Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

More indications of NO developing Climate Emergency, it seems that global warming rate is in slow decline for 18 years.

WUWT?

Good 2022 Climate News the MSM didn’t tell you

January 7, 2023

Guest Post by Javier Vinós

Excerpt:

No minimally informed person denies that climate changes. The climate has always changed. Since 1860 the predominant climate change has been warming, which is fortunate because if we had a winter like those of 1800-1850, we would be in for a shock. No one has been able to prove that global warming is primarily a consequence of our emissions. It is reasonable to assume that increased CO2 has contributed to warming since the mid-20th century when our CO2 emissions increased significantly, but no one knows how much they have contributed, no matter how much the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that “humans are the dominant cause of observed global warming over recent decades.” (IPCC AR6, page 515).

There is no evidence for this statement. I know this because I have read thousands of scientific papers looking for it. And no, computer models are not evidence of anything but the programming skills of their authors. Models and their predictions are constantly changing and when our knowledge of climate changes, they must be redone.

The absolute lack of evidence contrasts sharply with the decision to cut our CO2 emissions to zero by completely changing our fossil fuel-based energy system and calling CO2 a pollutant—when it is as essential to life as oxygen. All this while most of the world doesn’t give a damn about emissions and many are only on board for the promised money.

To get to the good news about global warming we need to look at variations in the rate of global warming, i.e., the speed of warming. Today we are going to use satellite-calculated global temperature data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, UAH 6.0. They are plotted in Figure 1.

LINK

======

Warming rate is declining since 1994.

Arctic ice decline rate is zero in last 16 years.

Sea level rise has been in decline for 10 years.

Major Hurricane/Tropical storm rate, duration and strength in slow decline since 1998.

The rate of CO2 emissions has almost doubled while warming rate has declined for 18 years now.

 

Watts Up With That?

Climate Embarrassment: Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Hoax but Global Warming is Real

From the Air Vent

Jeff ID

Excerpt:

Observation is the key to scientific study. When you observe that a released apple falls to the ground, this observation has more meaning than any theory of spontaneous levitation that ever existed. Such observations have led us to recognize and attempt to quantify the laws of physics in the forms of mathematical equations. These equations are not really perfect reflections of reality, but rather are our best match of understanding to observation. I will give an unquestioned and well observed effect that I think most people can understand.

LINK

==========

Still NO Climate Emergency developing when will the perpetually pessimistic climate cult give up and grow up to the reality around them?

Still no counterpoint to the CONTENT of post one article either after 551 posts.... yet warmist/alarmists still beating the drums of a climate delusion because they have been brainwashed so well.

===

Then we have this awful news in America


LINK

 

As increased temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle by increasing evaporation, we can expect that precipitation has increased on average over the whole world since the Little Ice Age. Of course some places will be drier just through random statistical variation, but the overall average is wetter. Which is a good thing.

 

The numbers do not tell an alarmist story.
The Global Emissions Experiment: A 33-Year Audit
Guest Blogger
How, then, have the excitable predictions of the profiteers of doom panned out during the 33-year experiment in ever-increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? . . . .

 

2022 Data Are In: Pacific Typhoon Trend Continues To Drop, Alarmist Claims Contradicted!
By P Gosselin on 13. January 2023

Share this...
Pacific typhoons formed and those making landfall in Japan both have seen no rising trend for the past 70 years.

Charts by Kirye

Now that all the data are in for 2022, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) presents the latest data for Pacific typhoons. Their data go back more than 70 years, to 1951.

First we look at the latest data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for the number of typhoons formed annually in the Pacific since 1951.



Data source: JMA.

Contrary to the claims often heard from alarmists that typhoons are getting worse and more frequent, the trend has been clearly downward since the globe has warmed nearly 1°C. This is good news. No crisis here. . . .

 

The political motivations of climate nonsense. In other words, it's a rich person's game.

https://share.newsbreak.com/2t5v6blx

 

There is obviously nothing unusual about this warming period. Nothing at all. Moving on...

 

That is just Lyin' Michael Mann's absurd and disingenuous anti-science trash. The "reconstructed" temperatures are concocted using invalid "proxies" that are in fact not sensitive to temperature, and thus do not show the global temperature variations that are definitely known to have occurred based on more valid proxy data as well as written historical accounts. Then when the proxies used for the "reconstruction" also show minimal modern warming, they are removed from the graph and replaced with instrumental data uncorrected for increased urban heating, land use changes, etc. that cause instruments at most sites to record increased temperatures that are not recorded at pristine sites that have not seen such changes. It's not science, just pure deceit.

 

I suggest you take up your thesis with ipcc.

Changes in global surface temperature as reconstructed (between 1-2000) and observed (between 1850-2020). IPCC 2021


https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

 

Paleoclimate malpractice has metastasized to the IPCC.
The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick
Aug 11, 2021 – 3:14 PM
Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter – the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks: lo and behold, Figure 1a of its newly minted Summary for Policy-makers contains what else – a hockey stick diagram. If you thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick was bad, imagine a woke hockey stick by woke climate scientists. As the climate scientists say, it’s even worse that we thought. . . .

 

I don't read denialist blogs any more. Ipcc takes in all arguments but the blogs only cherry-pick. They also misrepresent papers that they quote from, eliminating key findings and discussion etc.

Finally, the fact that they are confined to blogs and Twitter rants says it all.

 

No quote or location from your link to show where you got that chart thus worthless.

From the Climate Audit link you refused to read:

Grafting monthly/yearly resolution temperature data onto low to very low-resolution PROXY data is fraud!

Thus, the chart is garbage anyway and probably not in your IPCC link either.

You started with nothing end up with nothing.

 

You didn't make any valid argument since you fell for a worthless chart that misuse data to build that bogus chart.

No you didn't provide a counterpoint thus your opinion isn't persuasive thus you started with nothing you end up with nothing.

 

Most warmist/alarmists don't even know that the Bristlecone Pine Tree Ring data that Dr. Mannfraud use as temperature proxy were actually from Graybill/Isdo paper which were proxy for CO2 fertilization effect on tree growth.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

Found this revealing comment from your link:

Stephen McIntyre

Posted Aug 13, 2021 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

In order to achieve a convincing reconstruction of temperature from proxies, you need (in my opinion) to have a “good” class of proxy. “Good” in this sense means (for me) a proxy that is widely replicated, yields consistent results, is minimally subject to cross factors. If you have a network of “consistent” proxies, you won’t need any sort of fancy multivariate method to extract the “signal”: it will be plain as the nose on your face and require nothing more than simple averaging.

At the AGU convention in 2006, I met Valerie Masson-Delmotte, now an IPCC luminary (also a very decent person), who asked me to review an article for CP that was then under assault from Mann. She thought that our critique of Mann and similar studies was convincing. She thought that the field would need to develop new proxies in order to circumvent that critique and that the effort might take 10-20 years. Another similarly prominent scientist, who asked to be anonymous, sought me out to say the same thing.

Fifteen years has now passed and the 2000-year paleoclimate folks are still using the same proxies as Mann was using – lots of tree rings, with a sprinkling of ad hoc and questionable singletons. The lack of progress has been disappointing.

I suspect (but do not know) that Masson-Delmotte’s present view, in her capacity as a private scientist, would probably not have changed much, but, in her capacity as a senior IPCC Working Group official, she is bound by the scientific literature, which continues to produce intellectually turgid material.

=========

Anyone who still thinks the IPCC is a holy book should be ashamed of themselves while the evidence of NO climate crisis developing is overwhelming, but that reality doesn't work with people laboring under delusions.

The climate in my region is the same as it was in 1964 when I moved there still has the same Koppen climate classification of BSk.

Post one articles CONTENT remains completely avoided by warmist/alarmists the world over thus unchallenged and therefore still valid.

 

Oh if the chart is bogus then how can you say that it misuses data?

 

Denialists hate charts.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. Ignorance is a prison.
And no, the IPCC does not take in all arguments. If that were the case they would not still be featuring reconstructions using proxies the NAS recommended against in 2007.

 

It is bogus BECAUSE it misuses data by combining Proxies with low resolution (decades to centuries) with monthly/yearly resolution data from 1850.

You ignored this part which indicate that you don't understand why it is junk.

You still didn't post the link showing where this fraudulent chart came from.

 

Sigh no one here disputes that it has been warming since around 1690 and also from 1979 onwards thus your post was dead on arrival.

But it has been COOLING since 2016 and pause for about 10 years which you didn't address.

The New Pause lengthens: 100 Months with No Warming At All



The graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies. The least-squares method was recommended by Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia as a reasonable method of showing the trend on stochastic temperature data.

LINK

===

Sea level rate is declining slowly.

Warming rate has been declining since 1994.

Figure 2. Evolution of the warming rate for 15-year periods between 1979 and 2022 in °C/decade and its linear trend, from monthly UAH 6.0 satellite temperature data.

LINK

===

No Tropospheric Hot Spot.
No Positive Feedback Loop.

Arctic Sea ice decline has stopped after 2007.

You have yet to make a true counterpoint to anything here and you still continue to ignore Post One article and its CONTENT thus you are batting ZERO.

 

If the science is settled as they have been claiming for many years, why are we still getting new IPCC reports?

 

Your use of the term, "denialist" to smear climate realism proves, repeat, PROVES you are anti-science.

No, the IPCC ruthlessly excises all data and research that contradicts the CO2-centered narrative. They also misrepresent papers that they quote from, eliminating key findings and discussion etc.

What really says it all is that that is, inevitably, just another bald falsehood from you. Many climate realist papers that challenge CO2-centered climate theory have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are just ignored by the mainstream media and IPCC who are your only sources of information.

 

What would be the point? The IPCC has already proved they are not open to peer-reviewed empirical research findings that prove the CO2-centered narrative is objectively false, so they certainly aren't going to listen to arguments based on reason.

 

No, you made that up. Climate realists have no objection to charts that show valid data and make things easier to understand. For example, without going into detail on the validity of the data used, the chart you posted seems to show the sustained multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century warming the earth following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, during which the sun was extremely inactive.

 

Huh? It's bogus because it misuses data, and I explained exactly how.