Seth Borenstein, Climate Gloom & Doom: “Déjà vu all over again”

Guest Yogi Berra-ism by David Middleton

September 25, 2019

NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.

Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.

AP Series: What Can Be Saved

It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.

“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “The changes are accelerating.”

[…”Déjà vu all over again”…]

AP

This immediately made me think of one of my all-time favorite baseball players, coaches and managers: Lawrence “Yogi” Berra.

izquotes.com

Why did I think of the Yogi Berra quote?

June 29, 1989

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says.

The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

[…]

AP

Setting aside the nonsense about sea level rise and the fact that Noel Brown is a moronic left-wing bureaucrat with no scientific education, training or knowledge, this bit is hil-fracking-larious:

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

Noel Brown, moronic bureaucrat
Figure 1. HadCRU4 and UAH v6.0 since 1989 (° C). Wood for Trees.

Warming since 1989 based on linear trend lines:

  • HadCRUT4 0.54 °C (0.96 °F)
  • UAHv6.0 0.42 °C (0.76 °F)

“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years” was…

“Déjà vu all over again”

Seth Borenstein’s current version of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is based upon the latest UN hoax, which relied on the now-retracted Resplandy et al., 2018. It’s a laundry list of totally unsubstantiated, speculative and/or out-of-context claims:

— Seas are now rising at one-seventh of an inch (3.66 millimeters) a year, which is 2.5 times faster than the rate from 1900 to 1990.

— The world’s oceans have already lost 1% to 3% of the oxygen in their upper levels since 1970 and will lose more as warming continues.

—From 2006 to 2015, the ice melting from Greenland, Antarctica and the world’s mountain glaciers has accelerated. They are now losing 720 billion tons (653 billion metric tons) of ice a year.

—Arctic June snow cover has shrunk more than half since 1967, down nearly 1 million square miles (2.5 million square kilometers).

—Arctic sea ice in September, the annual low point, is down almost 13% per decade since 1979. This year’s low, reported Monday, tied for the second-lowest on record.

—Marine animals are likely to decrease 15%, and catches by fisheries in general are expected to decline 21% to 24%, by the end of century because of climate change.

“Déjà vu all over again”

I don’t have the time or patience right now to shoot down every claim on the list (some are addressed here); but the first one is easy.

Seas are now rising at one-seventh of an inch (3.66 millimeters) a year, which is 2.5 times faster than the rate from 1900 to 1990.

I don’t think so.

Figure 2. Sea Level – NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The y-axis is sea level variation (mm), “with respect to 20-year TOPEX/Jason collinear mean reference”. In the data download, NASA includes the standard deviation. I had no idea it was that large.

Since 1993, actual SLR has been 3.0 mm/yr. From 1900-1990, it was 2.0 mm/yr.

Figure 3a. Eustatic ea level reconstruction from tide gauge data (Jevrejeva et al., 2014). Note rock pick added for scale.

3.0 mm/yr is 0.5 times as fast as 2.0 mm/yr, not 2.5 times as fast.

(Correction: 3.0 mm/yr is 50% faster than 2.0 mm/yr; which would be 1.5 times as fast as 2.0 mm/yr.)

“Eustatic” refers to eustacy…

Eustacy

Of or pertaining to worldwide sea level.

Dictionary of Geological Terms. American Geological Institute. Archer Press, 1976

Eustatic means that it has been corrected for local/regional uplift and/or subsidence of the land (isostacy). Tide gauge reconstructions have to be eustatically corrected. The Climate Crime Syndicate currently tacks 0.3 mm/yr onto the satellite data, as a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). This is bogus. The satellites are measuring changes in sea surface elevation: Eustatic sea level. The GIA is added because there isn’t enough SLR to account for their wildly exaggerated claims of Antarctic ice loss.

And there’s nothing anomalous about 3.0-3.2 mm/yr of SLR.

Figure 3b. Eustatic ea level reconstruction from tide gauge data (Jevrejeva et al., 2014). Note rock pick added for scale.

The rate of SLR from 1929-1963 was the same as the rate has been since 1993. Sea level was actually falling from 1808-1861 at a rate of 1.7 mm/yr. Sea level was very likely 1-6 m higher than it currently is for much of the past 3,000 years.

Figure 4. Global last 7,000 years, error bars omitted.

One thing to always keep in mind with efforts to estimate eustatic sea level: The error bars are always large.

Figure 5. Global since Younger Dryas. Note the error bar is ±12 meters.

“Earth is in more hot water than ever before…”

I suppose I should have started with the mind-numbingly stupid first sentence in the article.

Figure 6. Earth is actually in more cold water than >95% of the Cenozoic Era. Deep ocean temperature change from benthic foram δ18O (Older is toward the right.)

Seth Borenstein earns a Billy Madison medal, with a Noel Brown oak leaf cluster-frack.

References

Brock, J.C.,  M. Palaseanu-Lovejoy, C.W. Wright, & A. Nayegandhi. (2008). “Patch-reef morphology as a proxy for Holocene sea-level variability, Northern Florida Keys, USA”. Coral Reefs. 27. 555-568. 10.1007/s00338-008-0370-y. 

Jevrejeva, S. , J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted, A.P. Matthews, G. Spada. 2014.  “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807”.  Global and Planetary Change. %vol 113, 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.12.004 https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2014.php

Siddall M, Rohling EJ, Almogi-Labin A, Hemleben C, Meischner D, Scmelzer I, Smeed DA (2003). “Sea-level fluctuations during the last glacial cycle”. Nature 423:853–858 LINK

Zachos, J. C., Pagani, M., Sloan, L. C., Thomas, E. & Billups, K. “Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present”. Science 292, 686–-693 (2001).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
119 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phil Rae
October 1, 2019 2:08 am

Typo, David! Just after the graph with the geologist hammer, it should say 3.0mm/ur is 1.5 times 2.0 mm/year. Apart from that, great article! Thanks.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Phil Rae
October 1, 2019 8:35 am

Yes 1.5 times as fast or 0.5 times faster…

stonehenge
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 1, 2019 9:53 am

Sorry Michael, Phil is correct and David M. has made a rare mistake here. Your “0.5 TIMES faster” means half as fast, i.e., SLOWER, so your second option has it ba$$ackwards.

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  David Middleton
October 1, 2019 1:39 pm

Be very carefull with stating relative faster. If it was not rising, then any rising would be a million times faster.
Or how would you descripe it when it was falling and then started rising.
By the way sealevel relative to land has been rising 2mm/year for almost as long as it has been measured.

