and Pierre Gosselin
Global warming alarmists like to tell us the planet is warming faster and faster.
Yet, when we look objectively at the untampered data, we see this is not the case at all at many locations. Today we look at the (untampered) data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) for some stations across northern Europe for the month of October.
According to global warming believers, winter is supposed to be coming later, and spring arriving earlier. So looking at the season transition month of October is interesting.
At the JMA we find seven stations in Ireland that have October data going back sufficiently to 1994:
Data source: JMA
As the chart above shows, 6 of 7 stations in Ireland show October temperatures have a COOLING trend since 1994. How can winter be possibly coming later?
Next we have October data from the Scandinavian country of Finland, near the Arctic, where it’s supposedly warming rapidly and a it is the climate canary in a coal mine.
Data source: JMA
In Finland we have data from 6 stations, and they clearly show that there has not been any real warming at all over the past quarter century.
Isn’t it puzzling that we continue to hear reports from alarmists from every direction that the warming is speeding up? It stinks like some cynical Communist-grade propaganda, doesn’t it?
With all the fakes news we’ve been witnessing lately, nothing should surprise us anymore. We certainly need to be careful when it comes to believing these now infamously dubious media sources.
Next we move on to Scandinavian Norway, which is situated next to the North Atlantic, and so there oceanic cycles would have a truly profound effect.
(Note: I didn’t include stations which don’t have the data from 20 century.) Data source: JMA
Lo and behold: Six of 11 stations in Norway show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1999.
And not surprisingly, the story is the same in Sweden.
Here the 6 stations with sufficient JMA data were examined, and here as well there’s been no real warming to speak of since 1995.
Data source: JMA here.
Four of the 6 stations in Sweden show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1995.
Where’s the climate emergency that hysterical alarmists are pushing to declare? There hasn’t been any since the IPCC issued it’s 2nd assessment report – a quarter of a century ago!
When are they going to finally stop this sham? This is all as bogus as the Trump impeachment proceedings – based on nothing except made-up rumors.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the same people who produced the phony Russia dossiers also would not think twice about producing a fake climate warming dossier.
43 responses to “More Real Data Totally Contradict Fake Media… Show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING Over Past Decades”
Certainly my region (centered on Washington, DC) shows a numbingly cold October/November. But that is just local weather. Be patient. Sun activity is extremely low. Svensmark’s theory predicts a cooling if that continues. Chinese scientists are beginning to realize that the sun may have more influence than they thought. (As I recall, some of the agricultural commodity speculators in England recognized a century ago the correlation betwixt sun spots and quantity available.
Why haven’t any of the young turks majoring in climate science written a formal study doing what I have done informally below:
It’s not difficult to show that CO2, although steadily increasing, has little to do with our current warming. It’s also easy to show that the Medieval Warming Period (1.000 years-ago) was global and at least as warm as it is now, and this can be demonstrated without controversial models or dubious statistical machinations. Alarmists, rather than recognizing the value of historical data (specifically, earlier global warming information), have for unexplained reasons based their computer projections on a cherry-picked short-term correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature from 1975 to the 2000s. (That warming period is bracketed by conflicting data, namely a global cooling between 1945 and 1975 as CO2 was steadily increasing, and by the IPCC acknowledgement that there was a temperature “hiatus” in the 2000s while CO2 continued to increase.)
The only other indication favoring CO2 as causing warming is related to experiments showing that when CO2 is added to a closed container, the container temperature supposedly increases somewhat. However, the open atmosphere is hardly a closed container. Satellites detect heat escaping to space and closed containers do not experience planetary-level feedbacks.
The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably DENY that the Medieval Warming Period was global and likely warmer than it is now. The alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region during the MWP is too well documented!) Alarmists apparently take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain any of these earlier global warmings. Their computer models depend heavily on increasing CO2 level, even more so on yet another ASSUMPTION – that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase supposedly brought on by the increase in CO2. They also apparently ignore the fact that the supposed heating influence of CO2 diminishes very quickly as CO2 level increases and CO2 has already doubled 8 times.
The global temperature increase during the MWP, as well as during the earlier global warmings, was not related to CO2 because there was no increase in CO2 during those periods. The problem for alarmists is that it becomes obvious that perhaps our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph. Mann recently lost a Canadian suit he brought against Dr. Tim Ball years ago. Ball had apparently implied that some of Mann’s work was fraudulent. Mann succeeded in delaying dismissal of that suit by agreeing to provide his “work”, on or before the revised termination date, but apparently did not supply his data by the extended date. Man has been ordered to pay Ball’s $700k in legal expenses. (How does this suit differ from a legal harassment suit?) Mann claims some of his work is proprietary but there are a few others who claim to have matched Mann’s hockey stick. Presumably their “work” is available, so what’s proprietary about Mann’s work? Why should anyone believe a supposed scientist’s work if the basis for his conclusions are not provided, especially when the results are so controversial? The top IPCC paleoclimatologist agrees that Mann’s hockey stick papers are wrong!
Without bothering to argue further about the dubious (and controversial) process employed by Mann to generate his hockey stick graph it is completely debunked by actual data which demonstrates that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing directly about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who continue to DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. The link below provides, among other things, an MWP global study. It also rebuts the various alarmist defensive “talking points”.
The question remains. Why in the world did the alarmists choose CO2 as the culprit when there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever, even over geologic periods when CO2 was 10 to 20 times higher, had any impact on our planet’s temperature? There was obviously some uncertainty, including immediate strong skepticism voiced by credible researchers about Mann’s process. Mann’s claims were also at odds with various existing peer-reviewed studies. Phil Jones, one of the prominent alarmist early players, publicly stated that if the MWP was global and as warm as now, then that was a “different ballgame”. Nonetheless, alarmists decided to deny (or ignore) earlier data and instead opt to blame human activity. That position pretty much necessitates alarmist denial that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.
It’s obvious now, if not then, that a more thorough investigation of the earlier global warmings was necessary, particularly the MWP, before resorting to speculation about CO2.
Some time ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist and his associates, offered a theory which makes use of the historical data. Svensmark’s theory proposes that sun activity modulates the level of a relatively steady stream of cosmic rays intent on penetrating the lower atmosphere. (CERN certified some time ago that cosmic rays may influence the level of cloud cover.) Until very recently we have, for some time, been experiencing a high level of sun activity. During such an active period the level of cloud coverage drops because fewer cosmic rays penetrate the solar wind in the lower atmosphere. With less cloud cover more sun energy reaches the earth surface so it becomes warmer. However, a very low level of sun activity appears to now be underway. If the sun remains inactive for a significant period Svensmark’s theory predicts more cloud cover, hence more sun energy deflected back to space and therefore a cooler earth. CO2 plays no role in Svensmark’s theory.
Whether or not Svensmark’s theory holds up, it is apparent that historical data deserves serious attention. If earlier global warmings cannot be explained why should anyone believe speculation about future climate? Since CO2 increase was the only possible link between human activity and global warming, it appears that human activity (apart from its impact on Urban Heat Islands) plays no part in global warming. The issue about increasing CO2 should be left to such disciplines as botanists and health researchers rather than climatologists.
What data and analysis shows the MWP was global?
You can start here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.03818700000005&z=1
Sorry to be harsh but cherry picking few stations in a country to conclude no warming is ridiculous, unless I miss something. This decrebilize serious scientists trying to counter cagw.
Pierre, you appear to have learned *nothing* from losing “The Bet”
Add on data from the new state of the art network in the US that illustrates a small cooling since 2005.
Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass , is a basket case of temp data and is mostly estimated…………
“unless I miss something”
I guess you missed the single most significant tree in the World.
YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World
You are funny.
It only takes one record hot temp from one temp station for the MSM to go into meltdown about proof of AGW and we are all doomed.
A couple of tiny places not warming for one month of the year over a couple of decades.
These hardly imply global warming is not happening.
David. Care to explain how GLOBAL warming can be so selective then?
Here’s how the troll was dealt with by Lubos Motl.
He has no credibility, which he makes up for by being contrary, obnoxious and wrong.
Who *hasn’t* Motls blocked?
PS: He had to leave academic physics (while at Harvard) because of his obnoxious personality.
He’s obnoxious and correct.
You’re obnoxious and wrong.
Stay focused, David.
Pierre didn’t allow my comment here the first time.
Motls once told me climate sensitivity was 0.5 C. This was at a time when global warming was 0.6 C and CO2 was nowhere close to doubling.
And he’s supposed to be an expert????
Global warming is an average of thousands of sites. They don’t all change in lockstep. Natural variability still exists in an AGW world.
“Global warming is an average of thousands of sites.”
…AFTER they have “adjusted” the data as much as they think they can get away with.
It’s positively criminal.
But, even AFTER adjustments, they still can’t make it scary, when seen in context. See here (the thin red line)…
Here’s my comment on what Judith Curry had to say about adjustments.
And my comment on scientists pushing back against data tampering.
Stations move. Their thermometer breaks and they get a new one. Development around them happens. Caretakers die, and it’s months until someone new is found to read the station.
How would you handle any of these if you were computing a regional average?
“How would you handle any of these if you were computing a regional average?” – David Appell
First off, I wouldn’t lie about it, i.e., make up the data. That’s NEVER allowed! …not if you are honest. If you messed up, and don’t have reliable data, too bad. You lose. There is no fix for it. Better luck next time.
Also, temperature is an intensive variable, and so I wouldn’t be computing an average, in any case, even if I had data that wasn’t made up.
I repeat… Average temperature, and especially global avg., temp., is a meaningless concept.
Or, read more detail in the pdf original here.
If you had taken freshman chemistry, you’d have been introduced to that very important concept.
If it doesn’t fit the narrative, it’s always called “cherry picking”.
Cherry picking must be a science by itself.
I thought that the stations were “cherry picked” because they had long enough continuous records to be worth using.
I assume Greg would like us to “splice” some short term records from different stations to show some warming.
I am somewhat bothered by the graphs but only because in my part of the world, Scandinavia and Finland, local people remember lots of snow, regularly, in November, some 30 years ago. Now it may be just enough to make the roads white for a few hours but not regularly. Indeed, since I have been here it has been rare to get much snow even in December.
