The "climate crisis" terrorism is a product of activists and mass media with a lot of money behind it!
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") reports do not define what a "climate crisis" means. The crisis that supposedly requires society to achieve zero carbon emissions or, at the very least, "net zero."
In contrast, the IPCC's latest Assessment Report ("AR6") published in 2021 points out that the corporate media's view of climate change has moved away from a neutral position by adopting and promoting terms such as "climate crisis", "global warming" and "climate emergency".
Such a statement by the IPCC should leave no doubt that the notion of an ongoing "climate crisis" is a joint product of climate activists and the click-hungry media, with no solid scientific basis, writes Aivar Usk.
So what does climate science tell us? Usk details his research on climate models, disaster scenarios and the imagined climate crisis, while giving us a reality check on what the climate records show, without the media hype. For example, "July 2023, dubbed 'Earth's hottest month on record,' may have had nearly the same number of warm and cold areas around the world compared to the time a decade earlier," he writes.
anazitiseis.gr/simantiko-o-ka
Climate models, disaster scenarios and the imagined climate crisis
By Aivar Usk
The term "climate crisis" is now a frequent feature in politicians' speeches and in the media, the "mitigation" of which is said to require society to achieve Net Zero carbon emissions.
However, in the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the latest AR6 Assessment Report (from 2021), prepared by the Science-Based Working Group on Climate Change (“WG1”), a vol. 2,409 pages entitled " Climate Change 2021. The Science Basis ", it points out that the media's treatment of climate change has moved away from the neutral position, adopting and promoting terms such as "climate crisis", "global warming" and "climate emergency". Such a statement by the IPCC should leave no doubt that the term "climate crisis" is a joint product of left-wing climate activists and the media to terrorize the world, without any scientific basis.
The term is also absent from the European Union's 2021 climate change law, even though the European Parliament already declared a climate and environmental emergency in November 2019.
A certain small percentage of warming of our planet's climate can indeed be detected if one chooses an appropriate starting point in the time series of recent temperatures. For example, comparing the current situation to the times at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, or 1880, or even the coldest period between 1944 and 1976.
Estimates of warming would be even more muted if the starting point of the time series was the 1877/1878 El Niño, the tropical weather phenomenon that caused the "year without a winter " and is the warmest recorded global temperature period.
However, looking back over the millennia, the hypothesis of an unprecedented warming of our times is contradicted by the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, not to mention the Holocene Optimum climate some 6,000 years ago.
Research over the next few years will show whether the warming recorded in 2023 was caused by a convergence of three factors, as many scientists have hypothesized: the proximity of the peak of the 25th cycle of solar activity, the strong tropical weather phenomenon El Niño, and the known record amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai submarine volcanic eruption.
The effect of anthropogenic CO 2 was continuous and could not have caused such rapid warming. One indisputable fact seems to be that the Earth has been significantly warmer than today for most of the past 500 million years , possibly even warmer than predicted for 2100, and has not caused irreversible tipping points in the climate system.
For example, data collected by NASA's AIRS satellites and published monthly on Dr. Ole Humlum, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Oslo, show that July 2023, falsely dubbed "Earth's hottest month on record", had almost the same number of warm and cold areas around the world compared to a decade earlier. Old papers don't let us forget the extreme weather conditions of almost a century ago, which make last year's summer pale in comparison to those times.
 |
| July 2023, dubbed "Earth's hottest month on record," had nearly the same number of warm and cold places around the world compared to a decade ago, as can be seen by looking at NASA AIRS satellite data posted on Climate4you .com . |
Essentially, scientists in different countries create their own climate models – the coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model AOGCM or GCM – to calculate projections of temperature, precipitation and other climate parameters, the results of which are then compared together to hopefully that the average of all representatives of the family of models can provide reliable information.
Scientists in different countries have very different views on the magnitude of the additional greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activities. Of course, the western countries that have a political agenda for the climate, present the size much larger.
There seems to be no consensus anywhere: while the Russian climate scientists who created the INM-CM4-8 model are convinced that the correct ECS is 1.8°C, the Chinese model CAMS-CSM1-0 uses 2.3° C, Norway's NorESM2-LM 2.5°C, Japan's MIROC6 uses 2.6 ºC and US NASA GISS-E2-1-G uses 2.7 ºC, while the US NCAR CESM2 model uses ECS 5, 2 ºC, the UK HadGEM3-GC35-LL ºC and the Canadian model CanESM5 uses 5.6 ºC ( McKitrick & Christy, 2020 ). There are many charlatans who would try to exploit such a confused and uncertain situation for political reasons.
In 2017, Dr. John R. Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in the US, showed to the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that there is a significant bias among the vast majority of representatives of the previous CMIP5 family of models, as well as on average, towards the excess warming relative to the observational data.
"Therefore, the model average is considered untrue in representing recent decades of climate variability and change, and would therefore be unsuitable for use in predicting future climate change or for related policy decisions," he concluded.
The warming bias of the current family of CMIP6 models has also been addressed by the modelers themselves , who have called some of the temperatures predicted by the models "horrifyingly divergent and wrong".
An article by Dr. Zeke Hausfather et al. in the scientific journal Nature in May 2022 warned that some of the latest climate models look "much warmer" and predict climate warming in response to higher CO 2 emissions than other evidence supports. It was also noted that already published research findings claiming that the effects of climate change will be "worse than we thought" are often attributed to CMIP6's "hot" models.
The inability to make reliable future predictions can be seen as evidence that climate modelers do not have a proper understanding of the nature of climate processes. Specifically, they are criticized for insufficiently addressing the effects of the Sun, clouds and volcanic activity.
Scientists fueling the crisis narrative generally avoid direct debate, but in the few public debates that have taken place, scientists from the climate realist camp have presented more persuasive arguments ( 2018 , 2023 ).
Dissenting voices are mostly suppressed or ignored, with activists constantly trying to label them as "paid for by the fossil fuel industry" or even "conspiracy theorists", without even qualifying as climate scientists to to have an opinion on the subject. Even a Nobel laureate in physics is unable to understand climate science and express credible critical opinions on the subject – unless he is certified by climate activists. Does this remind you of something?
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, an American climate scientist with a long-standing NASA background, compared the predictions of the latest generation of climate models with the observed history to date and found that during the period 1979-2022, global warming was projected to be averaged by CMIP6 models exceeded the balloon meteorological record by 43% and the satellite record by 75%.
After a brief review of other relevant factors, Dr. Spencer summarizes the article by stating: "Given these uncertainties, policymakers must proceed cautiously and not allow themselves to be swayed by exaggerated claims based on demonstrably flawed climate models ."
Screenwriters and Directors
I feel it appropriate to conclude with a quote from one of the official reviewers of the IPCC's third assessment report, TAR – Estonian-born professor from the University of Toronto, Olev Träss, who said in an interview with the Postimees newspaper :
“ The question is whether we should reduce carbon dioxide and put a lot of money into it – I would never do it. I am quite convinced, and I feel I am on the right track, that the effect of carbon dioxide is very small. The entire scientific community with whom we are having this discussion, even at the University of Toronto, is largely of the same opinion – we are convinced that this green agenda is really a political fraud .'
Looking at the growing number of signatures of publicly dissenting scientists on the Global Climate Declaration , it seems evident that every constitutionally democratic state must distance itself from the cult of the climate crisis, stop selectively listening to scientists and reassess the need for the climate. Abandoning utopian and costly human climate action, and leaving humanity free from motivated science and technology.
source:
