Mr. Steele having studied your Climate
Horror Stories YouTube series and various articles you've been peppering the
internet with and considering your noble sounding appeals to Carl Sagan's advice and a
"civil" debate, I'm appalled at the ease with which you lie about scientists, their science and Earth observations.
Though
I'd intended to be finished with my "Climate Horror Stories" review a couple
weeks ago, commitments and unanticipated distracts keep pulling me away. Still when I can I've continued on the
project, mainly doing research on the various claims in video four, which like the previous videos, have consistently
turned out to be disingenuous manipulations of the truth, and occasionally out and
out fabrications.
Yesterday I came
across a new website that has done a wonderful job of addressing many questions
and arguments in a short concise manner.
Therefore, I've decided to share excerpts with my audience and also to
encourage you, Jim Steele, to visit their website in order to carefully read the full content, who knows it may help you grasp the enormity of your willful deception. It starts with one of your favorite talking points.
I'd be interested to hear how you would "debate" the lucid arguments they outline. You are welcome to comment here and I assure you I will post any communication you care to share. As for your video #4, stay tuned.
I'd be interested to hear how you would "debate" the lucid arguments they outline. You are welcome to comment here and I assure you I will post any communication you care to share. As for your video #4, stay tuned.
Addressing Some Common
Questions & Arguments
1. “They can’t even predict next week’s weather”/”Models are
useless”
As Dr. William Connolley
notes, weather and climate aren’t the same thing, and “predicting one isn’t the
same as the other. Consider (analogy: not perfect but not bad) the shore of the
ocean and the level of the sea: tides can be predicted with great accuracy
years in advance; waves can’t be predicted any better than weather.”
Although ultimately affected
by warming, weather events are also influenced by short-term ocean-atmosphere
dynamics, and are more about the movement of heat and moisture within the
system. Climate is more a function of Earth’s longer term “energy budget”
(sunlight in vs. infrared out). Weather “noise” cancels out over time,
revealing the “signal” of a changing climate in the longer-term averages.
Today’s models haven’t been very good at consistently predicting fluctuations
on weekly to inter-decadal timescales, and this is a source of denial.
More on computer models:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2. “So what’s a few degrees?”
Contrarians take advantage of
the public’s weather-oriented perspective when highlighting lower-end warming
projections of “only” a few degrees. The IPCC fourth assessment, representing
reviewed and assessed research, included a “best estimate” range of 1.8 – 4.0°C
(3.24 – 7.2°F, Δ T) by 2100, with a potential range of 1.1 – 6.4°C (1.98 –
11.52°F).
This is based on several scenarios, with the low end assuming a world
with stabilized population and a quick transition from fossil fuels, and the
top numbers assuming high emissions. Subsequent studies based on continuing
emissions growth indicate a rise of 4-7 degrees C. One of the latest from
Hadley Centre (here)
suggests that on today’s path, we could see 4 degrees C as early as 2060.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3. “But the weather is downright chilly in ________/We hit a
record low!”
Global warming refers to
global average temperature change over time (an indicator of Earth’s “energy
budget”: Energy in vs. energy radiated to space). It doesn’t mean constant,
regionally synchronous change or the end of cold snaps. ... These maps give
some idea of how anomalies can vary on short timescales, especially regionally:
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4. “Climate change is normal/has happened throughout Earth’s
history”/”CO2 has been higher before”
Past events do nothing to
support the idea that today’s ongoing process is mostly natural, or irrelevant
to Earth’s present ecology. Although there are generally modest holocene
fluctuations from things like sulfates, solar cycles, and El Niño/La Niña
oscillations, warming from the carbon imbalance is on top of those. Significant
global-scale changes in the past have generally occurred over millennia
(instability related to glacial period termination being an exception),
allowing life to adapt or migrate.
Warming from unabated emissions will likely
be much stronger, more widespread and more persistent than anything seen by
civilization. ... (see below). ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5. “But most of the warming occurred before 1940″/”What
about past events like the medieval warm period?”, and “Isn’t Earth just
recovering from the ‘Little Ice Age’?”
The first point is misleading and incorrect.
NASA notes that “More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large
fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of
almost 0.2°C per decade.” Despite some regionally concentrated heat, events of
the 1930’s were much less significant globally than the recent trend (example: 1930’s vs.
the 1990’s & beyond) ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6. “The temperature record is too short to suggest human
influence”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7. “Isn’t ‘black carbon’ from developing nations the
problem?”
