Climate scientist Josh Willis shows you how to deal with your climate change denying uncle – but fails

Guest essay by Dave Burton

clip_image002

Josh Willis, of NASA JPL, has a new video out entitled, “Straw Men of the Apocalypse – How to deal with your climate change denying uncle.”

Notice that “catastrophic” is apparently not scary enough, these days. Global warming is now “the Apocalypse.”

The video starts out with two guys crawling along the parched ground under the blazing desert sun. One of them says to the other, “We’re gonna die out here, man. If only society had done more to fight climate change.” And it goes downhill from there.

There’s really nothing new in his video, nor in this article debunking it. So if you’re a “regular” at WUWT, and you’re hoping to learn something new, you needn’t bother reading the rest.

I counted eight claims in Josh Willis’s video. Let’s look at them, one by one:

Claim #1. “Record high global temperatures may have exacerbated our current situation.”

Wrong. “Global warming” mostly just warms higher latitudes. It makes harsh, cold climates milder. The warming effect at low latitudes is slight, and mostly increases nighttime lows, not daytime highs.

If those fellows are dying in the hot desert, they obviously are not at higher latitudes. Where they are, global warming is slight.
In fact, higher CO2 levels make plants more drought-resistant. So, thanks to anthropogenic CO2, deserts and near-deserts are shrinking and greening, most strikingly in the Sahel & Sahara. Even the severely politicized National Geographic admits that it is happening, though they don’t mention CO2:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

Claim #2. “For the past 30 years the energy from the sun has decreased, but…”

Half true. Other than fluctuating up and down with the sunspot cycle, total solar irradiance has been very, very flat for the last 30 years. It has declined, but not noticeably until the last 15-20 years, and only slightly even then. A quick Google search finds many graphs; here’s one of them:

http://www.scisnack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/tsi_model_obs.jpg

clip_image003

Claim #3. “…but the Earth has continued to warm up.”

Half true. Until the just-ended El Niño, global warming had paused for about two decades. But we just had a very strong El Niño, and that pushed up the right-end of the linear fit, so that climate campaigners can now say that “the Earth has continued to warm up.” But it didn’t exactly “continue” warming, it just “blipped up” in 2015-2016, due to the El Niño.

Here’s a graph from a 2014 paper by Ben Santer (with many co-authors, including Gavin Schmidt):

http://sealevel.info/Santer_2014-02_fig2_graphC_1_100pct.png

clip_image005

They sought to subtract out the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) & El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols, from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. The black line is averaged CMIP5 models, the blue & red are measured temperatures, with those adjustments:

Two things stand out:

A. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show only about half that. And,

B. The “pause” began around 1993. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years (1979-1993). Their graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming since then.

Note, too, that although the Santer graph still shows an average of almost 0.1°C/decade of warming, that’s partly because it starts in 1979. The late 1970s were the frigid end of an extended cooling period in the northern hemisphere. Here’s a graph of U.S. temperatures, from a 1999 Hansen/NASA paper:

http://www.sealevel.info/fig1x_1999_highres_fig6_from_paper4_27pct_1979circled.png
clip_image007

The fact that when volcanic aerosols & ENSO are accounted for the models run hot by about a factor of two is evidence that the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are high by about a factor of two, and it suggests that about half the warming since the mid-1800s (used to tune the models) was natural, rather than anthropogenic.

That’s consistent with a TCR sensitivity of less than 1.0°C, which implies an ECS sensitivity of at most about 1.5°C, which most people would agree is nothing to worry about.

Claim #4. “The warming in the past century has been faster than at any time in the last several million years.”

That’s nonsense. That fallacy is a product of statistical illiteracy. Paleoclimate information, inferred from indirect evidence like marine sediments, is naturally “smoothed,” by processes which blend the evidence from consecutive decades, centuries, and millennia. As every engineer knows, when you smooth a graph, sharp fluctuations disappear. But the climate campaigners apparently don’t know that. They see a paleoclimate graph and say, “look, it took ten thousand years to change by 3°, that’s much slower than the 20th century!” But, of course, they have no way of knowing how many times it went up or down by 2° in a decade during that ten thousand years.

The evidence is very strong that there’s nothing unusual about the modest warming which the Earth has experienced over the last century. The current Modern Climate Optimum is very similar to the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum, and probably cooler than most of the Eemian interglacial.

Claim #5. “With climate change threatening our way of life, your strawman argument could have apocalyptic consequences.”

That’s complete rubbish. Unless you define “way of life” as starvation, and “threatening it” as feeding people, anthropogenic climate change is not threatening anyone’s way of life. At least 15% of current agricultural production is directly due to the benefits of higher CO2 levels — probably more, actually.)

There’s no excuse for the climate activists to be ignorant of this. It is not new information. Almost all commercial greenhouses use CO2 supplementation to improve plant growth and health. This photo is from an article in Scientific American nearly a century ago! The potatoes on the left were grown with the benefit of exposure to CO2-laden exhaust gases from a blast furnace. The potatoes on the right were grown under normal conditions:

http://www.sealevel.info/CO2_fertilized_potatoes_1920.png
clip_image009

The best evidence is that anthropogenic climate change is modest and benign, and anthropogenic CO2 is highly beneficial to both human agriculture and natural ecosystems. That’s why I and 31,486 other American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition, declaring that:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Claim #6. “The continent of Antarctica is actually losing ice, and it’s happening faster every year, driving sea-levels higher around the world.”

That’s a flat-out lie.

In Antarctica, ice accumulation and loss are very, very close to being in perfect balance. Whether Antarctica is actually gaining or losing ice mass is unknown.

This 2015 NASA study reported that Antarctica is gaining 82 ±25 Gt of ice per year:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Based on CryoSat, McMillan (2014) found Antarctica is losing 79 to 241 Gt/yr of ice, though that was based on only 3 years of data.

Based on GRACE, Shepherd (2012) concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged -71 +/- 83 Gt/yr, which means they couldn’t tell whether it’s actually gaining or losing ice mass.

Based on ICESat, Zwally (2012) found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass: +27 to +59 Gt/yr (averaged over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (averaged over 19 years).

The range from those various studies, with error bars, is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which is equivalent to just -0.47 to +0.67 mm/yr sea-level change.

That’s equivalent to less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century. In other words, although we don’t know whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice, we do know the rate, either way, is so tiny that it’s currently having a negligible effect on sea-level and on Antarctica’s total ice sheet mass.

What’s more, sea-level is not rising “faster every year.” Sea-level rise is extremely linear. There’s been no significant, sustained, sea-level acceleration for over eight decades, anywhere in the world.
For example, Honolulu has an excellent long measurement record, with very little vertical land movement, and a typical trend:

http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu

http://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_vs_CO2_annot1.png

clip_image011

Some places saw a slight sea-level rise acceleration in the late 1800s or early 1900s, but no acceleration since the 1920s. When CO2 rose above 310 ppmv, sea-level rise acceleration ceased.

Claim #7. “The bad impacts of global warming far outweigh the good ones.”

That’s the opposite of the truth. The “bad impacts” of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are all theoretical — I could say imaginary. None of them are actually detectable. The good impacts, such as gains in agricultural output, and greening of arid regions, are huge, and well-documented.

Claim #8. “There’s 97% scientific consensus.”

Most readers here know that’s nonsense. (Refs: http://tinyurl.com/clim97pct )

The “97% scientific consensus” meme comes originally from an article by Dr. Peter Doran, based on a survey which he had his graduate student, Maggie Zimmerman, send to over 10,000 geophysical scientists. They got 3,146 responses. (BTW, I bought Ms. Zimmerman’s thesis project report, so if anyone has any questions about it, do not hesitate to ask. My contact info is here: http://sealevel.info/contact.html )

It was a blatant scam. Doran didn’t just put his thumb on the scale, he drove his SUV up onto the scale, and parked it there.

First, Doran picked just two questions for their survey, both of which were “gimmies,” designed to elicit the answers he wanted, rather than to actually learn anything about scientists’ opinions. Both of those questions were so uncontroversial that even most climate change skeptics & “lukewarmers” would give the “right” answers.

Then Doran had his graduate student survey only people working in academia or government, known bastions of political liberalism. Geophysical scientists working in private industry, who tend to be more conservative, were not surveyed.

Then, after getting 3,146 responses back, for the purpose of calculating his “consensus” Doran excluded all but the most specialized specialists in climate science. (That’s like asking only homeopaths about the efficacy of homeopathy, rather than asking the broader medical community, or like asking only people working on “cold fusion” whether cold fusion works, rather than asking all physicists.)
That eliminated over 97% of the respondents.

But even that apparently didn’t get his “consensus” figure high enough. So to calculate his final “97.4%” result, Doran excluded respondents who gave a “skeptical” answer to the first of the two questions.

I’m not kidding, he really did.

The first question was:

“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Those who answered “remained relatively constant” were not asked the 2nd question, and were not counted when calculating Doran’s “97.4%” consensus figure.

That’s one of the reasons that, of 3,146 responses, only 77 were used for the “97.4%” calculation.

The second question was:

“2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Well, of course it is! That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer “yes” to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.

It is unfortunate that Doran didn’t have his graduate student ask an actual question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) “Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”

Of course, the reason he didn’t use “real” questions like that is that his purpose wasn’t to discover anything. It was to support a propaganda talking point.

That it was successful is demonstrated by the fact that people like Josh Willis continue to use that ridiculous talking point.


Dave Burton – www.sealevel.info

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “Climate scientist Josh Willis shows you how to deal with your climate change denying uncle – but fails

  1. Let’s hope Josh Willis joins Gavin in the former-NASA employee unemployment line here in the next few years.

    Then climate change alarmism really will be their apocalypse on a personal level.

    • I love all these graphs it makes science denying look believable. All the graphs cannot refute the science. More co2 in the atmosphere, fossil fuel burning, stops more heat getting out of the atmosphere. This science has been around for more than 100 years. Its simple physics. No-one has disproved this. Can’t wait for the science denying replies.

      • For a troll you fail. First off CO2 does not STOP any heat from getting out of the atmosphere. It merely delays ( increases the residence time) a small spectrum of LWIR radiation from leaving the atmosphere.

        But mostly Where in the above article did ANYBODY deny CO2is a GHG?

        So you see, your one assertion was scientifically illiterate, and even that statement had exactly zero cogency to the post!

      • Here is some science for you 6CO²+6H²O= C6H¹²O6+6O²

        Photosynthesis has also been known for 100 years or so lol only the fear mongers deny science

      • The immediate heating resulting from more CO2 is not a problem; it would raise the temperature only one degree or so. Greater (i.e., dangerous) temperature rises require hypothesized positive feedbacks from increased temperature. That’s NOT “simple physics.”

      • Steve:

        You write

        More co2 in the atmosphere, fossil fuel burning, stops more heat getting out of the atmosphere. This science has been around for more than 100 years. Its simple physics. No-one has disproved this. Can’t wait for the science denying replies.

        I refer you to real science because it seems you don’t know it.

        All empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
        Idso from surface measurements
        http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
        and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
        and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

        Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

        Please keep to science in future.
        Stop pontificating on matter of which you are abysmally ignorant. And be aware that there are many people here who can inform you of any aspect of the science of climate change so you only need to ask.

        Richard

      • To all the comments below. Please put what you into a paper and publish it. If this disproves the greenhouse effect, which is causing human induced climate change, you could win a nobel and the 1 million dollars that goes with it. And the admiration of the whole planet. Oh wait … your are just comments not science.

      • More co2 in the atmosphere, fossil fuel burning, stops more heat

        so?…what are you doing about it?

      • Steve, the burden of proof is yours. When folks like yourself go around yelling about the end of the world and demanding tens of trillions of dollars to stop it (and put an unaccountable world government in power while you’re at it), it’s not up to us to “prove” a damn thing.

        Nice try.

      • Steve: All the DATA cannot refute the science?????? Of all the comments posted, that has to be the most telling. Had you bothered to explain why the graphs are not representative of reality, you might not have come across as completely uneducated and math illiterate. Saying to ignore data is unbelievable.

      • Good little troll——jump to “write a paper and publish it”. Of course, you ignore ALL published papers that disagree with your world view, so you’d still ignore “published” data. Be honest. Say: “I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU PEOPLE KNOW NOTHING.” There, doesn’t being honest feel so much better? Don’t you feel reassured that you cannot be wrong and never need to look at reality to double check? Now, have a nice adult beverage and rest assured your world view is the only one that could possibly be correct.

      • A grand total of nobody denies that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming.
        The debate is on how much.
        The actual science shows that the amount of warming that is being caused by CO2 is so small that it is totally swamped by natural variation.

        Only a troll who’s been paid to believe that any changes caused by man are EEEVIILL ™ would get worried about it.

      • Steve, so you DENY the scientific measurements and data used in those graphs? And the “science” conducted by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer and NASA?

        Not one atmospheric scientist on either side of the debate has ever said that atmospheric CO2 has the ability to STOP heat from escaping our atmosphere, as in to prevent that heat from ever leaving. That is a physical impossibility easily proven by the “simple physics” of calculating how long it would take life on earth to cease (because nothing could survive the cold temperatures) if the Sun went out.

        If you want to argue physics, or actual scientific principles here…BRING IT. Making idiotic and easily falsifiable statements like the one above presents no challenge, least of all scientifically.

      • science denying replies
        =========
        anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a scientific term, because it has a definition. Climate Change is not a scientific term, because it has no definition. It way include human and natural causes, it may include warming or cooling. There is no agreed definition used by all as there is with AGW.

        Thus when you use the term “climate change” you are denying science and resorting to politics and/or religion. You cannot deny science when you are not discussing science, because the conversation is not based on science.

      • Roger wrote, “The immediate heating resulting from more CO2 is not a problem; it would raise the temperature only one degree or so. Greater (i.e., dangerous) temperature rises require hypothesized positive feedbacks from increased temperature. That’s NOT ‘simple physics.'”

        Exactly. There are dozens of feedback mechanisms at work in the Earth’s climate system. Justifying climate alarmism requires that “positive” (amplifying) feedbacks dominate “negative” (attenuating) feedbacks, but there’s scant evidence for that.

        Most alarmist climate scientists are hopelessly confused about feedbacks. E.g., some think that positive feedbacks will cause the climate system to “run away” with endless heating. Others seem to have never heard of negative feedbacks at all, or never heard of any except lapse-rate feedback.
        David Appell claimed there are “hundreds” of positive feedbacks, but he has no idea what they are.

        I don’t know of any climate alarmist who could even name more than two or three negative climate feedbacks, let alone who has seriously weighed the possibility that negative feedbacks could dominate positive ones.

      • So, Steve – not one critical comment on the content of the article? Or just blind repetition of extremely broad talking points that no skeptic refutes?
        Perhaps you should learn what the skeptic point of view is… unless you’ve been indoctrinated beyond the point where learning is possible.

      • Steve – the physics is far from simple. CO2 is a trace gas and in a controlled environment, as tested 100 years ago, would certainly trap some heat. However in the atmosphere it has to compete with water vapour which is much more abundant and closer to the earths surface. In addition, with the exception of the 15 nm band, the infrared absorption (IR) spectrum of CO2 and water vapour overlap so water vapour would have dibs on soaking up IR coming from the earths surface. The 15 nm band would be the only region of the spectrum available for global warming however this region of the spectrum corresponds to a Planck temperature of -70 C. This is the temperature at which the intramolecular bonds of CO2 could absorb and radiate heat energy at this wavelength – so how much energy/heat would the second law of thermodynamics allow to be transferred back to the much warmer earth surface? Recent literature indicates that the effect of CO2 on global warming is logarithmic such a doubling or tripling of its concentration would have little effect of global temperatures. There is also the fact, assuming that solar activity is a constant, that any greenhouse effect would be limited by the availability of IR radiation reflected back from the the earths surface – there has been some speculation that the current amounts of CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere are sufficient to completely soak up any available IR – so the greenhouse is already saturated.

      • In case you didn’t actually understand science…….

        The additional Co2 would provide an additional positive forcing, not end warming, but start of equation forcing change (don’t jump ahead of yourself and make a non-science mistake). It is only one of many forcings that determine temperature, and they are both positive and negative. Additionally, these forcing do not happen in a vacuum, so any change in one forcing can, and will, cause changes in other forcings both positive and negatively. The end result (warming or cooling) can only be calculated after all the forcings and their reactions to other forcings, have been added into the system. Hence why you fail at science, if you would add in the simple Caveat “if all things remain equal”, you could have claimed that CO2 increase would cause warming and it would have been a defensible claim. But in the real world, all things do not remain equal, so you cannot make such a simplistic cause and effect claim.

        Now let us wait and see how you defend your failure to adhere to any of the basics of science with your claim.

    • This is the same Josh Willis who originally found a slight cooling between 2005 and 2006 and was told to go ‘fix’ the problem with the data. He identified a group of XTBs which were slightly cooler and eliminated them, thus removing to cooling from the dataset.

      He was basically told to ‘get with the program’ if he wanted to continue to work in climate science.

      He did not also look in a similar way for any groups of XTBs showing warmer readings, which he would have done had he was objectively doing QA on the data. Neither did he consider the geographic locations of the supposedly “erroneous” XTBs. Maybe the cooler readings were a because they were in cooler water.

      If anyone had any doubts about his objectivity as a scientist the video clearly shows that he has lost any objectivity he may have had.

      This is text book case of the peer / professional pressure applied to anyone to finds anything but global warming and of the constant rigging of the various datasets to support the propaganda.

    • Those two charts sure do resemble each other.

      The alarmists want to claim that one of the temperature profiles, the earlier one, represents natural variability, because the CO2 levels were lower in the past than today, and the later one represents CAGW because of the greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere today, but if natural variablity caused the earlier temperature profile, then there is no reason to claim that the later temperature profile was caused by human-produced CO2 because both time periods have the same magnitude of warming. CO2 is not required to raise the temperatures to the degree measured, is what the earlier chart is telling us.

      • That video is fenomanal PR for us, – the climate realists!
        It’s really a hit for our sake.
        It’s so poorly made that it is a Turkey for the cause….

        Let’s use it for all it’s worth.
        Just send it to your friends on FB and ask what they think of this convincing video….

      • Note to producers; In the remake, have him give the guys some water ASAP . . you don’t want the savior figure to act the oblivious to reality dork like that . .

      • Just exactly how does two guys in clean, PINK dress shirts, sleeves rolled up, new jeans, walking shoes, and freshly shaven too… crawling through sand signify anything except half a$$ed stupidity?

    • Good graph. One of those graphs is corroborated by an accelerations in means sea level , the other is not. Which one is corroborated by GMSL ?

    • The first one is the 1957 – 2008 period. I can see the 1998 El-Nino in it!

  2. Science Realist Uncle to AGW Cult Member Niece or Nephew —

    Deal with this:

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    • Really, Janice that graph doesn’t prove anything by itself. There are two separate scales and by simply changing the relative positions and angle you can make them very close. Note: that such a change doesn’t change the underlying data, but it does make it look like it does. Not that climate alarmists aren’t happy to do similar things, but we should be avoiding such misleading activities.

      • Actually it is70 years of data and the CO2 chart is what should have happened to T according to many CAGW models.

      • daved46 — The graph contains meaningful and accurate information which supports my point: “CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.” That was the simple but powerful point. You seem to have gotten a little lost in the trees and ignored the forest. Thank you, however, for making sure I use accurate information. I appreciate that.

      • daved46: If we follow your rule, we cannot use temperature graphs of anomolies to the tenth of a degree. These are highly misleading—the changes are imperceptible on anything but a very huge scale on a graph. What then would we graph? Do we squash the graphs down by using zero to 10 degrees on the y-axis? That would more realitically show the anamoly changes and how slight the increase is. No one would accept such graphs, probably not even skeptics.

  3. So, it’s no longer anthropogenic? No longer catastrophic? Am I still required by force of law (guns and scalpels) to pay the scientist, oracles, and adventurists?

  4. Oh My God! After two bouts of vomiting after watching that totally false POS Video, I can honestly say that whatever University granted Josh Willis a Degree needs to Rescind it IMMEDIATELY! That worthless piece of AGW Propaganda only shows how devoid of substance is the AGW, or CAGW, or now maybe AAGW argument.

    • I’d have watched the video, but facebook wanted me to sign in. Have you ever read their terms of service?

      1. We respect your privacy.
      2. You own everything you post on facebook.
      3. You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook. (Or anything else we can find out about you from your friends.)

    • And this guys looks after the ARGO data. !!!!

      With this one stupid film he has DESTROYED any credibility that ARGO data may have had.

      We can all rest assured that what is produced will always show a warming trend…

      … even if the actual data doesn’t.

  5. Doran is a good example of bias in surveys, both in the selection of those surveyed and in the questions used.

  6. “About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today” source: USGS

    Therefore, the average annual SL rise since this time is 5.9 mm/yr

    They are all in a tizz over calculated modern rise of 3mm/yr?

    • Generalizations, such as you just gave, are not helpful.
      Here is a better way:

      • I used WebPlotDigitzer (bookmark it!) to digitize a few points on that Wikipedia graph, to see what rates it shows.

        The average rate I found for the bulk of the deglaciation, as the great Laurentide ice sheet receded, 14.8K to 7.5K yrs ago, was:
        (108.7 – 6.9) / (14.81 – 7.48)= 13.9 mm/yr

        But during Meltwater Pulse 1A:
        (108.7 – 79.0) / (14.81 – 13.74)= 27.8 mm/yr

        Note that some other sources give different rates & durations. E.g., the Wikipedia article on Meltwater Pulse 1A says, “global sea level rose between 16 meters (52 ft) and 25 meters (82 ft) in about 400–500 years, giving mean rates of roughly 30–60 mm (0.098–0.197 ft)/yr.” (Yes, I am aware of the fact that there are few sources of climate-related information less reliable than Wikipedia.)

    • Hultquist, the propaganda video shows a rather ‘moderate conversation’ between 3 ‘prudent men’.
      As an argumentation aid for alarmists.

      Do you really believe your computer graphics would hold against here.

      Such objections are the reason why the majority’s opinion can not be changed.

  7. Nice try, but, that was just DUMB, not funny (that was the point, wasn’t it? had to be….).

    Here. Josh. THIS is how to do a comedy film:

    We didn’t listen!

    (youtube — South Park)

    AaaAAAAaaa!! RRbbllllllbbbblllrrblllllrrblah! RrrrBLLblllblblbllllrr! {peek}

    (youtube — South Park)

    #(:))

    *****************************

    Fine tour de force, there, Mr. Burton!

    [The mods point out there is a misspelled word in that title. We can’t pronounce it, but the “b” and ‘l’ are transcribed in “RRbbllllllbbbblllrrblllllrrblah! RrrrBLLblllblblbllllrr”. And one ‘r’ is missing. .mod]

  8. Look when they run Trump out of office the sort if mindless dribble the author of this uncle pos paper will he receiving 1of the funding to further reduce the intelligence of the American people.

  9. How to deal with your climate change denying uncle

    Because there’s a US holiday this weekend, and many babies students will be travelling home and maybe that non-progressive, black-sheep-of-the-family, racist, homophobic uncle might be there for dinner one night.

    “Here’s how to survive that epic, apocalyptic confrontation even if you’re the one who ruins the meal by starting a fight by lecturing everyone at the table about ClimateChange™.”

    • (Sorry, the Italicans attacked while I was typing because I’m a racist. Apparently)

      • Try having a rule that anyone who lectures on climate change, poitics, etc will be immediately removed from the gathering and not allowed to return.

  10. Re: the photo: starched collars and cuffs?????? Did they just come from the dry cleaner’s shop where they get special treatment if they can fake dying in the sunshine?

    I have a ruler with a millimeter scale. Frankly, i can’t figure out how anyone expects me to take a loss of a minus one-half millimeter to minus two-thirds millimeter seriously in a liquid body that is constantly in motion, e.g., the sea levels around Antarctica.

    And finally, when someone goes into hysterics in front of me over a 1/2 degree Centigrade change in mean temperature, when you can’t even feel it in REAL, for Pete’s sake, I just have to shake my head and go back to reading something that makes sense.

    I live in the real world that says a baloney sandwich is full of nothing but baloney.

    • Lol, Sara — and they didn’t even BRING a canteen or the like (unless they are BOTH lying on top of theirs). Too funny. Blond man did remember to put a pen in his shirt pocket, though.

  11. “There’s really nothing new in his video, nor in this article debunking it. So if you’re a “regular” at WUWT, and you’re hoping to learn something new, you needn’t bother reading the rest.”

    I think you underestimate the value of your article. It’s still a very succinct dismissal of the standard furphies which continue to be propagated in whacky warmist material. As long as the practice continues, continual debunking is the right thing to do.

  12. ….two guys crawling along the parched ground under the blazing desert sun….

    Of course there was NO technology they could have used to stay alive. Just HAD to strike off across the desert in their jeans and dress shirts like they were back in the 1800’s…. {cue music from: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly — wahh-ee–wah-ee-waaaahh, wah, WAH, waaaah}. Isn’t it cute how they lie down the same way — both with head resting on right arm, turned to the left…. lol.

    Reminded me of something….

    One blond….. one brunette….

    True Believers
    (kinda sad, really — I almost didn’t post this after hearing the Jim Carrey line about “I suppose you never make a mistake,” — that was heartbreaking (not being sarcastic) taken in isolation….. but, well, I just decided it was an outlier and, so….. here ya go! :)

    (youtube — “Dumb and Dumber”)

    • commieBob May 21, 2017 at 7:00 pm
      If CAGW were a real thing they wouldn’t need the constant barrage of propaganda.

      This ^^^^^^^^. They really DO protest too much.

    • It’s a real thing, but only the wisest and brightest and bestest can see it — the rest of us, we are not worthy…

  13. “Let’s hope Josh Willis joins Gavin in the former-NASA employee unemployment line here in the next few years.”

    Yes.

    We are seeing the phantasmagoria manifestations in the run-up to the US FY18 Budget.

    Keep Calm and Drill Baby Drill.

    Jajajajajajajjajaja

  14. Yeah but Al Gore, Prince Charles, the Pope and Leonardo di Caprio ALL say it’s all true! So I guess it must be, despite the evidence. Besides, being experts in the field of hyperbole, make-believe and hysteria, they would know!

    Excuse the sarcasm.

  15. Smart people don’t crawl on their bellies across the burning sands – they build aqueducts. Historic Southern California Metropolitan Water District audio:
    [audio src="http://www1.mwdh2o.com/Peopleinteractive/archive_07/aug_07/Disc1Side1_May13_1933SanJac.mp3" /]

    For those at NASA JPL (who ironically get their water from MWD (above)) who are hydraulically challenged, there is the alternative:

  16. Josh Willis, of NASA JPL, has a new video – – –

    Did I help pay for this?

    And this: $700,000 NSF funded climate change musical?
    Uff da!

  17. Josh Willis, of NASA JPL, has a new video out entitled, “Straw Men of the Apocalypse – How to deal with your climate change denying uncle.”

    This must be Josh’s redemption after calculating the “deep ocean” wasn’t where the hiatus heat was hiding. Much to the chagrin of Trenberth.

    • Easy. Your climate change denying Aunt tosses out anyone who lectures on climate change. In fact, you won’t be invited in the first place because you can’t leave politics and whining out of a dinner gathering.

  18. I see another NASA climate hacktivist raising his hand and declaring “Ooh! Ooh! Fire Me!”

    Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, if taxpayer money was used…..

  19. From the article: ““Global warming” mostly just warms higher latitudes.”

    This sounds like an acknowledgement that CO2 is causing the climate to warm. There is no evidence that is the case. It’s pure speculation.

    The recent El Nino’s warmth seems to be dismissed as a factor in recent arctic warming.

    It was extremely hot during the decade of the 1930’s. Hotter than today. Was the heat restricted to the higher lattitudes during that time period? No, it was pretty much spread out all over the world.

    During the heat of the 1930’s the whole world was very hot, not just the arctic. Why is it different today, when today is supposedly the “hottest year evah!?

    From the article: “It makes harsh, cold climates milder. The warming effect at low latitudes is slight, and mostly increases nighttime lows, not daytime highs.”

    The daytime highs in the 1930’s were extremely hot. I guess there wasn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere back then to moderate it like it is claimed it does today.

  20. The starting position that the uncle some how needs to be “dealt with” does tend to reveal the arrogant nature of their thinking.

  21. “We’re gonna die out here, man. If only society had done more to fight climate change.”
    Like Gore’s line in Inconvenient Truth Sequel. Somethinh like,
    “Our children will ask of us, ‘What were you thinking when the climate screamed at you. Why didn’t you listen to what the scientists were saying?'”
    Saw the trailer at the movies last week. Has anyone seen the whole dumb horror show? What’s scary is that uninformed viewers will be swayed sufficiently to become believers. For that reason, I think it would be useful to publicise a rebuttal, chapter and verse ASAP.

    • If people could be swayed by that junk then they would already think the earth was going to end by a meteor strike (Movie: Deep Impact), the shutdown of the pacific heat stream (Move: The day after tomorrow), run over by aliens (Countless movies).

      If you have younger children ask them about the global warming excuse :-)
      Basically the young children have already worked out that global warming gets basically blamed for everything so whenever they do something wrong they just call out “sorry global warming”. It’s going to a massive problem for Climate Science going forward is they have to try and keep banging on about it and they already have become a meme joke.

  22. John Willis is the guy who threw out Argo data to create a warming trend. Not even close to being a scientist.

    • Yes, he did; or, to be a little more charitable, he allowed his bias to find an instrumental error, such that minimal cooling was disappeared after adjustment. I’m inclined to be charitable to Josh, because I read a conversation he and Kevin Trenberth and Pielke Pere had back when Trenberth’s ‘the heat is hiding in the deep ocean’ was trending. Josh stuck to his guns that his network was good enough to have detected that much heat being transported to the deep, though Kevin refused to believe it.

      But this! Let’s hope it is just an example of the super-specialist being ignorant of the state of the general debate. He couldn’t possibly believe those eight exposed points, were he to have investigated those matters personally.

      Naive, or sold out? Ignorant or disingenuous, it’s always the same question, the same question.
      =================

      • But neither could grasp the very simple concept that to get to the deep ocean any heat has to pass through the upper ocean first and hence must be detectable by basic physics. Their overarching anti-capitalist agenda seems to blot out all objectivity.

        The grim reality is that their lunatic climate policies will kill far more than any putative warming: Those that just can’t afford to heat their homes in Winter and those whose food prices rise due to the cost of producing it.

        He must know, deep down, that he is a complete idiot. How can he not? How on Earth can he imagine he stands on the moral high ground?

      • All three understood that the heat had to pass through the layers measured by Argo. Only Travesty Trenberth disbelieved that his desired heat hadn’t been adequately watched for.

        I agree, Josh Willis appears to have sold out or been told what to say. This horseshit has to stop, and now I wonder about his custodianship of the Argo data. It is critically important information, and for him to be so uncritical in his eight points is both pitiful and dangerous. Oh what fools we mortals be, to act such, and to believe any who do.
        ============

  23. From my point of view, global warming and climate change will not be as apocalyptic as what Claude Levi-Strauss called “The Poisoning of the Planet,” the long term consequences of our pollutants contaminating our food resources.

    Of the 90,000 manmade chemicals floating about in our biosphere, which are more likely to kill off the “little people,” the critters at the bottom of our various food chains?

    Which ones are already in our children’s lungs, livers, lymph nodes and future of all they’ll consume?

    Global population overshoot and collapse from starvation caused by our pollutants poisoning our planet’s food resources was originally expected sometime after 2030. That research, when updated in 2012, expected O&C to begin no later than 2024. I suspect that when Fukushima’s fallout is added, it might be a tad earlier.

    Unless you have an exceptionally powerful mustard seed’s worth of faith, which no one has ever demonstrated, will be the only way to survive and thrive once the collapse of all life forms on this planet begins “for real.” Sorry about that.

    • I think you must be quite young, Don. I have good news for you, which should come as a great relief to you. We’ve already done the experiment, and we’ve seem the result: the “critters” (and people) withstood and mostly even thrived with far more pollution in the developed world’s air and water half a century ago than there is today.

      Here’s a song from fifty years ago, which conveys, with slight exaggeration, the state of the environment when that “experiment” was being performed:

  24. “It was a blatant scam. Doran didn’t just put his thumb on the scale, he drove his SUV up onto the scale, and parked it there.”

    Are you accusing him of fraud and or scientific malpractice?

    that’s actionable.

    Blog owner??

    • Steven Mosher:

      I was clearly one or the other.
      Which do you think it was; fraud and or scientific malpractice?

      Richard

      • richardscourtney: fraud or scientific malpractice? Both unless you are suggesting that they really didn’t know how to carry out a scientific analysis. By careful selection they found 75 who met their criteria. This was out of 10,000 surveys (0.75%) or 3146 respondents (2.4%). Any representation that 97% of all climate scientists is clearly malpractice and very likely fraudulent. Propagation of exceptionally poor research (at best) as facts is nothing but fraud, especially when anyone who reads the methodology should be able to recognize the poor (at best) science.

    • Actionable is pretty much meaningless when the judges in this country ignore ACTIONS and go by INTENT, which they psychically devine in their chambers. Since psychically devining intent is legal, lying and misrepresentation cannot actually exist. Only intent. Again, actionalbe is MEANINGLESS.

      (Nice try, though. Still following the Troll Manual almost to the letter.)

    • It’s actionable yes, but since it’s true a counter action is also possible, want to take bets that the action will or won’t be taken? Slander is only slander when it’s a lie, but you already know that Steven so you already know no action will be taken in the first place so I am pretty that means I’ll get no Action out of you, but I am here if you want to bet.

    • Steven Mosher, I also described the details of Prof. Doran’s misbehavior. If you think that description was in any way inaccurate, please tell us about it. Please quote my supposed error, and rebut it.

    • Steven Mosher, I’m waiting. You accused me of “actionable” defamation.

      Defamation implies falsehood. What falsehood do you accuse me of?

      If you really think my description of what Prof. Doran did was in any way inaccurate, please quote the supposed inaccuracy, and correct it.

      I spelled out in very specific detail exactly what Prof. Doran did wrong. Please do me the same courtesy. You’ve made an accusation, so please tell me exactly what you think was inaccurate about what I wrote.

      BTW, I don’t have your email address, but I sent you messages on Facebook, on March 2 and March 15, about a different matter, yet received no response. Did you receive those messages?

    • Steve Mosher, again I ask: What falsehood do you accuse me of? If you really think my description of what Prof. Doran did was in any way inaccurate, please identify that inaccuracy.

      Since I’ve received no reply either here or on Facebook, I did some google searching this morning, and managed to find a couple of email addresses for you: one at gmail, and one at berkeleyearth. I’ve emailed you at both addresses, calling your attention to my replies here. Neither email bounced, so I trust the addresses are correct. Please reply.

  25. Josh Willis, NASA JPL, seems to believe correcting my thoughts by scaring my loved ones would increase my compliance. Well, he’s mistaken. It has an opposite effect. My next tax declaration is on an anthropogenic-CO2 free journey:

  26. What gets me is the Pause and all the other evidence against catastrophe is actually GREAT news. *If* man made climate change really is such a huge potential threat then why would anyone be unhappy at discovering official satellite evidence that suggests previous estimates of climate sensitivity are wrong and therefore that catastrophe is potentially being averted?

    You wouldn’t demonise your oncologist for a cancer-free diagnosis, so why do people react with such fury when offered good news against AGW theory?

    The answer is because they’ve all nailed their reputations and careers to this flagpole and the very last thing they want is to be wrong. Career, income, status, influence, reputation, investment, future ambition, legacy….all gone just like that. So the crisis must be maintained at all costs. Incredible.

  27. I don’t like the use of the term “Present Climate Optimum” as used alongside Medievil Warm Period (MWP) and Roman Climate Optimum.

    I don’t like it because it suggests, without any evaluation or evidence, that current temperatures are the optimum for the environment and mankind, and I don’t believe that they are. Slightly warmer would be of huge benefit with little change at the tropics but a huge increase in growing range across the northern hemisphere. It would significantly increase the rate of plant, tree and crop growth and decrease the size of deserts through the very beneficial increase in CO2 levels from ocean outgassing of CO2.

  28. Global warming is now “The Apocalypse.” Comes complete with 97% more fear factor

    Over the last 50ish years, we’ve seen great deal of re-packaging & re-branding from one side of the climate debate as they constantly re-market their ideas.

    Forget about –
    ‘Ice Age Coming’; not cold enough.
    ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’; seems it’s not terrifying enough, (or hot enough).
    ‘Weather Weirding’; but the data showed no such thing.
    ‘Climate Change’; not changing enough.

    So after years of research (in the dictionary), they’ve managed to both cut the packaging by 50% & add 97% more fear factor –
    The new brand of Global warming is now “The Apocalypse.”
    Short, Snappy, Scary, Backed up by 100s of Hollywood ‘B Movies’, Sounds Biblical….what’s not to like.

    • They still don’t have people standing on corners with signs “THE APOCALYPSE IS COMING”. It’s not official until there are people everywhere holding signs that say the world is ending (not just during marches). I look forward to the arrival thereof so I know it’s a genuine apocalypse.

  29. Leftists are such liars…

    All of the “apocalyptic” predictions and statements John Willis made were complete lies.

    John Willis knows everything he said was complete bull crap, but he’s also aware that loony Leftists will blindly believe whatever authorative figures tell them to believe about CAGW, so there is no need to make accurate and truthful statements; any lie will do.

    Hopefully, CAGW grant hounds will be held accountable for their blatant lies, but I’m not very optimistic…

    We’ll see soon enough.

  30. Let’s presume for a moment the carbon-based life-form impersonating a cowboy in the clip actually has a point:

    There seems to be mutual understanding about the needless nature of releasing countless tons of CO2 into the outside air by talking about this at all. Not limited to UN numerous junkets over decades I might add, culminating into a non-binding guideline of a sort. Climate science has been settled by consensus. Public funds have been diverted to some enterprises. Food, wood and rubbish is burned for energy. Prices have inflated. Hungry poor in Middle-East sought refuge in theocracy. What else has been achieved with billions, if not trillions of taxpayers money spent?

    Has ideal climate been defined? No. The ideal average global outside air temperature? No. Ocean level? No. Average ocean pH? No. Glacier extent? No. Storm frequency? No. Did JoshW clarify any of these points? No.

    For this reason in my opinion, JoshW advocates his own personal political views only. And no civil servant is not paid for that and, far worse, for behaving like a kapo. Whichever instance nominated him, can also re-assign him. A closer contact with real life might be the best – right up there in the open job market.

    • The propaganda campaign is working.

      So far, more than $1 trillion has been diverted to paying salaries and inefficent energy sources.

      Why would they stop now.

      • Good question. Perhaps once they finance the climate perfecting project from the taxes collected from Al Gore, Barak Obama, Leonardo diCaprio, Mike Mann, Jose Bergoglio and their ilk.

        I’ll turn into a victim on a beach under the sun, collecting social justice from this wealth, until the climate is perfect. Currently obviously it isn’t. I need at least a parasol and a cool drink.

  31. Funny how Josh Willis, after describing what a straw man argument is goes on to use them himself. Perhaps he was just illustrating further what a straw man argument is. Thanks, Josh Willis! Oh, and then he helpfully explains what cognitive dissonance is, the very affliction he and his clan are so afflicted with, since reality isn’t going along with their climatist ideology, and they have to keep making up more, and more convoluted lies to support it!
    You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

    • Great point, Bruce Cobb! I noticed that, and forgot to mention it — sorry!

      Instead of addressing the (devastating) criticisms, by climate skeptics, of the supposed 97% consensus, Josh Willis very absurdly he had his “skeptic” character admitting the 97% consensus and wondering, “what about the other three percent?” That’s about as blatant an example of straw-man argumentation as I’ve ever seen, anywhere.

  32. I’m not a seeing the “strawman”. Seem like just regular arguments. Weird that he went so far as to create a scary name for arguments that aren’t even strawman and certainky not the apocalypse.

  33. Two FULLY clothed, not-starving males crawling across the desert screams out terror-attack or crazy persons run amok, NOT climate change. If whoever designed this is hoping to scare people………It screams out “I know NOTHING”, not “be afraid”.

  34. Why has Ocean Acidification been skipped?
    This is the one thing I think climate deniers never speak about.
    Even of the warmig isn’t a problem, why would you want to turn our oceans​ into veritable dead zones?

    [??? .mod]

    • I’m sorry but humanity is incapable of turning seas acidic. Ask your favourite oceanist should you not believe.

      Everything apocalyptists have is some bad scifi. AAGW is just another doomsdayism religion from greenpeasy doomsters.

    • Ocean pH (Estimate) 8.1. Rain water, actual and varies, but usually 6-7. So more acid than the ocean.

  35. I think it’s kind of comforting to know that even with no water and civilization dying you can still get a ridiculous haircut.

    • Lollerz. They pictured so good-looking starvers. As if they’d never seen poverty in action … wait, maybe they actually are of the better fragment of people who don’t know about real hardships?

  36. Whenever someone tries to convince me of global warming, the first thing I ask about is the Greenland farms that are still underneath the snow in the summer. One guy tried to dismiss them as an “experiment” by the Vikings. As if 400 years of continuously occupied farms was entirely an experiment by people with nothing else to do with their time.

    • Inconvenient truth that Vikings failed there. They say it was local. Funny that, sounds so much flat-out deni-al. But who I am to complain, I didn’t find a tree at Yamal.

  37. Okay, I just watched the video, and that’s the most stupid, badly acted video that I think I have ever seen.

    First, those dessert-crawling dudes where waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too clean, well groomed, and good humored to be seriously suffering from the prolonged effects of dessert heat.

    Second, the cowboy climatologist needs a fashion makeover to, at least, dress up his myopic lies a bit better.

    Now, I wish somebody would do a video in favor of skepticism, using The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly; sound effects and mannerisms.

      • Keeping on the stupid theme, I don’t think Mr. cowboy climatologist in the video understands what a straw man is, even though he spells out the definition. His whole video is the straw man, since he sets up a situation that he is calling “straw man” so that he can argue against it and prevail.

        He creates the idea of a straw man where a straw man is NOT.

        All he seems to be doing is presenting counter arguments against one of the well-groomed, good-humored, heat-exhausted bad actors.

        A straw man is NOT just an argument that you find flawed, … NOT just a point on which you disagree or have opposing evidence. A straw man, for example, would be the 97% consensus, introduced as the basis for dismissing a 3% non-consensus that does not exist, because the 97% does NOT exist.

        Argument: If only 3% of climate scientists believe that humans are not causing global climate change, then this 3% are unfit authorities on what threatens human beings.

        This is a straw man. The 3% is bogus, based on shoddy research that fails to represent anything real or established. Using this shoddy argument to argue against someone questioning the evidence is using an imaginary being (the straw man) — an argument made of straw, instead of an argument made of real facts.
        It’s not a real argument. It’s thrown up as a real argument to be convincing, or to scare (in this case, like a scare crow) … because, because, because, because … because of the wonderful things he does.

        Oh, I know, that part of the tune applies to the Wizard, but it works so well that I couldn’t resist using it here too.

    • If “male” and “female” are social constructs, then wouldn’t “heteronormative” also be ?

      If we deem all human sensations as “social constructs”, then this allows us to deconstruct them. This was the basis of deconstructionist art, I believe. Nothing is a given. Nothing is a standard. It’s all arbitrary. It’s all bias. We can break it all the hell down and make it into anything we want.

      Thus, we have deconstructionist science (i.e., consensus climatology).

    • AP May 22, 2017 at 3:05 pm
      That photo is a bit heteronormative!

      And, if, as the article also quotes “those fellows are dying in the hot desert”, then I know which one would receive the kiss of life first when I arrived on the scene…

  38. A little logic.
    We know how the mass of the Earth, as well as the atmospheric layer. What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? What is the temperature of the space through which Earth moves along the ellipse? Are you on the path cools or heats the Earth? If all the CO2 content was converted into energy by fission of the same, whether to and how to raise the tempertature tread? Calculate and you will see that it is a great stupidity to blame CO2 that he is the one who leads the planet in danger from rising temperatures.
    Another observation: the sun, its heat radiation can affect the overheating of the planet.
    The main cause of climate change:
    This is due to the mutual effects of the planets and the sun, or the factors that science does not know.
    Gentlemen, painfully little for themselves and try to connect the logic.
    Stakeholder and challenger of all changes in the behavior of matter and energy in relation to the ether, which fills the infinite universe is magnetism.
    Magnetism is the cause of climate change on all celestial bodies, not only on Earth.
    As this takes place, if you do not know, I’ll one day to bring more.
    We see this as the beginning of change in the wrong direction of movement and the development of science.

    • milmnik asked a series of questions:

      Q: “What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
      A: 0.0405% by volume, 0.0614% by mass.

      Q: ” What is the temperature of the space through which Earth moves along the ellipse? Are you on the path cools or heats the Earth?”
      A: A vacuum has no temperature. The space through which Earth moves is not quite a perfect vacuum, but it is darn close. It is close enough that the temperature of the few molecules has negligible effect on the Earth’s temperature. Space does not cool or heat the Earth.

      Q: “If all the CO2 content was converted into energy by fission of the same, whether to and how to raise the tempertature tread?”
      A: Fortunately, the 3261 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be “converted into energy by fission.”

      That’s a lot of CO2. For comparison, the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima contained less than 1 kg of uranium-235. 3261 Gt = 3,261,000,000,000,000 kg.

      Numbers that large are hard to grasp. Maybe this will help. If all the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere were magically transmuted into U-235, and made into atomic bombs with the explosive power of the Hiroshima “Little Boy” bomb, there would be 447 atomic bombs for each man, woman & child on planet Earth.

      milmnik also wrote, “Magnetism is the cause of climate change on all celestial bodies, not only on Earth.”

      No, it isn’t.

  39. Here’s a 2002 NAS report which is relevant to Josh Willis’s nonsense claim #4, that “The warming in the past century has been faster than at any time in the last several million years.”

    http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Abrupt-Climate-Change-Inevitable-Surprises/10136

    Here’s an excerpt from the “cover web page”…

    The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes. … Abrupt climate changes in the last few thousand years generally have been less severe and affected smaller areas than some of the changes further back in the past.

    Of course, things like ice cores don’t go back “several million years,” but the past 100,000 years is a subset of “the last several million years,” so the NAS report obviously contradicts Josh Willis’s claim.

    The full report is paywalled, but they have a 4-page “report in brief” PDF online for free, here:
    http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/abrupt_climate_change_final.pdf

    Here’s an excerpt:

    …tree rings show the frequency of droughts, sediments reveal the number and type of organisms present, and gas bubbles trapped in ice cores indicate past atmospheric conditions. With such techniques, researchers have discovered repeated instances of large and abrupt climate changes over the last 100,000 years during the slide into and climb out of the most recent ice age—local warmings as great as 28°F (16°C) occurred repeatedly, sometimes in the mere span of a decade.

    Compare that with Josh Willis’s claim that the last century’s warming (about 1°C, if you believe the latest upwardly adjusted numbers) was “faster than at any time in the last several million years.”

Comments are closed.