It’s been a vintage year for politicised climate fanatics playing their new pseudoscientific game of joining up the jots of individual weather anomalies and claiming we are all going to die unless we submit to a collectivist Net Zero Great Reset. “We are living through climate collapse in real time,” the UN’s unhinged Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the recent COP28 conference. Mainstream media hypes the idea it will be the ‘hottest’ year ever, with records smashed almost every month. All of this cherry-picking conveniently ignores the dramatic effect of natural variation that could have been caused by a strengthening El Niño global heat transfer, along with possible changes arising from the Hunga Tonga volcanic explosion. Examine the latest global temperatures calculated by NASA and it can be seen that the recent months-long pattern of increasing anomalies is consistent with a similar rising record for the last El Niño in 2015-16.
The table below is compiled by GISS, the NASA global temperature dataset. The trend in higher anomalies – departures from the norm – seen from October 2015 through to April 2016 is similar to that seen from June this year. In an enlightening essay published recently by the online science publication Watts Up With That?, Larry Hamlin notes that the highest prior GISS measured temperature anomaly at 1.37°C was in February 2016 and this compared with 1.44°C recorded last November (‘hottest month ever’). This amounts to a higher anomaly of 1/14th of a degree centigrade. The author states that the GISS data shows that the 2023 El Niño is driving the current global temperature anomaly increases.
The effects of El Niño are far from completely understood. It is essentially a large heat transfer mechanism from the tropics to the northern hemisphere. Forecasting individual weather changes is difficult, since its effects feed into many other natural atmospheric and oceanic movements. But scientists do know that it can produce widespread variations in local weather patterns, making a mockery of attributing bad weather in a strong El Niño year to human activity. The current El Niño could even get a little stronger as it moves through the northern hemisphere winter. On the other hand, it could start to fizzle out.
The American weather service NOAA is currently uncertain about the future strength of the present El Niño, noting that while stronger events “increase the likelihood of El Niño-related climate anomalies, it does not imply expected impacts will emerge in all locations or be of strong intensity”.
There have undoubtedly been anomalous weather patterns this year, although the vast majority of drought/wildfire/hurricane agitprop makes sense only to long-time sandwich board wearers. Most extreme weather events are not increasing, and many have not done so for many years. In the meantime, the number of deaths caused by extreme weather has plunged over 90% in the last 100 years as humans, made vastly more prosperous by exploiting hydrocarbons, erect expensive protections from the ravages of Mother Nature.
This year there is another possible natural force at work in adjusting some of the usual weather patterns. In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga submarine volcano suddenly exploded depositing an astonishing extra 13% water vapour into the upper atmosphere. Water vapour accounts for around 4% of the atmosphere and although short-lived and constantly replaced, acts as a powerful gas trapping heat. Whatever the longer term consequences of the eruption turn out to be, it is likely to affect the natural hydrological cycle as the extra water precipitates out over the next few years.
Last year saw a flurry of scientific interest in Hunga Tonga, but it appears that recent published comments are downplaying its effects. Nevertheless a group of European scientists has noted that the unique nature and magnitude of the global perturbation caused by Hunga-Tonga “ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era, with a range of potential long-lasting repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate”.
All of this shows that it is good science to examine every possible cause that could affect weather and longer term changes in the climate. The ‘settled’ science promoting Net Zero is junk science, since it fails to consider anything other than an unproven hypothesis that humans cause all or most climate change. As always, the wise words of atmospheric scientist Professor Cliff Mass of the University of Washington are worth noting: “The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
High Temperatures? And these are measured in 10ths and 100ths of degrees C?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/12/new-wuwt-global-temperature-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/
A good link! The other factor is measurement accuracy and precision, with little numbers. The only thing that’s 100% accurate is your bank balance.
Temperatures measured before 1979 were recorded from thermometers These thermometers were never designed for the kind of accuracies of hundredths of a degree being claimed by the “hottest on record” people. But even then we never had thermometers all over the globe recording temperatures. They were mostly in wealthy western places like the UK, US and Europe. Very few in poor countries and none in the oceans that are 70% of the planet. The temperature record of earth is a dogs breakfast of heavily adjusted and manipulated data that has been fiddled about with more than a hookers knickers. ——-Infact you could say that the alleged warming actually appears in only one place——The adjustments.