It raises the obvious question about the data integarity.
Mike, the data can’t lie unless you are suggesting these people don’t know how to use their equipment or are part of some vast conspiracy. They are what they are, facts.
“It raises the obvious question about the data integarity.” – Mike
Yes, Mike. And the last two links I include here show how obvious and what a concern it is to scientists, as well.
Clearly relatively short local time series are not at all compelling evendence against globals warming.
But a more fundamental point can be made. It is well know that in palm can grow in the south of Ireland due to the mild winter there , while on a compabible latitude in Canada one might regular experience temperatures of -30 degree C. The reason for this striking difference is the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). This oceanic circulation consisting of warm water flowing north in the gulfstream, warming northwestern europe, and transporting cold arctic waters down along the north american coast, contributing to substantial colder weather there. Global warming, in particular melting ice on greenland influences the AMOC, slowing in down. if this continues, it might mean that in western europe temperatures might *drop* significantly as a result of global warming. See https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2554 for further details.
This all shows that looking at local patterns over (in climate terms) short time periods of a few tens of years as is done here, is really uninformative.
All Right, Warmists…
…on your mark, get set, CLUTCH YOUR PEARLS!
Like the clouds shown coming out of cooling towers is just steam, so the “warming” you can’t feel is just noise in the data (and “adjustments” by activists).
All the warming nonsense should have been over years ago, if not decades. In fact, it never should have begun. If not for the trillion$ it’s worth to it’s adherents, it would have never even started. Sadly, until the pot o gold at the end of the greenie rainbow disappears, they will keep pushing it.
But it’s a political, not a scientific determination. And with politicians like this, you can be sure it won’t end soon.
Yonason, the planet is warming — look at all the ice melting and the seas rising.
Some glaciers are receding, some are advancing, some people are hallucinating from drinking too much AGW Kool-Aid, and some are not.
Brian, what is the net change in global glacier mass?
The data for Norway includes three islands a long way from the mainland isolated in the North Atlantic, these are the three data sets with the lowest temperatures that all show a clear warming trend over the period. The data for the mainland does not show any significant trend.
If the planet isn’t warming, why is so much ice melting and sea level rising?
“…why is so much ice melting…”
“… and sea level rising?”
Stop repeating their lies, David.
People like yourself, who insist on everyone being of one mind, regardless of the facts, are the real threat to the future of the world.
[…] More Real Data Totally Contradict Fake Media… Show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING Over Past … […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/27/more-real-data-totally-contradict-fake-media-show-scandinavia-ir… […]
[…] viser noe annet. Her er 20-års trenden for 11 værstasjoner i Norge for oktober måned.Her kan man se samme oktober-trend for Irland, Sverige og Finland. Disse landene har ikke blitt varmere de siste 20 årene, og det er […]
[…] kan man se samme oktober-trend for Irland, Sverige og Finland. Disse landene har ikke blitt varmere de siste 20 årene, og det er […]
Yonason: WHY are the raw data adjusted?
Do you know?
Have you ever taken the time to find out?
Do you need reading suggestions?
Are you aware that adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend?
Yes, I know why they “adjust” (= tamper with) the data. It’s to create the illusion that the planet is warming, and that it’s due to CO2.
You can adjust some of the data some of the time, but you aren’t allowed to adjust all of the data any of the time.
”The analysis presented here indicates that, outside the immediate war-time period, these adjustments are distorting and degrading the data rather than improving it.”
No legitimacy to adjust to the extent they do. None whatever!
Blog posts aren’t science.
Let me know when these claims appear in the peer reviewed literature, where real science takes place.
So, a climate scientist can’t tell you anything, unless it’s pal-reviewed?
Weak response, David.
And if that actually did apply to real climate scientists who you don’t agree with, how much more so does it apply to a troll like yourself!
You are not the arbiter of “real science,” and never will be.
Sorry, I have to agree as there are many blogs that pretend to show science but only show nonsense, http//davidappell·blogspot·com/, is just such an example.
Other have excellent honest science such as here, and at https://hifast.wordpress.com, http://www.climate4you.com/, https://friendsofscience.org/, and the truly incomparable observations at https://realclimatescience.com and many others.
“Sorry, I have to agree as there are many blogs that pretend to show science but only show nonsense,…” – tom0
Huh? Any skeptic knows that. Not sure what point you are making.
D.A. was attacking me for using “blogs” to show he was wrong, and you appear to be defending him. By agreeing, you appear to validate his thinly veiled accusation that I’m not careful about my sources. I am very careful. Please, tom0, I don’t need a teaching moment about that concept.
I didn’t pick those at random, but because they measure up to standards warmists can’t even dream of aspiring to. One, (hifast) is one you even recommend; and the other is by Judith Curry, a highly respected climate scientist. If I ever do use a source you think questionable, please let me know. But I don’t see how that would apply to the two I used there.
Again, not sure what your point was, but I don’t think it was well taken in this instance.
[…] unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, Finland is no exception. This article plots a total of 3 other higher latitude nations in the northern hemisphere that reveal the same […]