Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

As if the actual proposal is any less ridiculous. Hold on... coral rocks are still not underwater.

Are you thinking you sound convincing here? Don't see the point of trolling.

[Genava]

Since we know things like the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period existed, we have to question graphs where they don't appear, as it is in the Hockey Stick graph.

So how do you question ice core data from Greenland?


https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

The fact that the glacier Ozi the Iceman was found in in the Italian Alps shows it must have been as warm then as it is today.

The Dumoulin couple died in the 1942 on the Tsanfleuron Glacier were found only in 2017. While the glacier is shrinking since the end of the 19th century, we have photographic evidences (and geomorphological evidences of courses).

Do we can infer that in 1942 it is the same glacier extension than in 2017? No.

Since Earth has only 1/30 the CO2 of Mars,.the CO2 contribution to warming should be 5C/30 x 2 (Earth gets twice as much solar radiation), and half of the CO2 is due to humans,.so human contribution to colonial warming would be around 0.2C or 0.36F. increasing another 200 ppm would still only represent a 0.72F degree warming.

Let's make a thought experiment. With an albedo of 0.3 and the current solar radiation, Earth temperature is predicted around -18°C according to the webpage of the American Chemical Society about planetary temperature. If CO2 has such a negligeable effect and water vapor is the only true active greenhouse gas here, how it could work to warm from-18 to 15°C the Earth by taking in account water condensate and freeze at those temperatures? Moreover any freezing would increase the albedo. Any convection to higher altitude and higher latitude would condensate the vapor as well.

[sumskilz]

@Genava

I've read that the Roman and Medieval warm periods were not global (for example), although the following seems to contradict this:

Abstract: Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

Pacific Ocean Heat Content Duringthe Past 10,000 Years

My interest is primarily historical, but it may be relevant to your debate with Common Soldier. Any comment?

During both the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the Southern Levant was much wetter than today. The Romans had vineyards in what is now the Negev desert. This suggests to me that different processes were at work regardless of whether or not they were global.

[Genava]

Pacific Ocean Heat Content Duringthe Past 10,000 Years

My interest is primarily historical, but it may be relevant to your debate with Common Soldier. Any comment?

Hi Sumskilz. Thank you for your comment and to participate.

From a quick reading to the published paper, I want first to dissipate one possible issue of interpretation for the others. It has the same issue than a lot of other Earth science publications causing a common trouble when the comparison is made:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_10000_Years

"IPWP [Indo-Pacific Warm Pool] SSTs are within error of modern (~1950 CE) values between 900 and 1200 CE during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and are colder by 0.75 +/- 0.35°C between 1550 and 1850 CE during the Little Ice Age (LIA), followed by nonmonotonic warming in the past 150 years (26)."

"However, whereas the NH reconstructions (27, 28) show general nonmonotonic warming of ~ 0.5 +/- 0.15°C for the period of 1850 to 1950 CE, which is consistent with the instrumental record for the NH (24°N to 90°N) during the same period (29), we see no significant change in IWT (DIWT = 0.15 +/- 0.35°C) between 1850 and 1950 CE (Fig. 3)."

"To the extent that our reconstruction reflects high-latitude climate conditions in both hemispheres, it differs considerably from the recent surface compilations, which suggest ~2°C MWP to LIA cooling in the 30°N to 90°N zone, whereas the 30°S to 90°S zone warmed by ~0.6°C during the same interval (24). In contrast, our composite IWT records of water masses linked to NH and SH water masses imply similar patterns of MWPtoLIA cooling at the source regions The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby supporting the idea that the HTM, MWP, and LIA were global events. "



This is due to the very confusing (and honestly untelligent name) of the "Before Present" concept used in Earth Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

So in case someone misunderstood the article, it does not say that the Medieval Warm Period is similar to the actual 1990-2020 average.

Besides this, your question about the MWP and LIA being global or not, I will check later (after work) how the PAGES group answered this. There is no "consensus" or general agreement about the globality of those events. There is a general agreement about the RWP and MWP to be lower than the actual 3 last decades (because a lot of evidences). Contrary to Common Soldier claim, the MWP is not totally absent of the "Hockey Stick" figures, especially in recent ones: https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...gregory-rummo/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...e-marc-morano/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...e-present-day/

[irontaino]

Those two publications have proven to be consistently credible. Just saying they aren't credible isn't evidence and both publications have exposed numerous problems with snoopes as well as the NYT, CNN, Msnbc, etc.

They also consistently run stories that the above publications have tried to bury.

And I guess I should also mention they're not operated out of a trailer in the backwoods of California.

Maybe in the realm of alternative facts, r/thedonald, and 4chan, Breitbart might be considered credible, but given its history of libel (see the case of Shirley Sherrod) and straight up fake news, Breitbart has absolutely 0 credibility. That there isn't even a physical paper means you can't even use it as toilet paper, making Breitbart completely worthless. As for American Stinker, the spin is so crazy there, might as well rename the publication the Spin Doctors.

[sumskilz]

This is due to the very confusing (and honestly untelligent name) of the "Before Present" concept used in Earth Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

Though it occasionally wastes my time, it's amusing to me that anyone ever thought this was a good idea, even back in the day. Had they no foresight? I convert radiocarbon dates to BCE/CE in everything I write for publication, and just leave the BP dates in a footnote.

Besides this, your question about the MWP and LIA being global or not, I will check later (after work) how the PAGES group answered this. There is no "consensus" or general agreement about the globality of those events. There is a general agreement about the RWP and MWP to be lower than the actual 3 last decades (because a lot of evidences). Contrary to Common Soldier claim, the MWP is not totally absent of the "Hockey Stick" figures, especially in recent ones: https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...gregory-rummo/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...e-marc-morano/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...e-present-day/

Thanks. At TAU, we have compared our pollen data from Dead Sea cores against the Greenland ice core data. GISP2 shows spikes in temperature during the Bronze Age Collapse, Roman Warm Period, and Medieval Warm Period. During the Bronze Age Collapse, the Southern Levant was extremely arid, whereas during the the later two warm periods, the Southern Levant was (as I said) considerably wetter than today. I have no idea whether those warm periods in Europe and the Northern Atlantic correlate with warmer temperatures here, but they certainly correlate with weather anomalies. None of which resemble what is happening today.

Based on historical and archaeological evidence, it seems not unreasonable to think those warm periods could have been remarkably warmer in Europe and the Northern Atlantic, while only showing up as a moderate rise on the "Hockey Stick".

[Genava]

Though it occasionally wastes my time, it's amusing to me that anyone ever thought this was a good idea, even back in the day. Had they no foresight? I convert radiocarbon dates to BCE/CE in everything I write for publication, and just leave the BP dates in a footnote.

Well, it is a common issue in science, when something is called in certain way, it stays that way. Written in stone. Biology and geology are full of these things. Moreover, how metrologists in the 1950s could have knew the future polemics? And the following nuclear testing messed so much the isotopic signatures so it prevented an updating routine.

Thanks. At TAU, we have compared our pollen data from Dead Sea cores against the Greenland ice core data. GISP2 shows spikes in temperature during the Bronze Age Collapse, Roman Warm Period, and Medieval Warm Period. During the Bronze Age Collapse, the Southern Levant was extremely arid, whereas during the the later two warm periods, the Southern Levant was (as I said) considerably wetter than today. I have no idea whether those warm periods in Europe and the Northern Atlantic correlate with warmer temperatures here, but they certainly correlate with weather anomalies. None of which resemble what is happening today.

Based on historical and archaeological evidence, it seems not unreasonable to think those warm periods could have been remarkably warmer in Europe and the Northern Atlantic, while only showing up as a moderate rise on the "Hockey Stick".

Interesting. Did you made only the comparison with the GISP2 dataset or did you tried others too? As said in the article about Greenland ice core, the GISP2 reconstruction could have some issues:

The GISP2 reconstruction is fairly old and more recent research has questioned the assumptions made in changing the relationship between temperature and 18O during the Holocene and how to best account for elevation change of the ice sheet at the GISP2 site. The GISP2 reconstruction changes the relationship between 18O and temperatures by a factor of two during the Holocene, while more recent reconstructions keep it constant. Similarly, elevation change influences 18O records. The old GISP2 reconstruction did not take elevation changes into account.

Maybe try to use only the isotopic signals from GISP2 for time series analysis. Else, there have been another recent reconstruction from Kobashi et al. 2012. And if it is useful, the dataset from the article (Vinther et al. 2009): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...9greenland.txt

It seems this team used the NGRIP ice core for comparison (although not same period):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118308254

But your relationship is not that much impossible, there is a link suspected from North Atlantic and Western Mediterranean regions to the Levant through the North Atlantic Oscillation.
https://www.yachtingworld.com/weathe...weather-105954
https://polarpedia.eu/en/north-atlan...cillation-nao/

However, it seems from the PAGES dataset that the Roman period was quite different for this region than for Europe:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I will continue tomorrow.
https://www.docdroid.net/WeUQZWN/s41586-019-1401-2.pdf

[sumskilz]

Interesting. Did you made only the comparison with the GISP2 dataset or did you tried others too? As said in the article about Greenland ice core, the GISP2 reconstruction could have some issues:

I have only seen the GISP2 dataset overlayed onto our Dead Sea pollen data, but when I say "we" I mean our department. My personal involvement in the paleoclimatology research rarely exceeds being present in the room when it's discussed. Looking at everything else you've posted, my initial thought is that there does appear to be patterns between the Levant, North Atlantic, and Europe, but that they are more complicated than the impression I had. Hard to say anything for sure without formatting everything so that each dataset can be superimposed upon the other.

It seems this team used the NGRIP ice core for comparison (although not same period):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118308254

Ah the Pleistocene, yeah that's before my time. I see they've cited several papers authored by Dafna Langgut. She's the head of our department's laboratory of archaeobotany and ancient environments. She also pronounces "siege ramp" like "sage rump". I laugh little bit every time I think about the room full of confused faces as she presented her findings before an international audience on the pollen she extracted from an Assyrian sage rump.

I would like to see what we know from all our local data tied in better to the bigger climate picture, but it seems it will be a major project. Might be a good option to start suggesting to directionless PhD candidates.

[B. W.]

How climate alarmists manipulate data. Save yourselves the trouble of Googling up information that discredits the video maker. The article it is embedded in does that for you. A 12 minute video:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...2_minutes.html

[Genava]

I have only seen the GISP2 dataset overlayed onto our Dead Sea pollen data, but when I say "we" I mean our department. My personal involvement in the paleoclimatology research rarely exceeds being present in the room when it's discussed. Looking at everything else you've posted, my initial thought is that there does appear to be patterns between the Levant, North Atlantic, and Europe, but that they are more complicated than the impression I had. Hard to say anything for sure without formatting everything so that each dataset can be superimposed upon the other.

I also found that the North Atlantic Oscillation and La-Nina could be both acting particularly during the MWP:
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/download/d...-1_highres.pdf
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/p...limate-anomaly

But it rises more questions than it gives answers. The publication gives a nice review of this Medieval anomaly, you will probably found it interesting. The case of the Chinese paleoclimatology is suggesting that the period was not homogenous between the different regions, even if a warm period cannot be ruled out.

[sumskilz]

I also found that the North Atlantic Oscillation and La-Nina could be both acting particularly during the MWP:
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/download/d...-1_highres.pdf
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/p...limate-anomaly

But it rises more questions than it gives answers. The publication gives a nice review of this Medieval anomaly, you will probably found it interesting. The case of the Chinese paleoclimatology is suggesting that the period was not homogenous between the different regions, even if a warm period cannot be ruled out.

A lot of interesting articles there. One thing I didn't see mentioned is the Eastern Mediterranean sea level:


Source: Evidence for centennial scale sea level variability during the Medieval Climate Optimum (Crusader Period) in Israel, eastern Mediterranean

From the same article regarding local conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean:

In the eastern Mediterranean the changes during the MCA have been claimed to be significantly smaller (Schulz and Prange, 2009), but the amount of proxy records for quantifying temperatures is much smaller than the available records of northern Europe. Most data refer to relatively more humid conditions: Dead Sea levels were relatively high during the 11th and 12th centuries, which indicates higher annual rainfall in the region (Bookman et al., 2004; Enzel et al., 2003),the marine records provide indications of a short humid period at about 800 BP (about 1200) according to Schilman et al. (2001), and the Soreq speleothems record (Orland et al., 2009) indicates a short wet period around 1000, based on the assumption that average annual temperature change was negligible during this period. These records agree with the lake varves in Nar Gölü, Turkey, which also indicate relatively wetter intervals between 1000 and 1400 (England et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2006). In contrast, McGarry et al. (2004) calculate a mean temperature of 20–22 °C for 800–1200, which is higher than at present. It seems that wetter and maybe slightly warmer conditions prevailed during the MWP in Israel and Turkey. Unlike the data from Israel, cooler and drier conditions were interpreted by Trouet et al.(2009) in Morocco from about 1000 to 1400, based on tree rings, and the Nile records present long periods of drought (Hassan, 2007).

I can say that as yet unpublished data from Israel reinforces this view - definitely wetter, maybe warmer.

Our knowledge of the climate from the Late Bronze Age to the early Roman Period is actually much better, due to more local and foreign investment/interest in that historical period.

[Common Soldier]

How climate alarmists manipulate data. Save yourselves the trouble of Googling up information that discredits the video maker. The article it is embedded in does that for you. A 12 minute video:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...2_minutes.html

Now, I believe there is a possibility that climate scientist might have misinterpreted the data, but there is no evidence they enough in deliberate a malicious manipulation. Sure, climate scientist could be wrong, but that does not mean they are deliberately being deceptive. If they are making a mistake, it is an honest one.

It may be mistaken science, but it is not what I call "junk" science. One thing I have against Climate Change proponents is that they clearly are unwilling to consider the possibility they could be wrong. However, skeptics need to be also be willing to admit they are wrong as well.

While I think there is a strong possibility that something other is driving warming, or that the warming we see may just be an artifact - our scientific observation of climate only began when the Earth was coming out of a cold snap, and there is undoubted warming since the Little Ice Age, calling Climate Change "junk" science is rather harsh and unfair.

Just as I criticize Climate Change proponents for not having an open mind to consider other possibilities other than CO2, or indeed, that the warming may be just the natural consequences of the Earth returning to a more natural state from a lower than normal cold period, so too Skeptic need to leave open the possibility that the Climate Change proponents could be correct.

[Common Soldier]

I have only seen the GISP2 dataset overlayed onto our Dead Sea pollen data, but when I say "we" I mean our department. My personal involvement in the paleoclimatology research rarely exceeds being present in the room when it's discussed. Looking at everything else you've posted, my initial thought is that there does appear to be patterns between the Levant, North Atlantic, and Europe, but that they are more complicated than the impression I had. Hard to say anything for sure without formatting everything so that each dataset can be superimposed upon the other.

Ah the Pleistocene, yeah that's before my time. I see they've cited several papers authored by Dafna Langgut. She's the head of our department's laboratory of archaeobotany and ancient environments. She also pronounces "siege ramp" like "sage rump". I laugh little bit every time I think about the room full of confused faces as she presented her findings before an international audience on the pollen she extracted from an Assyrian sage rump.

I would like to see what we know from all our local data tied in better to the bigger climate picture, but it seems it will be a major project. Might be a good option to start suggesting to directionless PhD candidates.

Studies have indicated support for the Little Ice Age in New Zealand. If we can see evidence for the Little Ice Age in places as far away as Europe and New Zealand, I think we can rule it out as just a local phenomenon.

Associated land-based temperature and precipitation anomalies suggest both colder- and wetter-than-normal conditions were a pervasive component of the base climate state across New Zealand during the LIA, as were colder-than-normal Tasman Sea surface temperatures. Proxy temperature and circulation evidence were used to corroborate the spatially heterogeneous Southern Hemisphere composite z1000 and sea surface temperature patterns generated in this study.. https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._type_approach

Here is another study from Siberia, that indicates both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were real, and likely global. If we see evidence for the LIA and the MWP in places in Siberia as well as Europe, that makes it more likely there not just regional phenomenons as some Climate Change proponents have claimed.

In regard to the warming experienced in the 20th century, the authors note that it is "not extraordinary" and that "the warming at the border of the first and second millennia [1000 A.D.] was longer in time and similar in amplitude." Reconstructed temperatures for the Holocene, approximately 5000 years ago, revealed an even warmer time period when temperatures averaged 3.3°C higher than the past two millennia.

What it means
It is clear from the data presented in this study that the climatic episodes referred to as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were indeed real - and, likely, global - phenomena and that earth's climate consistently fluctuates between natural warm and cold phases. Given the author's finding that the 20th century warming is "not extraordinary" when compared to other warmings of their 2200-year record, it stands to reason that the warming of the 20th century is probably nothing more than a natural recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, rather than a response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
(Bold passages my emphasis) http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N10/C2.php

Here is another paper on evidence for the Medieval Warm Period in New Zealand:

Comparisons with selectedtemperature proxies from the Northern and SouthernHemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variablein time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperaturereconstruction supports the global occurrence of theMWP. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/08f...33b3c1d68d.pdf

[Genava]

Now, I believe there is a possibility that climate scientist might have misinterpreted the data, but there is no evidence they enough in deliberate a malicious manipulation. Sure, climate scientist could be wrong, but that does not mean they are deliberately being deceptive. If they are making a mistake, it is an honest one.

You should be skeptical of Tony Heller claims. He used multiples times the raw data for the USHCN deliberately ignoring there is a "time of observation" change in the methodology occuring in the 1950s.

I was very unconvinced by his past claim reported by B.W. in the actual thread:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15804625
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15804797

Several scientists replied to Tony Heller: https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...warming-trend/

It may be mistaken science, but it is not what I call "junk" science. One thing I have against Climate Change proponents is that they clearly are unwilling to consider the possibility they could be wrong. However, skeptics need to be also be willing to admit they are wrong as well.

Constant accusations of falsifications are not helping. Strawman arguments about water vapor and CO2/temp relationship are not helping. Ignoring most of the evidences and laziness to go deep in the actual science behind greenhouse gases before to have an opinion are not helping. Double standard skepticism is not helping either. (I am not talking directly about you, but in general the attitude against climate science)

You asked twice for articles about how they calculate CO2 radiative forcing, I gave you some. You never responded to those.

You asked for articles about the importance of feedback processes with Milankovitch cycles to explain the past temperature, I gave you some. You never responded to those.

I gave you as well an article about water vapor feedback processes. You never responded to this.

Skipping the actual opinions of scientists expressed in scientific publications to start a weird comparison between Mars and Earth, ignoring both the actual spectra data and the physical principles behind greenhouse effect (notably the pressure-broadening relationship with absorption properties). I know it is frustrating, this is complex physics and but this is reality. This is rooted from laboratory measurements to field observations.

Here is another study from Siberia, that indicates both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were real, and likely global. If we see evidence for the LIA and the MWP in places in Siberia as well as Europe, that makes it more likely there not just regional phenomenons as some Climate Change proponents have claimed.

While I think there is a strong possibility that something other is driving warming, or that the warming we see may just be an artifact - our scientific observation of climate only began when the Earth was coming out of a cold snap, and there is undoubted warming since the Little Ice Age, calling Climate Change "junk" science is rather harsh and unfair.

The article is in open-access. Why do you rely on a partisan account?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/1999JD901059
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/1999JD901059

One example of light manipulation, the partisan blog wrote << Given the author's finding that the 20th century warming is "not extraordinary" >> while they actually wrote is << The warming of the middle of the twentieth century is not extraordinary >>.

On the paper, the authors wrote: << Daily data of the Khatanga meteorological station from 1933 to 1989 were used >>

And their figure with the different smoothing do not goes beyond 1989:
https://i.ibb.co/9pJ6PMV/Image-de-pr...1-09-34-14.png

Doing a smoothing of 57 years to include all the meteorological data (1930s to 1980s) is actual showing already a quite high temperature in comparison with MWP.

And the warming continued after 1989. So...
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/...erage_2018.png

Here is another study from Siberia, that indicates both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were real, and likely global. If we see evidence for the LIA and the MWP in places in Siberia as well as Europe, that makes it more likely there not just regional phenomenons as some Climate Change proponents have claimed. Here is another paper on evidence for the Medieval Warm Period in New Zealand:

By the way, you are cherry-picking a few locations and a few papers suggesting global phenomenon (and if you actually read them and compare them with each other you will see discrepancies on the 50-years variabilities but whatever) but you are ignoring contradicting evidences to falsely jump to conclusion.

Climate and Earth scientists are currently still exploring and researching this topic. There are what you call "proponents" defending that the MWP was global. Even I said that there is no "consensus" (aka general agreement) about this issue (globality of the events).

An example here: The Little Ice Age in scientific perspective: cold spells and caveats
https://boris.unibe.ch/68122/1/jinh_a_00575.pdf

You are accusing the climate change proponents of a bad behavior toward science but you are displaying this actual behavior.

[B. W.]

So how do you question ice core data from Greenland?


https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change



The Dumoulin couple died in the 1942 on the Tsanfleuron Glacier were found only in 2017. While the glacier is shrinking since the end of the 19th century, we have photographic evidences (and geomorphological evidences of courses).

Do we can infer that in 1942 it is the same glacier extension than in 2017? No.



Let's make a thought experiment. With an albedo of 0.3 and the current solar radiation, Earth temperature is predicted around -18°C according to the webpage of the American Chemical Society about planetary temperature. If CO2 has such a negligeable effect and water vapor is the only true active greenhouse gas here, how it could work to warm from-18 to 15°C the Earth by taking in account water condensate and freeze at those temperatures? Moreover any freezing would increase the albedo. Any convection to higher altitude and higher latitude would condensate the vapor as well.

The chart excludes the Roman warm period...just sayin'. BTW, would it be possible for you to not use charts influenced by proxy data?

[Genava]

A lot of interesting articles there. One thing I didn't see mentioned is the Eastern Mediterranean sea level:


Source: Evidence for centennial scale sea level variability during the Medieval Climate Optimum (Crusader Period) in Israel, eastern Mediterranean

From the same article regarding local conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean:

I can say that as yet unpublished data from Israel reinforces this view - definitely wetter, maybe warmer.

Our knowledge of the climate from the Late Bronze Age to the early Roman Period is actually much better, due to more local and foreign investment/interest in that historical period.

I think this is because they are focusing on paleo sea level rise in the last issue of the magazine:
http://pastglobalchanges.org/downloa..._Full_High.pdf
http://pastglobalchanges.org/product...magazine/12800

[RandomPerson2000]

You should be skeptical of Tony Heller claims. He used multiples times the raw data for the USHCN deliberately ignoring there is a "time of observation" change in the methodology occuring in the 1950s.

I was very unconvinced by his past claim reported by B.W. in the actual thread:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15804625
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15804797

Several scientists replied to Tony Heller: https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...warming-trend/

Heller shouldn't be trusted at all when it comes to any bit of information about climate change, those are just some of the many instances where time and time again he constantly cherry picks data to suit his own preconceived biases, completely ignoring anything that would contradict his views. A good example would be this video he claims that graphs from the 2018 National Climate Assessment Report had carefully selected data in order to hide the "fact" that global warming is not happening. For a graph displaying the increasing number of US wildfires since 1980, Heller uses another that shows the total acreage burned by fires since 1916, claiming that since more areas was burned in the early 20th century it disproves the claim of the previous graph. Of course there are two massive problems with this conclusion.

1. Total acreage burned by fires is not the same thing as the number of wildfires
2. The higher amount of land burned by wildfires during the early 20th century can simply be explained that it really wasn't until the mid 20th century that organisations like the US forestry service really started to conduct large scale firefighting operations, severely reducing the amount of acreage burned and that most fires from 1930 to 1950 were primarily incendiary fires, not wildfires.
https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/...ndfire-508.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr325.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/research/susta...cator%2015.pdf
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...d-us-wildfires

In another, Heller demonstrates that he lacks even a basic grasp on how sea level varies by claiming that sea levels across the world are all the same, completely ignoring that there is a whole list of geographical features which can effect sea level such as undersea mountain ranges, trenches, isostatic uplift, subsidence, variations in land height, erosion etc etc etc.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

He's more or less a complete nutjob who apparently is also a Sandy Hook denier and a birther.

[B. W.]

The debate on Greenland ice core temperature variations is hardly settled science:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

[Heathen Hammer]

Maybe in the realm of alternative facts, r/thedonald, and 4chan, Breitbart might be considered credible, but given its history of libel (see the case of Shirley Sherrod) and straight up fake news, Breitbart has absolutely 0 credibility. That there isn't even a physical paper means you can't even use it as toilet paper, making Breitbart completely worthless. As for American Stinker, the spin is so crazy there, might as well rename the publication the Spin Doctors.

Only within the imaginary world of CNN, MSNBC and antifa websites would Breitbart's likely bias be worse then those of legacy lamestream media.

[irontaino]

Only within the imaginary world of CNN, MSNBC and antifa websites would Breitbart's likely bias be worse then those of legacy lamestream media.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: