Climate Change News collection

[Ender]

Not to the precision you would need to support the claims of all modern temperature reconstructions being garbage.

Respond to what I said: I wasn’t referring to “all modern temperature reconstructions”; I was referring to Mann’s.

When I look at that graph I do not see the smoking gun you see.

I’ll file this in the “You can lead a horse to water, etc” category. The IPCC presented the commonly accepted temperature graph of the last thousands years clearly showing the MWP and the LIA, yet ten years later abandoned it in favor of a concocted graph that showed neither.

This is not an opinion put forth by CBS news. It is a reprint of an article that appeared in the National Review, and was clearly the opinion only of Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, an organization known for denying climate change.

So, an article reprinted by CBS doesn’t count as an MSM comment because it didn’t originate with them? It seems your responses are heavy on denial and light on repudiation. Your most common response is “Just ignore that.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It looks like you are deflecting from the main question of whether the various temperature reconstructions are accurate.

Is that your statement? I thought we were talking about Mann…

That is probably my fault for not being clear why I chimed in on post #87. It is true that I was responding to a post that was about Mann, but, which was brought up to give Steve McIntyre credibility. I intended to respond not so much about Mann specifically, but about the general conclusion reached by Mann, as confirmed by other reconstructions. It would be one thing for McIntyre to have blown a hole in all such reconstructions. But to have found a small fault with a reconstruction that is substantially confirmed by other reconstructions without that specific fault is less of an accomplishment. In any case it doesn’t give an reason to take McIntyre’s word over NASA and NOAA, even if he did find a software bug.

…and I showed how Mann’s reconstruction had severe faults…

…faults. You did not show they were severe enough to discount the general conclusions they implied.

plus I showed a significant body of peer reviewed research that confirmed the MWP was global in scope.

And for purposes of avoid any further deflection along this line, assume that is accepted by me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not to the precision you would need to support the claims of all modern temperature reconstructions being garbage.

Respond to what I said: I wasn’t referring to “all modern temperature reconstructions”; I was referring to Mann’s.

See my comment above to Theo about Mann vs other reconstructions.

When I look at that graph I do not see the smoking gun you see.

I’ll file this in the “You can lead a horse to water, etc” category.

Or maybe file it under “The complete argument was not made,” or maybe “you see what you want to see in graph.”

The IPCC presented the commonly accepted temperature graph of the last thousands years clearly showing the MWP and the LIA, yet ten years later abandoned it in favor of a concocted graph that showed neither.

I don’t think the IPCC actually renounced the MWP or the LIA. There are many temperature graphs that are not directly comparable - global average, ocean temperatures, regional, as reconstructed by ice cores or tree rings. I doubt if the IPCC published exactly the same nominal graph but without the MWP and LIA. I would like to see which graphs you refer to - both the new one and the old one, if you can still find it.

This is not an opinion put forth by CBS news. It is a reprint of an article that appeared in the National Review, and was clearly the opinion only of Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, an organization known for denying climate change.

So, an article reprinted by CBS doesn’t count as an MSM comment because it didn’t originate with them? It seems your responses are heavy on denial and light on repudiation. Your most common response is “Just ignore that.”

My remark was “So says the far-right echo chamber, and no one else.” That was a bit of hyperbole, but not too far off. The author of the article cited by CBS News is famous enough to be reported on, but the report itself does not indicate that CBS New itself thinks Wikipedia is “the most politicized source of information on the planet,” which you have to admit is a bit of a hyperbole too.

 

[Theo520]

I was responding to a post that was about Mann, but, which was brought up to give Steve McIntyre credibility.

I think you are battling a ‘strawman’

Steve McIntyre wasn’t disputing the scientific role of reconstructions, he simply checked the rigor and methodology employed by Mann, and he found Mann’s work contained significant scientific error.

You rebut nothing in your efforts to bolster the merit of reconstructions. I’ve seen no evidence McIntyre is stiputing the generic field of temp reconstructions.

 

[Theo520]

Here is a comparison of three reconstructions for Greenland.

A Review of Temperature Reconstructions

By Andy May This is an update to a 2016 post; the original post is here. We often hear that the planet is warming faster than ever before, or at the fastest rate since the beginning of the industri…

andymaypetrophysicist.com

Where did that hockey stick go???

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting article, though it’s about tropical grass that would not impact much of the U.S.

But possibly one of the most neglected pieces of environmental information is the increasing us by American ranchers of rapid rotational grazing. Hoofed animals are essential for a healthy grassland ecosystem. Their grazing aerates the soil, encourages water retention, deposits most of the nutrients back into the soil and encourages carbon sequestration. Grasses are meant to be consumed by hoofed animals.

One of the things that has been long overlooked is the effect rapid rotation can have on carbon sequestration. Grass photosynthesizes sunlight and atmospheric carbon to produce leaf surface and root structure. The more the leaf, the greater the degree of photosynthesis, and therefore the greater the deep deposit of carbon in the way of root structure. In other words, the graze/rest cycle of grass is extremely important because quick consumption of the leaves of grass does not harm root building if allowed to again develop leaf structure for photosynthesis.

Also, of course, water retention greatly affects atmospheric temperatures over grasslands. Hoofed animals and deep thick grasses aid water retention in the soil.

Different grasses work best in different parts of the U.S., and attention needs to be paid to that as well.

 

[Theo520]

Yea, I thought it was an interesting article in how man can adapt and respond. Because of this ability, I’m not overly worried about our survival.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think the IPCC actually renounced the MWP or the LIA.

True, they did not use the words "We renounce the existence of the MWP and the LIA. What they did was to publish a graph which was the centerfold of the entire report which contained no evidence of either.

There are many temperature graphs that are not directly comparable - global average, ocean temperatures, regional, as reconstructed by ice cores or tree rings.

There are indeed many things that are not comparable, but two temperature reconstructions of the same time period are directly comparable.

I doubt if the IPCC published exactly the same nominal graph but without the MWP and LIA. I would like to see which graphs you refer to - both the new one and the old one, if you can still find it.

IPCC 1990 FAR ch 7 fig 7.1( c)

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07-1.pdf

========================

IPCC AR3 Summary for Policymakers

This is not an opinion put forth by CBS news. It is a reprint of an article that appeared in the National Review, and was clearly the opinion only of Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, an organization known for denying climate change.

The point being made is that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source of information on controversial issues, notably climate change.

Wikipedia was hit by a scandal in 2009 when the public learned that William Connolley, a British Green Party politician and avid climate alarmist, was a Wikipedia administrator using his privileges to push climate alarmism while simultaneously suppressing dissenting voices. In addition to this, he personally edited more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles related to climate change debates. Wikipedia revoked his administrator’s privileges and the scandal has since dissipated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t think the IPCC actually renounced the MWP or the LIA.

True, they did not use the words "We renounce the existence of the MWP and the LIA. What they did was to publish a graph which was the centerfold of the entire report which contained no evidence of either.

Which is evidence of nothing.

There are many temperature graphs that are not directly comparable - global average, ocean temperatures, regional, as reconstructed by ice cores or tree rings.

There are indeed many things that are not comparable, but two temperature reconstructions of the same time period are directly comparable.

Not if they are of different regions.

I doubt if the IPCC published exactly the same nominal graph but without the MWP and LIA. I would like to see which graphs you refer to - both the new one and the old one, if you can still find it.

—two graphs, one old, one new—

Thank you for finding these for me. (I am so lazy!)

I have looked at the two graphs in question, and I think your analysis is straining gnats. One difference is the amount of filtering. The older graph clearly uses longer averaging periods in its filter. The newer graph shows two levels of filtering, both of which are less than that of the older graph. Focusing only on the more filtered version of the new graph, you see a minor dip at around 1340 and a major dip at around 1470. The older graph shows a minor dip at around 1440 and a major dip from 1550 to 1640. So it looks with the minor dip moved 100 later and the major dip moved 120 years later. Considering that the LIA was supposed to have lasted from 1300 to 1850, these differences do no seem terrible, and may reflect improved data in the later reconstructions.

This is not an opinion put forth by CBS news. It is a reprint of an article that appeared in the National Review, and was clearly the opinion only of Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, an organization known for denying climate change.

The point being made is that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source of information on controversial issues, notably climate change.

I know the point that was trying to be made. I just don’t think it has been made, for the reason I stated. The new evidence you cited is simply another opinion that is at odds with Wikipedia - one I do not share. The only way to convince me that Wikipedia is unreliable is to show where it says something I know is not true.

…William Connolley,… Wikipedia revoked his administrator’s privileges…

Proof that Wikipedia is generally trustworthy.

 

[Theo520]

This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants

Dr Joanne Chory hopes that genetic modifications to enhance plants’ natural carbon-fixing traits could play a key role – but knows that time is short

www.theguardian.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Nolte: ‘Scientific Response’ to My Global Warming Op-Ed Is Really Stupid​

John Nolte 16 Apr 2019 Breitbart News

Interestingly, one attack on me accidentally proves my overall point…

“We all know that the Earth’s CO2 levels were higher at various times in the past. In the Eocene, 50 million years ago, they may have even been four times as high. This is not an issue. In the past, rates of volcanic CO2 emissions globally were higher as continental spreading rates changed, for example,” Michael Henehan, a postdoctoral researcher at GFZ Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, helpfully informs us.

Let me reiterate my point for the PHD-impaired.

Due to this new study we now know that Global Warming has occurred at “various times in the past” due to increased CO2 levels. We also know that when these cycles occurred in the past, as I stated in my original piece, human behavior had nothing to do it.

It is simply a fact that these warming cycles occurred millions of years prior to the Industrial Age when there were no factories, no automobiles, no cattle industry and its farting cows, no charcoal grills, no central air conditioning. . .

. . . these past warming cycles were much, much, much worse than anything the alarmists are predicting today. In one case, global temperature increased by seven degrees and the sea level rose by 65 feet.

And yet, during today’s so-called warming cycle (to be clear, I am far from convinced we are in a warming cycle; the truth is that global temperatures have cooled over the past couple years and were never all that high to begin with) we are being told to surrender our freedoms and embrace socialism because this time it’s our fault. . . .

Nolte: 'Scientific Response' to My Global Warming Op-Ed Really Stupid

This week a bunch of scientists gang-tackled my Global Warming op-ed, and let's just say the response wasn't all that impressive.

www.breitbart.com

1/2 . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2 . . .

. . . And I have also paid attention to more than 40 years of your scientific consensus , and here’s what your precious scientific consensus has gotten horribly, terribly, unforgivably wrong:

1. We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
2. We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
3. The oceans would be dead.
4. Global Cooling would destroy the world.
5. Acid rain would destroy our forests.
6. Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
7. We would deplete our natural resources.
8. We would run out of oil.
9. The polar ice caps would melt.
10. Manhattan would be underwater.
11. People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.
12. Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.
13. “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

And those are just the Big Things the scientific consensus epic failed on. You guys also told me coffee, salt, fat, and eggs were poison. . .

 

[Cathoholic]

April 13, 2019

Questioning Global Warming​

By Todd Royal

. . . The global warming/climate change (GWCC) narrative has made Al Gore a rich man peddling unrealized fear.

In January 2012, sixteen eminent scientists published an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” If mankind is causing global warming, then how do you explain this?

Today’s CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2 the Earth should have been boiling.

. . . Supposedly, 97% of scientists agree man is the cause of catastrophic GWCC, when in fact that statement is false. Moreover:

A recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis. A majority of the 1,077 respondents in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent GWCC.

What if you believe the 97% scientist debate? Then why hasn’t this information been widely reported?

The media ignore a petition on the Internet signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, 7,157 with a master’s of science, and 12, 715 with a bachelor of science degree, all of whom dispute the global warming thesis.

The GWCC narrative also took a hit when a March 2019 NASA study found . . .

. . . According to Professor A. Balasubramanian from the Center for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, University of Mysore:

The climate of a region (or whole earth) is determined by radiation energy of the sun, and its distribution and temporal fluctuations. The long-term state of the atmosphere is a function of variety of interacting elements. They are: Solar radiation, Air masses, Pressure systems (cyclone belts), Ocean Currents, Topography.

CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends . . . . these weather facts to make the case that the Earth is actually in danger of global cooling:

There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. . . .

Questioning Global Warming

When pollsters realized that the public and elected officials weren't buying global warming as a concept or policy, in a brilliant political move, they came up with the phrase

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Theo520]

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/438754-green-new-deal-has-a-dirty-secret

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Breitbart article baselessly claims a study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change

"By the reasoning of this article, if a rock rolled down a hill three million years ago, no human can be responsible for rolling a rock down a hill today. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is astounding. It is hard to imagine that a well-intentioned person can so profoundly misunderstand the...

climatefeedback.org

Matteo Willeit (Postdoctoral Researcher; Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:

As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.

Richard Betts (Professor; Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:

Woefully ignorant.

We are certain that humans are responsible for the current rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because the amount being emitted is more than enough to explain the amount building up in the atmosphere. Climate scientists are well aware that there are also natural changes in the carbon cycle that have led to higher CO2 concentrations in the past, and in fact this gives more of a cause for concern rather than less, because it shows that a warming climate can cause natural carbon sinks to weaken and therefore further accelerate the rise in CO2.

Mark Richardson (Postdoctoral scholar at Jet Propulsion Laboratory; California Institute of Technology):

The new research shows that a past high CO2 period had lots of global warming, just like we expect from today’s human-driven CO2 changes. Breitbart’s argument is that since CO2 changed naturally before, we can’t change it now. This is like saying that fires happened naturally before so there is no way any of us could cause a fire. It’s wrong.

Ken Caldeira (Senior Scientist; Carnegie Institution for Science):

It is hard to imagine that a well-intentioned person can so profoundly misunderstand the science. Assuming the author is acting in good faith, this article provides evidence that motivated reasoning can produce results that appear delusional to well-informed people.

By the reasoning of this article, if a rock rolled down a hill three million years ago, no human can be responsible for rolling a rock down a hill today. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is astounding.

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…continuing:
Ted Letcher (Research Scientist; Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab):

Without going into any greater detail, this is quite possibly the worst “climate”-related article I’ve ever encountered. The “logic” is completely nonsensical and the writing is of extremely poor quality. This article isn’t worth reading, not even for the shock value.

Lindsey Nicholson (Postdoctoral research fellow; University of Innsbruck):

This article correctly reports the conditions during a warm climate period in past geological time, but then incorrectly and unfoundedly claims that is evidence that human activities are not responsible for Earth’s current climate trajectory. In reality, human activities have been demonstrated robustly by multiple lines of evidence to be profoundly influencing modern climate.

Christopher Merchant (Professor at University of Reading and UK National Centre for Earth Observation):

The article presents us with a false choice between believing that people’s actions today affect climate and believing that the climate of Earth has changed naturally over millions of years. Both these ideas can be true—and both these ideas are true.

Michael Henehan (Postdoctoral Researcher; GFZ Helmholtz Centre Potsdam):

This article (perhaps deliberately) cherry picks one observation (out of context from the paper) and makes up a whole story about it disproving global warming. The level of misunderstanding about this paper is so high that I cannot be convinced that it is anything other than a willful attempt to misguide their readership.

Twila Moon (Research Scientist; University of Colorado):

The analysis in this article is wrong, using flawed reasoning to draw incorrect conclusions.
Over thousands to millions of years, other natural processes can change the global temperature, including warming it. But the warming occurring now, over less than 100 years, is primarily caused by humans.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

More on the Breitbart article, which includes this quote:

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

Regarding this statement, here is what those reviewers (cited earlier) had to say:
Michael Henehan:

The author writes this as if this is something that is a surprise. We all know that the Earth’s CO2 levels were higher at various times in the past. In the Eocene, 50 million years ago, they may have even been four times as high. This is not an issue. In the past, rates of volcanic CO2 emissions globally were higher as continental spreading rates changed, for example. Saying that CO2 isn’t rising now due to humans just because it used to be high in the past is like saying “I didn’t chop the cherry tree down because 40 years ago there was never a cherry tree there”. It is totally unrelated.

Marcus Badger:

Yes, naturally CO2 were as high in the Pliocene 3 million years ago as they are today. We have good records of the past 66 Million years of CO2-driven climate change, and these record a broad decline over that time, with the Pliocene the last time CO2 was naturally as high as it is today following anthropogenic emissions.

About this quote from the Breitbart article:

…there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone.” How is this possible 2,999,971 years before Arnold Schwarzenegger bought his Hummer?

We have this response:
Michael Henehan:

What this study tells us is that the last time CO2 was as high as 410 ppm (back then through natural causes), there was no ice on Greenland or West Antarctica. What this means is that we can potentially expect (once the climate has equilibrated to its new CO2 levels) that these ice bodies will melt in the future from anthropogenic CO2 release. If this happens, the sea level will rise by metres, and many coastal and lowland cities will be affected.

In a way I have to profess my admiration- how a news outlet could take a paper presenting evidence that we should be very worried about CO2 being 410 ppm, and turns it into a paper that “debunks climate change”, is beyond me. It really is a feat that must have taken a lot of imagination and creative thinking.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle. Some of your quotes Nolte already DIRECTLY addressed.

Did you read the Nolte article before you posted?

ADDED: The ‘Scientific Fact Check’ to This Global Warming Op-Ed Is Really Stupid​

Earlier this month I wrote an op-ed about how a new scientific discovery proves that the idea of man-made Global Warming is a hoax. This week a bunch of scientists gang-tackled my op-ed, and let’s just say the response wasn’t all that impressive.​

Feel free to read the whole thing. In many ways, if pedantic word salads inspire you, it’s a legitimate work of art. But the basic premise of the attack on me is that I’m a flaming idiot because I missed the overall point of this new study. . . .

.

Notice all the attacks on Nolte assume and tacitly admit Nolte’s point. CO2 has been much higher than now.

Significantly higher without human (name removed by moderator)ut.

All the criticism against Nolte is based on the RATE of change.

So what?

That’s what you get when the working assumption is the rate of change and it MUST be due to men.

But more importantly, then you need to explain why the poor correlation with CO2 and planetary “cooking”?

Why not just do that instead of incorporating presuppositional assumptions?

Explain WHY, if global warming and CO2 are so proportional, why isn’t the planet gone?

And if they are NOT that proportional, WHY buy (political) carbon credits (that we pay out to international politicians to “messianically”, “save the world”)?

After all, I was basically told all these years . . .

. . . .“It’s the carbon stupid. So pay up!”

 

[Theo520]

…continued…

Wow, you better go take a cold shower.
Breitbart really fired you up.

Remember, myself and most sceptics fully agree CO2 levels are contributing to warming. The unknown is how much.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle. Some of your quotes Nolte already DIRECTLY addressed.

Did you read the Nolte article before you posted?

Did you read the entire Climate Feedback article before you posted? It was cited in the Nolte article.