CNN Vs. What the Science Says

Fact-checking a CNN story

By Dave Burton, reposted from Sea Level Info

CNN announces details for climate crisis town hall

Washington (CNN) CNN on Tuesday announced the candidate lineup for its unprecedented prime-time event focused on the climate crisis.

    The science says: “the climate crisis” is a myth. It is a product of politics & superstition, not science.

Ten Democratic presidential hopefuls will appear in New York at back-to-back town halls on Wednesday, September 4, taking audience questions about their climate plans as scientists sound the alarm about global warming.
    The science says:
there is no cause for “alarm.” The “scientists” who “sound the alarm” are acting as activists, not scientists. There is no consensus among scientists that manmade climate change is harmful at all, and the best evidence is that CO2 emissions are beneficial.
Who says so? Over 30,000 American scientists, that’s who!
Read about the “Global Warming Petition” which they signed, here.
CNN poll conducted in late April showed that 96% of Democrats favored taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change. And Democratic activists in recent weeks have sought to elevate the issue, urging candidates to make climate change a priority

 

    The science says: “the effects of climate change” are modest and benign. Learn more here.
The United Nations — which projects that temperatures will rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030 — has warned that governments must take “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

 

    The science says:
“pre-industrial” means the harsh “Little Ice Age” (LIA). Scientists call the current warm period a “climate optimum,” because it is unambiguously improved, compared to the pre-industrial LIA.

Nobody knows just how much colder the Earth’s average temperature was during the LIA, but most estimates are about 1°C, so we’ve already seen about 2/3 of that “1.5 degrees Celsius” of warming — and it has been beneficial, rather than harmful. By 2030 we’re likely to see only another 0.1 to 0.2
°C, not 0.5 °C, but even another 0.5°C would be hardly noticeable.
Climate activists rarely mention how challenging it is to measure the tiny temperature differences which characterize “global warming.” This graph, contrasting different global temperature indices, illustrates the problem. Even for the last sixty years, estimates of “measured” warming vary by a factor of two! Earlier time periods are known with even less certainty, and projections for the future are most uncertain of all:
Global warming would have several devastating consequences. It would cause coastal cities to disappear under water, leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced and forced to migrate to dry areas. Some plants and animals would face extinction, and drought would result in lower crop yields.
    The science says: that’s nonsense. There will be NO “devastating consequences” to manmade global warming. It has had NO detectable effect on sea-level trends, it has NOT caused plants and animals to go extinct, and it has NOT worsened droughts. Additionally, THOUSANDS of agricultural studies have proven that higher CO2 levels IMPROVE plants’ water efficiency and drought resistance, REDUCE damage to crops from droughts, and greatly INCREASE crop yields.
If you understand graphs, then it should be obvious that rising CO2 levels have not affected sea-level:

 

   That’s one of the highest-quality sea-level measurement records in the world, from a near-ideal central Pacific location, on an old, tectonically-stable island, with little or no vertical land motion, and a very typical sea-level trend.
Here’s what that very slight rise looks like on the ground. These are two photos of the Moana Surfrider Hotel, on Waikiki Beach, in Honolulu, taken nearly a century apart. Does it look like sea-level rise is a problem?

    The benefits of extra CO2
for crops have been known to science for over a century. It is so dramatically beneficial that commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate daytime CO2 levels to 3-4 times outdoor levels. The benefits are so great that way back in 1920 Scientific American called it “the precious air fertilizer.” From this photo, which accompanied the article, you can certainly see why:

The latest warning signs of a climate crisis include meteorologists recording July 2019 as the hottest month ever recorded on Earth and Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history.
    The science says:
The widely repeated claim that July, 2019 was the hottest month ever is based on faulty data. It was warmer than average, but the best data indicates that it was only approximately the 4th warmest of the last 41 years.

     For as long as we have measurement data, Greenland has been slowly losing ice. In an average year it loses about 200 billion tonnes (Gt) of ice, which sounds like a lot, but it is actually negligible. It is equivalent to less than three-hundredths of an inch of sea-level. I.e., at the current rate, meltwater from Greenland will contribute to less than three inches of sea-level rise by year 2100.

    At the current rate, to melt entirely it would take the Greenland Ice sheet 100 to 150… …you thought I was going to say “years,” didn’t you?
Nope, not years.
Not decades, either.
Centuries. 100-150 centuries.
The rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet fluctuates, but there’s no evidence of a sustained acceleration due to manmade climate change. In fact, in both of the last two glaciological years, Greenland had no net loss of ice at all (which is unusual).
CNN previously announced that the town hall audience will be drawn from Democratic and independent voters and stakeholders interested in the issue and no public tickets
will be available.

 

    In other words, CNN is stacking the audience with leftists, and making sure that no dissenters sneak in.

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “CNN Vs. What the Science Says

  1. Thanks for sharing this, Charles!

    For what it’s worth, I made repeated attempts to contact the author and his CNN colleagues by email, tweet, and Facebook message, about the inaccuracies in this story, but none of them have responded.

      • BUT …now they have an excuse to kick out anyone they don’t like for not heeding their “implied” warning of “no talking about CC…

        • From the article:
          “Democratic presidential candidates are barred from appearing together on stage outside of DNC-sanctioned debates.”

          They will be appearing seriatim, not together. Which means it isn’t violating the rules. It also means it isn’t really a debate, but to be fair, they aren’t calling it a debate.

    • It’s not a debate. It’s a “townhall meeting” where candidates will be asked questions and will respond. No, I don’t know the difference between the two either. But I DO know this will be hugely beneficial to voters.

      And stacking the audience will give a misimpression to the public of what the public believes, but it will also give the same misimpression to the candidates, leading them to take positions that will not be beneficial to their electoral chances.

  2. I would add the IPCC stated in the Paris statement that there has been no increase the frequency or strength of violent storms or extreme weather between 1918 and 2018.
    The ice core samples show unequivocally that so far as there is a co-relation between CO2 and atmospheric temps…that heat always precedes a rise in Co2 concentrations.
    And that we are at near record low CO2 levels in the geological CO2 records and that we have had vastly higher levels over the last 600,000.,000 years…and no run away holocaustic global warming disaster then. So if there is no disaster when the CO2 PPM is 10 or 20 times what it is now, then how the bloody hell do they think there will be a disaster now when CO2 levels are a fraction od what they have been for almost the entire timeframe since life on Earth began?
    I could go on but only an idiot would need me to.

    • the concern today is the RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
      the Paris agreement was in 2015
      humans have existed for 2 million years
      i would continue but you are obviously making up a lot of “facts”

      [??? .mod]

      • luigilammachi wrote, “the concern today is the RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE”

        Then “the concern” is misplaced. Greenland ice core records show strong evidence of very large, abrupt, persistent temperature shifts in the past, as rapid as several degrees per decade — and all of it natural. That’s about 20× faster than recent warming.

        Here are a couple of excerpts:

        …a jump in Greenland’s air temperatures of 10-15 degrees (C) in just a few decades beginning about 14,700 years ago.”
        [and]
        “… about 12,800 years ago … abrupt cooling of some 5-9 degrees (C), also over a matter of decades.”

        Accounting for the fact that Greenland’s temperature changes tend to be twice the global average (due to “Arctic amplification”), that’s still at least ten times as rapid as the (presumably mostly anthropogenic) “warming spurt” which we experienced in the 1980s to 1990s, and the similar (presumably mostly non-anthropogenic) warming spurt which our [grand]parents experienced in the 1920s to 1930s.

        The evidence is very strong that there’s nothing unusual about the modest warming which the Earth has experienced over the last century.

        The sometimes heard claim that recent warming has been unusually rapid is a product of statistical illiteracy. Most 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 any engineer knows, when you smooth a graph, sharp fluctuations disappear. But some climate alarmists 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 current Modern Climate Optimum is very similar to the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum, and probably cooler than it was during the Eemian interglacial; here’s an article about that.

        The best evidence is that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial. Here’s a list of resources where you can learn more about it, luigilammachi:
        https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html

  3. This “climate town hall” reminds me of the 19th Century Revival Meetings. There, the Faithful were expected to travel some distance to sit on hard wooden benches and be harangued by Preachers for 8 – 10 hours at a stretch. Being able to sit through the entire thing was a true sign that You were One of the Chosen, Worthy of Salvation.

    Because you can’t show others your True Faith unless you’re willing to Suffer for it.

    (and of course once it’s established that YOU are willing to suffer for your Faith, then it’s only natural to ask that everyone else suffer for it, too)

    • Well said. And once you have become one of the chosen ones by your hard work (sitting and listening gospel), you get to virtue signal to everybody and to give away money collected from idiots who can not see the problem themselves. And that is why you are better than them.

  4. Gee, and I hope it will snow rather heavily on their access to exit that building while they are all sitting safely inside, toasty and warm, dressed for summer weather instead of autumn snows.

  5. From the article: “Nobody knows just how much colder the Earth’s average temperature was during the LIA, but most estimates are about 1°C, so we’ve already seen about 2/3 of that “1.5 degrees Celsius” of warming — and it has been beneficial, rather than harmful. By 2030 we’re likely to see only another 0.1 to 0.2 °C, not 0.5 °C, but even another 0.5°C would be hardly noticeable.”

    The global temperature has cooled 0.5C over the last three years. Can anyone tell the difference between now and 2016? It does seem slightly cooler but there is not much difference in the two periods.

    So how does this current 0.5C cooling figure into the calculation above? The article states that we have seen 2/3 of the 1.5C temperature rise, but if we subtract the 0.5C of current cooling then I guess that means we have only seen 1/3 of the 1.5C warming the alarmist are worried about.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6.jpg

  6. I noted the downturn of atmospheric CO2 at 1940 on the CO2 graph. It appears to coincide with the global cooling spell begun at that time. I wonder if cooling seas out gassing less CO2 swamped increased fossil fuel burning during WWII?

    SR

  7. Not entirely surprising. If anyone is tuning into CNN, they’re already lost. Remember, science now is a belief system/religion and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

  8. The Warmunists feel that their precious climate change boogeyman is fading, that the world is ignoring them, so they ramp it up higher and higher, cry “WOLF!” louder. Great to see it a dying cause.

  9. Tom Steyer apparently won’t be at the next DNC Presidential debate. I suspect he’s probably okay with that. He really doesn’t want to be the President, he simply wants to own the (Democrat) President by providing huge cash contributions to various campaign committees.

    But is it a “waste?” Why would an intelligent, self-made Billionaire, a rich man who has a deep history of buying Democrat politicians with millions of dollar contributions to various political PACS, suddenly want to run for office, and race he surely cannot win?

    Something else is going on here.

    Tom Steyer has a long history of throwing money at Democrats, from Sacramento the DC. Most the Democrats in Sacramento belong to Steyer. He has also spent millions on getting involved in State AG races (where many of those newly elected Democrat party AGs jumped on-board the #ExxonKnew lawfare band-wagon amazingly enough).

    The big problem standing in Steyer’s way in the past for his individual contributions and his NextGen PAC to the Democratic Party local, state and nation campaign committees are the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and limits (based on Campaign Finance Law) that severely limit direct contributions from individuals and PACs. Tom Steyer’s generously self-funded NextGen personal issues PAC can of course run their own ads (and they do), but coordination between such PACs and actual candidate campaign committees during election cycles is strictly forbidden. Violating the No-coordination Rule can get the offenders in deep trouble with civil and even possibly criminal penalties.

    But now as declared candidate for the DNC’s US Presidential nomination, Tom Steyer can infuse his own campaign in an unlimited amount. On the surface, that makes sense and seems fair. After all, it is his own money. He’s throwing it away on a Presidential campaign that can have no hope of winning even one primary.

    But now look at the FEC Contribution limits for 2019-2020 federal elections on their web site:
    https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

    Note who can recieve “Unlimited transfers”… a local, state, and National Party Committee. The normal individual and PAC are restricted to maximum donations of $35,500/year. But the “candidate committee” can make those “unlimited transfer.”

    What I suspect Tom Steyer is doing here as a Declared Candidate:

    Tom Steyer declared his candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) on July 9, 2019. He will not have to file his first quarterly campaign expense report to the FEC until 15 October. He can pump as much of his own million$$Ss into his campaign accounts as he wants. Then when he decides to formally withdraw from the race, he can divvy-up and transfer those unlimited amount of millions of dollars to various Democratic Party Committees across the US (local, state) including also the national-level DNC.

    This is an effective loophole in the FEC donation rules that candidate Tom Steyer is abusing to be able to send millions of dollars (far beyond any FEC campaign limit) to Democrats to defeat Trump and buy Democrat politicians loyalty with his money.

    Part Two of this story is the FEC itself.
    Normally the FEC has a quorum of committee members. So normally, the FEC could see this Candidate Steyer campaign contribution abuse coming and they could vote to re-write the rules to stop it before it occurs.

    But right now, the FEC committee does not have a quorum, so the FEC can make no rules changes to stop an obvious coming abuse of a loophole. They can’t close the loophole without a quorum.

    See this news article discussing the current situation on the FEC:
    https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/08/commissioners-resignation-renders-fec-toothless-2020-elections-heat/159483/

    The FEC staff will still receive and post the candidate financial disclosures, and the candidates still must abide by all existing rules, but no new rules or changes can be made while there is no quorum on the committee’s political appointees.

    The FEC has no quorum because Congressional Democrats are holding up the traditional process of confirming new FEC committee members. Trump has nominated his pick, but the Democrats are currently refusing to named a Democrat to committee, so nothing is happening. Clearly, the Congressional Democrats (Senate Minority Leader Chucky Schumer and Speaker of the House Nanny Pelosi) know the contribution abuse the Steyer is about to unleash, and be the benefactors of that huge donation largess, and the last thing they want is an effectively operating FEC committee to head it off.

    And Steyer will abuse that FEC donation loophole and once its done, writing new rules after the fact will be meaningless for 2020 election cycle.

    • Interesting view you have and if true very clever of him. He may be many things but stupid is not on the list.

    • “Violating the No-coordination Rule can get the offenders in deep trouble with civil and even possibly criminal penalties.”

      Have things changed since Al Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” response to his campaign finance shenanigans?

  10. No public tickets, Huh! I was reading about Australian aboriginal people, and how they came to Australia from africa roughly 60-80 thousand years ago, they lived and thrived for all of those tens of thousands of years.. imagine the weather changes, hot, cold, snow, winds, Yet they prospered with no electricity no “modern” medicines, no insulated homes.. But today, the weather changes from the “normal” and the world is going to end in 2025, 2030, or 2050, and its only due to CO2! After reading a few IPCC quotes, it shows how sheep like a large majority of humans are…

  11. Climate activists rarely mention how challenging it is to measure the tiny temperature differences which characterize “global warming.”

    This graph, contrasting different global temperature indices, illustrates the problem. Even for the last sixty years, estimates of “measured” warming vary by a factor of two! Earlier time periods are known with even less certainty, and projections for the future are most uncertain of all:

    https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png

      • “…two different places, one surface, one troposphere.”

        An interesting point. Is a weather station located about 2 meters above the ground within the troposphere?

          • “It isn’t where UAH is measuring.”

            Odd, I thought the troposphere was defined as “the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth’s surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles (6–10 km), which is the lower boundary of the stratosphere.” It seems like a weather station would probably be contained in there somewhere.

      • Exactly.

        In fact, it’s not just in two different places. All the temperature indices are composites of temperatures measured in many different places.

        They vary in where the temperatures are measured, in how they are measured, and even in what temperatures are measured (e.g., air temperatures 2 meters off the ground, air temperatures averaged over the lower troposphere, water temperatures at the water intake manifold depth of ships, surface water temperatures from water scooped up with buckets from moving ships, etc.).

        Rising GHG levels are expected to reduce the temperature lapse rate, so one would expect satellite-based measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere to rise more rapidly than temperatures measured two meters above the ground, and to rise much more rapidly than water temperatures. But that’s not what we’re seeing, obviously.

        Since there are so many different places and ways in which temperature can be measured, some thought should be given to where and how temperatures should be measured, for a practical, meaningful temperature index. That never seems to happen.

        Someone who’s trying to make the case that warming is great enough to be plausibly harmful should use an index of temperatures in the warmest parts of the Earth, because those are the only places where temperatures could be considered to be already warm enough. But they rarely do that, because the tropics aren’t warming very fast, so the numbers don’t seem scary. Instead, activists use indexes like GISS, which is inflated by Arctic amplification — i.e., warming where, by any sane measure, it is way, way too cold, so warming is beneficial.

      • “Measured in two different places, one surface, one troposphere.”

        That’s been my point for ages. Temperature readings at one location have no direct relationship to another place 5000 miles away. Therefore averaging them together is completely meaningless.

    • Roy Spencer’s opinion seems to have been derived from his observations whereas Gavin Schmidt’s observations seem to have been derived from his opinion.

  12. This is nicely done. Gold Star!

    I have two minor issues.

    1st: the term “fertilizer” usually is used for such things that are applied to soils or to plant leaves. Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potassium are things that folks are familiar with.
    Carbon Dioxide is an essential compound of food or fuel.
    This is an essential issue some folks do not understand, such as when they think there ought not be any CO2 in the air.

    2nd: The Petition Project has grown old and because there are a few “funny” additions (so I have read), some have discredited it. Still we (John & Nancy) put our names there many years ago.
    There may be a better way of including this concept. Perhaps just several well know scientists that have resigned from professional organizations because they object to the consensus.

    Finally, noting a few of the predictions – with a graphic or a photo – that shows “a fail” would be helpful.
    Consider a list of statements that the Arctic would be ice-free by some year, with a photo of the Arctic ice beside the list.
    Pointing out the failures is, I think, a stronger argument than citing a list of people. Recall the claim of Albert Einstein (true or not) that one person, if right, can discredit a theory.

    Again, minor issues. This is a great post by Dave Burton. Thanks.

    • Thanks, John.

      I don’t believe there are any “funny names” on the Global Warming Petition, though there are by now quite a few dead people.

      Dishonest climate activists repeatedly tried to Gleick the Petition Project, by submitting forged credentials for fictitious scientists. In one case one of them succeeded in getting a fictitious scientist briefly listed, using the name of one of the Spice Girls band, with fake credentials. But that forged signature was removed as soon as it was identified, long ago. You may read about that incident in the FAQ.

      It is telling that climate activists cite that incident, of climate activist’s dishonesty, as if it somehow impugned the trustworthiness of Dr. Art Robinson and the Petition Project.

      I have a slightly longer version of the critique on my web site, here:
      https://sealevel.info/CNN_announces_climate_crisis_town_hall02.html

      That version includes a graph which I accidentally omitted when submitting this piece to Anthony & Charles. (Oops!) The graph illustrates uncertainty in quantifying global warming, by contrasting different global temperature indices.

  13. The Politics says is: “We don’t need no damned facts. This isn’t about facts about climate and weather, this is about power!”

  14. Whoever comes up with the costliest, most extreme “plan” wins. All the others get voted off the island.

  15. Hey Anthony,

    Why don’t you ask Peter Gleick if he can knock you up a false ID so you can get into the show??

  16. “no public tickets will be available.” Then call it a Rotary meeting or something; it’s not a town hall.

    • Nick Stokes asked, “Oahu is “an old, tectonically-stable island”?”

      Yes, Oahu is an old, tectonically-stable island.

      Well, like all the Hawaiian islands, it is moving horizontally, to the NW, about three inches per year. But not vertically.

      The Hawaiian Islands are strung out in a line from NW (oldest) to SE (newest).

      The Big Island (at the SE end of the line) is newest, and has four active volcanoes.

      NW of it is Maui, which is 2nd-newest, and has one active volcano.

      Then come Lanai, Moloka’i, Oahu, and Kauai, in that order. None of them have any active volcanoes.

      Oahu is several million years old, which is about four times the age of the Big Island.

      The volcanoes on Oahu are believed to have been inactive for well over a million years.

      Here’s a nifty diagram:
      https://geology.com/usgs/hawaiian-hot-spot/hawaii-hotspot-cross-section.jpg

      Peltier’s ICE-6G(VM5a) estimate is that Honolulu is experiencing just 0.10 mm/yr uplift. Ref:
      http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~peltier/datasets/Ice6G_C_VM5a_O512/drsl.PSMSL.ICE6G_C_VM5a_O512.txt

      As you can see, the CORS plot is flat as a pancake:
      ftp://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cors/Plots/Longterm/hnlc_08.long.png

      SONEL’s analysis indicates that Honolulu is subsiding (rather than rising), but just 0.23 ±0.18 mm/yr:
      http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=693
      Screenshot:
      https://sealevel.info/Honolulu_HNLC_SONEL_2017-08.png

      All those numbers are tiny: +0.1 and -0.23 are opposite sign but not far apart. In other words, the models and measurements agree that Oahu is very tectonically stable.

      Oahu is a near-ideal location for measuring sea-level. Not only does Oahu experience little or no vertical land motion, it also gets only small tides, and its mid-Pacific location is near the pivot point of the east-west Pacific “teeter-totter,” so it is little affected by ENSO “slosh.”

      The only thing atypical about Honolulu’s sea-level measurement record is its very high quality. The trend there (about +1½ mm/year = 6 inches/century) is perfectly typical.

      • Your Hawaiian Hot Spot graphic is nice but doesn’t tell the whole story. The Hawaiian Island Chain stretches all the way NW to the Emperor Seamounts. Midway Island is also on the chain. That Hot Spot has been there a long time.

    • Nick,
      What are your thoughts on CNN, Steyer, and the 10 folks to appear?
      And will you be watching the full 7 hours?
      And should it be called a “town hall” meeting given the restricted access?

  17. I noticed this in a paragraph that is mostly true, and this statement is an exception to that paragraph: “It has had NO detectable effect on sea-level trends”

    I suggest saying “statistically significant” (in a qualified subset of sea level records) in place of “detectable”.

    A historically frequent article poster here at WUWT recently detected an acceleration of the rising sea level trend, and did his work to show that the acceleration was about 1/3 of what was claimed by an authority that he was complaining against. However, apparently he felt some need to write a statement that is easy to interpret as a claim that sea level rise acceleration is nonexistent, after he shows his work of deriving sea level rise being .76 mm/year greater in 1993-2013 than in 1972-1992. (He worked that out in opposition to a claim of sea level rise acceleration being about 3 times greater than that, accelerated by 2.1 mm/year.) The statement that he wrote and whose wording I complain about: “And this makes it very likely that Church and White are manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists … bad scientists, no cookies.” I complain that the author there felt some need to write a statement that is easy to read as a claim that sea level rise had no acceleration at all, instead of .76 (+/- .5) mm/year. The “manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists” and .76 +/- .5 mm/year acceleration statements are both in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-acceleration-factory/

    • Well, okay, Donald, but I would argue that if there’s no statistically significant acceleration then there’s no detectable acceleration, because if it’s not statistically significant then it hasn’t truly been detected.

      It is well established in the literature that 20 years is nowhere near long enough to find a robust trend in tide gauge data. You need about sixty years, or close to it. Otherwise you are likely to detect an apparent acceleration or deceleration which is really just an artifact of multidecadal oscillatory patterns, like the AMO. I have collection of references which make that point, here:
      https://www.sealevel.info/papers.html#howlong

      This is one of them, from NOAA:
      http://pages.citebite.com/i3c5o5e8tyff

      A derived inverse power relationship indicates that 50-60 years of data are required to obtain a trend with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.5 mm/yr. This dependence on record length is caused by the interannual variability in the observations. A series of 50-year segments were used to obtain linear MSL trends for the stations with over 80 years of data. None of the stations showed consistently increasing or decreasing 50-year MSL trends, although there was statistically significant multidecadal variability on the U.S. east coast with higher rates in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and lower rates in the 1960s and 1970s.

      Fortunately, we have many measurement records with more than sixty years of data. In fact, we have quite a few with more than a century of data. At Honolulu we have 114.5 years of continuous measurements, without even a single month missing.

      The great majority of the best long measurement records show no significant acceleration or deceleration in the sea-level trend since the late 1920s, or in many cases even earlier.

      When subjected to quadratic regression, some, like Honolulu, show an insignificant deceleration, others show an insignificant acceleration. It doesn’t matter: in most cases the changes in trend are statistically insignificant, and in all cases they are practically insignificant.

      Some sites did see a small but detectable acceleration before that, however, coincident with recovery from the Little Ice Age, in the late 1800s or the first three decades of the 20th century. The most dramatic example I know of is Brest, France. The sea-level trend there during the 19th century was zero, but the sea-level trend since 1900 has been +1.5 mm/year. Here’s a pair of graphs which show the difference:
      https://sealevel.info/190-091_Brest_1807-1900_vs_1900-2016.png

      Yet, even at Brest, which saw the largest acceleration of any long, high-quality, measurement record, the acceleration was negligible from a practical standpoint, amounting to a difference of just six inches in a century.

      Thus far, there’s no evidence of significantly accelerating sea-level rise as a result of rising CO2 levels, but it would not shock me if we did eventually see a very slight acceleration. The transition from LIA to the current climate optimum, which is generally estimated to have seen an average of about 1°C of warming, saw sea-level trends increase by at most +1.5 mm/yr (less, in most places). It is plausible that another 1°C of warming could have a similar effect, but that’s so slight that it would still lack practical significance, even if it achieved statistical significance.

  18. Dave, I’m in Belgrade, Serbia this morning. Our tour guides refer to the post WWII to 1989 period as “The Communism” I’m thinking that the 1988 – ???? Era will some day be known as “The Warmunism”

    As was pointed out in other comments, CO2 is more than fertilizer, it is an essential ingredient in our atmosphere. Every carbon atom in your body was once CO2 in the atmosphere.

  19. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, that climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite that hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So if mankind stopped using fossil fuels altogether, doing so would have no effect on climate. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. But even if we could stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate so why bother?

  20. Obi-Wan Kenobi must have been thinking of the upcoming CNN Clown “Town Hall Kabuki Theater” when he uttered that famous line, “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

  21. Being nearly two decades TV free, the Corrupt News Networks are easy to avoid; ‘cept what y’all post here.

  22. We burn octane C8H18 in our vehicles.
    2(C8 H18) + 25 O2 ========> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O…………….the white puffy stuff from stacks is water vapour condensing, NOT CO2 as CO2 is colorless and odorless. CO2 is however, a by-product of combustion. no doubt.

    6CO2 + 12 H2O ===with chlorophyll and sunlight=====> C6H12O6 (glucose or plant mass) + 6 O2 and 6 H2O
    This folks is photosynthesis. O2 is the by-product. The glucose (plant mass) was transformed into hydro-carbons. Carbon is the basis of life and all organic compounds contain carbon. Carbon is also in steel, concrete, all synthetics and a host of other materials. Wood is about 50% carbon, eating veggies is eating carbon. I ask people, when photosynthesis takes place what happens to the carbon atom? The plant retains the carbon atom and it becomes the building block of the plant. Animals (humans) are about 18% carbon. CO2 has very, very little to do with climate, temperature or the like. the seas around Miami are not rising, Miami is sinking, too many heavy buildings being constructed on what was fill. The sea level around Churchill, Manitoba for example show signs of lowering, not true, the land mass is rising in relation to the sea level (isostatic rebound from the melting glaciers) opposite of Miami. No need to panic, the climate driver is the Sun and the workings of the Solar System (Milankovitch cycle). Best to worry that it will soon get a lot colder as we are entering a period of solar quiescence, a Grand Minimum!!

  23. Why does the article assume that there are no leftists who reject, or are at lest skeptical, of the global warming hysteria. There is no doubt that climates change. It would be absurd to think otherwise. However, I reject the human caused CO2 increase as the sole determinant because it posits a kind of “static Earth” hypothesis. I find much of the discourse post-modernist, in that it tends to be a-historical and a-theoretical. Post modernism is not “left”. In fact, it is the degenerate offspring of several philosophical trends including neo-Kantianism, the Frankfurt School, existentialism and American pragmatism. They are currently beating the drums regarding Hurricane Dorian, for sure, a very powerful storm. But if it is, as they say, the most powerful storm on the planet this year, this also means that the Pacific has been unusually quiet.

  24. Data, facts, and the true scientific process leads to the truth and sound future policies. Mr. Burton’s statements should be recognized. All else is political posturing.

  25. Just when we think we are oh so clever the climate disaster industry dupes millions from $trillions .

    Scary global warming has replaced religion …well because we can see the seas rise …can’t we ?

    Isn’t the Arctic ice free … OK… but any year now , right big AL ,and only 11 years left for earth as we know it claims a bar tender so powerful she ran off Amazon almost single handed .

    The people running this show are the witch burners of yesteryear and the flock are arguably denser .

  26. Have you ever tried to talk someone out of their religion ?
    This fraud has the same makings .
    We have stopped believing in so many things
    the scary global warming industry provides comfort to those that crave to belong
    to a virtuous cause .

    North Koreans hate America because they have been brain washed to do so .

    For the most part MSM has been pumping the global warming industry tires for 2 decades
    without question . Surprise surprise people are gift wrapped to the cause .
    Wars have been fought over less .

Comments are closed.