Plus the effects of increased urbanisation are unadjusted for with long term temp. data. That alone might explain the whole increase.
Orange County was a farm up until 50 years ago.
Some detailed info on your points here, in German but with links to the respective studies/sources in English:
https://sciencefiles.org/2023/12/11/knapp-70-ausfall-vorindustrielle-temperaturdaten-sind-mehr-oder-weniger-frei-erfunden/
https://sciencefiles.org/2023/12/07/datenmuell-vorindustrielle-temperaturmessung-ist-betrug/
https://sciencefiles.org/2023/12/06/so-warm-wie-seit-beginn-der-aufzeichnungen-nicht-der-betrug-mit-der-referenzperiode/
Thanks for the links, but cannot find the English links
Right hand section, scroll down past the donation bit and translation option is there.
ok
It’s blindingly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by the relentless “climate change” propaganda that the Globalists are selecting convenient events, ignoring any counter evidence and silencing highly-qualified dissenters, in order to maintain “the narrative” and their Agenda.
The drivers are the usual ones: power and money.
Never forget we live in an ice age and human beings are poorly adapted to live much outside the tropics, we quickly die of cold without shelter and heating. Therefore climate alarmism is merely an expression of self loathing towards our species based on a hatred of other ppl motivated by greed and envy, rather like eugenics. Ppl who push this inane nonsense can be afforded no sympathy or empathy as they are utterly evil.
Keep it going Chris. I enjoyed your putting Tobias Ellwood’s hysterical nose out of joint recently, although you and Paul Burgess are given so little time.
Have you got a link or other details for this?
Daily Sceptic 18 December. Tobias Ellwood claims British warships immobilised by climate change – also by Chris Morrison.
Thank you, Bill.
The RSPB mag dropped through my letterbox yesterday. 1st article was the comment from Beccy Speight, Chief Executive who “has led the organisation through some of nature’s most urgent challenges”.
What a surprise to read that according to her “The science is patently clear. Our world is warming and we, humanity, are to blame.” Of course there’s no evidence to back up this statement from this highly paid career climatic fanatic (salary & benefits cost RSPB members just under £200k last year).
Why do they always give the impression that they’re leading nature through its greatest challenges?
But such statements enable them to divert from protecting birds to saving the planet, which is a lot more impressive.
The “science is clear” people think we live in a scientific dictatorship. But in reality nothing is clear. When you have to keep repeating something is clear it only reveals you have little confidence in what you are saying. eg You don’t have to keep repeating that “it is clear Leopards kill Antelope”. ————–Mark Twain expressed it like this “Ah yes science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact”——-But it is those trifling investments of fact that are being used to dictate energy policy in the scientific dictatorship called Sustainable Development.
One of the RSPB’s funders is the European Climate Foundation whose opening intro is:
“The science is clear – the threat is realClimate change is a global emergency. The impact of human activity on greenhouse gas emissions and land use has compounded environmental harm and created an escalating crisis. A drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed if we are to stand a chance of staying below 1.5°C of warming relative to pre-industrial levels and prevent major climate instabilities. The scale of the problem calls for a transformation of our systems and markets and the creation of a net-zero society.”
Funded by loads of “philanthropic partners” https://europeanclimate.org/funding-grantmaking/
The ECF also funds a large group of Conservative MP called the Conservative Environment Network:
https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus
They say they are transparent about their funding but there’s no mention of the specific contributions received other than they are 83% funded by ECF/Rockefeller/Oak Foundation/WWF etc.
Interesting to spot which Tories aren’t listed e.g. Braverman, Truss & David Davies.
We all know that temps in many places are cooler than in 1880. No global temp exists. And who decided that 1.5c was the magic ceiling level? Is that the same as 6 feet of distance will save us from the terrifying 0.3% death rate flying virus, i.e a # pulled out of someone’s arse?
CO2 though being classed as a greenhouse gas, is also something else. It is the one gas that can be directly tied to Industrial Capitalism, and that it is what this is really about. ——-Wealth, resources, and anti capitalist politics. The wealthiest people and countries emit the most CO2 because they have the biggest houses cars and appliances etc and the poorest emit the least. What better way for the eco socialists to redistribute wealth than via controlling carbon with carbon taxes, carbon footprint control etc.?——-The climate is the last thing that it is really about, but to the masses tuning into their 6 O’clock News it sounds plausible when they have every extreme bit of weather beamed to their TV sets via satellite, giving them the perception that everything is getting worse. —-But that is all it is……a perception.
I reviewed the chart as most would do, and took the view that the temperature variability was insignificant, and only the use of modern analysis and measuring technics can give it any significance. That is, of those who soak up this nonsense about climate change death.
The (statistical) wheels keep coming off……and the Cherokees are beginning to notice:
‘20 years’ worth of applications of TLS (Total Least Squares) are ultimately what brought 100,000 bigwigs to Dubai for COP28 to demand the phaseout of the world’s best energy sources based on estimates of the role of anthropogenic forcings on the climate that are likely heavily overstated.’
‘Another reviewer said:
“TLS seems to generate always poor performances compared to the OLS. Nonetheless, TLS seems to be the ‘standard’ in fingerprint applications… why is the TLS so popular in physics-related applications?”
Good question! My guess is because it keeps generating answers that climatologists like and they have no incentive to come to terms with its weaknesses. But you don’t have to step far outside climatology to find genuine bewilderment that people use it instead of IV (Independent Variable).’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/19/climate-attribution-method-overstates-fingerprints-of-external-forcing/#
“I have more or less ignored the whole issue of global warming, changed later to the indisputable climate-change, for decades. I truly believed that it was a scientific question and that I was not qualified to comment because I have no training in climatology. That’s precisely what they want you and me to believe.
The COVID-19 experience exposed the racket for me. It’s the same model: Conjure up some impending disaster and buy out a gaggle of intellectuals and scientists at universities who are dependent on their government and foundation grants. Make it clear that all the money goes to one side, and make an example out of dissidents and drive them out of the profession. Then get the media on board with the prevailing line.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/when-did-governments-become-so-ridiculous
“All Scientists agree” is what you are required to think. —–And if all scientists agree then who are you to disagree? Whenever you hear stuff like this you are hearing propaganda, not science. ——-All scientists do not agree and I could list 25 right here off the top of my head that question all this consensus science and another 50 in books I own. But even if a bunch of people agree on something that is not how science works. Things are not decided in science by a show of hands. The whole idea here is to make ordinary people think that scientists have all of this in hand and know what they are talking about so just blindly accept what we tell you they are saying and realise that the polices we are putting in place are all based on “the science”. —-In reality though most of it is actually climate modelling, which isn’t science at all. Calling a model science is like calling a calculator maths.
And this…
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
“Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of WarmingThe underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.”
Which none of the climate crazies mention
And that water vapour sent into the atmosphere must come down at varying degrees around the planet, which in turn will increase the average rainfall of those areas. Pure logic.
Seismic activity this year is by no means extreme and underwater volcanoes have erupted many times in the past at far stronger levels with no average discernible difference in global temps. If anything, the climate crazies would probably love some natural events to push temperatures higher so they could claim the more urgent need to restrict oil and gas use.
On further reading, they are making a mountain out of a molehill or in this case a volcano. Their ‘modelling’ suggests a possible 0.035 of a degree warmer as a result but they can’t resist tying it into the Paris Agreement and setting off the alarm bells which the media will lap up. Underwater volcanos are always erupting and we’re still alive, able to grow food etc. This is pure propaganda nonsense.
Tonga
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
Somebody help me please (Spencer Davis). Does anyone have a list of contributing factors to climate change together with their relative importance? I have asked this several times. My list includes sunspot activity, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, volcanic eruptions, El Niño, deforestation (not just the Amazon basin but in Indonesia and the Himalayas), water diversion (loss of the Aral Sea) and maybe particulate pollution especially in China. Of course some of these may make temperatures go down as well as up, but most are outside human control. But sea levels have even in relatively recent times been much higher. My town of Rye was once a busy port but the coast is now two miles away.
And a couple more: urbanisation and atmospheric mixing from wind farms…