Is This Evidence That Climate Change Should Frighten Us?

Steve McIntyre has apparently finished his summer holiday spree on American football. As he was not dissecting my San Francisco 49ers (looks like the opposition will do it instead…) I am quite pleased to report he has returned to his normal programming schedule.

In his latest post McIntyre welcomes the publication of “Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era”. So should we all.

Not because of what they said about it. Here’s Michael Evans, one of the authors of the study: “This study truly highlights the profound effects we are having on our climate today.”

I don’t think he looked at the results of his research. Please identify the profound effects we are having on ocean temperatures from this picture:


McIntyre discuss the findings and implications at length over at his blog. I am more interested in the meta implications.

Coming in a week when we discover that the NOAA believes sea level rise to be half as quick as the Klimate Konsensus asserts (NOAA: 1.7 mm / year. Klimate Konsensus: 3 mm / year), news that ocean temperatures are only slowly increasing from a record low at the time of the Little Ice Age should be a great relief to us all.

Coming in a week when we are introduced to a temperature reconstruction highlighted by one of the Konsensus Krazies himself (David Appell, don’t you know) that shows no Hockey Stick at all (p. 345, reproduced here courtesy of Bishop Hill),

Non Hockey Stick

…isn’t it time we started a rational discussion about the pace and impacts of climate change?

Extreme weather isn’t happening yet. Not storms, not drought, not floods. Estimates of atmospheric sensitivity based on observations come in at about half that projected by models, explaining why the models are running hot. Sea level rise is not what is being trumpeted in the media. Neither are ocean temperatures.

If our contributions to climate change are not having the devastating impact (so far) that earlier predictions had forecast, does it not take the pressure off of places like India, desperate to continue using coal in their development? Does it not allow us to focus on helping China burn cleaner coal (or burn coal more cleanly)  rather than insisting it abandon coal for…. whatever?

Does it not enable the world to press on with our fight against malnutrition, disease and poverty?

Does it not then allow us, like McIntyre, to return to our regularly scheduled program of fighting the more immediate environmental problems of habitat loss, over hunting and over fishing, introduction of alien species and conventional pollution?

6 responses to “Is This Evidence That Climate Change Should Frighten Us?

  1. Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Hansen’s replacement at the Scare Factory (GISS) Gavin Schmidt says the big picture is more important and wildly inaccurate statements by Emma Thompson (4°C by 2030, swathes uninhabitable) don’t need correcting by scientists. He is a disgrace not to science but humanity.

    • That Gavin won’t correct something so obviously and wildly wrong that happens to favor his paycheck and work speaks rather loudly about his integrity.

      • Indeed. It reminds me of a door-to-door salesman a few years back trying to get me to switch utility providers. He said that if there was a gas leak, his company (Southern Electric – quite notorious in these parts) were the only ones who could resolve it (!?) – trying to play on fear as I was looking after my (then) toddler. I pointed out the number for gas leaks was on all bills regardless of providers (you can call the emergency hotline if you smell gas walking down the street) then ushered him away. I never did complain but shortly after there was a spate of 7-8 figure fines for mis-selling instances.

        What Gavin is saying is the threat of a gas explosion is real and therefore all exaggerations, mis-selling etc is fine because, y’know the threat is real and the salesman was quite right because of y’know the threat.

        To reword a mis-selling quote, we have what I see is the mindset of the people whom rely on obfuscation to sell their green products to the masses.

        We cashed in on people’s ignorance about the cost of [carbon reduction]. It was all carefully worked out so that we could confuse people who were already confused enough about [carbon emissions].

        The other way to look at Gavin is that if he didn’t believe and act the way he does, he wouldn’t be where he is today. As Reductio ad absurdum: a skeptic with say 100 more IQ points and with knobs and twirls on anything Gavin could do + with managerial and leadership skills overflowing (i.e. the most brilliant person in the history of history) would never have got a look in [of course if they had that skill they wouldn’t be in the climate sphere h/t Dick Lindzen].

        Kudos to Richard Betts for calling ET out – even if he just put a 30yr hiatus on Armageddon, at least he was consistent with (some of) the science.


  2. Four-by-Thirty Emma is my heroine.

  3. I think anyone who sincerely asserts that 4.0oC by 2030 in a serious sincere way is no wiser than those who believe in UFO abductions.
    Those sincerely promoting the idea that we are today experiencing dangerous climate change are either deluded or untruthful.
    I knew Emma was a kook, but i pretended it didn’t matter and still went to her movies.
    Now? Probably won’t bother to go.

  4. Interesting study by Phil Jones et al in 1999 that found just 0.57 C global temp increase from 1861 to 1997. Here is the relevant info from co2 science. But certainly not much increase after the end of a minor ice age and 150 years. And why was the 1978 to 1997 period of warming less than the earlier 20 year period?? (before 1950) Here is the Co2 Science article———

    The Instrumental Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 150 Years Reference
    Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G. 1999. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37: 173-199.

    What was done
    The authors present a comprehensive update and analysis of the surface air temperature record of the globe for the last 150 years.

    What was learned
    From 1861 to 1997, global surface air temperature rose by 0.57°C; while from 1901 to 1997, it rose by 0.62°C. The bulk of this warming occurred within two 20-year periods: 0.37°C between 1925 and 1944, and 0.32°C between 1978 and 1997. The warming was greatest over the northern continents and over the half-year period December through May. In addition, over the period 1950-1993, nighttime (minimum) temperatures warmed at a rate of 0.18°C per decade, while daytime (maximum) temperatures warmed by 0.08°C per decade.

    What it means
    The earth has warmed slightly over the past century or so.

    Reviewed 1 December 1999

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s