.
.
According to NOAA’s ENSO blog triple dip La Ninas are now on the menu of imminent possibilities.
The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. But as an overview consider how recent rapid cooling has now completely overcome the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016). The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November, 2021 and now in January and February 2022. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020).
For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa. While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~55 ppm, a 15% increase.
Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.
The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby. These graphs use Hadcrut4 and…
View original post 1,147 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
‘For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.’
Thank you. It provides the critical perspective, falsifying CO2 based global warming.
when I come across a warmist on other blogs I easily falsify their nonsense about “catastrophic” anthropogenic global warming. I just ask them to do some grade school math by subtracting the raw temperature from the “adjusted” and published temperature and graph that.
Next, on the same graph, graph the CO2 concentration (with adjusted scaling of course). What becomes patently obvious to even the biggest Satanic Gases believer is that the adjustments follow the CO2 when the adjustments ought to be nearly constant.The more CO2, the higher the adjustments.
Finally I have them plot the radiosonde, the satellite, and then the surface ‘adjusted’ temperatures. The first two closely follow each other while the third is divorced from the other two by the adjustments. Guess which set the media and the rent seekers use to threaten end of the world scenarios.
It’s all just a massive scam to gain political control of our lives while vacuuming our wallets.
“When the media reduces tentative hypotheses to simplified yes/no results, people notice if the answer changes (When are masks necessary? Do I need to sterilize grocery bags? Could COVID-19 have come from a lab?). This reduction also happens for financial or political gain, and often with at least acquiescence by scientists (fame, grants, and awards are enticing). The “science is settled” trope is stretched much too far (and not just with COVID), and it costs credibility. For decades, we were told “science” had proven that dietary cholesterol was a major contributor to heart disease, yet that work has now been almost completely discredited. The former editor of BMJ recently asked if it is “time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise” (3). Dozens of decades-old failed apocalyptic predictions about climate change were presented as “science says,” but were always low-probability outcomes.
More recently, hundreds of climate change papers included the IPCC “business as usual” scenario (commonly called “RCP8.5”), which was intentionally constructed as a very unrealistic worst case. Even if other cases were considered in the papers, this case dominated the media coverage; any caveats in the manuscripts did not survive. Projections rely largely on climate models, and the factor of three variation in predicted warming from these models (4, 5) amounts to tens of trillions of dollars of societal costs. Thus, most models must be significantly wrong about impact. Does that sound like “the science is settled?”
So, how can we blame the public for being skeptical about scientific findings? Scientists look like just another special interest group, pushing an agenda. Scientific societies, by and large, do not help change this perception. AAAS (publisher of Science Advances) does attempt to communicate uncertainty to the press, including through its Science Press Package team, and AAAS Sciline.org helps match reporters to scientific experts. And yet, scientific societies are commonly perceived as lobbying groups, with some justification. They are mostly headquartered in Washington for a reason, and I can’t remember the last time one of them said some specific subfield was adequately funded.
We can’t change the way reporters or politicians repackage scientific findings, at least not quickly. Solving this problem starts with scientists (and our societies) making a concerted effort to talk about uncertainty, and about uncertainty not being an excuse for inaction. The public understands uncertainty; we buy insurance even though we might not need it (but we apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much we are willing to pay).
In my role at Science Advances, I understand the pressure to claim settled significance and impact, and I thank reviewers for pushing back. But after the scientific paper is published, every publicity step reduces the likelihood that the uncertainty associated with the findings will be conveyed to readers. For example, despite efforts of the Science Press Package team to highlight our work in the Science Advances mask paper as done in only a small number of people, the (massive) press coverage focused on precise mask rankings we never claimed, and trivial differences were turned into artificial controversies. In hindsight, most coverage was taken from Duke University’s press release, not the paper, and we should have been more circumspect, recognizing that some reporters who cover science issues have little science background.
If scientists want the public to trust what they say, then we must critically address how well we know what we claim, present counterarguments when there is a controversy, and actively advocate for free and open discussion of scientific issues. Unless we stop calling people who do not buy premature “consensus” deniers and stop accusing them of spreading misinformation and bias, count on “trust in science” continuing to decline when we inevitably get things wrong. Just don’t blame the science for that.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6347
Today there has been an interesting article in Sputnik – https://archive.ph/a6YL5 “1,700-Year-Old Reindeer Hunters’ Arrows, Other Stunning Finds Revealed By Melting Glaciers in Norway”
Which simply means, that present “oh so catastrophic” glacier melting is starting to reveal places, which 1700 years ago were not under the ice…
Somehow similar as retreating glaciers in Alaska reveal remains of tree trunks…
Rather it seems the world is rather slowly recovering after the last little ice age to the “Normal”…
πα½
1700 years ago was a century past the Roman warm period. The next Eddy peak (warm periods) will be just past this century. Then —— likely like as it has been in the past 8k years (and in past four glacial periods).
It seems the Norway find dates back to 2013.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/melting-snow-reveals-ancient-bow-arrows-norway-191154113.html
MARCH 15, 2022
Ancient El Niños reveals limits to future climate projections
by University of Texas at Austin
“Scientists need to keep pushing the limits of models and look at geological intervals deeper in time that could offer clues on how sensitive El Niño is to changes in climate,” said co-author Pedro DiNezio, an associate professor at University of Colorado Boulder. “Because if there’s another big El Niño, it’s going to be very hard to attribute it to a warming climate or to El Niño’s own internal variations.”
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-el-nios-reveals-limits.html
‘it’s going to be very hard to attribute it to a warming climate or to El Niño’s own internal variations’ – Of course, because one is a total guess and the other is an observation.
Sometime after a ten state vacation, including driving through Utah and taking pictures of amazing mountains, I knew we aren’t that smart. At home, for fun, I did some simple calculations regarding air, land, water, and vegetation amounts, did a little research, listened, observed, and looked up honest scientists’ papers and speeches. It’s quite fascinating. I don’t think, even in another thousand years, will we really understand the incredible makeup of the Earth and all that occurs. However, we will learn more.