March 1st, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2022 was 0.00 deg. C, down a little from the January, 2022 value of +0.03 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
There was no climate crisis before, there is no climate crisis now and based on authentic, objective science, there is no climate crisis around the corner.
The planet is greening up from a climate OPTIMUM for life:
Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!
11 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
We are killing the planet for sure in other ways but at the same time, gifting it with beneficial CO2!
The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources(metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/
Ironically, we will be killing it MUCH faster with all the FAKE green energy.
Killing Coal
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2021, 10:57 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/
Wind/ solar/batteries
16 responses |
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69028/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/16/study-strong-association-between-solar-variation-and-century-scale-climate-shifts/
Actual study(pay walled):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433821100030
Abstract—On the basis of calculations of insolation and insolation characteristics, taking into account changes in solar activity, the causes of global climatic events in the late Holocene have been determined. The main reasons for the Little Ice Age (LIA) are the long and deep minimum of summer insolation and insolation seasonality (IS) in the Northern Hemisphere. The values of the minimums are fixed in the range of approximately 1400–1750. The depth of the minimum over the past 5000 years, taking into account the change in solar activity, is about 8.0 W/m2 for summer insolation and about 13.3 W/m2 for IS in the Northern Hemisphere. The medieval climatic optimum is associated with the winter maximum of insolation contrast (IC) in the Northern Hemisphere, reflecting an increase in the meridional heat transfer in the winter half of the year from the equatorial region to the polar regions, as well as with a maximum of interhemispheric heat transfer. The increase in winter IC at maximum (1118) relative to 3000 BC is 28.4 W/m2. The difference between the hemispheric radiative heat transfer at the maximums (881, 940, and 976) increases by 5.0 W/m2 relative to 3000 BC. Thus, global events of the late Holocene are associated with extremes of insolation characteristics (incoming radiation, IC, and IS of the Earth), but the temporal structure of the extrema themselves is determined by variations in solar activity.
An Alternative Climate Change Theory
Please watch the video at
https://youtu.be/IMH_K8IF-1s
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/01/how-global-warming-is-driven-by-pacific.html
Comments at the link below:
How can their simulations be “improved” when, as I discussed in Climate Change Weekly 407, the modelers themselves were forced to admit, just weeks before CAR6 was released, that the models were projecting even hotter temperatures and steeper temperature trends than the previous iteration, the simulated temperatures of which were already too hot, failing to represent measured temperatures accurately?
Only a government bureaucracy or a con artist could claim with a straight face a technology has improved when it does not perform its required task as well as poor-performing previous versions. It’s like confidently asserting a class of electric vehicles is improving based on laboratory modelling even as the miles they can travel between recharges is declining and the amount of time it takes to recharge them is getting longer. Worse performance is not better, unless the goal is to fail.
The fact that computer models are flawed and produce untrustworthy climate projections has long been recognized. Reports by the National Center for Policy Analysis (which I edited when I worked there) in 2001 by environmental scientist Kenneth Green, Ph.D. and in 2002 by David Legates, Ph.D. (who was then the director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware-Newark) detailed the numerous flawed projections computer models had made, and they explained why the failures occurred and were likely to continue to be the norm.
Legates wrote,
Models are limited in important ways, including:
These weaknesses combine to make GCM-based predictions too uncertain to be used as the bases for public policy responses related to future climate changes.
Whereas computing power has improved markedly over time, modelers’ knowledge of the myriad factors and interconnections that drive climate change has not. In part, this is because the IPCC has always focused on understanding the human factors that affect climate, to the exclusion of other factors, even though it admits other factors do have some effect.
The fact that as modelers make their models increasingly complex their simulated climate outputs increasingly diverge from real-world climate data should serve as an indicator complexity is a weakness of the models. Modelers simply don’t know what they don’t know. That’s a fact they should admit, instead of building their ignorance into their models by pretending elegant mathematical formulae reflect reality simply because they are elegant and complex. The first step in getting out of a hole you have dug is to stop digging.
A second indicator that complex climate models are inherently flawed is the fact that simpler climate models perform better in matching real-world temperature data. Simple models reject assumptions about how different aspects of the climate system will add to or reduce relative warming as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Absent the additional forcing from modeled feedback mechanisms or loops, simple models project a modest warming in response to rising emissions. In this respect, the simple models reflect well what Earth has actually undergone.
There has been no runaway warming, and there is little or no reason to expect such a thing to occur from any reasonably expected future rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. If models don’t get right their basic projections—temperatures—there is no reason to trust their ancillary or projected secondary effects which are supposed to be driven by rising temperatures.
SOURCES: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; The Wall Street Journal; Powerlineblog
Longer version for our science savvy folks:
I’m pleased to publish our first place contest winner in the professional category,
Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
comment:
Mike Maguire
March 7, 2022 6:01 pm
Pretty EXTREME article if you ask me.
EXTREMELY well written and makes many EXTREMELY profound points!
Great pick!