National Academy of Sciences Declares Global Warming Contributes Hot and Cold Severe Weather

National Academy of Sciences

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to the National Academy of Sciences, if the weather is severe it is partly our own fault. “Global warming can contribute to the intensity of heat waves, drought, and wildfires. It also increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which can lead to more frequent heavy rain and snowstorms. #BasedOnScience”. But they forgot to explain their position appears to differ from the IPCC position.

Global warming is contributing to extreme weather events

CLAIM
Extreme weather can be linked to global warming.

FACT
In some cases. Some types of extreme weather events are happening more often or are becoming more intense because of global warming.

Global warming is making some extreme weather events worse.

As Earth’s climate has warmed, a new pattern of more frequent and more intense weather events has unfolded around the world. Scientists identify these extreme weather events based on the historical record of weather in a particular region. They consider extreme weather events to be those that produce unusually high or low levels of rain or snow, temperature, wind, or other effects. Typically, these events are considered extreme if they are unlike 90% or 95% of similar weather events that happened before in that same area.

Global warming can contribute to the intensity of heat waves by increasing the chances of very hot days and nights. Warming air also boosts evaporation, which can worsen drought. More drought creates dry fields and forests that are prone to catching fire, and increasing temperatures mean a longer wildfire season. Global warming also increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which can lead to more frequent heavy rain and snowstorms.

A warmer and more moist atmosphere over the oceans makes it likely that the strongest hurricanes will be more intense, produce more rainfall, and possibly be larger. In addition, global warming causes sea level to rise, which increases the amount of seawater, along with more rainfall, that is pushed on to shore during coastal storms. That seawater, along with more rainfall, can result in destructive flooding. While global warming is likely making hurricanes more intense, scientists don’t know yet if global warming is increasing the number of hurricanes each year. The effect of global warming on the frequency, intensity, size, and speed of hurricanes remains a subject of scientific research.

Read more: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/BasedOnScience/climate-change-global-warming-is-contributing-to-extreme-weather-events/index.htm

The IPCC, which is supposed to be the gold standard of climate science, takes a less confident view.

There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence of a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends. There is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level in the late 20th century. [3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3; Tables 3-1, 3-2]

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3; Table 3-1]

Read more: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

(see IPCC – Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) for more information)

Mostly low confidence to medium confidence.

Everyone knows what low confidence means, but what does medium confidence mean?

Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance

(source: Interacademy Council)

The answer is Medium Confidence = 50/50. Before climate newspeak, scientists would have used the word “uncertain” or “inconclusive“.

So how did this in my opinion misleading term “medium confidence” come to replace the word “inconclusive” in climate science literature? This is the subject of one of my favourite Climategate emails.

From: Stephen H Schneider <redacted>
To: <redacted>
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: <redacted>

Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK–but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better–but then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve

Climategate Email 0967041809.txt

Schneider and pals apparently didn’t want people seeing the word “inconclusive” all over their climate science papers, so they adjusted their language towards using the phrase “medium confidence”.

Translating medium confidence climate newspeak into normal English, the IPCC position appears to be that most claims of climate related extreme weather are inconclusive or unlikely.

Despite their subtle caveats, in my opinion the National Academy of Sciences statement on extreme weather is misleading, unless the academy’s position is substantially different to the IPCC position. For example the IPCC says “low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”, but the Academy statement said global warming is likely making hurricanes more intense.

If the National Academy of Sciences does not agree with the IPCC position, if their view of climate related extreme weather is more alarmist than the IPCC, they should have explicitly explained this difference of opinion in their statement, instead of presuming to speak on behalf of climate science.

70 thoughts on “National Academy of Sciences Declares Global Warming Contributes Hot and Cold Severe Weather

    • OK, good idea.
      To my knowledge, IPCC nor any other Global Warming proponent organization has made the claim that the expected warming is making cold areas like Canada and Siberia more habitable, and a somewhat less hostile environment.

      Apparently, this is the one thing Global Warming cannot do.
      Any other ideas?

    • If it’s bad, Global Warming can do it.
      However, just to hedge bets, Global Warming was morphed into Climate Change some years ago. Heads, I win; tails, you lose!

