Toronto Escorts

2019 could be the hottest year in human history

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
2019 could be the hottest year in human history

Isabella O'Malley
Climate Change Reporter

Saturday, December 8, 2018, 8:08 PM - The influence of El Niño can be felt far and wide and heavy rainfalls, catastrophic flooding, and mass crop failures can all be attributed to this powerful climate cycle. Early compilations of 2018's data indicate that this year will likely become the fourth warmest on record, and the developing El Niño event is increasing the odds that 2019 will be the hottest year that human life has ever experienced.

There is an 80 per cent chance that an El Niño will form and a 55 to 60 per cent change that the event will continue into spring of 2019, according to the Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Climate scientists are closely monitoring how human-induced climate change influences El Niño, and research confirms that human-released greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have intensified El Niño events that can drive regional temperature extremes, destroy coral reefs, create droughts, and worsen wildfires.


Between November 4, 2018 and December 1, 2018 equatorial sea surface temperatures (SST) were above average across the Pacific Ocean. Credit: Climate Prediction Center/ NCEP

This study projects that the current rates of climate change will prolong weather extremes and natural disasters, which will increase human deaths caused by these conditions by 50 per cent on average from now until 2100, but could increase up to 300 per cent depending on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Five of the warmest years on NASA's record have happened since 2010, and a warmer atmosphere means stronger hurricanes, rising oceans, and longer heatwaves that burn hotter. Before the rapid atmospheric warming that has occurred since the turn of the century, a strong El Niño event from 1997 to 1998 claimed 24,000 lives globally, caused $34 billion USD in economic damages and loses, and required extensive international aid to respond to droughts, flooding, and fires in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. While this El Niño was exceptionally strong, this experience taught the world that each cycle can wreak havoc on the world's weather and cause conditions that have never been seen before.

On top of the dire prediction for record-breaking heat in 2019, the interaction between climate cycles and abnormally warm temperatures indicates that future El Niño events could severely worsen climate change impacts that virtually no country on Earth is prepared to face.

Some perilous climate battles that took place just a few months ago demonstrate that the increasing weather extremes cause human health emergencies and slam economies - heatwaves claimed thousands of lives and hospitalized even more, California had it's worst wildfire season on record as wildfires simultaneously burned in the Arctic Circle, and the combined costs of Hurricane Michael and Florence could total over $50 billion USD.

Residents escaping the Carr Fire that burned in Shasta and Trinity counties in California. The 2018 wildfire season is the most destructive and deadly wildfire season in the states record, with nearly 2 million acres burned. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Industries have taken note of the changing environmental conditions, and significant strides have been made to develop clean energy technologies, tackle pollution, and invest in conserving the natural environment. Even though renewable energies have boomed and coal production has possibly peaked, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel sources reached an all-time high in 2018. Fossil fuel sources make up approximately 90 per cent of all human-created emissions and over 37 billion tons were released, which is an increase of 2.7 per cent from 2017's emissions output.

HOW DOES EL NIÑO FORM?

El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which is the most influential climate pattern used in forecasting and can last from a number of months to three years.

This event occurs when temperatures along the equatorial region of the Pacific Ocean begin to warm and shift eastward along the equator. This movement of warm water towards the coast of South America also coincides with weakening prevailing trade winds, which sets off a feedback loop between the ocean and the atmosphere.


The typical effects of an El Nino on wintertime across North America. Credit: Climate.gov

The energy in this feedback loop fuels jet streams and causes their paths to shift eastward and influence the track of low and high pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere, typically resulting in temperature and precipitation changes for the months between December and February.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/2019-could-be-the-hottest-year-in-human-history-el-nino/119355/
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,713
7,990
113
Toronto
I am sorry but that is impossible. Buttheadler has proven, proven I say, that we are entering an ice age and he has declared "checkmate".

I promise you that he will be hear to point out the specific flaws in this paper. He will point out, not just the validity of his pier reviewed (the scientific longshoremen) papers, but will address how this particular study is invalid.

Right butt boy?
 
Last edited:
I am sorry bet that is impossible. Buttheadler has proven, proven I say, that we are entering an ice age and he has declared "checkmate".

I promise you that he will be hear to point out the specific flaws in this paper. He will point out, not just the validity of his pier reviewed (the scientific longshoremen) papers, but will address how this particular study is invalid.

Right butt boy?
YUPPER ... This is why UN went from saying " Global Warming " to " Climate Change "
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,713
7,990
113
Toronto

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html


World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated
By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 17:01 EST, 14 September 2013 | UPDATED: 11:00 EST, 19 September 2013



Logo for the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

graphic
One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.


Taxpayer pays for £100,000 showers for sweaty ministers and...

Britain's great climate change divide: Winters in the North...


She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.

Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ¿the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux¿.
Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'

Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.

Prof Curry said she hoped that the ‘inconsistencies will be pointed out’ at the meeting, adding: ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’ Others agree that the unwieldy and expensive IPCC assessment process has now run its course.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.’

Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.

As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers .  .  . to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.

The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.

A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.

As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.

As a result of the warming pause, several recent peer-reviewed scientific studies have suggested that the true figure for the sensitivity is much lower than anyone – the IPCC included – previously thought: probably less than 2C.

Last night IPCC communications chief Jonathan Lynn refused to comment, saying the leaked report was ‘still a work in progress’.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...tal_climate_scientists_slam_the_uns_ipcc.html

Non-governmental climate scientists slam the UN's IPCC
By S. Fred Singer
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of their Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of its fifth assessment report (AR5) on September 27, 2013. This new SPM reveals that the IPCC has retreated from about a dozen alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists who are prominently associated with the IPCC. Their SPM also contains more than a dozen misleading or untrue statements, plus about another dozen statements that mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org


In the discussion that follows, we divide our critique of the IPCC's SPM into three categories.

1. IPCC-AR5 retreats from previous positions

The IPCC's 2013 SPM apparently retreats from more alarmist positions struck in earlier assessment reports. For example, the IPCC concedes for the first time that a fifteen-year-long period of insignificant warming (or perhaps even cooling) has occurred since 1998, despite a 7% rise in Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This is striking evidence that there is something wrong with the IPCC's climate models, which all predict a substantial warming in response to rising CO2.

IPCC scientists are of two minds in trying to explain this discrepancy between models and observations. On the one hand, they argue that this is a statistical fluctuation. One might compare it to fifteen heads in a row when tossing a coin. However, with each passing year without warming, the probability of such a fluctuation becomes smaller.

Other IPCC scientists search for elusive physical evidence for such a lack of warming. One favorite explanation has it that the heat is "hiding in the deep ocean;" but the IPCC fails to explain that heat cannot transfer into the deep ocean without first passing through the shallow ocean, which has not warmed since 2003. It is ironic that at the same time that predictions from 72(!) climate models and observations (from satellites and balloons) increasingly diverge, successive IPCC reports have expressed increasing certainty about human Influences on warming. This disconnect is illustrated in the graph below, prepared by John Christy and Roy Spencer, and further annotated by Howard Hayden.



In spite of the SPMs' assertion of increasing certainty about dangerous human-caused warming, the IPCC report itself expresses less certainty. For example, AR4 [2007] predicts a temperature rise of between 2 degrees and 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, while AR5 [2013] expands the interval to 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. These limits happen to be the same ones published in the 'Charney' climate report of 1979. In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of CO2 -- in spite of much effort and great expenditures of money in model construction.

Another interesting admission: The IPCC now has "low confidence" in predicting more frequent or more extreme droughts and tropical cyclones. Thus, IPCC is specifically revoking its previous more alarmist claims.

2. Misleading or untrue statements

Among the many untrue claims, is one that asserts that post-1950 warming is "unprecedented." However, as shown by the Hadley [UK] record, it is reported as of about the same magnitude and rate as the 1910 - 1940 warming.

The IPCC-SPM also suggests a significant radiative forcing for carbon monoxide; but this is contradicted by statements made by the IPCC authors themselves. Carbon monoxide, CO, is not a greenhouse gas.

Elsewhere, the SPM admits that both the sign and amplitude of cloud feedback are uncertain. But then it is impossible to be sure, as claimed, that the net radiative feedback is positive.

In comparing models and observations, the underlying claim is that the models include all of the relevant physics. This is a false statement because our knowledge is far from complete -- and specifically, the models omit important forcings, such as changes in ocean currents or solar magnetic activity.

The SPM claims sure evidence for human-caused sea level rise. But there is no observational evidence for the IPCC claim. Sea level has been rising since long before the human era, and generally at much higher rates than observed in the industrial-human period.

3. Deceptive language that misrepresent the Science

The SPM claims that globally averaged surface temperatures show a linear warming trend over the period 1880 to 2012. This is a cherry-picked interval, used to give a false impression of a steady, continuous warming. It includes the major warming between 1910 and 1940, and a slight cooling from 1940 to 1975. It includes also the 1998 warming spike caused by a Super El Nino and temperature 'jumps' around 1976 and 2002, which cannot be attributed to human influences. It fails to distinguish fully between temperature 'trend' and temperature 'level.'

The SPM misleadingly claims that the troposphere has warmed globally since the mid-20th century. This statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the 'missing hotspot')

The SPM points out that the maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period was at least five meters higher than the present level, but to compare sea levels in the Eemian and the Holocene is misleading since Earth's orbital configurations with respect to the Sun were different.

Advice for policy makers

Between 1988 and 2007, the span of preparation of its first four assessment reports, the UN's IPCC was the sole international body able to provide advice to governments on the global warming issue. Since 2008, with the formation of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a second and independent team of scientific assessors has emerged.

Now, with the release of the 2013 reports by both the IPCC and NIPCC, due diligence analysis is finally possible. After 2013, any responsible policy maker has an obligation to be fully familiar with the arguments adduced by two teams of climate advisors, who use the same peer-reviewed science but reach quite different conclusions.

The IPCC's scientific advice can now be weighed against an independent team of scholars. With the same set of peer-reviewed journals for review, the IPCC and NIPCC have come to diametrically opposing conclusions. IPCC scientists remain alarmist about the threat of human-caused global warming. Even while they admit that observations increasingly invalidate their model-based predictions, they are reluctant to acknowledge past errors and new research that challenge their hypothesis of human-caused dangerous climate change.

In stark contrast, NIPCC scientists find no hard evidence for a dangerous warming. They find that the null hypothesis -- that observed changes in climate are due to natural causes only -- cannot be rejected. NIPCC scientists remain open to new discoveries and further debate.

Towards this end, we present the primary conclusions of NIPCC's latest report -- as they are stated in its SPM:

1. We conclude that neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late 20th century surface warming (1979 to 2000) lies outside normal natural variability, nor is it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth's history. Furthermore, solar forcing of temperature change is more important than currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2-degree C rise in temperature (from whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude that no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emission. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events. An increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.

3. We conclude that the current generation of global climate models is unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead -- let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public-policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value.
***************************************
This essay is based on a Policy Brief published by NIPCC in October 2013, entitled "Scientific Critique of IPCC's 2013 'Summary for Policymakers,' by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon." It can be accessed at http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/critique_of_ipcc_spm.pdf

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-sellerUnstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [Seewww.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of their Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of its fifth assessment report (AR5) on September 27, 2013. This new SPM reveals that the IPCC has retreated from about a dozen alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists who are prominently associated with the IPCC. Their SPM also contains more than a dozen misleading or untrue statements, plus about another dozen statements that mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ientists_slam_the_uns_ipcc.html#ixzz5ZLf0uwlb
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data
A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data
By Christopher Booker4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...-by-un-overstates-global-warming-by-ten-fold/

A Former Climate Modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office Says Mathematics Used by UN Overstates Global Warming by Ten-Fold
31
Blog/World Events
Posted Oct 11, 2015 by Martin Armstrong
Australia-Environment
Dr. David Evans of the Australian Greenhouse Office says the mathematical model used by the United Nations is simply wrong. The underlying physics of the model is correct, but it has been applied incorrectly. Dr. Evans states that the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is far lower, and at best, accounts for only 20% of any claimed warming effect. He states that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times. He makes it clear that “the political obstacles are massive” to change this movement.

Indeed, this is all about the power to tax as states will use this bogus data to tax people now on each mile that they drive. It is like electric cigarettes. Governments claimed that they were taxing cigarettes to discourage their use rather than outlawing them. Now that tax revenues have decline, many states are moving to tax electronic cigarettes. Just follow the money. Those in government can never keep their hands out of your pocket.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com...crut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

Description

Title: An Audit of the Creation and Content of the HadCRUT4 Temperature Dataset
Author(s): John McLean (PhD)
Pages: 95 plus preamble and appendices (total 135)
Date: October 2018

SUMMARY:
This report makes more than 70 findings about areas of concern with the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset. These cover the entire process from the measurement of temperatures to the derivation of HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies. They relate to the inclusion of data that is obviously in error, inappropriate procedures, poor data processing and significant assumptions about a range of matters including basing conclusions on very little data.

Most of the findings increase the uncertainty in the data and therefore increase the error margin. One however shows that a common but flawed method of data adjustment creates a false warming trend from the adjustments alone. Another finding points out that when stations were closed rather than relocated any distortion in the data remains in the record. Errors are also identified in sea surface temperatures, including some created by a member of the team responsible for that data.

Ultimately it is argued that the flawed data casts doubt on the credibility of IPCC reports that rely on HadCRUT4 data (or earlier versions of the dataset). Due diligence of these matters by governments twenty or more years ago might have avoided poorly-justified policies on climate and energy.



DATA USED:
As downloaded from CRU and Hadley Centre on 26 Jan 2018

HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.median ascii

HadSST.3.1.1.0.median

HadSST.3.1.1.0.number of observations

CRUTEM.4.6.0.0.anomalies.txt

CRUTEM.4.6.0.0.nobs.txt

CRUTEM.4.6.0.0.station files

Assorted_global and hemispheric summary files



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
See appendices in document
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
2019 could be the hottest year in human history

Isabella O'Malley
Climate Change Reporter

Saturday, December 8, 2018, 8:08 PM - The influence of El Niño can be felt far and wide and heavy rainfalls, catastrophic flooding, and mass crop failures can all be attributed to this powerful climate cycle. Early compilations of 2018's data indicate that this year will likely become the fourth warmest on record, and the developing El Niño event is increasing the odds that 2019 will be the hottest year that human life has ever experienced.

There is an 80 per cent chance that an El Niño will form and a 55 to 60 per cent change that the event will continue into spring of 2019, according to the Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Climate scientists are closely monitoring how human-induced climate change influences El Niño, and research confirms that human-released greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have intensified El Niño events that can drive regional temperature extremes, destroy coral reefs, create droughts, and worsen wildfires.


Between November 4, 2018 and December 1, 2018 equatorial sea surface temperatures (SST) were above average across the Pacific Ocean. Credit: Climate Prediction Center/ NCEP

This study projects that the current rates of climate change will prolong weather extremes and natural disasters, which will increase human deaths caused by these conditions by 50 per cent on average from now until 2100, but could increase up to 300 per cent depending on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Five of the warmest years on NASA's record have happened since 2010, and a warmer atmosphere means stronger hurricanes, rising oceans, and longer heatwaves that burn hotter. Before the rapid atmospheric warming that has occurred since the turn of the century, a strong El Niño event from 1997 to 1998 claimed 24,000 lives globally, caused $34 billion USD in economic damages and loses, and required extensive international aid to respond to droughts, flooding, and fires in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. While this El Niño was exceptionally strong, this experience taught the world that each cycle can wreak havoc on the world's weather and cause conditions that have never been seen before.

On top of the dire prediction for record-breaking heat in 2019, the interaction between climate cycles and abnormally warm temperatures indicates that future El Niño events could severely worsen climate change impacts that virtually no country on Earth is prepared to face.

Some perilous climate battles that took place just a few months ago demonstrate that the increasing weather extremes cause human health emergencies and slam economies - heatwaves claimed thousands of lives and hospitalized even more, California had it's worst wildfire season on record as wildfires simultaneously burned in the Arctic Circle, and the combined costs of Hurricane Michael and Florence could total over $50 billion USD.

Residents escaping the Carr Fire that burned in Shasta and Trinity counties in California. The 2018 wildfire season is the most destructive and deadly wildfire season in the states record, with nearly 2 million acres burned. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Industries have taken note of the changing environmental conditions, and significant strides have been made to develop clean energy technologies, tackle pollution, and invest in conserving the natural environment. Even though renewable energies have boomed and coal production has possibly peaked, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel sources reached an all-time high in 2018. Fossil fuel sources make up approximately 90 per cent of all human-created emissions and over 37 billion tons were released, which is an increase of 2.7 per cent from 2017's emissions output.

HOW DOES EL NIÑO FORM?

El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which is the most influential climate pattern used in forecasting and can last from a number of months to three years.

This event occurs when temperatures along the equatorial region of the Pacific Ocean begin to warm and shift eastward along the equator. This movement of warm water towards the coast of South America also coincides with weakening prevailing trade winds, which sets off a feedback loop between the ocean and the atmosphere.


The typical effects of an El Nino on wintertime across North America. Credit: Climate.gov

The energy in this feedback loop fuels jet streams and causes their paths to shift eastward and influence the track of low and high pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere, typically resulting in temperature and precipitation changes for the months between December and February.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/2019-could-be-the-hottest-year-in-human-history-el-nino/119355/


The El Nino phenomenon, which occurs every three to five years, is caused by warmer water in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This water is warmer because as trade winds lessen or reverse their direction, winds from the west push warm surface water to the east in the direction of the continent of South America.