Dale Mullen
Reply to  Phil Rae
October 1, 2019 11:46 am

Actually, these claims are above those “claimed” by NOAA on their Tides & Currents web site. If we find the mean of the levels they’ve provided for several hundred stations, we find the sea level to be changing by only 1.36 mm/yr. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html
It will take quite a while for Seth to reach “his” goal.

chaamjamal
October 1, 2019 2:17 am

“oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen”
and then there is the ocean heat content thing to worry about
all explained so well in the latest IPCC Special Report

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/01/agw-oceans/

Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 1, 2019 5:44 am

Thank you for that reference to the “chaamjamal” post.

Dudley Horscroft
October 1, 2019 2:23 am

Strange – I prefer listening to scientists rather than to alarmists.

Curious George
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 1, 2019 10:41 am

One more prediction by usual suspects. It’s getting boring. Very boring.

Editor
October 1, 2019 2:24 am

Thanks, David, for the “Just a Bit Outside” video link. Many years ago, I lived in Southern Wisconsin and had the pleasure of listening to Bob Eucker doing the radio play-by-play for the Milwaukee Brewers. It was common for Brewers fans to watch the game on TV but listen to Eucker on the radio. He made you smile and laugh, even if the Brewers were losing.

Regards,
Bob

George Steele
Reply to  David Middleton
October 1, 2019 5:53 am

I prefer beer with my brats having lived in Milwaukee when this new guy, Hank Aaron, lived in my apartment building.
If you do beets, well, each to his own taste.

Editor
Reply to  George Steele
October 1, 2019 6:00 am

George, David’s typos in that comment are entertaining.

Regards,
Bob

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  George Steele
October 1, 2019 6:34 am

And “brats”, not “brat’s”.

George Steele
Reply to  David Middleton
October 1, 2019 6:57 am

As a UW graduate, I resemble that remark!

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
October 1, 2019 3:16 pm

As long as the brats aren’t beaten for playing euchre for money, I don’t see a problem.
(Are all these marching climate brats, except for Grrrreta, from Milwaukee?)

beng135
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2019 7:36 am

Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer
Those days of soda and pretzels and beer

Unfortunately summer is coming to an end…..

Ferd III
October 1, 2019 2:28 am

You can go back to the 1880s and read the same alarmist tripe. Year after year. Decade after decade. Same bloody stupidity and ridiculous extreme claims of eco-geddon due to plant food. There is no greenhouse and plant food falls out of climate, 95% emitted by Mummy earth.

These buffoons just recycle the same trash, add a few long sentences, made-up data, unsubstantiated fraudulent graphs and re-sell it to an eager self-loathing, scientifically illiterate fake news, fake education and public. I can clearly remember many high school classes some time ago, in which it was guaranteed that plant food would cause the next ice age. 100% consensus. Now it is the trace chemical necessary for life will cause everything including remarkably, massive sea level increases and both hot/cold weather. Just bloody stupid.

Goldrider
Reply to  Ferd III
October 1, 2019 7:52 am

They’re ramping up the hysteria now because the writing is on the wall that we’re entering a new Solar Minimum which is going to shoot their theory down the (iced-up) can! So they’ve got to implement the New World Central Planning Totalitarian Order while the going is good and they can still scare small children and CNN watchers out of their pants because it’s 80 degrees on a lovely summer day. I noticed they started to uncork this with a worldwide-coordinated online effort from June of this year on.

Hammer the narrative enough, useful idiots will think it’s true . . . meanwhile, I don’t see anyone giving up cars, planes, or central heating. We are living in a post-factual world.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Goldrider
October 1, 2019 10:05 am

We turned on the central heat this morning for the first time this Autumn. Burning all that natural gas. Later today, I’ll drive our ICE car to do some chores. Later tthis week, we’ll fly all the way across the country.

We must be bad people.

griff
Reply to  Goldrider
October 1, 2019 11:01 am
Bryan A
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 12:30 pm

But since 1989, when the Spielmann article was originally published, 10 years has already come and gone and no irreversible climate wierdification has occurred. And, although he didn’t specify C or F in his 1 – 7 deg rise from 1989 at 0.96F (•HadCRUT4 0.54 °C (0.96 °F)) is close enough to 1F to make his prediction only a hair outside and to the left

Joel Snider
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 12:50 pm

So… this is THE research, is it?

James Clarke
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 12:56 pm

‘THE research…” as if this climate model study is the only ‘research’ there is! I would argue that climate model studies aren’t actually ‘research’ at all, at least not research into the real world. The only thing they are researching is the virtual world, built from what little we know about climate change and the modeler’s large assumptions.

The ice cores reveal that the previous interglacials reached their maximum temperatures about a quarter of the way through, and then slowly cooled back into a glacial period over the next 10,000 years. The same thing is happening now, with the LIA being the coldest period of the Holocene so far. We are still on the bumpy ride down to glaciation, and all else being equal, we should be heading for a cooling period cooler than the little ice age. We can only hope our CO2 emissions slow this process.

Since the models do not account for this bumpy ride down to glaciation, and apparently grossly overestimate the positive feedbacks from a small CO2 induced warming, they are essentially useless for prediction. Their only purpose has always been to improve themselves by comparison to observations, and thus improve our understanding of climate. But this is not being done, as the models are not corrected to match reality at all. Efforts continue to change reality to match the models, in direct opposition to the scientific method.

Thus the models no longer have a scientific purpose. They are only useful to flush out the contents of UN studies with words that sound scientific. Otherwise, those studies would be very short, and simply say: “Play by our rules or we will kill you!” Such a vapid threat would be universally ignored. The models are an attempt to give the threat more substance and gravitas.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 1:12 pm

It took multiple weak solar cycles to do it in the past (SC 12-16) and multiple strong cycles to go back up. One weak cycle with extended minimum is probably not enough, but at least we have much more measurement systems to see the effects of one or two weak cycles in succession like 24-25.

The debate on a single minimum or cycle is probably flawed and associated with weak correlations and impact.

https://leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
slide 18

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 2:19 pm

In griff’s world, playing a broken model over and over again counts as research.
On the other hand going out into the real world and gathering actual data is just not how science is done.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2019 4:21 pm

Not just research – THE research.

Latitude
Reply to  griff
October 1, 2019 2:43 pm

What a stupid article….cold for the northern hemisphere…and not a word about the other half

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
October 2, 2019 2:22 am

The “research” Griff cites is based entirely on modelling. It is therefore essentially worthless.

Sunny
October 1, 2019 2:47 am

Wait a minute, the ipcc has been saying the same thing since at least 1989? Same with the U.N. which stated their lies years before that, and nobody, not one out spoken fact speaking scientist or the News media has picked up on these constant repetitive lies 😐 This can’t be true! I mean millions of people, including the world government’s, news media, can’t be that blind and uneducated??? Seriously!

paul rossiter
Reply to  Sunny
October 1, 2019 3:58 am

It’s because there is a crowd madness that has a need to hear such things:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/understanding-the-climate-movement-the-impotence-of-science/
What else could explain the longevity of the scam?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  paul rossiter
October 1, 2019 4:55 am

paul rossiter,

You ask, “What else could explain the longevity of the scam?”

The anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW) scare is a bandwagon. People do not need to be encouraged to join or to stay on the bandwagon when it is going in the direction they all want to go.

Never underestimate the power of a coincidence of interests.

* People of every political ideology can use the scare to further their objectives, and they do.
*’Carpet baggers’ can reap financial harvests from solar powered and wind powered subsidy farms.
* ‘Developing’ countries can seek benefits indirectly from handicapping developed countries with GHG emission limits and directly from ‘climate reparations.
* etc.

It is a pity that the scare is not and never has been a conspiracy because it would have fallen apart by now if it were.

Richard

James Francisco
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 1, 2019 7:30 am

Coinsidence of interests. Wish I had thought of that phrase. I love to learn about or see coinsidences. I saw one about a month ago. My car and my brother in law’s car had the drivers side power windows quit in the down position at the same time. On top of that a rain cloud was comming. The cars were about 5ft apart.

Andrew Dickens
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 1, 2019 12:57 pm

It has become too big to fail.

James Clarke
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 1, 2019 1:12 pm

Add to the ‘coincidence of interests’ list:

The media – furthering their objectives by selling the climate crisis for attention and ‘clicks’.

Academia – furthering their objectives by selling the climate crisis for attention and grants.

Politicians and bureaucrats – furthering their objectives by selling the climate crisis for attention, votes and power!

There are a whole lot of people on the bandwagon and all of them are willing to shoot anyone who tries to get off!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  paul rossiter
October 1, 2019 7:22 am

“What else could explain the scam?”

– Billionaires looking to fleece the vast middle class with their wind and solar schemes by buying politicians and media outlets like AP (Borenstein’s employer).

– The UN’s and globalists’ quest for power.

Alasdair
Reply to  Sunny
October 1, 2019 7:56 am

It’s been picked up alright Sunny; but all severely squashed by a great big Monty Python Foot.
Government rules by votes and votes are ruled by perceived fear and false promises.
It all gets very hysterical when global government sticks its nose in.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Sunny
October 1, 2019 10:09 am

How long has Paul Ehrlich been predicting global calamity “in 10 years”? And people continue to support that story.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sunny
October 1, 2019 12:53 pm

‘I mean millions of people, including the world government’s, news media, can’t be that blind and uneducated??? Seriously!’

History suggests that, yes, they can.
Especially when the worst of it is coming from the educators.

I posted this in response to Clyde Spencer below, but I’m feeling lazy today so here it is again:

You’re encountering the tail of the dragon – this is hardly restricted to climate change.

What we’re really facing his a hardline, absolutely close-minded, ideological bigotry that is as absolute as it is hypocritical. There ARE no opinions that are not predetermined.

You can perhaps isolate cause – public schools funnel into universities, who farm their ideas out to politicians and media, both entertainment and ‘news’. And how many people REALLY question what the teachers tell them? In point of fact, most people I know actually resist learning something that challenges their world view.

But cause versus solution? At this point, I don’t even know what to do anymore – it take a minute to explain why AGW isn’t a problem – hard to get out in the face of screaming epithets – and with the deluge of messaging out their people aren’t even able to perceive the real results of the policies that they THINK are supposed to save the planet – the modern press is Goebbels wet-dream – he was a propaganda minister for one little country in Europe – the modern Internet is instantaneous and all over the planet… and there is no conscience guiding it.

Nothing scares me less than C02 – but nothing scares me more than people who ARE scared of it. A frightened animal is the most dangerous kind.

Sommer
Reply to  Sunny
October 1, 2019 1:35 pm

This is indeed a serious situation. We have young people who are depressed and unable to imagine their future because they’ve been brainwashed their whole life. In order to achieve academic success, they’ve had to regurgitate the lies they were taught. They’ve been forced to use text books and research material filled with misinformation. They’re afraid to even consider the possibility that the information they’ve been forced to believe could be false.
If they would go for psychological counselling, would counsellors be able to sort out fact from fiction?

alankwelch
October 1, 2019 2:52 am

What if Homo Sapiens had branched from Homo Erectus 20,000 years earlier, or had developed about 5% quicker, then the Industrial Revolution may have occurred about 20,000 years ago with the last Ice Age just about to finish. Sea levels – about 130 metres below todays level – would be just beginning to slowly rise at a similar rate as now. All the climate parameters would probably be changing similar to now. There would be shouts of accelerating sea level rise and hockey sticks, assuming hockey had been invented. The British Guardian paper would have headlines like “Where’s a Swedish schoolgirl when the Climate Emergency needs one” followed by a letter to The Times pointing out Sweden doesn’t exist as it was under kilometres of ice. Where would the Cities be? The east coast of South America would have been many tens, or hundreds, of miles to the East and despite all of Man’s sacrifices to “solve” climate change would have to continually move inland. Florida would have been over twice as big; think of all the extra real estate you could build on that. We now know what really happened and that seas rose 130 metres without Man’s help. As I have pointed out previously the thickness of the line on the graph in Wikipedia showing “Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise” in equivalent to about a 2 metre change and all that has occurred since 1800 and may occur up to 2100 is masked by this line. Nature is bigger than Man and works on totally different time scales.

bonbon
Reply to  alankwelch
October 1, 2019 3:17 am

A study (I’ll dig it up) showed the murder of Archimedes held back the industrial revolution by 1000 years. That means we would have been on the Moon by 1500, when Columbus just managed to cross the Atlantic. Where would we be now? How about a full fusion economy with settlements on Mars.