      • Skep: You’ve touched on the entire motivation for this report by NAS. Cold records are being broken all over N America for October. La Niña is strengthening in the equatorial Pacific, and global cooling is trending from 2017 into a fourth year as the 2020-2021 winter promises to be a doozy. They pooh pooh the “quiet sun” but it’s giving them nightmares. This is a parade they are hurriedly trying to get out in front of. Mark Sereze, retired Nat Snow and Ice boffin has jumped into the fray and all the usual suspects will be chiming in to haplessly equate record cold as a feature of Disastrous Anthropo…er Global Warming? Would you believe?

    • Well: One of the things it CANNOT do is to increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. All it can do is to increase the RATE the Hydro Cycle circulates; but NOT the MASS. Put simply: precipitation matches the the evaporation. This is demonstrated daily in our steam generating plants whenever the energy input is increased.
      The assumption that the GHE results in an increase in atmospheric water vapour is thus an error.
      It is simple errors of assumption like this that destroys the credibility of the scientific community.

      • from the text above: “Warming air also boosts evaporation, which can worsen drought. More drought creates dry fields and forests that are prone to catching fire, and increasing temperatures mean a longer wildfire season. Global warming also increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which can lead to more frequent heavy rain and snowstorms.”

        So, let’s see. Global warming can increase evaporation causing droughts while also causing heavy rain. Droughts end. Why do droughts end? Could it be from rain caused by increased water vapor in the atmosphere?

        Wow!

        Alasdair – I agree with you that the baseline over a long period of time for atmospheric water vapor probably doesn’t change significantly. It *is* a cycle. But it can also see short term increases over the baseline as well as decreases. Assuming the cycle can be simplified to a sine wave then the derivative of the curve depends on the amplitude of the curve. The derivative is your “rate” of circulation. The nominal amount of water vapor always returns to the same offset from zero (i.e. the sine wave crosses a zero point).

        [ d(a*sin(t))/dt = a*cos(t). As “a” increases so does the derivative]

        • I agree here Tim. The cycle obviously wobbles in the short term and indeed water evaporated from drought areas doesn’t necessarily return back to those areas as precipitation etc etc.

          The main point here that I attempt to make is that the IPCC uses this assumed increase in water vapour due to the GHE as a major plank in the CAGW claim by enhancing the purported forcing flux of some 1.6 Watts/ sq,m up to around 3.6 Watts/sq.m. and further suggests that this is an ongoing feature which will compound over time.
          IMO this is a fundamental error. whether deliberate or not and the IPCC et al needs to address this issue and start explaining why it holds the opinion that water provides this positive feedback to the GHE.
          To me the error or bug has now infected the whole modelling industry where this 3.6 Watts/sq.m is probably being taken as a valid value without bothering to check.

    • ” It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, ….”

      Hogwash!!!! I started the furnace up on Sept. 9th. Never done it that early – EVER – and those bozos are telling us that it’s because of global warming? Did anyone tell these geniuses that COLD is the ABSENCE of HEAT?????

      Someone should, because my furnace finally went belly up and I am doing WITHOUT HEAT (except for a space heater and good insulation) until Monday, and I am up to HERE with this BS that these grants-grabbing noonches keep throwing at us. Unfortunately, I do not have a fireplace. If I did, I might not be so charitable about this.

      How much did they pay for those degrees they’ve got? They should ask for a refund. I’d like to see how they’d do in a house without heat (until the furnace installers come on Monday).

      Can anyone tell I”m fed up with this ridiculous twaddle? Maybe I should ask them for a grant to pay for my furnace, so that I don’t have to do it.

  1. Conclusion, there’s the hot global warming, the cold global warming and anything in between inclusive weather.

    Who would have taught!

  2. Clearly the personnel making up the National Academy of Sciences have never read a history book on the periodic little ice ages that have occurred in the last 2000 years. If they had they would have recognized that little ice-ages are characterized by extreme weather events, just like those occurring now. Perhaps before they make even bigger fools of themselves they should read James A Marusek’s “A Chronological list of Early Weather Events” https://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/weather-chronology-dalton.pdf.

  3. Nick Stokes would have been proud the fine art of redefinition is alive an well in Climate Science ™. In real science the Look-elsewhere effect is demanded because human stupidity and bad statistics are a thing.

