I start this month with a measured piece about the mismatch between strident claims about ‘climate change’ and the declining attention of citizens, by a former Canadian Minister.
Joe Oliver: Ranting about climate isn’t good government policy, and isn’t convincing anyone
Later, and for the benefit of reader Chris, are the paths followed by temperature and CO2 in the recent past. I’ve used GISS, the most heavily adjusted temperature set.
Later Still: I enjoyed this little take on the extermination of species theme:
Join the discussion 66 Comments
Any call for verifiable science is welcome but this does give any credibility to throwing up red herrings such as:
“…science has not established the extent of the anthropogenic contribution.”
It is of sufficient concern to note unequivocally that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 and that this increase will continue forever and that there is incontrovertible evidence of adverse ecological effects already apparent. The proof is twofold – 1) changed ratio of C12 to C13, and 2) falling concentration of oxygen.
It is scientifically verified that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation which heats the biosphere and n.b. the warming necessarily increases if CO2 increases.
All we can say about extent is that CO2 and warming are increasing and in some cases the rate of increase is itself increasing.
This is a verifiable scientific recipe for catastrophe.
“All we can say about extent is that CO2 and warming are increasing and in some cases the rate of increase is itself increasing.
This is a verifiable scientific recipe for catastrophe.”
The only thing “verifiable” here, blith, is your religious belief that correlation = causation.
The “anthropogenic contribution” of the actual ACO2-caused warming is completely unknown.
When it is scientifically agreed that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there has been a max warming of up to 1.0c [and that small warming is creating better food production for that 1,000% pop increase during that same period] and only a small to no part of that 1.0c can ever be attributed to ACO2-caused warming, please explain how this “verifiable scientific recipe for catastrophe” exists?
You have been asked this question many times and you have never answered it.
Give it a try, blith.
Thanks for the link to the Joe Oliver article, Don. I wasn’t familiar with the name, so I looked him up – he is a former Canadian Conservative Minister of Finance. A good article, but its a pity that it wasn’t written by a current MP with the courage to challenge this cabal! Sadly, it seems to demonstrate that in the English-speaking world at least, speaking out against the warmist faith is still career suicide for politicians and scientists. I only hope I live long enough to see this situation change, but like you the path is short for me.
Jo Nova pokes fun at the BOM storm warnings for Vic. More wishful thinking from the alarmists and of course ZIP caused by extra co2 anyway.
And wasn’t it Flannery and Dr David Jones at the BOM who told us in 2008 that we wouldn’t see rainfall that would fill our dams in the future?
This was to be the new norm for our climate, but of course the long POSITIVE IOD was the real cause of that extended drought according to the UNSW and CSIRO.
A new study shows that there has been no acceleration in global warming in the lower trop for 23 years.
“Study: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller
“Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.
University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.
“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”
Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”
The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.
Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.
“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.
While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.
A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.
Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”
Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.
Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.
“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.
I would not be too focussed on just the lower troposphere as there is a large amount of buffering of warming trends due to the heat capacity of oceans.
Also as there is a natural sinusoidal pattern in trends, picking a 25 year span may well produce an artificially lower result. The real trend is obtained by measuring “peak-to-peak” or “trough-to-trough” after correcting for El Nino and volcano effects.
In any case it is unarguable that the rate of growth of CO2 is increasing, and massive amounts of heat are now missing from the stratosphere because they are being absorbed below. This trend will continue as long as the concetration of CO2 continues to increase or even if it merely remains at current levels.
Increasing rates of growth are here: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
“massive amounts of heat are now missing from the stratosphere because they are being absorbed below”
Well according to the UAH data, there was a 0.4c temperature drop in the lower stratosphere in the 15 years prior to 1994. In the 24 years since, the lower stratosphere has cooled only 0.15c, despite increasing growth of CO2.
Tassie has a snowy start to summer.
There is a case to be made that most of the population is not influenced by facts or logic. This is a sad state of affairs which is hard to believe but there it is. Most are driven by cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is which they form their reality. If you face them with that which challenges their beliefs you do not get a rational response. You get extreme anger and hostility but not a change of opinion.
The warmist is very keen on reducing emissions and is quite okay with all sorts of privations in order to reduce emissions. Principally these emissions are CO2. You get many many statements of how much less emissions there have been. If you face them with the fact that all measures of CO2 in the atmosphere show it is rising at an increasing rate you get hostility. There is no recognition of the futility of their response. Expecting prayer to influence the world and events has great similarities.
BB I think you’re correct and silly religious dogma will always hold sway with some people and I don’t think that is likely to change any time soon.
And now even more studies show that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about Arctic ice or temps etc today when compared to the earlier Holocene.
Here’s another story about warming causing more severe winters. Fair dinkum some people will believe anything.
Certainly Flannery and BOMS Dr David Jones believe that more co2 can cause drought in parts of OZ. Trouble is that most of OZ has seen an increase in rainfall since 1900 and only SW WA and Tassie have seen less rainfall over recent decades.
Seems co2 can have the opposite impact over OZ depending on where you live. These silly religious beliefs seem to happen all over the world.
Because Dr Susan Crockford dares to supply the correct evidence and data about polar bears she is abused by gutless crawlers and liars in a new junk science paper.
How much longer can these spivs and cowards get away with their false claims? Another wonderful woman of integrity using her knowledge and scientific work to disprove their CAGW delusion.
Steve Mcintyre has a new post about SLR on the USA coast during the Holocene. In comments he also has this to say about a cooling Holocene and the benefit of increased co2 emissions. 10 out of 10 to Steve for his clever ” adjustocene” remark.
Posted Nov 25, 2017 at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Reply
I think that there’s convincing evidence that climate has gotten colder over the past 10000 years with the 19th century being the coldest since the LGM (incipient neoglaciation in Baffin Island and Iceland.) From that perspective – with incipient return to ice age, it would be wise policy to do whatever we could to avert a return to deep glaciation and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would have been wise policy.
Another excellent post by Dr Judith Curry on SLR and the need for a Red Team to counter the omissions and bias of the CAGW brigade and their so called new report on climate.
Roy Spencer has posted the UAH V 6 temps for NOV, but not yet complete. But the globe has dropped 0.27 c, the NH dropped 0.34 c, SH dropped 0.21 c and Tropics dropped 0.21 c.
Certainly a big drop in the NH, but is only one month’s data.
A weak la nina is on the way, at least the last time I looked.
Neville’s misrepresentation of the meaning of Spencer’s November measurement is typical of the tricks being pulled by denialists.
Notice how Neville did not state the data which, for November Global anomaly, was 0.36. Notice too how there is no mention that 2016 was affected by El Nino, and denialists always cherry-pick El Nino peak starting points (eg 1998, 2016) to spin their confusion. Consequently some drop in measurement would be expected even if there is underlying warming.
In fact, ignoring El Nino years, the recent November reading of 0.36 is the highest November non-Nino anomally on record.
We have just gone through the highest November on record when there is no El Nino and no sunspots.
But may of our denialists have tried to blame sunspots for warming. So the latest record really does put our denialists back in their box.
Except for El Nino November, there is no other November data that equals or exceeds 0.36.
The scientific data is here: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
You need to look at all the data to see what is occurring and not cherry-pick as some seem addicted to.
Here is the official result from New England by election. You have to scroll down to see the first preference votes and Windsor left a hole of 30% + ( called others). Labor had a first pref swing as well of over 4% and also nearly every other candidate, as shown by + sign. Once again because of Windsor’s previous vote. All the booth results are available as well for anyone to check.
Of course 2 party preferred vote of Joyce 73.92% and Labor 26.08% showed a swing to Joyce of +7.5%.
We now have a reasonably large number of kids who have been fully brainwashed on climate change at school, but who have now left and are growing up, getting jobs, and have some money to pursue the sports they are interested in and travel about on holiday. In these real-world experiences, they are seeing that we have in fact not run out of water, they can still go snow skiing, and there is no evidence of beach-side houses being inundated. Research shows that people’s political views are influenced much more by actual experience than by argument, and this young generation will reasonably quickly lose all interest in climate change, and be resentful about any imposed costs, let alone black-outs. We just need to give things a bit more time, and the political support for climate change policies will disappear completely.
It is more likely they will be impacted by constantly rising temperatures driven by constantly rising GHG emissions.
Now that silly denialist explanations, such as blaming natural variations and sunspots have been exposed, the underlying trend is clear:
So the younger generation will need more climate science and politics.
MACK, our alarmist-in-chief, blith for short, chooses to avoid the fact that we have had it this warm or warmer in the past, every 1,000 years or so, due entirely to natural climate variability, when there was much less atmo CO2 and when world population was a tiny fraction of today’s.
Considering that his favourite thermometers are kept where all this tar and cement is, and those locations often warm to greater temps than surrounding farmland every day, that represent increases many times more than the total warming of recent centuries, he is in denial of the logic that ACO2 is just as likely to be causing cooling as warming.
Yet we still wait for him to provide any calculations to support his argument.
Which, of course, he cannot do.
But he does continue to blither.
It seems that imposing co2 taxes on western countries guarantees that co2 emissions will rise more rapidly due to a higher carbon intensity in developing countries.
The graph of co2 emissions certainly shows that China co2 emissions soared while EU, US etc emissions leveled off during the same period. Developed countries found that some companies went broke and others moved to China and made their products and produced much higher emissions of co2 than they would have if they’d stayed at home.
So it can be said that “Carbon taxes increase global co2 emissions. Period.”
Jo Nova has a look at the evidence for thousands of undersea volcanoes (
at least) that scientists are trying to number and better understand.
I just listened to some fool on their ABC AM program telling us that China is doing more than any other country to use more renewable energy.
How can these people tell such outrageous porkies and remain unchallenged by the media?
Coal is the energy source that these fools hate the most, but China uses as much coal as the rest of the world combined. And 66.7% of China’s total energy is generated from coal and only 1.6% comes from Geo +S&W.
But the much vilified US only generates 17.1% of total energy from coal as this graph from the IEA shows. When will these people stop lying and why does their ABC promote and encourage them?
Here is the link to the IEA ( EU based in France) China total energy graph, showing 66.7% of their total energy comes from coal.
When will the people start to wake up to the left’s con and fra-d?
Don, global temperature (5 year running average) has increase every year since you wrote “A cool look at Global Warming” 10 years ago. Just saying.
Well David please prove you’re correct and more importantly please tell us what your remedy is to mitigate your problem?
Nev, that would be a great counter-point, except for the 40 years of scientific evidence supporting AGW.
2, Price on carbon
David your no 1 is untrustworthy at best.
And your no 2 will not make any measurable difference to temp at all, just ask the non OECD countries with their soaring co2 emissions.
I’ve given you the latest data from the IEA again and again , so please wake up.
Please forget about your fantasy world and check out the real planet earth.
You can see the same trend in the first part of the 20th century, too, and to a less marked fashion in the second half of the 19th century (though I do not put much faith in 19th century temperature measurements as a basis for a global average). There’s not much dispute that temperatures have been rising, in an irregular way, since the middle of the 19th century. What is not clear are the causes for that rise.
“What is not clear are the causes for that rise.”
According to the heretic Dyson:
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. “
But he’s talking about the recent period, not the earlier ones, which remain a problem for all those who see CO2 as the most powerful cause, if not the only one.
Don, spin it however you like. Dyson clearly believes far more of the science than you do. You’d do well to follow his lead.
As so often, Jimbo, you don’t deal with the point that has been made, but slide off in a different direction. Now, exactly how do you attribute the causes of warming in the three periods, and on what basis? Please set out your reasoning so that we can all follow it.
Don, do you or do you not agree with Dyson when he says:
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. “
You’re still doing it!! Ducking away from an answer but posing another question. OK, I’ll answer yours first, then you respond to mine.
Of course ONE of the main causes is the increase in CO2 brought about by burning fossil fuels. I don’t know many sceptics who would disagree. That’s all Dyson said.
Now, back to the point at issue. There has been a general, irregular increase in temperature since at least the mid 19th century, probably even from the beginning of the 19th century. Some of the rises, according to the HadCRUT estimates of temperature seem very similar. Yet the substantial burning of fossil fuels has occurred in the past thirty or so years. What caused the earlier rises in temperature, Jimbo? How is it that CO2 accumulation goes on rising, but temperature didn’t follow suit after 1998? In short, what is YOUR explanation of these phenomena?
The 1998 canard has been explained again and again. It is cherry-picking to select El Nino years.
Coal was being burnt all through earlier centuries. However earlier warming only produced a long period of constant temperature as it had to confront a cooling longterm trend that scientists originally thought threatened life on Earth.
This seems associated with changes in the Earth’s orbit once tilt, eccentricity and precession are combined as here:
It is predicted that the next 10,000 years will be a cooling period based on orbits.
To get present warming, even when natural processes are creating cooling, needs proper explanation.
I have come across another data-rich global inventory of ‘progress’, which I’ll return to from time to time. Those interested can see it at
Although such “progress” may well be a global suicide note?
The decline in poverty is a bad thing, then?
Don, surely we can’t be having unprecedented progress with CAGW hanging over our heads:??
Coincidentally, Andy May, a regular contributor to WUWT has started a seven-part series on the costs and benefits of global warming. The first episode concludes, from abundant data, that the world is getting better, not worse.
Chris, it doesn’t matter which year one uses. It is simply the case that after a twenty year period where temperature and CO2 accumulations rose at the same rate, temperature levelled off, and, over the next twenty years, showed only a small increase, while CO2 charged ahead. I’ll post a graph that shows the sequences at the end of the essay.
Your account of the last two hundred years is full of assumptions. An opposite view, again, full of assumptions, is that the rise in temperature was ‘natural’ because it followed the end of the little ice age. There’s no evidence that is compelling one way or the other.
Parliament is comprised of a multitude of despicable poseurs on all sides.
In The Life and Death of Democracy
“The author also isolates desiderata for fulfilling “the humbling ideal of democracy,” among them access to education, health care and livelihood-the sorts of things that champions of free-market democracy minimize as somehow socialistic.”
I know this will be lost on most of the delusional fools who want to con themselves at every opportunity, but here goes. These graphs come from Don’s ” our world in data” site and have been posted at WUWT after a tip off by Steve McIntyre.
I’ve linked to these studies from Dr Goklany, Dr Lomborg, Dr Ridley, Dr Rosling etc for a number of years, but it’s great to see these very easy to understand graphs and hopefully most people will start to wake up and become more optimistic about the future. But I wouldn’t hold my breath about the truly religious among us.
Recent studies show some more regional cooling around the globe.
“Of course ONE of the main causes is the increase in CO2 brought about by burning fossil fuels.”
Excellent. So when you wrote above “What is not clear are the causes for that rise.” you actually meant “What is not clear are the causes for that rise, but one of the main causes is the increase in CO2 brought about by burning fossil fuels.” And that second part was so obvious you left it out and just wrote “What is not clear are the causes for that rise.” That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
“what is YOUR explanation of these phenomena?”
You might as well ask me what my approach is for performing a kidney transplant. It’s not my field so I have nothing to contribute.
In anticipation of the regular reaming I get for refusing to engage with you on such questions, consider it my contribution to the quality of your blog. The last thing this thick soup of untrained theories on climate science needs is another one. One of the things I admire about Dyson is his approach to this: “My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave…”. Again, you’d do well to follow his lead, your arguments always come off the rails once you attempt to have a crack at the details.
So in the spirit of Dyson’s approach, I won’t be offering you tips on kidney transplants or trying to explain to you why there’s not as strong a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures as you’d like. There are far more qualified people out there to answer those questions, ask them.
How many main causes do you suppose there are, Jimbo? Dyson didn’t say THE main cause. The great problem is that no one knows what all the contributing causes to warming and cooling are. We know that CO2 is a cause, but plainly not a powerful one. We don’t know what the elements of ‘natural variation’ are, but again, plainly, they can be more powerful that CO2. The truth is that we don’t know. And it is because we don’t know that Dyson criticises those who cry loudly that CO2 is a real villain. It helps plant growth, greening, and food production. These are good things.
Forgive my saying that I don’t think you contribute to the quality of the website at all. The reason is that, like others, you wait for an opportunity to criticise, often a verbal point. When challenged, you duck and run, finding another imagined error to criticise. That leads to two faults: you provide an example for others to copy, which adds nothing to quality, and you waste other people’s time, especially mine.
I offer you your own line, as above: You have nothing to contribute.
“waste other people’s time, especially mine.”
Don, honestly! If you’d just initially written “What is not clear are the causes for that rise, but one of the main causes is the increase in CO2 brought about by burning fossil fuels.” (which is where you eventually landed) instead of “What is not clear are the causes for that rise” you would have saved us both a lot of time!
Clearly there is nothing unusual about the recent warming of Greenland. Certainly the earlier 20th century warming was similar and some studies claim the rate of warming was faster then.
But this Kobashi et al study also finds many warmer periods than today during the last 2,000 years. And the familiar names of Vinther and Box were involved in this study group.
Willis looks again at the Malthusian prediction of lack of food and starvation. Ehrlich has tried this con for the last half century and has been proven wrong again and again.
But there are still followers of this fool who still buy his books and probably will continue to do so until he or they drop off the twig. Why is it so?
Of course Willis backs up his claims with proper data and evidence.
Hey Spangled Drongo, I see you got 93 votes in the Guardian’s “Favourite Bird of Australia” poll.
A commendable effort in such a large field, or should I say flock.
The magpie was the winner, but the white ibis nearly edged it out, due to rebellious voters wanting to install a Trump style bird, purely out of malice.
Being the Guardian, quite a few went for unknown left field contenders, such as the “black throated finch” with 291 votes (supposedly threatened by Adani).
And of course how could the “Bash a Con” types not resist a bird called the “Abbott’s Booby” which scored 243.
For the full pecking order see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/magpie-edges-out-white-ibis-and-kookaburra-as-australian-bird-of-the-year
Thanks for that, dlb. I see that drongos of the non-spangled variety got a few votes too. plus a few more under Dicrurus bracteatus. But you’re right, Abbott’s Booby would be always a favourite at the groaner.
I thought I should try and counter the lies told by the media about China’s take up of S&W.
Of course it’s total fra-d and BS, because China generates 89.9% of their total energy from fossil fuels and 3.8% from bio and waste= 93.7% of total energy.
And only 1.6% comes from geo + S&W and that’s the same as the average for the world. IOW the media and most pollies are conning the people with their porkies and distortions about China. Why do they do this?
Reading Peter Kocan is a fascinating experience.
Kocan I have not met, though I’ve read some of his poetry. Arthur Calwell I did meet, and thought he was an excellent after-dinner speaker — very droll. He had the misfortune to have Doc Evatt as his Leader for far too long. A good man, and one who visited Kocan to forgive him for his attempted assassination.
On Christmas Eve I came across the following piece of ‘news’. Like most readers I sort of know about Bitcoin, without being able to describe what it really is to anyone else, and without any interest in using it myself. Well, Bitcoin apparently has many rivals, including ‘climate coin’. Read on:
‘You’ve heard of BitCoin, which few fully understand. Still, the buzz is huge, which means smart operators are hyping all manner of fresh offerings. Given the relationship between catastropharianism and other people’s money, the climateers were bound to get in on the act.
Forget Bitcoin and Dutch tulips. Ignore the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies out there competing for your shopping dollars. Here is a gift that will warm the heart of that special planet-saviour in your life. But hurry: this intriguing product just launched by a blockchain company in Switzerland’s Crypto Valley closes on 31 December.
Climatecoin, n., 1. The first “democratizing” cryptocurrency to allow “everyone to participate in the fight against Climate Change”. 2. The official currency of Warmerland. Current exchange rate: one ether equals 210 Climatecoin Tokens. 3. A cryptic solution to a non-problem.’
If you feel the need to learn more, go to
Ands another, an hour later, from an email sent to me:
‘Carbon trading is the only form of trading where the commodity is of no intrinsic value to the buyer or seller, it cannot be measured accurately and, if the auditor fraudulently exaggerates the amount traded, the buyer and the seller both benefit. It is made for fraud.’
Now that I’ve heard of ‘climate coin’, I wonder if carbon trading is the only such form of trading. Though the fraudulent nature of it, or rather, the opportunities for fraud, were pointed out from the very beginning.
I don’t know about climate coin, Don, but I should grow some credits with the carbon farming initiative.
But I need to study it carefully to maximise my planet saving and taxpayer troughing.
Who’s entitled to Carbon Entitlements?
When do we want ’em?
I’ve posted a little Christmas jollity at the beginning of this thread. Enjoy it!
I mentioned Andy May’s seven-essay examination of the notion that global warming is mostly (or entirely) man-made, and that this is a terrible problem for us all which we must unite globally to mitigate. These essays are well argued, and are based on lots of data. The last was published today, and here is the take-home message for the series, well worth considering.
The data comes first, before models and predictions, especially predictions from unvalidated models.
If you don’t see the problem in the data, it’s not a problem.
Global warming will not destroy the planet or humans, even in the worst projections (part 1).
The oceans, the Sun and the Earth’s orbit are the major controls on the climate. Humans may have some effect, but it must be small (part 1 and here).
The time value of money is critical. Spending a lot of money today to fix a possible problem in 100 years is foolish. From the standpoint of technology development, 100 years might as well be forever (post 3).
Human prosperity leads to a better environment, a healthier population, more adaptability, and lower population growth (part 1).
Poverty leads to a poorer environment, poorer health, and higher population growth (part 1).
Cheap, widely available, and reliable energy leads to prosperity (part 3, here and here).
Cold is worse than hot. Cold weather leads to more deaths and disease, warm weather leads to fewer deaths and less disease (part 5).
Humans are adaptable, today we live in hot areas, cold areas, dry and wet areas, high in the mountains and in rainforests, we have already adapted, somewhere, to anything foreseen by the climate alarmists (part 5).
Our food supply is growing rapidly, with no sign of slowing down, prices are stable. Population growth, on the other hand is slowing down (part 2).
The rate of extinctions today is very low, we are not in a “great extinction” nor are we even close (part 4).
The extreme weather trend is flat or declining (part 6).
The Gulf Stream is not shutting down (part 4).
Our measurements of the rate of sea level rise are so inaccurate we cannot be sure that sea level is rising at all, although it probably is at a very slow rate (Kip Hansen here).
Sea level rise is not alarming, except locally, and should be dealt with as a local problem (part 7, this post).
Yes, Don. This is the way Steve Milloy describes science versus [CLIMATE science]:
1/ Formulate hypothesis [Formulate conclusion]
2/ Systematically collect real data [Manipulate model “data” to fit conclusion]
3/ Evaluate hypothesis versus data [Announce the world is ending]
4/ Repeat [Smear critics]
When science simply doesn’t know apart from what our observations are telling us, cli-sci only makes stuff up based on whatever motivates them.
There is no need to be unscientific about it:
“Sea level rise is not alarming, except locally, and should be dealt with as a local problem”
It always amazes me why our CSIRO, in order to check the “local” “problem” don’t take a stroll down to the Harbour where the Fort Denison tide gauge has measured ~ 65 mm [about 3 fingers in your wine glass] of SLR over the last 100 years and now a GPS chip is telling us that the gauge is sinking by a near-similar amount, thereby telling us that it is not even a local problem.
This is supported by a similar situation in Moreton Bay, where there is little or no vertical land movement.
“As [Kip] Hansen points out, we cannot even be sure sea level is rising at all.”
Exactly! And many scientists agree with him. This is simply Nat Var.
Why should Nat Var, that has been around forever, be mitigated?
And why would you send yourself broke trying?
I read Andy May’s essay supposedly demonstrating, “Global warming will not destroy the planet or humans, even in the worst projections (part 1).”
This was the work of an ideologue running one basic dogma – that evaporation of oceans will ensure the Earth’s temperature never exceeds 30C even if CO2 increases to prehistoric levels.
There is a lot of scientific jargon and certainly when water evaporates it cools as energy that would other increase its temperature is diverted into generating a phase change from liquid to gas.
The same applies with melting ice.
However water vapour (the result of the phase change) is a stronger greenhouse gas so increases the future air temperature.
May cites outdated sources such as Newell and Dopplick (1979) and the whole notion of limited sea temperatures to 30C [303K] has been falsified.
This is false as we are now seeing temperatures up to 34C and more generally over 30C.
A general warming, in contradiction to the evaporation thesis, is corroborated by the increasing frequency of global coral heat-induced bleaching events. The first was only in 1998.
Instead of evaporating water locking sea temperatures to 30C [aka. Andy Mays ideology] we are now seeing weeks of well-over 30C temperatures and associated recent coral bleaching events such as:
Exposure to 33-35°C was on average twice as long as in non-bleaching years. Gulf corals bleached after exposure to temperatures above 34°C for a total of 8 weeks of which 3 weeks were above 35°C.
Does Cli-Sci get its desperation from certainty or certainty from desperation:
“Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.”