Global Warming 33 Year Birthday a Celebration of Failures

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

Climate alarmists are celebrating the 33 years that have passed since the June 23, 1988 Democratic Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing that opened the door on global warming climate alarmism with testimony from Committee Democratic Senators and supposed “experts” sharing their speculation of sensationalized doomsday perspectives allegedly caused by increasing global CO2 emissions.

detailed review of the testimony from that hearing after 33 years of recorded climate history reveals a litany of the hearings flawed and failed speculation, conjecture and predictions of climate outcomes establishing the fact that the hearing got everything wrong from start to finish and in fact represents a celebration of an extraordinary number of failed predictions.

At the time of the hearing some regions of the Midwest and Southeast were undergoing a severe drought which led many Democratic Senators and other “experts” to exploit this circumstance (as they always do with normal weather events including droughts in the U.S. West this year) and offer extensive speculative claims that the U.S. could expect additional droughts and heat waves in the future because of growing global CO2 emissions.

The 33 years that have passed since then have proven these Democratic Senators and “experts” to be wrong with EPA and NOAA data clearly establishing that the U.S. and global droughts have not increased over this period and neither have U.S. heat waves as shown by the data below as is the case for virtually every other climate area addressed at this hearing with the specific information following for each of these areas discussed in the material below.

Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that the global temperature anomaly would climb by about 1.4 Degrees C by year 2021 from 1986 levels based on a NASA GISS climate model unless emissions were immediately reduced. UAH satellite measurements of global temperature which commenced in 1979 show that the global temperature anomaly has only increased since these hearings by 0.49 Degrees C by year 2021 nearly 3 times less than the flawed speculation at these hearings. The flawed NASA GISS climate model projections and UAH actual measured satellite data are shown below.

Additionally, global CO2 emissions have climbed significantly since 1988 driven by huge increases in CO2 emissions by the world’s developing nations that represent 65% of total global CO2 and yet the NASA GISS model claimed global temperature anomaly increase didn’t happen. This clearly suggests that natural climate variation is driving global climate not manmade CO2 emissions. 

Subsequent to the 1988 Senate hearing on global warming the UN IPCC has conducted a number of climate analysis reports and concluded that there are significant limitations to climate models being able to provide accurate future climate predictions with these limitations being unresolvable.

The UN IPCC Third Assessment Report (AR3) was issued in year 2001 more than a decade after the 1988 hearing. That report finally acknowledged that it is not possible to develop climate models that can accurately model global climate and provide future climate predictions.

Specifically, the report in Section 14.2.2.2 noted:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles model solutions.”

Furthermore, the climate model scenarios used to evaluate future climate behavior are characterized as being uncertain (defined as “plausible” or “illustrative”) making their suggested outcomes simply speculation and conjecture and unsuited for massively intrusive and costly political actions.        

Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that the rate of coastal sea level rise would increase to 2.5 inches per decade because of rising CO2 but NOAA tide gauge data through year 2020 (33 years after the Senate hearings) establishes that the global absolute rate of sea level rise is only about 0.7 inches per decade strikingly below the hearings exaggerated and proven to be flawed sea level rise claims. Additionally, NOAA tide gauge data at hundreds of coastal locations around the U.S. shows no change in the rate of coastal sea level at these locations as demonstrated by the longest U.S. tide gauge 164-year record at the Battery location in New York shown below. Again, the hearings exaggerated coastal sea level rise claims have been proven to be wrong. 

Many speculative claims were made during the Senate hearing that increasing CO2 emissions are driving more forest fires around the world but once again these flawed claims were shown to be wrong based upon NASA satellite measurements proving that global wildfires have a decreasing trend as shown below.

Speculation was offered at the Senate hearing concerning supposed negative impacts on global greening caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions but NASA satellite observations reflect the opposite occurring as noted in the study below indicating that from a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetation has shown significant greening over the last 35 years due to rising levels of CO2. Additionally, the hearings claimed negative impacts of greenhouse gases on global forests are contradicted by a recent study by the University of Maryland that shows otherwise also noted below.

Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that increasing CO2 emissions would result in devastating reductions in global food production. After 33 years of history the data shows world record high food production levels of grains, wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, etc. as noted below. The exaggerated doomsday claims by Democratic Senators and “experts” at the hearing were again proven to be wrong. 

The June 23, 1988 Senate hearing on global warming based on 33 years of history has proven the hearings exaggerate claims to be flawed, false and failed. The 33 year birthday celebration by climate alarmist of this sorry event is in fact a celebration of global warming failures.  

4.7 61 votes
Article Rating
191 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 30, 2021 6:09 am

June 23, 1988…….another date that lives in infamy. If “they” want CO2 to be a problem….”they” can make it a problem.

Steve Case
Reply to  Anti-griff
June 30, 2021 8:38 am

Thames TV ran a global warming documentary in 1981: “Warming Warning”
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=warming+warning+thames+tv
There are several clips at the link.

So Global Warming goes back 40 years in the Popular press, and no doubt for some time before that. It’s notable that Dr. Stephen Schneider is featured, just as he was a mere three years earlier in Leonard Nimoy’s 1978 documentary: “In Search of The Coming Ice Age”
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=leonard+nimoy+in+search+of+ice+age

Will it flip flop again? Only time will tell and it depends on the weather.

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
June 30, 2021 9:35 am

It depends on the climate!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 9:55 am

Proof, if any were needed, that you are completely clueless about the subject under discussion.

pHil R
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 10:32 am

I generally don’t respond because most of your posts are baseless, irrational assertions unsupported by any evidence (as is this one). There is no such thing as “climate.” Climate is a human creation defined generally as the weather in a location averaged over 30 years (or whatever period of interest). So Steve Case is right and you’re wrong (but what’s new?).

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 1:01 pm

It was never about “the climate”, even when they were bleating about man-made global cooling … the ice age cometh.