  4. From that above article’s title: “National Academy of Sciences declares . . .”

    Really? Who cares any more what the NAS states? They essentially lost all credibility when they elected Michel Mann to be a member of the NAS in April 2020. Mann’s infamous, thoroughly rebutted “hockey stick” graph certainly does not represent scientific integrity . . . but this criterion is apparently no longer important to the NAS. They have gone over to the dark side.

    • Yes, Gordon, as observed long ago, “How the mighty have fallen!” This shameless Faustian bargaining for much sought after affirmation from co-conspirators in what is their otherwise intolerant company is in addition to all the dishonorable grant money harlotry. In a juvenile stage of our lives it would have been simply recognized as they’ve pooped their pants. But it must also be said that it is a valuable fair warning to have their conduct overtly paraded before us so that we can identify the tendrils that threaten to enwrap the unwary regarding this life’s prevailing temptations.

    • “Really? Who cares any more what the NAS states? They essentially lost all credibility when they elected Michel Mann to be a member of the NAS in April 2020. Mann’s infamous, thoroughly rebutted “hockey stick” graph certainly does not represent scientific integrity . . . but this criterion is apparently no longer important to the NAS. They have gone over to the dark side.”

      I believe it was Michael Mann who said a couple of years ago that if the climate cooled for a couple of decades, that still would not falsify the Human-caused Climate Change claim. He was just covering his butt, but it seems the National Academy of Sciences has taken up his cause.

      Human-Caused Climate Change has corrupted the entire science community. It just goes to show how effective brainwashing can be.

  5. Any measurement that indicates global warming demonstrates an error in the measurement system. Any model that predicts warming or cooling in the next 100 years is WRONG.

    The energy balance of the globe is tightly constrained by sea ice at the poles to reduce heat loss and monsoon/cyclones at and near the equator to reflect tenurial potential energy input. Both have precise temperature control mechanisms.

    Anything else is a bit player in the energy balance. For example, a little less sea ice means a slightly higher surface temperature but greater heat loss. One massive cyclone can overshoot and cause short term cooling.

    The moored buoys clearly demonstrate the highly stable temperature control of tropical sea surface:
    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/

  6. The answer is Medium Confidence = 50/50. Before climate newspeak, scientists would have used the word “uncertain” or “inconclusive“.

    I disagree, scientists would not have used the words “uncertain” or “inconclusive“.
    50/50 is a coin toss, no more and no better. People used to say “You’re guessing” or “You are just making up stuff”.
    “Medium Confidence”, indeed.

  7. Underneath the heading, “FACT,” there appears a statement that has the weasel word “likely”:

    “While global warming is likely making hurricanes more intense, scientists don’t know yet if global warming is increasing the number of hurricanes each year.”

  8. The tweet in the above article is the same date as this titbit from the bbc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54725970

    With la nina kicking off there back to brainwashing people that even a la nina year ,will not see a overall cooling of the planet, it’s still global warming, ect ect . The bbc article is by the environmental activist matt magrath who poses as a journalist at the bbc .

    Today they just play more propaganda because the co2 ridden atmosphere cant stop a la nina event from cooling the planet ,so much for co2 keeping the snow and frost at bay.

    • I saw more sh..t from “Mcgrat le cul” today.
      Then I pointed out to my wife as “environmental specialist” to the BBC he actually never got a degree in a scientific subject at all!

      As an aside,-
      Macretin who likes to quote “the science”, just shut down France & married his “grandmother” school teacher must be a good friend of his, as he has a sidekick called Benalla, who likes posing as a police officer, although he didn’t have a police badge at all.

      Next day after calling for a “lockdown” and how we will all go thru this together, some nutter who only got to France on a boat from Tunisia mere weeks ago, slits the throats of 3 innocent people in a Nice church…
      . so much for national unity!
      They all appear to be from the same fake schools, the qualifs, and doing the same really weird acts each in their “well qualified” ways.

  9. “Global warming also increases water vapor in the atmosphere…”

    But it simply doesn’t according to NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory data. See Climate4you and click on “Climate and Clouds” and see for yourself. Only specific humidity near the surface has increased since 1948. Total column water vapor and relative humidity at all altitudes and specific humidity at altitudes above the surface are all down.

    Something seems to be wrong with the theory. Dr. Trenberth has said the data must be wrong but I have never come across any explanation of the problem.

    Something seems wrong with the theory.

    • The theory is rubbish. The “greenhouse effect” is a fairy tale. Anyone believing this nonsense has no ability to think for themselves or make simple observations or analyse data.

      Energy rejected by Earth is linked strongly to water vapour. Vapour in the form of reflective cloud trumps OLR vapour absorption by a factor of 3. The radiating power of tropical cloud is lower than the radiative power of CO2 but the reflective power is at least 3X the reduction in the OLR emission. CO2 would actually increase radiative power of OLR compared with tropical cloud. Dense cloud can knock out an average of 300W/sq.m of insolation, peak power reflection of over 1200W/sq.m, as anyone familiar with monsoon and cyclonic clouds can attest. They turn day into night:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2_DukRksyuhIkZ8

      The ignorance and incompetence embodied in climate models and “greenhouse effect” is incomprehensible for anyone with a gram of grey matter between their ears.

  10. National Association of Climate propagandists joins the fray.
    How long until the majority of science trained people get sick of lying for money?
    Credibility =0.00

    • Al Miller, Never. Ethics did not have a chance in surviving the Clinton Administration. That part of our political culture is passe.

  11. Uncertainties, lots of uncertainty but an admission of uncertainty doesn’t sell (help secure funding for future studies). Everyone agrees there is global warming, everyone agrees there is a anthropogenic component. Alarmists claim it’s mostly anthropogenic and catastrophic. Realists claim it’s minimal and if anything, net positive. Until science can provide numbers, other than the “medium confidence 50/50” nonsense (i.e. storm intensity in 2020 was 3% plus or minus 1% more intense because of burning fossil fuels) we need to stop spending $trillions on the impossible task of replacing fossil fuels with sunshine and breezes.

  12. Just know that the NAS President is Marcia McNutt. She’s the same person who as Science Mag Executive Editor (senior editor) in 2015 pushed though the Karl Pause-Buster paper in short order with a pal review leading in to Paris COP 21. She’s corrupting the NAS with the Climate Scammers and last year helped push to get fellow traveler Mikey Mann elected as NAS fellow.

    McNutty is hoping to be Komrade Kamala’s White House OSTP Science Advisor to the President by next summer.

    • Joel, thanks for providing the background linkage . . . the situation is worse than I thought.

      But in the interest of clarity, Michael Mann was “elected”/announced to be member of NAS in April of 2020, this year. However, it is very likely that her push toward that end started in 2019.

  13. This is plagiarized,the very same report is made in the folk song Oh Susanna over a century ago.
    With far more humour and attention to detail.

  14. Covering all bases as usual for the alarmists. More people are catching on to their game though. You can’t go on changing your story and expect people to keep on believing.

  15. This is just great science… “Some places will be hotter, and some colder, and some dryer and some wetter.”

    Oops, I meant “This is just Great Science Fiction”.

    How embarrassing to be associated with such mental giants of propaganda. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

  16. 50-out-of-10 chance isn’t ‘medium confidence’ it’s a half sigma below where you start sanitizing your data.

  17. The hurricane claim has always been impossible.

    Hurricanes operate on the differential of how much hotter the thick surface water is compared to the atmosphere. The surface water has a limited maximum temperature because of conduction and in order for hurricanes to be more common and more intense the atmosphere must COOL.

    Basic physics.

  18. IPCC? This is weather, not climate. Different sociopolitical jurisdiction.

    50/50 they flip a coin and redistribute billions of dollars to help refugees from social justice campaigns, including: elective wars, elective coups, social contagion.

    Also, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] global warming or global warming? Apparently, greening, not to be confused with Greening, is a side-effect.

  19. Also cause, wet/cold, wet/hot/dry/different, above average/below average, and normal weather.

    Anything I’ve left out ????

    So.. NO DIFFERENCE to usual highly variable weather patterns.

    There is no evidence of any CO2 forced global climate change.

    Extremes are not getting more extreme (except that extreme cold over USA recently, which was cause by global warming).. is that right? Its all so confusing 😉

    Whoopy-doo !!!

  20. ”Based on science”…..
    Meaning?
    Is that like a movie based on actual events but with plenty of bullshit thrown in for dramatic effect?
    Or is it more like plastic decking made to look like wood but not actually wood?
    Is that it?

  21. Most of the assumptions and observations are “Inconclusive”, there is not even an agreement between the Academy of Sciences and the IPCC, and even within the IPCC itself :

    “low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes”.

    And we are supposed to drink the “science is settled” kool-aid ?

  22. ” It also increases water vapour in the atmosphere” In theory, but not in practice. Over the oceans TPW follows temperature, but over the land there is no correlation. RSS, ISCCP, NVAP-M all show no consistent global increase in WV.

    Also with GH gasses warming the cold times and places, the reduction in equator to pole temperature gradient means less in tense storms according to many meteorologists and scientists.

  23. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. Clearly the NA has been taken over by the woke and will have to be disbanded when this whole sordid episode is behind us.

  24. How far back did they compare post 1950 to? Unless they went back 10,000 years, I wouldn’t waste any time deigning this ‘analysis’ with an answer. Just because extremes became more prevalent the past 70 years vs the previous 70 years: so what? There will always be periods of greater climatic tranquility and periods of greater volatility. Geologists identified times when temperature change rates of 15C/century were identified, which makes 1.5C/century seriously small beans.

    I really get tired of ‘experts’ who are trying to be ‘political experts’ looking like political nincompoops.

    The science is settled, so stand down all the scientists. Retrain as engineers. Or computer programmers. Or whatever…

  25. Science fiction is “based on science”, but doesn’t pretend to portray reality. What the NAS and the somewhat less alarmist IPCC do is called lying. They have many ways of lying, and many tricks of their trade up their lying sleeves, including pretending to tell the truth. They use weasel words, and make up their own phrases with both stated, and hidden meanings. They are a disgrace to themselves, to their country and to science itself, which they degrade and debase by pretending to be scientists.

  26. It is “likely” the use of “medium confidence” is worth tens of billions more in research funding compared to “inconclusive” IPCC wording. That obviously follows from the higher research spending track record in the U.S. compared to other nations. Never let a good money pipeline go to waste, even when its flow rate is driven by carbon-intensive taxpayers being tapped.

    Biden has already incentivized this word play with “likely” funding pledges for “research” on word choice.

  27. I love the whole, “science based” proclamation. What science? Based how?

    Does global warming actually do all that they proclaim? It is posited that in certain regions it may become more arid, in others more green. You can find examples of hypothesis for any of those scenarios to global warming, but what does it say about the whole? Don’t know. Then stop saying it’s “science based” like that solves everything, every question, every iteration of truth, everything.

    Cherry picked partial truths are not science based. The minute you only take what you want and ignore the rest you have left the science realm for good and entered into politics.

  28. Regional changes in flood and drought since1995 have been completely dominated by low solar driving warmer ocean phases, and which increase lower troposphere water vapour, reduce low cloud cover, and intensify Atlantic hurricanes, and even reduce CO2 uptake. The warm AMO phase drives Greenland melt and continental glacier retreat, and so raises the sea level.

    All these changes which are normal during a centennial solar minimum, the National Academy of Sciences is blaming on a few whiffs of CO2. That is a tragicomedy of epic proportions, greatly compounded by the fact that major heatwaves and cold-waves are discretely solar driven and cause climate change.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

  29. This is not even a “theory”! It is mere conjecture about some inconclusive observation. A conjecture must be followed by a hypothesis for science to even begin. The hypothesis must have a basis (model, mathematics, system analysis, etc.) that predicts occurrences that can be measured and verified.

    Most of this is mere prognostication with no basis in fact. “Let me see your palm sir!”

    I am disappointed that science has been perverted so far in the U.S. as to most resemble the social “studies” who also don’t have predictions that can be tested and verified.

  30. One of the books in my personal library is “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs. It appears that the climate changes in Posthistory, too!

  31. This whole argument is based on the fallacy that the Earth’s temperatures are rising continuously.

    The fact is temperatures around the world are cooling. It is cooler now than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, all over the world.

    This “warming” the alarmists focus on has only taken place since about 1980, starting from a very cold period, and this particular warming from 1980 has NOT exceeded the warming of the Early Twentieth Century, which means this warming that the alarmists talk about is a distortion of reality.

    Here is the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999).

    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

    The U.S. surface temperature chart is the TRUE temperature profile of the Earth. It shows the Early Twentieth Century warmins was just as warm as it is today. And suface temperature chart that does not show this feature is a chart that does not represent reality.

    And here are Tmax surface temperature charts from around the world that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

    Tmax charts

    US chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-11.png

    China chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-12-1.png

    India chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-13-1.png

    Norway chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-13-2.png

    Australia chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-12-2.png

    AMO Detrended, Shows similar profile to Hansen 1999:

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/tsgcos.corr_.81.159.104.45.247.15.34.31.png

    So what we have is all this focus on the period from 1980 to the present. Yes, it has warmed during this period. But put into context, which it never is, this period only shows a temporary warming, which never got any warmer than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, and now appears to be running out of gas.

    Include the Early Twentieth Century in this conversation and Human-Caused Climate Change goes away, because not only is there no evidence of human-caused warming, there is no evidence of warming at all, other than a short period of time from 1980 to the present, which never exceeded the warmth of the Early Twentieth Century.

    The only place you can find Human-caused Global Warming in in the bogus, bastardized, Modern-era Hockey Stick charts. The Hockey Stick charts changed the temperature readings to make the Early Twentieth Century appear to be insignificant. They had to do this in order to sell the Human-caused climate change scam.

    Below is a comparison of Hansen 1999, the US surface temperature chart and the REAL temperature profile of the Earth (on the left) with the Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick chart (on the right).

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    As you can see the Data Manipulators took the Hansen 1999 chart, showing the warmth of the Early Twentieth Century and changed it and turned the Early Twentieth Century into insignificance.

    As a result, the bogus, bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart makes it appear as though the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter, decade after decade, and today is the warmest period in human history. And they attribute all that unprecedented warmth to humans burning fossil fuels.

    But there is no unprecedented warmth! As can plainly be seen by the actual temperature readings of the past. No unprecedented warmth means CO2 is at best a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Unfortunately, many people have been fooled by the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick Chart. It’s all made up out of whole cloth. It’s all a Big Lie.

    Our science community has bought into the Big Lie. And their only evidence is the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart. Science Fiction has become reality in their minds. Look at the chart!, they say. Well, I have looked at the chart and found it wanting. What I don’t understand is why all these honest smart people don’t see this blatantly obvious lie themselves.

    There are the charts for you to examine. The actual temperature readings do not correspond with the computer-generated Hockey Stick. So which temperature profile is wrong? The numerous charts that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, or the sole, computer-generated Hockey Stick chart that claims we are living in the hottest times in human history? It looks pretty obvious to me which is wrong. The Climategate Charlatans couldn’t erase all the charts in the world. They left behind too many clues which show they have manipulated the temperature record in order to sell their Human-caused Climate Change scam.

  32. A theory (AGW) that purports can explain any outcome, too hot, too cold, to severe, not severe, etc. in reality explains nothing. It is not science.

  33. Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
    High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
    Medium confidence 50/50 chance of being incorrect
    Low confidence 8 out of 10 chance of being incorrect
    Very low confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being incorrect

  34. It can be shown the it is the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect that causes the surface of the Earth to be on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the warming derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a hypothetical radiant greenhouse effect is zero. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere in the solar system for that mater. The convective greenhouse effect is caused by the heat capacity of the atmosphere and gravity. There is no way that we can eliminate the Earth’s gravity so what we are left with is decreasing the amount of atmosphere covering the Earth. Of the individual molecules that make up the Earth’s atmosphere it is not CO2 but rather N2 that is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect as well as variations in weather. The only way to get rid of Earth’s weather variability is to get rid of the atmosphere entirely. Sure the difference between day and night surfaces would be extreme but the average would remain the same and there would be no extreme weather events without the atmosphere. The moon is an example where there are no extreme weather events because there is no atmosphere.

  35. Global Warming has been a total of 1 degree C of warming over the last century. Since the high temperature of the day typically warms from winter to summer by more than 30 degrees C, all that 1 degree C warming has done is make that natural seasonal warming occur a few days earlier in the spring and stay warm a few days later in the fall. Most of the one degree of warming occurs during the winter and overnight temperatures, too, so the slight warming we’ve seen has had very little effect on high temperatures. At most, climate change can result in a one degree C hotter all-time record heat wave ONLY during the very hottest part of the summer, that’s it. Outside the dog days of summer, global warming is clearly NOT responsible for record breaking heat waves. Unfortunately, climate fear mongers and other assorted idiots will claim that any all-time record breaking heat wave at any time of the year is caused by global warming but they’re almost always wrong.

Comments are closed.