particular have been exposed repeatedly before (and here), but like Undead Zombies they simply rise again, this time with “Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof“.
I apologise in advance for the rather lengthy nature of this post, but the Gunter piece is such a turgid example of the Gish Gallop that, as discussed before, it requires effort to untangle the nonsense.
“a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming” Really? Where? what scientists? No sources, no names, just his claim.
“it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.” There are 6,400 peer reviewed science journals in the world spread across almost every nation and involving tens of thousands of scientists, and we are asked to believe that they are all controlled by the environmental movement? Does anyone with more than 2 neurons to rub together actually believe this? The unbelievable stupidity of this claim is discussed here (and earns him 40 points on the Crackpot Index).
From there we go to the debunked Cooling Myth with an irrelevant example instead of actual global temperatures. He attempts to justify this logical fallacy by commiting the Straw Man fallacy, pretending the climate science somehow says that all other climatic factors such as PDO are no longer operating. Naturally climate science says that CO2 driven change is happening as well as, not instead of other factors. Someone should let him know that two logical fallacies do not cancel one another out.
We then learn that Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbar “scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.” OK, i) as above, climate change is as well as, not instead of natural factors, so totally irrelevant point, ii) as above, it is global, not local, iii) we are supposed to be talking about climate, not weather, iv) scoffing is not the same as providing evidence to refute the actual science, and v) who? Turns out he is 1/3rd of the partnership at the MetSul Weather Center, a private Pop and Pop weather and climate Denier1 operation in Brazil.
Next we are subjected to Craig Loehle who showed us that the Medieval Warm Period was really hot and therefore anthropogenic climate change is wrong, or some such nonsense.
Sigh; i) Loehle published in the non-peer reviewed “The Journal Energy and Environment” which is social science ’scientific’ vanity press which publishes most of the Denier dreck because actual scientific journals insist on publishing only actual science, ii) no matter how hellishly hot or cold the MWP was it is irrelevant to the data supporting anthropogenic climate change (Red Herring Falllacy, what’s his Crackpot score now? 150? 200? I’ve lost track), iii) he got his results by just chucking the data he didn’t like and his ‘work’ has been debunked by real science, and iv) the MWP Denier Myth is just that, a myth.
Then we get a misrepresentation of Easterbrook; if you look at the actual paper (radical concept) Easterbrook is suggesting that it the next 3 decades will be only slightly less hot than the past few, hotter than the century before that, and after that it will get really hot. Spelling it out, he is suggesting other factors will dampen the effects of anthropogenic climate change for a few decades after which we are really screwed. i) Even if true this in no way invalidates anthropogenic climate change, and ii) Easterbrook has been debunked.
Getting the drift here? Be brave my worthies, we’re almost done.
Next we have Michael J. Myers inflicted on us: “that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”
And if CO2 simply disappeared every year it might not be a problem, but what matters is atmospheric concentration, not annual emissions. Unfortunately CO2 has a “mean residence time” (persistence in the atmosphere) of thousands of years if it is not actively removed, and as a result CO2 concentrations are increasing. His claim is so mind bogglingly stupid (and another Red Herring) that I am gob smacked that anyone would bother repeating it. Those interested in CO2 may want to look at “The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps” and “Yet more CO2.”
Finally we get to Douglas and Christy who “dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month” … except their work has been trashed; see “Tropical tropospheric trends again (again)“, “Fact Sheet for “Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere”, and most particularly “Yet another denier talking point melts down.” The scientifically inclined can check those out while the rest of us skip to that abomination of a graph.
OK, I call it an abomination for the simple reason that the “Global Trend Line” is not any sort of statistical analysis; at least the last section is a hand drawn and utterly meaningless projection that is about as unsupported by the data as possible without going off the page entirely.
To illustrate the point I have done similar projections starting in 1994 and 2004 (red line) as if they had been done in 1998 or 2006. These are just as supported by the data as the projection given, and just as false.
The 2008 projection is based on the 2008 minimum, but we saw similar minimums in 1997 and 2000 (blue circles), and of course climate change did not suddenly go away.
UPDATE: 23/10. Thanks to Citizen CEO who found the correct version of the graph in question:
“In this second graph, a couple of things are clear. First, a correctly drawn trend line (in this case a 100-month moving average) shows a flattening but no significant decline. Second, the data in the second graph goes a few months further into 2008, where the temperature anomaly as risen, thus “regaining” about 20 years of the supposed 30 that were lost. The fallacy of the claim is thus clear: The temperature anomalies move in fairly wide swings. What is important is the rising mean temperature anomaly, not what the level is at any given month.” From Citizen CEO
Which brings us to the mega-error that told everyone that this post was utter nonsense right from the start, the title.
Temperature is a symptom of climate change, not a cause. Just as a fever dropping briefly does not make the disease disappear, so the temperature anomaly dropping to zero does not make the CO2 disappear. The temperature anomaly hit the zero baseline dozens of times in the past few decades and it meant nothing. That it has done so again in 2008 means just as much nothing as it did every other time. The whole premise is ridiculous, which is perfectly obvious just by looking at the graph.
Even if the projection were accurate (and not the total idiotic nonsense that it is), it would still mean absolutely nothing. As long as CO2 concentrations remain high we will experience climate change. The weather may vary slightly year to year just as we see in the graph, but the climate will continue to warm.
And I suppose Death, Taxes, and Denier stupidities will be with us as well.
UPDATE 27 Oct 08 Global Cooling … what the?
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 15 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
Is your village missing both idiots? by Chubby Bat
idiot Feste by CJ Sorg