. 🤣
10
More important question, Peter, is what should it be, and how is that determined, and by who?
Would love to hear your reasoning on this.
00
>“If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees,” says Peter Thorne
The CO2-forced models will.
Observations are a different story.
The latest CMIP6 report from The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) is an exercise in How to Lie with Charts:
CMIP6: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
https://mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/projects/integrated-activities/translate-to-englisch-cmip6-das-gekoppelte-modellvergleichsprojekt
Scroll down to Figure 2:
Figure 2: Time series of the global mean surface air temperature relative to the reference period 1995 to 2014 as simulated by MPI-ESM1.2 LR, HR, and ER together with the global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT4 observational data set (yellow) for the pre-industrial control simulations (grey, black) and four CMIP6 scenarios (colors).
https://mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/projekte/CMIP6/Fig_02_gross.png
Note how the HadCRUT4 series ends conveniently at the 2016 El Nino spike putting the observations, seemingly, in the middle of the MPI-M model runs and just below the 1.5C “target”.
But what happened to HadCRUT4 after 2016 – see next comment.
50
>”what happened to HadCRUT4 after 2016″
MPI-M in Figure 2 previous uses a 1995 – 2014 reference period for HadCRUT4. The following HadCRUT4 graph uses a 1961 – 1990 reference period (baseline).
HadCRUT4 from 2015
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2015
HadCRUT4 vs MPI-M model
https://mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/projekte/CMIP6/Fig_02_gross.png
Since 2016 the El Nino spike has passed through the climate system and by end of 2022 HadCRUT4 is back down 0.45 from the 2016 peak.
That puts 2022 HadCRUT4 (yellow) at the 0 anomaly baseline on the MPI-M Figure 2 graph – well BELOW the MPI-M ESM model runs and wayyyy BELOW the 1.5C “target” (and forget 2C).
MPI-M says:
“MPI-ESM simulates the historical evolution of global mean surface temperature in excellent agreement with the observational record (Fig. 2)”
“Excellent agreement” until 6 years of data are added to the graph after the El Nino spike – then, sadly, the ESM model fails spectacularly.
Or, How to Lie with Charts, by The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M).
40
“by end of 2022 HadCRUT4 is back down 0.45 from the 2016 peak.”
HadCrud5 will, of course, remove that 0.45C drop. !
20
b.nice >”HadCrud5 will, of course, remove that 0.45C drop. !”
It didn’t (see downthread). I was however mistaking 2020 for 2016 due to MPI-M’s bogus graph (also see downthread).
Remains though, that HadCRUT5 still has a 0.4+ drop 2016 – 2022.
HadCRUT5
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_300.png
10
>”Note how the HadCRUT4 series ends conveniently at the 2016 El Nino spike”
Something is badly wrong with the MPI-M HadCRUT4 timeseries in Figure 2 (yellow).
I assumed, given the respective 2016 and 2020 spikes, that their series ends at the larger 2016 spike – not so. Their HadCRUT4 series ends 2020.
MPI-M Figure 2
https://mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/projekte/CMIP6/Fig_02_gross.png
HadCRUT4
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2015
HadCRUT5
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_300.png
The MPI-M HadCRUT4 series end (yellow line) looks nothing like either woodfortrees HadCRUT4 or Hadley CRU HadCRUT5.
In neither series, 4 or 5, is there a 2020 spike far greater than 2016 as MPI-M Figure 2 depicts.
By Hadley CRU data, the 2020 spike falls short of 2016 peak then drops down to the 0 anomaly of the MPI-M baseline – not way up around +0.4.
Again, How to Lie with Charts, by The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M).
30
The MPI-M HadCRUT4 timeseries at series end 2020 is bogus.
Here’s HadCRUT5 from Net Zero Watch:
HadCRUT5
https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2022/09/Screen-Shot-2022-09-23-at-14.29.33.png
From
https://www.netzerowatch.com/global-temperature-hiatus-may-not-have-ended-after-all-new-study-suggests/?mc_cid=42a1541a0b&mc_eid=cc88839e92
2020 spike is lower than 2016 (much higher in MPT-M Fig 2) and immediately after by mid 2022 the series has dropped to pre 2016 level.
MPI-M HadCRUT4 again
https://mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/projekte/CMIP6/Fig_02_gross.png
Totally bogus.
20
>”Observations are a different story [to CO2-forced models]”
Some new CMIP6 MSU comparisons
16 MAR 2023 BY GAVIN SCHMIDT
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/03/some-new-cmip6-msu-comparisons/
TMT Trend Histogram:
“only 7 simulations (from 6 models) out of 53 simulations have trends within the uncertainties of the observations”
Turns out 24 model mean TMT must be “corrected” by discarding the junkiest models:
Tropical CMIP6 TMT vs Observations (RSS/UAH/NOAA)
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_ttt_cmip6-600×503.png
But “corrected” model TMT (red line) still too warm. Observations are right at the bottom of the models 95% spread.
10
GISS ModelE no better:
GISS ModelE vs Observations (RSS/UAH/NOAA)
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_modelE_ttt-575×600.png
Observations are BELOW the bottom of the 95% spread.
00
Here’s the alternative Survival Guide For Humanity: Get rid of the WEF.
30
The impact of the incredible run for cover alarmism of the UN/IPCC is that countries including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand the whole of Europe are planning to utterly destroy their infrastructure from mining to agriculture to transport and manufacturing. You have to wonder how they are going to employ all those unskilled migrants in low tech jobs?
As reported in the Australian, the Labor/Green plans to demolish Australia are well underway, starting 1st July 2023. Some ‘top emitters’ are already being forced to pay for fake carbon certificates. This is on top of the multi billion dollar theft from retail electricity to give ownership of our wind and sun to foreign investors, like the Chinese. Wind may be free, but we pay others to charge us. It’s a type of collective stupidity only possible from politicians.
But while I continually read of the Federal Government and Victorian government war on “the 215 top polluters” but cannot find any list.
Consider this “Labor’s policy is to use the existing mechanism to impose pollution limits on Australia’s 215 top polluters and then force them to gradually lower or offset their emissions.”
Does anyone have this Doomsday list? I know V-LINE is on it. And every steel maker. Likely all glass, concrete, aluminium, and possible trucking company and train company and airline. I wonder if like the Doomsday book it will eventually name individual sheep as top “polluters”
60
I also have to point out that the war is NOT on CO2 itself. The declared war is on CO2 emissions. These are not the same thing. The alleged damage is from total CO2, not emissions.
And CO2 shows no impact of any human related activity, such as the world wide lockdown on transport for two years, massive bushfires, volcanoes, etc. Emissions and CO2 are not connected, so why the war?
Of course it would be churlish of me to point out that CO2 is nearly a straight line while human population has increased x8 and emissions even faster at the same time. CO2 has increased a tiny 40% in 250 years and for some reason, the IPCC considers that a disaster? According to Graham Lloyd in today’s Australia, the IPCC considers we have a few years to do something, presumably like send cash.
70
Churlish of me- straight line
2016-2021 (5 years) = change 20ppm
1965-1980 (15 years) = change 20ppm
I guess the 2016-2023 temperature pause isn’t working for some reason.
06
That’s a “curly” one.
00
Great news that CHINA is pushing up that plant life CO2, hey GA !!
We can only hope one day, for our descendants’ benefit, that we can push it up to 700ppm+
Sure you would agree, you being a biologist and all 😉
50
Can’t be right.. unless all those windmills and solar panels don’t work as advertised! Aren’t they designed to suck CO2 out of the air?
Maybe its all the private jets going to climate conferences while the rest of us can’t afford diesel!
20
You do comprehend that the atmosphere doesn’t drive the CO2 balance, don’t you ?
00
Gee Aye >”2016-2021 (5 years) = change 20ppm”
What data is that?
Mauna Loa Monthly Averages
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html
Using trendline [Interactive Plots]
417.40 Dec 2021
405.33 Dec 2016
12.07 Diff
Using Annual Mean [Data]
2021 416.45
2016 404.41
12.04 Diff
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
20
Gee Aye >”I guess the 2016-2023 temperature pause isn’t working…”
The problem, as TdeF points out, is that human emissions have no effect on Atm CO2. Maybe take a look at this at same NOAA page as previous:
Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
The latest 10 years average decadal growth 2013 – 2022 is 2.39, lower by a fraction than the 2010s average through to 2020 – apparently the 2016-2023 temperature pause IS working (your reasoning Gee Aye).
Now compare the relatively smooth Mauna Loa Monthly Averages plot (upthread) with Annual Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels:
Annual CO₂ emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Where is 2020 covid lockdown dip in Mauna Loa?
Where is 2009 global financial crisis in Mauna Loa?
Where is 2002 inflexion in Mauna Loa?
Where is 1990 hump in Mauna Loa?
Obviously Mauna Loa is overwhelmingly natural data.
20
That’s a bit literal. No of course it’s not a perfectly straight line but far closer to a straight line than an exponential like everything else, say population or CO2 emissions.
However extend the first line section to the right and you will end up 380 instead of 420 a difference of 10% overall from a straight line. It’s not a straight line but only 10% off it.
The visual trick employed by promoters of rapid CO2 rising is to not show the X axis and put things in perspective.
In fact the entire variation is only 1/4 of the height of the graph! It’s not only close to a straight line it’s 4x closer to horizontal.
And I would not be surprised if it starts to fall in the next twenty years as the oceans cool.
20
We have heard all these threats before, in the past and repeated ad infinitum for decades. And its always the same old tired mantra. We have only 2 years or 10 years, (or whatever just pick a number) before it is too late and it will be the end of civilisation as we know it.
Surely, surely the punters out there in the real everyday world of human existence must be starting to see the pattern. The pattern of lies and misstruths ..
20
I love the way that the IPCC can’t even make up their tiny mind as to what the rate of warming will be between now and 2100AD. According to them, it’s anywhere between 1.5 and 3.2 degrees C. Goes to show how useless this entity is. For what it is worth, my prediction is 1.0 degrees C, at most.
10
“Survival guide to humanity”.
Exactly. Surviving is not the same as living.
20
Testing ….. testing …..
Anthony Sharwood is pushing the SLR barrow and its a poor effort.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/how-much-has-sea-level-risen-due-to-climate-change/1166230
00
A very interesting post – if you can get past the headlines. I have delved into the reports and been completely blown away by several things – firstly just how much writing can tell you so very little; secondly just how massive the whole thing is – if the money and effort that went into this whole production was spent on useful things instead of rants and warnings – then we could solve most of the problems of the world – including food security for the millions that are doomed to starve. I have started to read key parts of the report – particularly the so -called science (I am an earth scientist) but so far have been unimpressed by the obscurity of the language used and the presumptions that stack up like a house of cards. Where is the research into whether or not climate change is caused – or even slightly part caused by CO2? Do not question the god given mantra on the tablets of stone! There thats my rant for the day!
10
melbourne+resident
>”secondly just how massive the whole thing is”
Yes but you can save yourself much grief by focusing on the critical sections – the rest is padding to give the illusion that it is exhaustive (it certainly isn’t – e.g. they totally ignore the physics of radiation-matter interaction i.e. optics, and the massive body of optics literature – think medical laser physics and laser surgery).
I’ve read the critical parts of every AR so far: early ARs were mainly old-school documents, AR4 was easy to navigate HTML, AR5 was a hopeless cut-and-paste PDF affair and mission to navigate, and this AR6 is even easier than AR4.
My process:
Technical Summary [a useful lead-in but you can go straight to The Physical Science Basis]
Start with Figures and TS.13 (a), (b), and (d).
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary/figure-ts-13
From TS.13 (d), easy to see the ocean (91% of energy change) is the only heat sink worth looking at.
So go to TS.2.4 The Ocean and click LINKS TO CHAPTERS then mouse over to 3.5 Human Influence on the Ocean. Click that and takes you to:
The Physical Science BasisChapter 3: Human Influence on the Climate System
Keep opening relevant sections.
Human Influence on the Ocean3.5 Human Influence on the Ocean3.5.1 Ocean Temperature3.5.1.3 Ocean Heat Content Change Attribution
Okay, 3.5.1.3 is critical because they have to claim ocean heat because their theory (remember Figure TS.13 (b) above) generates a humungous amount of excess energy (about 500 Zj) above inventory (a) that they have to sink somewhere. Space, land, ice etc is taken so the only massive heat sink available to them is the ocean.
But their theory is a Top of Atmosphere (TOA) paradigm so how do they attribute below surface ocean heat to human forcing?
3.5.1.3 “Since AR5, the attribution of ocean heat content increases to anthropogenic forcing has been further supported by more detection and attribution studies. These studies have shown that contributions from natural forcing alone cannot explain the observed changes in ocean heat content in either the upper or intermediate ocean layers, and a response to anthropogenic forcing is clearly detectable in ocean heat content (Gleckler et al., 2016; Bilbao et al., 2019; Tokarska et al., 2019)”
In summary …. “ It is extremely likely that human influence was the main driver of the ocean heat content increase observed since the 1970s”
Physics? No
Thermodynamics? No
Radiation-Matter Interaction? No
Micro Physics of the Atmosphere-Ocean (AO) Interface? No
Deference to the body of Optics literature re IR-C infrared radiation absorption in water? No
Reconciliation with their own Surface Energy Budget? No
Circular reasoning by CO-forced climate models? Yes
Scientific fraud? Yes
20
melbourne+resident
>”unimpressed by the obscurity of the language used and the presumptions that stack up like a house of cards”
Yep, their biggest baddest one of all is their attribution of ocean heat (see comment previous).
10
melbourne+resident
>”Where is the research into whether or not climate change is caused – or even slightly part caused by CO2?”
Not in this report. For assessment purposes that research is considered done already. CO2 is an IR absorbing molecule – that’s about it.
So they have contrived their own radiative forcing theory paradigm. For that background AR4 has an FAQ:
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
CO2 is their major radiative forcing component. You can find their Table of Forcings in Figures.
Then it’s a matter of attribution – this is critical.
AR6 is arranged differently chapter wise than AR4 and 5 where critical chapters were distinct:
Observations (2): air, ocean
Theory: radiative forcing
Evidence: climate models
Attribution
Critical chapters now in AR6 (in my opinion), which include those 5 critical previous, are these:
CHAPTER 3Human Influence on the Climate SystemChapter 3 assesses human influence on the climate system and evaluates climate models on large scales.
CHAPTER 7The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity
CHAPTER 9Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level ChangeChapter 9 assesses the physical processes underlying global and regional changes in the ocean, cryosphere and sea level.
Also maybe take a look at Annexes in respect to the above e.g. ANNEX III Radiative Forcing
I get the impression that the reader is assumed to be already up to speed having crunched previous ARs. If you haven’t then you’ve probably got some homework to catch up on.
As my previous response, 91% of the earths energy change is oceanic so you can neglect every other heat sink (atmosphere at 1% is negligible).
But their attribution of ocean heat is merely non–physical model-based circular reasoning devoid of air to sea radiation-matter thermodynamic investigation (actually a body of oceanographic literature on this – ignored of course).
In short, scientific fraud.
10
>”For assessment purposes that [CO2] research is considered done already”
So on that premise what follows is screeds of CO2/GHG-centric misattribution.
Their treatment of solar forcing is wholly inadequate and what coverage there is just relegates solar to a bit player.
Their misattribution is exposed by ocean heat change (91% of total). They have no physical process, apart from speculated radiative “air-sea” fluxes, by which down-welling IR-C radiation from GHGs heats the ocean.
That’s because it is radiatively and thermodynamically impossible (‘nuther story).
There is only one physically valid ocean heating agent – solar IR-A/B in the tropics (modulated of course e.g. by cloudiness change)..
Plenty of oceanography papers on this but the IPCC studiously ignores that entire body of literature except cloudiness change.
Cloudiness forcing at the surface is orders of magnitude greater than GHG forcing – and so the misattribution continues.
There is about 20 years thermal lag between major solar change (on a bicentennial scale) and temperature change due to the thermal inertia of the ocean (body of literature on this, just not deferred to by IPCC)).
So since the end of the Modern Solar Grand Maximum (2004-7) we’ve been basking in warmth aided by stored ocean heat. But come 2024-7 we loose that effect.
Cooling is then inevitable (see solar-centric studies).
00
Thanks for noticing my comments Richard C (NZ) – they were slightly tongue in cheek as I know that they have accepted the “Global warming by CO2” as proven science and that is not the purpose of the IPCC. I just wish that all these so-called scientists actually at sometime question that original “settled science”.
00
melbourne+resident
Subsequent to previous responses – don’t bother looking up ANNEX II Models or ANNEX IIIRadiative Forcing – not worth the effort.
Better off just with Technical Summary:
TS.3.1 Radiative Forcing and Energy Budget
TS.1.2.2 Climate Model Performance
Then use LINKS TO CHAPTERS as laid out previously (click then mouse over)/
10
@Jo Nova “hot spot which 28 million weather balloons can’t find here on Earth” I visited the hot spot link (after I finally stopped ROFL from the Earth reference), read the posts (14 years old now) and find the ‘hot spot’ missing issue very compelling. My question is has anyone found an answer for the missing hot spot?
00
It is the big joke, isn’t it Kevin — that 14 year old post is still accurate, the science is settled (the skeptics won) and the believers are still hunting to find the hot spot they predicted and called a fingerprint of man-made global warming. Without it, their models can’t generate big and dangerous warming — only 1.2C at most per doubling and less if there are negative feedbacks.
I’ve done scores of posts on the missing hot spot. Sherwood and others have gone to extremes to pretend to find it by rehashing the same old data for twenty years every which way they could.
20
[…] Read the Rest […]
10