Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
According to NOAA’s latest annual report, the frequency of US tornadoes has been steadily rising since the 1950s. To the average reader, this is obviously down to global warming, which we all know makes weather more extreme!
Nowhere does their report mention that we are observing more tornadoes nowadays because of better technology and reporting procedures, not because more are actually occurring. Here is the guidance that NOAA published a few years ago, something that has mysteriously disappeared from their website now. Thanks to Wayback, we can still view it.
One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the 20th century.
Much early work on tornado climatology in the United States was done by John Park Finley in his book Tornadoes, published in 1887. While some of Finley’s safety guidelines have since been refuted as dangerous practices, the book remains a seminal work in tornado research. The University of Oklahoma created a PDF copy of the book and made it accessible at John Finley’s Tornadoes.
Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by National Weather Service personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.
With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
The picture has changed little since 2014. There is still little long term trend in EF-1s and over, but the number of EF-3s has remained at a much lower level than pre-2000. The latest data confirms NOAA’s conclusions from 2015.
There was no EF-5 last year, nor any so far this year. The last was the Moore tornado in 2013. On average there are two EF-5s every year three years. The longest previous absence of EF-5s was between 1999 and 2007.
Moreover with only two EF-4s last year. only 2005 and 2018 had fewer.
The evidence clearly shows that tornadoes have become less intense since reliable records began in 1970, but NOAA would like you to believe otherwise.
It is hard to describe NOAA’s reporting of tornadoes as anything other than fraudulent.
The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history.
The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history.
1. Off-scale warming
Since the planet has been warming for 200 years, and our global records are even more recent, every few years a new warmest year in history is recorded. Despite all the publicity given each time it happens, it would really be news if it didn’t happen, as it did between 1998 and 2014, a period popularly known as the pause.
Figure 1. Berkeley Earth temperature anomaly
Since 1980, 13 years have broken the temperature record. So, what is so special about the 2023 record and the expected 2024 record? For starters, 2023 broke the record by the largest margin in records, 0.17°C. This may not sound like much, but if all records were by this margin, we would go from +1.5°C to +2°C in just 10 years, and reach +3°C 20 years later.
Figure 2. Berkeley Earth 2023 temperature anomaly
Moreover, to produce so much warming, almost the entire globe experienced above-average warming. 2023 was a year of real global warming, although most of the warming occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.
Figure 3. 2023 global surface temperature anomaly over pre-industrial baseline in six datasets.
As a result, one of the major databases, Berkeley Earth, has exceeded the +1.5°C limit for a full year for the first time, and 2024 promises another temperature record. Crossing the dangerous warming threshold so early has caused some confusion, exacerbated by the fact that not much difference seems to be noticeable. Even Arctic ice remains above the average of the last decade. And if we’ve already crossed the line and the climate is beyond repair, what’s the point of trying?
Figure 4. Global temperature calculation by Copernicus system.
But the authorities have been quick to point out that even if we are above +1.5°C in 2023 or 2024, we will not have crossed the threshold. There is a catch. The global temperature is not the temperature of one month or one year, but the temperature of the linear trend of the last 30 years, which according to the European Copernicus system is +1.28°C and is expected to exceed +1.5°C in 10 years.[i]
2. Uncharted territory
In June 2023, the North Atlantic experienced a heat wave unprecedented in 40 years, with temperatures 5°C warmer than usual. Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, said the world was “entering uncharted territory. We have never seen anything like this in our life”.[ii] To understand what has puzzled scientists so much, it is necessary to look at the evolution of the temperature of the Earth’s oceans throughout the year since 1979.
Figure 5. 60°N-60°S global ocean surface temperature by year since 1979.
On average, the Earth’s oceans are warmest in February-March and coldest in October-November, with an intermediate maximum in August. This is an annual cycle caused by the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the arrangement of the continents, and seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation and albedo. A cycle that has never been broken as long as measurements have been kept until 2023. This year shows an accentuated warming since January, leading to daily temperature records since the beginning of April. But what is absolutely astonishing is that the ocean continued to warm in June and July and reached an annual maximum in August, something that has never happened before. And the warming through August is staggering, about 0.33°C above the 2016 record, which is huge for the ocean. After that, the annual cycle begins to behave normally, but at a much higher temperature, which is slowly falling. In June 2024, after 415 days of record temperatures, the ocean is still about 0.2°C warmer than it should be.
Buontempo means good weather in English, and his phrase “we have entered uncharted territory” has become very popular. However, it assumes that we have reached and will remain in this situation, whereas the data suggest that this is a one-off anomaly with diminishing effects. For now, it tells us that nothing dramatic is happening as we approach the politically established warming threshold.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s climate monitoring institute, also uses the expression “uncharted territory” when he explains that the 2023 anomaly worries scientists, saying that climate models cannot explain why the planet’s temperature suddenly spiked in 2023. Not only was the temperature anomaly much larger than expected, but it occurred months before the onset of El Niño. In his own words: “The 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”[iii] According to Gavin, we could have broken the climate and the models would no longer work.
Instead of abandoning science for wild speculation let’s examine the possible factors responsible for the abrupt warming that Gavin Schmidt dismisses by saying they could explain at most a few hundredths of a degree, for which he has little evidence.
3. The little boy is innocent
El Niño is unlikely to be responsible for the simple reason that such abrupt global warming is unprecedented in our records, and El Niño has many precedents. In addition, El Niño warms a specific region of the equatorial Pacific and primarily affects the Pacific, while the “2023 event” warmed parts of the North Atlantic to an extraordinary degree. This does not prevent scientists like Jan Esper and Ulf Büntgen from saying that 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gas-induced warming trend amplified by an El Niño.[iv] They clearly did not examine the data before writing this, nor did the reviewers of their Nature paper.
The relationship between the temperature of the equatorial Pacific and that of the global ocean during an El Niño is shown in the figure below.
Figure 6. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended satellite global ocean temperature anomaly (black).
The temperature anomaly in the Pacific Niño 3.4 region shows the very strong Niños of 1983, 1998, and 2016, and the strong Niños of 1988, 1992, 2009, and 2024. The years correspond to the month of January during the event. When the satellite global ocean temperature anomaly is plotted without its long-term trend, we observe a very close correspondence. The long-term trend responds to other causes, but the temperature variations correspond to the export of heat from the equatorial Pacific to the rest of the globe.
We also observe two things. The first is that the correspondence fails in two periods, in 1992 as a result of the Pinatubo eruption a year earlier, and in 2024. The second observation is that in all strong or very strong Niños, the source of the heat, the equatorial Pacific, warms earlier and warms more or as much in relative terms as the global ocean warms later. This does not happen in the 2024 El Niño. The warming is simultaneous and greater than it should be outside the equatorial Pacific.
Figure 7. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended ERSST PDO (blue).
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is often described as a long-lived pattern of climate variability similar to El Niño in the North Pacific. And this is evident when we compare the two after removing a long-term trend that the PDO should not have. The agreement is very strong, and again we see a significant anomaly in 1991 due to the Pinatubo eruption. But even more important is the anomaly in 2023-24, when the PDO shows extraordinarily small changes and remains negative when it should be positive.
Figure 8. During the 2023 event the North Pacific stayed in negative PDO conditions, while the equatorial Pacific displayed El Niño conditions.
To understand this response, one must consider that the warm phase of the PDO requires the Northwest Pacific to be cold, but as we have shown above, the Northwest Pacific was very warm in 2023, causing the PDO to remain in a cold phase. A negative phase of the PDO during El Niño is unprecedented and categorically rules out El Niño as the cause of the abrupt warming that has puzzled scientists. In fact, it is possible that the ocean warming that began in March 2023 was the cause of the 2024 El Niño by weakening the trade winds in the equatorial Pacific.
I’d like to thank Charles May for bringing this data to my attention and for doing such an excellent job analyzing it each month.
4. Sulfate aerosols are not responsible
Another possibility that is under consideration is the reduction of sulfate aerosols as a result of the change in marine fuel regulations in 2020.
Figure 9. Global sulfur emissions for the past 64 years
The reduction in sulfur emissions since the late 1970s is considered a significant warming factor by reducing emissions of shortwave radiation reflected from the atmosphere. However, the reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from marine fuels since 2020 is estimated at 14% of total emissions.
Figure 10. Model-calculated global temperature effect of an 80% reduction (red curve) in marine fuel sulfur content from pre-2020 situation (blue curve), and decadal mean difference (green bars).
A recent study, still under peer review, used a climate model to calculate that sulfur emission reductions from 2020 could cause global warming of 0.02°C in the first decade.[v] Since the warming in 2023 was 10 times greater, it is difficult to believe that emissions reductions since 2020 could have been a major factor in the abrupt warming in 2023.
In the figure, the blue curve is the global warming predicted with the previously used marine fuel, and the red curve is the one predicted with the fuel with 80% less sulfur. The difference between the two curves for the decade 2020-30 is the green bar of 0.02°C.
5. CO₂ increase didn’t do it
The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased slightly by about 2.5 parts per million in 2023.
Figure 11. Monthly (red) and 12-month (black) CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa.
The increase from 418.5 to 421 ppm represents an increase of 0.6% and is similar to the increase that has occurred each year for the past several decades. Nothing in our knowledge of the effect of CO₂ increases on climate suggests that such a small increase could have led to such a large and abrupt warming. There is no study to suggest that the gradual increase in CO₂ could lead to a sudden increase in climate variability. Therefore, all model predictions are long-term and affect the statistics of weather phenomena. The proof is that scientists and models cannot explain what happened in 2023.
6. Tonga volcano prime suspect
Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga. How unusual? It was an eruption of VEI 5 explosivity, capable of reaching the stratosphere, which occurs on average every 10 years.
Figure 12. Time and cone elevation of VEI ≥5 volcanic eruptions of the past 200 years, their distribution by altitude (yellow bars), and the suggested depth for a submarine eruption capable of projecting a large amount of water to the stratosphere (red line).
There have been a number of eruptions with VEI 5 or higher in the last 200 years, although not all of them have affected the global climate. This figure shows with dots the date they occurred and the elevation at which the volcanic cone was located. The yellow bars show the distribution of eruptions in 500 m elevation bins. The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere.
In our 200 years of records there is only one other submarine eruption with VEI 5, which occurred in 1924 off the Japanese island of Iriomote at a depth of 200 m and did not affect the atmosphere. Only surface effects were observed. NASA scientists believe that the Tonga explosion occurred at the right depth to project a lot of water into the stratosphere.[vi] This depth is indicated by the red line. So, the Tonga eruption is a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium. Science was very lucky. We are not so lucky.
We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year. The eruption of Mount Tambora in April 1815 had a global effect on the climate, but it took 15 months for the effect to develop, during the year without a summer of 1816. These delayed effects coincided with the appearance of a veil of sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere due to seasonal changes in the global stratospheric circulation.
Figure 13. Stratospheric water vapor anomaly at 45°N.
In this image on the vertical axis, we observe the water vapor anomaly in the stratosphere between 15 and 40 km altitude with ocher tones for negative values and greenish for positive ones. The measurement takes place at 45° latitude in the northern hemisphere. On the horizontal axis is the date, and we can see that the large anomaly created by the Tonga eruption does not appear in the Northern Hemisphere until one year later, in 2023, when the warming occurred. Thus, there are dynamical events in the stratosphere that have the appropriate time lag to coincide with the abrupt warming in 2023.
Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.
As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%.[vii] And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.
Figure 14. Global water vapor anomaly above 68hPa.
The stratosphere has already begun to dry out again, but it is a slow process that will take many years. In 2023 only 20 million tons of water returned to the troposphere, 13%.[viii]
7. Dismissing natural warming
On the one hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented abrupt warming that the models cannot explain and that has scientists scratching their heads. Such anomalous warming cannot logically respond to the usual suspects, El Niño, reduced sulfur emissions, or increased CO₂, which have been going on for many decades.
On the other hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented volcanic eruption, the effects of which we cannot know, but which, according to what we know about the greenhouse effect, should cause significant and abrupt warming.
Of course, we cannot conclude that the warming was caused by the volcano, but it is clear that it is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.
So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.
This article can also be watched in a 19-minute video with English and French subtitles.
We spent $1.77 Trillion dollars on the clean energy transition last year, yet our fossil fuel use is still rising and our emissions are still increasing.
The Energy Institute released their annual “Statistical Review of World Energy”. Total energy used in the world went up by 2% showing no sign of slowing down. For the first time, more coal was used in India than Europe and North America combined, a trend that is unlikely to stop soon. Despite there being more EVs on Earth than ever before, oil consumption was up 2% to above 100 million barrels for the first time. China overtook the US as the country with the largest oil refining capacity in the world last year at 18.5 million bpd. But the US overtook Qatar as the largest exporter of LNG. And global man-made emissions of carbon dioxide exceeded 40 gigatons for the first time.
Imagine what a different place the world would be if we spent that money on something useful? Just a tenth of that might provide clean water and sanitation for the poorest of the poor and stop children dying of dysentery. Instead, wealthy nations build spinning totem poles — hoping they’ll give us the perfect amount of rain 80 years from now.
Despite what they say, we are still a fossil fueled world. Coal, oil and gas made up 81.5% of the world’s total consumption of energy, down from 82% a year before.
Not much of a “transition” — renewable energy makes up only 8% of our total global energy
And despite having every data-point since 1951, the Energy Institute were careful not to draw a graph like this below showing just how irrelevant unreliable renewables are (so I did one).
The Energy Institute also apparently didn’t want people to see a graph like this one either — drawn by OWID from the Energy Institutes own 2022 data. Nothing else quite captures how fake or pointless the whole forced “Transition” is.
Headlines will presumably hail the record amount of renewable energy produced like it means something.
With great timing three professors of sorts at University College London wrote this unwitting satire at The Conversion* only two days ago:
Proving the government can strangle any hard science if it throws enough money at it. Should we make 80% of the world’s energy “taboo” or should we just discuss the pros and cons like grown ups?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has today published its periodic review of global hurricane activity. The author, climate researcher Paul Homewood, says that official data is absolutely clear: hurricanes are neither increasing in number nor in intensity.
London, 16 April – The Global Warming Policy Foundation has today published its periodic review of global hurricane activity. The author, climate researcher Paul Homewood, says that official data is absolutely clear: hurricanes are neither increasing in number nor in intensity.
Homewood says: “The observational data published by meteorological agencies in 2023 has confirmed once again that there are no upward trends in global hurricane activity since reliable records began in the 1970s.” And Homewood calls on journalists to start reporting these undisputed facts to the public: “While scientists are quite clear that we are not seeing any increase in hurricanes, the public have been scared into thinking that tropical storms are getting worse. Unless the mainstream media starts reporting empirical facts rather than misleading spin, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and public trust.”
The data for year 2023 will now be analysed with emphasis on 2 aspects, namely the predicted sizeable El Niño and the shenanigans concerning the data for October and November when nearly every data value changed with some changes being quite significant at over 8mm compared with annual increases of 3 to 4 mm.
We have now entered the 4th decade of measuring sea level rise using the quartet of satellites Topex and Jason 1, 2 and 3. The first 3 decades were reported in the trio of papers (Ref 1), (Ref 2) and (Ref 3). These concluded that.
1. The perceived “accelerations” are mathematical accelerations occurring due to the methods of calculation, i.e. quadratic curve fitting, as used by Nerem et al [.pdf] (Ref 4) in their 2018 paper. Also, the start date of Jan 1993 also plays a major role in how the “accelerations” pan out.
2. The “accelerations” are now generally reducing year on year and are predicted to reach levels compatible with the long term (over 100 years) Tidal Gauge values during the next decade or two before stabilising over the next few decades.
3. A time span of 30 years is much too short a period to calculate actual accelerations with 3 or more times this period being needed.
In this paper “accelerations” is used to indicate that those values are mathematically produced using twice the quadratic coefficient. Having said that the trends in values since about 2012 have settled sufficiently to make actual judgements regarding long term variation and trends.
The data for year 2023 will now be analysed with emphasis on 2 aspects, namely the predicted sizeable El Niño and the shenanigans concerning the data for October and November when nearly every data value changed with some changes being quite significant at over 8mm compared with annual increases of 3 to 4 mm.
Data releases via the NASA Global Climate Change/Vital-Signs/Sea Level Rise web site were made during 2023 for January, February, April, June, October, November and December but although all were analysed, not all will be reported on. Since February 2018 the analysis of the data has taken place in a standard manner every time a new set of data has been released. Extra processing has been also done when deemed of interest. In January 2023 the NASA site added an extra column (column 13) to the data which was as column 12 but with the GIA not applied [see column definitions just below]. The diagrams appearing on the NASA website showing sea level rises also changed at this stage in using column 13 instead of column 12. The inclusion of GIA or not only affects the rate of change and not any “acceleration” as it is set to a constant change of about 0.24 mm/year. In all the analyses for this paper and previous papers column 12 results have been used.
The full definitions of these 2 columns are,
Column 12 smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA applied) variation (mm); annual and semi-annual signal removed.
Column 13 smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA not applied) variation (mm); annual and semi-annual signal removed.
At this stage I would like to thank Kip Hansen for his patience in reading and replying to my steady stream of emails and whose comments have helped me formulate my ideas. Kip has not agreed with all my findings and ideas, but a friendly rapport has taken place between us.
Starting with the February data the “accelerations” have been calculated for increasing periods spanning the time from January 1993 up to the time of calculation. The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1 compares the “acceleration” trend with that obtained from assuming the sea levels deviate from a straight line in a sinusoidal manner with a period of 26 years, an amplitude of +/-4.2 mm and with a suitable phase shift. The resulting graph of “accelerations” is labelled “Sinusoidal” on Figure 1. This curve is not a sinusoidal curve but a portion of a “damped” sinusoidal curve the derivation of which is shown in the Appendix to paper 1 (Ref 1). Its long-term variation is shown in Figure 3 together with average Tidal Gauge value. In this the sinusoidal curve is converging on zero but in reality, there could be a small long-term value commensurate with the Tidal Gauge value.
At this stage it had been stated that there may be a significant El Niño starting. Figure 4 below shows a plot of the El Niño Index. This is a more recent plot at the end of 2023, but the February 2023 data coincide with just about when the Index was zero but increasing.
It was decided to try to simulate the effect of an El Niño by taking the February 2023 data, which was available in May 2023, and extending the linear trend by about 5 years. Over the first 2 years a strong El Niño effect was achieved by raising the increase in sea level by roughly an extra 10mm. Over the next year the sea level drops back to the linear trend line. The Simulated El Niño is shown in figure 5 together with the linear trend.
A note to the purists. Every month when a new month is analysed the slope of the linear fit varies slightly therefore any actual residual sea level (actual minus linear value) or sinusoidal variation is measured to a slightly modified linear line. As the slopes are generally in the range 3.2 to 3.5 mm/year this is considered acceptable as being within “engineering tolerance” and being a retired engineer, I can sleep at night with this situation.
The modified data were analysed, and “accelerations” determined. The results are shown in Figure 6. The effect of the El Niño is to increase the “acceleration” temporary by about .01mm/year2 over the next 12 months or so and then resume a downwards trend. Interestingly two previous El Niños in 2015/16 (strong) and 2018/19 (moderate) show up as wiggles on the blue curve. The associated reduction in “acceleration” since 2020 is also shown in Figure 7
The next set of data to be analysed is for June 2023 resulting in Figures 8 and 9 which indicate a small influence of the El Niño starting.
When the October data were analysed, it was clear that there had been a dramatic change in the data readings as shown in figure 10.
Figure 11 below shows the differences between the October 2023 data and the June 2023 data. Over the first 10 years there had been increases in the October data of up to over 8mm. For the next 13 years the values stayed roughly the same with a reduction of about 2 mm over the last 7 years. The kick up at the end is mainly due to the El Niño. The consequences of these changes were to reduce the slope by about 0.3 mm/year and increase the “acceleration” by about 0.008 mm/year2. As of now no explanation has been found as to why these changes occurred. The last time any changes had occurred was in August 2021 with those changes varying between -2.5 mm and 0.5 mm resulting in little change in slope and a reduction in “acceleration” of 0.004mm/year2.
The November and December data release were anticipated with some trepidation and then analysed. The changes from June 2023 to November 2023 were lower as shown in Figure 12 with a maximum change now being about 5mm. From June 2023 this resulted in a reduction in slope of about 0.2mm/year and a reduction in “acceleration” of about 0.003mm/year2.
At this stage it was decided to create a combined plot of the November data showing the NASA data and the curve produced by combining the linear line with the sinusoidal variation, Figure 13.
Figures 14 and 15 show the latest (December 2023) plots of “acceleration” and reduction in “acceleration” since the 2020 peak.
A final plot, Figure 16, shows a comparison of “accelerations” since Jan 2020 based on the February 2023 data with the added El Niño simulation and the December 2023 data. If the 2024 trend follows the simulation trends the “accelerations” will peak at about .085 mm/year2 in the late summer of 2024 and quickly start reducing at nearly 0.01mm/year2 until the next significant El Niño appears.
Who doesn’t like a prediction? I’ve put my head up over the wall but at 86, with no agenda, reputation, University role or job to keep it’s nice to have that freedom. Just have to keep taking the tablets to see it all come to fruition!!
One conclusion is that the “accelerations” as calculated are not the harbingers of Doom and Gloom that many Climate Scientists, the BBC and the Guardian Paper portray. These “accelerations” may just be mathematical quirks and not of any major physical significance, but it could be revealing to try to match them and predict future variation especially over the next 10 years or so.
I have facilitated the publication of this essay, the fourth of Dr. Welch’s contributions here. Dr. Welch and I have had a long-standing continuing conversation, over several years, about sea level rise [SLR] rates and the assertion by some, Nerem et al. and others, that sea level rise is accelerating (meaning for SLR, rising faster and faster). NASA/NOAA likewise call the change in the rate seen when the satellite-calculated SLR is tacked on to the global tide gauge record at the year 1996 ‘accelerating SLR”. As with all numerical data that can possibly be associated with Climate Change, there is and has been a lot of fiddling with the methods, calculations, and resulting numbers. Thus, with sea level data, for which the annual changes are small compared to the magnitude of the confounding factors, little if anything can be ascertained with any degree of scientific certainty.
Long-time readers will remember that I am not a fan of the SLR Acceleration topic – for reasons stated above.
Dr. Welch’s take on acceleration is as valid as any other out there.
Earth’s sea levels are rising – they will continue to rise for all the reasons they have risen for the last few hundred years. It is my opinion that they will continue to rise at the same rate – 2 or maybe even 3 mm per year – into the future. This slow steady rise can and will be a problem for highly developed low-lying areas. Building within 8 inches of the today’s sea level – mean high tide — is and was always exceptionally foolish.
My thanks to Dr. Alan Welch for his continuing efforts to keep a close eye on the topic which allows him to catch repeated alterations of the data sets being used.
Dr. Welch is a guest here, please treat him like you would a guest in your own home.
The UN Food & Agricultural Agency has started to update its database to include 2022 numbers.
Cereal output, which includes rice, was slightly down on 2021, but is still the second highest on record.
The value of agricultural output still has not been updated for 2022, but was at a record high in 2021, based on constant prices (i.e. excluding the effects of inflation).
It’s all a very different story to the one fed to us by the media, with their lies of how extreme weather and droughts are supposedly impacting food supply.
Alarmists further exaggerate global “average temperature anomaly” outcomes by claiming they represent a “global climate emergency” where “temperatures during 2023 likely exceed those of any period in the last 100,000 years” with all this ridiculous climate alarmist propaganda based on an increased 2023 global “average temperature anomaly” difference of 0.15 degrees C from year 2016 levels.
These “hottest year on record” claims are based on misrepresenting the year 2023 obscure “global average temperature anomaly” outcome that is not applicable to any specific location or region on earth.
Table 1 information provided below shows all 16 NOAA Global Time Series regional average temperature anomaly data for year 2023 and identifies whether the 2023 measurement was a record high anomaly value.
For global regions that had a record high year 2023 average temperature anomaly their prior highest region temperature anomaly value and year are shown. For global regions that did not have a record high average temperature anomaly in 2023 (with these global regions noted in all capital letters in Table 1) their highest regional average temperature anomaly value and year are provided.
Table 1 shows 7 of NOAA’s 16 global regions did not have a year 2023 highest average temperature anomaly outcome including Asia, Europe, U.S. (addressed later), Oceania, East N. Pacific Region, Hawaiian Region, Arctic, and the Antarctic.
NOAA’s year 2023 global regional average temperature anomaly result across its 16 selected regions demonstrates the significant average temperature anomaly variation differences around the globe that are driven by the disparate climate behaviors associated with each of these regions. These disparate global regional average temperature anomaly varying outcomes are concisely displayed in Table 1.
The global wide average temperature anomaly outcome conceals the significantly varying global climate regional differences with the alarmist claim of “highest ever measured global average temperature anomaly” masking the more complex and complete picture of the global average temperature anomaly outcomes that are displayed by NOAA’s data in Table 1.
Most significantly, NOAA’s global regional temperature anomaly data establishes that the assertion of year 2023 being the “highest ever measured average temperature anomaly” claim did not occur across the globally dominant regional land areas that include Asia, Europe, U.S. (addressed later), Oceania, Hawaiian Region, Arctic and the Antarctic.
The Table 1 average temperature anomaly data establishes that the highest global regional anomaly values vary across many different years including 2007 (Antarctica Region), 2015 (East N. Pacific & Hawaiian Region), 2016 (Arctic Region), 2019 (Oceania Region) and 2020 (Asia & Europe Regions).
Note the large range of average temperature anomaly values (a factor of more than 17 difference) that exists between the Arctic (2.55 degrees C) versus the Antarctic region (0.15 degrees C) for the year 2023 average anomaly measurements between these global polar regions.
As shown in Table 1, NOAA’s year 2023 Global average temperature anomaly of 1.18 degrees C (corresponding to an absolute average temperature 15.08 degrees C relative to the NOAA year 1901 to 2000 global average temperature measurement baseline period average value of 13.9 degrees C from which each years global average temperature anomaly is determined) is only 0.15 degrees C (0.27 degrees F) higher than the prior highest 2016 year average temperature anomaly value of 1.03 degrees C as shown below (corresponding to an absolute average temperature of 14.93 degrees C).
Yet this small global average temperature anomaly difference of 3/20ths of a degree C from the prior highest year anomaly value of 2016 (which is an El Niño year just as is year 2023) is hyped by climate alarmist media as representing dangerous increased “record heat” and the “Earth’s hottest year on record” (instead of “highestaveragetemperature anomaly on record” which represents an “average temperature “outcome instead of a “maximum temperature” outcome that is required to make a valid claim of “hottest year on record”).
Alarmists further exaggerate global “average temperature anomaly” outcomes by claiming they represent a “global climate emergency” where “temperatures during 2023 likely exceed those of any period in the last 100,000 years” with all this ridiculous climate alarmist propaganda based on an increased 2023 global “average temperature anomaly” difference of 0.15 degrees C from year 2016 levels.
The year 2023 flawed climate alarmist claims of “hottest year on record” are in the same vein as the flawed claims made by climate alarmists about the summer of 2023 being “the U.S. hottest summer ever” that was addressed here and shown below.
The article notes the failure of climate alarmist to evaluate maximum summer temperatures (Tmax) instead of average summer temperatures (Tavg) with these latter temperatures influenced more by increased average minimum temperatures (Tmin) increases (as shown below for U.S. June through August summer 2023 temperatures) driven by Urban Heat Island impacts from U.S. population growth since 1895 as addressed in the article.
These huge growths in U.S. population are also reflected even more so in the world population growth over this period.
The huge increasing global population density growth outcomes that have occurred over NOAA’s temperature anomaly measurement period from the mid-1800s to 2023 and the impact of this population density growth on global surface temperatures is unaddressed in NOAA’s year 2023 report.
This important climate science area is addressed by climate scientists including Dr. Roy Spencer who has performed analysis evaluating increased urban population density growth impacts on surface air temperature warming defined as Urban Heat Island (UHI) impacts.
Dr. Spencer notes the following regarding the impacts of UHI on warming in U.S. population centers:
“As I previously announced, our paper submittedfor publication on the method showed that UHI warming in the U.S. since 1895 is 57% of the GHCN warming trend averaged over all suburban and urban stations.”
This analysis showsthatsummer warming in U.S. cities is exaggerated by 100%over the period from 1895 to 2023.
Long term global increasing population density UHI effects on surface air temperatures exist at all locations across the world resulting in warmer urban areas versus suburb locations as presented Dr. Roy Spencer’s analysis here.
“The quantitative relationships between temperature and population are almost the same whether I use GHCN raw or adjusted (homogenized) data, with the homogenized data producing a somewhat stronger UHI signal. They are also roughly the same whether I used data from 1880-1920, or 1960-1980; for this global dataset, all years (1880 through 2023) are used together to derive the quantitative relationships.”
“Here are some examples of the UHI dataset for several regions, showing the estimated total UHI effect on air temperature in the years 1850 and 2023 (I have files every 10 years from 1800 to 1950, then yearly thereafter). By “total UHI effect” I mean how much warmer the locations are compared to wilderness (zero population density) conditions. I emphasize the warm season months, which is when the UHI effect is strongest.”
The UHI effect of population density growth is reflected in color coded world map global regions which display increasing UHI temperature impacts from 0.01 degrees C to 2.7 degrees C as noted in the legend. As years progress and population density increases occur around the world, regional color patterns change from yellows, to greens, to reds, to purples, etc. denoting ever increasing UHI temperature increases over time.
These increasing temperature UHI impact temperatures are clearly of significant relevance compared to NOAA’s range of modest global average temperature anomaly measurement changes over time which are typically measured in tenths of a degree C varying over multiyear periods.
Furthermore, Dr. Spencer notes that the world’s population is increasingly moving to urban centers with that reality bringing higher UHI temperature impacts that are erroneously hyped by climate alarmists and their media advocates as being driven by “global warming” when he concludes:
“Over 50% of the population now lives in urban areas, and that fraction is supposed to approach 70% by 2045. This summer we have seen how the media reports on temperature records being broken for various cities and they usually conflate urban warmth with global warming even through such record-breaking warmth would increasingly occur even with no global warming.”
Asia’s highest average temperature anomaly was 2.21 degrees C that occurred in year 2020 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with a year 2023 average temperature anomaly value of 2.09 degrees C as shown below. Asia has by far the largest land area and dominates global population growth across the world as addressed in Table 2.
Asia’s year 2023 average temperate anomaly was 0.12 degrees C below its prior highest year 2020 average temperature anomaly value despite the UHI increasing temperature impacts that are present in the Asia global region as shown in Dr. Spencer’s UHI diagram below for India and China which portrays the UHI effect on increasing air temperatures between 1850 and 2023 (large areas with between 0.2 and 1.6 degrees C of UHI temperature increases) in this huge global region.
Europe’s highest average temperature anomaly was 2.16 degrees C that occurred in year 2020 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with a year 2023 average temperature anomaly of 2.15 degrees C.
Europe’s year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.01 degrees C below its prior highest average temperature anomaly year in 2020 again despite the UHI temperature impacts that are present in the Europe global region as shown in Dr. Spencer’s UHI diagram below (large areas with between 0.1 and 0.8 degrees C UHI temperature increases) between 1850 and 2023.
North America’s highest average temperature anomaly was 2.01 degrees C that occurred in year 2023 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with the prior high average temperature anomaly in 2016 at 1.99 C.
North America’s year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.02 degrees C above its prior highest average temperature anomaly year of 2016 again despite the UHI temperature impacts that are present in the United States global region that are shown in Dr. Spencer’s UHI diagram below (large areas with between 0.1 and 0.8 degrees C UHI temperature increases) between 1850 and 2023.
Oceania’s highest average temperature anomaly was 1.34 degrees C that occurred in year 2019 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with a with a year 2023 average temperature anomaly of 1.29 degrees C.
Oceania’s year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.05 degrees C below its prior highest average temperature anomaly year of 2019 again despite the UHI temperature impacts as shown in Dr. Spencer’s UHI diagram below (developed areas with between 0.1 and 0.8 degrees C UHI temperature increases) between 1850 and 2023 for Australia.
The Hawaiian Region highest average temperature anomaly was 1.16 degrees C that occurred in year 2015 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with a clear downward temperature anomaly trend since 2015 (ignored and concealed by alarmists). The Hawaiian Region year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.66 degrees C below its prior highest average temperature anomaly year of 2015.
The Arctic Region highest average temperature anomaly was 3.00 degrees C that occurred in year 2016 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Time Series data with a clear downward temperature anomaly trend since 2016 to 2.55 degrees C in 2023 (ignored and concealed by alarmists). The Arctic’s year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.45 degrees C below its prior highest average temperature anomaly year of 2016.
The Antarctic Region highest average temperature anomaly was 0.65 degrees C that occurred in 2007 as shown below from NOAA’s Global Times Series data which clearly shows a 16 yearlong downward temperature anomaly trend since year 2007 (ignored and concealed by alarmists). The Antarctic’s year 2023 average temperature anomaly was 0.50 degrees C below its prior highest average temperature anomaly year of 2007 at 0.15 degrees C.
Table 2 below provides data for NOAA’s global climate regions that have the largest land area and populations with this data establishing that at least 58% of the earths land surface (Asia, Europe, U.S., Oceania and Antarctic with a total land area of 33.69 million square miles out of the global total of 57.80 million square miles) did not experience the hyped “highest ever recorded” average temperature anomaly outcome in 2023 and that the population of these huge global regions (nearly 5.86 billion people) represents over 73% of the 8 billion people now living on earth.
NOAA average temperature anomaly data for the Contiguous U.S. (shown below) clearly indicates there is no increasing average temperature anomaly trend in the U.S. with the January to December 2023 average temperature anomaly outcome exceeded by numerous years including year 2016.
Furthermore, NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. Maximum temperature data for year-end 2023 (provided below) shows no “highest ever recorded” maximum temperature for the U.S. (8th highest in rank) in 2023.
Additionally, temperature data for NOAA’s 9 U.S. Climate Regions shown below establishes that none of these 9 climate regions experienced a “highest ever recorded maximum temperature” during 2023 (NOAA data link same as above with “Region” selection option).
Furthermore, NOAA’s year 2023 temperature data for U.S. states (with California shown below which experienced a 2023 maximum temperature that was only the 71st highest out of 129 highest maximum temperatures) establishes that 50 of the 52 states did not experience record high maximum temperatures in year 2023 (only Maryland & Louisiana are exceptions).
NOAA’s data for the average temperature anomaly temperatures for the Contiguous U.S shows no increasing average temperature anomaly trend and no maximum absolute temperature in year 2023 with the highest ever maximum Contiguous U.S. temperature occurring in year 2012 more than a decade ago with these outcomes concealed and ignored by climate alarmist media.
The NOAA characterization that the year 2023 global average temperature anomaly was the “highest ever recorded global average temperature anomaly” misrepresents the global reality of widely varying average temperature anomaly results across the many disparate global climate regions (as detailed in Tables 1 & 2 above using NOAA’s extensive and readily available Global Time Series region average temperature anomaly data) which establish that 7 of NOAA’s Global climate regions did not experience a “highest ever average temperature anomaly” outcome in year 2023.
This data refutes the climate alarmist media’s grossly distorted and erroneous claims that the world experienced “Earth’s hottest year on record” (with the alarmist media’s continued flawed and erroneous deception where “highest everaveragetemperature anomaly” is cast as being the “hottestyear on record” without evaluating any maximumtemperature anomaly or absolute temperature data that is required to make a “hottest year on record” claim) with NOAA’s climate data showing over 58% of all global land regions with populations representing over 73% of the earth’s total 8 billion people did not experience the erroneously claimed “highest ever recorded average temperature anomaly” or “hottest year on record” in year 2023.
Additionally, these global climate data assessments fail completely to address known impacts of increasing population density growth over time that cause UHI increasing global regional temperature impacts that are not related to exaggerated CO2 claimed “global warming” with these CO2 claims built upon decades of flawed computer model hype.
Last year was a wet one in England & Wales, the 7th wettest on record. (The UK series has a similar result).
We routinely hear claims that the climate is wetter because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, (while also being told we will get more droughts!). However the fact that we have had similarly wet years in the distant past, such as 1768, 1852, 1872, 1877, 1882, 1903 and 1960, rather demolishes that argument.
The major factor behind last year’s high rainfall was that the number of rain days was also one of the highest on record since 1931, when Met Office daily data begins. In short, annual rainfall was high because of weather, not climate.
The daily rainfall data also strongly indicated persistence rather than extreme rainfall. Only day exceeded 20mm, and there are no long term trends. That solitary day was during Storm Babet, when 22.76 fell.
October was the wettest month with 177.6mm, and was the first and only month since 2014 to exceed 170mm. Again, there was nothing unusual at all about this
One particular thing intrigued me, and this was the comparison with 1960, when there were some truly dreadful floods throughout the autumn – certainly much worse than anything we saw in 2023.
On an annual basis, the two years were indistinguishable, 1195mm in 1960 and 1195mm last year.
But a monthly comparison reveals that 1960 was notably drier in March and April. Between August and November, however, 1960 was 14% wetter.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2023 was +0.83 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2023 anomaly of +0.91 deg. C.
2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2023 was +0.83 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2023 anomaly of +0.91 deg. C.
The 2023 annual average global LT anomaly was +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 mean, easily making 2023 the warmest of the 45-year satellite record. The next-warmest year was +0.39 deg. C in 2016. The following plot shows all 45 years ranked from the warmest to coolest.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
It might be partly coincidence, but the +0.51 deg. C number for 2023 from satellites is the same as the surface air temperature estimate from the NOAA/NCEP/NCAR Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Note that the CDAS estimate is only partly based upon actual surface air temperature observations… it represents a physically consistent model-based estimate using a wide variety of data sources (surface observations, commercial aircraft, weather balloons, satellites, etc.). [UPDATE: it appears the CDAS anomalies are not relative to the 1991-2020 base period… I recomputed them, and the CDAS anomaly appears to be +0.45 deg. C, not +0.51 deg. C]:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months are:
YEAR
MO
GLOBE
NHEM.
SHEM.
TROPIC
USA48
ARCTIC
AUST
2022
Jan
+0.03
+0.07
+0.00
-0.23
-0.12
+0.68
+0.10
2022
Feb
+0.00
+0.02
-0.01
-0.24
-0.04
-0.30
-0.49
2022
Mar
+0.16
+0.28
+0.03
-0.07
+0.23
+0.74
+0.03
2022
Apr
+0.27
+0.35
+0.18
-0.04
-0.25
+0.45
+0.61
2022
May
+0.18
+0.25
+0.10
+0.02
+0.60
+0.23
+0.20
2022
Jun
+0.07
+0.08
+0.05
-0.36
+0.47
+0.33
+0.11
2022
Jul
+0.36
+0.37
+0.35
+0.13
+0.85
+0.56
+0.65
2022
Aug
+0.28
+0.32
+0.25
-0.03
+0.60
+0.51
+0.00
2022
Sep
+0.25
+0.43
+0.06
+0.03
+0.88
+0.69
-0.28
2022
Oct
+0.32
+0.44
+0.21
+0.05
+0.17
+0.94
+0.05
2022
Nov
+0.17
+0.21
+0.13
-0.16
-0.50
+0.52
-0.56
2022
Dec
+0.05
+0.13
-0.02
-0.34
-0.20
+0.80
-0.38
2023
Jan
-0.04
+0.05
-0.13
-0.38
+0.12
-0.12
-0.50
2023
Feb
+0.09
+0.17
+0.00
-0.10
+0.68
-0.24
-0.11
2023
Mar
+0.20
+0.24
+0.17
-0.13
-1.43
+0.17
+0.40
2023
Apr
+0.18
+0.11
+0.26
-0.03
-0.37
+0.53
+0.21
2023
May
+0.37
+0.30
+0.44
+0.40
+0.57
+0.66
-0.09
2023
June
+0.38
+0.47
+0.29
+0.55
-0.35
+0.45
+0.07
2023
July
+0.64
+0.73
+0.56
+0.88
+0.53
+0.91
+1.44
2023
Aug
+0.70
+0.88
+0.51
+0.86
+0.94
+1.54
+1.25
2023
Sep
+0.90
+0.94
+0.86
+0.93
+0.40
+1.13
+1.17
2023
Oct
+0.93
+1.02
+0.83
+1.00
+0.99
+0.92
+0.63
2023
Nov
+0.91
+1.01
+0.82
+1.03
+0.65
+1.16
+0.42
2023
Dec
+0.83
+0.93
+0.73
+1.08
+1.26
+0.26
+0.85
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2023, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
A: Airlines that would be grounded, and airports that would be closed, without a replacement for the crude oil that makes the fuels that politicians want to rid the world of.
B: Billions on this planet that exist because of all the products and various fuels made from crude oil that were not around before the 1800s.
C:Climate policies that favor wind turbines and solar panels that only generate occasional electricity but CANNOT make any products.
D: Death spiral imposed on the auto industry to only manufacture EVs just for the elites to drive a vehicle.
E:Elephant in the Room is that the ruling class, powerful elite, and media avoid energy literacy conversations as the end of crude oil that is manufactured into all the products and transportation fuels that built the world to eight billion would be the end of civilization as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.
F:Fossil fuels manufacture everything for the 8 billion on this planet, i.e., products and transportation fuels.
G:Give me a Break, as John Stossel often says about the very few parents, teachers, students, politicians, and those in the media who have any clues or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives!
H:Humanity abuses that support “clean energy” and the lack of transparency to the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement.
I: Inventories of unsold EVs continue to grow.
J:Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute without a plan to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil that are the basis of products, travel, and communications for the 8 billion on this planet.
K: Knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
L: Life expectancy continues to increase from the products made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
M: Materialistic society that we’ve become over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space programs that did not exist before the 1800s.
N: No parts or components can be made from “just electricity” from wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear, and hydro, and for all the mining equipment used to extract the metals and minerals to build clean “electricity” as they are all made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!
O: Only occasional electricity from wind turbines and solar panels, but no products for humanity.
P: Parts and components for wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear, and hydro, and for all the mining equipment used to extract the metals and minerals to build clean “electricity” are made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!
Q: Quality of life that began after the 1800s with the development of more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from oil.
R: Ridding the world of crude oil usage, i.e., jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, while there is NO plan to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives that are the basis of everything.
S: Shockingly, very few parents, teachers, students, politicians, and those in the media have any clues or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives!
T: Truck and automobile components and parts that CANNOT be made by wind turbines or solar panels.
U: Usage of crude oil is NOT for the generation of electricity, but to manufacture derivatives and fuels, which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper, i.e., all products that did not exist pre-1800s.
V: Vehicles that are 100% comprised of parts and components made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
W: Weather-related fatalities have virtually disappeared with all the products and medications available today that are made with oil derivatives from crude oil that were not available a few centuries ago.
X: Xylenes, along with the primary chemicals of ammonia, methanol, ethylene, propylene, benzene, and toluene, all of which are manufactured from crude oil but cannot be made by wind turbines or solar panels.
Y: Yet the state of California, the 4th largest economy in the world but with only 0.5% of the world’s population, believes it can change the world environment at the expense of those living in the State.
Z: Zero products being made from wind turbines and solar panels.
Happy Holidays and a Safe and Prosperous New Year to one and all!
You must be logged in to post a comment.