Due to the unexpected success of my last article and to the interest expressed by some readers from both sides of the Atlantic, please find below an update of its sources:
- On the global warming “hiatus”: please see the temperature graph below with satellite data since they began (1979) and, further below, quotes from a scientific study published by Nature and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The graph shows the difference (called “anomaly”) between each year’s temperature and the average temperature for the period (source: UAH – University of Alabama Hunstsville-, the authority on satellite temperature data interpretation, published on the web of arguably one of the world’s expert on the issue, Dr. Roy Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com ). The red line is a moving average, while the blue line shows the temperature anomaly each year. Temperature has increased at an annual rate of 0.015°C throughout the period, but since 1998 there seems to be no significant trend.
- “Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming” (Nature 501, 403-407, Nov. 2013). The article blamed it on the surface cooling of the Pacific Ocean.
- The overwhelming evidence obliged the IPCC to address the issue on its Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group 1, p. 61), under the title “Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 years”. It came short of acknowledging a stop in global warming, but accepted a reduced temperature increase trend of 0.004°C per year. Please note that those who make a living out of the climate change hysteria need to deny the “Hiatus” in spite of the evidence, for it weakens the CO2 causality (CO2 continued increasing through those 15 years).
- On extreme events (hurricanes, floods, droughts…): IPCC’s Fifth Assessment (2014) is the latest published so far, based on “more recent research”, and substitutes and prevails over the old ones, as is as obvious as it is well known. It means a correction of its Fourth Report (2007), which, as they now acknowledge, was too alarmist in many aspects (possibly to support Al Gore’s 2006 fiction documentary, full of catastrophic images).
- “Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” (IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1 report, Chapter 2.6, p. 216).
- “More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin” (IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1 report, Chapter 2.6, p. 217).
- “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low” (IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1 report, Chapter 2.6, p. 220).
- “There continues to be a lack of evidence (…) regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” (IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1 report, Chapter 2.6, p. 214).
- “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century (…). Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated” (IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1 report, Chapter 2.6, p. 215).
- “My own research, cited in a recent IPCC report, found that during the past half-century tropical storms and hurricanes have not shown an upward trend in frequency or accumulated energy. Instead they remain naturally variable from year-to-year. The global prevalence of the most intense storms (Category 4 and 5) has not shown a significant upward trend either” (Climate Change Hype Doesn’t Help, Dr. Ryan Maue, Wall Street Journal, September 17th 2017).
- On deforestation: a well-known fact, the unbiased study published by Nature states that forest cover is increasing around the world, whereas UN’s FAO, an advocate of environmentalist agendas, prefers to say that deforestation has been reduced to a 0.08% rate every five years, so irrelevant a rate that it would take 1,000 years to lose half the world’s forests.
- “The forest area net change rate: at global level, the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 percent in the 1990s to 0.08 percent over the last five-year period.” (2018 UN’s FAO report The State of the World’s Forests, p. 60).
- “Here we analyze 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that (…) tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level)”. (Nature volume 560, pages 639–643, Aug 8th 2018, Abstract)
- Also cited in https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html (last checked 9/12/19).
- On the fires in the Amazon basin and the “lungs of the world” myth:
- “As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years” (NASA website).
Please note that the first version of the text read “slighted below average” (checked Aug 18th) – and then was updated on Aug 22nd to the more politically correct “close to average”, suspiciously without specifying whether “close” means above or below average.
- Daniel Nepstad, founder of the Earth Innovation Institute, has worked in the Brazilian Amazon for more than 30 years, published more than 160 papers and books and was a Lead Author of the IPCC, Fifth Assessment (WG2, Chapter 4). When asked in an interview on Aug 25th 2019 “Is the Amazon the lungs of the world?” his answer was: “It’s bullshit. There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash”.
Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo