Guest Commentary by Kip Hansen
The New York Times has set a new standard of scientific misrepresentation in this front page title to the latest climate change consensus salvo from Justin Gillis. On the front page of the online edition of the NY Times for 26 June 2017, the title is given: “Sharp Rise in Levels of Earth-Scorching Carbon Dioxide”
The actual title of the article, once one clicks through to it, is “Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize”.
Who knows who at the NY Times thinks that characterizing CO2 as “Earth-scorching” is a valid scientific description of one of the absolutely necessary-for-life trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. It certainly is not a proper journalistic description.
My objection is that it is a serious violation of Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics specifically:
What do you think the phrase “Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story” might mean in this context?
It is simply scientifically false to label CO2 as “Earth-scorching” in so many ways that it is difficult to begin to write about it. Journalistically, even if it were anywhere near true, it would be an oversimplification.
Is Mr. Gillis blameless? He doesn’t write the front-page headlines. I wish I could say that but I can’t. Gillis writes: “The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.” — this is Gillis’ misrepresentation.
Are CO2 concentrations particularly high? Looking at the NY Times graphic, we see that they are at mountainous heights:
Looking at NOAA’s graphic, not so mountainous:
The NY Times art department (or whomever is making the graphics) has taken data from the NOAA graphic and stretched it vertically to increase the appearance of a large increase.
Re-scaling the NY Times graphic helps some:
Better this:
I must say I can’t see that incredible dangerous increase in rate of rise in the second NOAA graphic — because it is in reality an increase in fractional parts per million. Note that the current spike in the two bar graphs matches a spike from the last El Niño in 1998 and the recent 2015-2016 El Niño .
Is the planet scorching?
No, it is not. For the year so far, we are running about 0.4 °C or 0.72°F above the 1981-2010 thirty-year average, down considerably from the 2015-2016 El Niño peak.
How about the US?
Oddly flat from the 1920s thru the 1980s — [adjusted?] up to flat again in the new century, centering on 53.5 °F or 12 °C — is that “scorching”? It is a bit chilly for me. Note that Global Average Temperatures are in the same absolute temperature range…still not scorching.
But, but, but they say, what about those summertime high temperatures?
For the United States, reader Steve Case “compiled [the data] from NOAA Climate at a Glance data”…then saved a text file of all the states June through September Max temperatures Alabama to Wyoming. Trends in high temps produce this map:
So, maybe not scorching in the US either.
Actual observational stats on extreme weather are not on rising trends – at least droughts (US), hurricanes, tornadoes (US), flooding, etc. Reference Pielke Jr.’s evidence presented to the Senate Committee.
Gillis at least asks the right question:
“If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?”
Good question, Mr. Gillis.
Let’s see if the readers here can answer it for you —
Here’s the question:
“If the amount of the gas [CO2] that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever?”
Readers: Your answers in comments please.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I am not a climate scientist — I am an essayist, a writer. I have some ideas, but not an answer.
I think that the question is apt and extremely important — it may be, or contain, the key to the current climate dilemma.
I’ll be interested in reading the answers you share in comments, but probably won’t be responding much. [ I may moderate a bit if the discussion devolves into name-calling.]
# # # # #
Firstly, emissions haven’t stopped rising. Annual fluctuations aren’t trends.
Secondly, there has never been a correlation between the year-over-year δ emissions (mmt CO2) and δ MLO CO2 (ppm).
Thirdly, CO2 emissions have increased about 7 times as fast as the atmospheric concentration…
CO2 emissions from BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017.
MLO CO2 from Wood for Trees.
June temperatures are below average for many parts of the world.
Ignore the above. That was in June 2014
What I find interesting are the illustrations that these kinds of stories use to further their drama. This “scorcher” story, for example uses a photo with the caption: A monorail moving through a smoky haze, which blew over from Indonesia, in the Singapore port in September, 2015.
“Smoky haze”, of course, makes a false comparison between invisible CO2 and visible smog, in the typical sensationalizing tactic of conflating two separate issues This is a more subtle form of journalistic misrepresentation — lying by false association.
Where is the nuclear power-plant blowing out steam from its huge stack?! This is a more powerful, effective visual lie. For the lying phrase “Earth-Scorching CO2”, the nuclear power plant would have been much more fitting.
The graphs of the Times article DO, however, drive home an important point — namely, that, since around 1982, for every 16,667 molecules of air, ONE more molecule of CO2 has been added to the atmosphere [check my math]. This is most disturbing. We’re gonna fry !
Now let’s see a story about “Earth-drowning water”, accompanied by a photo of a single living cell exploding from being placed in a bath of distilled water.
Drowning is a leading cause of death around the world, you know.
OR
… a story about “Earth-corroding oxygen:, accompanied by a photo of a sunken old battle ship, raised to the surface and left sitting for ten years.
Death by free radical damage (i.e., aging) is running rampant. Something must be done !
The “earth-scorching CO2” is from the exhaled breath of dragons, who have been doing this covertly for thousands of years, and are the REAL culprits behind any alleged climate change. I will be doing a paper on this as soon as my grant money comes through.
Outgassing.
Well, not really. I would rather talk about less “ingassing”. Oceans absorbing CO2 at a slower rate because of being hotter. At current atmospheric CO2 concentrations, oceans are a net sink (the so-called acidification and all that)
Wouldn’t greater outgassing occur at the same time that less ingassing occurred? — not an “either/or” but a “both/and” ?
Robert,
Yes, but still the total effect is more ingassing than outgassing… Thus the oceans still are more sink than source.
Way to go, Ferdinand, you’ve just killed another carbon thread. (here comes that ol’ nutter ferdi and his mass balance argument again) The only reply you’ve gotten thus far was a facetious one from Forrest. Whatever Nietzsche power trip you’re on, GET OFF IT! You might try engaging people in discussion instead of talking down to them…
Fonzie,
If I see nonsense from fellow skeptics that undermines the whole skeptic case, I will react until I drop dead…
The oceans are a net sink for CO2, take it or leave it:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
I am still waiting about how the oceans can be a net source, not based on fantasies like CO2 piling up in the sinking waters…
So I exhale scorching hot air? Who would have though it!
Oh, sorry, I have not answered the question posed:
“If the amount of the gas [CO2] that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever?”
Ocean outgassing, as suggested by someone else above, seems like a pretty good answer to me. At least, this would seem to be part of the answer.
For the other part of the answer, I might pose a somewhat radical idea: death of the climate-change alarm paradigm. As alarm dies, awareness of reality sets in, opening eyes to what has been there all along.
And for the ocean outgassing, The Guardian, better known for its rabid support of AGW, had this article yesterday of a study proving the ocean is heating rapidly, probably thinking it supports CO2 causing warming instead of the opposite.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! World-reknowned newspaper, the New York Times printed on tree-and-planet-destroying paper!
Don’t forget the planet-destroying electronics that allow for the online edition of the “paper”. … or the planet-destroying energy sources that power these planet-destroying electronics.
There’s a Society of Professional Journalists with a code of ethics? You’re kidding, right?
Sheri ==> Apparently as unknown at the NY Times as it is to you. Seriously, the SPJ is the “AGU” of journalists — over a hundred years old. No idea of actual membership today. They publish the Code of Ethics and explanatory pages for each point, which I used in this and previous essays.
Well, there is a scorched earth policy against fact checkers of climate alarmism and science process in general. That much is right.
The literal fact is, ……. neither the average bi-yearly or the average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities as defined on the Keeling Curve Graph or recorded in NOAA’s Mauna Loa CO2 Record can be associated or correlated with the “fuzzy math” calculated yearly CO2 emission quantities that are being attributed to human (anthropogenic) emission activities.
Human CO2 emissions are so puny (small) that they have no effect whatsoever on the factually accurate, scientifically measured, atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
I just realized another possible tactic to confuse the discussion: Now alarmists can confuse the meaning of “CO2 emissions”.
I always thought of “emissions” as HUMAN emissions, but now I see claims that “emissions” have not leveled off or are not on the decline, which the confusion I just mentioned might explain.
Great ! — people demonized CO2 by confining it to human-produced sources and calling it “emissions”, so that they could categorize it as a “pollutant”. Now they just toss aside the human part and keep the “emissions” part to apply to ALL CO2 emissions, … still relying on the term, “emissions”, to evoke the idea of “pollution”, … meaning that something else must now be “polluting” Earth’s atmosphere with more CO2 “emissions”. … The Earth must be “polluting” itself.
Sigma Xi puts out what they call a Smart Brief which contain references to interesting articles such as this one that just came. Some links are for papers in real science journals.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138655-birds-use-cigarette-butts-for-chemical-warfare-against-ticks/
Along with it came the New York Times article open to members. Besides the graph the Times had a picture of haze in Singapore. Unfortunately Sigma Xi officers thought the March for Science was a great idea. Homework?
Forrest,
Sorry, no, as long as the sinks don’t match the current human emissions, some part of it (as mass, not the original molecules) will remain in the atmosphere…
Currently, about half human emissions remain in the atmosphere as “airborne” fraction, but that varies from year to year with temperature.
The New York Times coverage of climate is driven by the political biases and objectives of the Publisher and Editors. The reporters were hired to sing the songs they have been given. Justin Gillis, Coral Davenport, Andy Revkin and a slew of like minded progressive alarmists have clearly never seen the SPJ code of ethics or they ignore them in order to curry favor with their bosses and elitist peers.
There is plenty of precedent for political bias driving NYTimes coverage of important topics. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html
or this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/reporting-on-the-times-calls-out-new-york-times-holocaust-coverage
Mark ==> Andy Revkin is at ProPublica now, writing one or two pieces a month.
Gillis and Davenport are even worse. The NYTimes has had front page climate alarm articles just about every week recently. They seem to be on a mission.
This is from the ProPublica bio on Revkin:
“Revkin is among those credited with developing the idea that humans, through growing impacts on Earth’s climate and other critical systems, had created a “geological age of our own making,” known increasingly as the Anthropocene. ”
He is bought into the meme that people are really bad for the planet………..ugh!
Growing up in Brooklyn in the ’50s and 60’s, I was taught that the Times was the epitome of journalism to be read by all informed people. Well now it has become just another progressive mouth piece with minimal objectivity. We keep a subscription to the Sunday paper because my wife still likes the book section and some of the magazine and I like to give the crossword a go. I wait until my blood pressure meds have kicked in to look at it online daily. My liberal friends still take it as gospel.
Thanks, have been reading newspapers (no NYT) some since before Pearl Harbor and have been meaning to look into this. The little I recall was more local concerns. Our elders tried not to burden our childhood, but we knew and sensed a lot partly from being near an airbase. Others were being bombed, etc. I guess comparable youth now feel that way and don’t know they are supposed to think that they are indestructable. They could be a shrimp and have a lottery odds to survive. There are better comparisons.
There is a NYT anniversary book of front pages.
my question would be, “Just where is the Earth being ‘scorched’?”
Only in the Climate Models?
“Sharp Rise in Levels of Earth-Scorching Carbon Dioxide”
When someone declares that a 100+- increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm results in an “ Earth-Scorching ” …… then anytime that the atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) increases 15,000 to 20,000 ppm the results will surely be “ Earth-Boiling” each and every time it happens.
And just how does CO2 “scorch” anything?
(It’s used in fire extinguishers, for crying out loud!)
“Freeze burn” maybe? 😎
I have yet to see a study that shows how much CO2 is released by burning a gallon of gas. CO2 has risen and fallen over the millennia. Why? What made it rise before? What percent of the current rise is natural and part of it is brought on by man?
“how much CO2 is released by burning a gallon of gas. ”
…
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm
Healthy for the earth. Thanks
Do you know what really burns my butt?
Earth scorching CO2, just about hip high……
I saw Earth Scorching CO2 open for Iron Maiden in ’87.