After that study, they found the Antikythera computer from 220BC, now shown to be a full astronomical calculator.

Man’s timescales speed up based on development, or stopped by a pervasive reptilian oligarchy known as the swamp.

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  bonbon
October 1, 2019 6:44 am

Yep. Icke looks prescient. Why else would the delay occur?

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 1, 2019 7:34 am

I had a math teacher in high school who said pretty much the same thing about the burning of the Library in Alexandria.

October 1, 2019 3:04 am

“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.”…. That’s not a conservative scientific estimate, it’s not even a scientific estimate or even an estimate. It’s a guess, a wild guess with a 6-degree range based on nothing at all scientific in it.
A chimpanzee with a dice could give you a better figure.

Abolition Man
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
October 1, 2019 3:52 am

A chimpanzee with dice would probably cheat him out of his lunch money! Wait, have chimpanzees learned how to lie like climate alarmists?

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 1, 2019 8:44 am

Well, they _have_ learned what behaviors get them food….

the alarmists, I mean.

Flight Level
October 1, 2019 3:30 am

Sea levels rising ? That means rising for both poor and rich I presume.

Nonetheless, I am not aware of newly designed pressurized private jets on floats.

Which somehow means that sea rising is not a concern for those preaching it.

That’s why they keep ordering private aircraft that rely on dryland runways for their operation. And obviously the kerosene that goes with.

Sunny
Reply to  Flight Level
October 1, 2019 4:49 am

Flight level …. obama and his best friend, The all CO2 seeing actress, would like to tell us that the sea is rising, and we will all drown, They will be telling you this from Obamas New 15 million dollar marthas vinyard house, which is almost at sea level… So give up everything so obama and his scam gang can enjoy his sea level mansion…. lol

Ron Long
October 1, 2019 3:50 am

Good posting, David, along with the prior also. Here’s my take-away_ in 1989 the UN said we only have 10 years to fix the anthropogenic damage to the climate before it runs away beyond any human control. Since I am not math challenged I easily calculate 1989 plus 10 is somewhere around 20 years ago, ie, beyond human control. I think I will go play golf.

Michael in Dublin
October 1, 2019 3:57 am

Are the actions called for by climate alarmists not the greatest legalized fraud in history? Governments are raking in billions – soon trillions – through “carbon taxes” and then rewarding a small privileged group of people with climate engineering contracts. These con the naive masses that they have the ability to significantly change climate. If they promised to turn hotter places into cooler and vice versa, to end droughts and floods, to ensure lower tides and less storms, we would laugh them to scorn. However, they wrap up their claims in scientific words and highly emotive language to get us to support their cause.

“The future of humanity is at peril if we do not immediately reduce certain greenhouse gasses.” “All we have to do is stop using fossil fuels and spend huge sums of money to clean up all the CO2 we produced.” If we believe this, however, it is like we all buy tickets in the climate lottery. We will all be big winners – expect that this is not how lotteries work. They rip off a huge number of people while very few are winners. We simply prove we are suckers. Perhaps it would be wiser to expose these “climate gamblers” and “climate casinos” and rather use our taxes to adapt to and to use the climatic conditions to our advantage?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 1, 2019 6:58 am

“Are the actions called for by climate alarmists not the greatest legalized fraud in history?”

That’s the way it looks to me. All based on unsubstantiated claims about CO2.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 1, 2019 3:45 pm

What about “socialism is really, really good”?

Don’t think that one will ever be beaten.

Troe
October 1, 2019 4:06 am

A new study on the science underlying nutrtion recommendations on eating red meat is getting very wide press in the US at the moment. The study looked at the science behind the recommendations and found it to be very weak and useless in establishing links to cancer, heart diesease, or any other negative health effects. The resulting reactions have been very instructive and interesting to those following Climate Science.

Some nutrion scientists have attacked the study but not with evidence to the contrary. Some organizations who have long made claims based on the weak science have launched full panic mode attacks including attacks on the scientists involved. Quite a number of scientists involved in nutrion are quoted as saying they never believed the science was conclusive and over sold.

Best of all most of the journalists writing on the seem to believe the new study and their follow up but also point out that red meat production is a leading cause of harmful Climate Change. In other words the science behind the red meat scare is weak or non existent but we have other weak or non existent science handy Best par of this is that everyone has heard the scare stories and believes them about red meat consumption for many decades.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 4:50 am

yup adekaide tiser ran it today..and just HAD TO end it with regardless of being ok to eat or not, we should STILL not eat meat cos of “climate” damage.
Im hoping the goracle and the rest heavily invested in the fakemeat muck, really lose bigtime.
but odds are theyll rave it up jack the prices and then sell out fast leaving the gullibles with the losses as they usually do.

TonyL
Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 1, 2019 6:10 am

I had to web search that, I guess you meant the newspaper “Adelaide Advertiser”.
You would know this. Is the Adelaide Advertiser really 100.0% paid advertisements?
And they still charge for it?

icisil
Reply to  TonyL
October 1, 2019 6:59 am

Some papers use a business model that charges for the want ad paper, but runs ads for free.

Troe
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 6:09 am

Apologize for the many misspellings and grammatical errors. Hazard of writing a long post on a phone

icisil
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 6:27 am

People need to be aware that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R, FL) is using a back door approach to try to bring in climate legislation via the Super Pollutants Act. He pretends to be a big Trump supporter while working against him on climate. His approach is to bypass CO2 entirely and go for methane (what he calls a super pollutant) utilizing an incremental approach to regulate it. If he’s allowed to get his foot in the door, this would eventually touch oil/gas and meat production. He falsely claims methane is the biggest problem, which is not possible considering the facts that though methane absorbs 25 times the IR CO2 does, it is 225 times less abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 (1.8 ppm vs. 410 ppm); which means it is almost an order of magnitude weaker per unit volume than CO2 (1000%). Sounds like something Heartland Institute might want to look into.

http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/matt-gaetz-champions-super-pollutants-act-cut-down-greenhouse-gases

icisil
Reply to  icisil
October 1, 2019 6:48 am

IMO this type of legislation regulating methane would act like the CO2 endangerment finding.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
October 1, 2019 8:56 am

I went the wrong way on percent. CO2 absorbs 800% (9x), not 1000%, more IR than methane per unit volume of atmosphere.

jtom
Reply to  icisil
October 1, 2019 9:07 am

I think there might be a way to divide and conquer to destroy sny serious movement to eliminate meat.

Before Europeans came to North America, the bison population was estimated to be 100 million. There are now about 200,000. We replaced them with about 94 million head of cattle. Both are ruminants, and biologically close enough to interbreed.

It would be reasonable for an ecological group to want to restore the bison population to its ‘natural’ population. Support them. We can replace cattle with bison, and simply consume bison meat, until somone realizes that wrt methane production, it’s a distiction without a difference. But bison are ‘natural’.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
October 1, 2019 9:33 am

As I understand it, the Green New Deal was developed by capitalist groups in England. The socialists later co-opted it for their own purposes, and pure marxists condemn it because of its capitalist origins.

Gaetz, IMO, represents the crony capitalist faction of the Republican party that seeks to implement legislation favorable to their financial interests, rather than the national good (for example, favoring high immigrant rates to drive down wages). In other words, guarantee via legislation the success of economic sectors where their money is invested. As an example, invest heavily in, let’s say Beyond Meat, then push for legislation that increases the cost of beef via methane regulations; thus favoring fake meat because it becomes relatively more affordable than real meat due to the added and unnecessary regulatory costs (i.e., methane tax).

And as an analog example, realtors only make money when property is sold; the more homes that sell, the more money they make. Similarly, these green capitalists are trying to disrupt and overthrow the current economic order so that they can profit greatly in the new economic order.

MarkW
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 7:37 am

“Some nutrion scientists”

Nutrion, is that the boss form of a nutria?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 12:35 pm

You don’t really believe this study will be allowed to stand, do you?

Beef is a targeted industry and must be destroyed. All those decisions have really been made and are not to be questioned.

Now… up against the wall.

dunc
October 1, 2019 4:09 am

Somebody is missing the point:- you need fossil fuels for steel for green projects. You need fossil fuel for concrete for green projects. This is not to even consider the more esoteric rare earths and alloys

Sara
October 1, 2019 4:47 am

All this hysteria and ‘gimme some cash’ — it’s almost the same as those obnoxious tent preachers who rolled into town and tried to scare people. (“Elmer Gantry” was a movie, but still…) Anything, any kind of scam to unload your cash from you and put it into their own pockets, and at this point it’s on a much larger scale.

No beef? Eat kale instead? Kale is one of those plants that absorb oxalates and heavy metals like lead and thallium from the soil. When it’s prepped for food consumption, it deposits all that stuff in your precious system. Kale smoothies are a very popular “thing” with the hip crowd. But that’s what they want us to eat….

As Gilda used to say: I don’t THINK so!

This has been going on for decades as the article indicates, and nothing has happened. We’re all still here. If anything, we’re mostly saying “Here comes another scam. Wonder what it offers this time?” and we go on about our business. Throw their trash into the mail, or collect it and turn it into something useful, like a big billboard display on the highway that says ‘SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!”

James Francisco
Reply to  Sara
October 1, 2019 8:00 am

Sara. Maybe you are on to something. Kale drinking is poisoning their brains with heavy metals. I’ve been trying to figure out if this seemingly rise in stupidity is due to some substance or it has always been around and no one paid much attention to them.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
October 1, 2019 5:24 pm

There is a whole list of the heavy metals that kale and other commonly used plants, such as cabbage, broccoli and collard greens, absorb those metals if they are in the planting soil. Traces of nickel, lead, cadmium, aluminum, and arsenic are also common in greens, and this contamination affected both organic and standard produce samples.
The source? Its soil. “If it’s left in the ground, the leafy greens are going to take it up,” Hubbard told Craftmanship magazine. – Source: https://www.delish.com/food/a43162/kale-poison-thallium/

If kale hadn’t suddenly become such a fad and so popular with the hip crowd and ecohipppies, we probably wouldn’t know about this. But I don’t like kale, so for me it’s a moot point. Broccoli – well, I do like broccoli, but I don’t have it very often. Use these things judiciously, that’s all.

Bruce Cobb
October 1, 2019 5:13 am

“The changes are accelerating.” Yes. The Climate Lies are getting bigger, bolder, louder and more numerous.
Those kinds of changes, right?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 1, 2019 3:59 pm

I’ve always felt and predicted that as the scam unravels, they will have to lie harder. This to me is a good sign that it’s unraveling and they know it.

Plus, I keep seeing small signs of the fact that Trump is doing things behind the scenes (i.e. that the lamestream media don’t want to talk about. The polar bear researcher from the post the other day, claiming reduced funding, for example). The firing of EPA employees for having agendas unrelated to protecting the environment.

Mervyn
October 1, 2019 5:39 am

If all these climate change alarmists are so certain of their global warming prophecies, why do they not lay bets with bookmakers to win an absolute fortune?

I’ll tell you why. Because since the IPCC was set up, computer models have failed to get correct temperature trends in line with real world observational data, which means alarmists predictions and projections regarding the consequences of temperature rises can only be incorrect – GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.

October 1, 2019 5:54 am

You know the science is bunk when they roll out Saint Great Thunderbox…

Ask yourself, if they really believed the planet was coming to an end, would they not do something about it?

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 1, 2019 6:47 am

Scoldilocks will be very cwoss wiv you!

MarkW
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
October 1, 2019 7:39 am

To those who whine about poor Greta being picked on.

If you want to be treated like a non-combatant, stay off the battle field.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2019 4:20 pm

Historically, sixteen was plenty old enough for warfare.

And anyone concerned with the welfare of human shields shouldn’t hide behind one.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 1, 2019 4:16 pm

“Doing something” is something that they know nothing about. Telling other people, for money, to do something is the limit of their capability. Greta just adds another layer of telling people to do stuff. The irony, lost on her handlers is that she’s telling people to tell other people to do something about it. Hey, as long as telling people to fix the climate is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, why would they stop?

If it was a real problem, doers would step in and handle it.

Troe
October 1, 2019 6:03 am

Neglected to mention that a UN nutrition body had labeled red meat a carcinogen based on the non existent or weak science. Sounds very familiar

JimG1
Reply to  Troe
October 1, 2019 8:09 am

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/

Lots of folks in the health business fell for that scam and some still do.

dennisambler
October 1, 2019 6:17 am

“Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.”

Formerly of Environmental Defense and still an advisor. Founder member of Climate Action Network, a grouping of (now) 1100 NGO’s around the world. He is Vice-Chair at Climate Central: https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/people/michael_oppenheimer

dennisambler
October 1, 2019 6:37 am

“oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen”

I expect they are using the NOAA database:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives

“In order to measure changes that are due to ocean acidification we need to monitor very small pH changes in the global oceans. For example, anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) has caused a pH decrease of approximately 0.1, which is about a 26% increase in the hydrogen ion concentration over the past 100 years.”

“Monitoring these small changes requires very sensitive and reliable observations.

The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) World Ocean Database has a great deal of historical pH data (nearly 1/4 million profiles; Boyer et al., 2013 – Fig. 2.11).

The data collected prior to 1989 are typically not well documented and their metadata is incomplete; therefore, such data are of unknown and probably variable quality.

The reasons for this are manifold (see next section). The uncertainty of these older pH measurements is rarely likely to be less than 0.03 in pH, and could easily be as large as 0.2 in pH. [and yet they are stating that oceanic pH has decreased by 0.1, a factual claim, repeated constantly around the world]

This data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH over the last 100 years — the amount of pH change that would be expected to occur over the 100 years since the first seawater pH measurements, as a result of the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and assuming that the surface ocean composition remains in approximate equilibrium with respect to the atmosphere.”

“It is only since the 1990s that it has been possible to discern small pH changes in the ocean with reasonable confidence.

The figure in Feely (2008, updated version shown above) shows the changes in pH inferred from measured changes in the seawater carbonate system seen off Hawaii since 1988, when a regular time-series study was instituted there using the best available methods for measuring CO2 changes in seawater”

[Feely, a NOAA scientist, found that upper-ocean pH had, over the preceding one-and-a-half decades, decreased by approximately 0.026 units, equivalent to an average annual pH change of -0.0017, over a large section of the northeastern Pacific. He commented: “The pH decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification of a large portion of the North Pacific Ocean,” said Richard Feely. “These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean over a 15-year period.”
Approximately…to three and four decimal places!

“Over the years, pH has been expressed on one of four different scales: (1) the total hydrogen scale, [H+]T; (2) the free hydrogen scale [H+]F, (3) the seawater scale, [H+]SW, and (4) the NBS scale aH(NBS) (Dickson, 1984; Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow, 2007). The differences in the respective pH values can be significant.

Unfortunately, a large number of the earlier data sets submitted to the National Ocean Data Center does not include any information indicating how pH was calibrated (and thus the pH scale being used).

Whether measured on a ship or back in a shore-based laboratory, pH results have to be corrected back to the in situ temperature at which the samples were originally collected to provide an estimate of the in situ pH.
If the difference between the temperature of measurement (usually around room temperature) and the in situ temperature is more than 7 degrees Centigrade, these corrections can be quite large (>0.1 pH units).

Unfortunately, much of the supporting metadata (records of the measurement temperature, the in situ temperature and the mathematical formula for conversion of the data from one temperature to the other) was not given to NCEI along with the data files (Boyer et al., 2013).

Hence, in many cases, we are not certain what pH value is being reported (measured versus in situ). We suspect that a significant fraction of the historical pH values were reported at laboratory temperature and were never corrected back to the in situ temperature. In many cases, the measurement temperature was not reported as part of the metadata package, making later temperature correction impossible (Boyer et al., 2013).

The lack of information as to whether the pH values were reported as measured versus in situ, and the lack of documentation on measurement temperature will lead to large pH uncertainties in the earlier database.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  dennisambler
October 1, 2019 3:45 pm

If only they’d found an old tree ring floating around out there ….

Mike McHenry
October 1, 2019 7:43 am

SLR It looks they are using the old trick of attaching 2 different datasets to one another. In this case the tide gauges until 1993 and there after the satelite.

Nicholas McGinley
October 1, 2019 8:23 am

Hot Spring resorts have the BEST towels!
I could barely close my suitcase.

Susan
October 1, 2019 8:41 am

I thought the Maldives were swamped in 2010! I’m sure I remember being told that would happen.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Susan
October 1, 2019 4:10 pm

On another message board (one I go to for laughs), I was told (not asked) by an animated lady that didn’t I know that Kiribati was now submerged. I told her to google “things to do in Kiribati”, but she never thanked me.

I suppose the good news is that anyone this stupid will also not be able to figure out how to go and vote.

Steven Fraser
October 1, 2019 8:57 am

David,

Fine article!

Question: On Figure 2, my Mk.1 eye ball of the GMSL sea level change line seems to get an almost periodic up-tick and dip, like the scalloped edge of a steak knife. Are you aware of any attribution statement to this pattern?

alan k welch
Reply to  Steven Fraser
October 1, 2019 12:20 pm

The scalloped edge is, I think, due the annual and semi-annual signal not being removed. This results in a added annual variation of about +/-4 to 5 mm. In the published final satellite results this has been removed. It does not affect the long term trends.

The plots showing +/- 2 standard deviations indicate the spread of the raw readings. With so many readings every 10 days (up to 500,000) some results would be +/- 5 standard deviations i.e +/- 500mm. One strange thing with the Standard Deviation plots is the spikes at 1998 and 2016 where SD’s go up and down about 15% over about a 2 year period.

Below is a copy of my previous comment re SD’s.

Some additional thoughts on the NASA results. 25 years is much too short a period to ascertain any definite trends. And completely too short a period to pursue any enhanced acceleration up to 2100. The NASA results are usually given as a single value every 10 days but behind each value there is an enormous amount of data. Each 10 days between 300,000 and 500,000 readings are taken and a rolling 60-day average calculated. One not often quoted value is the standard deviation for each 10 days set of readings. This is generally about 100mm and the spread of readings can be worked out using probability functions. This can also be shown graphically using the Excel function NORMINV(Probability,Mean,Standard_dev) to generate a normally distributed set of random numbers. For example, assuming the mean value was 50mm and the SD 100mm a set of 10000 random values matching these parameters can be generated by inserting NORMINV(RAND(),50,100) in cells A1 to A10000 and then inserting a histogram plot. Each time it is executed a new histogram is produced. I ran cases of 100, 1000 and 10000 values and found 10000 was more than adequate to show the trends and variations. Life is too short to go any higher!
These runs show, as would be expected, that using bins in the histogram of 20mm range that less than about 8% of results fall in the maximum bin and that actual values can range from about -400mm to +500mm. A typical histogram is shown in the figure below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RZj_KHRfv0D3X3eYFe0PMmMyWQNMfdQD/view?usp=sharing
Seeing a typical histogram makes the consistency of all the NASA results over the 25 years even more remarkable.

alankwelch
Reply to  Steven Fraser
October 1, 2019 12:31 pm

Not sure if my first reply got through.

The Scalloped shape is due to the annual and semi-annual signal not having been removed. This appears as a +/- 4 to 5 mm regular variation. Final sea level plots usually have this removed. The plot also shows +/- 2 standard deviations (SD) and a strange behaviour appears at 1998 and 2016 where the SD increases by about 15% up and down over a 2 year period.

Regarding SD results I am adding some previous comments I made.

Some additional thoughts on the NASA results. 25 years is much too short a period to ascertain any definite trends. And completely too short a period to pursue any enhanced acceleration up to 2100. The NASA results are usually given as a single value every 10 days but behind each value there is an enormous amount of data. Each 10 days between 300,000 and 500,000 readings are taken and a rolling 60-day average calculated. One not often quoted value is the standard deviation for each 10 days set of readings. This is generally about 100mm and the spread of readings can be worked out using probability functions. This can also be shown graphically using the Excel function NORMINV(Probability,Mean,Standard_dev) to generate a normally distributed set of random numbers. For example, assuming the mean value was 50mm and the SD 100mm a set of 10000 random values matching these parameters can be generated by inserting NORMINV(RAND(),50,100) in cells A1 to A10000 and then inserting a histogram plot. Each time it is executed a new histogram is produced. I ran cases of 100, 1000 and 10000 values and found 10000 was more than adequate to show the trends and variations. Life is too short to go any higher!
These runs show, as would be expected, that using bins in the histogram of 20mm range that less than about 8% of results fall in the maximum bin and that actual values can range from about -400mm to +500mm. A typical histogram is shown in the figure below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RZj_KHRfv0D3X3eYFe0PMmMyWQNMfdQD/view?usp=sharing
Seeing a typical histogram makes the consistency of all the NASA results over the 25 years even more remarkable.

Clyde Spencer
October 1, 2019 9:20 am

David
We, (realists, AKA skeptics) need to find a way to hold the feet of Borenstein and his ilk to the fire when they exaggerate and lie. Unfortunately, whenever I link to a WUWT article (even my own) in response to Yahoo ‘news’ commenters, they derisively dismiss it as oil lobby-funded misinformation. They tell me my check is in the mail.

Possibly something along the lines of “Truth in Advertising,” or libel civil penalties would get their attention. I wonder if The Conversation could be forced to publish all comments, at least in the US, through First Amendment infringements?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 1, 2019 11:30 am

You’re encountering the tail of the dragon – this is hardly restricted to climate change.

What we’re really facing his a hardline, absolutely close-minded, ideological bigotry that is as absolute as it is hypocritical. There ARE no opinions that are not predetermined.

You can perhaps isolate cause – public schools funnel into universities, who farm their ideas out to politicians and media, both entertainment and ‘news’. And how many people REALLY question what the teachers tell them? In point of fact, most people I know actually resist learning something that challenges their world view.

But cause versus solution? At this point, I don’t even know what to do anymore – it take a minute to explain why AGW isn’t a problem – hard to get out in the face of screaming epithets – and with the deluge of messaging out their people aren’t even able to perceive the real results of the policies that they THINK are supposed to save the planet – the modern press is Goebbels wet-dream – he was a propaganda minister for one little country in Europe – the modern Internet is instantaneous and all over the planet… and there is no conscience guiding it.

Nothing scares me less than C02 – but nothing scares me more than people who ARE scared of it. A frightened animal is the most dangerous kind.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 1, 2019 2:40 pm

I had not been getting my checks either, but then I updated my address on the ExxonMobile funds disbursement website, and I got all of my 30 years of back pay and a new check arrives monthly ever since.
Just go to dangsomepeoplearedumb.com to apply for/update your account.

Simon
October 1, 2019 11:59 am

Meanwhile over at Roys place (UAH, the data set skeptics love to quote)…. I see September is the warmest (+.61C) in the 41 year satellite history.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Simon
October 1, 2019 12:21 pm

And how microscopic is that measurement?

And September in my state has been the coldest in over a decade.

And either way, the damned world isn’t ending.

Simon
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 1, 2019 1:58 pm

“And how microscopic is that measurement?”
Records are always significant. I shouldn’t need to explain that. Particularly when this is just one of many recently. And… in a non el nino year… that makes it very significant.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
October 1, 2019 2:24 pm

On the other hand, the even larger number of record lows doesn’t matter in the slightest.

Regardless, most of the time, records mean that the length of the record is too short.
The hottest day in the last 30 to 50 years is a meaningless number. Even the hottest day in the last 200 years doesn’t mean much, especially since the numbers 200 years ago are little better than guesses.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2019 3:44 pm

You’d think when someone is actively playing a shell game, there would be some self-awareness of it.
Yet apparently not.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2019 4:17 pm

A few weeks ago someone posted – I think it was Pamela Grey – about all the ‘little proofs’ – these microscopic measurements – which Simon thinks is giving his argument weight – when actually it really supports the skeptic case – a small effect – nothing to worry about, certainly nothing we can control by micromanaging the population, for an even MORE microscopic non-effect on the climate via ‘mitigation’ efforts.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2019 6:24 pm

“On the other hand, the even larger number of record lows doesn’t matter in the slightest.”
Yawn… really? I call BS. But MarkW will now run for cover. Heat records break cold by a significant margin. That’s what happens in a warming world. But on the planet “make it up” where MarkW lives, pigs fly and he can produce his own data.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 2, 2019 11:05 am

YOU call BS. You try to pull a shell game like this and still have that level of gall?

If you climb a mountain are descending down the other side and you are still at a high elevation, that doesn’t mean you’re still going up.

And posting late in the day, so the board has moved and no one replies is not ‘running’.

Can’t really be honest about anything can you?

