I am sure you are all well aware of the UAH satellite data set from Spencer and Christy. Every month they report on the global warming of earth. They also give the long-term warming trend each month; e.g. the results for April 2024 included the statement: ‘The linear warming trend since January,1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).’ To the casual observer this would suggest that the warming on land (SAT) is in a ratio of 3:2 to the warming of the seas and oceans (SST), thereby creating an impression that it is the change in atmosphere causing the extra warming of the earth.

I decided to check this by looking at a number of studies where SST was measured and evaluated manually, and then comparing the results with the nearest SAT results of adjacent land for which I found good data. The results of my investigations are reported below. 

It appears from my results that the idea of land always warming more than the seas holds reasonably well up until where we arrive in the NH subtropics. In the southern hemisphere (SH) the ratio appears to be going the other way around. I knew this already from previous investigations (See Footnote j). Note that I am not blaming Spencer and Christy for giving a wrong impression. What they are doing is completely correct, if you look at it linearly. They are simply averaging and averaging of what is inherently a very unequal warming of the earth going by same UAH data:

So, now what? By my results, there is definitely a significant correlation between SAT and SST: 

DISCUSSION

The highest rate of warming is observed in the Arctic, above the 70 degree latitude. Strangely enough, the warming rate in Barrow (Alaska) of 0.83K/decade compares to a warming rate of only 0.20K/decade in Nome (Alaska) over the same period 1982-2017 (See sheet 10, footnote a). Nome lies just south of Barrow, at 65 degrees, also on the coast of Alaska. The only explanation I can find for these results is that the Arctic is or was strongly affected by underground volcanic eruptions, as reported in a previous study: It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water

especially on the Gakkel Ridge,

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | Live Science

Looking at the results, it would appear that the extra heat following these eruptions, is – or has been – flowing more towards the south via the corridor between Greenland and Norway. See also: Increasing amount of Arctic Ocean deep waters in the Greenland Sea – Somavilla – 2013 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

There is also considerably more volcanic activity in Iceland…

A similar argument as the one above can be made for the extra volcanic activity noted in the Black Sea,

Black Sea mud volcanoes and their relation to the search for methane gas hydrates and environmental security – NASA/ADS (harvard.edu)

seemingly causing much warming and greening in northern Turkey.

As far as the Netherlands are concerned, I rely on the investigation done by Ap Cloosterman. See footnote e). He determined that the water of the major European rivers that end up in the North Sea, have warmed considerably due to the water being extensively used for cooling by many factories and energy companies nestled along the way from London, Holland, France, Germany and Switzerland. Warmer water has a higher vapor pressure obviously also bringing more warm water vapor in the atmosphere.

That brings me back to the correlation noted between SAT and SST. Which is causing what? If it were the extra CO2 from man in the air causing the extra warming of all the water and land, there are three points to make. (1) The extra CO2 is distributing itself equally into all directions of the atmosphere by diffusion, so the rate of increase is more or less the same wherever we measure it. So how come is there a complete unequal distribution of the warming of earth? (2) The mass of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years compares to next to nothing with the mass of all the seas and oceans of 1.4 x 10^21 kg. The increase in volume of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years is about 0,01% which compares to about 1% water vapour for the first 3 km of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is relevant. (3) A number of people, including myself, have carefully looked at the chemistry and optics and according to their evaluations they concluded that there is no or only a negligible net warming effect caused by more CO2 in the air (See footnote k) and subsequent footnotes in that report).

Assuming the extra heat comes from the oceans and the seas rather than from the atmosphere, how can it be that at some places there is more warming in the air than inside the adjacent sea?  The answer is simple, really. When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor was enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature. 

Tonga Eruption Sent Ripples Through Earth’s Ionosphere (nasa.gov)

What do you think was the temperature of all that water vapor? Think of all those eruptions that we saw in Iceland. Suppose they were taking place underneath hundreds of meters of water. What do you think would happen? Large amounts of very warm water vapor would enter the atmosphere.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the extra ‘global’ warming of earth in the last 50 years, is coming from a change in sea surface temperature (SST). SST appears to be affected by combination of factors, including, amongst others,

1) UV/IR from the sun

2) Volcanic activity from the earth

3) Activities by man using the water from oceans, seas and rivers for irrigation and cooling

RECOMMENDATION

To avoid confusion, it would be better to rather look at reporting on the warming of the northern- and southern hemispheres separately instead of reporting on the warming of land and water separately.

Footnotes (links  to the reference reports)

a)

airtemperaturesBarrowMalmoSchipholEeldeBursaTangerMarionGough.xlsx

b)

(PDF) Exceptional warming over the Barents area (researchgate.net)

c)

Sea Surface Temperature – NOAA Arctic

d)

Copernicus Marine Data Store | Copernicus Marine Service

e)

‘Luctor et non emergo’ – Ik worstel en kom niet meer boven – Climategate Klimaat

f)

(PDF) Potential Effects on Climate Change on Black Sea Water Temperatures (researchgate.net)

g)

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | A Warming Mediterranean: 38 Years of Increasing Sea Surface Temperature (mdpi.com)

h)

(PDF) Coastal sea surface temperature variability along the south coast of South Africa and the relationship to regional and global climate (researchgate.net)

i)

https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC97664#:~:text=At%20Marion%20Island%2C%20the%20mean,6.4%C2%B0C%20in%20February.

j)

An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water

k) 

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/

I helped a bit with the translation of this book. It was such fascinating work for me as I actually lived through all these stages of the climate hysteria myself. Please take half-an-hour to watch the video interview with the author, Hans Labohm.

The book will be available on Amazon.com soon, but I am not sure exactly when.  

English translation of three reviews of the Dutch version of ‘Chronicles of Climate Hysteria’ as published on the website of Bol.com.

https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/annalen-van-de-klimaathysterie/9300000154992397/

Climate untruths
Skeptic

A nice compilation about the sense and nonsense of the climate story. There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes global warming. What CO2 does do is slow down the heat transport from the earth to space (i.e. cooling), but it can never warm the earth. The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases can best be compared to the insulation of a house: the insulation also slows down the heat flux to the cold environment, but the insulation can never warm your house up. If that were true, the perpetual motion machine would have been invented. CO2 also has a saturation effect: additional CO2 emissions have hardly any effect. It can be calculated that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. from 400 to 800 ppm) would warm the earth by 0.71°C; more or less warming is due to other causes, especially cosmic and geological causes, over which we as humans have no influence whatsoever.

A book that everyone should read, because the consequences of the climate measures are disastrous: energy is becoming more expensive; since energy is used in every process, everything becomes more expensive. This makes it more difficult for our companies to compete with companies located in regions that do not believe in the climate story, causing these companies to leave Europe and our years of hard-earned prosperity might be jeopardized in just a few years.

*****

Review
Resistance fighter

Is the climate debate turning around? Are the climate ‘deniers’ of a while ago now liberal in the climate debate? The call from the Social Cultural Planning Office to also take seriously those who think differently about the climate is telling. Critical citizens also belong to the Netherlands. But a real change is yet to come.

For thinking about climate change, the Chronicles of Climate Hysteria can be a stone that perhaps shifts the flow of the river. With their climate-realistic articles, lead authors Hans Labohm, Dick Thoenes and Jeroen Hetzler provide a snapshot of the debate on climate change of the last twenty years.

This not only concerns the climatological aspects of atmospheric warming, such as the role of clouds and the influence of CO2, but also highlights the social context: the political implications, the economic consequences, the impact on the citizen’s purse. and the role of the media.

The collection includes a large number of articles by Prof. Dr. Dick Thoenes who sheds light on numerous topics. In a simple, clear manner he contradicts the findings of the IPCC and speaks of assumptions as absolute truths. Estimates are no more than guesses and the attached probabilities, according to him, lack any scientific basis and are therefore misleading. He also criticizes ’the trade’ in CO2 and the exaggerated attribution of CO2 as a human warming agent.

Jeroen Hetzler, the forestry economist and a man of numbers, gets into an argument with Peter Kuipers Munneke about critical security of supply of wind and solar energy, especially at hospitals. He also advises North Pole traveler and climate journalist Bernice Notenboom about the alleged lack of ice in the North Pole in the near future.

Although the collection contains a number of graphs, including the damned hockey stick, it is also a book about people who position climate realism as a rational opposite.

Like Sonja Boehmer Christiansen, the early climate realist who already realized in the 1980s that climate science is not neutral at all but has its own interest: in her eyes, even faith can be an important factor in alarmism. We also see Margaret Thatcher in the setting of that time and as a PhD scholar, putting ‘global warming’ on the international agenda, not because she knows much about it, but to profile herself. The Iron Lady wants to kill two birds with one stone: rationalize the coal mines and give priority to nuclear energy. It all works out differently.

We are introduced to the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg who, like a kind of Pieter Omtzigt, is rattling at the gates of the scientific climate order. The fear of environmental disasters is unfounded, as he proves in a book with 2930 footnotes and a bibliography of 70 pages. He is receiving fierce attacks on his work, is not allowed to respond in scientific journals and they want to dismiss him from his position as director of his institute of environmental assessment. Function elsewhere…Lomborg was allowed to give a lecture at the climate-alarmist TU Delft this year, albeit again under protest. Students just wanted to hear his story.

Climate skeptic Labohm himself also has to give way under pressure. His outspoken opinion on climate change is not accepted by his employer Clingendael. And suddenly there is a very long arm that decides that ‘Labohm has to get out of there.’

It’s good that there is now history tale on it: ‘Chronicles of Climate Hysteria’.

*****

Climate hysteria
NEMO2020

“Man has always been prone to hysteria, but it has never been as brutal as it is today.” It is the title of a column by Rob Hoogland, one of the columnists of the Telegraaf. The text fits in seamlessly with the book by Hans Labohm et al. entitled “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria”.

In my opinion, Hans Labohm and his co-authors have succeeded exceptionally well in making a controversial subject, which is also not that easy, readable to a large audience, while maintaining their journalistic and scientific integrity. The book is a collection of a large number of articles, some of which were already published before 2004. Almost everything was already known at that time.

After 2004 the situation would change. The science itself hardly changed, but the tone became different, harder, more personal. Scandals were constantly coming to light. “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria” describes some of them in detail. The authors do not mince their words.

In a guest contribution, Ed Zuiderwijk takes us to the year 2100. In retrospect, he is amazed at how “a cabal of ignorant fanatics, half-educated researchers, political hangers-on, and the necessary charlatans control the research in atmospheric science and obtained its applications”.

Perhaps a bit harshly formulated, but it gives an impression of the frustrations that a skeptical scientist encounters in his working life. Against this background, it is astonishing how tolerant and moderate Hans Labohm has remained. He has a harsh assessment of institutions but never plays the man.

“Chronicles” refers to a form of historiography in which events are described in chronological order. But when does the “climate hysteria” start? In my opinion, the IPCC reports up to and including AR 5 of 2013 are one-sidedly alarmist, but not hysterical. The founding fathers of alarmism, Bert Bolin, Stephan Schneider, James Hansen, Michael Mann, made extensive use of the “double ethical bind”. They exaggerated, made selective use of statistical methods, censored their opponents but never became hysterical.

Until 2013, this also applied to the IPCC as a whole. But in 2015 there was a change of chairmanship at the IPCC – the incumbent chairman was dismissed – and the Paris Agreements were concluded at the UN level. Everything changed. The Accords called for zero CO2 emissions by 2050, a Herculean task that would require draconian measures. Thousands of billions would have to be diverted from health care, public housing, education, agriculture, elderly care, etc. To make this possible, citizens had to be made afraid, terrified, of climate change. After 2015, the IPCC only, almost exclusively, talks about greenhouse gases, especially CO2, as the cause of all warming since 1950. The evidence for this is weak. A hysterical girl lectures everyone.

And far above that we find someone who unashamedly tells an extreme story. Guterres, the UN Secretary General, sees the earth burning, the oceans boiling. “The era of global boiling has arrived,” he said recently. It’s complete nonsense but no one protested. Incomprehensible. With a nod to Tolkien, I would like to change that statement to: “The age of reason has ended. The age of hysteria has just begun.”

And I see that as the greatest value of the Chronicles.” It points to a future that should not happen and invites us to think for ourselves. To see the roots of something that we do not want to happen. But then we have to do something. Reading the “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria” is a good start.

*****

See (click):

Books | Bread on the water

If you are interested in a copy, please contact me. You can send an SMS to Henry, 0836297690. 

A temperature reconstruction carried out by scientists from Russia and eastern Europe show that the current warming of earth is not unusual or abnormal compared to the past. For more information, click here:

Comprehensive Russian Temperature Reconstruction Shows Warmer Temperatures 1000 Years Ago! (notrickszone.com)