Climate Impacts

Big Asian Chill Pushes Arctic Ice Over 15 Wadhams

Posted on by Ron Clutz

For ice extent in the Arctic, the bar is set at 15M km2. The highest daily average in the last 18 years occurs on day 61 at 15.08M before descending. Most years are able to clear 15M, but in recent previous years, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 ice extents failed to clear the bar at 15M km2.  On February 11, 2024 (day 42) Arctic ice extent already leaped over that bar 20 days early. Then extent dropped for several days, but has again topped 15 Wadhams with ice in Asian basins contributing greatly.

The animation shows Pacific ice growth in the last week.  Bering Sea on the right changed little, while Okhotsk in the center added ice down to N. Japan, and now well above 2023 March maximum.  The ice patch in far left is the harbor close to Beijing where the Yellow Sea added 20K km2 ice extent in two days.

The graph shows the rapid rise in Arctic ice reaching 15 M km2 extent already on Feb. 11 (day 42)  Then the extent dropped down to 14.6M before rising again to reach a new high of 15.07M. Yesterday Arctic ice was 215k km2 above average, with nearly all the surplus appearing in Okhotsk.  SII showed neither the first peak or the current one in February.

The table shows the distribution of ice compared to day 56 averages and other years on that day.

Region 2024056 Day 56 Ave 2024-Ave. 2006056 2024-2006
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 15039168 14823967 215201 14318117 721051
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070983 1070317 667 1069711 1273
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 964499 1507 961796 4210
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087109 28 1086702 435
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897837 8 897773 71
 (5) Kara_Sea 925734 916917 8818 899871 25864
 (6) Barents_Sea 598915 606693 -7778 484567 114348
 (7) Greenland_Sea 742472 612727 129745 577357 165115
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1391601 1508331 -116730 1365491 26110
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854860 853163 1697 852715 2145
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260903 1260462 441 1257077 3827
 (11) Central_Arctic 3220834 3210037 10797 3214577 6257
 (12) Bering_Sea 619130 665856 -46727 629210 -10080
 (13) Baltic_Sea 85666 98767 -13101 101029 -15363
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 1282477 1028678 253799 853467 429010

Note that moderate deficits in Bering Sea and Baffin Bay are more than offset by a large 254k km2 surplus in Okhotsk along with 130k km2 in Greenland Sea.

These results fly in the face of those claiming for years that Arctic ice is in a “death spiral.”  More sober and clear-eyed observers have called out the alarmists for their exaggerations.  A recent example comes from Allan Alsup Jensen at Nordic Institute of Product Sustainability, Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, Denmark.  His December 2023 paper is Time Trend of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Since 2007 no significant decline has been observed

Abstract

The NSIDC website, IPCC’s reports and some scientific papers have announced that the Arctic Sea ice extent, when it is lowest in September month, in recent years has declined dramatically, and in few decades the sea ice is supposed to disappear completely in the summer. In that way new and shorter ships routes will open up north of the continents.

The facts are, that the Arctic Sea ice extent measured by satellites since 1978 expresses annual variations and it has declined considerably from 1997 to 2007. However, before that time period, from 1978 to 1996, the downward trend was minimal, and in the last 17 years from 2007 to 2023 the downward trend has also been about zero. Therefore, there is no indication that we should expect the Arctic Sea summer ice to disappear completely, as predicted, in one or two decades.

Regarding the extent of the summer (February) sea ice at the Antarctic, the downward trend during the years 1979-2021 was very small but in 2022 and 2023 a considerable decline was observed, and a decline was also clearly observed for the whole period of 2007- 2023. That was in contradiction to what happened in the Arctic. The pattern of the annual levels was not the same for the Arctic and Antarctic, indicating different drivers in the North and the South.

Figure 4: The minimum extent of the sea ice at Antarctic
in February month 1979-2023 (data from NSIDC.org)

These data show that there is no apparent correlation between the variable extent of the Arctic and the Antarctic Sea ice and the gradually increasing CO2-concentrations in the atmosphere as proposed by NSIDC, IPCC and others, also for these areas of cold climate.

Postscript Feb. 14

Some seek to deny the current plateau in Arctic Sea Ice by saying that extent measure is only surface, while volume would be a truer metric.  That is true in theory, but in practice obtaining accurate and consistent data on sea ice thickness is a challenge yet to be reached.  As you can imagine, detecting a depth dimension from satellites is fraught with errors, especially with drift ice not land anchored, moving around, sometimes piling up from winds.  The scientific effort to measure volume has a short history and several uncertainties to ovecome before it can be trusted.

Unfortunately for those wanting an ice free Arctic (well, no more than 1 Wadham they say), the volume record so far shows the same plateau:

“Satellite derived sea ice thickness (CryoSat 2, AWI algorithm v2.6) shows an anomaly thickness pattern very similar to that from PIOMAS, but CS2 shows negative anomalies propagating north of the Canadian Archipelago into the central Arctic while PIOMAS has neutral conditions there. A positive thickness anomaly around Wrangle Island is spatially more extensive in CS2. January 2024 adds another month to the record of CS2 data which now spans 13 years. Neither CS2 nor PIOMAS show any discernible trend over that time period underlining the importance of internal variability at decadal timescales.”  Source: Polar Science Center

 

Why Oranges Disprove Global Warming 2024

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Paul Noel writes at Quora in response to a question: What are the best arguments of the movement “global warming deniers” to back their version of the story? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Well since this question has only been answered by those who want to say no such science exists It has to be answered.

Here is an absolute proof that there is no global warming going on. It absolutely has no denial possible.

In 1899 there was a large swath of the Southern USA that was used for Commercial Citrus Growing. Citrus Trees do not tolerate hard freezing. In fact they are tropical plants with only very slight ability to withstand freezing conditions. Their fruit is even more tender, and so a Commercial Producer cannot tolerate any significant extended freezing. In Florida for example the Citrus producers have methods to withstand FROST. These are pretty amazing. (See photo above)

They literally spray their trees with water so that as the water freezes it prevents the citrus from freezing as the sugar content keeps the freezing point slightly lower than water. This method only works against light freezes of short duration. It often results in having to sell the crop in a rush to juice operations at loss of value.

So Citrus Commercial Production is prevented in all but areas with 365 day growing seasons.

The large swath of growing included about 1/2 of eastern Texas essentially south of Tyler Texas. It included almost all of Louisiana south of Interstate 20. It included Most of Mississippi south of Jackson and across Alabama up to Evergreen. It then extended across Georgia essentially from Columbus to Augusta and then up South Carolina all the way to North Carolina and a coastal strip of North Carolina up to almost Virginia. It also included All of Florida.

Basically this map shows in Zone 8b and slightly into Zone 8a the region that used to raise citrus. Today none can be raised outside of Zone 9b or higher. Actually the only safe in zone 10.

Today due to severe cooling of the environment, it only includes 4 of the most southern counties along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and the southern part of Florida. Over the past 120 years, this has almost deleted Citrus growing from much of the southern part of North America.

This is the remaining Florida range of Citrus.

There is no remaining commercial citrus in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina or North Carolina.

Now if you were to pick any location that was better for determining the global temperature you could not do it. This is the focal point for all of the global heat circulation of the world’s oceans. The heat focuses on the Yucatan Channel, goes through into the Gulf of Mexico forms a loop, shearing off much rainfall and heat into the Southeastern USA and subsequently going out the Florida Strait as the Gulf Stream, the world’s largest and warmest ocean current.

As such the temperature and climate of the area is the best representation of the world climate condition.

This is the reason that of the wettest states in the USA 4 of the top 5 are in this area.

#5 Florida
#4 Alabama
#3 Mississippi
#2 Louisiana
(#1 is Hawaii)

Now that is fact. That is solid evidence. Silly claims and graphs cannot refute it.

Now some may point to an occasional remaining group of trees or such , but the fact is that commercial citrus is out of that region. The remnants are proof of exactly what I have said here.

Probability of a Hard Freeze under ENSO neutral conditions. Source: National Weather Service 

Source: National Weather Service, South Florida

See Also:  Oceans Make Climate: SST, SSS and Precipitation Linked

February Arctic Ice Jumps Over 15 Wadhams a Month Early

Posted on by Ron Clutz

For ice extent in the Arctic, the bar is set at 15M km2. The highest daily average in the last 18 years occurs on day 61 at 15.08M before descending. Most years are able to clear 15M, but in recent previous years, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 ice extents failed to clear the bar at 15M km2.  Now on February 11, 2024 (day 42) Arctic ice extent has already leaped over that bar 20 days early.

All years including averages are from MASIE, except for SII 2024.

The graph shows how rapidly the Arctic froze this year, reaching 14.4M km2 extent already on January 24.  Then the extent waffled around that level, until suddenly a Hockey Stick shape appeared when 600k km2 of ice was added in just the last four days. That is 400k km2 above average, and well above many other years, including 2006.  SII is also lagging at 400k km2 lower.

The table shows the distribution of ice compared to day 45 averages and other years on that day.

Region 2024042 Day 45 Ave. 2024-Ave. 2006045 2024-2006
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 15040629 14687838 352791 14419407 621223
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070983 1070317 667 1069711 1273
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965761 245 966006 0
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087131 6 1087103 35
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897837 8 897773 71
 (5) Kara_Sea 934647 908486 26161 932726 1920
 (6) Barents_Sea 662793 582078 80715 530801 131992
 (7) Greenland_Sea 825638 622774 202864 579677 245961
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1340370 1456370 -115999 1227497 112873
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854860 853383 1478 852715 2145
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260903 1260579 325 1257433 3470
 (11) Central_Arctic 3233243 3208074 25168 3198987 34255
 (12) Bering_Sea 631508 700745 -69237 889518 -258010
 (13) Baltic_Sea 136308 90991 45317 79904 56404
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 1101713 923694 178019 759197 342516

The Pacific basins show a moderate deficit in Bering Sea offset by a large 178k km2 surplus in Okhotsk.  Baffin Bay is down 120k km2, offset by Greenland Sea over 200k km2 and Barents up 81k km2.

These results fly in the face of those claiming for years that Arctic ice is in a “death spiral.”  More sober and clear-eyed observers have called out the alarmists for their exaggerations.  A recent example comes from Allan Alsup Jensen at Nordic Institute of Product Sustainability, Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, Denmark.  His December 2023 paper is Time Trend of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Since 2007 no significant decline has been observed

Abstract

The NSIDC website, IPCC’s reports and some scientific papers have announced that the Arctic Sea ice extent, when it is lowest in September month, in recent years has declined dramatically, and in few decades the sea ice is supposed to disappear completely in the summer. In that way new and shorter ships routes will open up north of the continents.

The facts are, that the Arctic Sea ice extent measured by satellites since 1978 expresses annual variations and it has declined considerably from 1997 to 2007. However, before that time period, from 1978 to 1996, the downward trend was minimal, and in the last 17 years from 2007 to 2023 the downward trend has also been about zero. Therefore, there is no indication that we should expect the Arctic Sea summer ice to disappear completely, as predicted, in one or two decades.

Regarding the extent of the summer (February) sea ice at the Antarctic, the downward trend during the years 1979-2021 was very small but in 2022 and 2023 a considerable decline was observed, and a decline was also clearly observed for the whole period of 2007- 2023. That was in contradiction to what happened in the Arctic. The pattern of the annual levels was not the same for the Arctic and Antarctic, indicating different drivers in the North and the South.

Figure 4: The minimum extent of the sea ice at Antarctic
in February month 1979-2023 (data from NSIDC.org)

These data show that there is no apparent correlation between the variable extent of the Arctic and the Antarctic Sea ice and the gradually increasing CO2-concentrations in the atmosphere as proposed by NSIDC, IPCC and others, also for these areas of cold climate.

Postscript Feb. 14

Some seek to deny the current plateau in Arctic Sea Ice by saying that extent measure is only surface, while volume would be a truer metric.  That is true in theory, but in practice obtaining accurate and consistent data on sea ice thickness is a challenge yet to be reached.  As you can imagine, detecting a depth dimension from satellites is fraught with errors, especially with drift ice not land anchored, moving around, sometimes piling up from winds.  The scientific effort to measure volume has a short history and several uncertainties to ovecome before it can be trusted.

Unfortunately for those wanting an ice free Arctic (well, no more than 1 Wadham they say), the volume record so far shows the same plateau:

“Satellite derived sea ice thickness (CryoSat 2, AWI algorithm v2.6) shows an anomaly thickness pattern very similar to that from PIOMAS, but CS2 shows negative anomalies propagating north of the Canadian Archipelago into the central Arctic while PIOMAS has neutral conditions there. A positive thickness anomaly around Wrangle Island is spatially more extensive in CS2. January 2024 adds another month to the record of CS2 data which now spans 13 years. Neither CS2 nor PIOMAS show any discernible trend over that time period underlining the importance of internal variability at decadal timescales.”  Source: Polar Science Center

 

Observed vs. Imagined Sea Levels 2023 Update

Posted on by Ron Clutz

3047060508_737c7687bd_o.0.0

Such beach decorations exhibit the fervent belief of activists that sea levels are rising fast and will flood the coastlines if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels.  As we will see below there is a concerted effort to promote this notion empowered with slick imaging tools to frighten the gullible.  Of course there are frequent media releases sounding the alarms.  For example some examples already in 2024:

How rising sea levels will affect our coastal cities and towns Phys.org

Sea-level rise is here to stay and gathering pace, but the rate of future increase remains uncertain. It largely depends on what happens in Antarctica over the coming decades. This in turn depends on land and sea temperatures around the southern continent, which are directly linked to our efforts to limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement. With over 250 million people now living on land less than 2 m above sea level, most in Asia, it is imperative we do everything we can to limit future sea-level rise.

Sea level rise could cost Europe billions in economic losses, study finds CBS News

Some regions of Europe could see “devastating” economic losses in the coming decades due to the rising oceans, researchers say. A new study found that under the worst-case scenario for emissions and sea level rise, the European Union and United Kingdom could lose 872 billion Euros (about $950 billion) by the end of this century, with many regions within them suffering GDP losses between 10% and 21%.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports, analyzed the economic impacts of sea level rise for 271 European regions. Researchers conducted their analysis based on estimates of high greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global temperature increases, a process that causes sea levels to rise.

Climate scientists project sea levels around New York City will rise by 1ft in 2030s alongside tropical storms and hotter temperatures  Daily Mail

The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) released sea level projections that annual precipitation could increase by up to 10 percent over the years and warming would rise between two and 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The projection is part of a final report set to be released this spring. The estimates are based on carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions that cause ice caps to melt and increases precipitation, which leads to rising sea levels.

The rest of this post provides a tour of seven US cities demonstrating how the sea level scare machine promotes fear among people living or invested in coastal properties.  In each case there are warnings published in legacy print and tv media, visual simulations powered by computers and desktop publishing, and a comparison of imaginary vs. observed sea level trends, updated with 2023 tidal gauge reports.

[Note: Some readers may be confused by the imagined sea level projections shown in red.  These come from models that include IPCC suppositions in estimating sea level rise in various localities.  For example, from the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists):

Three sea level rise scenarios, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and localized for this analysis, are included:

    • A high scenario that assumes a continued rise in global carbon emissions and an increasing loss of land ice; global average sea level is projected to rise about 2 feet by 2045 and about 6.5 feet by 2100.
    • An intermediate scenario that assumes global carbon emissions rise through the middle of the century then begin to decline, and ice sheets melt at rates in line with historical observations; global average sea level is projected to rise about 1 foot by 2035 and about 4 feet by 2100.
    • A low scenario that assumes nations successfully limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (the goal set by the Paris Climate Agreement) and ice loss is limited; global average sea level is projected to rise about 1.6 feet by 2100.

The charts below also reflect sea level forecasts by state agencies like the California Coastal Commission]

Prime US Cities on the “Endangered” List
Newport, R.I.

Examples of Media Warnings

Bangor Daily News:  In Maine’s ‘City of Ships,’ climate change’s coastal threat is already here

Bath, the 8,500-resident “City of Ships,” is among the places in Maine facing the greatest risks from increased coastal flooding because so much of it is low-lying. The rising sea level in Bath threatens businesses along Commercial and Washington streets and other parts of the downtown, according to an analysis by Climate Central, a nonprofit science and journalism organization.

Water levels reached their highest in the city during a record-breaking storm in 1978 at a little more than 4 feet over pre-2000 average high tides, and Climate Central’s sea level team found there’s a 1-in-4 chance of a 5-foot flood within 30 years. That level could submerge homes and three miles of road, cutting off communities that live on peninsulas, and inundate sites that manage wastewater and hazardous waste along with several museums.

UConn Today:  Should We Stay or Should We Go? Shoreline Homes and Rising Sea Levels in Connecticut

As global temperatures rise, so does the sea level. Experts predict it could rise as much as 20 inches by 2050, putting coastal communities, including those in Connecticut, in jeopardy.

One possible solution is a retreat from the shoreline, in which coastal homes are removed to take them out of imminent danger. This solution comes with many complications, including reductions in tax revenue for towns and potentially diminished real estate values for surrounding properties. Additionally, it can be difficult to get people to volunteer to relocate their homes.

Computer Simulations of the Future

Newport Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

Boston, Mass.

Example of Media Warnings

From WBUR Radio Boston:  Rising Sea Levels Threaten MBTA’s Blue Line

Could it be the end of the Blue Line as we know it? The Blue Line, which features a mile-long tunnel that travels underwater, and connects the North Shore with Boston’s downtown, is at risk as sea levels rise along Boston’s coast. To understand the threat sea-level rise poses to the Blue Line, and what that means for the rest of the city, we’re joined by WBUR reporter Simón Ríos and Julie Wormser, Deputy Director at the Mystic River Watershed Association.

As sea levels continue to rise, the Blue Line and the whole MBTA system face an existential threat. The MBTA is also facing a serious financial crunch, still reeling from the pandemic, as we attempt to fully reopen the city and the region. Joining us to discuss is MBTA General Manager Steve Poftak.

