What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, February 2015 press conference in Brussels:

This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:

It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Dr, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC’s Working Group III:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There are a sufficient number of experts…

What is a sufficient number of experts? Do they form a majority? Do they constitute even 10% of scientists? 5%? The ones you have listed may very well constitute 0.6%. I don’t know. Do you?

My entire sentence.

There are a sufficient number of experts … who question the rationality of the position, and sufficient evidence of how data has been misused to promote alarmism, that I would question the “rational” claim of the article.

Not saying there is a sufficient number of experts to establish that the climate change narrative has been debunked, merely that there are rational grounds –if numbers of actual scientists is your warranting criteria – to doubt the largely political narrative.

You may want to view this video…

…to see how the data is cherry picked by scientists from supposedly reliable organizations before it is distributed to the press and policy organizations.

I would suspect that the real issue that threatens humanity isn’t warming of the globe, but the heating of rhetoric.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are a sufficient number of experts … who question the rationality of the position, and sufficient evidence of how data has been misused to promote alarmism, that I would question the “rational” claim of the article.

1. Scientists generally do not promote alarmism.
2. If less than 1% of the scientists question the consensus view that is not enough reason for me to spend my whole day trying to see their point.

You may want to view this video…

I do not watch videos.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There are a sufficient number of experts … who question the rationality of the position, and sufficient evidence of how data has been misused to promote alarmism, that I would question the “rational” claim of the article.

1. Scientists generally do not promote alarmism.

So why the alarmism in much of the public awareness of the issue and you reacting to every post that attempts to address the alarmism?

Aren’t you a scientist?

Aren’t you promoting alarmism by alarmingly responding to every post that attempts to temper the alarmism?

We never seem to see you actually questioning the “rational” basis for the alarmism, only responding to those who do.

You might want to show your hand just a tad by positively taking to task the alarmists instead of constantly defending them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So why the alarmism in much of the public awareness of the issue and you reacting to every post that attempts to address the alarmism?

I respond when I see falsehoods passing as truth.

Aren’t you a scientist?

Discuss the issues, not each other.

Aren’t you promoting alarmism by alarmingly responding to every post that attempts to temper the alarmism?

I only respond to the ones that use falsehoods. I have nothing against tempering alarmism per se.

 

[HarryStotle]

I do not watch videos.

I will help you out.

Linked is the downloadable media release from the National Climate Assessment that Tony Heller deals with in the video.

Analysis of US heat waves from the assessment cited in The Atlantic. (To save me the chore of screen capturing images from the video.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is the contrasting data using the data beginning in 1900. The Climate Assessment deliberately left out the data from 1900-1959 in order to show a slight rise in the number of heat wave days since 1960 even though they were much more frequent prior to 1960. Why would they do this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is the data of burn acreage from the climate assessment cited by Media Matters.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Heller uses the top left graph in the video. Here is the top left graph from the assessment superimposed on the USDA Forest service graph from 1916. Links are displayed.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Burn acreage is down 80-90% from the highs in the 1920s and 1930s. So why would a recent, very slight rise be considered an emergency?

Here is a graph of the Arctic Sea Ice extent from the EPA - based upon the Climate Assessment – beginning in 1979.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is the historical data from NOAA beginning in 1973. Even a few years prior to the EPA graph, the extent of Arctic Sea ice was far lower than the 2010 extent.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why was 1979 start date cherry picked selected ? You know the answer as well as I.

There are many more examples in Heller’s video. That was just a sampling provided for you, despite that you won’t engage with the video.

Perhaps others viewing this thread will.

There is a great deal of manipulation of data going on here.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Aren’t you promoting alarmism by alarmingly responding to every post that attempts to temper the alarmism?

I only respond to the ones that use falsehoods. I have nothing against tempering alarmism per se.

And the falsehoods are only from one side as far as you are concerned?

Is that your point?

A legitimate point or a precognitive bias?

Refer to my last post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will only address a few of these points, but that will give you the general idea.

Burn acreage is down 80-90% from the highs in the 1920s and 1930s. So why would a recent, very slight rise be considered an emergency?

There are indeed other factors besides climate change responsible. And we pretty much know what they are. One big factor is the fact that there just were more acres of forests in the first half of the 20th century, and we had no means, or will, to control them. Today we have less acreage that can burn, and we have more aggressive tools to control them. And we have smarter tools like small proscribed burns. So we would expect the total acreage burned to continue to decrease. Despite this we still see a slight rise, making it significant.

Here is the contrasting data using the data beginning in 1900. The Climate Assessment deliberately left out the data from 1900-1959 in order to show a slight rise in the number of heat wave days since 1960 even though they were much more frequent prior to 1960. Why would they do this?

The large spike in heat waves in the 1930’s was also man-made. It was the dust bowl, caused by improper and uncontrolled tilling of land for farming. Large swaths of barren land heats up more than a grass-filled prairie.

Here is a graph of the Arctic Sea Ice extent from the EPA - based upon the Climate Assessment – beginning in 1979…
…(and) Here is the historical data from NOAA beginning in 1973. Even a few years prior to the EPA graph, the extent of Arctic Sea ice was far lower than the 2010 extent.

Why was 1979 start date (cherry picked) selected ?

More importantly, why was the stop date for the second chart set to 1990 instead of 2010? And why doesn’t the second chart say “September” so as to be comparable to the first chart?

 

[HarryStotle]

More importantly, why was the stop date for the second chart set to 1990 instead of 2010? And why doesn’t the second chart say “September” so as to be comparable to the first chart?

My guess is because the chart was one that Tony had readily available, and since 1979 was the coldest year on record the ice extent could only have decreased from there. However, the temperatures following 1990 were in line with the 1930-1960 averages.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ergo, any lessening of the extent of sea ice would be comparable to past decades.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The most recent extents are in line with the 2004-2013 averages with mild fluctuations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My guess is because the chart was one that Tony had readily available,

And my guess is that if he had included the data after 1990 is would have blown his point.

and since 1979 was the coldest year on record the ice extent could only have decreased from there. However, the temperatures following 1990 were in line with the 1930-1960 averages.

If we have direct comparable measurements of sea is after 1990, why try to infer it instead of show it directly? I think we both know why.

The most recent extents are in line with the 2004-2013 averages with mild fluctuations.

This chart is the most worthless one of all! It only covers five years plus an average of a single 9 year period. Of course year-to-year fluctuations are going to swamp out longer term trends. And I see we have switched to sea ice volume instead of sea ice coverage, so this chart is not comparable to the previous ones.

Why not look at the more relevant time span that shows the correlation with the industrial age?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[John10]

Granted that some proposals like not having babies and population control measures are wrong.

However scientifically it is clear human activity has altered our global temperature with the excess release of CO2, and action must be taken. Not to mention, the plastic pollution in the oceans.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

My guess is because the chart was one that Tony had readily available,

And my guess is that if he had included the data after 1990 is would have blown his point.

Actually not. It is because the chart came from an IPCC report that he had on hand. It appears in a number of his videos. He was merely trying to use the official graphs and images. So blame the IPCC for that one.

If we have direct comparable measurements of sea is after 1990, why try to infer it instead of show it directly? I think we both know why.

You are assuming the IPCC has those available. Care to provide them?

The most recent extents are in line with the 2004-2013 averages with mild fluctuations.

This chart is the most worthless one of all! It only covers five years plus an average of a single 9 year period. Of course year-to-year fluctuations are going to swamp out longer term trends. And I see we have switched to sea ice volume instead of sea ice coverage, so this chart is not comparable to the previous ones.

Why not look at the more relevant time span that shows the correlation with the industrial age?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why are you using an extent anomaly graph?

Extent or volume of ice? Which is more indicative of climate change? And why would there be a difference between them?

Why is extent rather than volume the focus of the Climate Assessment?