Redge
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 10:20 pm

I agree Griff – the Climate of Fear

June 30, 2021 6:14 am

CAGW alarmists are like an NFL team going 0-16 and predicting they will win the Super Bowl the following year. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet the ranch, or the economy, on it.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave
June 30, 2021 6:37 am

CAGW alarmism is a major plank in the progressive left’s agenda. While the alarmists themselves may be 0-16 in terms of their predictions, the progressives overall have posted a nearly Harlem Globetrotter-like legislative / regulatory record against their hapless Washington Generals-like opposition.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 30, 2021 6:50 am

Just reflected back on the reference to “33” in the title of the post – 33 years, 33 degrees (-18 to +15) and something to do with a PA beer sold in green bottles…

Last edited 2 months ago by Frank from NoVA
pHil R
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 30, 2021 10:36 am

Rolling Rock…

MarkW
Reply to  Dave
June 30, 2021 9:50 am

In 1990, the Atlanta Braves finished last in both leagues with a record of 65-97, just two years earlier they had set a team record 54-106.
In 1991, the Braves came within one game winning the World Series. They lost in 7 games, with many of those games going extra innings.

Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2021 9:58 am
Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 6:15 am

The democrat senators lied?

I am shocked.

shrnfr
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 7:05 am

Speaking of which, the Biden administration claims the Miami condo collapse was caused by (you guessed it) climate change.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  shrnfr
June 30, 2021 7:23 am

You beat me by 3 minutes to posting the same story.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  shrnfr
June 30, 2021 8:52 am

The whole “lie” is based on ignorance & in the belief that people are stupid/thick/dense where science is concerned, simply because they/we don’t have an “ology” after our names!!! I suspect that the very tragic condo collapse in Miami was caused by poor foundations based on poor subsoil analysis/geotechnical information, coupled with poor supervision by the local authority responsible for certification of the structure! The other issue present is the possible poor site supervision of the works in-situ, “quality control”, that has been rammed down our throats over the years!!! I once contracted for a Structural/Civil engineering consultancy in Plymouth some years ago, & there was an over-zealous “Health & Safety” officer working for the city council, who openly boasted that he had “had” several contractors, a couple of Chartered Surveyors, a Chartered Architect, & he was “out” for a Chartered Structural Engineer to add to his collection of victims!!! I understand he was given “early retirement”, if you get my drift, as his personal grudges & opinions were not conducive to balanced, fair, & open professional opinion!!! As a structural engineer (ret’d) I never hid behind the phrase “it’s in accordance with the regulations”, my conscience would never let me allow it, I had to know it was right!!! My sincere condolences to all those who have lost loved-ones in this tragedy!!!

TonyG
Reply to  Alan the Brit
June 30, 2021 11:36 am

Alan,
It’s a pretty typical response – blame “climate change” because (a) you (politicians) have a convenient excuse instead of having to actually take any responsibility for anything, and (b) you don’t actually have to do anything about the real problem.

AndyHce
Reply to  Alan the Brit
June 30, 2021 1:18 pm

Or the local mafia got the contract to build it.

saveenergy
Reply to  shrnfr
June 30, 2021 9:03 am

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm suggests climate change played role in Florida condo collapse
.
No, watch the clip …
It’s the reporter who suggests climate change played role in Florida condo collapse.
The politician only gave some credence by saying – “Obviously, we don’t know fully, but we do know that the seas are rising. We know that we’re losing inches and inches of beaches, not just in Florida but all around,” Granholm said.
“Michigan, where I’m from, we’ve seen the loss of beaches because the waters are rising, so this is a phenomenon that will continue,”

So the ignorant tosser thinks water levels in a lake & sea level rise are the same thing !!! & she’s your Energy Secretary … god help you.

Last edited 2 months ago by saveenergy
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  saveenergy
June 30, 2021 9:46 am

CNN reporter, says it all.

oeman 50
Reply to  saveenergy
June 30, 2021 9:47 am

I heard that too, and my jaw dropped. Reminds me of when Pelosi said that we need to ban fossils fuels and use natural gas instead.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  saveenergy
June 30, 2021 6:38 pm

““Obviously, we don’t know fully, but we do know that the seas are rising. We know that we’re losing inches and inches of beaches, not just in Florida but all around,” Granholm said.”

She did say that. I wonder where she thinks ‘inches and inches of beaches” are being lost?

What’s sea level rise currently, 3mm a year?

“Inches and inches”, Jennifer?

If you think wild predictions were bad during the 1988 hearing, wait until you hear all the scaremongering the Biden administration is going to do. Joe was already talking today about the heat wave in the Northwest and attributing it to Human-caused Climate Change.

Graemethecat
Reply to  saveenergy
July 1, 2021 1:29 am

More extreme stupidity and ignorance from an American politician:

Hank Johnson genuinely believes the island of Guam is in danger of capsizing.

DrTorch
Reply to  shrnfr
June 30, 2021 9:31 am

It could have.

Of course space aliens could have caused it too.

Equal probabilities for either.

TonyG
Reply to  DrTorch
June 30, 2021 11:37 am

DrTorch, maybe a wandering black hole, like with that airplane several years ago?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
June 30, 2021 6:41 pm

I think it was CNN host Don Lemon who speculated that the missing aircraft might have been swallowed by a Black Hole.

And he is still working at CNN.

Redge
Reply to  DrTorch
June 30, 2021 10:23 pm

Maybe the Moon is trying to take the oceans with her as she wanders away from the Earth?

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
July 1, 2021 9:27 am

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

CKid
Reply to  shrnfr
June 30, 2021 12:28 pm

Since she is from Michigan she knows full well just 10 years ago falling Great Lakes water levels were blamed on AGW. She can’t have it both ways. Just another failed prediction, that Great Lakes are going to evaporate away from AGW. Just like everything else, natural variability rules.

MarkW
Reply to  shrnfr
July 1, 2021 9:21 am

They are also claiming that the collapse proves that their infrastructure bill is desperately needed. Despite the fact that not one penny of that bill is dedicated towards building inspection or maintenance.

Steve Case
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 9:54 am
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Case
June 30, 2021 10:00 am

And this was back when they were still halfway sane.

Brad-DXT
June 30, 2021 6:33 am

I wait with bated breath for this revelation to be broadcast on the major media outlets.

June 30, 2021 6:41 am

I will start to believe global warming predictions when, and only when, these predictions improve to 1% and when, and only when, the ones making the predictions first choose to live the way they command us to live.

Why should I believe someone’s vision for the future when their past predictions have been 0-for-everything. If someone has always predicted wrong, why should I believe what they say about the future this time? “Because science” or “because consensus” does not answer that question.

griff
Reply to  Wade
June 30, 2021 9:36 am

Never mind the predictions: what about decades of observed results?

Glaciers, arctic sea ice, for example…

Mr.
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 9:50 am

And not just decades of warming and melting, Griff –
there’s been CENTURIES, even MILLENIA of such changing climatic conditions.

What would you say is causing this inexorable change from “snowball Earth” conditions to the present day “goldilocks” conditions?

tommyboy
Reply to  Mr.
June 30, 2021 2:45 pm

Anecdotal, it means nothing

Bas
Reply to  Mr.
July 3, 2021 9:45 am

There are indeed centuries of data. And they show that the small variations (less than 0.5°C in the previous centuries occured gradually. Now, we have seen 1.0°C increase in a few decades. Scientists have looked for lots of possible explanations, but only one stacked up: man-made greenhouse gases…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 9:54 am

It’s been warming since around 1860. Even the die hard nutcases have to admit that prior to 1950 or so, none of that warming was caused by CO2.
There has been in net increase in the warming rate since 1950.
Yet you want me to believe that whatever caused the warming prior to 1950 stopped, and CO2 took over, just because some computer models say so?
The same models that over predicted how much warming there would be by a factor of 2 to 3?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 1:09 pm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

clarence.t
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 1:24 pm

Arctic sea ice is very much on the high side for the Holocene.

I’ve seen studies that show that for much of the first 6000-7000 years there was often no sea ice at all in summer.

Also, may of the glaciers dd not even exist in the MWp , only coming into existence during the anomalous cold of the LIA.

Perhaps you should do some actual research, griff, instead of mouthing ignorant platitudes. !

Eisenhower
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 2:14 pm

Griff(ter)

You mean like the prediction on anartic sea ice?

antarctic_max_min_extent.png
Redge
Reply to  griff
June 30, 2021 10:26 pm

Griff, mate

Please give just one example of an observed result that clearly points to CO2 as being the cause and we can all go home, pack our bags and move to Antarctica for the mild climate

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
July 1, 2021 1:31 am

Last time I checked, there were plenty of glaciers, and the Arctic still had its ice.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 1, 2021 9:29 am

But it’s going to go into a death spiral any day now.
The models have spoken, all hail the sacred models.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Chris Wright
Reply to  griff
July 1, 2021 5:11 am

It’s the decades of observed results that show these predictions from 1988 turned out to be hopelessly and laughably wrong.

The observations also show that glaciers advanced during the Little Ice Age, and started to recede around 1850, at the end of the LIA. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think SUV’s and mass air travel had really taken off in 1850.

Other observations show that pretty well all things that affect human wellbeing have been rapidly improving over recent decades: farm productivity increasing, the amount of food per head of population increasing, average health and lifespan increasing, numbers of people killed by extreme weather rapidly falling, the planet dramatically greening due to enhanced CO2 etc etc….

The mostly natural warming we have enjoyed over the last century has been of massive benefit to humanity and the world. The “climate crisis” which you presumably believe in is just a sick fantasy with no basis in reality.

The “climate crisis” is not just wrong, it’s immoral and a crime against humanity.
Chris

Bruce Cobb
June 30, 2021 6:44 am

Despite their flawed “predictions” it is truly amazing how accurately they can hindcast. Just cherry pick your fave model, twiddle and tweak the knobs (or dials) just so, and presto bingo, it fits (mostly) with what happened. Of course, it helps to have your thumb on the scales of data.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 30, 2021 9:55 am

I’ve seen the results of this hindcasting. It only matches the data if you squint really, really hard.
The best they can do is declare that since both the data and the models show warming, the models are confirmed.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2021 8:44 am

Nick Stokes admitted in a comment a couple of days ago that the models were poor at hindcasting the last 30 years.

joe belford
June 30, 2021 7:05 am

Hey Hamlin, if you have any friends in the states of Washington or Oregon, call them up and ask them what’s happening this week.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 7:37 am

Can you say “weather”?
I knew you could.

joe belford
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 30, 2021 9:06 am

Can you say “unprecedented record warmth?”
I know you could.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:49 am

Caused by the magic molecule?

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:56 am

There was unprecedented cold all over the country this past winter.

Only a total fool declares that everything is evidence of global warming.

davetherealist
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:04 am

perhaps you need to look up unprecedented before using such a large word. One or two record high temp. days are expected. How ever did the high and low records ever happen in the past? The ignorance to believe that a few days weather experienced in your very short lifetime somehow represents the pinnacle? Don’t you recall this? just 3 months ago? https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/weather/february-2021-cold-temperature-record/index.html

establ
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:35 am
John Tillman
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 12:05 pm

OR and WA yet again tied records from 1939, 1961 and earlier. For the states, it wasn’t unprecedented, albeit some cities broke records.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:14 pm

Nothing “unprecedented” about the weather there. Even if some new record was set, it’s called weather.

Derg
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 6:57 pm

Extreme 😉

Mr.
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:19 am

Prof Cliff Mass will be posting an analysis of this WEATHER EVENT on his blog in the next couple of days.
He ascribes a contribution of 1 -2 deg F from the last 50 years of global warming to the max temps observed in this event.

That is, 108F seen on Monday would still have been 106F without global warming.

Color me unalarmed by global warming.

meab
Reply to  Mr.
June 30, 2021 8:42 am

Cliff Mass usually gets things right but in this case he booted it. Most of the ~2 to 3 degrees F of land global warming seen in the last century has occurred in winter and overnight temperatures, not so much in daytime summer temps. In addition, some of that warming is natural because the warming prior to 1950 took place at low CO2 concentrations, and record temperatures are not corrected for the urban heat island effect. The contribution of AGW to this heat wave was almost certainly well less than one degree F.

Mr.
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 9:55 am

Whatever Cliff comes up with, it looks like it’s going to make Joe Belford’s head explode.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Mr.
June 30, 2021 10:01 am

A professor will be posting his analysis – on a blog?

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 30, 2021 10:57 am

Yes FN.
For everyone who wants to be better informed, and who doesn’t have a paid-up subscription to “The Literature”

He even engages, discusses, debates with folk who challenge his analysis & conclusions.
Now compare & contrast this approach with what passes for “conversation” at The Conversation, for example.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 30, 2021 4:19 pm

You seem to feel that publishing on a blog is disqualifying.
Why?
You get better peer review on a blog than you would ever get from a traditional journals.
Even better, there are no gatekeepers who prevent papers that reach the wrong conclusions from being published. Perhaps that’s the point that bothers you so much.

Richard Page
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:21 am

And meanwhile, here in the UK, we’re experiencing a much cooler than normal summer – end of June and I’ve had to put a sweater on – it’s a little too chilly for just a t-shirt. An uneven distribution of hot weather at this time is all.

Carbon500
Reply to  Richard Page
June 30, 2021 9:10 am

Here’s a link to Met Office records going back over a century – temperatures, rainfall, and sunshine for various parts of the UK – where’s the dangerous man-made warming (whoops – climate change)?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series

Reply to  Carbon500
June 30, 2021 10:46 am

OK, here from your source, UK annual mean temperature, up about 1.6°C
comment image

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 11:02 am

Happened after 11pm, so didn’t happen.
Also no video of a BBC reporter explaining it to folk of diverse backgrounds.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 11:30 am

Funny how that 21st Century trend flattens while CO2 concentrations continue to grow. Looks like a secular centennial-plus growth, with naturally occurring decadal ups and downs.

Mean land-based temperatures are misleading. Max and min should contain more useful information. Why not show them?

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 30, 2021 1:55 pm

“Max and min should contain more useful information. Why not show them?”
As you wish. They are of course arithmetically related:
comment image
comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2021 8:29 am

Thanks, Nick.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:28 pm

So what, Nick? You just posted a complete non sequitur. I raised a point about the local weather where I was being chilly, whilst there was some hot weather in parts of the USA and Canada and mentioned it was uneven weather. There was no call for you to stick your beak in with some smoothed, homogenized, mathematically averaged graph that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand. Go away you silly man.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 30, 2021 2:04 pm

It was Carbon500 who responded to you with a claim about UK temperature history. I noted that it was wrong.

Carbon500
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2021 2:13 am

Nick: I asked you ‘ where’s the dangerous man-made warming (whoops – climate change)?’
You haven’t answered the question.
Moreover, as you full well know, it takes just a few few temperature spikes to drive up the mean value – and since when does temperature by itself define climate? Look at the whole record for every month in every part of the UK. I ask again, where is the dangerous man-made warming, which has been rebranded as ‘climate change’? The variability of the UK’s weather and climate is there for all to see.
I’m 72 years of age, and I’ve lived in England for all of those years. To suggest as we see in the media that we’re undergoing a ‘climate emergency’ is laughable.

Reply to  Carbon500
July 1, 2021 2:34 am

C5,
It has long been known that if you put a whole lot of GHGs in the air, warming will result. We have done it and we see warming.

It may not be so dangerous so far, but we haven’t stopped. In fact, it’s pretty clear we will burn a whole lot more carbon, and get a whole lot more warming. At some stage we’ll have to stop.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2021 6:47 am

Have you stopped yet?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2021 8:54 am

Nick, using the UK temperature data you provided: 1) There is warming from the late 1800s through 1950, where Man’s GHG emissions could have had no impact. 2) There is cooling from the 1950’s through the ’80’s, a period where Man’s GHG emissions should have had an impact. 3) There has been no real warming during the 21st Century, while Man’s GHG emissions should have had a greater impact. 4) You have absolutely no reliable evidence that we will “… get a whole lot more warming.,” only speculation. 5) Man will eventually taper off use of FF, utilizing increasingly more advanced methods of meeting our energy needs, methods as to which we can only speculate.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:30 pm

RUN AWAY!!

Climate believer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 1:24 pm

You haven’t pointed out the man-made bit in all that, or are you saying it’s all man-made?

What is the correct mean temperature?

Looks like you’re suggesting temperature has gone from normal on the left to abnormal on the right.

The Thames used to freeze over in the 1800’s, ice fairs and all that. Is it reasonable to use that as a starting point?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Climate believer
July 1, 2021 6:50 am

I wonder how Nick heats his domicile in the winter…

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 1:28 pm

comment image

DaveS
Reply to  clarence.t
July 1, 2021 5:17 am

So, higher temperatures correlate with more sunshine – who’d ‘ave thought it. Presumably Nick will still blame CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  clarence.t
July 1, 2021 9:32 am

Haven’t there been a lot of air quality laws and regulations passed since the 1920’s?

Climate believer
Reply to  Carbon500
June 30, 2021 12:57 pm
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Page
June 30, 2021 10:05 am

Temperatures probably slightly above average in Scotland and Northern Ireland this June. The UK doesn’t stop in the English midlands.

Richard Page
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 30, 2021 10:12 am

Absolutely – I’m sure you can find an exception somewhere, just as you can find exceptions to the warm weather in some parts of the USA and Canada (but by no means all areas). It’s just weather – a cool area here, a warmer area there and it is all just variable weather. Congratulations on making my argument for me that we are just experiencing an uneven distribution of warm weather is all.

Redge
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 30, 2021 10:37 pm

Exactly, TFN!

I’ve been pointing out that “global warming” isn’t global for ages now.

Finally, an alarmist agrees.

Welcome to the darkside

Drake
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:23 am

Yep, highs in the 70s today in Portland and Seattle.

It is amazing how that global warming come and goes. If high temperatures are predicted and come the media talks about it, when the prediction is wrong or the temperatures cool, not a word.

But this is only WEATHER.

joe belford
Reply to  Drake
June 30, 2021 9:07 am

How many records were broken in the past few days?

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:59 am

How many records were broken this past winter? Or last winter for that matter?

Mr.
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:01 am

Dunno Joe, but in my area (heatwave ground zero) the 1942 temp of 42.3C still stands.

Wonder what gave us such an anomalous high back then?
No catalytic converters on our Nash Ramblers perhaps?

Climate believer
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:53 am

We can all play that game…

“The country shivered in cold this winter with recording a lowest ever temperature of the country’s history at 2.6 degrees Celsius at Tetulia in Panchagarh, Bangladesh on January 8, 2018.
Hospitals flooded with kids and elderly patients due to the severe cold wave blown across the country this winter.”

“Oklahoma City, 2021, recorded its second-coldest temperature on record with a low of minus 14 degrees. Only a minus 17 degree reading in 1899 is colder in the city’s weather records.”

“A weekend cold snap has broken records in Auckland, New Zealand.
In Whenuapai, in the city’s northwest, temperatures plunged to -3 degrees Celsius on Sunday, and -1.6C on Monday morning.
Record books suggested Sunday was the coldest recorded Whenuapai morning for 64 years.

…I could go on.

Last edited 2 months ago by Climate believer
clarence.t
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:29 pm

Joe, US anomaly was slightly negative

A very localised weather event

comment image

Rich Davis
Reply to  Drake
June 30, 2021 9:16 am

Slight quibble Drake: If a heat wave or extreme event is predicted, it will be hyped for a week beforehand and exaggerated as far as possible.

Then if it comes to pass it will be on HYPErdrive. If it fails to materialize, the subject will be quickly changed.

Three or four weeks later, the gaslighting will refer vaguely to a series of extreme events, wherein only the ones that panned out will be given as examples.

The hope and expectation is that most low-information viewers will remember all the hype and not realize that some of the stuff didn’t really happen.

Let there be snowfall on the pyramids or the Amazon and that will never get on the news.

John Tillman
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:25 am

Ask your friends in NM, CO and WY how they’re handling their unseasonably cold weather.

joe belford
Reply to  John Tillman
June 30, 2021 9:08 am

Broken records are broken records.

Rich Davis
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:22 am

I suppose Joe’s referring to the record low temp records in Antarctica.

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:59 am

Broken records are meaningless, other than to those who clearly don’t understand reality.

Mr.
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:04 am

Yep. And that AGW schtick really sounds like a broken record after 33 years of it not eventuating.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:05 am

Broken records are broken records.” joe is a broken record

TonyG
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 11:39 am

How old are your records joe? How old is the earth?

MarkW
Reply to  TonyG
July 1, 2021 9:38 am

I doubt any of them were much more than 100 years old. Most would have been much, much younger.

Graemethecat
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 11:39 am

You have clearly never heard of the Normal Distribution. Even in a stable climate, any record will be broken eventually, if one waits long enough.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:22 pm

How did you guys get to be so confused about the simplest concepts? Yours is an assertion with no useful content.

clarence.t
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:32 pm

Yep, you certainly sound like a broken record.

Did I mention that US anomaly was slightly negative

Anyone can see that this was just a localised weather event

Look at the cold in New Mexico !

comment image

Redge
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 10:39 pm

It’s been unseasonably cold here in England

Broken records are broken records

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 1, 2021 9:37 am

Apparently only broken high temperature records are records. Broken low temperature records have no value so they have no meaning.

meab
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:52 am

Uh, temps in the Pacific NW, are near normal. The heat lasted for just a few days and was because of an unusual configuration of air pressure systems that brought hot inland air to the coast. Where I live, right on the NW coast, the record high is 101 F, we got to 92 F. The last I checked, we have the same CO2 concentration as the places that broke records. How could this be? It’s called weather.

joe belford
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 9:09 am

“unusual configuration”…..sounds like “record heat” no?

meab
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:13 am

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 9:50 am

Too much exposure to CNN, methinks.

MarkW
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 10:00 am

I suspect he has a comprehension problem in general. Not just reading.

Abolition Man
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 12:55 pm

meab,
You need to be more careful when you are ascribing conditions to joe!
First, you stated that his head would explode. Now I’m no expert on demolition, but I believe that in order to get an explosion you need a structurally intact vessel of some kind to contain the pressure initially! You see the problem?
Now you’re stating that he has a reading comprehension problem. I’m not sure that joe and comprehension should be in the same area code, much less the same sentence or paragraph!
Your writing is generally very good; but do try to strive for greater accuracy! Don’t give trolls characteristics that they don’t deserve like rationality or intelligence!

John Tillman
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 12:09 pm

Please explain how CO2 caused the omega blocking pattern. Thanks!

The heating by compression is “just physics”.

clarence.t
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:33 pm

Very cold in New Mexico.

US anomaly negative 1 F

Just a very localised weather event

comment image

Mr.
Reply to  meab
June 30, 2021 10:09 am

Just enjoying my current 23C today vs my 35C this time yesterday.
How good is a sea breeze?
(a CO2 laden one at that 😁 )

Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:13 am

Yeah, because heat waves and omega blocks never ever occurred before CO2 levels were above 0.035% of the atmosphere. Just ignore the time when the Anasazi Indians had to abandon their pueblo homes because of a drought that lasted many many years. And p.s. also ignore that record-breaking Antarctic cold that is plaguing Brazil.

Gene
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:18 am

Do you not understand “Local Weather” Belford?

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 9:57 am

At the same time, temperatures are below normal where I live.

Are you actually going to claim that a brief warm period, in one tiny part of the globe is actually proof of global warming?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2021 1:27 pm

Personally, I don’t think he has the vaguest idea what he attributes these local warming events to. It just feels right to believe they’re a portent … a heavenly sign that his religion has some validity.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 30, 2021 7:14 pm

Desperately looking for a sign to affirm their take on reality.

clarence.t
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 1:26 pm

Joe, did you know that the anomaly for the US was actually slightly negative?

Yes this was a highly localised weather event

comment image

Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 7:08 am

Creepy Dementia Joe’s Sec. of Energy tries to blame the Florida condo tower collapse on “climate change” (Jennifer Granholm is a bona fide reptilian swamp creature):

https://nypost.com/2021/06/30/climate-change-could-have-played-role-in-florida-collapse-jennifer-granholm/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 7:24 pm

Jennifer is a lightweight. The entire Biden administration are a bunch of lightweights. We really do have an Idiocracy in the Biden administration.

Think about how ignorant these Democrats really are. They are trying to blame the “Defund Police” campaign on Republicans.

Nobody believes Republicans are in favor of defunding the police, yet the Democrats make this claim anyway. They do so to deflect attention from themselves, because they are the ones who want to defund the police and everyone knows it. The Leftwing Media won’t be able to help the Democrats push this lie. It’s too well-known were everyone stands on this issue.

The Democrats want to blame the Republicans because public polling shows that a large majority of American do *not* favor defunding police, which puts the Democrats under pressure so they try to accuse the Repubicans of doing what the Democrats are doing. It’s like Democrats calling Republicans racists when the real racists are the Democrats themselves.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 1, 2021 5:28 am

We really do have an Idiocracy in the Biden administration.

Is Jennifer the “it’s got electrolytes” babe in the Cabinet?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 1, 2021 6:52 am

Yes, Sec. of Energy is a Cabinet-level position.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 1, 2021 6:53 am

It’s like a group dementia.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 1, 2021 3:29 pm

Led by an obviously senile China Joe.

Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 7:33 am

If you were a medical doctor, and you got your diagnosis of patient outcome that wrong you would be struck off.
Mann O Mann, can this so called climate science get any more wrong?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 7:51 am

“…can this so called climate science get any more wrong?”

You should not challenge the universe this way. It is only too happy to rise to the challenge.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 12:57 pm

Alarmists say; “Hold my beer!”

philincalifornia
June 30, 2021 7:49 am

Yes indeed, they got it all wrong by wide margins, but I’m pretty sure that Hansen’s boiling oceans theory was involved then too. Not only as idiotic as all the above, but probably the most wrong calculation ever in the history of mankind.

….. but still, it scared stupid people. Well done A-holes.

dgp
June 30, 2021 7:58 am

The “ensemble of model solutions” has no greater predictive ability than any single model solution. The ensemble is just another model. The more models the merrier was always fatally flawed, but it was convenient for spreading funding around.

Graemethecat
Reply to  dgp
June 30, 2021 8:36 am

Averaging the output of garbage climate models doesn’t produce data, only more garbage.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 30, 2021 10:04 am

Even the modelers will tell you that below the level of the whole earth, the output of the models are worthless.
On the other hand, when they take all of these worthless regional predictions and average them together to get a prediction for the whole earth, they are supposedly perfect.

So the modelers are already used to averaging garbage to create gold.

Mr.
Reply to  dgp
June 30, 2021 10:11 am

and the blame

Matthew Sykes
June 30, 2021 8:16 am

Look at Hansens graph, from 1990 to 2020 we were supposed to have had 1.4 C of warming, we have had .2 C. THats a massive factor out.

MarkW
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 30, 2021 10:06 am

With no evidence that any of that 0.2C was actually caused by CO2.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 30, 2021 10:56 am

“Look at Hansens graph, from 1990 to 2020 we were supposed to have had 1.4 C of warming, we have had .2 C.”
No, we have had much more than 0.2°C. And his prediction was subject to scenario; on scenario B, which is a bit more than what happened, the rise would have been about 1°C. And it was.
comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 11:43 am

Ending on a Super El Nino. CO2 emissions have followed high-emission Scenario A, but temperatures follow low emissions scenarios. And please don’t trot out post-hoc sophistry to tell us how right Hansen was. The world is not warming the way the CliSciFi climate models told us it would.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:33 pm

Geez.
Jim had 3 spins of the chocolate wheel and still didn’t get the prize.
(correction. GISS provided more $$$s than he could ever have hoped for)

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:38 pm

Annual Mean Global Temperature Change == meaningless digit reflexology

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 10:53 pm
Jim Masterson
June 30, 2021 8:21 am

. . . show that the global temperature anomaly has only increased since these hearings by 0.49 Degrees C by year 2021 nearly 3 times less . . . .

Three times less? It’s a strange way to state about one-third as large. I guess “three times less” sounds bigger than “one-third as large.”

Andy Pattullo
June 30, 2021 8:26 am

Good news is hard to take…. for politicians, media and activists. Sane objective voters are another story – if only they were told the good news instead of the endless stream of lies.

Doug S
June 30, 2021 8:34 am

Gee, looking at the real world measurement data suggests that there is no “climate emergency”. I guess when your career depends on scaring people and getting grant money to pay your rent, you can rationalize just about any kind of lie.

Peta of Newark
June 30, 2021 8:38 am

You don’t wanna think about it do ya…
If just someone, ANYONE had stood up and said:
Excuse me Mr Hansen, you you please re-explain so-and-so about the gas effect

But no
The Good Men stayed silent and instead of 33 years of loveliness, we have 33 years (and counting) of doom, depression, meddlesome+interfering+bureaucratic good intentions, rampant hypocrisy, skyrocket rising costs & taxes and General All Round: FAIL
thank you so very much

Will there be a ‘next time‘…..

Bruce Cobb
June 30, 2021 8:45 am

Should we get them a barfday cake to go along with their barfday card?

Rich Davis
June 30, 2021 8:58 am

Additionally, global CO2 emissions have climbed significantly since 1988 driven by huge increases in CO2 emissions by the world’s developing nations that represent 65% of total global CO2 and yet the NASA GISS model claimed global temperature anomaly increase didn’t happen. This clearly suggests that natural climate variation is driving global climate not manmade CO2 emissions.

A comment and a quibble.

Followed by some more comments 🙂

This is an under-appreciated fact. Emissions grew faster than projected, yet temperature rose only about 1/3 as fast as predicted.

My quibble with this quote is that it does not clearly suggest natural drivers.

A more objective statement would be that it leaves open the possibility that temperature rises were mostly or entirely from natural causes. In any case, it should force alarmists to acknowledge that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is likely to be 1/3 of the value implied by their failed models.

Empirical evidence points to an ECS of 1.7 kelvin or lower.

Just because a theory might be right in principle does not prove that it has a significant effect in practice.

Like most people here on WUWT, I accept the theory that CO2 inhibits radiative cooling. With all other effects being equal, a rise in CO2 concentration should in principle cause some reduction in radiative cooling which should result in some increase in surface temperature over time. It’s the “all other things being equal” caveat that makes this all uncertain.

While true in principle (admittedly also an assumption at this point), it may not be significant in practice.

The evidence of the past 1/3 century is not supportive of the alarmists’ beliefs. ECS at 4.5 may be a concern (or not). ECS at 1.7 simply is not a big problem and may likely be net positive. Just as Greta’s great-grandpa predicted!

We will easily adapt to any problems that arise. Our grandchildren will likely be at least twice as wealthy as we are. Projected GDP figures would imply that the potentially negative impacts of climate change will only slightly reduce the massive increase in world wealth.

How is it possible, that after considering these facts, the world is racing toward insane policy decisions that would dismantle civilization?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 30, 2021 11:47 am

Not so; the developing world is ignoring the Leftist CliSciFi pantywaists.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 30, 2021 2:52 pm

Not much consolation to those of us stuck in jurisdictions where net zero mandates threaten our livelihoods, retirements, and/or very lives.

mkelly
June 30, 2021 9:04 am

The claim is if I double CO2 the temperature will be higher by 1.5-4 C.

One kilogram of CO2 requires 846 joules to raise temperature 1 C at 300 K.

Two kilograms of CO2 will only get a 0.5 C increase given same energy input.

CO2 cannot raise its own temperature let alone other gases.

And according to thermodynamics it does not matter what the energy input is.

Rich Davis
Reply to  mkelly
June 30, 2021 9:46 am

mkelly,
The heat doesn’t come from the CO2, it comes from the sun. The CO2, actually mostly the H2O, just slows down cooling by inhibiting radiative cooling.

Consider an imperfect analogy. The inner surface of your blanket gets warmer once you climb into bed. You yourself are warmer after a few minutes under the covers than you were when you were getting ready for bed. None of that heat comes from the blanket.

The blanket is just inhibiting convective and radiative cooling from your body. The main differences here are that your body heat is internal rather than the result of sitting in the sun all day, and the blanket blocks convection not just radiation, whereas water vapor and CO2 only inhibits radiative cooling.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 30, 2021 10:54 am

Very good Rich, but you’re wasting your time.

Rich Davis
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 30, 2021 2:46 pm

OK, so if you think I have that right, why do you balk at when I say that 1.7K ECS is not a problem and is probably net beneficial?

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2021 9:42 am

The irony is strong with this one.

John Hultquist
June 30, 2021 9:18 am

the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states

A person with retirement approaching will be offered a financial investigation (Mutual fund firms such as Fidelity or Vanguard, and many others) that will include a Monte Carlo Simulation that creates a probability distribution of your money and your life span. It is hoped that you do not out-live your money. You have to make several assumptions to run these simulations, while the results might encourage you to not (or to) certain things. For example, you might decide to drink boxed wine rather than Châteauneuf-du-Pape, or drive a Chevy Bolt EV rather than a high end Tesla.
These sorts of analyses are useful. They are not predictions, such as knowing when the next Full Moon will be  {Buck Moon, Thursday, July 23, 2021 03:37 UTC, or 22:37 EST}.

ResourceGuy
June 30, 2021 9:22 am

Political grandstanding in committee is about as far as one can get from real science.

Climate reality marches on…in cycles
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (wp.com)

Steve Z
June 30, 2021 9:39 am

In 1972, the Club of Rome was telling us that if population growth wasn’t limited, there would be mass starvation and death by 2000. Fifty years later, the world has twice the population, but less starvation than in 1970. But they wanted to instill fear so that people would follow their agenda.

In 1988, the Democrats on that Senate committee were telling us that if we didn’t stop emitting CO2, then global temperatures would rise, the ice caps would melt, and Al Gore told us a few years later that Florida would soon be underwater. Thirty-three years later, the climate is cooler than what they predicted, the poles are still covered by ice year-round, there are more polar bears and forests than before, and people still pay good money to live near beaches in Florida. But they wanted to instill fear so that people would follow their agenda.

In March of 2020, COVID-19 was declared a “global pandemic”, and people in many countries were forced into lockdowns that devastated many businesses, for fear that hospitals would be overwhelmed by COVID patients, and would run out of ventilators, and 2.2 million people would die of COVID in the USA. The death toll “attributed” to COVID is about one-quarter of what was predicted, and those are people who died “with” COVID, many of whom died from some other cause, but were tested positive at the time of death. The number of total deaths in the USA in 2020 was very close to those of previous years, when COVID was absent. Then we find out that “health guru” Dr. Anthony Fauci used American tax dollars to fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which released the man-made COVID virus from its lab. Once again, “leaders” wanted to instill fear so that people would follow their agenda.

From time to time, some religious cults announce dates in the near future for “the end of the world”, and anyone who doesn’t join their cult will die from God’s judgment on that date. Then the date comes and goes with nothing unusual, and the cult leaders say they have a new date a little farther into the future, and please join our cult and send money to be saved!

What is the difference between the global warm-mongerers and the other fear-mongerers mentioned above? That global warming is supposedly based on “scientific” computer models? But science is supposed to be based on empirical evidence, and if the computer models fail to predict observations, they are not scientific!

So, then, the difference between global-warming alarmists and other groups trying to scare people into submission is…not much. Let’s stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 10:10 am

I would like to know what margin of error, the climate crisis advocates are using.
I ask because if the actual climate alarmists estimate of current temperature, averaged across the globe is, say x+/- 0.5degC which would seem reasonable.Then the increase they have suggested since 1988 is within the margin of measurement error.
In other words, there may be no increase at all.
Does anyone know what these so called climate experts consider a sensible tolerance for the average world atmosphere temperature at 10 ft height is?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 12:41 pm

The climastrologers completely ignore proper metrology and uncertainty. Mostly they hand-wave a claim that subtracting a baseline removes all error.

Absurd.

markl
June 30, 2021 10:34 am

Afraid to admit they are wrong the climate alarmists double/triple/quadruple down on a false narrative.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  markl
June 30, 2021 10:49 am

As in the case of LBJ’s Great Society, they will focus on what worked and ignore the bad without any such thing as apologies. Unless they resort to the infamous Edward Markey line of “Who could have known?”

June 30, 2021 11:05 am

UAH measures temperature in the lower troposphere. So does RSS, and gets a much higher increase. Hansen was predicting temperature at the surface, not the LT. And it was subject to scenario; he predicted 1.4°C only if various things happened. He calculated other scenarios, and what happened worked out below Scenario B, for which a 1°C rise was forecast. And he got that right:
comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:44 pm

Name just one prediction of the climate prognosticators that has come to pass.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 30, 2021 1:46 pm

There is one right there.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 3:44 pm

That “anomalies” would rise?

Who cares, what a waste of CPU cycles.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 12:45 pm

Meers destroyed RSS credibility after his very obvious, politically-motivated adjustments a few years ago. GISStemp is a work of fiction based on infilling and fake station data.

Last edited 2 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 30, 2021 2:01 pm

The UAH adjustments were also very large, and a mirror image.
comment image

Gistemp uses real station data. I use unadjusted station data, and get very similar results.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 3:45 pm

Yeah, this looks DEADLY.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 8:09 pm

And they use synthetic data.
(an oxymoron if there ever was one)

Last edited 2 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 30, 2021 9:39 pm

Here is what Roy says about diurnal drift adjustment
After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.

 This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite. Even though our approach to that adjustment (described later) is empirical, it is interesting to see that it gives similar results to the RSS approach, which is based upon climate model calculations of the diurnal cycle in temperature.

Here is what he means by empirical:

These diurnal drift effects are empirically quantified at the gridpoint level by comparing NOAA-15 (a drifting 7:30 satellite) to Aqua (a non-drifting satellite), and by comparing NOAA-19 against NOAA-18 during 2009-2014, when NOAA-18 was drifting rapidly and NOAA-19 had no net drift. The resulting estimates of change in Tb as a function of local observation time are quite noisy at the gridpoint level, and so require some form of spatial smoothing. Since they also depend upon terrain altitude and the dryness of the region (deserts have stronger diurnal cycles in temperature than do rain forests), a regression is performed within each 2.5 deg. latitude band between the gridpoint diurnal drift coefficients and terrain altitude as well as average rainfall (1981-2010) for that calendar month, then that relationship is applied back onto the gridpoint average rainfall and terrain elevation within the latitude band. Over ocean, where diurnal drift effects are small, the gridpoint drift coefficients are replaced with the corresponding ocean zonal band averages of those gridpoint drift coefficients.

And people complain about adjustments to surface measurements!

John Phillips
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 2:22 pm

Actually – if you look at the numbers , I think even Scenario A did not reach 1.4C. More like 1.1C, and 0.8 for Scenario B.

Step by step guide to falsely falsifying a climate claim.

1. Overstate the prediction. Dr Hansen presented three scenarios from the The GISS model labelled A, B, C. The most extreme, described as ‘eventually on the high side of reality‘ has around 1.1C warming by 2021. The middle scenario B which had fixed emission rates approximately fixed at current levels, described as ‘perhaps the most plausible‘ had a warming of 0.8C 1988-2021 (By the way, no need to squint at graphs, the actual numbers are here.). The ‘plausible’ 0.8C is no good to us, so boost it by 75%.

2. Use the wrong observation. Now, Hansen was predicting global surface temperatures, so what happened there? Oh no! According to the NASA data the warming was just over 0.7C, far too near the ‘plausible’ 0.8C to be any good for us. What about the satellite data? OK it is not global and it does not measure the surface but let’s have a look at the RSS data. Oh no, 0.74C – it’s warmer than NASA! No good at all. But about UAH from our friends Spencer and Christy? Ah, 0.45C. Perfect. Phew!

So there you go, boost the size of the prediction by between 40 and 75%, choose the observational dataset with the least warming (even though it is not measuring the quantity being predicted) and you can make the claim look three times too large. Job done.

Oh and by the way – Scenario B turned out to be closest to reality (Hausfather et al 2020, Figure 1)

The growth in crop yields is of course welcome. We should all be thankful for the Green Revolution.

Looking at area burnt globally for wildfires is deceptive as the majority of fires are actually prescribed burns and these have declined for various reasons. Nonetheless, area burned in the US has doubled since the 1990s, and the 2019/2020 Australian wildfires were made significantly more likely by climate change.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2021 2:29 pm

UAH measures temperature in the lower troposphere. So does RSS, and gets a much higher increase.

Indeed. RSS was very close to Hansen’s Scenario B. Which one shall we choose?

What would Monckton do?

John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
June 30, 2021 2:30 pm

What would Monckton do?

WUWT Trends.jpg
Reply to  John Phillips
June 30, 2021 6:35 pm

We know that. For the first “pause” to end 2015, he used RSS V3.3, because it gave a much lower trend than UAH V5.6. Now, with UAH6 showing a much lower trend than RSS V4, naturally he uses UAH.

Doonman
June 30, 2021 1:29 pm

Al Gore has been conspicuously absent in the news lately. I guess sitting on the Apple Board of Directors for 20 years is taking up all his time.

June 30, 2021 1:43 pm

“This clearly suggests that natural climate variation is driving global climate not manmade CO2 emissions”

No, just because it might not be CO2, that does not rule out it is man made after all.

Edward Katz
June 30, 2021 2:12 pm

In spite of all the dire predictions we’ve received over the last 33 years about climate change’s ill-effects, somehow global food production, life expectancy and the overall population has still managed to increase. So maybe we and the planet are more resilient than the doomsday crowd cares to admit.

Pat Frank
June 30, 2021 3:05 pm

Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that the global temperature anomaly would climb by about 1.4 Degrees C by year 2021 from 1986 levels based on a NASA GISS climate model…”

That would be 1.4 C±14 C.

Jim Hansen presented utterly meaningless projections, but clearly must have innocently forgotten to inform the committee of this detail.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 30, 2021 9:41 pm

Jim Hansen presented utterly meaningless projections”

He got it right.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 3, 2021 3:34 pm

Nick,

Round about that time, Hansen was also predicting that the West Side Highway in NYC would be inundated. Last time I was there (a few months ago), it was still above water.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/hansen-got-it-right/

RoHa
June 30, 2021 11:06 pm

Entered American domestic politics on 23 June 1988. No-one in the real world paid attention until Margaret Thatcher pushed it into international politics on 8 November 1989.

Still got everything wrong, though.

June 30, 2021 11:38 pm

51 years of failed forecasts, not just 33. Since 1970, there have been 79 predictions of environmental apocalypse from the green movement. 48 predictions expired, and failed to happen.

Greens are systematic liars; using bad statistics and bad modelling to tell their lies.

Vincent Causey
June 30, 2021 11:56 pm

It should be pointed out that CO2 actually suppresses fire.

Mickey Reno
July 1, 2021 8:26 am

I’m surprised that someone from the Progressive left has not yet blamed the Surfside building collapse on white racism. When you only have a couple of canards, you need to bring them out for every occasion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mickey Reno
Roger
July 2, 2021 12:14 pm

The climate alarmists’ dog whistles are unprecedented drought, forest fires, rising oceans, over population, ocean acidification, massive extinctions, starving masses, evil capitalists, Marxist doctrine, forest depletion, et al. Of course, when examined for evidence or factual basis, every single one of those popular memes are proven to be false, both in theory and practice.

Bas
July 3, 2021 9:42 am

To balance this article, you should also read the list of failures of the climate science deniers that have predicted global cooling over this period.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up

Or rather than relying on what blogs say about the predictions, you could read what a scientific study says about it: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

%d bloggers like this: