Category Archives: Global Temperatures

November Global Temperature


The November global temperature as reported by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) ***came in at an anomaly of +0.17C. The black dot on the chart is shown to be + 0.17C above the arbitrary fixed line.  Recent monthly global temperature readings were

July  +0.36 ;  Aug.  +0.28;    Sept.  +0.24 ;   Oct.  +0.32 ;

The measurements are the up and down lines, and the fixed line nominally has half of the temperature measurements above and half below the line.  The two peaks, about 2017 and 2020 are the effect of El Ninos, naturally occurring phenomena. Not man-made.

Temperature has been declining since those two El Ninos.   The opposite effect is a La Nina that usually occurs following an El Nino.  Currently the global weather is experiencing a La Nina. La NInas typically result in drought conditions in the southwestern part of the US, for example.  

Chart is courtesy of Dr. Roy Spencer.

While the chart is up there, following the very large El Nino that occurred in 1998/1999, the average temperature from then until about 2014/2015, did not rise. This 15/16-year period experienced continual rising of CO2 in the atmosphere.  So, you can draw several conclusions as to why did it not rise?  One is that there are natural forcing agents that were cooling the atmosphere. Two, is that maybe CO2 is not really what is theorized to be. 

Detailed look at regions like North America, Southern Hemisphere, the Arctic, etc.by clicking here  DrRoySpencer.PhD

***There are a number of organizations that chart global temperature.  The best source is the UAH satellite data.  It is the first that used satellites when it began in 1978/1979 and has continued to date.  The satellite system measures the ocean temperature as well as the ground temperature. Others source temperature data from stations located around the globe.  But these stations are concentrated in places that are inhabited and for the rest of the globe, they make estimations. 

Confirming the accuracy of the UAH temperature measurements is that they match closely to the primarily land-based radiosonde (weather balloons) temperature measurements.  The real temperature of the globe is contested.  But the change in temperature from month to month is generally agreed to.  You may have wondered why the Alarmist always speak about an anomaly increase in temperature of 1.5C., and not a specific temperature.  

cbdakota

Snow Fall Extent in the Northern Hemisphere is the Highest in 56 Years


The severe weather forecast Europe says we are likely to have a cold early winter.  The blog authored by Renato R Colucci, makes these forecasts: (click to enlarge charts)

0

“Snow Extent in the Northern Hemisphere now Among the Highest in 56 years Increases the Likelihood of Cold Early Winter Forecast both in North America and Europe.”

“Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of November represents an important parameter for the early winter forecast. This year snow extent is running much higher than average and according to existing global estimates, it is now beyond the highest ever observed so far. Winter forecast, especially in its early phase and in Europe, might be strongly influenced by such a large snow extent, although many other factors need attention.”  (My emphasis on sentence,)

The posting also shows that fall snow extent is increasing lately. The following charts show the trend.

Real data is again conflicting with the Alarmists forecasts of an apocalypse.

Anyone want to bet if some “scientist” will try to show that this is due to global warming,

The blog can be read in its entirely by clicking here.

cbdakota     

“Climate Warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years”- Part 2 Former Numbers were implausible.


Judith Curry is an eminent scientist and a skeptic. Most of the discussion in this posting, comes from her blog Climate, ETC., titled: “The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be”.

Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.

Summary:  The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5* Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought.  Here are some prominent articles:

  At the heart of this good news is abandonment of RCP8.5 from UNFCCC policy making. The hero of science behind this abandonment is Justin Ritchie, a recent Ph.D. graduate (whose work has been cited.

The COP26 and now the COP27 have quietly dropped RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) from their considerations, focusing on the envelope between RCP4.5 and RCP2.6.  The grand poohbahs of the IPCC apparently didn’t see this coming (or preferred to keep spinning the alarm), since they instructed climate modelers for CMIP6 to continue a focus on SSP5-8.5, and climate researchers continue to focus on this scenario in their impacts publications.  The IPCC AR6 prominently featured SSP5-8.5, although WGI did make this lukewarm statement

The second so-called scientific advance is lower values of climate sensitivity.  The so-called advance is associated with the IPCC AR6 decision NOT to include values derived from climate models (which have dominated previous IPCC reports). They implicitly acknowledge that climate models are running too hot and that you can pretty much get whatever value of climate sensitivity that you want from a climate model (this has been blindingly obvious to me and many others for over a decade).  The IPCC AR6 lowered the upper likely bound of ECS to 4.0oC (from 4.5oC previously); this further acts to reduce the amount of projected warming.  The IPCC AR6 also raised the lower likely bound of ECS to 2.5oC (from 1.5oC).  Raising the lower bound of ECS is on very shaky ground, as per the recent publication by Nic Lewis 

The COP27 is working from a value of expected warming of 2.5oC by 2100.  This is arguably still too high for several reasons.  IPCC expert judgment dismissed values of climate sensitivity that are on the lower end (that should not have been dismissed as per Nic Lewis’ paper). Further, the IPCC projections do not adequately account for scenarios of future natural climate variability.  See these recent posts:

https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/23/crossing-or-not-the-1-5-and-2-0oc-thresholds/

https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/

In addition to an insufficient number of solar and volcanic scenarios, the climate models ignore most solar indirect effects, and the climate model treatment of multidecadal and longer internal variability associated with ocean circulations are inadequate.  While in principle these factors could go either way in terms of warmer vs cooler, there are several reasons to think these natural factors are skewed towards cooler during the remainder of the 21st century:

  • Baseline volcanic activity since 1850 has been unusually low
  • Most solar researchers expect some sort of solar minimum in the mid to late 21st century
  • Solar indirect effects are inadequately treated by climate models, which would act to amplify solar cooling
  • A shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is expected in the next decade, which influences not only global temperatures but also Greenland mass balance and Arctic sea ice.

Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2oC and even 1.5oC.  Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of 1850-1900; 1.1oC warming has already occurred.

*AR stands for Assessment Report. These are based upon the content in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) full reports, assembled by working groups.   AR6 is the most recent report. The reputation of the ARs is in dispute. The full report, the 6th, is condensed to an AR6.  The dispute is that many nonscientific personnel, such as delegates from industry, NGOs, etc. can force change that make the AR inconsistent with the full report.

cbdakota

Challenging the Alarmist’s Climate Crisis. —- Part 1 Background


The alarmist’s climate crisis is encountering some serious headwinds.  Not just from we skeptics but also from the ranks of the man-made global warming adherents. This posting will be to set the table for the subsequent postings that will illustrate the headwinds.   Another posting that will illustrate the profound damage that the crisis crowd are doing to the young people will also be posted.   

I posted in April 2021 how the alarmist’s computer forecasts were biased. Two concepts are the primary tools that the computer operators use to make predictions of future temperatures.  One is the representative concentration pathway (RCP) and the other is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.

The chart below shows the range of RCPs the computer programmer can use. The chart has RCPs portraying the forecasted amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere out to the year 2100.  The chart has a bit of dialog as well.  More on this will appear in the upcoming posting on this topic.

ECS

Theory is that temperature will rise approximately 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Further, the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in creating water vapor.  Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C.   Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.   

ECS is controversial.   There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all.  They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP, but the posting is addressing what the Alarmist believe. Most buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much less than a 3C rise,  

This is how the ECS theory works. Surface warming due to doubling of the atmospheric CO2.  Going from the nominal 400ppm atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm would result in 3C rise. But other test data says it is less.

                                           Jonova chart

The computer programmer puts in the RCP and the ECS.  He can get whatever temperature forecast he wants. 

cbdakota

Global Warming Temperature Predictions are Biased and Wrong.


The forecast global temperatures are the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory.  The alarmists use temperature as the goal post when they tell us that the global temperature since 1890 must not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.  They say if the temperature exceeds that number, it could mean Armageddon. Surely you have heard them tell us that we have about 10 more years to live if we don’t act now.  And telling our young people learning in schools that their life span is going to be very short.

So shouldn’t everyone be versed in how the forecasts of global temperatures are derived by the alarmists.

The alarmists have a bunch of computers with various settings that proport to be able to capture the vast number of variables that produce the Earth’s temperature.  In fact, almost none of them provide a comparable forecast into the future. When plotted out the projections by the many computers looks like bed of spaghetti.

All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers.  The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period.  Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. 

As aside observation, can you imagine what each line would look like if not mixed in with all the others.  Can you imagine how much confidence you would have for a computer that predicted temperatures that would rise and drop so precipitously over very short times.  Real temperatures don’t do that.

In science, it is said that if you have a theory and you make predictions from it and it does not match actual results, your theory is WRONG, So the alarmist’s temperature forecasts are wrong and should NOT be used to make public policy.

I have worked at this topic a number of times. Pretty much the same narrative.  Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know https://wordpress.com/post/cb-dakota.com/108-Part 3 Biased Computers is a posting that shows how the computer programmers can make the temperature forecast hotter. 

Cbdakota

The chart was made by Dr. John Christy.  On many occasions he has given testimony before Congress.   

China to Prioritize Energy Security Over Renewables


Bloomberg  posts: China to prioritize energy security over transition to renewables, Xi Says”. President Xi Jinping never has intended to stay with his promise to stop emitting CO2 by 2030.  Time and again, the warmers have said how wonderful China is and how bad the US is regarding CO2 emissions. This despite the fact that in the past ten years the US emissions have declined (more than any other nation) while China’s emissions have increased massively.   The warmers just recently learned that China had decided in their 5-year plan to up the number of coal plants they planned to install.  The warmers just knew that was not going to happen, but sure as the Sun Rises in the east, they were wrong. 

Now, Xi says:”

“He will use prudence about governing China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero out carbon emissions.”

So, 2030 is not a firm date anymore.

It happens that I agree with his reasoning (that I underlined).  Bloomberg posting related this:

”Xi speech made China’s path to decarbonization clear saying It won’t stop burning fossil fuels until it’s confident that clean energy can reliably replace them. The speech shows more emphasis on energy security and the significant role of coal in China’s energy supply given the resources endowment.

The Bloomberg posting gives the reader background on China and promises:

China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and Xi electrified climate activists two years ago when he vowed to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 after peaking emissions before 2030. The announcement sparked a massive surge in investment in clean energy by local governments and state-owned firms.

But last year focus began to return to China’s mainstay fuel of coal after a shortage triggered widespread power curtailments to factories, slowing economic growth. The country vowed to increase mining capacity, and production has risen to record levels this year, keeping storage sites well stocked and reducing imports.

China will also expand exploration and development of oil and gas resources, and increase reserves and production as part of the measures to ensure energy security, according to a congress work report released after Xi’s speech.

Does this sound like someone planning to cut back.?

Sorry warmers!

No nation should cut back on fossil fuels until wind and solar can prove they are be reliable suppliers.  And that may be never.

cbdakota

Hat tip to Net zero posting.  “China to prioritize energy security over transition to renewables, Xi Says”

Global Temperature Anomalies Warm 0.13C in May 2021


The UAH satellite temperatures for May warmed by 0.13C, making the anomaly +0.08C.  I can hear the voice of a friend of mine saying “the change is way beyond the limits of meaningful measurement.”  Ok, but the cumulative measurements have meaning in that they do mimic warming or cooling  trends.  So, I will continue to report these anomalies.  

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01  0.42  0.44  0.41  0.52  0.57 -0.22  0.41
2020 02  0.59  0.74  0.45  0.63  0.17 -0.27  0.20
2020 03  0.35  0.42  0.28  0.53  0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04  0.26  0.26  0.25  0.35 -0.70  0.63  0.78
2020 05  0.42  0.43  0.41  0.53  0.07   0.83 -0.20
2020 06  0.30  0.29  0.30  0.31  0.26  0.54  0.97
2020 07  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.28  0.44  0.27  0.26
2020 08  0.30  0.34  0.26  0.29  0.69  0.24  0.64
2020 10  0.38  0.53  0.22  0.24  0.86  0.95 -0.01
2020 11  0.40  0.52  0.27  0.17  1.45  1.09  1.28
2020 12  0.15  0.08  0.22 -0.07  0.29  0.44  0.13
2021 01  0.12  0.34 -0.09 -0.08  0.36  0.49 -0.52
2021 02  0.20  0.31  0.08 -0.14 -0.66  0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01  0.12 -0.14 -0.29  0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05  0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02  0.02  0.29
2021 05  0.08  0.14  0.03  0.06 -0.41 -0.04  0.02

The La Nina looks to have ended.  I see that some experts are saying it may return in about 6 months. 

cbdakota

Solar Cycle 25 Up-Date


SOLAR CYCLE 25 UP-DATE

The comparison of Solar Cycle (SC)25 to its predecessor SC 24 currently indicates that there is little difference in activity at the same point in time after they began.  Looking at the chart below, the two bottom lines, are SC 24 and 25.  Several months ago, SC 25 was more active than SC 24 and that lead to the thought it would be much more active than SC24.  The expert forecasts mostly said that they would be much the same.   At this point, the forecasts of similarity appear to be accurate

Chart is from http://www.solen.info/solar

The following chart shows the history of the recorded SCs.   Sunspot numbers have only been collected for recent centuries.   When a series of SCs having low numbers of sunspots occur, historically, the result is global cooling.  When a series of SCs occur with high numbers of sunspots, the result seems to be warming.  

Beginning in the early part of the last century, SCs were highly active, peaking with SC19.  SC19 has the record for most sunspots. The SCs that followed were highly active until SC 24. This period has been called a solar maximum.

The timing of the solar maximum and the increase in atmospheric CO2 are rivals for the reason that global temperatures have risen beginning in the latter part of the last century. Perhaps they both have been complicit. 

I believe that the Sun is the major factor determining global climate.  The trajectory of the SC 24 and probably SC 25 would suggest a global cooling is in the offing.  This should be a defining period.

cbdakota

Solar Cycle 25 Up-Date

Solar Cycle 25 Up-Date

The Paris Agreement–Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Know—Part 6


This is the sixth posting of a series listing things that the alarmists and the mainstream media do not want made public.  At the top of this posting is a link to the preceding postings.

The Paris Agreement (PA) has been a flop, so far.  The PA’s target is lowering CO2 emissions.  Since the PA was signed in 2015 by some 180+ nations, the CO2 emissions have risen.

The chart below, from Rhodium, shows the percentage of the total global emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases made by the top 8 emitters in 2019.  China is far and away the leading emitter and will be increasing the difference in the future. CO2 from fossil fuels is nominally 80+ % of the total emissions. The rest of the total is from cement manufacturing, methane, and fluorocarbons, etc.   In 2020, the emissions dropped due to COVID but are forecast to be back up in 2021. 

The International Energy Agency forecasts that 2021 will exceed the emissions in 2019.  Their forecast is 33GtCO2 for the year 2021.

China and India as well as many nations in Africa and Asia are installing coal-based power plants at a breakneck speed. Because coal combustion produces more CO2 per Megawatt hour, than any other commonly used fossil fuel, it is the primary target of the alarmists. Bloomberg Green data reports on the primary users of coal int 2019:

                     COAL USER% OF TOTAL COAL USED
CHINA51.7
INDIA11.8
US7.2
REST OF THE WORLD29.3

The US has been reducing the use of coal by using natural gas as a replacement.

The premise of the PA is to essentially eliminate all global manmade CO2 emissions to prevent the global temperature to have risen to 2C since 1900.  Or else, awful things are going to happen the alarmists tell us.

If the US were able to totally reduce their emissions, would that prevent the global temperature to rise to 2C?

 “Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.

That was a quote from John Kerry who is President Obamas Biden’s Tsar for managing climate change but does not seem to be  preventing President Obama Biden from attempting to go to zero. 

All the signers of the PA must submit their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), a plan to reduce CO2 emission.  Then every 5 years they are to make a new set of NDCs more robust than the preceding submittal. There are no penalties for not meeting your NDC nor are there any for not making a sufficient effort.  The burden for accomplishing this objective is laid on these 42 nations that signed the PA.  This group consists of the 27nations within the EU, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the US, and the UK.   These nation are accused of creating the problem because they have used fossil fuels to discontinue the use of horses, whale oil, backbreaking labor, inadequate living conditions, child labor, while at the same time providing affordable and available electricity— just to mention a few reasons.

The first submission of NDCs were underwhelming.   And since then, the story is:

“G20 Countries’ Climate Policies Fail to Make the Grade on Paris Promises” posted by  BloombernNEF

“Global CO2 emissions far off net-zero trajectory: Kemp” from a Reuters posting

“Dozens of nations miss deadline to boost climate ambition” posted by PHYS.org.

“Asia snubs IEA’s call to stop new fossil fuel investments” posted by Reuters

China is a special case.

President Xi and the then President Obama met.  Obama was going to bring China into the PA.  The deal was that China could continue increasing their emission until 2030 without disapproval of the PA organization.  From China’s perspective it was a perfect opportunity to build up their manufacturing/economy while the other nations were destroying theirs.

China has disappointed in every way, especially those who thought China was really into environmental stuff.  China recently announced that wind and solar are too unreliable to depend upon.  An added that they were reducing support to renewables.  That was followed by the fact that they were going to build more coal plants.  They offered to buy the UKs steel business. Does that sound like someone who worries about the global warming theory?  Their new five-year plan that was expected to be based upon using less coal, turned out to be based on more coal.

 

What are we thinking?  A Gatestone posting titled “Communist China: The world’s biggest climate polluter just keeps on polluting” has this to say:

“At a time when China is so obviously saying one thing and doing another, and clearly not fulfilling its share of the world’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions — as the world’s second-largest economy– sends all the wrong signals. What China and others see is that no matter what it does — even if it deceives the world and continues its predatory behavior — the US is willing to reduce its own competitiveness, leaving China a thick red carpet to become the world’s dominant superpower, the very role to which it aspires. “

This same Gatestone posting also reminds that the Chinese government are not people of their word:

“It is extremely unlikely that China will deliver on its climate commitments and there are enough precedents to show that the CCP’s pledges cannot be trusted. In 1984, China pledged that Hong Kong’s autonomy, including its rights and freedoms, would remain unchanged for 50 years under the principle of “one country, two systems” after the 1997 return to Chinese sovereignty. By June 2020, however, when China introduced its iron-fisted national security law in Hong Kong, China had reneged on its pledge, and the CCP continues to crush Hong Kong.

China also broke its 2015 commitment not to militarize artificial islands that Beijing has been building in the Spratly Islands chain in the South China Sea and it has never honored at least nine of the commitments it made when it joined the World Trade Organization, to name just a few instances.

The list of broken pledges does not even include the lies that China told the world about the supposed non-transmissibility of the Coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan and has so far taken more than three million lives and ravaged countless economies.”

And another pact, the Montreal Protocol on Ozone is another example of a broken pledge.    Jonathan Turley’s post titled China found in massive violation of the Montreal Protocol:

“A study in Nature shows a massive violation by China in the release of ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons. China agreed to the Montreal Protocol to stop such CFC pollution. However, it now appears that the Chinese regime is violating the Protocol. A concentration of increased CFC pollution was traced to the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.”

“We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions. “

“Several considerations suggest that the increase in CFC-11 emissions from Eastern mainland China is likely to be the result of new production and use, which is inconsistent with the Montreal Protocol agreement to phase out global chlorofluorocarbon production by 2010.”

“If China cannot comply with the Montreal Protocol to control these most dangerous pollutants (particularly with the availability of alternatives for industry) the nation undermines its already low credibility on environmental compliance.”

Look at what is already under way.  This chart by IEA shows the Energy Related CO2 Emissions.   The table that follows illustrates that the Advanced Economies have a diminishing role in controlling CO2 emissions.

            Yellow is “Rest of the World” and rust is “Advanced Economies”.

IEA Chart

                                                        2010                                                 2019

 GtCO2% of TotalGtCO2% of Total
Advanced Economies12.654.511.334
Rest of the World10.545.522.066.0
     
Total23.110033.3100

                                       Energy Related C02 Emissions

                                                  IEA Data

In ten years, the advanced Economies reduced their energy related emissions by 1.3 GtCO2.   The Rest of the World increased their emissions by 11.5 GtCO2.  Neither China, nor India nor Brazil nor Russia nor the other Asian and African nations are going to stop installation of fossil fuel-based energy.  Their reasons for this are many but they want their people to have electricity and other products of fossil fuels, too. 

So, John Kerry nailed it, ““Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,”

If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West. The public will eventually wake up to the facts. Price rises for everything and sharp rises for electricity and gasoline, the new name for renewable will be unreliables, jobs will disappear as manufacturing leaves our shores for lower cost energy, and an unease about the US loss of stature and ability to protect its citizens. These things are likely to create public awareness that the government programs have had disappointing results.

If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West.

There is another party that wants to see the West fail.  That is a movement titled the Great Reset. This blog will discuss the Great Reset in the next posting.

From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog:

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the 
benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.

Now take this to your children to read.

cbdakota

Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know–Part 3 Biased Computers


In the previous postings,  the computers predicting global temperatures were shown to be much higher than the actual measured temperatures  and that you are not being told that the actual measured global temperatures are currently falling and do not seem to have a link with the rising CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This posting looks at the future predictions of global temperatures and how they are biased to make you think they are going to be rising quickly.

To have some understanding how the computers are programed one needs to be acquainted with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP).

ECS

 Firstly, an examination of ECS.   The 1979 Charney Report, named for the Chairman of an Ad Hoc group stated:  

 “We believe, therefore, that the equilibrium surface global warming due to doubled CO2 will be in the range IC to 4C, with the most probable value near 3°C”.

 That means, for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, global temperature will rise approximately 1C due to CO2, and the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in more water vapor.  Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C.   Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.  They acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty about this number. How water vapor and clouds interact are not yet known with any certainty.   

Climate sensitivity is expressed two ways. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is the initial effect of the change in CO2 concentration. ECS does not happen until the oceans heat come into equilibrium with atmospheric heat, for example. 

ECS is controversial.   There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all.  They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP but the posting is addressing what the Alarmists believe.  Also, many others buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much lower than the 3C rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  Down as low as 1C.  As well, there are alarmists that use ECS in the 4C range.

As can be seen in the Part 1 posting, the ECS being used has yielded too high of global temperatures.

Tests of the new CMIP-6 climate computer programs conducted by McKitrick and Christy reported:     Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers – McKitrick – 2020 – Earth and Space Science – Wiley Online Library

It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”

If you are a climate computer programmer, you can increase the ECS, and it will result in an increase in forecast temperature.

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.  After studying numerous scenarios, more than the available computer time would allow, they settled on just 5 RCPs.

It is my understanding that the upcoming IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report will use somewhat revised versions of the original 5 pathways. These revisions are to accommodate current thinking about the options and potential pathways. Only RCP 8.5 remains as orginally conceived. At least one of the pathways will meet Paris Agreement goal of of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C . In between 1.5 and 8.5are three others that do not meet the objective but are considered potential outcomes depending on mitigation policies. The pathways keep track of the forecast fossil fuel emissions of CO2” versus “years” beginning at the current time continuing out to the year 2100.  


The alarmists and many other warmers are using RCP8.5 as Business As Usual.  Most are not notifying the reader that the forecast CO2 in the atmosphere for their predicted temperatures is the HIGHLY UNLIKELY pathway. Some postings have said that it is physically impossible, requiring such things as all the minable coal would have to be burned. What does this amount to?   The alarmists are using the Highest CO2 concentration.  They are also using a Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that historically is too high.   This combination will deliver Highly Unlikely predicted global temperatures.    They need to scare you into going along with the alarmist’s program.

Some scientists and engineers do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases are causing global temperature to rise.  My guess is that most of the scientists and engineers believe that those gases do influence the globe’s temperature.  Within the believing group, however, there is a divide as to how much temperature rise can be attributed to the greenhouse gases.  (Your host, cbdakota, is an agnostic skeptic that believes that on-the- whole, the sun is in control).

From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog:

Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.
Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.

Now take this to your children to read.
cbdakota