Actually, Tony does explain that multi-year sea ice extent has been expanding between 2008 and 2017 in another video. It has, in fact, tripled in 2017 compared to 2008 according to Norway’s OSISAF.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So he isn’t hiding anything, and no we don’t “both know why.” Nor has he “blown his point.”

I wish you were as skeptical with the IPCC data as you are with the skeptics of it.

He also addresses the issue of volume vs extent, in this video. I have scrubbed to the exact place in the where the point is made by Heller.

The location of the thick ice making up increased volume is very important because even very thick ice from some areas will disappear quickly depending where it is located, while even mild thickening of ice in other locations is very significant. The thick ice extent in 2018 is much greater than in previous years since 2008.

Not a good thing if you are peddling warming alarmism.

Have a peak at the ice around Greenland May 2109 from the Danish Meteorological Institute

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecharts_gl_1.uk.php

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
and in May 2010

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Thicker and more extensive in 2019.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually not. It is because the chart came from an IPCC report that he had on hand. It appears in a number of his videos. He was merely trying to use the official graphs and images. So blame the IPCC for that one.

I have no idea of the context of the chart within the IPCC report. It may have been perfectly appropriate for what point it was trying to make. But it certainly doesn’t make Tony’s point.

You are assuming the IPCC has those available. Care to provide them?

You are focusing on the IPCC while I am focusing on the truth about climate change. Therefore I will not limit myself to IPCC charts to make the point about arctic ice because the truth about arctic ice is much more important than how anyone decides to present it. And to that purpose, here is a chart from NASA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you want to include pre-satellite data, then here is an estimate of that too:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[HarryStotle]

And to that purpose, here is a chart from NASA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Virtually the same as Tony Heller’s chart from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if you check the years.

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/cath...132fa81c1ad48c3d26ab9a0aec3517b88681a246.jpeg

Still the same issue. Begins and ends at much the same time, and uses the same data set. Ergo the same, but does not answer Heller’s contention that the data is selected (cherry picked) in order to show reducing sea ice, which has gone up since and was much higher prior to 1978. In addition the area of multi-year sea ice has tripled from 2008 to 2017, and the Danish data on Greenland bears this out. (See my previous post.) Ergo, there is not a problem with declining stable sea ice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Still the same issue. Begins and ends at much the same time, and uses the same data set. Ergo the same, but does not answer Heller’s contention that the data is selected (cherry picked) in order to show reducing sea ice…

The chart begins when it does because that was the beginning of satellite data.

.which has gone up since…

Apples and oranges. The chart that shows an increase is May 2, and covers only nine years. My chart covers 57 years, and is therefore less sensitive to noise from random variations.

 

[HarryStotle]

The chart begins when it does because that was the beginning of satellite data.

You aren’t paying close attention because NOAA has satellite data going back to 1973, not 1979.
As I posted earlier.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why was it cut off at 1979? Could it be because the data shows far less sea ice in 1973, 1974 and 1975 than in the 1990s?

And my guess is that if he [the National Climate Assessment] had included the data after 1990 [before 1979] it would have blown his [their] point.

You know, their point that sea ice has been declining steadily since 1979.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The NOAA chart you cite, from 1973 to 1990, is missing the years from 1990 to 2010. If you can find a link to where it appears in a NOAA document, we might learn something of the context to understand what it is saying.

 

[HarryStotle]

A tour through a bevy of predictions by scientists, link at bottom.

Scientists say…

Sept 2012 Catherine Pickering (Griffith University): Australia may not have any snow left by 2020 because of global warming.

Jan 2008 David Jones (Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology head of climate analysis): It may be time to stop describing southern-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and …accept the extreme drought as permanent.

(Massive floods in south Australia 2010 and 2011. Sea levels dropped by as much as 7 mm.)

Feb 2012 – Caroline Superman (UK environment secretary): Drought may be new norm for the UK.

UK experienced massive flooding a few weeks later.

March 2000 – David Viner (Climatic Research Unit, East Anglia): Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.

Massive blizzards in the Cambridge area shortly afterwards.

May 2004 – Sir David King (UK Government Chief scientist): Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming continues.

Feb 2004 – Pentagon tells Pres. Bush: Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.

Feb 2014 – New York Times: The End of Snow?

Dec 2006 – New York Times: Endless summer, eating fresh spinach out of the garden in December, and polar bears dying in the Arctic if global warming continues.

March 2012 – US National Park Service team of scientists: cherry blossoms blooming in winter one day due to warming of the globe.
Dec 2007 – Wieslaw Maslowski (Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Calif): Northern polar waters could be ice free in 5-6 years, by 2013. (Using data sets from 1979 to 2004 – Interesting, no?)

2013 – Peter Wadhams (Cambridge University): In the end it [Arctic ice] will just melt away quite suddenly. Arctic Sea ice will disappear and could trigger dangerous methane release.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

2013 – Paul Beckwith (Sierra Club): I do not think Arctic Sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history.

Jan 1979 – Stephen Schneider (NCAR) and Robert Chen (MIT): Greenhouse Effect could trigger a 15 to 25 foot rise in sea level before the end of the century. It will start before the year 2000.

May 1983 EPA (draft of major study): World sea levels over the next several decades “could reach heights unprecedented in human history. Anywhere from a few feet to more than 10 feet."

Jan 1988 – Commonwealth Expert Group on Climate Change: “…a 90% chance that the planet will become warmer by 1-2 degrees, perhaps more, and sea levels would rise by between one and four meters by 2030… Governments must yield national sovereignties to multi-lateral authorities to combat climate change. ”

Sept 1988 – Hussein Shihab (Australia’s Environmental Affairs Director): Maldives will completely disappear in the next 30 years.
(Saudi Arabia is in the process of investing $10 billion in the Maldives.)

2010 – Richard Alley (Penn State University): Sometime in the next decade will reach a tipping point where the temperature will rise 2 - 7° C resulting in a 7 meter (23 feet) rise in sea level.

1971 – Dr S.I. Rasool (leading atmospheric scientist, NASA and Columbia University): The world is 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.

1989 – Noel Brown (UN Environment Program): “…entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

(Apparently, the UN got impatient with the “exodus of eco-refugees” and initiated steps to make the exodus happen even without global warming.)

2017 – Christiana Figueres (UN climate chief): 2020 is the deadline to avert climate catastrophe.

Oct 1970 – Paul Ehrlich (Stanford): The oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie. America will be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.

1977 – Carter Administration: The world’s oil supply would disappear in the first decade of the 21st century.

1923 – W.G. Waterman (Northwestern University): If the rapid retreat continues the Sperry Glacier in Glacier National Park would almost disappear in another 25 years.

1952 – Naturalists at Glacier National Park: The park will be glacierless in 50 years unless there is a big change in Montana’s climate.

2009 – Scientists predict Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers by 2020.

2014 - Experts predict climate change will strip the identity of Glacier National Park by removing all the glaciers, possibly within 30 years (2044).

(2018 was one of the coldest years on record at Glacier, and the park has had a heavy dump (~4 feet) of snow just this past weekend)

1846 – the Aborigines of Australia say the climate has undergone great changes since the white-man came into the country.

2019 – Babylon Bee: Experts warn we have only 12 years left before they change the timeline on global warming again.

 

[HarryStotle]

The NOAA chart you cite, from 1973 to 1990, is missing the years from 1990 to 2010. If you can find a link to where it appears in a NOAA document, we might learn something of the context to understand what it is saying.

We know the levels of multi-year sea ice extents have gone up between 2008 and 2019 (See Post 1048 above.) , so a fluctuation either up or down between 1990 and 2008 means very little. Ice levels constantly fluctuate. The key feature would be ice levels today compared to 1973.

Northern sea ice has been stable between 2005 and 2019.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Lots of different locations listed at this site. Almost all are stable, some slightly down, some up.

http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm#NSIDC recent Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent

NSIDC has the satellite data starting from 1973 here. Why then does it only reference data beginning in 1979 for determining record amounts? Something fishy, as Tony Heller has pointed out. This definitely corroborates his claim.