Debunking Climate Claims

Another alarmist claim debunked by reality.
Record Numbers Of Puffins
Guest Blogger
There are now more puffins on the island of Lunday than at any time since the 1930s. . . .

 

Careful...

Yes, and that assumption is exactly the problem.

You may have misinterpreted this sentence: "It is notable that they do not consider subsurface geothermal heating from volcanic activity below the ice as a potential contributor, especially since several recent studies suggest that the WAIS, particularly around the Thwaites glacier, sits on top of a large number of subsurface volcanoes which are believed to be contributing to melting below the ice and localized increased water temperatures." The implication of using the word, "notable" here is that not considering subsurface geothermal heating from volcanic activity below the ice as a potential contributor to the localized melting is a logical anomaly that requires explanation, not an endorsement of the assumption that the volcanoes are not potential contributors to the local melting.

 

And here I thought you'd be baking pies with all the cherries you've picked.

 

Reminds me of an infamous episode.
". . . They may also recall Rosanne D’Arrigo’s remarkable 2006 presentation to a dumbfounded NAS Panel, to whom she explained that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie, as I reported at the time (link):

D’Arrigo put up a slide about “cherry picking” and then she explained to the panel that that’s what you have to do if you want to make cherry pie. The panel may have been already reeling from the back-pedalling by Alley and Schrag, but I suspect that their jaws had to be re-lifted after this. Hey, it’s old news at climateaudit, but the panel is not so wise in the ways of the Hockey Team. D’Arrigo did not mention to the panel that she, like Mann, was not a statistician, but I think that they already guessed. . . . "

Discovery of Data for One of the “Other 26” Jacoby Series

 

You do realise how ineffectual climate change denial is don’t you? I mean you can rail all you like against imaginary “scientific cabals” but it doesn’t stop the impetus for change at a global level. The world governments accept the findings in the IPCC and yes, there is antithetical action there as we have seen in the latest COP meeting, but bottom line is a political push to action what is increasingly becoming an issue. The numbers of denialists are diminishing slowly over time - used to be even ten years ago I would be facing twenty or so people on one of these threads, now it is a scarce half dozen.

 

Which is why I don't deny climate change. I'm just not a climate chicken little Or "Clittle" for ahort. I need hard evidence not unproven models. Models, and questionably created "globe surface temperature" increased aren't proof.

Except it's not "imaginary".

You accidentally uses the correct term "political push". The problem with IPCC is that over the years it's being overwhelmingly political, rather than scientific. For the best part of the past twenty years, politics of the UN has driven the production of the IPCC. Many third world countries have formed a block to vote themselves lucrative "climate aid" at the cost of first worlders. Scientists that follow the science are being silenced, their worked denied publishing, their paths to advancement stifled and jobs harder to find.

Never mind, just continue with the cherry pies.

 

Hmmmm OKAY! So are you one of these who claims “climate change happens all by itself”? I really really hope you don’t have the same belief about underwear

and the rest is just unsupported conspiracy theories based on “feelings”

 

Huh? Funny thing is until deep in the 1990's climatotlogists struggle to find any proof that man had any effect on climate.

LOL, it's well supported, in academic literature. Read this, it's only 300 pages of climate history.

 

No, but you are one of those who claim that although climate change happened without human assistance 100% of the time for billions of years, somehow now it can only change because humans are using fossil fuels.

No, supported by facts, as proved over and over again in these threads.

 

Great book.

 

Yeah, I had no idea things were so complicated with politics, social issues, and outright greed.

 

Yup. Judith Curry posted an excellent review and discussion.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja
by Judith Curry
Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change. . . . .

 

Yeah, I read her Climate Uncertainty and risk a few months ago.

 

You do realize it is disingenuous and self-refuting to claim that climate realists deny that climate changes, don't you?

 

To the Climate Chick Littles if you aren't running in circles tearing out your hair and screaming "the Earth is burning up" you're a "denier".

 

Speaking of Judith Curry. <-link

kinda long, but very worthwhile for a balanced view of dealing with "climate risk"

 

And what exactly is the IPCC's enforcement mechanism if someone like the US decides that compliance with their mandates is either stupid or impossible to make happen in their country?

You do remember that Trump pulled us out of that once and nothing happened?

So what if we do it again?

 

Increased CO2 cannot raise ocean temperature.

The Effect Of CO2 Increases On Ocean Temperatures Is Too Small To Measurably Detect
By Kenneth Richard on 8. February 2024

The shallowest sea surface temperature measurement limit is 10,000 times deeper than the extent of CO2’s radiative influence.
When sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are measured, the depth range of the measurement typically extends from 10 cm to 10 m, or 100 mm to 10,000 mm (Merchant et al., 2019).



Image Source: Merchant et al., 2019
This measurement limitation is an insurmountable problem for those who wish to link increases in SSTs to increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Why? Because CO2’s radiative influence can only extend to ocean depths of 0.01 mm, or 1/100ths of a millimeter (Wong and Minnett, 2018).

CO2’s total impact on ocean temperatures cannot therefore be detected, as the shallowest SST measurements are 100 mm – 10,000 times deeper than the range limit for CO2’s radiative impact. . . .

 

The data undermine the narrative, again.

Yes, Popular Mechanics, Scientists ‘Have Miscalculated Our Global Warming Timeline’
CONTRADICTIONS FEBRUARY 12, 2024
An article published in Popular Mechanics magazine titled, “Oops, Scientists May Have Miscalculated Our Global Warming Timeline” with the subtitle “Clues have emerged that reveal a much hotter history than we thought” makes a refreshing admission that confirms what Climate Realism has pointed out since its inception – Earth has already surpassed the arbitrary 1.5°C limit imposed at the 2015 Paris Climate Accords.

It is important to note that the 1.5°C threshold is an arbitrary number, not one established or defined by science. It was defined by political negotiations in the Paris Accord agreement of 2015. An Associated Press article, The magic 1.5: What’s behind climate talks’ key elusive goal, admits this stating, “in a way both the ‘1.5 and 2 degree C thresholds are somewhat arbitrary,’ Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said in an email. ‘Every tenth of a degree matters!’”

The Popular Mechanics article, by writer Darren Orf published on February 9th says this:

A new study from University Western Australia Oceans Institute studied long-lived Caribbean sclerosponges and created an ocean temperature timeline dating back to the 1700s.

. . .

By analyzing strontium to calcium ratios in these sponges, the team could effectively calculate water temperatures dating back to 1700.

The study concludes that the world started warming roughly 80 years before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has maintained throughout its history, reports, and treaty negotiations, and that the Earth had likely already experienced more than 1.7 degrees Celsius by 2020.

While some scientists are questioning the validity of that data and conclusions of the article, since it goes against the dominant narrative, it does in mesh with the instrumental temperature record from Europe which ClimateRealism has written about extensively. . . .

 

So much for the danger of sea level rise.
New Study: 3500 Years Ago Shorelines Were 6 Kilometers Further Inland Than Today Around Thailand
By Kenneth Richard on 22. February 2024

Relative sea level change over the Holocene documents a much warmer past than today.
Because it was so much warmer during the Early to Middle Holocene (~8000 to ~4000 years ago), there was significantly less water locked up on land (Greenland, Antarctica) in the form of ice sheets and glaciers. Instead, this water occupied ocean basins, explaining the meters-higher-than-present relative sea levels (RSL).
.
Indeed, the reason sea levels were 2-3 m higher than today (and the shoreline tens of kilometers further inland relative to today) along the Persian Gulf ~6000 years ago was “almost wholly the consequence of the water-load term” (Lambeck, 1996).
.
Now another new study (Ballian et al, 2024) reveals sea levels were 2-5 m higher than present 4000-7000 years ago in the tropics (Thailand) before they gradually fell to present levels over the last millennia. These higher sea levels are evidenced by beach ridges dated to 3500 years at 4 m elevations found 6 km inland from current shorelines.


Image Source: Ballian et al, 2024

 

I don't know why you '**** out so much about climate change and try so hard to deny the reality of it. You seem so sensible about other matters.

See Bill Nye's warning about 'doomsday' glacier (2021)

Scientist and TV personality Bill Nye discusses climate change and Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier, which scientists say could collapse in the next five years.​

Vid: https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2021/12/19/bill-nye-glacier-intv-sot-pamela-brown-nr-vpx.cnn

I'm sure the people of southern Florida and countless other low-elevation areas and islands that will be flooded will take comfort in the fact that local sea level in the eastern Gulf of Thailand was a few meters higher several thousand years ago.

 

Because I'm sensible about the silliness of climate alarmism, too. And Bill Nye is a mere propagandist.

 

Why do you feel you have to falsely claim that people who doubt the CO2 climate narrative are denying that climate changes? Why do you believe that climate changes that have always been natural in the past now somehow cannot be natural?

Bill Nye is a TV presenter, not a scientist; he studied engineering, and has no formal education in climatology or atmospheric physics.

Sea level has gone up and down in the past, and has generally risen during the Holocene, probably due mostly to isostatic rebound of continental shelf areas that were glaciated during the last ice age. There is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that CO2 has any significant effect on the earth's surface temperature, and excellent empirical evidence that it does not. Temperature has a modest effect on CO2 via its solubility in sea water, but the paleoclimate record shows clearly that temperature has more effect on CO2 than CO2 has on temperature.

 

There is an ACTIVE volcano in the region of the Glacier that is contributing to the melting and that you ignored solid evidence that sea levels were higher as the paper Jack posted clearly shows.

The Alarmism angle is continually misleading since it is never as alarming as claimed or that it is often politically motivated to bloviate normal changes in the environment as sea level were once over 350 feet lower (which is when Doggerland existed) then rises very rapidly at times, but life goes on.

I doubt anyone drowned in the doggerland region when sea level was rising as pointed out here from National Geographic:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was

LINK

 

It’s funny, if they agree with a guy (Bill), being a retired engineer and comedian makes you a scientist. If they disagree with someone who’s an engineer, anything that engineer says is bogus because they aren’t a “climate scientist”.