Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
There is nothing permanent except change. – Heraclitus
If you want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. – Giuseppe di Lamedusa
Moving the Goalposts Again.
Climate changes significantly all the time. Those who point this out are considered more dangerous than global warming skeptics. Perversely and incorrectly, they are called climate change deniers, with its holocaust connotations. However, even a brief examination of the historic record shows how much climate changes naturally. This information is reaching the public and reducing people’s fear and is encouraging questions.
The political reaction, as in the past, is to move the goalposts. From the pulpit of the White House, John Holdren created climate disruptions; another ‘spin’ phrase used to imply abnormality and therefore due to humans. As proof, he pointed to media reports of increasing weather extremes. They weren’t extreme, but if you don’t know the history and the facts, exaggerations in the media make them so. It becomes a classic circular argument. Most people don’t understand that hurricanes are normal weather events. What has increased are the number of people who choose to live in hurricane regions and media attention, who are the phony storm chasers.
Forced to acknowledge that climate changes required a new name, but also a change in the story. It had to be abnormal, so now the claim is it is more rapid, frequent, abrupt and severe than anywhere in history. It isn’t, but the idea maintained the fear and guilt factors – millions will die, plants and animals will suffer and it is your fault. Maybe opponents to these claims should be called Climate Disruption Dastards.
Why Does Rate of Change Create Concern?
Every time a new threat is promoted, evidence shows it is unsubstantiated. Usually, the threat only worked because the public doesn’t understand. Once they appear to understand, a new threat is required. Increased rate of change resulted in stories claiming nature would be unable to adapt because the rate of change was abnormal.
It resonated because western science is based on the philosophy of uniformitarianism (gradualism), which assumes that processes occurring today were the same in the past. Charles Lyell summarized it as, “The present is the key to the past.” It was interpreted, incorrectly, that nothing changes much over time.
Lyell’s book Principles of Geology accompanied Darwin on the Beagle and profoundly influenced his thinking. Darwin’s theory required a much older world with time for evolution to occur. It replaced Catastrophism, which is ironic, because it held that the earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope.” Briefly, at the end of the 20th century, Chaos theory appeared, but faded. Stephen Jay Gould proposed a compromise called “punctuated equilibrium,” which said change was gradual with occasional catastrophic events.
This idea coincided with what appeared to be a good example, evidence that an asteroid wiped out dinosaurs 65 million years ago. (I celebrate that event each year, because it allowed the mammals and ultimately humans to emerge – it is my religion of Asteroidism). Despite this, traditional uniformitarian thinking persisted because it formed the philosophical thinking of western science. One result was the assumption that recovery from catastrophic events would take considerable time. This translated into the claim that human induced climate change was beyond the capability of plants and animals to recover.
Examples of Gradualist Thinking
An example of this thinking, accompanied a forest policy proposal for the Province of British Columbia by Werner Kurz.
“The climatic “comfort zone” for some species of trees is shifting north and it is moving far faster than the natural climate changes recorded in the geological record. “As long as change is a slow process the response of vegetation is to migrate with the shifting climate zone,” Kurz said. Paleo-ecologists measure the pace of migration in kilometres per century, but climate bands in recent years are moving at least 10 times that fast, outstripping the ability of plants to cope with the change, he said.” “Relying solely on the biological migration mechanisms of trees is not going to be sufficient,” he said.
Proper scientific method challenges such theories and thinking. Apparently, Kurz didn’t do his research. First, he should look at the palynological record for the last 12,000 years to get a measure of the rate and extent of natural change. Using the geologic record for recent change is like measuring human hair with a yardstick.
Diane L. Six, like Kurz in BC, lacks wider knowledge, historical perspective and understanding of climate patterns and mechanisms. In a Billings Gazette opinion article, Six wrote,
As scientists who have lived and worked in Montana, we understand the scientific principles demonstrating that human activity is rapidly changing our climate. That is why we joined over 100 other scientists across Montana in sending a letter to our top elected officials calling on them to support policies that reduce carbon pollution.
Thousands of scientists have produced thousands of studies on the causes and impacts of climate change. Each of those studies has undergone a rigorous peer review process. Building such a body of evidence to explain what is happening in the world around us is a careful, slow, and painstaking process, which rarely yields broad agreement. That’s why it is so remarkable that 97 percent of scientists who study climate change say that it is real, and largely caused by human activities that produce carbon pollution.
Climate change is a major concern for Montana. Scientists in Montana and around the West have documented that spring snowpack is melting on average two weeks earlier than in the 1950s. There has been an extension of two months in the wildfire season since the 1980s. August stream flows now average 20 percent lower than in the 1950s. These impacts are already having notable impacts on agriculture, recreation, wildlife, and water resources.
Ms. Six makes the inferred, but unsubstantiated connection between IPCC science and local conditions, while ignoring facts. For example, Ken Schlichte notes NOAA data shows that
· Montana’s meteorological winter (December – February) temperatures have trended downward at a rate of 4.2 degrees F per decade over the last 10 winters.
· Montana’s meteorological spring (March – May) temperatures have trended downward at a rate of 2.2 degrees F per decade over the last 10 springs.
There are also the inferences that the pattern Six describes are not normal and will continue. What Kurz and Six observe is perfectly normal. The problem is, the trend is incorrect. It cools, while they demand preparation for warming. They also need to know about the rate of adaptation to climate change. But these are problems created by academics and bureaucrats with a vested interest in perpetuating fear, while not understanding the science.
Kurz and Six must consider the events following the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980. It provided a natural experiment that rejected predictions that recovery would take a hundred years or more. After just thirty years, scientists were amazed at the recovery rate. They were amazed because the basic philosophy was wrong; it’s the same error that allows the false claim that change is too rapid for nature to cope. Both Kurz and Six quote ecologists, but one of the earliest ecology studies illustrated how much animal populations fluctuate in response to climate changes that in turn affect food supply. Figure 1 shows a plot of Lynx population number fluctuations over 100 years. There is a link to sunspot numbers that links to the precipitation pattern.
Figure 1.
An Example Of Rapid Forest Adaptation
In my climate research I found a map drawn in 1772 by fur trader and self-taught biologist Samuel Hearne. He followed the tree line (he called it the “woods edge”) from Churchill on the southwest coast of Hudson Bay to the Coppermine River on the Arctic coast and plotted it on a map. It’s a very distinct boundary, as I know from flying over this region for five years. The entire story was published as “Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada“, Climatic Change 1986, Vol. 7, pp. 218-229.
Hearne, whose observations on Arctic Fox are still considered among the best, made a remarkable, astute, comment in his journal.
“I have observed, during my several journeys in those parts that all the way to the North of Seal River the edge of the wood is faced with old withered stumps, and trees which have been flown (sic) down by the wind. They are mostly of the sort which is called here Juniper, but were seldom of any considerable size. Those blasted trees are found in some parts to extend to the distance of twenty miles from the living woods, and detached patches of them are further off; which is proof that the cold has been increasing in those parts for some ages. Indeed, some of the older Northern Indians have assured me that they have heard their fathers and grandfathers say, they remembered the greatest part of those places where the trees are now blasted and dead, in a flourishing state. (Hearne, 1772, p.138).
Figure 2
Source: Author
Hearne’s observations fit the climate record. The tree line advanced during the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) then retreated in the cooling to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Hearne describes this with his comment that this is “proof that the cold has been increasing in those parts for some ages”. It has warmed since Hearne’s time and the tree line has advanced with a pattern of movement appropriate for the general circulation of the region.
Comparing the “woods edge” (Figure 2) as Hearne drew it in 1772, with the tree line determined 200 years later by Rowe (1972) and Elliot-Fisk (1983), the amount of movement is significant. In the west/east portion from Great Slave Lake to Churchill on Hudson Bay, movement was up to 300 km. This means it moved more than one kilometer per year. Even if it is only half that, it is a remarkable rate of adjustment in one of the harshest growing environments anywhere.
Emergence of New Land Provides Evidence
While flying anti-submarine patrols in the North Atlantic in the 1960s I had the privilege of watching, month by month, the appearance of a new island off the Icelandic coast. Named Surtsey, it provided an opportunity for modern science to monitor how quickly life establishes itself. Insects were among the first to arrive, with birds bringing seeds and providing nutrients. Scientists were surprised and impressed by the rates of colonization and adaptation. It is not surprising to people who live on the land.
Once you realize climate changes significantly all the time it is much easier to understand that nature would have evolved for that eventuality. But, this is only one of the misconceptions created to promote environmentalism as a religion and climate change for a political agenda. It is a long list, but partly includes, the claim extinction is abnormal, when it is the norm; that if one species disappears the entire interconnection collapses; that warming will cause nothing but problems.
Further proof of political exploitation, but also the rapid rate of change, is that just 35 years ago governments were preparing for cooling. Indeed, some of the scientists active today in promoting the threat of warming were measuring and warning about the impact of cooling. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored studies on the impact of cooling on agricultural productivity in various regions. The CIA produced a few reports including, “The Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate”. OPR – 401, August 1974.
Governments are misled and misdirected by the science and policy suggestions of the IPCC. They’re adapting for warming when cooling is occurring and is the greater threat because adaptation is more difficult. If it occurs as rapidly as it has in the past we appear disadvantaged. However, humans have prospered and progressed because we used technology, invention and innovation to adapt. Fire, clothing, irrigation are all adaptations to climate change. The biggest threat is to our food supply, but genetic modification, which allows adaptation in two years compared to over 15 years for plant breeding, significantly improves our adaptability.
The only thing changing faster than the climate are the names given to political attempts to exploit people’s fears for a political agenda. In approximately 14 years it is variously Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Catastrophe, Climate Chaos and currently Climate Disruptions. As Bertrand Russell said, ‘Change’ is scientific, ‘progress’ is ethical: change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Check this out. It maybe 17 or 18 depending on the temp index chosen. They know what a pause is, check out the earliest quotes, right up to earlier this year. You have been had my friend, Google is my friend too.
Billmelater:
I vaguely recall that 1998 was the hottest year globally. Now if you accept that then read and you will realise that they just don’t understand what is going on. Here it is from Real Climate.
Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:31 am
Richard, the eighteen year pause is a myth. Heat records are being broken all the time. Just google hottest year and you will find the hottest year was not 18 years ago. While your at it google second hottest year. It was also not 18 years ago. Check the hottest 10 years and you will find they are not 18 years ago. In fact you may find that they have occurred in this century.
/////////////////
There have already many good posts in response to the argument that Billmeister raises.
Not wishing to further stoke matters, I googled as he suggested to find the state of heat records set. I attach an article from that well known warmist edited encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Since this the editing of this encyclopedia has a warmist slant, no accusations of cherry picking should arise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
As can be seen form this, there are few heat records set these past 18 years.
The warmest heat record in the USA was July 1913!
Billmelater
You talk of record heat. What about record cold? Cherry picking and using Google is very easy.
“NOAA – 28,504 Low Max Records Set in Last 365 Days”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/noaa-28504-low-max-records-set-in-last-365-days/
Now see the record heat in the Arctic. 😉 Arctic sea ice in death spiral.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Arctic heat is rising.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It should be noted that that the palynological record of 12ky is about carbon dating years and based on the date “11 920 ± 245 years B.P” Note that carbon dating requires calibration with the latest calibration table INTCAL13 (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/16947)
That would take you to about 13,750 calendar years before present (Cal yr BP) Present being 1950.
http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13%20files/intcal13.14c
There are more sophisticated tools like CALIB but this would be accurate enough.
Why is Gould’s “evolution by jerks” still part of the America biological psyche?
Why do Americans think Darwin was a gradualist, 170 years after his book was published? Why aren’t people willing to say, “I was wrong”?
For how many more decades will Gould’s destructive legacy poison the wells of evolution?
ossqss:
It’s not capitalism. It’s Communism. Capitalism operates in markets with natural and artificial regulatory mechanisms in order to mitigate monopoly formation. Communism operates by design as a monopoly of power wielded by a minority. It creates markets where none may exist, typically with authoritarian directives, mandates, and simply by force. Paradoxically, Communism’s, or generally Marxism’s, strict effort to control a complex and unwieldy system predetermines its mortality and predisposes it to suffer from misaligned development.
Gamecock:
You’re right. By definition, weather describes a physical phenomenon in a constant state of flux. Whereas climate describes an average of that phenomenon over a fixed period. However, based on the chaotic nature of the system, it would be better to define climate over a variable period. While the system is remarkable stable within a range of time and space, its nonlinear and unwieldy character undermine efforts to describe its behavior within fixed periods. In fact, the notable distinction between science and other philosophies is that its application is intentionally constrained within time and space to acknowledge the limitations inherent in a system predominantly populated by chaotic processes.
richard verney says:
July 28, 2014 at 12:15 am
================================================
That is a great definition for climate, although the wisdom of it seems to be lost on Billmelater, several comments below yours.
Jimbo says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:53 am
Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance.
=============================================================================
humor: they should have used a bigger bomb!!!
reality: life is truly amazing, and so is your endless library of appropriate responses!!!
Robert W Turner says:
July 28, 2014 at 8:41 am
Gamecock says: Only weather changes all the time. By definition, climate CANNOT change all the time.
Can a moving average change all the time? Yes. You get it yet?
=========================
Please provide a reference for your definition of climate as being a moving average. You completely made that up. You are now qualified to be a climate scientist.
Sorry Richard, 2010 was the warmest year. 1998 WAS the warmest year, but as the earth surface continues to warm up it was displaced by 2010. Which I predict will be knocked off first place in future as the earth continues to warm.
1998 was an outstanding year as it was a year when we had a strong El Niño event. For 2010 to surpass it, when an El Niño was not happening, indicates the Earth is still warming. When we experience the next El Niño, I predict we will get a scorcher.
What puzzles me, is the theme of this thread was that climate always changes. Yet
a large number of posters are going to great lengths to prove that climate is not changing.
Someone asked earlier what are the causes of previous climatic changes. This is a big question, so I suggest you look it up.
As for the person stating that the IPCC uses google for its information – an amazing claim that needs amazing evidence to substantiate. Not that I am saying you made it up, but how did you come to that conclusion?
Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm
“As for the person stating that the IPCC uses google for its information – an amazing claim that needs amazing evidence to substantiate. Not that I am saying you made it up, but how did you come to that conclusion?”
You, Sir, have a very pronounced reading comprehension defect. It probably plays a large role in your adherence to being misinformed.
Ed, what are you referring to?
We have a long history of rate of change of the environment and we have an equally long rate of adaption of flora and fauna including hominids going back nearly a million years. Can someone show a catastrophic failure of life to prevail against anything less than massive planet killer die-off events? Even given die-offs, we’re still here though apparently less prepared for what life deals us than our uneducated and illiterate ancestors from 25,000 years ago. I’d like to know how that happened.
Billmelater:
In my post addressed to you at July 28, 2014 at 5:47 am I wrote
And
You have replied to that with your post at July 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm which begins saying
Your unsubstantiated assertion that “2010 was the warmest year” is a falsehood as you would know if you had managed to break through your indoctrination and looked at reality which I again provide for you here.
1998 is the hottest year on record. But so what?
You again demonstrate that you don’t know the difference between warmest and warming.
If your argument were true then the fact that 2010 is warmer than subsequent years (and we agree it was) then that would indicate recent cooling.
Your behaviour suggests you are too young to remember 1998, but I remember how warmunists were then saying the ‘hot’ 1998 was the first of many hot years and future years would be ‘hotter’. You now say we should ignore that 1998 was hot but you “predict” a future of hotter years “as the earth continues to warm”.
Billmelater, the Earth is NOT continuing to warm: global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago. Face up to it, and live with it.
Richard
Billmelater:
It doesn’t matter if 2010 was warmer than 1998, if 2010 was an outlier. The trend is (AFAIKJ) determined by the running mean, which is what is generally used. It has been flat for a dozen years and has only insignificantly risen in the past 17 years or so. Take a look at the charts from many official sources in the Global Temperature page on this site, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
Richard, where are you getting your information from? NOAA has a list of hottest years and 2010 is the hottest.
I notice that you are using surface temperature interchangeably with global warming. This is rather puzzling as you strike me as a fairly knowledgable sort of chap, who obviously puts a lot of thought intoyour posts.
The Earth is experiencing a energy imbalance, which is effecting the surface temperature as well as ocean temperature (and lesser extent soil/rock temperature). This is something you would expect when every year you are ‘throwing another blanket’ around the Earth in the form of extra Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
So getting back to the theme of this thread, the Earth’s climate changes all the time due to some physical change to the energy driving the climate. The changes we are experiencing are due to something, and my money is on the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. What is your explanation?
Roger knight, thanks for the link. 1998 sure was an outlier. Taking it out (which is permissible as it was influenced by the El Niño which didn’t influence the other years) there is a clear trend of rising temperatures from 1979 to 2014.
Yep, climate is changing all the time. Has in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Most probably humans as a species will cease to exist as the climate changes to the extent that it will no longer support us. I just hope it doesn’t happen when I or my offspring and their offspring is around.
Since the Little Ice Age persisted until 1850, the rate of advancement of the tree line may be well in excess of 1 km/yr.
Billmelater, when I was twenty I was 6’2 which was a record and tonight I remeasured my height and I was 6’2 an EQUAL record height, so clearly my height must be increasing since each year is always a record, and always higher than when I was 6.
See the point here. The fact that 1999 or 2010 were recent records has no bearing on whether the earth is warming or not for that you need to determine whether temperature is consistently increasing – it is not, in fact even in the presence of that “Record” it has cooled because the cold weather has more than cancelled out the warm, even taking into account 1999 and 2010. We know it was once much hotter than now because greenland was once , well, green. Nothing unusual about 1999 or 2010 at all, it has all happened before, many times.
Besides, the real issue is not does CO2 warm, the real issue is how much, and what are the costs and benefits of doing anything about it. 25000 grannies died of energy poverty in the UK in 2012, so the price of mitigation is clearly too high. The billions wasted on green schemes would be better put to use protecting those grannies, the poor, babies and building cyclone shelters in the Philippines instead of building expensive windmills, monuments to our stupidity as a species.
I don’t remember anything particularly warm about 1998 (I was living in Virginia at the time). I don’t remember 2010 being particularly warm (Been living in Western Washington since 2002). In fact, I remember the years from 2008 through 2012 as being particularly cool out here.
You simply can’t put one number, or one trend, as a “global temperature”, there’s no such thing.
@Jeff Alberts – I was living in Virginia that year as well – and while the snow was scant that year, what I remember is the very WET Spring. Most of the low lying roads flooded during that time (they do periodically, but that was the first non-TS time that I remember it happening in the 40 years I have been here).
Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm
For 2010 to surpass it, when an El Niño was not happening,
========================================================
There was an El Nino peak in early 2010. You must have missed the news. I remember that year. There was no real winter that year where I was living.
Billmelater:
Your post at July 29, 2014 at 4:17 am begins saying
My links provided the source information I stated and they cited the specific data sets that were used.
Your failure to read the links is not puzzling because you strike me as a fairly thick anonymous troll whose lack of reading comprehension has been commented by others in the thread (see here).
Warming consists of increasing temperature. Global warming is increasing global surface temperature. Global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
Richard