Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
Mae West famously said,
“I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.
As a historical climatologist, I can paraphrase that to say about climate,
“It’s been warm, and it’s been cold. Believe me, warm is better.”
I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.
The major rewrite of history involved elimination of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). One of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang told David Deming in an email that it was necessary to get rid of the MWP. The reason, although not expressed in the email, was because they were telling people that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. It wasn’t by any measure, from the warm of the MWP to the prolonged warmer period of the Holocene Optimum. The MWP was the most immediate threat to their narrative because it was within a time period people could grasp. They could relate to the idea that Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today. There was also the graph (Figure 7c) in the first IPCC Report in 1990 that contradicted their claim – it had to go.
A measure of the threat they saw is reflected in the viciousness of the attack on the historical evidence of the existence of the MWP produced in 2003 by Soon and Baliunas in “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years.” A couple of examples illustrate the existence of the MWP but also the benefits of a warmer world.
Scottish historians identify the 12th century as the golden age. As one historian explains
During the reign of David I (1124 – 1153) many Normans came to live in Scotland. Dioceses were organised for bishops and new monasteries were founded. Government was reformed. Moreover, in the 12th century many towns or burghs were founded in Scotland and trade flourished. David I was the first Scottish king to found mints and issue his own coins.
The main reason for the growth was increased food production due to warmer weather. Warmer conditions began in the 10th century and began to cool by the 13th century. The impact of the cooling on limits to agriculture indicate what was lost. Martin Parry, who later became a central figure in the IPCC, studied the impact of cooling on different agricultural regions when that was the concern in the1970s. Figure 1 shows the probability of harvest failure in southeast Scotland (Parry 1976). Vertical change in the limits to agriculture seems small, but the horizontal gradient means large areas are lost as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 1
Figure 2 shows the extent of the land cultivated before 1300 AD and the amount lost at the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Figure 2
You can look around the world at societies that blossomed into civilizations during the Medieval Warm Period. As Jean Grove said in the introduction to her thorough and detailed book “The Little Ice Age.”
For several hundred years’ climatic conditions in Europe had been kind; there were few poor harvests and famines were infrequent.” “Grain was grown in Iceland and even in Greenland; the northern fisheries flourished and in mainland Europe vineyards were in production 500 km north of their present limits.”
An important point to remember is that Polar Bears, the animal Al Gore and his alarmist gang chose as the canary in the Arctic, survived the entire MWP.
The IPCC set out to prove human CO2 was causing global warming. They achieved this by manipulation and deception, but it meant nothing if they didn’t also ‘prove’ that warming is a potential disaster. The IPCC structure involved four stages. Working Group (WG) I, II, III and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) were all carefully designed to blend predetermined science with the threat it posed to the planet and humanity.
WG I, the Physical Science Basis Report, provides the proof that human CO2 is causing warming. That became the unchallenged assumption for WG II, the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report. This Report became the source of the almost endless stories of the negative impacts of warming. In fact, it was a cost/benefits study without consideration of the benefits. It became the basis for WG III’s Mitigation of Climate Change Report that identified the costs and policies politicians needed to exact from the citizens. Then, ostensibly to make it easier for politicians, they produced the Summary for Policymakers. In fact, it made it more difficult because the IPCC released the SPM to the public and the media with all its exaggerations. The public pressure fuelled by the media left politicians with no option. As official IPCC reviewer, David Wojick said,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
The IPCC also guaranteed the prediction of increasing CO2 and its negative impact using economic models deliberately constructed for a predetermined outcome, just like the climate models.
Castles and Henderson critiqued the first economic model.
About two years ago Ian Castles became interested in the statistical techniques which had been used to predict the course of CO2 emissions for the next century and he was later joined by David Henderson who was curious to find out why the IPCC’s procedures had imparted an upward bias to the projections of output and emissions of developing countries.
These two economists have shown that the calculations carried out by the IPCC concerning per capita income, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions in different regions are fundamentally flawed, and substantially overstate the likely growth in developing countries. The results are therefore unsuitable as a starting point for the next IPCC assessment report, which is due to be published in 2007. Unfortunately, this is precisely how the IPCC now intends to use its emissions projections.
It appears the Castles and Henderson critique created a problem, so an alternative was produced called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). In 2011, Judith Curry provided a sound overview of the RCPs scheduled to be used in IPCC Assessment Report 5. Curry concludes that
Or, to boil it right down, the IPCC is telling us that the solution to climate change is economic growth and low-carbon energy generation.
I would modify that because the IPCC want to reduce the economic growth of developed nations and make them pay for the economic growth of developing nations. More importantly, this is all based on the deliberately created claim that CO2 is causing warming. The RCPs simply continue the falsifications and errors of the earlier emissions scenarios. As one commentator explained
These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.
The IPCC determined to prove that human CO2 from industrial activity caused disastrous global warming for a controlling political agenda. To do that they convinced the world that warming promised nothing but catastrophe. The historical evidence shows exactly the opposite is the case; a warmer world offers many more benefits to more flora and fauna than a cold one. It is certainly more beneficial to the human condition. Evidence of the IPCC’s distorted thinking is in the claim that more people would die with a warmer world. The evidence shows that cold kills more people every year than heat.
40 years ago, in his 1976 book The Cooling, Lowell Ponte enunciated the threat of cooling in a similar way to the current threat of warming.
It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.
It is no surprise that in an endorsement of Ponte’s book, Stephen Schneider, who was later eulogized by the IPCC for his work on global warming, wrote
The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte’s provocative work is a good place to start.
This is the same Schneider quoted in Discovery magazine in 1989 as follows.
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Sorry Mr. Schneider, there is no “right balance,” there must only be honesty. The ‘group think’ mentality that developed among those promoting global warming is reflected in the IPCC eulogy; “He (Schneider) never overstated his case.” Two features of group think are
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Which brings us back to Mae West who also said,
“I only have ‘yes’ men around me. Who needs ’no’ men?”
From experience with the IPCC I can paraphrase and update that and say they achieved their goal because,
“The IPCC only has ‘yes’ people around them. They don’t want ‘no’ people.”
The trouble is, it isn’t science without ‘no’ people.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The more I know of cold, the better I like warm.
===============
Precisely why i moved from Washington, DC to southern Arizona. Well, that and all the dipshits in DC.
That’s just funny! I laugh, Out loud!
The whole brouhaha fails on every count.
1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content
2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does
3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold
Re your #3
By far;
…anyone who doesn’t think so should try a cold shower as opposed to a warm one.
Might help them come to their senses.
Try taking a ‘bath’ in an Ontario lake in mid-October…. wait, I never did come to my senses…
Why wait ’til October? Jumping in just about any Canadian Lake in full Summer is “bracing” enough.
You can’t beat a cold shower in the hot season in Thailand.
Jimmy I live in Arizona, my cold water in the summer is in the +100 F so a cold shower is out of the question, is Thailand any different?
I vote for Option 3.
I think it is obvious that we are the source of nearly all the additional CO2. I think it highly likely that the additional CO2 is the primary source of the warming (though there is also BC and aerosols, etc., to consider).
But I also think it is equally obvious that both the the amount and rate of anthropogenic warming have been seriously overestimated. It also appears obvious that net benefits of both the mild warming and additional CO2 has so far had a strong net-beneficial effect for both man and beast.
Evan, the problem is you can’t say “the warming”, because it hasn’t warmed everywhere, and not uniformly.
What warming ? you keep stating facts not in evidence to make your point … start over …
Bartemis wrote:
1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content
It’s difficult to understand this claim.
The increase in atmospheric CO2, and the increase in dissolved CO2 in the oceans are because of the combustion of fossil fuels.
Without that there would be no increase. With it the increase is more than explained.
2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does
Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. That increases temperature, because that’s what the greenhouse effect does.
3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold
Not in terms of the effect on biodiversity. Anything that has been a species for a hundred thousand years or more, such as your good self has certainly survived colder temperatures. There is no only things that have been species for about 5 million years, which is probably nothing, have survived warmer temperatures.
So there’s that.
Seth, you want it both ways, which is not allowed, so you must choose. Since warm water can hold LESS dissolved CO2 than cool water, if burning fossil fuels has increased the temperature of the oceans, which is a requirement for global warming to be true, then there must now be LESS CO2 in the oceans than previously. Got it?
“1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content”
– 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural in origin. That is the main driver, not people.
“2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does”
– Even if CO2 did increase the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, it simply causes the warmer air to rise, where any extra heat is blown to the poles. The poles really do need the extra warmth. Ever tried to grow grapes there?
3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold
– Every occupied part of the Earth changes temperature about 25 degrees centigrade every day. How can you say that an increase of 0.1 of a degree is harmful. Even if you believe the stupid claims that the Earth will go up as much as 2 degrees (none of the claims to date have actually happened), that is a small part of the daily change.
Most telling is the dedication with which the warmists have tried to erase any inconvenient truths, such as the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. It is essentially impossible to call this anything but scientific raud.
Ray B. Please check before posting. There are two effects. The effect of increased temperature reduces solubility. The effect of higher concentration of CO2 inreases the amount of dissolved CO2 according to Henry’s law. The temperature effect is tiny compared to the Henry’s law effect. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. Got it?
so seth if your third point is true we have to believe the dinosaurs thrived during the “snowball earth” episode?
sorry but every really EVERY peak of life happened during the warm episodes our planet has seen (and then we talk about more then 10 degrees C warmer then now)
iw warmer would mean less biodiversity, then why is the biggest biodiversity found in the rainforests at the equator?
to have a decrease in biodiversity, you need a decrease of clouds and moisture as drinkeable water is the main driver for biodiversity. Temperature is also a driver, but life (and even our civilization always thrived during the optima and crashed down during the minima.
oh yes the emian interglacial which would have seen an ice free arctic did not eradicate the polar bears as they are still there.
Why do these facts contradict on all levels your third claim?
what i see is that earth’s nature is more adaptable to climate’s ever changing course then we as a so called “highly evolved civilization” can adapt to it, hence we try to mirror our own shortcomings on what surrounds us.
With sun winding down some cooling is nearly certain. Despite all these spikes in NOAA’s data the CET has been on downhill slide for about a decade, while the Grand Warm up lasted barely a decade.
From historic perspective things do not look brilliant, in another decade or so we here in the N. West Europe may revisit the early 1900s temperature.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GSN2.gif
As it can be seen I’m not entirely convinced about either past or recent data adjustments.
Adjustments are necessary. Sad but true. And not all are made that are needed to be made, for that matter. I can think of two in particular.
“science” that relies on adjustments to almost all of its data or filled in data with in fill data from hundreds or thousands of miles away is closer to science fiction than actual science …
Oceanic cycles that couple with the troposphere for heat transfer are the reason you have the ? Marks. And those those cycles are not periodic (quasi-periodic) enough in extent for reliable prediction.
