Resisting Climate Hysteria

[mullokintyre]

Yep. The earths climate has gone through many changes. The PETM period would have been one period that resulted in mass extinctions because of the very sharp increases in temperature.

The Medieval Warm period? Yes a warm time but on known records certainly not as warm as current temperatures.

Medieval Period Was Warmer Than Expected - Antarctica Journal

One of the most common arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be the cause of current global warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science...

www.antarcticajournal.com

Many will argue with that.

Here are four articles that suggest that the Medieval period was indeed warmer than today.
Springer
Nature This one used Coral Cores to work out its results - How Topical.
Cambridge
AGU
I would also note that until that charlatan Michel Mann came up with his Hockey Stick, the IPCC had the MWP as warmer than today.
But then subsequent versions managed to eliminate it.

Mick

 

[IFocus]

Given the short duration of records its not known if this is a problem....

 

[basilio]

Many will argue with that.

Here are four articles that suggest that the Medieval period was indeed warmer than today.
Springer
Nature This one used Coral Cores to work out its results - How Topical.
Cambridge
AGU
I would also note that until that charlatan Michel Mann came up with his Hockey Stick, the IPCC had the MWP as warmer than today.
But then subsequent versions managed to eliminate it.

Mick

View attachment 160861
View attachment 160862

Mike, in 1981 The medieval warm period could have been warmer than world temperatures in 1981.
In the 40 years since, average global temperatures have increased by .7C .
The people you quote simply ignore the increasing temperatures of the last 40 years by attempting to use figures from 1981.

The near vertical increase in global temperatures in the last 50 years as compared to historical records is part of every set of data that records climate records.

The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[2] The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) of 2013 examined temperature variations during the last two millennia, and concluded that for average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, "the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)".[18]

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[basilio]

Given the short duration of records its not known if this is a problem....

The scary part about the massive loss of sea ice cover is the resultant massive increase in heating of the Antarctic.
Sea ice reflects sunlight and protects the water beneath it from warming. With no ice the sun pours millions of watts into the ocean raising surface temperatures and accelerating the loss of the remaining ice packs.

This is one of the global warming tipping points

 

[mullokintyre]

The scary part about the massive loss of sea ice cover is the resultant massive increase in heating of the Antarctic.
Sea ice reflects sunlight and protects the water beneath it from warming. With no ice the sun pours millions of watts into the ocean raising surface temperatures and accelerating the loss of the remaining ice packs.

This is one of the global warming tipping points

Cupla things.
First of all, given the angle of incidence of the suns rays at the polar extremes, ice or no ice does not have anywhere near the effect that reflective materials that the equator would. There is also the effect that the suns rays when hitting either polar extremes have to travel through a much greater amount of the earths atmosphere which firther ameliorates the suns effect.
The measurement of sea ice area is but one measurement.
There have been a number of articles that highlight the increases in westerly winds in Antarctica which were supposed to have caused extreme melting, but which have instead resulted in the westerlies piling the sea ice into thicker areas when it can no longer move.
But it has done is push the sea ice into thicker drifts .
Sea ice thickness has increased in areas where the stronger westerlies have pushed it up.

Finally, here is a chart of the temperature at the Japan Antarctic station.

The trend is actually one of slight cooling since 1961.
Mick

 

[basilio]

From the scientific evidence Mick the rapid loss of sea ice will have a grave effect on the environment around the poles as well as substantially increasing the amount of heat in the oceans.

It also highlights the rapidly changing climate which is clearly affected by elevated temperatures.

Cherry picking one Antarctic station for temperatures ? How about considering the rising temperatures in water all around the ice shelves as evidence of what is happening

Five Facts to Help You Understand Sea Ice – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice plays an important role in regulating our climate. Here are five facts to help you better understand Arctic sea ice.

climate.nasa.gov

Why Sea Ice Matters

In the Arctic, sea ice is a way of life—from the animals that depend on it for breeding, shelter, and food, to the people who rely on hunting for their livelihoods.

nsidc.org

Warm surface waters increase Antarctic ice shelf melt and delay dense water formation - Communications Earth & Environment

Excessively warm and fresh surface water along the Amery Ice Shelf, Antarctica, in 2017 led to more ice melt and delayed dense water formation, according to analyses of in situ observations.

www.nature.com

 

[mullokintyre]

From the scientific evidence Mick the rapid loss of sea ice will have a grave effect on the environment around the poles as well as substantially increasing the amount of heat in the oceans.

It also highlights the rapidly changing climate which is clearly affected by elevated temperatures.

Cherry picking one Antarctic station for temperatures ? How about considering the rising temperatures in water all around the ice shelves as evidence of what is happening

Five Facts to Help You Understand Sea Ice – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice plays an important role in regulating our climate. Here are five facts to help you better understand Arctic sea ice.

climate.nasa.gov

Why Sea Ice Matters

In the Arctic, sea ice is a way of life—from the animals that depend on it for breeding, shelter, and food, to the people who rely on hunting for their livelihoods.

nsidc.org

Warm surface waters increase Antarctic ice shelf melt and delay dense water formation - Communications Earth & Environment

Excessively warm and fresh surface water along the Amery Ice Shelf, Antarctica, in 2017 led to more ice melt and delayed dense water formation, according to analyses of in situ observations.

www.nature.com

There are two unstated but obvious inference you make.
The first is that s that everything is caused by humans.
The second is that this is inherently bad.
And that is where we will just have to differ.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

From the scientific evidence Mick the rapid loss of sea ice will have a grave effect on the environment around the poles as well as substantially increasing the amount of heat in the oceans.

I just pointed out that there it is questionable to say there is a loss of sea ice.
If you were a little more precise and said a loss of se ice area, you might have scored a pont.

It also highlights the rapidly changing climate which is clearly affected by elevated temperatures.

How is the climate rapidly changing? And if it is, how on earth can you state that it is clearly affected by elevated temperatures when so far there has been almost no elevated temperatures.

Cherry picking one Antarctic station for temperatures ? How about considering the rising temperatures in water all around the ice shelves as evidence of what is happening

Geez, thats a bit harsh. Antarctica is not exactly replete with weather sstations.
But here ya go, from Worldata
As noted below, there are only 4 weather stations that provide continuous data..

Five Facts to Help You Understand Sea Ice – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice plays an important role in regulating our climate. Here are five facts to help you better understand Arctic sea ice.

climate.nasa.gov

Why Sea Ice Matters

In the Arctic, sea ice is a way of life—from the animals that depend on it for breeding, shelter, and food, to the people who rely on hunting for their livelihoods.

nsidc.org

Warm surface waters increase Antarctic ice shelf melt and delay dense water formation - Communications Earth & Environment

Excessively warm and fresh surface water along the Amery Ice Shelf, Antarctica, in 2017 led to more ice melt and delayed dense water formation, according to analyses of in situ observations.

www.nature.com

 

[mullokintyre]

This bloke is gauranteed to b cancelled, Nobel prize or not.
FromClintel

John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message “there is no climate emergency”. Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, Dr. Ivar Giaever was the first. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly and now approaching 1600 people.

Clauser has publicly distanced himself from climate alarmism and this year he also joined the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition. In the announcement by the CO2 Coalition, Clauser was quoted in the following way:

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

Mick

 

[Sean K]

This bloke is gauranteed to b cancelled, Nobel prize or not.
FromClintel


Mick

I'm sure someone will be able to link him to FF sponsorship in some way. If he gives a speech to the Heartland Institute he's toast.

 

[wayneL]

Temperature just one imput in the Chaos of complex systems. Sea ice just one output Chaos of complex systems.

Narratives are feckin BS.

 

[wayneL]

Climate fanatics, perchance?

 

[basilio]

Evidence and reality can change peoples views.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science ​

The wall of climate change denial in the GOP looks awful frightening from afar but it is crumbling. And it can change quickly.

Sharon Lerner
April 28 2017, 3:04 p.m.

The hardest part of reversing the warming of the planet may be convincing climate change skeptics of the need to do so. Although scientists who study the issue overwhelming agree that the earth is undergoing rapid and profound climate changes due to the burning of fossil fuels, a minority of the public remains stubbornly resistant to that fact. With temperatures rising and ice caps melting — and that small minority in control of both Congress and the White House — there seems no project more urgent than persuading climate deniers to reconsider their views. So we reached out to Jerry Taylor, whose job as president of the Niskanen Center involves turning climate skeptics into climate activists.

It might seem like an impossible transition, except that Taylor, who used to be staff director for the energy and environment task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and vice president of the Cato Institute, made it himself.

Sharon Lerner: What did you think when you first encountered the concept of climate change back in the 1990s?
Jerry Taylor: From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living.
SL: What was your turning point?
JT: It started in the early 2000s. I was one of the climate skeptics who do battle on TV and I was doing a show with Joe Romm. On air, I said that, back in 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen testified in front of the Senate, he predicted we’d see a tremendous amount of warming. I argued it’d been more than a decade and we could now see by looking at the temperature record that he wasn’t accurate. After we got done with the program and were back in green room, getting the makeup taken off, Joe said to me, “Did you even read that testimony you’ve just talked about?” And when I told him it had been a while, he said “I’m daring you to go back and double check this.” He told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.
SL: So that was it? You changed your mind?
JT: It was more gradual. After that, I began to do more of that due diligence, and the more I did, the more I found that variations on this story kept arising again and again. Either the explanations for findings were dodgy, sketchy or misleading or the underlying science didn’t hold up. Eventually, I tried to get out of the science narratives that I had been trafficking in and just fell back on the economics. Because you can very well accept that climate change exists and still find arguments against climate action because the costs of doing something are so great.
SL: And the economic case eventually crumbled, too?
JT: The first blow in that argument was offered by my friend Jonathan Adler, who was at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn’t an argument against climate action. Just because the costs and the benefits are more or less going to be a wash, he said, that doesn’t mean that the losers in climate change are just going to have to suck it up so Exxon and Koch Industries can make a good chunk of money.

The final blow against my position, which caused me to crumble, was from a fellow named Bob Litterman, who had been the head of risk management at Goldman Sachs. Bob said, “The climate risks aren’t any different from financial risks I had to deal with at Goldman. We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.” After he left my office, I said “there’s nothing but rubble here.”

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

The wall of climate change denial in the GOP looks awful frightening from afar but it is crumbling. And it can change quickly.

theintercept.com

 

[Sean K]

Climate change is causing devastating fires around the world, say top government officials, influential scientists, and the world’s largest newspapers. Greece’s civil protection minister said climate change was causing the fires in Greece, Hawaii, and Canada. Climate change is increasing average temperatures that dry out wood and create fire weather. “The only way to prevent these events from becoming more frequent and more intense,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, “is to prevent the continued warming of the planet.”

And yet the amount of area burned annually by fire has declined over the last quarter-century. The area burned declined by an astonishing 25% between 2003 and 2019, according to NASA. That trend has continued since, noted Bjorn Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal. Last year, there was a record-low area burned. There is little doubt about the trend because the emissions from wildfires have also declined globally since 2003.

What’s more, the best science does not attribute fires to climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), notes the climate change and disasters expert, Roger Pielke, Jr. “has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change.” According to the IPCC, the most important factor in fire is not the weather but rather “human activities,” both land management and the starting of fires by humans.

Few leaders, experts, and journalists, including us at Public, doubt climate change has some influence. All else being equal, warmer weather will dry out wood fuel more. The problem is that all else is never equal, and other factors matter much more, as fires in Greece, California, and Hawaii all show.

In a recent and comprehensive scientific review of the literature, eight scientists concluded that there was an increase in area burned in Greece. But, they stressed, scientists “could not attribute a direct causal relationship to climate change, citing various factors such as changes in fire causes due to social, economic and land management changes, as well as fuel accumulation due to the abandonment of the countryside.”

In the most comprehensive scientific study of how to prevent uncontrollable forest fires in Greece, scientists emphasize the need for better forest management in the form of selective logging and prescribed burning to reduce wood fuel load. Six scientists from around the world concluded that “since increasing fuel loads and continuity represent the main factor responsible for the recent catastrophic wind-driven fire events in Greece… our results can…reduce fire spread to the wildland-urban interface and protected areas.”

And putting out fires before they spread can also prevent uncontrollable forest fires. On this account, the governments of Greece, Canada, and Hawaii all failed not only to prevent fires but also to properly respond to fires once they started.

All of this should be obvious to the government officials, climate scientists, and journalists who have spent all summer misattributing fires in Canada, Hawaii, and Europe to climate change. It took me under 30 minutes to find and read the best-available, free-to-read scientific papers on the fires in Greece on Google Scholar. It was a simple task for Pielke to summarize the IPCC. And it wasn’t hard for Lomborg to update the NASA data.

Why, then, do governments, scientists, and journalists constantly get forest fires so wrong?

(I think they're running with the State of Fear playbook)

 

[macca]

View attachment 161553


Climate change is causing devastating fires around the world, say top government officials, influential scientists, and the world’s largest newspapers. Greece’s civil protection minister said climate change was causing the fires in Greece, Hawaii, and Canada. Climate change is increasing average temperatures that dry out wood and create fire weather. “The only way to prevent these events from becoming more frequent and more intense,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, “is to prevent the continued warming of the planet.”

And yet the amount of area burned annually by fire has declined over the last quarter-century. The area burned declined by an astonishing 25% between 2003 and 2019, according to NASA. That trend has continued since, noted Bjorn Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal. Last year, there was a record-low area burned. There is little doubt about the trend because the emissions from wildfires have also declined globally since 2003.

What’s more, the best science does not attribute fires to climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), notes the climate change and disasters expert, Roger Pielke, Jr. “has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change.” According to the IPCC, the most important factor in fire is not the weather but rather “human activities,” both land management and the starting of fires by humans.

Few leaders, experts, and journalists, including us at Public, doubt climate change has some influence. All else being equal, warmer weather will dry out wood fuel more. The problem is that all else is never equal, and other factors matter much more, as fires in Greece, California, and Hawaii all show.

In a recent and comprehensive scientific review of the literature, eight scientists concluded that there was an increase in area burned in Greece. But, they stressed, scientists “could not attribute a direct causal relationship to climate change, citing various factors such as changes in fire causes due to social, economic and land management changes, as well as fuel accumulation due to the abandonment of the countryside.”

In the most comprehensive scientific study of how to prevent uncontrollable forest fires in Greece, scientists emphasize the need for better forest management in the form of selective logging and prescribed burning to reduce wood fuel load. Six scientists from around the world concluded that “since increasing fuel loads and continuity represent the main factor responsible for the recent catastrophic wind-driven fire events in Greece… our results can…reduce fire spread to the wildland-urban interface and protected areas.”

And putting out fires before they spread can also prevent uncontrollable forest fires. On this account, the governments of Greece, Canada, and Hawaii all failed not only to prevent fires but also to properly respond to fires once they started.

All of this should be obvious to the government officials, climate scientists, and journalists who have spent all summer misattributing fires in Canada, Hawaii, and Europe to climate change. It took me under 30 minutes to find and read the best-available, free-to-read scientific papers on the fires in Greece on Google Scholar. It was a simple task for Pielke to summarize the IPCC. And it wasn’t hard for Lomborg to update the NASA data.

Why, then, do governments, scientists, and journalists constantly get forest fires so wrong?

(I think they're running with the State of Fear playbook)

Over the past 3 winters we have been told by the RFS that it was too WET to reduce the fuel load, last week I read that this winter it was too DRY to reduce the load

They said that they had burnt off 5% of the Intended areas, in reality they need to burn off 20% of the Total area Every year to create a 5 year cycle.

Complete and utter incompetence by the RFS in fire management but they will just blame climate change .

In reality, even if it was climate change that simply means that it is even More important to hazard reduce doesn't it?

 

[Smurf1976]

Over the past 3 winters we have been told by the RFS that it was too WET to reduce the fuel load, last week I read that this winter it was too DRY to reduce the load

It's pretty hard to go from too wet to too dry without passing through a period when it's just right.

 

[macca]

It's pretty hard to go from too wet to too dry without passing through a period when it's just right.

Well, I suppose it could be said that it was summer time so no burning then, but I live in an area where there is lots of wildlife.

We are on 2 acres and driving down our track to the road today there was Mum plover with 2 tiny babies, 4 Eastern Rosellas eating the seeds on the weeds, 6 wood ducks resting under the trees, about 10 lorikeets squabbling in the grevilleas and a pair of magpies stalking bugs

In the hundreds of acres of bush around here there are all sorts of wildlife and all of that is threatened when, not if, it all goes up in flames because of stupidity.

I know for a fact that 90% of the bush around here has not been reduced for 25 years, it makes me so Mad I could .....................

 

[Sean K]

It's 'lethal humidity' now.

 

[mullokintyre]

It's 'lethal humidity' now.

View attachment 161654

Having lived in the the trop[ics for a few years, the humidity can be quite sapping.
But then again, vast swathes of the population in the tropics have been living in high humidity for a long time, its not like its a new phenomenon.
Lucky all those spare bits I have inserted into my limbs are all titanium and not ferrous based, i would rust away.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile, folks like @Knobby22 attempt to gaslight everyone with silly mind games.