Computer Simulations of the Future

Boston Obs Imaged2

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

New York City

Example of Media Warnings

From Quartz: Sea level rise will flood the neighborhood around the UN building with two degrees warming

Right now, of every US city, New York City has the highest population living inside a floodplain. By 2100, seas could rise around around the city by as much as six feet. Extreme rainfall is also predicted to rise, with roughly 1½ times more major precipitation events per year by the 2080s, according to a 2015 report by a group of scientists known as the New York City Panel on Climate Change.

But a two-degree warming scenario, which the world is on track to hit, could lock in dramatic sea level rise—possibly as much as 15 feet.

Computer Simulations of the Future

NYC Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

Philadelphia, PA.

Example of Media Warnings

From NBC Philadelphia:  Climate Change Studies Show Philly Underwater

NBC10 is looking at data and reading studies on climate change to showcase the impact. There are studies that show if the sea levels continue to rise at this rate, parts of Amtrak and Philadelphia International Airport could be underwater in 100 years.

Computer Simulations of the Future

Philly Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

Miami, Florida

Examples of Media Warnings

From WLRN Miami: Miles Of Florida Roads Face ‘Major Problem’ From Sea Rise. Is State Moving Fast Enough?

One 2018 Department of Transportation study has already found that a two-foot rise, expected by mid-century, would imperil a little more than five percent — 250-plus miles — of the state’s most high-traffic highways. That may not sound like a lot, but protecting those highways alone could easily cost several billion dollars. A Cat 5 hurricane could be far worse, with a fifth of the system vulnerable to flooding. The impact to seaports, airports and railroads — likely to also be significant and expensive — is only now under analysis.

From Washington Post:  Before condo collapse, rising seas long pressured Miami coastal properties

Investigators are just beginning to try to unravel what caused the Champlain Towers South to collapse into a heap of rubble, leaving at least 159 people missing as of Friday. Experts on sea-level rise and climate change caution that it is too soon to speculate whether rising seas helped destabilize the oceanfront structure. The 40-year-old building was relatively new compared with others on its stretch of beach in the town of Surfside.

But it is already clear that South Florida has been on the front lines of sea-level rise and that the effects of climate change on the infrastructure of the region — from septic systems to aquifers to shoreline erosion — will be a management problem for years.

Computer Simulations of the Future

Florida Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

Houston, Texas

Example of Media Warnings

From Undark:  A $26-Billion Plan to Save the Houston Area From Rising Seas

As the sea rises, the land is also sinking: In the last century, the Texas coast sank about 2 feet into the sea, partly due to excessive groundwater pumping. Computer models now suggest that climate change will further lift sea levels somewhere between 1 and 6 feet over the next 50 years. Meanwhile, the Texas coastal population is projected to climb from 7 to 9 million people by 2050.

Protecting Galveston Bay is no simple task. The bay is sheltered from the open ocean by two low, sandy strips of land — Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula — separated by the narrow passage of Bolivar Roads. When a sufficiently big storm approaches, water begins to rush through that gap and over the island and peninsula, surging into the bay.

Computer Simulations of the Future

Galv Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

San Francisco, Cal.

Example of Media Warnings

From San Francisco Chronicle:  Special Report: SF Bay Sea Level Rise–Hayward

Sea level rise is fueled by higher global temperatures that trigger two forces: Warmer water expands oceans while the increased temperatures hasten the melting of glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland and add yet more water to the oceans.

The California Ocean Protection Council, a branch of state government, forecasts a 1-in-7 chance that the average daily tides in the bay will rise 2 or more feet by 2070. This would cause portions of the marshes and bay trail in Hayward to be underwater during high tides. Add another 2 feet, on the higher end of the council’s projections for 2100 and they’d be permanently submerged. Highway 92 would flood during major storms. So would the streets leading into the power plant.

From San Francisco Chronicle:  Special Report: SF Bay Sea Level Rise–Mission Creek

Along San Francisco’s Mission Creek, sea level rise unsettles the waters.  Each section of this narrow channel must be tailored differently to meet an uncertain future. Do nothing, and the combination of heavy storms with less than a foot of sea level rise could send Mission Creek spilling over its banks in a half-dozen places, putting nearby housing in peril and closing the two bridges that cross the channel.

Whatever the response, we won’t know for decades if the city’s efforts can keep pace with the impact of global climatic forces that no local government can control.

Though Mission Creek is unique, the larger dilemma is one that affects all nine Bay Area counties.

Computer Simulations of the Future

SF Obs Imaged

Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)

 

Summary: This is a relentless, high-tech communications machine to raise all kinds of scary future possibilities, based upon climate model projections, and the unfounded theory of CO2-driven global warming/climate change.  The graphs above are centered on the year 2000, so that the 21st century added sea level rise is projected from that year forward.  In addition, we now have observations at tidal gauges for the first 23 years, nearly 1/4 of the total expected.  The gauges in each city are the ones with the longest continuous service record, and wherever possible the locations shown in the simulations are not far from the tidal gauge.  For example, NYC best gauge is at the Battery, and Fulton St. is also near the Manhattan southern tip.

Already the imaginary rises are diverging greatly from observations, yet the chorus of alarm goes on.  In fact, the added rise to 2100 from tidal gauges ranges from 6 to 9.5 inches, except for Galveston projecting 20.6 inches. Meanwhile models imagined rises from 69 to 108 inches. Clearly coastal settlements must adapt to evolving conditions, but also need reasonable rather than fearful forecasts for planning purposes.

Footnote:  The problem of urban flooding is discussed in some depth at a previous post Urban Flooding: The Philadelphia Story

Background on the current sea level campaign is at USCS Warnings of Coastal Floodings

And as always, an historical perspective is important:

post-glacial_sea_level

 

Real Science Guy: Climate Crisis Imaginary

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Daniel W. Nebert writes at American Thinker Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

For the past 35 years, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned us that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2), are causing dangerous global warming. This myth is blindly accepted — even by many of my science colleagues who know virtually nothing about climate. As a scientist, my purpose here is to help expose this fairy tale.

The global warming story is not a benign fantasy. It is seriously damaging Western economies. In January 2021, the White House ridiculously declared that “climate change is the most serious existential threat to humanity.” From there, America went from energy independence back to energy dependence. Another consequence has been the appearance of numerous companies whose goal is to “sequester CO2” as well as “sequester carbon” from our atmosphere. However, this so-called “solution” is scientifically impossible. Life on Earth is based on carbon! CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant!

Generations have been brainwashed for decades into believing this imaginary “climate crisis,” from kindergarten through college, and in mainstream media and social media. Indoctrinated young teachers feel comfortable teaching this misinformation to students. Dishonest climate scientists feel justified in spreading disinformation because they need governmental support for salaries and research.

The evidence contradicting the climate apocalypse is vast.

Some comes from analysis of Greenland and Antarctica ice, in which air trapped at various depths reveals CO2 levels of past climate. Proxy records from marine sediment, dust (from erosion, wind-blown deposition of sediments), and ice cores provide a record of past sea levels, ice volume, seawater temperature, and global atmospheric temperatures.

From his seminal work while a prisoner of war during WWI, Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch explained how climate is influenced by variations in the Earth’s asymmetric orbit, axial tilt, and rotational wobble — each going through cycles lasting as long as 120,000 years.

It is widely recognized that Glacial Periods of about 95,000 years, interspersed with Interglacial Periods of approximately 25,000 years, correspond with Milankovitch Cycles. Multiple incursions of glaciers occurred during the Pleistocene, an epoch lasting from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago, when Earth’s last Glacial Period ended. Around 24,000 years ago, present-day Lake Erie was covered with ice a mile thick.

Within each Interglacial Period, there’ve been warming periods, or “Mini-Summers.” For example, within the current Holocene Interglacial, there have been warmer periods known as the Minoan (1500–1200 B.C.), Roman (250 B.C.–A.D. 400), and Medieval (A.D. 900–1300). Our Modern Warming Period began with the waning of the Little Ice Age (1300–1850). Today’s Mini-Summer is colder so far than all previous Mini-Summers of the last 8,500 years.

How did CO2 get blamed for global warming? French physicist Joseph Fourier (1820s) proposed that energy from sunlight must be balanced by energy radiated back into space. Irish physicist John Tyndall (1850s) performed laboratory experiments on “greenhouse gases” (GHGs), including water vapor; he proposed that CO2 elicited an important effect on temperature. However, it’s impossible to do appropriate experiments — unless the roof of your laboratory is at least six miles high. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1896) proposed that “warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration.” Columbia University geochemist Wallace Broecker (1975) and Columbia University adjunct professor James Hansen (1981) wrote oft-cited articles in Science magazine, both overstating the perils of CO2 causing dangerous global warming — without providing scientific proof.

Most of Earth’s energy comes from the sun. Absorption of sunlight causes molecules of objects or surfaces to vibrate faster, increasing their temperature. This energy is then re-radiated by land and oceans as longwave, infrared radiation (heat). Princeton University physicist Will Happer defines a GHG as that which absorbs negligible incoming sunlight but captures a substantial fraction of thermal radiation as it is re-radiated from Earth’s surface and atmospheric GHGs back into space.

The gases of nitrogen, oxygen and argon — constituting 78%, 21%, and 0.93%, respectively, of the atmosphere — show negligible absorption of thermal radiation and therefore are not GHGs. Important GHGs include water (as high as 7% in humid tropics and as little as 1% in frigid climates), CO2 (0.042%, or 420 parts per million [ppm] by volume), methane (0.00017%), and nitrous oxide (0.0000334%, or 334 ppm). Water vapor (clouds) has at least a hundred times greater warming effect on Earth’s temperature than all other GHGs combined.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, its GHG effect decreases: CO2’s warming effect is 1.5°C between zero and 20 ppm, 0.3°C between 20 and 40 ppm, and 0.15°C between 40 and 60 ppm. Every doubling of atmospheric CO2 from today’s levels decreases radiation back into space by a mere 1%. For most of the past 800,000 years, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 has ranged between about 180 ppm and 320 ppm; below 150 ppm, Earth’s plants could not exist, and all life would be extinguished.

Today’s global atmospheric CO2 levels are ~420 ppm. Even at these levels, plants are “partially CO2-starved.” In fact, standard procedures for commercial greenhouse growers include elevating CO2 to 800­–1200 ppm; this enhances growth and crop yield ~20–50%. As shown by satellite since 1978, increased atmospheric CO2 has helped “green” the Earth by more than 15 percent, substantially enhancing crop production.

Spatial pattern of trends in Gross Primary Production (1982- 2015). Source: Sun et al. 2018.

If global atmospheric CO2 was ~280 ppm in 1750, and it’s ~420 ppm today, what’s the source of this 140-ppm increase? Scientists estimate that human-associated industrial emissions might have contributed 135 ppm — with “natural causes” accounting for the remaining 5 ppm.

But did processes throughout earth’s history stop
when humans began burning hydrocarbons?

In Earth’s history, the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 (6,000–9,000 ppm) occurred about 550–450 million years ago, which caused plant life to flourish. CO2 levels in older nuclear submarines routinely operated at 7,000 ppm, whereas newer subs keep CO2 in the 2,000- to 5,000-ppm range. Meanwhile, ice core data over the last 800,000 years show no correlation between global warming or cooling cycles and atmospheric CO2 levels.

CO2 in our lungs reaches 40,000–50,000 ppm, which induces us to take our next breath. Each human exhales about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day, which means Earth’s 8 billion people produce daily 18.4 billion pounds of CO2. But humans represent only 1/40 of all CO2-excreting life on Earth. Multiplying 18.4 billion pounds by 40 gives us 736 billion pounds of CO2 per day. This approximates the overall CO2 excreted by the total animal and fungal biomass on the planet.

Daily emissions from worldwide industry in 2020 were estimated to be 16 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents. If one metric ton is 2,200 pounds, then “total industrial emissions” amount to 35,200,000,000 (35.2 billion) pounds of CO2 per day. This means that the entire animal and fungal biomass (736 billion pounds) puts out more than 20 times as much CO2 as all industrial emissions (35.2 billion pounds)!

Can any clear-thinking person comprehend the facts above and still create a company with idiotic plans to “sequester CO2” or “sequester carbon”? Scientifically, “net zero” and “carbon footprint” are meaningless terms. There is no “climate crisis.”

If you try to find these facts on the web, good luck! Out of every 10 hits on any climate topic, you’ll be lucky to find one or two sites with truthful scientific data.

The door of a nearby classroom displays a poster of Abraham Lincoln with the caption: “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” It is advice that our 16th president surely would have offered — had he lived to see the rise of this global warming quasi-religion.

Daniel W. Nebert is professor emeritus in Gene-Environment Interactions at the University of Cincinnati. He thanks Professor Will Happer (one of the CO2 Coalition directors) for valuable discussions.

See Also

Ian Plimer Asks, “What Climate Crisis?”

Climatists Deniers of Reality

 

 

 

Hot Climate Models Not Fit For Policymaking

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Roy Spencer has published a study at Heritage Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Summary

Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. In the United States during summer, the observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here. While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
  1. The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
  2. Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
  3. Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.

For the purposes of guiding public policy and for adaptation to any climate change that occurs, it is necessary to understand the claims of global warming science as promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  When it comes to increases in global average temperature since the 1970s, three questions are pertinent:

  1. Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed?
  2. Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate models—used to guide public policy—show?
  3. Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and extensive regulation of CO2 emissions?

While the climate system has warmed somewhat over the past five decades,
the popular perception of a “climate crisis” and resulting calls for economically
significant regulation of CO2 emissions is not supported by science.

Discussion Points

Temperature Change Is Caused by an Imbalance Between Energy Gain and Energy Loss.

Recent Warming of the Climate System Corresponds to a Tiny Energy Imbalance.

Climate Models Assume Energy Balance, but Have Difficulty Achieving It.

Global Warming Theory Says Direct Warming from a Doubling of CO2 Is Only 1.2°C.

Climate Models Produce Too Much Warming.

Climate models are not only used to predict future changes (forecasting), but also to explain past changes (hindcasting). Depending on where temperatures are measured (at the Earth’s surface, in the deep atmosphere, or in the deep ocean), it is generally true that climate models have a history of producing more warming than has been observed in recent decades.

This disparity is not true of all the models, as two models (both Russian) produce warming rates close to what has been observed, but those models are not the ones used to promote the climate crisis narrative. Instead, those producing the greatest amount of climate change usually make their way into, for example, the U.S. National Climate Assessment,  the congressionally mandated evaluation of what global climate models project for climate in the United States.

The best demonstration of the tendency of climate models to overpredict warming is a direct comparison between models and observations for global average surface air temperature, shown in Chart 1.

In this plot, the average of five different observation-based datasets (blue) are compared to the average of 36 climate models taking part in the sixth IPCC Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The models have produced, on average, 43 percent faster warming than has been observed from 1979 to 2022. This is the period of the most rapid increase in global temperatures and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and also corresponds to the period for which satellite observations exist (described below). This discrepancy between models and observations is seldom mentioned despite that fact that it is, roughly speaking, the average of the models (or even the most extreme models) that is used to promote policy changes in the U.S. and abroad.

Summertime Warming in the United States

While global averages produce the most robust indicator of “global” warming, regional effects are often of more concern to national and regional governments and their citizens. For example, in the United States large increases in summertime heat could affect human health and agricultural crop productivity. But as Chart 2 shows, surface air temperatures during the growing season (June, July, and August) over the 12-state Corn Belt for the past 50 years reveal a large discrepancy between climate models and observations, with all 36 models producing warming rates well above what has been observed and the most extreme model producing seven times too much warming.  

The fact that global food production has increased faster than population growth in the past 60 years suggests that any negative impacts due to climate change have been small. In fact, “global greening” has been documented to be occurring in response to more atmospheric CO2, which enhances both natural plant growth and agricultural productivity, leading to significant agricultural benefits.

These discrepancies between models and observations are never mentioned when climate researchers promote climate models for energy policy decision-making. Instead, they exploit exaggerated model forecasts of climate change to concoct exaggerated claims of a climate crisis.

Global Warming of the Lower Atmosphere

While near-surface air temperatures are clearly important to human activity, the warming experienced over the low atmosphere (approximately the lowest 10 kilometers of the “troposphere,” where the Earth’s weather occurs) is also of interest, especially given the satellite observations of this layer extending back to 1979.

Satellites provide the only source of geographically complete coverage of the Earth, except very close to the North and South Poles.

Chart 3 shows a comparison of the temperature of this layer as produced by 38 climate models (red) and how the same layer has been observed to warm in three radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets (green), three global reanalysis datasets (which use satellites, weather balloons, and aircraft data; black), and three satellite datasets (blue).

Conclusion

Climate models produce too much warming when compared to observations over the past fifty years or so, which is the period of most rapid warming and increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The discrepancy ranges from over 40 percent for global surface air temperature, about 50 percent for global lower atmospheric temperatures, and even a factor of two to three for the United States in the summertime. This discrepancy is never mentioned when those same models are used as the basis for policy decisions.

Also not mentioned when discussing climate models is their reliance on the assumption that there are no natural sources of long-term climate change. The models must be “tuned” to produce no climate change, and then a human influence is added in the form of a very small, roughly 1 percent change in the global energy balance. While the resulting model warming is claimed to prove that humans are responsible, clearly this is circular reasoning. It does not necessarily mean that the claim is wrong—only that it is based on faith in assumptions about the natural climate system that cannot be shown to be true from observations.

Finally, possible chaotic internal variations will always lead to uncertainty in both global warming projections and explanation of past changes. Given these uncertainties, policymakers should proceed cautiously and not allow themselves to be influenced by exaggerated claims based on demonstrably faulty climate models.

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, is Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

 

 

Arctic Grows a Month of Ice in 3 Weeks January 2024

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Impressive Arctic ice recovery continued in January, growing a month’s worth in just three weeks, as seen in the animation below:

In three weeks of January 2024, the Arctic added nearly a full Wadham of ice (1M km2). The animation shows Hudson Bay (lower right) freezing completely.  Just above Hudson, you can see the Gulf of St. Lawrence icing over, and Baffin Bay adding ice, extending fast ice all the way to Newfoundland, now up to 64% of its annual maximum.

At the extreme and lower left, Okhotsk and Bering Seas also grow rapidly. Okhotsk grew ice extent up to 914k, 81% of its max last March.  Bering grew up to 514k km2, 68% of its max.  At the top Kara freezes over and Barents and Greenland Seas add ice to their margins.The graph below shows the January ice recovery.

Note the average January ends at 14.36 km2 while 2024 has already reached 14.33 km2, up from 13.39 km2 at the start, and presently  288k km2 above average. SII started slightly lower than MASIE and tracked quite closely since. Note that other recent years have varied below the 18-year average at month end.

The table below shows year-end ice extents in the various Arctic basins compared to the 18-year averages and some recent years.

Region 2024022 Day 22 2024-Ave. 2018022 2024-2018
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 14333601 14045488  288112  13505957 827644 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070983 1070317  667  1070445 538 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965999  7  965971 35 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087131  6  1087120 18 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897837  8  897845 0 
 (5) Kara_Sea 932571 910022  22549  891776 40795 
 (6) Barents_Sea 712531 530554  181977  322465 390067 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 703581 601855  101726  465828 237753 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1050488 1239519  -189031  1330666 -280179 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854860 853382  1479  853109 1752 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260903 1260695  209  1260838 66 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3230107 3203377  26730  3165195 64912 
 (12) Bering_Sea 513853 600796  -86943  343164 170689 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 93892 56072  37820  44364 49528 
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 914275 720482  193793  782100 132175 

This year’s ice extent is 288k km2 or 2.1% above average.  Only Baffin Bay and Bering have deficits to average, more than offset by surpluses elsewhere, espcially Greenland, Barents and Okhotsk seas. Many of the others are already maxed out.

 

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring Arctic ice extents and NH snow cover.

 

Fear of Climate Crisis Solved

Posted on by Ron Clutz

John Tamny explains the root cause of fears about global warming/climate change in his Real Clear Markets article Warming and Left Wing Professors Worry You? You Must Be Rich.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The 20th century called and it wants the word crisis back, the first half of the 20th century in particular. Back then crises were truly terrifying. Think two world wars that exterminated tens of millions of people, genocides of Jews and Armenians, global economic depression, tax rates that topped out at 90 percent, and so much more.

Looking for a Job During the Great Depression. Hulton Archive / Getty Images

Fast forward to the present, and on relatively a quiet day (of which there are thankfully many) one of the most commonly expressed fears on the left concerns global warming born of fossil-fuel consumption. Without presuming to comment on the science here, what a luxurious worry. Back before innovators connected oil to the automation of work formerly done by humans, to cars, and eventually machines capable of cooling and/or warming our homes, weather extremes rendered the indoors and outdoors equally dreadful.

It’s too easily forgotten that air conditioners weren’t a market good until the 1930s, and once on the market, they retailed from $10,000 to $50,000. Fear of excess warmth or cooling care of appliances was well in the future, and worry about outdoor temperatures a likely byproduct of technology that made the indoors so livable. Put another way, if you fear warming or cooling outdoors it’s likely because you suffer neither indoors.

What does the past say about the present? It first signals that worry is hardly a modern concept. There’s always something. In our case, the somethings that have us up at night would have been viewed as positively luxurious by people who had worries of the world war, mass genocide, and back-breaking work kind that didn’t afford a lot of learning of any type. This isn’t to dismiss what has so many up in arms today, but it is to say that our “crises” are truly modern, and a rather bullish effect of immense prosperity.

See also 

Ungrateful Millennials Richer than Rockefeller

Arctic Flash Freezing Start to 2024

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Many noticed the Gore effect during COP28 when Arctic ice extents grew rapidly to catch up and exceed normal. Now in the first 10 days of January Arctic ice is growing way faster than normal. On the left, both Bering and Okhotsk seas are now ~65% of their maxes. Kara at top is 100% of max and Barents next to Kara is 83% of max. Overall, the Arctic has already reached 93% of last year’s Mid March maximum.

A Lufthansa aircraft at the snow-covered Munich airport on Saturday. Photograph: Karl-Josef Hildenbrand/AP

Coincidently, COP28 also triggered heavy snow bringing chaos to southern Germany causing Munich to suspend flights to anywhere, including Dubai. Now January is breaking the glazed ceiling outstriping past conditions.

The graph below shows the gains in ice extent the first 10 days of January 2024, the 18 year average and some other recent years, as well as SII (Sea Ice Index).

MASIE and SII are both well above the 18 year average, and almost 10 days ahead of it. 2024 is on the verge of breaking 14M km2, just 400k km2 short of normal extents at end of January.  

The table below shows the distribution of ice in the Arctic Ocean basins.

Region 2024010 Day 10 2024-Ave. 2007010 2024-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13940138 13508235  431903  13334598 605540 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070966 1070352  614  1069711 1255 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965221  785  966006 0 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087131  6  1087137 0 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897836  8  897845 0 
 (5) Kara_Sea 934227 914139  20088  909703 24524 
 (6) Barents_Sea 593194 463310  129884  363027 230166 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 722914 577267  145647  576959 145955 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 941219 1088951  -147732  934564 6655 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854860 853418  1442  852767 2094 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260903 1249501  11402  1260839 65 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3233482 3202675  30807  3204750 28732 
 (12) Bering_Sea 492428 503203  -10775  606863 -114435 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 128886 33634  95252  3303 125582 
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 729537 565328  164209  585350 144187 

Note that Arctic ice now nearly 14M km2 and  432k km2 above average, or 3.2%.  As shown in the table above, the only deficit to average is in Baffin Bay,  Offsetting are surpluses elsewhere, especially in Greenland sea, along with Barents and Okhotsk seas. Really, the only regions left to grow much up to max are Baffin Bay, Bering and Okhotsk seas.

 

 

Climate Models Hide the Paleo Incline

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Figure 1. Anthropgenic and natural contributions. (a) Locked scaling factors, weak Pre Industrial Climate Anomalies (PCA). (b) Free scaling, strong PCA

In  2009, the iconic email from the Climategate leak included a comment by Phil Jones about the “trick” used by Michael Mann to “hide the decline,” in his Hockey Stick graph, referring to tree proxy temperatures  cooling rather than warming in modern times.  Now we have an important paper demonstrating that climate models insist on man-made global warming only by hiding the incline of natural warming in Pre-Industrial times.  The paper is From Behavioral Climate Models and Millennial Data to AGW Reassessment by Philippe de Larminat.  H/T No Tricks Zone. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Abstract

Context. The so called AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), is based on thousands of climate simulations indicating that human activity is virtually solely responsible for the recent global warming. The climate models used are derived from the meteorological models used for short-term predictions. They are based on the fundamental and empirical physical laws that govern the myriad of atmospheric and oceanic cells integrated by the finite element technique. Numerical approximations, empiricism and the inherent chaos in fluid circulations make these models questionable for validating the anthropogenic principle, given the accuracy required (better than one per thousand) in determining the Earth energy balance.

Aims and methods. The purpose is to quantify and simulate behavioral models of weak complexity, without referring to predefined parameters of the underlying physical laws, but relying exclusively on generally accepted historical and paleoclimate series.

Results. These models perform global temperature simulations that are consistent with those from the more complex physical models. However, the repartition of contributions in the present warming depends strongly on the retained temperature reconstructions, in particular the magnitudes of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It also depends on the level of the solar activity series. It results from these observations and climate reconstructions that the anthropogenic principle only holds for climate profiles assuming almost no PCA neither significant variations in solar activity. Otherwise, it reduces to a weak principle where global warming is not only the result of human activity, but is largely due to solar activity.

Discussion

GCMs (short acronym for AOCGM: Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models, or for Global Climate model) are fed by series related to climate drivers. Some are of human origin: fossil fuel combustion, industrial aerosols, changes in land use, condensation trails, etc. Others are of natural origin: solar and volcanic activities, Earth’s orbital parameters, geomagnetism, internal variability generated by atmospheric and oceanic chaos. These drivers, or forcing factors, are expressed in their own units: total solar irradiance (W m–2), atmospheric concentrations of GHG (ppm), optical depth of industrial or volcanic aerosols (dimless), oceanic indexes (ENSO, AMO…), or by annual growth rates (%). Climate scientists have introduced a metric in order to characterize the relative impact of the different climate drivers on climate change. This metric is that of radiative forcings (RF), designed to quantify climate drivers through their effects on the terrestrial radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

However, independently of the physical units and associated energy properties of the RFs, one can recognize their signatures in the output and deduce their contributions. For example, volcanic eruptions are identifiable events whose contributions can be quantified without reference to either their assumed radiative forcings, or to physical modeling of aerosol diffusion in the atmosphere. Similarly, the Preindustrial Climate Anomalies (PCA) gathering the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA), shows a profile similar to that of the solar forcing reconstructions. Per the methodology proposed in this paper, the respective contributions of the RF inputs are quantified through behavior models, or black-box models.

Now, Figures 1-a and 1-b presents simulations obtained from the models identified under two different sets of assumptions, detailed in sections 6 and 7 respectively.

Figure 1. Anthropgenic and natural contributions. (a) Locked scaling factors, weak Pre Industrial Climate Anomalies (PCA). (b) Free scaling, strong PCA

In both cases, the overall result for the global temperature simulation (red) fits fairly well with the observations (black).  Curves also show the forcing contributions to modern warming (since 1850). From this perspective, the natural (green) and anthropogenic (blue) contributions are in strong contradiction between panels (a) and (b). This incompatibility is at the heart of our work.

Simulations in panel (a) are calculated per section 6, where the scaling multipliers planned in the model are locked to unity, so that the radiative forcing inputs are constrained to strictly comply with the IPCC quantification. The remaining parameters of the black-box model are adjusted in order to minimize the deviation between the observations (black curve) and the simulated outputs (red). Per these assumptions, the resulting contributions (blue vs. green) comply with the AGW principle. Also, the conformity of the results with those of the CMIP supports the validity of the type of behavioral model adopted for our simulations.

Paleoclimate Temperatures

Although historically documented the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) don’t make consensus about their amplitudes and geographic extensions [2, 3]. In Fig. 7.1-c of the First Assessment Report of IPCC, a reconstruction from showed a peak PCA amplitude of about 1.2 °C [4]. Then later on, a reconstruction by the so-called ‘hockey stick graph’, was reproduced five times in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), wherein there was no longer any significant MWP [5].

After, 2003 controversies reference to this reconstruction had disappeared from subsequent IPCC reports:it is not included among the fifteen paleoclimate reconstructions covering the millennium period listed in the fifth report (AR5, 2013) [6]. Nevertheless, AR6 (2021) revived a hockey stick graph reconstruction from a consortium initiated by a network “PAst climate chanGES” [7,8]. The IPCC assures (AR6, 2.3.1.1.2): “this synthesis is generally in agreement with the AR5 assessment”.

Figure 2 below puts this claim into perspective. It shows the fifteen reconstructions covering the preindustrial period accredited by the IPCC in AR5 (2013, Fig. 5.7 to 5.9, and table 5.A.6), compiled (Pangaea database) by [7]. Visibly, the claimed agreement of the PAGES2k reconstruction (blue) with the AR5 green lines does not hold.

Figure 2. Weak and strong preindustrial climate anomalies, respectively from AR5 (2013) in green and AR6 (2021) in blue.

Conclusion

In section 8 above, a set of consistent climate series is explored, from which solar activity appears to be the main driver of climate change. To eradicate this hypothesis, the anthropogenic principle requires four simultaneous assessments:

♦  A strong anthropogenic forcing, able to account for all of the current warming.
♦  A low solar forcing.
♦  A low internal variability.
♦  The nonexistence of significant pre-industrial climate anomalies, which could indeed be explained by strong solar forcing or high internal variability.

None of these conditions is strongly established, neither by theoretical knowledge nor by historical and paleoclimatic observations. On the contrary, our analysis challenges them through a weak complexity model, fed by accepted forcing profiles, which are recalibrated owning to climate observations. The simulations show that solar activity contributes to current climate warming in proportions depending on the assessed pre-industrial climate anomalies.

Therefore, adherence to the anthropogenic principle requires that when reconstructing climate data, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age be reduced to nothing, and that any series of strongly varying solar forcing be discarded. 

Background on Disappearing Paleo Global Warming

The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.

Rise and Fall of the Modern Warming Spike