The one thing we can take to the bank is reversion to mean. This year ( 2016) and last year were above normal due to ENSO heat release. 2017-2018 with a La Nina in a near minima Solar cycle won’t be so kind to mankind. Reversion to mean.
“Reversion to mean.”
Yes, I would agree, only question is if that mean is, the simple arithmetic one, or perhaps one centered on the last 350 years’ upward trend. I hope is the ‘uptrend mean’ since next few decades may not be too bad.
Some time ago I devised a ‘model’ based on the CET’s natural variability, to my surprise it fits the high latitudes volcanic index (I compiled in 2010, as shown here )
So what we can expect in the next 100 years ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VCN.gif
“Reversion to mean.”
============
that assumes climate has a mean. however climate is a fractal without a mean. rather it has bounds globally of approximately 11C and 22C, where it spends most of its time, with brief excursions away from the bounds. at 15C we are in one of those brief excursions.
it is the belief that climate has a mean that leads to the assumption that climate is changing. however, without a mean to revert to, change becomes the normal state for climate.
an arithmetic mean can of course be calculated for climate, so long as you bound the time period. when you compare this mean with another time period, you will find that it has changed.
unlike a coin toss or toss of the dice, where the mean and deviation remain constant, in a fractal the mean and deviation are non-constant. the odds of a warm period versus a cold period are always changing, as is the size of the warm versus cold period.
I am a bit skeptic about the ‘fractal business’, at least on the scale we have some instrumental data however uncertain they might be.
Once you start thinking about natural selection, you come up with interesting and (in hindsight, really quite obvious) conclusions. For example, why humans tend to favour certain body types when choosing their mates.
DNA analysis has demonstrated the strong probability that the human population dropped to a few thousand during the last glacial period. Obviously, rapid cooling of the climate placed a huge environmental stress on people, as on many other species. During such high-stress periods, natural selection is accelerated because the survival rate is so low that only those individuals who have mutated enough to develop an “edge” get to survive long enough to pass on their DNA to the next generation.
In the case of ice-age humans, the “edge” was having sufficient intelligence to begin to manipulate their physical environment to survive the cold. Being able to use fire obviously was a big one, and that allowed a much wider use of caves for shelter because it gave light as well as heat. Then being smart enough to use the skins of animals as clothing. Also, the ability to devise and use weapons to kill large animals for food and fur would be a big one too – other species like wolves hunt in groups, but they have teeth and claws that were refined by evolution for killing – humans had to invent weapons for that purpose. Living in caves probably led to larger social groupings and that may have led to the development of language – certainly the need to organize and coordinate large groups would have promoted the use of language. You can go on and on with this kind of thought experiment – it gets addictive if you do it long enough – and it all comes down to this: we are humans because we survived the big freeze by evolving to be intelligent.
So cold has had its benefits because it made us smart (unless you think, like the Club of Rome, that humans are a problem for the earth). Do we want to repeat the experiment next time? There’s little or no doubt that there will be a next glacial period. And it will pose massive problems for a multi-billion human population when the amount of land available to grow food shrinks to a fraction of what we have now. Perhaps our descendants will be clever enough to develop ways to live in a cold global climate, but if all we do is worry about global warming, we won’t be ready for it.
Rock
You might find this interesting read
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-stone-age-hunters-contributed-variants.html
I have no doubt we will turn on each other in a heart beat, no matter what political or environmental leanings one has. Basic survival instincts will kick in.
macha
It didn’t take but a couple of weeks at Parris Island (MCRD) back in the early ’60s to show how thin the veneer of civilization is on the human. Place him/her in a survival situation, or, in some cases just threaten their access to food, clothing, shelter or assumed breeding rights and you quickly learn not to be surprised by any action they may take.
Moderators,
My comment disappeared apparently. Not even a message that it went into moderation. I know I did not use any forbidden words this time. (or reasonably sure I should say)
I had this happen last week once as well. I thought it was just my own clumsy mouseclicking but lately people here have been mentioning the same thing.
A ‘black hole event horizon’ has appeared in the WordPress constellation, it may explain the sudden non-appearing of comments. In my case happened 2-3 times in the last few days.
I’ve had that happen in the past but it usually turns up after a short interval. I’ve learned to wait so as not to double-post. Not sure what a good waiting period is though.
I had one too. Nothing triggering at all. It was a bit of a technical comment on measuring CO2 equilibration between the atmosphere and the oceans. Too bad because it took a fair amount of effort.
There are spam filters, bad word traps, things like “Cotton blocks”, and no doubt, a bunch of other stuff. When running complex software systems like this, one factor is often overlooked:
Demonic Possession
That Al Gore??
Auto
Well I am not going to re-type all of the lost comment, but I would like to say that Dr. Ball is one of the main reasons I started reading this blog and he remains my favorite writer here. And this essay was powerful and spot on.
Thanks Dr. Ball.
ctrl c – ctrl v to a document before hitting post. It saves the typing part anyway.
Would it not help if there were, somewhere on this site, a list of ‘naughty’ words – or words to avoid using?
Writing about such a powerful and emotive subject as ‘climate change’ along with all the people who write about it is bound to cause the use of some inflammatory language from time to time.
I would appreciate that as well.
“I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.”
Many people have said it. Who said it first? Apparently not Mae West, nor Sofie Tucker.
Apparently FIRST documented by Beatrice Kaufman in 1937.
Who Said What, Where, and When
By Ralph Keyes
Edition: illustrated
New York, NY: Macmillan
2006
Pg. 179:
“I’ve been RICH and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”
In 1937, a newspaper columnist portrayed the wife of playwright George S. Kaufman urging a theatrical figure to accept one of many movie opportunities he was being offered. “Dpn’t overlook the money part of it,” Bea Kaufman reportedly said. “I’ve been poor an I’ve been rich. Rich is better!” Sometimes misattributed to Mae West, Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday, Joey Adams, Joe Louis (Comedian Joe E. Lewis, not the boxer Joe Louis?—ed.), Frank Sinatra, Irving Wallace, John Connally, or Pearl Bailey, this thought is most often credited to singer Sophie Tucker. Nonetheless, there is no reliable record of her ever having said it. A retired editor named Henry McNulty once scoured his newspaper’s coverage of the hometown celebrity from the beginning of her career in 1922 until she died in 1966. He found no reference to this comment. Nor could McNulty find it in obituaries about Tucker written elsewhere, or in her autobiography. Some think the thought originated with comedian Joe E. Lewis, or comedienne Fanny Brice. Since Tucker and Lewis sometimes performed together, they had many an opportunity to borrow each other’s material. Tucker and Brice were contemporaries and friends. Most likely this was a show business commonplace free for the taking.
Verdict: An old entertainer’s saw.
Links to: References citing Beatrice Kaufmann and in Google Books
I’ve been lower middle class, and I’ve been poor.
Believe me, lower middle class is better.
(You heard it here first folks ; )
That is pretty funny. +0.95
So it follows:
It has been temperate and it has been cold.
It is better that it is temperate.
JohnKnight — John, John, John, what are we to do with you? — Eugene WR Gallun
it has been not so cold and really cold … not so cold is better …
Is it better to be temperate or intemperate? 😉
Oh, Lady be good.
============
I heard it first as George Burns put it on the subject of whether riches can buy you happiness:
I’ve been rich and unhappy, I’ve been poor and unhappy…..rich is better.
That last bit a low growl.
Another great essay from Dr Ball!
The day will come to pass where the experts will be telling us that the temperature outside is the highest ever, despite there being two foot of snow on the ground. If Joe Public hasn’t realised by that stage that he’s been conned, then there is truly no hope for mankind.
Oh c’mon, mate. Science is HARD.
Cooling Predictions of Natural Cooling
In 2009, the late Bob Carter summarized cooling predictions:
Geology Prof. Don Easterbrook predicted long term cooling:
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
In 2014 Carter warned of unpreparedness for global cooling
Those warming of catastrophic anthroprogenic warming bear the burden of proof to show high statistical likelihood of their predictions over the null hypothesis of such natural global temperature warming AND cooling. To date they have not done so.
Abuse of statistics is now so bad that Valen E. Johnson published Revised standards for statistical evidence PNAS vol. 110 no. 48, 19313–19317, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313476110
Thus climate warming advocates must reach the standard of 100-200:1 to justify a “highly significant finding” on which to make trillion dollar public policy decisions.
You have to consider both the direction AND the rate of change. Global proxies suggest that the earth was cooling slightly (0.01 degrees C/century) over the past 7,000 years. That all changed around 1900 and since then the temperature has been increasing at about 1 degree C/century. A slight cooling of a hundredth of a degree per century poses much less of a threat over the next few centuries than an increase of 1 or more degree per century. That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.
Wait. What happened to latter part of the Holocene Climate Optimum in your 7000-year cooling? the Minoan Warm Period? The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period?
Are you saying those periods- each one of them warmer than we are now- were actually ‘cooling’?
Here is the global temperature trend over the past 10,000 years based on analysis of 73 data sets.
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10000-year-graph.jpg
Here is the paper. If you challenge their analysis, please provide a peer-reviewed paper that supports your assertion.
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
Luke, hate to tell you this. Marcott committed academic misconduct in that paper 1. His own SI says the has no temporal resolution below ~150 years (actual resolution is about 300). The blade is invalid. He admitted this statistical ‘probably not robust’ in correspondence with McIntyre. He created it via core top redating (the misconduct), then relying on statistical drop out. Essay A High Stick Foul in ebook Blowing Smoke exposes this explicit scientific misconduct in detail. Provable by comparing his thesis (part 3 is the basis for the Science paper) to Science and its SI. Also guest posted at Judith Currys early in 2014. McIntyre did a more detailed analysis just of the alkenone proxy subset and showed the same thing that I found in all 72.
Your graph is junk. And your demand for peer rebuttal shows how little you know about the rigged publishing system and Pal review exposed by Climategate. McNutt, dedicated warmunist chief Science editor at the time, had the incontrovertible evidence based on comparing Marcotts thesis to his paper. Her assistant acknowledged receipt of that information from me in the form of the essay with its footnotes. Did nothing. Go read my forensic analysis. It might open your mind a bit.
Luke~ what exactly Does grasping at straws feel like? I suspect you have a good clue.
Luke, how many times do you have to be told that the Marcott Hokey Schtick graph you are obsessed with has been debunked times without number and even disowned by Marcott himself?
Why do you insist on repeatedly insulting the intelligence and knowledge of the posters on this blog by repeatedly posting it even though it is known to be fraudulent?
Have you considered seeking medical assistance for obsessive compulsive behaviour disorder?
cat,
Luke gets a thrill every time he looks at Marcott’s bogus chart. Even though it’s a complete fabrication with no connection to reality, it feeds his confirmation bias.
To Luke: “Go read my forensic analysis. It might open your mind a bit.”
I hope you were jesting because that is one of the funnest lines I have seen here at WUWT in some time. Thanks for the very big grin on my face. 🙂
ristvan
If you are going to use the excuse that climate scientists around the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy then, you’re right, we can’t have a rational discussion about the evidence for AGW.
Luke,
How many times do I (and others) have to tell you that AGW exists?
Now what’s the excuse for your climate alarmism?
Again Luke shows Marcott, which has very poor temporal resolution. It wouldn’t even show the last 150 years of temperature. That’s just plain dishonest.
Luke plays the conspiracy card;
“If you are going to use the excuse that climate scientists around the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy then…”
Vast conspiracy? Like 97% of scientists? . .
Think people, please; There are numerous known conspiratorial groups far larger than would be required to pull off this (I am quite certain) climate con job. Drug trafficking for instance, a whole lot of people “conspire” every freaking day to supply illegal drugs around the world, don’t they? And human trafficking? Illegal arms sales? These “conspiracies” require far more participants than would be required to pull off a “consensus” among “climate scientists” charade like we (I am certain) have seen watching.
Luke, From Jeremy Shakun co-author of Marcott-
‘Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.’
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/
I would call BS on that graph no matter what it was measuring. Better than 10000 well behaved samples and then a blow up (at an end point). That screams check for data error and if you don’t find one, try again
The Haseler gap: imminent global plummeting temperatures (in next ~2000 years).
I hope many people click on that link and read that essay. It is darn good.
@ur momisugly scottish Sceptic and Markstoval:
i can only second this: interesting piece and track! and good open minded piece of writing.
it should be a good thing to understand and do attempts to search for the driver of the cold spell of the ice age cold intervals…
\Luke, google the Younger Dryas if you want to see how fast cold can come.
… and heat as well as the rebound from the younger dryas does throw the IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented CO2 driven warming” straight into the deepest b***s**t trash bin….
Luke,
1 C degree per century.
Well not in the Central England Temp Gauges over 350 years it is 0.26 C degree per century. The prediction of political instability and conflict due to this rate of temp change is just hogwash.
Temperatures from one location do not refute the trends in global temperatures. As for you second claim.
There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.
Here is the url for the full article. If you contest their conclusions, please provide a peer-reviewed publication supporting your assertions.
http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4371967
Luke, hi again
Most of people commenting here, have on many occasions heard the views and opinions and read many references of kind you putting forward, and rejected them over and over again as the unsound ‘science’. Wish you good luck, but you might be wasting your time, unless of course you seriously consider what is discussed here and become an AGW sceptic rather than a AGW missionary.
Anyone who knows any history knows that the “hockey stick” is/ was false. Just ignore all the historical records?
When Luke says the Syrian conflict was caused by AGW I checked out, climate scientists on the alarmist side have disowned that nonsense as it is too much of a hit on their credibility, which says something.
How desperate do you have to be to drag out nonsense from politicians. Humans caused the Syrian conflict, not with CO2 though, but by secretly arming scumbags since 2010, funnily enough, the governments most lying about CAGW, France UK and US.
Luke, luke, luke. The pentagon, like all government bureaucracies are merely pushing their own agenda. They use the climate bogeyman to bootstrap their own importance.
There are plenty of other issues they could use to “bootstrap their own importance”. It just so happens that the data support their assertion.
“It just so happens that the data support their assertion.”
Except that it doesn’t.
Luke, you come here time and again to deliver your message – same graphs, same words – You do respond to others, yet you never look into anything that does not support the catastrophe meme. It makes me suspect you are here merely to post your message – not communicate with others, not to debate nor to learn. You are not interested in an exchange of ideas. So, I conclude from that, you must be here to refute the findings of honest investigation, nothing more.
Meh, the Commander in Chief is deluded, they have to follow orders. We’ll see how they act with a new C-i-C.
==============
Heh, Marcott deluded the President, why not little ‘ol Luke?
============
Don’t feed the troll.
What Luke is doing in words is an extension of Mann’s (et. al) Hockey Stick graphic reasoning.
He is taking a long-term highly smoothed almost linear trend — “Global proxies suggest that the earth was cooling slightly (0.01 degrees C/century) over the past 7,000 years” — and splicing on the end a relatively short-term temperature trend — “all changed around 1900 and since then the temperature has been increasing at about 1 degree C/century”.
It’s a standard alarmist tactic:
I’m assuming it’s a tactic, I’m giving Luke the benefit of the doubt.
The Marcott graph was created via clearcut academic misconduct. It should have been withdrawn. See my reply to Luke upthread which gives two separate ways to reference the relevant forensic materials.
Luke, Marcott is hiding past excursions in temperature like we’ve seen recently. The argument is over causes for these excursions, which were clearly natural before recently. Attribution for change is not easy, and frankly, no one knows what is natural and what is anthropogenic. So believe those who argue that they do at your own peril.
Don’t take this to your tutors or they’ll expel you.
===============
What sort of tactic is it to mislabel a graph “Before Present 2000 AD” when Richard Alley’s GISP2 data only went to 1855? Where is the last 160 years?
What sort of a tactic is it to compare proxy temperature history in at the top of Greenland to 73 other proxy temperature datasets worldwide? What is the average annual temperature at the top of Greenland in the last few years?
‘A slight cooling of a hundredth of a degree per century poses much less of a threat over the next few centuries than an increase of 1 or more degree per century.’
And what threat is 1 or more degree per century? It would absolutely be beneficial.
‘That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.’
Nope. It’s because the Commander in Chief told them to say it. The Pentagon kills people and breaks things. They have no authority on instability and conflict.
Luke, timescales must be considered. And you are suggesting we should be prepared for climate change which is why the head of CSIRO has changed the direction of the organisation, regardless of the anthropogenic CO2 influence, to finding the best ways to manage a changing climate. I am in the camp that says forcing economic collapse on us is not the best way to do this.
Like — The Pentagon? — You use them as a source? you have lost all credibility..– Eugene WR Gallun
Luke —
You have just explained the great political instability of the old “banana republics” of South and Central America. IT WAS ALL THAT EXTRA HEAT! Certainly the current problems in Venezuela and Brazil etc are perfect examples — a few extra degrees of heat compared to the north equals political instability, poverty and those wanting air conditioning are lead into corruption. There is no hope for hot house countries! YOUR A GENIUS LUKE!!
Eugene WR Gallun
I believe the tables of top humor are tilting in your direction, Eugene.
I wish I had known that before going to Ecuador last year. Appeared to me to be a fairly happy and progressive place. I guess I should have warmed them of their impending doom. Can you believe people hang out in the sun at the equator? Don’t they know it’s dangerously hot?
“That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.”
Nonsense! The Pentagon was directed by the Administration (which is sold on the warming nonsense) to make that statement. There is ZERO evidence to support the hypothesis that warming is a principle driver of political instability. On the contrary, cooling has historically been shown to drive political instability due to the economic disruption caused by crop failures, etc.
Agreed warm is better than cold The only desert on the Equator is on the East side of Africa where the prevailing winds prevent rainfall. Try farming in Antarctica. The unfortunate thing is that it will take a cold winter over Western Europe to cause power cuts and the probable resultant civil disorder to change public opinion. An anticyclone for two weeks witht the solar farms covered in snow, the wind turbines not turning and no power coming across the interconnecters as Holland and France are unlikely to sacrifice their own citizens to supply the UK is a likely scenario in the next 2-3 years.
I drive around the SW of Engalnd and despair at the number of solar farms being built on good agricultral land. What is the decommissioning cost of a solar farm with its metal posts, cabling and disposal of the solar panels?. I would like to be enlightened.
On an island of coal and iron surrounded by silver seas once plentiful with fish it has taken some ability to diminish our capacity to survive. Too many Arts graduates in government and not enough engineers/scientists.
Being an engineer, I have 2 diesel gensets ( large & small) & 1,500 liters of fuel + inverter & big battery bank. We can be off grid ~ 50 days & also keep 4 weeks of food, no probs.
Pity the poor sods that can’t prep.
1saveenergy, i admire your planning. I dont have the finacial resources as yet to do similar. Do you have your own well/water supply.? Water and warmth is life
you use that generator and by week 3 some nasty lads will show up and take it from you …
London, thanks for the comment. The lack of scientists and engineers does seem to be major part of the problem.
London247, if you are young and inventive I think there is a fortune to be made in reclaiming the rare earth elements and metals from the decommissioning of large scale solar and wind, as their true practicality and environmental impacts become apparent. Anyone who can turn these future disposal problems into sellable cullet (cheaply) will win big.
A good diesel dozer can “decommission” that solar farm quickly and cheaply.
It is interesting how much the CAGW industry feeds the, ‘If I were king of the world” fantasizing. I was smiling at the attack in the UK on the ‘qualifications’ of people pointing out what a load of silly alarmism the AGW business entails, which is basically an appeal to authority and the Kingdom of Names (and Letters). Then the ‘authority’ upheld so proudly in another article was….Naomi Klein, she the bearer of so many Letters and Names!
“Activist” was one of them. What are the qualifications of an “activist”? Self-appointed moral standing is one, with a pretty confident idea that others are morally lesser in stature so deserving of the herder’s whim. How can anyone sustain so much confidence in AGW in the face of so many contradicting facts?
Like the armless knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail saga, the warmists will be claiming, “It is all caused by AG CO2!” as everything freezes right down to the bottom of Lake Ontario.
Human science has enough tools to survive another ice age, but it hopefully will not come to that for a few more thousand years. We have the skills and tools at hand to create a global civilisation of great kindness, justice and wealth. There is no requirement to scare people into beneficial behaviour. Our biggest problems are ignorance and inequality. The biggest threats are nuclear weapons and the veto at the UN. The latter prevents resolution of serious problems, promoting resort to the former. Plus a lot of people still think a major war is winnable.
True, but not for 7.3 billion people, 5 billion of which live in the developing world outside China. Not enough arable land with long enough growing seasons (degree days) as Dr. Ball’s guest post points out for Scotland and just the LIA. Greenhouses don’t work for the five major calory staples (wheat, rice, corn, soy, potatoes) on the requisite scale. Even ignoring cost.
ristvan says, “Greenhouses don’t work for the five major catagory staples (wheat, rice, corn, soy, potatoes) on the requisite scale. Even ignoring cost.”
==============================
What do you mean by that?
Here is an above average post explaining why food shortage is a political problem, not an agricultural or nature problem… https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/grains-and-why-food-will-stay-plentiful/
It’s easier to scare them into line. Just look.
=========
It’s a tough gig when mere education undermines one’s entire plan. Scaring requires that people fear something, like roasting in a living hell instead of being tortured in an eternal one. People lose their fears of everything, even death. CAGW alarmism relies on the ignorance of the listener. An educated listener will soon stop listening because they know better. Then the nonsense will fade away with a whimper, still clutching the cash.
Naomi Klein, The Red Queen — Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast! — Eugene WR Gallun
Bill and Naomi, nothing more than rent-a-mob organizers!
For any and all Canucks on this site, I call for a complete boycott of the CBC. David Suzuki and then Klein’s ” This changes everything “. Unbelievable lefty, anti-West, anti- fossil fuel propagandists.
Suffice to say that this planet is more greatly prone to temperatures below the survival limit of most species than those temps above.
It should be obvious to any middle-schooler that the warming planet sustains this “preponderance” of respirating organisms in larger surviving and reproducing quantities spread over more and more of the recovered frigid wastelands. The activity is mostly at the microbial and insect levels, converting CH4 and thawed organic debris into CO2 (et al) and raising the level of atmospheric GHGs in the process. Later the more complex species migrate into the former tundra.
Warming enhances CO2 production and cooling retards it. Plain as my big nose.
The only way we’ll see lower CO2 is when the transpiring organisms increase in the formerly uninhabitable regions enough to balance the emissions of the faster-lived life forms which precede their presence, or when the temperature of those areas is again no longer high enough to maintain the respiring life forms in sufficient quantity.
Ooh! Proponderance!
Whatever typo-adhesive digit disorder Marcus has is contagious.
Lol, you has it right the first time.
Paleontology shows no upper limit to the benefits to the biome from warming, and always shows the immediate detriment of cooling. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. The greening from AnthroCO2 would seem miraculous if it weren’t so predictable, and yet, it does seem miraculous to the billion extra people now being fed by the increased CO2.
It’s the coccolithophores, and more!
Heh, I once wrote ‘supports more’ instead of ‘sustains more’ in the stenography above and oooh, the trouble I got into.
==============
“… the IPCC want to reduce the economic growth of developed nations and make them pay for the economic growth of developing nations.”
This explains the whole global warming shebang.
TCE: It seems to me that the problem won’t exist soon as the ‘developing nations’ will soon be living in the ‘developed nations’.
yet this is hopeful – nuclear in Nigeria:(several)
http://guardian.ng/news/fashola-reaasures-on-4800mw-nuclear-power-project/
Personally, I love (not) the claims of the warmists that this has been the warmest Spring (evah) because the El Nino was supported by anthropogenic CO2 – yet I have not found anyone of them who can explain the ratios. Or the proof thereof.
That a warmer world has been successfully marketed as a catastrophic disaster is testament to the power of propaganda.
Makes me wonder what would have transpired if H.G. Wells had stuck to his Martian invasion story. How far might it have gone with a naive public?
The name of the entity is “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
Which sounds to me like gushers of money, if you dare take that first sip.
Persistent reference to the IPCC merely distracts. It may be helpful to recall that as UN apparachiks, the IPCC “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate-related data or parameters.” http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6444.php
The IPCC is a UN reviewing body that provides its opinions to the Council of Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC. The UN drives the UNFCCC, the UNEP, ECOSOC and the several thousand UN NGO’s that constitute the euphemistically named ‘civil society’, a term of UN obfuscation that deliberately blurs with civilized society http://www.un.org/en/sections/resources/civil-society/index.html
This eco-totalitarian constellation of administrations amount to little less than global government in waiting. Civilized society will stop them.
The de facto Pax American, de jure a variable coalition of the functioning democracies was functionally better than any proposed central government can be, and, as before, it will probably be a coalition of the functioning democracies which will hamper and ultimately halt the burgeoning authoritarian transnationalism.
================
Mr. Ball, I am sorry, but as a fellow Canadian, I don’t give a shlt what is causing the temperatures to fluctuate, I WANT GLO.BULL Warming !… I am tired of freezing my balls off every six months !
P.S. Love every post you make !
Get in touch with the WUWT regular Tom in Florida.
I second that emotion!
“I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.”
Why does this person get a podium here? Embarrassing…
Luke need a break??
“Luke need a break??”
Heh?
Wagen, so why do you keep coming back to read more?
“so why do you keep coming back to read more?”
Thank you for asking! The -in my eyes- faraway from reality interpretations on here of what is actually going on, are quite fascinating. Human information processing is my field of work. I learn a lot. Looking at this corner of the Internet is only a hobby though.
Tell us what is actually going on. I’ve been wondering.
===============
Made me smile. Thanks, Wagen. Have fun. 😉
If you know our minds then tell me why we refuse your indoctrination.
Wagen, you’d better hope that the recovery from the coldest depths of the Holocene was primarily natural, because if man has done the heavy lifting of warming we can’t keep it up much longer.
The higher the climate sensitivity to CO2, the colder we would now be without man’s efforts. So take a sensitivity that frightens you, and calculate how cold we would now be without man’s additional CO2.
There, that ought to keep you busy, and, if you’re lucky, provide you with a new perspective.
=================
Klm,
What is it that you are trying to tell me? (You didn’t succeed).
And we’re at half precession, and at average age for the last few interglacials.
And the sun is doing something, probably minor, but new to our perceptions of it.
If we are false-footed into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening, instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening, then there will be Hell to pay, and the bill will feature pale and painted horses.
================
Wagen, the argument is over attribution of temperature rise to nature vs to man. Whatever amount, and the figure is greatly in controversy, man has contributed we would now be that much colder without man.
You do understand that warmer is a friend to life, and colder is the enemy of same?
The alarmists have gotten things quite backwards, but it is not surprising, because the better view is less amenable to dramatic social engineering.
It may take a spell of cooling to convince the most intransigent of the alarmists that warming is always a net benefit, cooling immediately a disaster.
We’ll survive, whether we understand that sooner or later. You may depend upon that.
====================
Mr. Wagen, I believe that if it were not for the Tor network, your traffic would originate from the same IP address as the other sockpuppets who frequent this blog. The fact that you all arrive en masse is a giveaway. Furthermore I suspect that your “hobby” earns you a good wage.
Into the valley of Death rode the brigade of Gorebots. The peculiar, may I say pathognomonic, characteristic of so many of these alarmists is the striking combination of arrogance and ignorance. It’s almost as if they come emblazoned with a great green ‘G’ on their foreheads, so labelled they make themselves.
==================
“The peculiar, may I say pathognomonic, characteristic of so many of these alarmists is the striking combination of arrogance and ignorance.”
Agnorance.
Yes we are causing Global Warming so sit back and relax and bask in the lovely heat…
“Here we provide a systematic assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change for the range of impacts of regional climate trends reported in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. We find that almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2896.html
You mean impacts such as record and near-record lows in tornadoes and hurricanes over the past 4 years? Even the IPCC’s Extreme Weather report says there is ‘LOW’ confidence that much of anything can be linked to AGW.
Record world grain reserves, more people above the poverty line, shocking stuff. Oh for the good old days?
“Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today”
Hilarious! 😀 😀 😀 Let’s have more comedians here!
Oh look, the village idiot is laughing again.
Well come on then and tell me, which
“Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today”
did the vikings sail? 😀 😀 😀
A lot of people suspect Arctic Ice is cyclic, or at the least, variable.
==============
Wagen, “did the vikings sail?”
‘Our imagination of a Vikings Longship undoubtedly depicts the ship with a square or rectangular sail. However, we do not have any sails from the Viking Age. The simply haven’t survived decomposition. This doesn’t mean that archaeologists are simply guessing that Viking sails were square or rectangular. There is enough historical evidence to confidently claim that this was indeed the shape and rigging method use by the Vikings.’
http://www.danishnet.com/vikings/viking-sails/
Seems so.
Wagen
The Vikings sailed around Greenland. Today that is not possible because of pack ice.
I presume you are aware of the archeological find on the NW shore of Greenland from 4000 BC which included enough DNA to show that the Inuit man living there (now covered in pack ice) was descended from a recent migration from NE Asia, that he was descended from people originating in E China, not Siberia, and also that he had dry ear wax. Where he lived is now uninhabitable because of the pack ice >5m thick.
Greenland was much warmer 6000 years ago than it is now. The Arctic may have been ice-free in late summer.
What’s so funny?
Wikipedia, that impeccable information source (until it’s bowdlerised by Connelly et al.), tells me “… before the Little Ice Age, Norwegian Vikings sailed as far north and west as Ellesmere Island, Skraeling Island and Ruin Island for hunting expeditions and trading with the Inuit and people of the Dorset culture [and Thule] who already inhabited the region …” areas which are under pack ice most of the year.
I don’t know what evidence there is for that statement but given the the fact that the Arctic treeline and permafrost boundaries were at higher latitudes during the MWP it’s perfectly reasonable to infer that the seasonal ice pack was also.
Wagen —
you are right. That statement can be justifiably lampooned. Hyperbole is always funny no matter who says it or on what topic. Good spot.
Eugene WR Gallun
“Hyperbole is always funny no matter who says it or on what topic.”
Always?
Nonsense.
It’s not impossible far less ridiculous that the Norse explored and hunted along the coast of Peary Land in far north Greenland, an area that is now under permanent ice, for instance:
“In 1949, the Danish archeologist Count Eigil Knuth found a remarkably well-preserved umiak on desert-dry Peary Land at the northern tip of Greenland, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. This umiak was thirty-one feet long, and its driftwood frame was lashed with baleen. It had been built in about a.d. 1440, and in size, design, and workmanship it was nearly identical to umiaks used 400 years later by Greenland’s people …”. Natural History, October 1992.
Chris, appears reasonable. We know they farmed land that is now permafrost, or has that history been adjusted as well?
So far the CAGW alarmists have not addressed the central theme of the post. Cold is harder on LIFE then warmth. Humm?
Looks like the trolls are out in force today.
Agreed. Should make for an entertaining thread. 🙂
This one acts like a Japanese soldier trapped on a Pacific Island for years who still thinks WWII is on.
He certainly has antique armory.
================
You watched Gilligan’s Island after school too?
May I suggest that he is a cargo cult island dweller?
They set up their pitiful digital simulacra of the great analogue computer that is the Earth’s climate systems, and they expect insight to fly in from over the horizon.
===================
I found that mentally quite picturesque…
Wagen looks a picosecond and predicts the decade. he is a small thinker with a large ego.
They only surrendered because of the rising sea levels, lol.
Every one of Dr. Tim Ball’s postings is a winner. This is the best summary of the IPCC Boondoggle and Fraud that I have read to date. Global Cooling Is a much Bigger Problem than any small global warming.
One should consider that mortality among desert life forms is more often cold related than heat related. survival is difficult when it is cold and dry and all the water is frozen.
from NASA:
Comet 252P/LINEAR will safely fly past Earth on March 21, 2016, at a range of about 3.3 million miles (5.2 million kilometres).
The following day, comet P/2016 BA14 will safely fly by our planet at a distance of about 2.2 million miles (3.5 million kilometres)
I don’t know why they’re worried; we can’t possibly reach out to harm them.
==========
It is a rather sad story of long ago when daughters of Orion sacrificed themselves, Persephone then kindly turned them into comets.
And now look how roughly Apollo handles them.
===========
Note the trend. 1.1 million miles closer everyday! We’ll all be dead by the evening of the 24th. Pass it on. Don’t have to worry about global warming anymore.