Average global temperatures rose rapidly after the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. So said the Met Office in a report about the ‘pause’ in global warming in 2013. But these days it’s ‘What pause?’ following two timely revisions of the Met Office HadCRUT temperature database, including the recent 14% boost revealed by the Daily Sceptic on Monday.
As the above graph shows, the December 2020 14% boost in recent temperatures in HadCRUT5 finally erased the inconvenient pause. An earlier revision to HadCRUT4 had started the work by removing a flatline trend and replacing it with some gentle warming.
Attempting to explain the pause when it was still around in 2013, the Met Office claimed that the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, “has been absorbed in the oceans”. There are of course constant heat exchanges between land, sea and air. Constructing a believable hypothesis that humans burning fossil fuel cause heat in the atmosphere, which suddenly decides to play temporary hide and seek in the oceans, was always a tall order. It was memorably given short shrift by the writer Clive James, who just before his death wrote: “When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true.” He went on to add that the proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith “they are bound to run out of credibility in the end”.
Much of the Met Office report refers to the outputs of climate models. Analysis of “simulated” natural variability suggests that “at least two periods with apparently zero trend for a decade would be expected on average every century”. As it turned out, this was a lousy forecast, even for a climate model. The pause ended under the influence of a powerful El Nino weather fluctuation soon after. Despite another large El Nino in 2019, it failed to interrupt another pause which to date has lasted over seven years.
Announcing its latest boost to global warming, the Met Office noted that HadCRUT5 was now “in line” with other datasets. This is true. NASA has also been updating its GISS database in similar fashion, removing the pause by warming up recent recordings. Changes over the record have been substantial with a range of 0.3C.
There is no doubt that extreme green zealotry runs through many scientific institutions. Commanding and controlling the economy through the Net Zero project is seen by these zealots as the last hope to save the world. These days, no scepticism or debate about the role of atmospheric CO2 can be tolerated. The science is “settled” – seemingly any tactics are justified for the greater good.
Peter Kalmus is a data scientist at NASA and was recently arrested outside the JP Morgan Chase building in Los Angeles during an Extinction Rebellion tantrum. Wearing a large XR badge, he raged: “I have been trying to warn you guys for so many decades that we are heading towards a fucking climate disaster… it’s got to stop, we are losing everything… we are seeing heat domes, people are drowning, wildfires are getting worse… it is going to take us to the brink of civilisational collapse.” He later described his experience in the Guardian, adding: “If everyone could see what I see coming, society would switch into climate emergency mode and end fossil fuels in just a few years.” In his view, it was no exaggeration to say that Chase and other banks “are contributing to murder and neocide through their fossil fuel finance”.
It is interesting how zealots such as Kalmus are focusing on bad weather events rather than the increasingly unreliable global warming motif, for their ‘end is nigh’ political messaging. Heat domes became fashionable last year in North America when it was discovered that some parts of the country are warmer than others during the summer. Wildfires provide plenty of scary headlines, not least when the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) – the keeper of all US wildfire figures for decades – removed all its data from before 1983.
As the graph above clearly shows, wildfires were far worse in the past. 1983 just happens to be the lowest point in the entire record from which a small recent rise can be seen. The data going back to 1926 is simple to compile – the number of fires and acreage affected. In the past, the NIFC noted that figures prior to 1983 may be revised as it “verifies historical data”. Last year it suddenly removed all the collations prior to 1983, stating that “there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site”. Is that what “verifying” means in climate emergency-word? Deleting?
Commenting on the move, the climate writer Anthony Watts noted: “This wholesale erasure of important public data stinks, but in today’s narrative control culture that wants to rid us of anything that might be inconvenient or doesn’t fit the ‘woke’ narrative, it isn’t surprising.”
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.
Must step in to defend C a little here.
if(YouWantToInterfaceWithHardware==TRUE){
C can be alright;
and work ok;
if you’re really careful;
and keep pointer use to a minimum;
and spend time at the start carefully developing reliable functions;
which can handle data for you so that only when writing the functions;
not the overall code;
will you need to handle any memory directly;
}
C is ideal for embedded devices, especially as they have slower clock speeds and little memory so can’t ever handle the likes of python.
C is good for things you write once, and document well, But then don’t do much more development on once you’ve ironed out all bugs. Coded tools to “do a thing”, or run on an embedded device. C programs don’t cope so well when you keep coming back to them, or have people who didn’t write them initially come back to them and try to add extra functionality.
When you’re creating a big complex mathematical model or doing graphing or other data analysis C is very much the wrong choice, all the effort here that supposedly gains you speed is wasted. For common data tasks the lieks of python and R have built-in routines which are as efficient as the best C a programmer can write, because those routines, deep inside, are C written by an expert programmer, written once as a routine for a job and then placed in careful wrappers to ensure they can’t fail mysteriously. Writing out matrix handlig ,algebra handling, curve integrating, or standard deviation finding code in C will only ever be as efficient as the python and R implementations are anyway, but will take a lot mroe work and have a lot more chances to b*ggr something up.
Use C by all means, but use it where it belongs.
Also, you mention the need to hire a software engineer if you wish to use C or C++. Quite honestly these epidemiologists could use adding to their teams some experts on economics and human rights too, perhaps also some historians, both of past pandemics and of past dictatorships. Let these experts help advise on the asumptions going in to the model and what cautions should be taken when drawing the conclusions out.
I see that they are trying to support this crap code
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y
Nature just lost all credibility
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/19/experts-largely-positive-computer-coding-thatled-coronavirus/
Some reverse ferret from earlier articles.
It might work on a good day providing the data that is read in was not corrupted before
it is read or during the read process. Plus of all the data is read in. Then if all of the data is written with out corruption fully over writing the data that was there. Plus the data does not get corrupted after writing. Plus there are no memory leakage. As for calling it a simulation as apposed to a string of if else statements. Clearly this is decades of work well spent by an experienced team. Supported by the computer development department. NOT
A C/C++ hater, how boring. Admittedly the code still contains lots of old C memory allocations which I dislike rather than using more modern stuff – I got a couple of std::vector’s in after quite a while admittedly they don’t do bounds checking as that would slow the code. I see no reason to use shared pointers. It’s always possible to run the code through dynamic analysis tools that will detect memory leaks and out of bounds issues for a given set of input values.
Mersenne Twisters are in the C++ 11 std::random library although I don’t believe this is used by the code which happens to be C++ 14 (a maximum on the Linux compiler and a minimum on the Windows compiler) rather than 17 or 20.
At the beginning of May I wrote some maths library classes with unit tests. It’s taken until quite recently to get the supporting code for the unit tests integrated. There is only one example unit test in the main code that uses this as the rest of my change lies idle which I have expressed my frustration about.
A fair point would be that they are a C team although there are bits of C++ code making their way in and thus adding more structure.
I generally submit my complaints as code changes and have had 13 accepted thus far as this is the more stoical approach.
I think we need reorganization of the state institutions to make the state intelligent and competent. The UK state is now teetering on the brink. Please understand the US leadership intentions about the UK that wants to make the country dismember.