Top 12 Debunked Climate Scares of 2018

Reposted from The GWPF

Screen-Shot-2018-12-31-at-08.38.09

January 2018:  Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study

PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February:  ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes

You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of  climate change, new study

Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers

Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds

NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims

The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France

This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study

Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before Euro­pean settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe

Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900

There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry

A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with ­recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-­reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

HT/GWPF and Marcus

Advertisements

66 thoughts on “Top 12 Debunked Climate Scares of 2018

    • “We’re all gonna die” just like we always did, but one by one, because we’re mortal, not because we fail to genuflect to doomsday prophets like Gore, McKibben et alia.

    • I’m sorry Neo: the correct answer is, “What is the scam involving CO2?” Answers that are not in the form of a question are incorrect! (And you’re still right!). 😉

    • However … let me correct Deligpole’s claim that the USA is responsible for only 0.9% of the ocean suspended plastic. Ohhhh nooo … you cannot so easily shift the blame to the Asian nations! Because the Asian nations are only doing the bidding of Western Capitalists, in filthy factories, assembly lines, and sweat shops! Ohhhhh mammma … yes … the swirling plastic patch is ALL the FAULT of Capitalism. If capitalism would LEAVE Asia alone, then the noble, peaceful, clean, and reverent (toward nature) Asians would return to their clean agrarian, communal, cooperative, roots.

      Or so would argue, my average SF Bay Area Silicon Valley Post-graduate, high-tech, neighbor who earns Deep into the $ 6-figures and has stacks of Amazon boxes on their front porch. Yes, my neighbors argue it is ALL due to greedy, selfish (Christian) Capitalists.

  1. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, …

    The study posits an ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) of 2.2C to 3.4C with a best guess of 2.8C. That’s way above Lewis and Curry’s estimate of 1.5C, with a probability range between 1.05C and 2.45C. link

    The study by Cox et al raises a serious methodological issue.

    By analysing the responsiveness of short-term changes in temperature to “nudges and bumps” in the climate system, … link

    If I want to know how a system responds, I will apply a standard input (an impulse or a step) and measure the output. The rule is that the input can, in no way, be affected by the operation of the system being measured.

    It’s important to know what the “nudges and bumps” were. We’re talking about climate sensitivity, ie. temperature change per doubling of atmospheric CO2. The obvious approach is to rapidly change CO2 and measure the change in global temperature. The trouble is that there are no bumps in atmospheric CO2. link The other problem is that atmospheric CO2 is affected by the global climate system.

    What are we left with? Volcanoes? 911 contrails? Those aren’t changes in CO2. That means they have to guess what the equivalence is between them and CO2. That doesn’t inspire confidence.

    The other problem with the “bumps and nudges” approach is that the most obvious effect will be TCS (Transient Climate Sensitivity). I have a nasty suspicion that Cox et al are effectively applying a high pass filter to the data and thereby increasing the influence of noise.

    IMHO, Cox et al is just an attempt to deal with Lewis and Curry’s very inconvenient finding. It’s not actually good news. I would love to see what McIntyre or McKitrick make of this.

      • “In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters.

        We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States. Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.

        It was a quiet year for tornadoes overall, with below normal numbers most months. Unless you’re a storm chaser, this is not bad news. The low tornado count is undoubtedly a big part of the reason the 10 tornado deaths in 2018 is also vying to be a record low.

        While we still have several days to go in 2018, and some severe weather is likely across the South to close it out, odds favor the country making it the rest of the way without a violent tornado.

        If and when that happens, it will be the first time since the modern record began in 1950.”

        • If you live underground are there no tornadoes then? Just because your home can not be damaged?

          No, it only depends on if there’s actually strong tornadoes present, or not present. If the observations show no strong tornadoes in 2018, then it means the tornadoes were significantly weaker for the year.

          Enough of the anthropomorphic nonsense.

        • As they say in Alabama, whether it’s a divorce or a tornado, someone is going to lose a trailer.

  2. These are only the top 12. Has there been any climate scares that have come true? Of course not.

    • This is the better question in fact. What climate predictions DID come true?
      Probably a shorter list too.

        • Yup, blank page – but then of course they just keep moving the goalposts further out as the Earth doesn’t cooperate with any “catastrophic” climate changes, and the Eco-Nazi predictions that fail to come true just become something that is sure to happen in [fill in the blank] years if we don’t DO SOMETHING about it NOW.

  3. From the above article: “A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.”

    One does not need any such revised calculation. The preponderance of scientific data—yes, even the massaged data—clearly shows that from about 1941 to 1975 Earth actually cooled globally, and from about 2001 to present day Earth either ceased warming entirely or warmed at a rate an order of magnitude less than the maximum rate seen previously over 18-year spans. And these two intervals occurred with Earth’s greenhouse gases, excluding water vapor, increasing on an ever-upward yearly trend.

    If CO2 is supposed to be acting as a powerful greenhouse gas, it is clearly failing to do such over climate-scale time periods.

    The data smacks one in the face so powerfully that it is no wonder that many climate “scientists” are now beginning to walk back their previous “calculation-based” claims of AGW. Look for this trend to grow in the coming decade as Earth enters its next cooling phase.

    • Not to mention: A paleoclimate record over hundreds of million of years (Geocarb reconstructions) that shows NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER between atmospheric CO2 level and temperature, or over tens of thousands of years (ice core reconstructions) that shows a correlation, but running IN REVERSE, with changes in CO2 levels FOLLOWING changes in temperature, up AND down, like a dog on a leash.

      CO2’s effect on temperature is clearly NIL, when you stray beyond the PURELY HYPOTHETICAL effect which REQUIRES “ALL OTHER THINGS” be “HELD EQUAL.”

      • Irrespective of the lag point, it is worth noting that from the Antarctic ice cores: The planet entered ice ages (or inter-glacials came to an end) when CO2 levels (and indeed water vapour) were at their highest, and exited ice ages when CO2 (and indeed water vapour) were at their lowest. This is entirely contrary to the radiant GHE theory (whoops, I mean conjecture)

        Warmists never explain how the on/off switch works, and why and how if CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change, one can see the above pattern in the Antarctic ice cores.

    • It’s such a stupid wringing of hands anyways since we are currently in the middle of an ice age. The ice sheets will return and there’s f-all we can do about it. Enjoy the warmth. It won’t last.

      • This is the fundamental point. and it was my starting position in all of this. The planet is presently too cold and presently has too little CO2. It could do with more warmth and more CO2, such that if by some happy chance an increase in CO2 brings about some warming that would be a win win scenario.

        I never saw the problem, then when I started looking at the issue I saw how flaky the so called science is, and the fact that all but none of the date sets are fit for scientific study. It always fails to amaze me how little quality control there is in climate science, and how the issue of quality data (and margins of errors) can be so lightly shrugged off by those promoting cAGW.

  4. All these have been debunked by sceptics over the years. But something interesting is happening here. The starving polarbear bs was known from the beginning by the NatGeo perpetrators but back then, as with all these lies, the “community” immorally allowed this propaganda to float. Same with ‘faulty’ models getting air pressure over Greenland wrong. The Danes and frankly, the UK and the rest of Scandinavia) know the weather in detail over Greenland but, apparently, it suited them to let it ride.

    Judith Curry is eminently even handed and fair. I think her 3C tops for 2100 (which prior to moving the starting gate from 1950 to 1850 so the IPCC could bankroll the degree that had occurred since then and rehabilitate their 300% overestimate of temp above observations by 2000) is really 2C with the goalposts prior to 2015. Given this as tops, actual has a decent probability of being just another O.6C – 0.8C , repeat of the past century with business as usual.

    There definitely is a science wide walking back of alarmist expectations. Climategate got a lot of lipstick to little avail, neomarxist masters began tipping their hand too soon revealing there really is a “plan” afterall, Trump election and withdrawal from the Paris klatch, embarrassing unbridled hysteria of a 2018 cornered rat IPCC, failure of renoobles, ordinary joes and janes taking to the streets over energy prices, new blood in research and emboldening of old blood to test the changing ‘research climate’… Exeter and a few other Universities beginning to smell a corpse, are anchoring a turning point out of a certified nightmare that the human race had got caught up in.

    Happy New Year to all. It’s looking to be a good one.

    • With the “Great Greening of the Planet^тм” and concomittant bumper crops, abundant resources and the peaking of population after 2050 at ~9B, my forecast of “Garden of Eden Earth^тм” is looking more likely with the “Great Climate Walkback” nos on the long road.

  5. Why is it so difficult to combat the lies of Global Warming? Are we as a group really that ignorant?

    • Inculcation of fear and guilt is the easiest ticket to money and power. It has been so since the days of pharaohs, and it continues to be so. Accuse people of a “mortal sin” (whatever nonsense it may be), and make them pay for it. To you.

      • And programs like “World’s Most Extreme Weather”, although an interesting program from a footage perspective, loves to amp the perceived threats to disproportionate level, and the ‘weather forecasters’ love to do the same (as we all saw with the recent fake Hurricane reports so it’s quite undeniable that they’re doing that.

        BOM clearly do it often. For instance, a BOM Category 1 ‘cyclone’ crossed the coast just last night, directly over the town of Weipa on Cape York, and the BOM data log recorded a maximum gust of 76 km/h, or 47 mph. Here’s the log, look at 1:00PM on Jan 1st 2019:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94170.shtml

        And that pure nonsense will officially go into the BOM statistics recording the first Category-1 cyclone of 2019 as Tropical Cyclone ‘Penny’. And at no time did this minor cloud swirl get any stronger than that 76 km/h. BOM are totally shameless today, there is no honesty at all in their stats or cyclone forecasts, they know it and they don;t care, they’ve no intention of admitting that Penny never was a cyclone at all. They will just lie about it. And the ABC just amps-up this obviously false krud which BOM feeds to them. So there’s no honesty across the board.

        ” … must … attack … providers … of … the … air-con … and … my … food …”

        They do it at any cost, such is the brainless ideology of these Govt funded total farces. One look at the color emphasis and scale-tweaking of maps and projections within ABC reports about ‘heat-waves’ will reveal how thoroughly dishonest they are, and how much they (knowingly) rely on amping the fear level, at the expense of any objectivity and to quite deliberately impart a disproportionate perception of hazards and causation imputation. i.e. summer natural variability takes a back seat to endless accusations directed at the corporations that make the economy what it is, that provides the revenues to pay for the ABC parasites, to paint their lies on TV screens and spread their perverse drive to kill-off the goose that lays the golden eggs, which pays for their luxury cars, and air-cons, and fresh clean sheets in Summer.

        You don’t get that sort of perverse behavior without massaging the organizational group-think and staffing cohorts and extensive scripted premeditation to create the fake and laughable reports about nothing much at all.

        About 15 years ago there was an ABC radio program called the Science Show, hosted by a guy called Robbin Williams, and I always remember the program they put to air back then about, “the fine-art of making nothing look like something”. At that time it was a shocking and memorable notion to be discussing at all on a Science program.

        Obviously the ABC and BOM were listening intently to that as well as just about everyone else, as from about that time forwards the accuracy and honesty in reporting (of all types) started to go out the window. So here we are now where honesty is very much out of fashion in these devious organizations, and just another variable to adjust depending on the message to be scripted and imparted.

    • “Why is it so difficult to combat the lies of Global Warming?”

      Because its very difficult to get “reality” heard in the main stream information cycle

      You have to show that the MSM is lying and misrepresenting reality, but you have to do it IN the MSM.

      Quite difficult.

      You also have to somehow get through to politicians who’s job depends on them going down the greenie/liberal/leftist route… good luck with that !!

      Tony Heller linking with Scott Adams could start to change all that. Time will tell.

    • Because, to paraphrase Churchill, “their lies circle the globe before the truth gets its pants on.” And their lies don’t get pointed out by the complicit “media” which is “full stupid” on AGW catastrophist nonsense.

  6. What about the super colony of 1.5 million Adele penguins found in Antarctica, derailing the “penguins are endangered because of melting ice” meme? Happy 2019!

    • I just happened to be in Antarctica on a tour last Spring. The tour guides were all degrees alarmists. One in particular had been studying penguin colonies since the 80s. One of his lectures cited the decline in Adelies and concluded the cause was the decline in ice on one coast of Antarctica and, …, global warming. Unfortunately, the discovery of 1.5 mm Adelies a couple hundred miles eastward in the bay where no scientists had thought to look came a day before tour’s end. Had some ‘splaining to do and couldn’t pull it off.
      Preaching global warmist dogma is a U.N. condition to getting permits to tour Antarctica

  7. Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers’ Only if we fall into another ice age. ‘Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of climate change, new study’ How do they explain the million of years coral growth through countless number of temperature changes both warmer and colder then this “warm period” we are in?

    • Corals can’t grow because they are actually physically dissolved by ocean acidification driven by increasing CO2 content in air and sea.
      In water CO2 (carbon dioxide) combines with water molecule to form carbonic acid H2CO3 which will rapidly dissociate into H+ and HCO3- ions. The H+ ion makes the water (sea) more acidic. So yes, oceans soak up CO2 which proven by oceans becoming increasingly more acidic. Both ocean acidification and warming reduce the oceans’ ability to soak up more CO2 because of how acidity and temperature affect the chemical equilibrium of this process.

      • The oceans can’t be ‘more acidic’ because they are not acidic to begin with. The PH of the oceans is ‘basic’, not acidic, therefore the statement that they are becoming ‘more acidic’ is nonsensical and misleading. If anything the oceans are becoming ‘less basic’ not ‘more acidic’.

  8. Choosing only 12 had to be a most challenging task. Much more difficult would be to find 12, er, 6, er, 3, er, even 1 that was accurate.

  9. “they have now been forced to back down”

    The problem is that nobody will ever see the retraction, while the charge will continue to be repeated by the trolls.

  10. Christopher Monckton has a new 2018 post at WattsUpWithThat claiming that climate sensitivity is about 1.2°K for a doubling of CO2. Only alarmists comment (attack) it. He makes perfect sense for me but why the absence of support from the realists?

    • I am a skeptic, and therefore I am skeptical of all arguments both for and against AGW.

      In my opinion, the fundamental premise on which his paper is found appears sound, but for me, it goes off track when he seeks to calculate a precise figure for climate sensitivity. I am skeptical as to the correctness of Lacis, which is the foundation for his calculation, and I am skeptical of his claim that the system was in equilibrium as at 1850.

      Indeed, in my opinion the system clearly was not in equilibrium as at 1850 since HADCRUT 3 shows a temperature change of about 1 degC in approximately 1 year, and there could not have been that sort of change had the system been in equilibrium; something must have been at work driving that change. Not that I accept HADCRUT 3 data as being correct, and I consider that we have no proper idea of what global temperatures were back in the 1800s. I consider it farcical and unscientific to make any claims as to global temperatures in 1850.

      One also has to assume that the planet had come out of the LIA as early as 1850, but that assumption appears unreasonable given that it is generally accepted that there was warming between 1860 and 1880 which is statistically no different to the late 1970s warming, and there are papers suggesting that at various locations the LIA was not exited before 1900. One could present a reasonable argument that until such time as the planet reaches the temperatures of the MWP, the planet has not yet fully exited the LIA. Since it may well be the case that the planet is not yet as warm as it was during the MWP, and prior to the onset of the LIA, it is not clear that evn today that we have fully exited the LIA.

      The ironic point is that starting temperature has little impact on his calculation, because the dominant factor is that of feedbacks which were then in play as at 1850.

      His paper gives with one hand, but takes with the other, and unless it gets through peer review it is unlikely to have much impact. I am no fan of peer review, and we need to wait and see whether it gets past that hurdle.

  11. These are an excellent reminder of the top twelve failed predictions by CAGW. There are many more, as no Warmista Alarmist prediction has ever come true. Nevertheless the die-hard Warmista Believers will still defend each and every one as being rolled-gold science and still true, starting with the Hockey Shtick.

    • I don’t think the post was about the top 12 of the year but rather the top for each month of the year.

  12. Now that is a refreshing look at the climate consensus.
    Next step:
    Start inspiring media to point out the sorry record of the climate obsessed fear mongers.

  13. In 2018, sceptics gave more publicity-propagonda to global warming than the warmists. Also, sceptics are using climate change as de-facto global warming over warmists. It appears sceptics wants the controversies to prolong. Nobody interested in looking in to climate change in its totality and help agriculture and water resources.

    The second issue relates to carbon dioxide and air pollution — sceptics as usual like warmists are not working on pollution issues that are affecting health and costing huge sum as medical assistance.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • On the contrary, I thought that skeptics were for addressing real environmental issues rather than the phoney CO2/climate change issue, but of course, the skeptics are not in power and are unable to either lobby like the NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc, nor are they in government position to actually put in place different policies.

      If a skeptic ran the energy and climate change department at government level, and if government politicians were skeptics, then I would imagine that we would see very different policies.

  14. Just as with a religion, its very hard to convince a true believer that there is something wrong with the so called facts in their faith.
    A good example is from ISREAL . They still believe that the flight from Egypt is true. Never mind the sheer impossibility of the feeding of such a large number in the desert for some 40 years, but one of their top archologest said that it was clearly a propergaanda exercise from one of the Kings who feared a attack from Egypt some hundreds of years later.

    As Dr. Gobbles is said to have said, “Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth ”

    MJE

    • Michael, Michail, you’ve left God out of it.
      Of course they would have all starved …without God.

  15. Here’s a note to the Toronto star. It relates to a column that claimed that all kinds of extreme events had been exacerbated by climate change, which was much worse than had been predicted. The columnist compared it to a nuclear holocaust! For this purpose it made sense to play up IPCC credentials!

    The “trust project” is an organized effort to enhance press credibility.

    A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STAR’S TRUST COMMITTEE TO GAIN INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY AND PROMINENCE!

    Factual and truthful reporting of IPCC scientists’ findings about climate change will earn deserved recognition for the Star’s Trust Committee among its peers in the industry and will serve as a highly visible demonstration of the Committee’s meaningful positive impact on Toronto Star’s credibility.

    Background:

    The IPCC was specifically designed to be a credible information source on matters related to climate change: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was jointly established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide authoritative and objective scientific assessments on anthropogenic climate change by issuing periodic comprehensive “Assessment Reports.” The scientific team of AR5, the IPCC’s latest report on physical science, included 209 Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors plus 50 Review Editors. In addition, more than 600 Contributing Authors provided draft text and information to the author teams at their request. Drafts were subject to two rounds of formal review and revision followed by a final round of government comments on the Summary for Policymakers. A total of 54,677 written review comments were submitted by 1089 individual expert reviewers and 38 governments. The 1500-page AR5 report cites over 9,200 scientific publications.” Yet, significant scientific findings in the IPCC’s Fifth (and latest) Assessment Report are routinely ignored by the media, including the Star.

    Current status of Star’s climate change reporting:

    The attached complaint about a Tom Walkom article describes claims that directly contradict IPCC science. The Star response to the complaint (also attached) fails to address the specific errors and simply ignores complaint citations to IPCC and other demonstrably credible sources. These two documents give the Trust Committee an excellent ‘primer’ on many key climate change topics and a useful ‘live case study’ of issues in climate change reporting plus handy links to demonstrably credible primary sources.

    How to fact-check climate change articles – helpful hints:

    It is absolutely critical to rely exclusively on primary scientific sources. Here’s an example why one needs to go back to the science: Climate model warming predictions from prior IPCC reports formed the sole justification for many government environmental programs in Canada and elsewhere. When IPCC AR5 scientists reported that models had inexplicably and unpredictably failed, IPCC politicians ‘buried’ this important finding deep inside (pages 769 and 1011!) a technical report and unanimously agreed not to mention this significant fact in the widely circulated “Summary for Policymakers.” Main stream media failed to report this. The topic is hopelessly politicized – facts have become irrelevant.

    To merit public confidence and to act in conformance with its mandate the Star’s Trust Committee has to rise above the politics and ‘group think’ to follow credible scientific facts wherever they may lead. This will take some honest fact-checking and personal integrity. I trust 😊 you will rise to the challenge!

  16. So your list is:
    -A worst-case scenario probably won’t happen, which is kind of the definition of worst-case scenarios.
    -An island isn’t sinking beneath the waves…unlike certain other islands all around the world (there’s a lot, don’t feel like linking them all)
    -The BBC is forced to couch its terminology a little more because the more common and violent storms (which are happening, and most likely because of climate change) might actually be caused by aliens. Side note: this is the essense of the denialist argument that global warming isn’t happening at all. You know, that argument you make under “climategate” and also say is an “insulting strawman”?
    -Coral *might* survive, if we’re lucky. Also if too much of it hasn’t already died.
    -A lie about antarctic ice, debunked here: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2836/antarcticas-contribution-to-sea-level-rise-was-mitigated-by-snowfall/

    Noticing a pattern here. You denialists love your dishonesty, don’t you? And you know, the real annoying part is all the work. You keep lying, day after day, and there’s NO money in fighting for honesty. All the cash cows are in telling lies that let people hate hippies and keep polluting. Goodness knows *I* don’t get time or money for debunking your bullshit.

    • Dorcus

      Thanks for the link to the Antarctic study. We already reviewed it here when it was first published.

      People come to WUWT daily to get access to the latest science news. You are free to do the same.

      I am not sure if anyone will reply to your verbal attacks. You seem to know a whole lot about climate change. What is your speciality? Perhaps you could provide more links, particularly ones showing a a clear correlation between rising temperatures and rising CO2. That is, after all, the key demonstration we need to demonstrate.

      Personally I would appreciate some links to sources showing that the number of violent storms is increasing because to date I can’t find one. I can find lots that show the number is constant or dropping, in the case of the US mainland.

      As for tornadoes, the only charts I can find show the number of EF3+ storms is dropping since 1976 so I’d appreciate some evidence it is actually rising. I think that would get a lot of attention.

      Happy New Year

      • As I said, I’m not an expert. That’s kind of my point, we’ve got a big-money industry telling big lies and little lies up and down the denialism staircase. Most of them can be debunked by doing a little bit of homework, but since the liars never stop and most Americans don’t do the homework (who would want to?) you have this imbalance. The only way to counteract it would be to have a dedicated expenditure trying to explain and debunk every denialist myth, and such a thing would immediately be viciously silenced as “pro-alarmist propaganda from the warmist conspiracy.”

        The number of storms is steady on a long timeline (relatively speaking), the severity and number has actually gone up in the past few decades, but time will tell how that shakes out.

        It’s like how the planet is heating up overall but we end up with more blisteringly cold winters than ever before. Successfully predicting the weather 10 years in advance is hard, successfully predicting it’s going to change, wildly and badly, is pretty easy. Whether Florida becomes a solid block of ice because of a shifted current or Michigan is swallowed by the Great Lakes (or both) is unknown.

        Temperatures increase: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
        Storm severity increases in the last 20 years: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity
        More data and ohnoTrumpshutdown: https://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/

        But the biggest deal is the facile, contradictory lying: First we have this:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/28/why-this-new-meme-on-social-media-is-not-just-wrong-but-belittling/ saying “it’s insulting to say ANYONE claims there’s no such thing as climate change”
        on the same page we have a link to this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ Which claims there’s no such thing as climate change and it was made up by a conspiracy.
        And on the front of insulting misrepresentation we have constant, endless, insulting lies in the form of (paraphrasing), “oh those crazy alarmists, they said the world was going to BLOW UP by now.”

  17. I read that 70% plus of the world’s surface is covered with water. I also read that carbon dioxide, CO2, only radiates infra-red. I also read that infra-red radiation does not heat water. And lastly I read that CO2 radiates in all directions such that only half the radiation from the CO2 reaches the surface.

    Can anyone please post me a link that explains what is wrong with my reading. I feel bad that I can’t agree with all those highly educated Phd endowed climate scientists.

    • Water definitely is ‘heated up’ by infra-red. You can verify this yourself by finding the IR-spectrum of water (H_2 O) molecule. Water is well known impurity in IR spectroscopy and messes up (part) of the spectrum.

      I’m not sure what you are after with your thought process? Are you trying to imply that by increasing CO2 content in air we can reverse the global warming?

      • Due to the absorption characteristics of LWIR in water, LWIR only penetrates about 10 MICRONS. See: https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dlr-absorption-ocean-matlab.png

        Given that DWLWIR is unidirectional, such that DWLWIR that interacts with the ocean at a grazing angle of say 10% or 20% or 30% etc does not penetrate vertically, but rather obliquely, it means that about 70% of all DWLWIR is fully absorbed in about the top 3 or 4 vertical MICRONS of the oceans.

        Yet the top MICRON layer of the oceans is cooler than the millimetre layers below, probably because of evaporation, viz:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#/media/File:MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.i.jpg

        Since the LWIR energy does not penetrate millimetres and since heat cannot flow against the flux, which is upwards at the very top of the oceans, as per the above linked plot, DWLWIR does not directly heat the oceans. That is not something that can be reasonably contested.

        The only issue is whether DWLWIR heats the atmosphere and whether having a warmer atmosphere, above the ocean, slows down heat loss from the oceans. That is a different issue altogether involving a different physical process.

    • It is true that ‘water’ absorbs infrared, but the amount of and reradiation of that absorption is dependent on the state of the water. Water in a gaseous state does indeed ‘absorb’ infrared and reradiate it in some of the same spectra that gaseous CO2 does. The spectra re-emitted is generally within the same band as absorbed but that depends on the state of the gases surrounding the CO2 and water molecules. In some cases the infrared energy absorbed by the CO2 molecule is converted to kinetic energy and not re-radiated at all.

      As far as I know, water in a liquid/solid state does not absorb shorter infrared wavelengths < 1.2. Since CO2 primarily reradiates infrared in the 1.2 and lower um frequency bands, it's ability to 'heat' water is very limited. Infrared does 'heat' liquid water if that infrared is a good bit higher in frequency than that reemitted by CO2 and that energy is converted to kinetic energy, taking the molecules to a higher energy state — meaning it can convert liquid water to it's gaseous state – a long winded way to say the water evaporates. I'm not certain but I think the transmission of kinetic energy to liquid water on the earths surface is responsible for the majority of evaporation, not infrared.

Comments are closed.