Data Extrapolations Show That the Era of Global Boiling Has Arrived

CSS-49 I went back and forth between calling this a political or a climate science post. I have chosen to leave the post in the science category and make the reader aware that there is some sarcastic humour applied to make some relevant points on empirical data presentation and interpretation. The underlining theme is the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres’ recent statement that “the era of global boiling has arrived”. The statement itself is totally irresponsible and unrealistic but can be backed up by “the science”. Of course, some censorship and ideological push back may be required to maintain that narrative.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

We have certainly experienced higher temperatures than normal at some places in the world this summer/fall. That is about to change, but for the purposes of this post we will ignore that coming change. Also, for the record, I have been risking my life writing this post in Palm Springs immersed in temperatures of over 40 °C. My sacrifice is your gain. My apologies for the digression. The first slide (CSS-49a) provides the scientific backup for Guterres’s statement. The temperature anomalies (based on the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data) has increased from a -0.4 °C in January 2023 to a record (satellite era) high of 0.90 °C. Extrapolating that data gets you to the boiling point somewhere around 2086. For Guterres’ statement to be true, this must be “the science” he is relying on.

In the real world, no one believes that the current temperature trend will continue indefinitely. But that technique is routinely used by the alarmist community, just not as blatantly/sardonically as I have shown here. The second slide (CSS-49b) shows the sea level data. The fact checking community will point to the data from 1960 to the present to argue that sea level rise is accelerating due to rising CO₂ emissions and atmospheric concentrations. That is cherry picking the data. The data pre-1960 is totally ignored in that scenario. An almost identical acceleration profile exists from 1900 to 1960. Only 15.4% of human CO₂ emissions occurred from 1900 to 1960 versus 81.9% from 1960 to 2022. Note, that leaves just 2.6% pre-1900. A similar truncated acceleration profile is also present pre-1900. Those three consolidated acceleration profiles combine to produce a linear sea level rise trend beginning back around 1856. The probable cause of the obvious 30-year deceleration and acceleration cycles is the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO, with contributions from other ocean cycles).

So, is CO₂ contributing? Maybe, but most of whatever CO₂ contribution there is would be over the 1960 to the present period. We also must consider that the natural forces that caused the 1900 to 1960 acceleration profile were also still active and could have caused most of, if not all the acceleration from 1960 to the present. So, pre-1960, our CO₂ contribution certainly appears to be relatively insignificant. And we have not yet addressed the elephant in the room. Sea Levels were declining pre-1856 and then suddenly began rising. CO₂ concentrations are virtually flat pre-1900 and are therefore not responsible for either the declining sea levels (and global temperatures) nor the abrupt change in sea level direction. I have looked at this data in more detail in several posts linked below. The alarmist narrative has never incorporated all the data in their evaluation. This is just one example that shows CO₂ does not correlate with Sea Level changes (and indirectly global temperatures).

Slide 3 (CSS-49c) brings the government influence into the discussion. Forest Fire data in the US provides the best example. The Biden administration has removed all the data pre-1983 from the official record. Conveniently, 1983 represents the general low in historical US acreage burnt. The pre-1983 data is very inconvenient for the alarmist narrative. Significantly more US acreage was burnt pre-1983 than post-1983. Note, even the “official” US data is not cooperating with the alarmist narrative. US acreage burnt has declined since 2004, with 2023 likely headed to the lowest levels this century (2.55 million acres). Canada has certainly had a record and devastating burn year (18.5 million hectares). But that number must be taken in context. In 2020, we had a record low year (0.23 million hectares) and the overall trend was down. CO₂ did not suddenly kick into gear and set Canada on fire. Many much more important factors led to this year’s circumstances. And we still must remember “climate change” is a global issue. We have had satellites operating since the 1970s. According to NASA, global fire acreage burnt is less than 1.0% and has been steadily declining despite rising CO₂ levels.

The fourth slide (CSS-49d) highlights the most egregious example of cherry picking employed by the alarmist community (including the IPCC). The IPCC’s mandate requires them to focus on anthropogenic (i.e.: human) causes. Unfortunately, the anthropogenic causes cannot be understood until the natural forcings are understood. The IPCC is a governmental organization, not a scientific organization. The solar contribution to climate change has been virtually ignored (or more accurately aggressively deep sixed) throughout the IPCC’s existence. Almost all the energy that fuels our planet’s atmospheric and oceanic cycles comes from the sun. Volcanic activity may also be a significant, underappreciated player in those cycles. So why are our governments not actively supporting research into those areas of climate science? Well, put simply that type of research does not fit with the alarmist narrative.

Despite the headwinds, that research is getting done. The two papers presented here are just the latest examples. Nicola Scafetta’s 2023 paper “Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records” shows that most of the modern warming can be explained by solar activity. More recently, Soon, Connolly& Connolly et al put forward a paper “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data” that details the significant role of solar activity and the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) on climate. I am not breaking down these papers in this post. But their conclusions are consistent with the available empirical data. In past posts, I have shown that the modern warming can be modeled without CO₂ contribution using just the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Details in my OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model and Open Letter Addendum posts. Note, CO₂ is contributing but likely at minor levels.

I have also put forward a relatively simple model (detailed in my CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂ post) that uses TSI (again as a proxy), AMO and CO₂ to approximate the much longer Central England Temperature (1659 to the present). CO₂ (on its own) is totally unable to match these historical temperatures. However, the TSI, AMO and CO₂ together produce a reasonable match. But as with all things climate, these three components are just pieces of a much more complicated story. A story that goes far beyond the simplistic, unscientific alarmist narrative, “all CO₂, all the time”. A narrative that absolutely depends on climate models that self-admittedly run way too hot and use high emission scenarios that have a low likelihood of ever happening.

The Scafetta and Soon, Connolly, Connolly et al papers are just the most recent examples of applied science that takes the alarmist community head on. The likes of Gavin Schmidt (NASA/GISS) and Michael Mann (University of Pennsylvania) have taken to social media and behind the scenes actions reminiscent of the Climategate era to speak out against these very well qualified climate scientists. A scientific approach would involve open and civil debate. Unfortunately, a process that died a long time ago in the climate science realm (along with many other political charged sciences). The preferred method now is ad hominem attacks and overt censorship. A recipe for disaster that is unfortunately supported by far too many of our global political “leaders”.

For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can check out some of the following posts.

Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172?via%3Dihub

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

Open Letter – Addendum

Addendum

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model

Basic Climate Model

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-17 – Forest Fires – March 2022

Forest Fires – March 2022

CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂

Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2

CSS-42 – The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023

The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023

CSS-46 – Sea Level – Fact Check

Sea Level – Fact Check

CSS-47 – CO₂ and Sea Level DO NOT Correlate

CO2 and Sea Level DO NOT Correlate

One Page Political Summary (OPPS)

OPPS-27 – A Single Event is NOT a Trend

A Single Event is NOT a Trend