Black carbon (AKA soot) is
viewed as a secondary contributor to climate changes, with significant regional
effects. The melting of some glaciers may be attributed in part to soot, from
things like dirty coal-fired power plants, unregulated diesel engines, and
developing nation stoves. Soot is an easy target that could be relatively cheap
to address ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8. “What about claims of impending cooling/ice age
aversion?”
Robert W. Felix, a former
architect, received some publicity for his book and website claiming that we’re
actually entering an ice age, and that glaciers are growing (more below). These
claims were repeated by botanist David Bellamy, and posted on “skeptic” sites
like Steve
Milloy’s “junkscience.com” (more).
The assertions were traced
to figures published by Fred Singer (who, like Milloy, was
connected with TASSC, and
also with dubious petition projects, below).
Singer stated his source as “A paper published in ‘Science’ in 1989″ – nowhere to be found. …
Singer stated his source as “A paper published in ‘Science’ in 1989″ – nowhere to be found. …
… On a related issue,
there’s a common myth that climatologists predicted an imminent ice age in the
1970’s, despite the infancy of the science & technology, and acknowledged
uncertainty on the future trajectory of climate forcings.
While there was some speculation (along with caveats) and some overzealous media coverage, there’s more to the story than today’s naysayers admit.
Update: A more recent review paper affirms what the scientific literature was actually saying...
While there was some speculation (along with caveats) and some overzealous media coverage, there’s more to the story than today’s naysayers admit.
Update: A more recent review paper affirms what the scientific literature was actually saying...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
9. “Natural processes will fix the imbalance”
This is essentially true, but it
leaves out two important factors: The timescales involved and the damage done
in the meantime. Once the source diminishes, an imbalance tends to
self-correct, but not necessarily in a quick and convenient manner. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10. “Won’t life just adapt?”
Rapid warming is a multi-faceted
problem, with ecosystem impacts being one result. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
11. “What about religious views of global warming?”
For those with a Bible-based
perspective, the question becomes whether there’s direct divine control over
Earth’s life-supporting systems (thus we can freely trash them), or whether a
sustained quasi-equilibrium has been set up that allows our actions (born out
of free will) to demonstrate either stewardship or disregard.
And which seems
more responsible: To assume the former because it’s easy and convenient, or the
latter because it’s not worth gambling with the future (a future that could be
millennia, despite ever-present predictions of apocalypse)?
Several religious groups have decided it’s better to err on the side of caution and accept some responsibility for the environment that sustains us. Others selectively interpret the Bible as supporting careless plunder, ...
Several religious groups have decided it’s better to err on the side of caution and accept some responsibility for the environment that sustains us. Others selectively interpret the Bible as supporting careless plunder, ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
12. “More solar activity is responsible, and Mars/Pluto prove
it.
Some highlight the sun as the primary
cause of global warming (often selectively citing snippets from Solanki et al.
2004), but the science doesn’t support this. Although the sun goes
through 11-year activity cycles, and contributed to moderate (but regionally
significant) warming in the early 20th century, it doesn’t account for the
strong trend of recent decades. ... solar flux has made a negligible
contribution to accelerated warming over at least the past 30 years, and that
luminosity changes had a moderate influence over the past thousand years or
more.
Lockwood & Frolich note in another
study that “over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have
had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction
...”
Other solar-related claims have also taken it on
the chin (Update: Second study casts doubt
on cosmic ray influence on the global trend, and yet another
paper indicates only a modest solar influence on 20th century
warming). Additionally, the stratosphere has been cooling (#24), consistent
with an amplified greenhouse effect but not with a significant increase in
average solar output. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
13. “The CO2 increase is natural”/”Ocean warming is responsible
for the rise in CO2.”
The question is, what’s causing that
ocean warming if solar activity can’t account for most of it? A few “skeptics”
have suggested undersea volcanoes, but a major activity increase (for which
there’s no evidence) would be required to globally heat the oceans a fraction
of a degree, and they’re also warming from the surface down. Earth’s average geothermal
heat flow is negligible compared ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
14. “But ice core data shows that warming boosts CO2, not vice
versa.”
This claim not only ignores the
traceable origins of the current accumulation (above), but it leaves out some
important details. During glacial period terminations, recovery of atmospheric
CO2 acted as a feedback to amplify warming triggered by Milankovitch orbital
forcing. This doesn’t mean CO2 can’t itself be a significant climate forcing (a
cause of change rather than just a response)
... More from
Realclimate. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
15. “Aren’t the oceans actually cooling?”
A study by Lyman et al showed a
decrease in oceanic heat content from 2003-2005. Such variability wouldn’t
necessarily indicate a new trend. ... Ocean circulation changes and
variability in heat exchange with the deeper ocean are variability factors.
..., short-term inconsistency in warming wouldn’t be surprising. Update: Peer review
at work. Lyman study seems to have a data problem, cooling has disappeared in
latest analysis. And some discussion here and here of trends and
updates since.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
16. “What about methane?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
17. “Volcanic/other natural emissions far exceed those of
humans.”
CO2 out-gassing from volcanism may
have been a significant climatic influence in prehistory, but more “recently”
in geologic time, it has been dwarfed by human output (currently about 30
gigatons total mass/8 gigatons carbon equivalent). NASA’s Gavin Schmidt notes
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
18. “CO2 trend data from Mauna Loa is biased by the volcano”
Readings are taken upwind from
volcanic vents, out-gassing is monitored, and any short-term spikes are flagged
for removal, but even if the Mauna Loa figures were
tainted, the volcano can’t explain a long-term upward trend. There are also
multiple isolated measurements around the world, including in Antarctica, that agree
well. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
19. “Is deforestation affecting climate?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
20. “Extra CO2 will be beneficial/Plant growth will correct the
imbalance.”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
21. “What about the role of clouds and precipitation?"
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
22. “What about ‘aerosols’, contrails, and ‘global dimming’?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
23. “Don’t El Niño and La niña influence climate?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
24. “What about ozone, stratospheric cooling, and CO2 band
saturation?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
25. “Aren’t glaciers growing?/Isn’t Antarctica cooling/Sea ice
growing”
These are popular half-truths that mislead. Partly due to heat uptake by
the southern ocean and lower surface melt, ice sheets in East Antarctica have
remained relatively stable (consistent with model projections), and appear to
have received some extra snowfall. Some snowpack thickening has also been
observed in Greenland at high elevations. This is related to the regional
precipitation of extra moisture, and is not inconsistent with a warming world.
Despite this, and a slight cooling in parts of Antarctica, most
of the world’s glaciers have been receding as part of an
inter-decadal trend, and ice loss has accelerated in Greenland (resulting in a large net mass reduction). ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
26. “Is there a link between warming and hurricanes?”
...
More:
A look at William Gray’s contrarian
arguments
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
27. “Is there some level of consensus among climatologists?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
28. “Climatologists exaggerate/perpetuate the concept of human
influence for funding.”
As Ray Pierrehumbert put it: “Money
and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead
author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on
ones’ time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to
get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at
national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most
part). We do it because it’s work that has to be done. It’s grueling and demanding,
and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration
involved…”
And “…scientists are probing theories
and conceptions all the time, trying to break them. The best way to become
famous is to overturn established wisdom, so scientists look hard all the time
for opportunities to do this.”Further, much attention is applied to areas of
uncertainty – something climatologists concerned mainly about money would
over-emphasize, rather than affirming the primary role of human activity. We
also have the reality that many climate researchers are tenured/conduct
research as they see fit, and that funding goes into cutting edge research and
expensive equipment.
Can the same be said of funds
disbursed to contrarians by the fossil fuel industry? Even the finding of a
significant natural factor would attract research grants. And there have been
decades of opportunity for any number of skeptical scientists to overturn the
case for anthropogenic influence. Instead it has grown stronger. ... {my highlight}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
29. “So what can be done?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
30. “Is ‘clean coal’ an option?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
31. “Improving efficiency and cutting emissions will ruin our
economy.”
Fossil-funded political organizations
have released reports on the costs of acting that provide little detail and
ignore or underestimate the benefits. Further delay is more likely to ruin our
economy, ...
Economic implications and claims of economic ruin are further discussed here (including the relevant link at the end) and here. ...
Economic implications and claims of economic ruin are further discussed here (including the relevant link at the end) and here. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
32. “But doesn’t mean consumption/’cow emission’ have more
impact than fossil fuels?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
33. “Aren’t automakers improving efficiency/developing
alternatives?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
34. “What about China?”
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
35. “Hasn’t the climate been cooling for years?”
This is an oldie that began with
people like Pat Michaels (#2 above) and Geologist & prolific contrarian Bob
Carter (here, here, and here). This claim takes advantage
of annual to decadal fluctuation in atmospheric temperatures, and is made by
selecting a short, exceptionally warm period as a basis for comparison. ...
And because the exchange of heat
between the oceans and the atmosphere can vary, some modest near-term cooling
of the atmosphere would not necessarily mean Earth is actually losing more heat.
See here for more.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This has been a sampling
of the information you can find at Understandit.wordpress
I encourage you to visit their website for a complete reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment