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),
…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?