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
October 2, 2019 11:12 am

Oh, and by the way, when average temperatures are up a degree or so over the last hundred years – and gee, aren’t they now calibrating by hundredths of a degree (that was an Obama-era contribution, by the way) – it only stands to reason, that would include the most recent years.
Four and a half billion years, and you’re crowing about microscopic changes over four decades of records.
And of course this means exactly jack in regards to cause – and most importantly long-term effects, or human ability to regulate it.
So – call your own BS and take a mouthful of it.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2019 12:58 pm

“And I will say again – HOW microscopic is that measurement? ”
It’s microscopic enough to have people with an IQ over 100 worried.
And MarkW often makes lame comments he’s called on, then doesn’t reply. He and you both know I m right. Heat records outweigh cool ones by two to one. End of story.
And your mountain analogy is a bit sad. We are going up the (long term)mountain not down.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Simon
October 1, 2019 3:42 pm

And I will say again – HOW microscopic is that measurement? And reiterate that the world isn’t ending. Of course you ducked that one.

And because every bloody argument warmists put forward is a friggin’ shell game. The El Nino peak is trending down.

See David Middleton’s post below.

robl
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2019 1:00 am
Gunga Din
Reply to  Simon
October 1, 2019 4:12 pm

Now you present the satellite history even though it shows how the climate models have failed in their projections!?!
But a lot happened before the satellite history.
For my little spot on the globe, here’s a list of the record highs as recorded in April of 2012 sorted by year. (And, no, I’m not cherry picking. This was the list I had that I could sort quickly.)
11-Sep 96 1895
19-Sep 97 1895
20-Sep 97 1895
21-Sep 96 1895
22-Sep 95 1895
8-Sep 100 1897
10-Sep 96 1897
12-Sep 96 1897
15-Sep 97 1897
16-Sep 96 1897
25-Sep 93 1900
26-Sep 92 1900
24-Sep 92 1908
1-Sep 99 1932
7-Sep 98 1939
8-Sep 100 1939
9-Sep 95 1939
13-Sep 95 1939
14-Sep 98 1939
15-Sep 97 1939
16-Sep 96 1939
23-Sep 90 1941
23-Sep 90 1945
1-Sep 99 1953
2-Sep 100 1953
3-Sep 99 1953
4-Sep 96 1953
29-Sep 96 1953
30-Sep 92 1953
5-Sep 99 1954
6-Sep 99 1954
17-Sep 94 1955
18-Sep 95 1955
28-Sep 92 1959
23-Sep 90 1961
24-Sep 92 1961
10-Sep 96 1964
10-Sep 96 1983
26-Sep 92 1998
27-Sep 90 1998
24-Sep 92 2007
26-Sep 92 2007

PS My little spot is Columbus Ohio.

PatrickH
October 1, 2019 12:08 pm

Great work David. Back in the 80’s I believed all this crap, hook-line and sinker. Glad I escaped from the fog of the unknown. Hopefully this will free some minds from the fog of the unknown.

Schitzree
October 1, 2019 12:26 pm

Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don’t think they exist.

~¿~

alankwelch
October 1, 2019 12:46 pm

I have been trying to reply to answer Steven Fraser’s question but it doesn’t seem to appear. This is a 3rd attempt using the Comment box at the end instead of the Reply feature after Stevens question.

The Scalloped shape is due to the annual and semi-annual signal not having been removed. This appears as a +/- 4 to 5 mm regular variation. Final sea level plots usually have this removed. The plot also shows +/- 2 standard deviations (SD) and a strange behaviour appears at 1998 and 2016 where the SD increases by about 15% up and down over a 2 year period.

Regarding SD results I am adding some previous comments I made.

Some additional thoughts on the NASA results. 25 years is much too short a period to ascertain any definite trends. And completely too short a period to pursue any enhanced acceleration up to 2100. The NASA results are usually given as a single value every 10 days but behind each value there is an enormous amount of data. Each 10 days between 300,000 and 500,000 readings are taken and a rolling 60-day average calculated. One not often quoted value is the standard deviation for each 10 days set of readings. This is generally about 100mm and the spread of readings can be worked out using probability functions. This can also be shown graphically using the Excel function NORMINV(Probability,Mean,Standard_dev) to generate a normally distributed set of random numbers. For example, assuming the mean value was 50mm and the SD 100mm a set of 10000 random values matching these parameters can be generated by inserting NORMINV(RAND(),50,100) in cells A1 to A10000 and then inserting a histogram plot. Each time it is executed a new histogram is produced. I ran cases of 100, 1000 and 10000 values and found 10000 was more than adequate to show the trends and variations. Life is too short to go any higher!
These runs show, as would be expected, that using bins in the histogram of 20mm range that less than about 8% of results fall in the maximum bin and that actual values can range from about -400mm to +500mm. A typical histogram is shown in the figure below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RZj_KHRfv0D3X3eYFe0PMmMyWQNMfdQD/view?usp=sharing
Seeing a typical histogram makes the consistency of all the NASA results over the 25 years even more remarkable.

If the above appears later 3 times it is because I don’t understand the process.

ResourceGuy
October 1, 2019 1:22 pm

Nope…

Not in short term cycles………..
comment image

Not in medium term cycles………..
comment image

And not in Long term cycles………
comment image

comment image

comment image

But then if you don’t get it with cycles anyway you’re lost and a tool of message managers.

Ted Dooley
October 1, 2019 2:57 pm

“— The world’s oceans have already lost 1% to 3% of the oxygen in their upper levels since 1970 and will lose more as warming continues.”

O2 is being outgassed due to increasing temperature, but CO2 doesn’t follow the same rules, instead its concentration increases? Hmmm… me thinks not.

michael hart
October 1, 2019 3:09 pm

“…grim new report Wednesday.”

There’s certainly nothing like a grim new report Wednesday.

As it happened, I was telling a family memeber only a few minutes ago that Wednesday was my least favourite day of the week. Give me a Thursday or Friday, any day or everyday.

michael hart
October 1, 2019 3:18 pm

“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

Hmmm… Being covered in ice doesn’t actually strike me as a desirable prospect.

And, puleeze… “professor of geosciences and international affairs”
Could they not be bothered to come up with some sillier job title? How about Professor of Chemistry and Dance?

Not Chicken Little
October 1, 2019 3:40 pm

Seth “The Quack” Borenstein is still around? Don’t these people ever get tired of lying and pushing the doom and gloom scenarios (that never come to pass)?

Seth as a “science writer” has sure given “science” a bad name in his long and undistinguished career.

Matthew K
October 2, 2019 1:18 am

I’m starting to wonder if all these Doomsday preppers you see on T.V. actually have a point. Years ago I branded them as idiots, but nowadays, I feel they might actually be on to something: stockpiling weapons, ammunition, food etc…….. Underground militias are forming, and not just in the US.

%d bloggers like this: