Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs II?
OPPS-25 This post is just a remake of last week’s post (OPS-71 – Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs?). The data and structure have just been modified to reflect a more political approach. While the data presented in the attached links is still valid and gathered from reliable sources, there will be more of my own opinions.
#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata
So, let’s get right into it. Justin Trudeau constantly lets us know that he follows “the science” (which I must assume is primarily the IPCC (and their contributors)). What he does not tell us is that “the IPCC science” has many self-acknowledged and/or implied problems (summarized below, with additional discussion on the attached slide, associated links, and my last post (OPS-71). Note, everyone is welcome to replace Justin Trudeau with their favorite alarmist (political or otherwise). The same discussion applies.
- There is no scientific proof (i.e.: empirical data) that backs up the CAGW alarmist narrative.
- The IPCC uses a CO2 Climate Sensitivity that ranges from 1.8 to 5.7 °C. They obviously do not know the value (i.e.: the sensitivity science is not settled).
- The climate models run too hot (based on the modeler’s self acknowledgement and their data).
- The IPCC still uses emission scenarios that have low likelihood of happening and are realistically implausible. Note, even a reasonable emission scenario (ssp2-4.5) runs too hot.
- The IPCC’s “official” temperature projection is an average of all their models. All the models are wrong since they all run too hot. Averaging wrong projections does not produce a correct answer.
- The IPCC knowingly ignores the solar forcings that are built into the newest programming protocol (CMIP6). On a related front, the IPCC is ignoring the current Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) forecasted by many Astro/solar physicists (including NOAA).
- The IPCC also ignores the satellite temperature data (a more accurate temperature measurement/estimate than the estimated surface data). NOAA has recently recalibrated their satellite data (STAR) and now corroborate the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), and the radiosonde (weather balloon) data.
I am not going into a detailed discussion here since I just laid that out in my last post (OPS-71). But I will take another poke at Justin since I assume he is not just listening to the IPCC. He must also be listening to our own Canadian scientists as well. And if he is listening to them, I am very surprised that they still have jobs. Using a reasonable emission scenario (ssp2-4.5), the Canadian models forecast a temperature in 2100 that is 2.6 times higher than the UAH and STAR extrapolations. That difference explodes to 4.7 times using the ssp5-8.5 emission scenario. That also assumes that we can ignore the cooling effects associated with the forecasted GSM, the 30 year cooling phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), the impending Beaufort Gyre (cold, fresh water) release into the North Atlantic, and the 220 year cooling cycle we are entering based on work done by Professor David Dilley relating global temperatures to the lunar cycles (discussed in my CSS-39 – WMO – Global Warming post).
As I pointed out in my last post, “You do not have to understand climate science, to understand that there are some serious problems with the CAGW alarmist narrative. They are operating on a narrative that has no scientific proof behind the premise, they are using computer models that run too hot and emission scenarios that are implausible, all to justify “green” initiatives that offer no economic, societal, or even environmental gain.”
There is no reality where we should be basing our climate (energy, financial, food, medical, etc.) policy on computer models that are self-acknowledged to be wrong on so many levels. We are borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a problem that does not appear to even exist (by their own admission). That unnecessary, debilitating financial burden will be carried by our children and grandchildren.
Justin, science does not back up your ideological, dangerous pet “climate” projects. Fix the real problems we are experiencing now (in our own country) and delay the UN/WEF agendas that you are being spoon fed. Step up and be a leader, not a puppet. Surprise me.
Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion. Roughly the same list that was included in OPS-71. CSS-39 – WMO Global Warming Propaganda and the SSP discussion were added.
DKRZ Website – Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) Discussion
https://www.dkrz.de/en/communication/climate-simulations/cmip6-en/the-ssp-scenarios
Open Letter Addendum
Then THEY Came For Me
Climate Short Story (CSS)
CSS-7 – CO2 – The FECKLESS Greenhouse Gas
CSS-21 – CO2 – Visualized Temperature Contribution
CSS-25 – Incremental Homogenization – HadCRUT4 to HadCRUT5
CSS-27 – Is CO2 Really the Primary Climate Driver
CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2
CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models
CSS-39 – WMO – Global Warming Propaganda
CSS-40 – Satellite Temperature Comparisons
One Page Political Summary (OPPS)
OPPS-22 – Parliamentary Budget Office – Climate & GDP
OPPS-23 – PBO – Trudeau’s Business Acumen
One Page Summary (OPS)
OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model
OPS-52 – Solar Activity – NOAA Forecast
OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science
OPS-71 – Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs?
Political Short Story (PSS)
PSS-4 – Who is Justin Listening To?
