Month: May 2023

Daily News 8 May 2023

Facebook Censoring The Inconvenient Truth About Antarctic Temperatures

MAY 6, 2023

By Paul Homewood

This post came up on my Facebook today:

https://www.facebook.com/william.dunn.1238/posts/pfbid036joG1b82T95G59BVS3uTQT1wYL26XMEBFVyMWto8CdzfBhTWBQ7YecGyr9GREWxol

When you click on SEE WHY, this comes up:

And this is the story the Facebook censors don’t want you to see:

Quite why Facebook would want to rely on the USA Today for its source of science is a mystery. Perhaps they should have actually checked what real scientists are saying:

Abstract

The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

In this paper, we investigate whether the high orography of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) has helped delay warming over the continent. To that end, we contrast the Antarctic climate response to CO₂-doubling with present-day orography to the response with a flattened AIS. To corroborate our findings, we perform this exercise with two different climate models. We find that, with a flattened AIS, CO₂-doubling induces more latent heat transport toward the Antarctic continent, greater moisture convergence over the continent and, as a result, more surface-amplified condensational heating. Greater moisture convergence over the continent is made possible by flattening of moist isentropic surfaces, which decreases humidity gradients along the trajectories on which extratropical poleward moisture transport predominantly occurs, thereby enabling more moisture to reach the pole. Furthermore, the polar meridional cell disappears when the AIS is flattened, permitting greater CO₂-forced warm temperature advection toward the Antarctic continent. Our results suggest that the high elevation of the present AIS plays a significant role in decreasing the susceptibility of the Antarctic continent to CO₂-forced warming.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w

I’ll post this on Facebook and see how long it takes for the censors to strike!

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/e2LZ3XJ

May 8, 2023 at 04:49PM

Daily News 8 May 2023

New Study: 90% Of Recent Warming Is From Shortwave Cloud Forcing…Humans Contributed 0.03°C

Data analysis again reveals the increase in absorbed shortwave forcing has been driving modern climate change since the 1970s. CO2 changes are more of an effect than a cause of temperature increases.

Scientists have for years been pointing to the causality sequencing problem inherent in the claim that CO2 is the driver of temperature changes.

The sequencing observation clearly supports the conclusion that variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months (Humlum et al., 2013, Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022). Effects can only lag – not lead – causes.

Wang et al. (2013) further estimate only 10% of the variance in global CO2 growth rates can be explained by fossil fuel emissions. Instead, there is a “strong and persistent coupling (r² ≈ 0.50) between interannual variations of the CO2 growth rate and tropical land-surface temperature during 1959-2011.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013

Building on this temperature→CO2 directional causality, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi (2023), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, have used existing CO2 and temperature data to calculate an 83 ppm CO2 increase associated with a 1°C surface temperature increase. The authors suggest this 83 ppm/°C value is consistent with Henry’s Law and CO2 residence time calculations.

Kauppinen and Malmi further assess the warming in recent decades has been predominantly (90%) driven by the increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the downward trend in cloud cover.

The greenhouse effect has contributed just 10% to the warming trend, and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration changes is only a fraction (hundredths of a degree) of that 10% impact – about 0.03°C since 1980.

Thus, not only is the “causality used in IPCC reports wrong,” but “the greenhouse effect cannot explain climate change.”

“Since 1970, according to the observations, the changes of the low cloud cover have caused practically the observed temperature changes. The low cloud cover has gradually decreased starting in 1975. The human contribution was about 0.01°C in 1980 and now it is close 0.03°C.”

Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/a3fy2jp

May 8, 2023 at 04:49PM

Daily News 8 May 2023

A Heatwave In Spain

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

The latest garbage from the Guardian:

The record-shattering temperatures that hit the western Mediterranean last week would have been “almost impossible” without the climate crisis, according to scientists.

The heatwave across Spain, Portugal, Morocco and Algeria was made at least 100 times more likely by global heating, the researchers calculated. Before the climate crisis, such an extreme event would have been expected only once in a least 40,000 years, making it statistically impossible on human timescales.

The scientists said such heat early in the year was especially harmful to people, who were less prepared than in summer. Farmers were already suffering under a prolonged drought and the heatwave struck at an important time in the crop-growing season, particularly for wheat…..

The researchers used peer-reviewed methods to assess the influence of global heating on the 26-28 April heatwave, and the results are the fastest yet for such a study, produced in just a week. The heatwave brought temperatures never previously recorded in the four countries at that time of the year, ranging from 36.9C to 41.0C.

The team used weather data and climate models to compare the likelihood of the high temperatures in today’s warmer world with their likelihood before the climate crisis. They found that global heating had made the heatwave at least 100 times more likely, with temperatures up to 3.5C hotter than they would have been without global heating.

Heatwaves tend to be the deadliest type of extreme weather, the scientists said. Mortality data from the April heatwave is not yet available, but heatwaves in 2022 led to nearly 4,000 deaths in Spain and more than 1,000 deaths in Portugal.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/april-mediterranean-heatwave-almost-impossible-without-climate-crisis

According to the Guardian’s own report at the time, the new record for April set this year in Spain was only 0.2C higher than the previous record. So hardly a one in 40,000 year event then!

But what about some of the other claims?

Heatwave deaths last year, for instance, which were claimed to be 4000. The claim comes from a report by the WHO, which also states that heatwaves killed 3200 here in the UK last summer. As we know, there was no evidence for such a claim at all; excess deaths were running at a similar level all through last year regardless of season.

And for some reason the Guardian forgot to mention the recent Lancet study which showed how many more people die from cold than heat in Spain:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext#seccestitle130

And what about those farmers, who are supposedly struggling because of climate change? We don’t have data for last year yet, but output of wheat hit a record high in 2021, and has been steadily increasing for decades:

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

Finally before the Guardian gets too apoplectic about a slightly warmer climate, they should remind their readers that Spain is only just recovering from the Little Ice Age, just as the rest of Europe is:

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – pp235

Maybe the Guardian would like Spain to return to the climate which brought the devastating famines of 1904-06, as first floods and then record droughts nearly brought about revolution.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/cCVsgHh

May 8, 2023 at 03:34PM

Daily News 8 May 20238 May 2023

CLIMATE CHANGE DISCUSSION WITH A READER

Today I looked at the stats for the blog and was amazed to find there were over 7000 viewers for just today which is a record. The odd thing is that they were not reading my latest post. So what has made this sudden jump. Is it you, Dave?

I am reproducing the post below, of a discussion I had with a reader back in October 2021. Any comments welcome.

"MY OWN POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE"

My position is that there is a modest amount of global warming, which, as the IPCC report says, is about 1.1 degrees C since around 1850, which was at the end of the Little Ice Age. (I don’t think anyone would think that this was an ideal climate!) Some of this warming is natural – most of that before 1950 and about half of that post 1950 is what scientists have estimated. So approximately half a degree C can be attributed to man. That is very modest and cannot by any means be called an emergency. The problem is that politics has taken over from the science and this issue has now been captured by extremists, such as Extinction Rebellion and, unfortunately, the government has listened to these extremists and they are now fully embarking on a very costly policy of trying to eliminate fossil fuels, regardless of the fact that other major industrial nations, such as China and India, are increasing their fossil fuel usage which means our costly efforts will be wiped out. Unilateral action is pointless, just as with nuclear disarmament.

The language now being used is very extreme with terms like “climate emergency” being used as an everyday phrase. It is the use of this extreme language, along with almost daily clips of extreme weather events on our main news channels which is designed to convince a sceptical public that the vast expense of decarbonisation (government estimate is £1.4 trillion up to 2050) is justified

Extreme weather has always occurred and the data show it has not increased in either severity or quantity when measured over the long term. I am very concerned for the residents of the UK who will have to pay heavily for this and so I believe it is very important to speak up as a voice of reason.

My reader I Walker replied as follows:

Hi,

I’m struggling to follow your logic.

The IPCC report says "Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence). Changes include increases in both land and ocean temperatures, as well as more frequent heatwaves in most land regions (high confidence). There is also (high confidence) global warming has resulted in an increase in the frequency and duration of marine heatwaves. Further, there is substantial evidence that human-induced global warming has led to an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at the global scale (medium confidence), as well as an increased risk of drought in the Mediterranean region (medium confidence)."

This appears to contradict your opinion that there is no emergency. Are you contesting the credibility of the IPCC’s report?

My resonse:

As I wrote, the global rise in temperature caused by humans is only about 0.5 degrees C. The rest is natural, so is it credible that this tiny change could cause the changes in climate being claimed? Also note that 1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age. If we go back to the Medieval Warm Period, there is good evidence that temperatures were warmer than today. For example Greenland was able to have a human settlement which farmed the land. It was then vacated as temperatures dropped. At several locations evidence of forests have been found beneath the retreating glaciers which have been dated as only a thousand years old. Again indicating higher temperatures within that time span. What you need to note is that the IPCC is a politicalz organisation, not an independent scientific body. What we have is a man-made emergency driven by political expediency.

Mr Walker replied again as follows:

The IPCC’s role is to analyse the science, they use levels of ‘confidence’ not shape it to a political ideology. In any case, NASA also agrees with the conclusions (that the rise in temperature is driven by man, not nature), as do most scientists. To suggest that the temperature rise is normal puts your opinion in opposing to mainstream scientific understanding. What qualification or credible source do you use to justify this position, other than your personal, subjective opinion?

1 October 2021 at 16:57

Derek Tipp said…

My final response is below:

The IPCC’s role is to identify and quantify the human role in changing the climate, which, unsurprisingly it does. – If it did not then it would not be justifying its existence. There can be no doubt that this subject has now become a highly political one and it is quite impossible to separate the science from the politics. The actual science proving that the temperature rise is mainly down to CO2 is very weak, as there are many other factors that are simply not understood. For example the role of clouds. Research into this is simply ignored because it throws doubt over the whole CO2 driven hypothesis. My views are shared by a number of highly qualified experts on the subject. You need to read more widely on the subject and get informed on the very credible alternative hypotheses. Have a look at the Global Warming Policy Foundation website.

via climate science

https://ift.tt/7qzcDUB

May 8, 2023 at 02:36PM