It all part of the natural process in the earth weather.
It is not climate it just weather!!


No big deal !!

Note how they predict that 2019 could be the hottest year in human history. Note the word could!!

By 2030 we will be in a middle of a mini ice age just like in past history we had the Liitle ice age

The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s.


Just look at my signature graph at Tertiary period temperature was even hotter as compare today.
Love their bullshit predict just like Manhatten will be underwater!!
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/nati...e/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
MIRANDA DEVINE, PerthNow
October 3, 2015 11:00am
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.


Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
Are you running that low on denier shite that you have to use 5 year old articles?
So sad, must be hard finding that crap now.

Oh wait, you've got 5 more copy and pastes of old, stupid, incoherent and idiotic claims.
Way to go!

How's that ice age you predicted would have started 4 years ago going?
Melting of Greenland's ice is 'off the charts,' study shows
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/worl...recedented-rate-climate-change-wxc/index.html

Not so well, eh?
Well, don't give up yet, you should still spend more time perfecting your igloo techniques, you'll need them.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,713
7,990
113
Toronto
Are you running that low on denier shite that you have to use 5 year old articles?
So sad, must be hard finding that crap now.

Oh wait, you've got 5 more copy and pastes of old, stupid, incoherent and idiotic claims.
Way to go!

How's that ice age you predicted would have started 4 years ago going?


Not so well, eh?
Well, don't give up yet, you should still spend more time perfecting your igloo techniques, you'll need them.
It is undeniable that if these studies he is bombarding us with were SO conclusive that there would be thousands and thousands of reputable scientists who's opinions would have been altered from believing in a temperature increasing climate change to agree with his theory. That is what happens. Scientists believe in facts that are verifiable and repeatable. I've asked about a half dozen times to provide a list of scientists who have made this conversion. He hasn't even shown us a list of 10 scientists who have gone on record as admitting that they and the other 90,000 scientists were wrong. Instead all we get is more of this drivel which you now point out is 5 years old, yet in that time all we keep seeing is record hot years almost every year. We see time lapse photos of the polar ice caps shrinking (including Tim Hortons ice caps). We see global representations showing at least half of the world is overheating and only 2% outside of the polar caps that are cold zones.

Guaranteed that he is posting studies of scientists that are getting paid by big oil/coal to find results that protect their huge profit businesses, exactly the same way that history has shown us the tobacco companies did that supposedly showed the minimal harmful effects of cigarettes. It is an obvious strategy. These multi-national companies have billions and billions of dollars to protect. Even the scientists in the global warming denying trump administration, produce studies confirming the warming and its' dire consequences as recently as a month ago. trump is trying to bring back jobs in the coal industry and would much prefer seeing studies debunking warming, but his own people can't do it.



https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=...aw2O9BjdObQDmE-Va2MueSWW&ust=1544609314401002
 

Fathammer

Banned
Mar 9, 2018
961
0
0
If we arent consistently breaking records daily, then there is NO weather change whether it be hot or cold.

The weather Network and your local news usually tell you what was the hottest or coldest days in history compared to today. Most will find that it was just as hot or cold 50 years ago.

How can scientists tell us the earth is warming if record keeping begun roughly 100 years ago? What are they basing their data on????

Also, these same scientists never seem to tell us that mass deforestation is also causing weather issues. we have no problem developing industry and homes but never replant what we cut down. But sure as hell the govt knows its us little people that are the culprits!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
If we arent consistently breaking records daily, then there is NO weather change whether it be hot or cold.

The weather Network and your local news usually tell you what was the hottest or coldest days in history compared to today. Most will find that it was just as hot or cold 50 years ago.

How can scientists tell us the earth is warming if record keeping begun roughly 100 years ago? What are they basing their data on????

Also, these same scientists never seem to tell us that mass deforestation is also causing weather issues. we have no problem developing industry and homes but never replant what we cut down. But sure as hell the govt knows its us little people that are the culprits!
Do some basic research, temp records have multiple sources, from human records to tree rings, to sediment, to ice cores and a host of others.
Deforestation is most definitely considered by climatologists.
The little people aren't the culprits, that's Exon, Shell, Mobile and a few other oil companies that have spent millions funding disinformation programs for the likes of pornaddict.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts