From: Watts Up With That

By: Rud Istvan

Date: April 26, 2021

Failed Climate Predictions

"I got to thinking about my now 10 years of occasionally contributed guest posts at WUWT and at Climate Etc. Lots of stuff provided over the years, ranging from NRDC Congressional deceit (my very first post here back in 2011, noted below, maise), to problems with climate models and their predictions, to the ‘fit for purpose’ of ARGO and Jason, to provable scientific misconduct (Marcott 2013, O’Leary 2013, and Seattle Times/Fabricius 2013 just to pick on that inauspicious AR5 publication year). Some but not all of these themes are also covered in eBook Blowing Smoke, with a gracious foreword from Dr. Judith Curry.

There are now a lot of newer active commenters here, a good sign for Anthony and Charles. They may not have dug deeply into the extensive WUWT archives. A way to shape their big picture dialogue is to look at some of the climate alarmist’s most fundamental failed predictions, and why they failed. Here are nine of my own BIG ones, grouped by three origins. Just reread Galois group theory." ...

Failed Climate Predictions

On-site power generation was common in the mid-20th century for large power users with the need for high reliability power supply. These users included industrial plants running continuous processes, plants with large steam consumption, and institutions such as asylums, prisons and hospitals required to have on-site generation in the event of a grid outage. These on-site generation facilities were typically either coal or oil fueled, depending on geographic location and the existence of other coal or oil end uses at the site.

Many of these generating facilities were closed later in the century as grid capacity and reliability increased and the need for on-site generation became less critical and emissions regulations more damanding. On-site generation is now making a comeback, using natural gas simple cycle turbines with heat recovery systems or high efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines.

Hospitals and some other institutions are required to have on-site power with either high priority natural gas supply contracts or on-site propane or diesel fuel storage adequate to continue operations for some number of days.

These classes of electricity customers will face new and growing challenges as federal programs require the electric grid and its suppliers to shift to non-fossil sources of power generation, most of which (solar, wind) are intermittent and non-dispatchable. Grid reliability is expected to suffer, as has been demonstrated in California and Texas. The grid operators currently stabilize power supply with hydro, geothermal, natural gas, coal and nuclear generation. However, the fossil fuel generators would be unacceptable after 2035 under the current Administration climate plan, unless equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) capability or converted to biofuel operation.

Grid operators are investigating the potential of battery storage to stabilize the grid. However, the current cost of grid-scale battery storage is extremely high and the availability of the required batteries is extremely limited.

The challenges for facilities required to possess on-site generation capability, either for continuous or emergency use, are more complicated. Very few of these facilities are large enough to economically continue to use fossil generation with CCS. They could conceivably be granted waivers to continue to operate fossil-fueled generators until the net zero requirement proposed for 2050. Beyond that, their choices would be limited to biofuel generators, on-site battery storage or on-site packaged nuclear power plants.

Many small to medium sized commercial establishments and many single and multi-family residences are currently equipped with automatic standby generators, typically fueled by natural gas, propane or diesel. Biofuels would currently appear to be the only alternative for these smaller users after 2050.

Net zero would also require replacement of all fossil-fueled thermal end use equipment with electric end equipment for applications such as space and water heating, cooking and baking, laundry drying and steam generation. These new electric end uses would require larger on-site generation or electricity storage systems to meet critical needs during grid outages.

While on-site solar and wind generators are compatible with a wind and solar-powered grid, they would be unacceptable as on-site emergency generators, since they would be expected to be affected by the same weather conditions which affected the grid power generation facilities.

The brave new world of net zero would have its challenges.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Willis Eschenbach

Date: April 25, 2021

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

"I listed some of the following in my previous post, and a commenter said they were important enough to deserve a post on their own … I agree.

Despite my asking over and over in a host of forums, to date nobody has been able to tell me just what this supposed “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” actually is and where I might find evidence that it exists. Here are some facts for the folks that think that the climate is a real danger to humanity.

Deaths from climate-related phenomena are at an all-time low. If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there." ...

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

The graph below, from UAH, shows the entire history of satellite global temperature anomalies through March 2021.

Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH suggested in January 2021 that the significant decrease in the global average temperature anomaly in December 2020 was the beginning of the impact of the La Nina which began in May 2020 and has continued for the past 11 months, as shown in the graph below. The La Nina peaked in late October 2020 as a “strong” La Nina. While the La Nina has weakened since its October peak, it has persisted through the end of March 2021 and may continue. The global average temperature anomaly has decreased further since December 2020, to a low of -0.01°C at the end of March 2021. This represents a total decrease of approximately 0.4°C since the peak of the current La Nina. The delayed reflection of the La Nina in the satellite temperature anomaly data suggests that the anomaly will decrease further as the La Nina persists.

