Professor Ole Humlum is a former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway.
He specializes in reporting and analyzing annual changes in the climate. I wrote about the professor’s work just over a year ago on this site.
His report, published annually by the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, was moderately optimistic on climate changes in 2019, pointing out that some of them were for the better, some worse, but that overall there was no justification for the alarmist rhetoric of climate emergency.
For instance, as I then wrote,
He points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat. We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans. This obviously cannot be anything to do with human activity.
Since annual reports come out every year, his latest report on the world’s climate in 2020 has just been published.
It covers the waterfront from Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to Zonal Air Temperatures, and though most of it is addressed to technical specialists, it reaches some broad general conclusions that can be grasped by the layman.
By and large, these are a mix of moderate changes, long-term stability in main trends, and some trends getting worse but falling short of a climate emergency.
Here, for instance, is his summing-up of changes in snow cover:
Variations in global snow-cover extent are driven by changes in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the major land masses are located. Southern Hemisphere snow-cover extent is essentially controlled by the Antarctic ice sheet, and is therefore relatively stable. Northern Hemisphere average snow cover has also been stable since the advent of satellite observations, although local and regional inter-annual variations may be large.
Considering seasonal changes in the Northern Hemisphere since 1979, autumn extent has been slightly increasing, mid-winter extent has been largely stable, and spring extent has been slightly decreasing. In 2020, Northern Hemisphere seasonal snow cover was somewhat below that of the preceding years.
And here is his account of storms and hurricanes in 2020:
The most recent data on numbers of global tropical storms and hurricane accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) are well within the range seen since 1970. In fact, the ACE data series displays a variable pattern over time, with a significant 3.6-year variation, but without any clear trend towards higher or lower values.
A longer ACE series for the Atlantic Basin (since 1850), however, suggests a natural cycle of about 60 years’ duration for tropical-storm and hurricane ACE. The number of hurricane landfalls in the continental United States remains within the normal range for the entire record since 1851. (My italics.)
Not easy reading, as you can see, but worthwhile because it records what actually happened to the climate in the last year.
And that picture contrasts strongly with two things: the general impression of what happened to the climate given by the mainstream media, and the forecasts drawn from computer modeling in previous years of what would happen to the climate.
Those two things generally reinforce each other almost as if the media reports those real climate events that reflect the media “narrative” and ignore or gloss over those that don’t. The truth rarely, if ever, catches up with the predictions in mainstream news reporting.
Time and again the dates for which catastrophe was confidently predicted have passed without grave occurrences, as I wrote a year ago.
No apologies are offered, and no signs given that the forecasters will be reconsidering the theories on which their forecasts either were based or by which they will in the future be supported.
To be sure, that’s a problem not confined to climate science. There’s a general crisis of “replication” or “reproducibility” in science as scientists themselves have been debating in the last decade.
As Wikipedia sums it up:
A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists conducted by Naturereported that 70 percent of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (including 87 percent of chemists, 77 percent of biologists, 69 percent of physicists and engineers, 67 percent of medical researchers, 64 percent of earth and environmental scientists, and 62 percent of all others), while 50 percent had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments, and less than 20 percent had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work.
Only a minority had ever attempted to publish a replication, and while 24 percent had been able to publish a successful replication, only 13 percent had published a failed replication, and several respondents that had published failed replications noted that editors and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the original studies.
That’s bad enough. Worse, common sense suggests that the rate of failed replications will be higher in forecasting than in already performed physical experiments.
To replication failure and prediction failure, however, we should probably add a third crisis—namely, impartiality failure on the part of the mainstream media—if we are to understand how bad things are.
The latest example of this is the media treatment of a new book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, by Steven Koonin, a physicist specializing in energy policy who served as an undersecretary for Energy for Science in the Obama administration. He doubts some of the claims allegedly accepted as valid by a “consensus” of scientists.
Koonin has since come under fierce attack from those scientific reviewers who in turn doubt his own claims. That’s well and good—it’s how science is supposed to operate until experiments settle the argument conclusively–for the moment. In the meantime Koonin must fight his corner as best he can—as apparently he intends to do.
What is objectionable is that social media should tilt an already tilted playing field so that its “fact-checkers” preface information about “Unsettled” with a kind of health warning that its statistics are unreliable and that the book itself is “denialist” when in fact Koonin denies not climate warming but some arguments about its speed, extent, and whether we’re pursuing the right mix of mitigation and adaptation in dealing with it.
That’s a debate we need—and which we’re bound to have anyway because of the looming costs of Net-Zero.
Suppressing debate simply won’t work. And that’s likely to be demonstrated soon. Koonin has agreed to give the GWPF’s annual lecture in November in London.
My guess is that the Foundation will have to hire a larger-than-usual hall to accommodate an audience drawn there by today’s equivalent of “Banned in Boston”—namely, “Not Available on Social Media.”
Read more at The Pipeline
Global Warming/Climate Change Scam is making some persons rich namely Trial Lawyers Eco-Freaks(Greenpeace,NRDC,Friends of the Earth Etc)and lines Al Gores and & Leonardo Dicaprio’s pockets
A senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia said within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event” and that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
That was in 2013.
Today’s forecast – Snow falling down to 600 metres.
And that’s in the Victorian Alps, not the Swiss Alps.
In a sane world, someone claiming to be a “fact checker” should begin the process from actual “facts”, not opinions (even if they are “consensus” opinions). The “unreliability” of Koonin’s statistics is an opinion, not a fact. Koonin is clearly not a “denialist” regarding climate, climate change, or even anthropogenic climate change. He is clearly skeptical, as he should be, of non-scientific assertions such as “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” and “existential threat”. He is skeptical regarding the validity and predictive capability of current climate models, which model something, but not the real climate.