A sensational science paper has blown holes in alarmist claims that
global temperatures are surging. Just published results in Nature show “limited evidence”
for a warming surge. “In most surface temperature time series, no
change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the
breaking record temperatures observed in 2023,” the paper says. Written
by an international group of mathematicians and scientists, it is
unlikely to be acknowledged in the mainstream media where general
hysteria reigns over the anomalous 2023 experience. As we have seen,
constant misinformation is published to scare the general public and
this is exemplified by climate comedy-turn Jim ‘jail the deniers’ Dale
forecasting almost daily Armageddon and exhorting people to “join up the
dots”.
In science, one swallow does not make a summer and in
climate science it is impossible to show a trend by picking on short
periods or individual weather events. This paper is an excellent piece
of climate science work since it takes the long statistical view and
challenges the two-a penny clickbait alarmists looking for a headline on
the BBC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a biased body
but it understands the importance of long-term climate trends by
stating, much to the chagrin of Net Zero-promoting activists, that it
can find little or no human involvement in most extreme weather events
either in the past or in the likely immediate future. But these
findings, along with the paper on the warming trend, are inconvenient to
those promoting the unproven claim that humans control the climate
thermostat by utilising hydrocarbons.
The paper is highly technical and mathematically-inclined readers can study the full workings out in the open access publication.
It notes that global temperature datasets fluctuate due to short-term
variability and this often creates the appearance of surges and
slowdowns in warming. It is important to consider random noise caused by
natural variation when investigating the recent pauses in temperature
and the more recent “alleged warming acceleration”, it adds. In fact
there have been a number of plausible explanations given for the recent
spike, with attention focused on the massive Hunga Tonga submarine
volcano adding 13% extra water vapour to the stratosphere, a strong El
Niño and even the reduction in atmospheric particulates caused by recent
changes in shipping vessel fuel. Several “changepoints” were used by
the mathematicians and it was found that “a warming surge could not be
reliably detected any time after 1970”.
While the focus was on
whether there had been a continued acceleration in the rate of global
warming, it was recognised how unusual the surface temperature anomalies
were in 2023. Indeed they were, and it was widely argued that this
showed the climate was breaking down, or in the silly words of the UN
chief Antonio Guterres that the planet was “boiling”. Last year’s
hysterics were useful for short-term alarmism but they help destroy the
‘settled’ science around CO2. If human-caused CO2 is responsible for the
rise, why did the temperature pause from 1998-2012 when atmospheric
levels of the gas were on the up. Does alarmism on the BBC and most
other mainstream media only apply when the temperatures spikes upwards
for a few months?
One of the key conclusions in the paper arises
from considering two time series – 1970-2023 and 2013-2023. This of
course includes the early 1970s when global cooling fears were all the
rage and average temperatures were falling. Estimated temperature trends
were said to be 0.019°C per year for the first time segment and 0.029°C
for the second that includes the spike from last year. This 0.029°C
estimated slope “falls far short” of an increase needed to point to a
change in the warming trend in the recent past. This is because of
short-term variability in the U.K. Met Office HadCRUT global database
since 1970 and “uncertainty” of the 2012 changepoint. This uncertainty
arises over speculation as to whether 2012 and the ending of the pause
was a year marking an important change in the longer time series. ”The
HadCRUT record is simply not long enough for the surge to be
statistically detectable at this time,” they note....<<<Read More>>>...