The current La Nina has been the strongest La Nina in the past 30 years, as shown in the graph below. However, it was significantly weaker than the super El Ninos in 1997-1998 and 2015-2016.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted to its cool phase in 2005 and is likely to remain in its cool phase until approximately 2040, as shown in the graph below. There are typically more frequent and stronger La Ninas during the cool phase of the PDO, so it is possible that there will be further reductions in the global average temperature anomaly over the next two decades triggered by additional strong La Ninas.

The super El Ninos of 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 each increased the global average temperature anomaly by approximately 0.5°C. These El Ninos pumped significant heat into the atmosphere which can take several years to dissipate.

Climate science does not yet understand what controls the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles, nor is it able to predict their onset or intensity, nor how long it will take for their impact to dissipate. Climate science is also not able to predict the shift in the phases of the PDO, nor does it completely understand how this shift impacts weather and climate. The same is true for the other ocean cycles, such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, which is thought to have a significant impact on the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.

Consensus climate theory attributes most, all and even more than all recent global warming to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the relatively continual increase in atmospheric CO2 would be very unlikely to produce the rapid swings in the temperature anomaly shown in the satellite temperature graph above. Rather, these temperature anomaly swings are the result of a poorly understood combination of climate events such as the PDO switch and weather events such as the ENSO cycles.

From: National Review

By: Richard Lindzen & William Happer

Date: April 16, 2021

Climate ‘Emergency’? Not So Fast

Americans should not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade.

"By obligating the United States once more to the Paris agreement, and by signaling very clearly that “climate” will be central to its policies, the Biden administration has joined other governments in the crusade against a supposed “climate emergency.” We use the word “crusade” advisedly, since the frenzy over climate resembles the medieval crusades against foreign infidels and home-grown heretics. There is even a children’s climate crusade.

Medieval crusaders would chant Deus Vult, or “God wants it” — the ultimate virtue-signaling slogan. Few leaders of medieval Europe could resist the temptation to join the crusades. The medieval elite could count on earthly rewards to add to their heavenly treasures. The enemies of God — and the little people — paid the bills.

Some climate crusaders have invoked the mandate of heaven, and others use language all too reminiscent of millenarianism. But most claim to be following a mandate of science." ...

Climate ‘Emergency’? Not So Fast

The “Climate Crisis”, or “Climate Emergency”, or climate “Existential Threat” is an international political construct based on the projections of an ensemble of numerous, unverified climate models run with ranges of input factors, since the actual values of these input factors are unknown. The perception of crisis is a creature of political science, not hard science.

The principal factor on which the concern is focused is a reported increase in global average temperature of 1°C over the 120 year period since 1900 and the potential global adverse impacts of another 0.5-1.0°C increase beyond current levels over some undefined future period.

Very little effort has been put forth by the consensed climate science community to provide perspective regarding the current and projected future temperature increases. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen recently made a presentation on “The Imaginary Climate Crisis” in which he included the following graph focused on placing the purported temperature change in perspective. The graph shows the magnitude of regular, shorter term temperature changes in fourteen cities in the contiguous United States. Analysis of the same temperature changes in other cities globally would produce differing numbers but display the same general patterns.

The first segment on the horizontal axis shows the global average temperature anomaly over the period 1900-2020 as approximately 1°C.

The second segment on the horizontal axis shows the individual city and average temperature change which commonly occurs in these cities over the two-hour period from 8 am to 10 am on any given day, which ranges from approximately 1-5°C, or up to 5 times the global average temperature increase over the past 120 years of concern to global politicians.

The third segment on the horizontal axis shows the typical “sunrise to afternoon” temperature change in these cities on any given day, which ranges from approximately 7-17°C, or 7-17 times the global average temperature increase over the past 120 years.

The fourth segment on the horizontal axis shows the typical difference between the January average temperature and the July average temperature in each of the cities, which ranges from approximately 9-28°C, or 9-28 times the global average temperature increase of concern to climate alarmist politicians.

The fifth segment on the horizontal axis shows the typical temperature difference between a January morning and a July afternoon in each city, which ranges from approximately 18-40°C over the six month period, or 18-40 times the temperature increase of concern to climate alarmist politicians.

The sixth segment on the horizontal axis shows the typical temperature difference between the yearly average hottest and coldest temperature in each of the cities, which ranges from approximately 30-60°C over the average year, or 30-60 times the temperature increase of concern.

The seventh segment on the horizontal axis shows the temperature difference between the warmest and the coldest temperatures ever recorded for each of the cities, which ranges from approximately 38-75°C, or 38-75 times the maximum temperature difference of record.

Clearly, the reported global annual average temperature increase typically attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations pales in comparison to typical hourly, daily and seasonal temperature changes and to the record temperature difference for each city. Also, since approximately 60% of the reported global annual average near-surface temperature increase is an increase in the nightly low temperature while only approximately 40% is an increase in the daily high temperature, it seems unlikely that people would be unable to handle the future temperature increases of concern to climate alarmists.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: April 10, 2021

How we fool ourselves. Part II: Scientific consensus building

“Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. – policy scientist Daniel Sarewitz

Statistician Regina Nuzzo summarizes the problem:

“This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a result or to accept ‘reasonable’ outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.”

Psychologists Richard Simmons et al. find that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. Such ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ include choices about which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analysis methods to use. Each of these choices may be reasonable, but when added together they allow for researchers to extract statistical significance or other meaningful information out of almost any data set. Researchers making necessary choices about data collection and analysis believe that they are making the correct, or at least reasonable, choices. But their bias will influence those choices in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Further, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – meaning they give the results the researcher wants.

The objective of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just verify our biases. If a community of scientists has a diversity of perspectives and different biases, then the checks and balances in the scientific process including peer review will eventually counter the biases of individuals. Sometimes this is true—but often this does not happen quickly or smoothly. Not only can poor data and wrong ideas survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.

How we fool ourselves. Part II: Scientific consensus building

The consensed climate science community has argued that previous climate warming and cooling events were the result of natural variability, but that the recent warming is the result of increased anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. They provide no support for the idea that natural variability has ceased, or at least greatly diminished, nor do they provide any proof that the recent warming is CO2 driven.

The graph below illustrates the measure US average temperature anomaly over the period 1880-2020. The temperature trend in the data corresponds to the ~1°C increase in the global average temperature anomaly over the same period, suggesting that the US has experienced average warming very similar to the global average warming.

The year 1950 is the year typically associated with the global warming driven by increasing anthropogenic CO2 concentrations. However, the trend in the anomaly data graphed above shows a temperature anomaly decline over the period from 1940-1970, followed by a temperature anomaly increase from 1970-2020. Note that the data graphed in blue above, from the US Historical Climatology Network, has been “adjusted”, while the data graphed in red, from the US Climate reference Network, is unadjusted or raw data. The USCRN uses remotely located, high accuracy and high precision measuring instruments, which are cross calibrated to detect instrument drift or failure.

The “adjusted” USHCN anomaly data match the unadjusted USCRN anomaly data over the period when the plotted data overlap. However, the earlier USHCN anomaly data have been affected by “unnatural variation”, as shown in the graph below produced by Tony Heller.

Note that the overall magnitude of the “adjustments” over the period shown is approximately 1.5°F (~1°C), or approximately all the recent warming attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The “adjustments” primarily cool the past, prior to the existence of the USCRN, which provides a high accuracy, high precision reference in the period after 2005 for the US anomaly data. The “adjustments” make the rate of increase of the temperature anomaly appear to be larger and essentially reverse the cooling trend apparent in the measured data. There is no global reference to constrain the “adjustments to non-US data and no possible reference for anomalies “infilled” where no data exists.

The first graph above clearly illustrates the magnitude of natural variability in the temperature anomalies, which ranges from approximately +4.2°C to -5.5°C, or approximately ten times the trend of the warming anomalies over the period. These anomalies do not include any seasonality, since the anomalies are the deviation from the same months in the 30-year climate reference period.

The variation in the anomalies is largely driven by longer term weather events, such as El Nino and La Nina, and by climate events such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
The fact that global temperature anomaly data have been subjected to “adjustment” over a period of more than 100 years raises serious questions about the validity of the reported warming anomaly and the entire anthropogenic climate change narrative.

From: CFACT

By: Ronald Stein

Date: April 8, 2021

Cities, countries, and economies were built with derivatives from oil, not by electricity

"Before world leaders move too fast to consummate their climate policies, they need to be cognizant of two “aha” moments: 1) wind and solar can only generate intermittent electricity, and 2) electricity cannot manufacture the oil derivatives that are the basis of the thousands of products that have built the world’s cities, countries, and economies over the last 200 years.

Can you imagine primitive man with an abundance of wind and solar electricity and nothing to power! Imagine living with Just GREEN Electricity.

Interestingly, for more than two centuries the most important benefits to humanity from fossil fuels is the oil derivatives, that electricity CANNOT provide, and NOT the fuels that can be manufactured for the transportation and military infrastructures.

The world has had more than 200 years to develop clones or generics to replace the crude oil derivatives that are the foundation of all the products demanded by lifestyles and economies around the world. Wind and solar are not only incapable of manufacturing any such derivatives, but the manufacturing of wind and solar components are themselves 100 percent dependent on the derivatives made from crude oil.

Ever since the beginning of manufacturing and assembly of cars, trucks, airplanes, and military equipment in the early 1900’s, and the discovery of the versatility of products that could be made from petroleum derivatives, the world has had almost 200 years to develop clones or generics to replace the crude oil derivatives that account for more than 6,000 products that are the basis of lifestyles and economies of the healthier and wealthier countries around the world." ...

Cities, countries, and economies were built with derivatives from oil, not by electricity

There is a strong and growing effort to attribute individual weather events and changes in the frequency and intensity of individual weather events to climate change. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Bjorn Lomborg, Dr. Joseph D’Aleo and others have published numerous essays disputing these efforts. The graphs developed by these authors and others have been assembled into a new book, IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE,PERCEPTION AND REALITY  by Dr. Indur M. Goklany.

Heat waves, at least in the US, where longer term data are available, have declined significantly.

Tropical cyclones have decreased in total numbers, though there is no trend in the number of major tropical cyclones.

There is also no obvious trend in the Accumulated Cyclone Energy, the combination of event frequency and intensity.

Strong tornados have also declined in frequency, though total reported tornadoes have increased as the result of satellite observations detecting smaller tornadoes which might otherwise not have been detected or reported.

Droughts are also decreasing slightly, though there is large year-to-year variability.

Annual death rates from extreme weather events have decreased dramatically, largely as the result of improved prediction and communication as well as efforts at adaptation.

Cold weather events continue to be a far greater cause of death than warm weather events worldwide.

Global economic losses resulting from severe weather events continue to decline as a percentage of global GDP. The total loss from these events continues to grow, however, as increased infrastructure investments are made in areas of known weather risk.

Areas destroyed by wildfires continue decline, even in the face of continued poor forest management practices.

Crop yields and food supply have continued to increase as the result of a number of factors including improved farming practices, the broader availability of synthetic fertilizers and the effects of CO2 fertilization.

Finally, deaths attributable to climate catastrophes declined precipitously until the 1970s and continue to decline, largely as the result of improved weather prediction and notification systems and adaptation efforts.

The above suggests that climate change is not causing or adversely affecting extreme weather events or exacerbating their results. It certainly belies the claims of “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” and “existential threat”.

From: Clintel.org

Date: April 5, 2021

The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen

"The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen. The online lecture was attended by around 200 people from around the world (including a group of climate activists who disturbed the talk. The recorded talk can be viewed here.

Professor Lindzen kindly agreed that his written speech could be posted here at CLINTEL. It follows below.

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted

The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, hurricanes, etc. and so on.

We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming. And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.

In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd. Of course, many people (though by no means all) have great difficulty entertaining this possibility. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 37.3C rather than between 36.1C and 37.2C you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index, globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’"...

The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen

The concerns expressed about future global warming are all based on the outputs of numerous global climate Models (GCMs). The graph below, prepared by Dr. John Christy, illustrates the range of variation of the numerous model outputs, beginning from the end of the historical period over which the models were tuned to temperature observations. The individual graph lines have been linearized to highlight the obvious major differences in their future temperature anomaly projections.

The darkest line on the graph is the mean of the model projections. This model mean is often assumed to have greater significance than the individual model outputs. However, none of the models has been verified, among other reasons because none of the models accurately projects the observed behavior of the climate. While it is possible that one of the models is an accurate model of the climate, it is certain that not more than one of them is accurate and it is highly likely that none of them is an accurate model, based on the progressive divergence between the models and the climate observations over the 30+ year period displayed in the graph. Therefore, the model mean is relatively meaningless.

The graph below is a more common presentation of the GCM outputs compared with the HadCRUT 4 near-surface and the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomoly records. This graph and the humorous note in red are the work of Dr. Roy Spencer.

The next graph, prepared by  Dr. John Christy, notes that the climate model mean warms more than twice as fast as the observations reported by two satellite analysis teams and by four near-surface data reanalysis efforts.

The next graph, prepared by Dr. Roy Spencer, compares the HadCRUT4 observations through April, 2020 with the outputs of 40 of the CMIP5 models and 13 of the new CMIP6 models. Note that the outputs of the CMIP6 models show an even greater departure from the observations than the CMIP5 models.

The bar chart below, prepared by Dr. John Christy, compares the warming trends produced by 102 climate models and the model average with the observations over the same period. Note that the model average trend is nearly 3 times the trend in the observations.

The graph below, also by Dr. Christy, illustrates the close correspondence of the satellite, weather balloon and near-surface reanalyses and the models divergence from these observations, with the exception of a single model developed by a group of Russian scientists.

The graph below by Dr. Christy compares the observational average with the available subset of the CMIP6 models, again showing a temperature anomaly trend three times greater than the observed trend.

The GCMs rely on a thermodynamic model of the atmosphere like the simplified model shown here, or the more complex model shown here.

The graphs above clearly illustrate that the science regarding future climate change is hardly settled and that the current climate models clearly do not accurately model the real climate.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Jim Steele

Date: April 6, 2021

Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering

"A new report from the National Academies of Sciences recommended the United States pursue a robust research program into solar geoengineering, to reflect sunlight and forestall some of the worst effects of global warming.  Seeking $200 million over 5 years for research from the Biden administration, those scientists push a climate crisis narrative, arguing greenhouse gas emissions are not falling quickly enough and, “Without decisive action and rapid stabilization of global temperature, risks from a changing climate will increase in the future, with potentially catastrophic consequences” This should alarm everyone. Not because a climate crisis is real, but because solar geoengineering is the height of stupidity and truly endangers humanity. Still solar blocking experiments were planned for June 2021 in Sweden. Fortunately objections from other scientists, environmentalists, and Indigenous groups just cancelled those plans … for now."

Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering

The graph below plots global sea level over the past approximately 800,000 years. Note the cyclical nature of sea level over that period. Sea level ranges from a high of +11 meters to a low of -133 meters. The low levels are associated with ice ages.

The graph below plots global sea level over the past approximately 1000 years. The heavier graph line beginning in approximately 1890 is instrumental data, as opposed to the proxies prior to then. The instrumental data ranges from a low of -2.2 centimeters to +22.4 centimeters. Note that the y-axis in this graph is units of centimeters rather than meters in the graph above. Note also that current sea levels are 10.8 meters lower than the peak level approximately 400,000 years ago.

The graph below plots the sea level rise since 1880 in millimeters. The total sea level rise over the period is approximately 265 millimeters, or approximately 1.7 millimeters per year. The dark line overlaying the light blue line in the graph plots sea level rise as measured by satellite, while the light blue line is measurements taken by tide gauges.

The graph below estimates the effects of the factors which contribute to sea level rise. The satellite data computes an annual sea level rise of approximately 3.3 millimeters per year since the data became available in 1993, or nearly twice the rate of rise measured by the tide gauges. This is a very significant difference which remains unresolved.

However, the graph above contains data from four different satellites, but does not identify the period over which each satellite provided the data, nor does it differentiate the rates of sea level rise provided by each satellite. The graph below prepared by Willis Eschenbach provides this information.

Note that the rates of rise measured by the two earlier satellites are essentially identical, while the two later satellites differ significantly both from the earlier satellites and from each other. It is not yet clear whether the higher rates measured by the more recent satellites reflect a real acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. Regardless, combining the measurements from the four different satellites into a composite graph with an average rate of rise is poor practice.

Global sea level rise is a very difficult phenomenon to measure. Tide gauges are located sparsely along global shorelines. Many of the locations of the tide gauges are subject to subsidence due to erosion, ground water extraction or mineral production. Other locations remain subject to geostatic rebound following the compression imposed by the last ice age. Finally, the seas are never at rest, but rather are subject to tides and to wind-driven ripples, swells and waves as well as thunderstorms and tropical cyclones.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Jim Steele

Date: March 27, 2021

Climate Dynamics: The True Control Knob of Climate Change

"The earth’s energy equilibrium is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation versus radiative cooling that emits infrared radiation back to space. Water vapor primarily and CO2 can slow radiative cooling via the greenhouse effect. I am most grateful for the greenhouse effect. Without it the earth’s average temperature would hover near 0°F instead of our currently more livable 59°F. But in addition to any radiative effects, the earth’s global average temperature is determined by a variety of climate dynamics, such as the balance between ocean heat storage and heat ventilation. This is well established as climate scientists attributed the slowdown in 21st century global warming was due to increased ocean heat storage associated with a period of more La Ninas. Warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean, famously known as the blob, was not caused by added heat, but by reduced winds that ventilated less heat than normal. Cloud dynamics are also important. Clouds can warm the nights and cool the days." ...

Climate Dynamics: The True Control Knob of Climate Change