Climate change deception campaign is real

91
2781
Wikipedia: 2013 Pacific typhoon season summary. Even including super-typhoon Haiyan, 2013 was an average year

SALEM, Ore., March 28, 2014 — Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming say that misinformation spread by skeptics is widespread, and that the general public is being purposely deceived by them about the growing threat.

The public is being deceived, but not by the skeptics. The public is regularly misled in the opposite direction by regular media reports from trusted international news services. A Reuters story out of Beijing titled “Climate change fuelled storms, rising seas cost China $2.6 bln in 2013” is a typical example.

Reuters reports on a 2013 storm damage report, released March 19th, put out by China’s State Oceanic Administration (SOA).

Reporters Stian Reklev, Kathy Chen and editor Michael Perry then added new facts and altered others they inaccurately claim are from the SOA report.

Climate change-linked rising, warmer seas cause more frequent storms and typhoons, flood coastal areas, contribute to coastal erosion and salinate farmland, said SOA
– Reuters, Rising seas cost China $2.6 bln in 2013, 4/20/2014


Reuters wrongly credits these claims to the new SOA report:

  • Human-induced climate change causes more frequent Chinese typhoons
  • Climate change made 2013 storm waves worse
  • 2013 sea level changes were caused by climate change
  • China coastal temperatures have risen +0.34°C per decade since 1980
  • Sea surface temperatures rose by +0.18 degrees per decade

Some of these statements, no doubt, are true. What isn’t true, though, is that those claims were made in the SOA report, as stated by Reuters.

The original SOA report, “The 2013 sea level and ocean disasters bulletin” (in Chinese), provided the source material for Reuters’ globally distributed story. Bloomberg and Tech Times, unlike Reuters, include a link to the Chinese-language report in their republications.

SOA’s report can easily be translate into English using Google Translate.

The SOA report is a standard central government nothing-but-the-facts annual storm damage report. It doesn’t say human-induced global warming caused any of it. Reuters added all that. In fact, SOA never even mentions the terms ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

Reuters and the SOA report do agree on these details:

  • 2013 storms in China caused property damage costing 16.4 billion yuan
  • 2013 storms killed 121 people
  • Guangdong province was hardest hit, causing 7.4 billion yuan in damage
  • Storm surge caused 94 percent of the destruction
  • China has averaged 2.9 mm per year of sea level rise since 1980

What causes Chinese lowland sea level changes?

Reuters includes only one direct quote from SOA. It reads, “Sea temperature, air temperature, air pressure and monsoons are the main causes of the irregular sea-level changes“. The last part translates slightly differently in Google Translate as “important causes (of) abnormal changes in sea level“.

The subtle difference is important for two important reasons:

  1. SOA reports both falling and rising sea levels in its report
  2. Land deformation is a major cause of Chinese lowland sea level changes

Contrary to popular belief, not all sea level rise is caused by melting ice caps, glaciers and warm oceans. Most is, but not all. Sinking landmasses, called ‘subsidence’ by scientists, is an underreported cause in some regions, including China.

A landmark 1995 national assessment by three Chinese scientists at Beijing University concluded that in China “Natural subsidence occurs in all coastal plains and this is often exacerbated by excessive withdrawal of groundwater”.

They point out that from 1983-1988 the Tianjin lowlands east of Beijing sank 350 mm (50 mm/year) due to subsidence. That is over 15 times more change than caused by global warming.

The researchers further said that in 20 to 40 years time there could be one meter of relative sea level rise in the Tianjin lowlands without any change in global ocean levels at all. In other words, Tianjin is sinking into the ocean!

Other lowlands are sinking to. Subsidence is why Chinese lowland sea levels are rising faster than the global average. How much of China’s sea level rise is due to subsidence and how much due to global warming remains an open question.

Oceans account for about three mm/year of sea level rise globally, according to satellite measurements.

The SOA reports both rising and falling lowland sea levels in 2013. In some places sea level rose  as much as 180 mm above 1980 levels. In other places lowland sea level receded as much as 45 mm in 2013 alone. That’s consistent with land deformation being a major driver of Chinese sea level change instead of global warming.

Coastal temperature rise suspiciously high

Despite Reuters’ claim, the SOA did not report that coastal temperatures increased by 0.34°C/decade. SOA didn’t provided any temperature data at all. That number came from somewhere else.

If true, China’s coastal temperature increase since 1980 is +1.12 degrees. That’s double the amount of warming of the rest of the earth in the same time span.

Coastal warming amounts to 32 percent more than the whole earth experienced over the last 133 years since 1880. It’s regionally possible, but unlikely due to global warming. Urban heat island effect in the densely populated lowlands is a more likely cause.

Conclusions

Reuters converted a dry Chinese government storm damage report into yet another global warming warning that made international headlines. It’s a typical example of media-hyped climate change exaggeration.

The SOA does not blame 2013 storm damage and/or sea level changes on human-caused global warming. SOA reports 2013 was an above average year for damages, but nearly half of it came from just one typhoon named Usagi.

To make it seem like China is scrambling for a response to massive 2013 damages Reuters’ concluding paragraph reads, “China also aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP to 40-45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.”

The statement is factually true. It’s an old, unkept promise China made at the 2009 UN Copenhagen climate summit. China’s greenhouse emissions have increased by 25 percent from 8 to 10 billion tons since 2009. China’s greenhouse emissions today are double 2005 levels. China has done little to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The general public is being deceived about climate change, but not by skeptics. Instead, the public is being hoodwinked by conventional news outlets in order to add more sizzle to their science stories.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • mememine

    Most people now refuse to condemn their own children to a crisis that science has been certain could happen with 95% certainty for 32 years but these lab coat saints can’t say their own comet hit of a climate crisis is as real and “eventual” as they love to say comet hits are and how evolution is “proven” and smoking WILL cause cancer. So YOU remaining “believers” may not tell our children that science “believes” as you do. Who’s the neocon again here and know your science because it was just 32 years of “maybe” and never “will be”. It’s as if you doomers wanted this misery to have been real.

    Prove us wrong and find us one IPCC warning that says anything beyond; “could be” and 95% certainty that THE END IS NEAR Find us one IPCC paper that says; “inevitable” or “eventual” or “inescapable” or………….”will be” a crisis.

    And get ahead of the curve like real progressives;

    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

    • CB

      Uh huh, and what do you believe?

      How likely is it polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as we’ve raised them given they have never done this before in Earth’s history?

      • Steve Davidson

        The north polar cap has lost about 40% of its volume over the last 35 years or so. That is something to be concerned about. The south polar cap, on the other hand, may actually be slightly bigger over that same time frame.

        Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely will eventually have a negative effect if left unchecked, but most likely it is centuries in the future rather than decades as is commonly believed.

        • CB

          Antarctic sea ice is increasing because the continent is melting down. Ice is going from the land to the sea.

          Arctic sea ice has lost 70% of its volume over the last 34 years. It’s down from around 17,000 km³ in 1979 to around 5,000 km³ last year.

          If it won’t be gone in a matter of years at this rate, how long will it take to disappear completely?

          • Steve Davidson

            Where do your numbers come from, please?

          • CB

            I am so glad you asked, and thank you for your politeness!!!

            My numbers come from the Polar Science Center at Washington University.

          • Steve Davidson

            Thanks. UW, I think, is one of the few places modeling arctic ice volume. It is a great reference. There is more ice volume loss that I’d thought.

            Unfortunate for me their data files are all .gz that I don’t have any applications to work with it. 🙁 In areas of science tainted by politics I like to do some of my own simplistic analysis with Excel.

            UW’s “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly” page, which they say is updated once a month, is great and has some superb graphs.

            Arctic ice volume has rebounded slightly since last year and is “only” 67% below the 1979 level now. LOL!!!

            Mentally extending the April trend line in figure 3 looks to me like it’ll hit zero in 25-30 years or so at its present rate.

            I’d caution, though, that annual sea ice volume changes are massive and UW depends on modeling, not direct measurements, to calculate overall volume. If their model is anything like IPCC air temperature models then it could be off, too.

          • CB

            Try 7zip. It does gz files.

            If you understand Arctic sea ice is going to disappear completely within a few decades, and you understand this sea ice stabilises climate in the northern hemisphere, why would you think radical changes in climate aren’t decades away (using a rather generous interpretation of the data)?

          • Steve Davidson

            I can see the trend line and it is real, but that doesn’t mean Arctic sea ice is going to disappear within 30 years. My OPINION is we are seeing a temporary trend caused by natural variability and that trend will likely reverse before all the ice is gone.

            We only have a complete record of sea ice extent and implied sea ice volume since the satellite era, only 35 years or so. That isn’t nearly long enough to know if that is a permanent trend or not.

            Anecdotal photographic evidence from numerous U.S. Navy submarines surfacing near the North Pole in the late 1950s and early 1960s show that sea ice was thin back then. One Navy image of a three submarine rendezvous in OPEN water!

            That does not prove there was less ice back then. It just indicates our knowledge base isn’t long enough to make scientific judgements about long-term changes yet.

            Current science is what indicates the effects of human-induced climate change may be centuries rather than decades away.

            Assuming a pre-industrial CO2 level of 265ppm then 22% of all the CO2 increase has occurred just since 1998, yet there has been no statistically significant air-sea temperature rise since 1998.

            (I calculated the 22% from the average CO2 level measured from Mauna Loa and averaged over 12 months in 1998 compared to CO2 levels measured and averaged over 12 months in 2013)

            Clearly, mankind is not having as great an impact on global warming (and thus radical climate change) as folks seem to think.

          • CB

            Why wouldn’t you expect polar meltdown to continue?

            If you understand polar ice caps have never in Earth’s history been able to withstand such high levels of CO₂, why would you expect them to today?

          • Steve Davidson

            Ahhh… CO2… why do you think there is a causal relationship between CO2 increases and Arctic ice??

            CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, has increased a miniscule +.000013% of Earth’s atmosphere since 1880. It has increased roughly linearly since the 1950s.

            However, earth’s +0.85 degree C actual temperature increase (according to the IPCC) has been measured in just two distinct time periods (HadCRUT4 data):
            +0.4 from 1920-1945
            +0.5 from 1976-1998

            The rest of the time earth’s temperature has roughly remained steady or declined slightly while CO2 has continued a steady increase.

            According to IPCC model predictions there should have been a +0.4 degree increase in Earth’s temperature since 1998 that hasn’t happened. That amount of temperature rise is fully half as much as the total actual rise.

            How can you reconcile these discrepancies between theory, actual temperature behavior and a steady increase of CO2, let alone connect it with Arctic sea ice that we have no idea what happened to it before 1979??

          • CB

            I think there is a causal relationship between CO₂ and polar ice caps because CO₂ increases temperature and increased temperature melts ice.

            I don’t know that any discrepancy exists between predictions and observations over the last few years, but even if it did, it would be statistically irrelevant in comparison to a perfect track record 4.5 billion years long.

            If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it, why would you expect them to today?

          • Steve Davidson

            “I don’t know of any discrepancies between theory and observations”

            Didn’t you read anything I wrote?? I provided you numerous factual discrepancies. What, specifically, is wrong with the information outlined above?

            Empirical facts are not a matter of opinion. Unless the data itself presented is wrong, then those discrepancies contradict your opinion and thus require further explanation.

            You say, “polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it”

            What data can you provide to support that opinion?

          • CB

            You provided your claims.

            What is wrong with your claims is that they are not backed up by evidence of any kind.

            There is abundant evidence that polar ice caps can withstand levels of CO₂ below 290PPM. This evidence is in the dataset “EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Carbon Dioxide Data” compiled by Lüthi, et al.

            If you believe polar ice caps can withstand levels of CO₂ above 290PPM, provide that evidence please.

          • Steve Davidson

            I will research the EPICA paper and tell you what I find. I like learning new things.

            Now, you do me the same same courtesy and explain how the temperature DATA I provided from the IPCC HadCRUT4 global land-sea database and conclusions based on it is “not supported by evidence of any kind”.

            A supportive graph of HadCRUT4 overlaid with Mauna Loa CO2 data since 1950 can be seen in another article I wrote here at communities news titled “Human-caused global warming theory weakening”:

            (I’d provide the direct link, but it isn’t allowed in comments. You’ll have
            to click my name at the top of this article to see a the list of my
            other articles to find it. At the bottom on the first display is a
            button called “More”. Click it and the article will finally show up. A
            Google scan will work to)

            1950 is not an arbitrary start date… it is the starting date chosen by the IPCC from which it draws its conclusions. You can see that global temperatures trended down before 1978 while CO2 was rising and that CO2 kept rising even faster after earth’s temperature leveled off around 1998.

            Explain that. Good luck!

          • CB

            You wrote the article, you should be able to link to anything you want!

            All the data show significant, sustained warming since 1850. What’s your point?

            I showed you 800,000 years of data (not a paper, actual raw data) that suggest polar ice caps persist quite nicely at levels of CO₂ under 290PPM. Now where is your evidence polar ice caps can persist at levels of CO₂ over this value?

            If polar ice caps can withstand such high levels of CO₂, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of them doing so?

          • Steve Davidson

            You aren’t making sense anymore.

            First, the HadCRUT4 data does NOT… I repeat… does NOT… show “sustained warming” since 1850. All +.85 degrees of warming came in just two 2-decade time periods:
            1-Decades of the1920s and 1930s
            2-Decades of the 1980s and 1990s

            The other 120 or so years global temperatures were either steady or decreased slightly. That does not correlate at all with modern CO2 increases.

            You still miss the point about the 800K record… if you can’t correlate it to temperatures it really doesn’t mean anything.

            Heck, you can’t even tell me the last time the ice cap melted and what the measured CO2 level was.

            When you are ready for a real discussion based on real science and accepted IPCC referenced data then let me know. I’m not going anywhere.

            For now I’ve reached the point of dimished returns in the present discussion. Thanks for your participation. 🙂

          • CB

            Right, warming isn’t necessarily going to happen all at the same time.

            How would you get from there to the idea that warming hasn’t occurred at all?

            That temperatures under 0°C are correlated with levels of CO₂ under 290PPM for the last 800,000 years isn’t in debate. Ice melts at 0°C. This is the physical reality of the universe you inhabit.

            If you think temperatures under 0°C are correlated with levels of CO₂ above 290PPM, provide a single piece of evidence in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history that these things are correlated.

            If such evidence existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to provide it?

            If you were interested in an honest conversation, why would I have to ask you over and over again to explain what you believe?

            Climate Deniers are false-flagging my posts in order to censor them. If they were telling the truth, why would they need to do this?

            —-

            @S Graves Mr. Graves, because you have a bad habit of attempting to hijack threads about climate science with nonsense, please name a single point in the last 800,000 years that CO₂ went above 290PPM, or state that you cannot find such a point.

            If you cannot do either one of these things, you will be ignored.

          • S Graves

            CB…you are getting buried in your own prevarications.
            Currently, temps of 0C prevail in the Antarctic. Are you saying the CO2 in below 290 ppm there? If it’s not, why do you ask your insipid questions?
            And you know that’s not the only time in the planet’s history. Don’t make me prove your conartisticness once more.

          • S Graves

            More CB nonsense. “Now where is your evidence polar ice caps can persist at levels of CO₂ over this value (290 ppm)?” The answer is quite clearly observable. NOW…yesterday, last week, month… Are you somehow denying that we have CO₂ near 400 ppm and we also have persisting ice caps? Name a single scientist…cite one peer reviewed paper that supports your statement quoted here.

          • Steve Davidson

            OK… I looked… good data source. Thanks for pointing it out.

            If all you wanted to do is show me that CO2 today is higher than
            it has been for 800K years then “mission accomplished”, but I already knew that.

            The reference doesn’t draw any conclusions from its 800K long data record. It doesn’t relate it to global temperatures at all. On what basis do you draw conclusions from it?

            On the other hand, you can see from the graph in my article that it does relate CO2 to temperatures and clearly shows that despite the fact CO2 is at its highest levels in over 800 thousand years that earth’s temperature has leveled off even as CO2 continues rising.

            Clearly something is wrong with AGW theory. Nearly half the expected temperature rise over the last 35 years has failed to materialize.

            How do you explain that?

          • CB

            “The reference doesn’t draw any conclusions from its 800K long data record. It doesn’t relate it to global temperatures at all.”

            Of course it does! The CO₂ readings are taken from polar ice.

            That means it was cold enough for polar ice to persist with those levels of CO₂.

            I don’t know that anyone’s predictions about temperature rise were so very incorrect!

            Why would someone’s failure to accurately predict how quickly CO₂ is warming the planet make you throw a century of established science out the window?

          • Steve Davidson

            I agree with you there is a long record of CO2 taken from ice core readings.

            What is missing is a temperature record to correlate with it. You gotta have a temperature record to prove your premise. Without temperatures all you have is a pretty 800k long CO2 record.

            I can’t put direct links in these comments, but I can email them to you. Practically all the current data that exists proves IPCC temperature predictions are wrong. I can email that info to you.

            I will leave the email address in this comment until you get it and we can email, then I’ll delete the line.

            I’m quite familiar with temperature data records from multiple data sources going all the way back to 1880. I can show you how CO2 data does NOT correlated with that data either without throwing away a shred of established science. 🙂

          • CB

            The temperature at which ice melts is 0°C. If the temperature where the ice in those polar ice cores was laid down went above 0°C, they wouldn’t be able to record levels of CO₂ under 290PPM, would they?

            Ice cores are one piece of a climate record that matches low CO₂ perfectly with ice ages. The Karoo ice age corresponds precisely with a drop in CO₂. We know this because of the GEOCARB III CO₂ reconstruction.

            The Andean-Saharan ice age corresponds precisely with a drop in CO₂. GEOCARB III isn’t a fine enough proxy to discern this, but measurements of ¹³C in marine invertebrate deposition show that CO₂ dropped to limiting levels. Check out “Did changes in atmospheric CO₂ coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?” by Young, et al for more.

            In fact, every ice house phase in Earth’s history has been marked by a crash in CO₂, and every hot house phase in Earth’s history has been marked by high CO₂.

            …so why are you talking about data going back a measly century? There is a perfect track record 4.5 billion years long of polar ice sheet collapse when CO₂ passes levels where it is today. Why would you expect a different outcome this time around?

          • S Graves

            You ARE JOKING. No…maybe you are just acting dumb to try to preserve your inane position. You have stated you have done the research. So you are maintaining that the polar ice caps formed…on a CONTINENTAL SCALE… with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today’s levels, or around 800PPM, and then disappeared in less than 860 years? I mean…you have to believe that for your position to have merit. Now that’s funny.

            Name a single scientist, cite a single peer reviewed work that supports your vacuous position. Just one that says all that happened in less than 860y. You are proving your dishonesty when caught out on your insipid question.

          • Guest

          • Steve Davidson

            For what it is worth, I did find a graph published by the National Academy of Sciences that correlates an 800K temperature record with an 800K CO2 record.

            It is titled “Figure 14: 800,000 Years of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Records”

            In the remarks it makes this highly revealing statement:
            “During these cycles, changes in carbon dioxide concentrations (in red)
            track closely with changes in temperature (in blue), with CO2 lagging
            behind temperature changes”

            In other words, CO2 changes didn’t drive the temperature changes over the last 800K years, temperature changes drove the CO2 changes!!!

          • CB

            Right, but it’s a well-known scientific fact that increases in temperature drive increases in CO₂, just as it’s a well-known scientific fact that increases in CO₂ drive increases in temperature.

            … so why would you think it matters which came first?

            If there’s a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂ over million year timespans, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of this driver creating polar ice caps with levels of CO₂ like we have today?

          • S Graves

            Oh…I see you have now added “over million year timespans”. Happy to have been of help in honing another of your questions ad nauseum.

          • Galtness

            Do all first time commentators here automatically get moderated? All I tried to do was post an informative link to a respected scientist’s opinion on the reliability of ice core data…

          • Links are hindered by disqus and those go into moderation. I have it happen all the time.

          • Steve Davidson

            I can’t post links in comments here either. I think the comment system is trying to prevent spam by disallowing all links. They get sent to be moderated, but either get moderated very slowly or not moderated at all

          • CB

            This is site-specific. commdiginews can set Disqus to allow links if it wants.

            … and Tanya should be able to approve them.

          • Galtness

            See my reply to Steve above. I gave enough information that what I was trying to link should come up first in a search of those terms. Read the PDF it links to and share if you care. Read the author’s credentials and experience and judge for yourself. Ice cores are not a good indicator of CO2 levels in the atmosphere according to his authority – which is considerable…

          • CB

            If measurements of average concentrations of CO₂ from ice cores are so very unreliable, why do the data from opposite sides of the world match precisely?

          • Galtness

            Do a search for Zbiginiew Jaworowski Warwick Hughes (WH is the site) and you will find a summary with a link to a PDF of the original full article he wrote on the problems with using ice cores as proxies for temp and CO2 data. He covers other stuff in the PDF, but given his background and experience with ice cores I would rate him an expert worthy of listening to…

          • CB

            Would you?

            Name a problem with using ice cores to measure CO₂.

            You know it’s not actually a proxy, right? They’re measuring the actual concentration of CO₂ trapped in tiny bubbles.

          • Galtness

            You didn’t read the PDF. We have nothing to discuss unless you do.

            Zbigniew Jaworowski “The Greatest Scandal of our Time”

            Copy, paste, search and read. Tell me where he is wrong about the use of ice cores. They do not measure the actual concentration at all.

          • CB

            If you don’t want to back up your claim with a fact of any kind, that’s fine.

            How do you think that makes you look?

          • Galtness

            I directed you to a paper written by a PhD scientist that spent decades in the field taking ice core samples and analyzing them for pollution and GHG levels. He worked for IPCC. You obviously haven’t read it, nor do you seem inclined. How does that make you look?

            Polar ice cap volume/melting? Daily Caller? I didn’t raise one or defend the other. Off topic and irrelevant. Your attempted redirect is dismissed.

            I hold BB, DC, HP and all similar outlets in the same low esteem. They are what they are, I am talking real science, not the stuff published at any of those sites. I called you out because you tried to dodge me, and DC was where I found you avoiding me eight hours and many screeches later.

            Matching results from errant sampling techniques and practices are as worthless as those that don’t match – probably more so. Reproducing flawed results doesn’t diminish the fact that they are flawed.

            IPCC seems to have ‘settled’ on +2dC per doubling of CO2. Add that 2/1 wv/CO2 and it should be +6dC per doubling. IF I read it wrong and it is a total of +2dC per doubling then actual observation still puts their estimates of ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2 off by around 200-500% vs observed temperature increases. And that is IF one accepts the first 80 years of the actual temperature readings as having the kind of precision available to us today. You accept proxy data without question and dismiss the possibility of human error, apparently.

            Sloppy, sloppy science, questionable data sets, bad methods and a whole lot of speculation that doesn’t match observed reality.

            You’re a screecher, nothing more. You don’t look into the science, you take it on ‘faith’. Your High Priests of human-caused doom and gloom are pure of heart and infallible in your eyes.

            Try doing some reading and then break out a calculator and do some math.

            I won’t hold my breath…

          • CB

            Right, and you claimed that paper contained some reason that ice cores are not a reliable way to determine CO₂.

            … but you didn’t name that reason.

            If you were telling the truth, why should this be?

          • Galtness

            Read the paper you lazy B..

          • CB

            Give me a reason.

            You said the paper shows ice core data is unreliable.

            State one reason ice core data should be unreliable.

            How could it possibly be more difficult to simply do so than to yammer endlessly about a paper most likely written by a dishonest, Climate Denier propagandist?

            How do you think that makes you look?

          • Steve Davidson

            I read Gaitness’s Jaworowski paper and it does outline numerous issues with ice core samples. I doubt you will believe Jaworowski… he’s an AGW skeptic.

          • CB

            Name one issue with ice core samples.

            If you were telling the truth, isn’t this something you should be able to do?

          • Steve Davidson

            Read the Jaworowski paper, please… details are there. He’s the expert. If there are errors in his analysis, feel free to critique them here.

          • Galtness

            GaLtness, not “gaitness”. Thanks otherwise. Too bad I can’t post links here, I could help you bury these drones once and for all…

          • Steve Davidson

            I’ll try to read and spell correctly in the future. 😉

            I’m not really interested in burying anyone, but I am interested in truth and accuracy.

          • Steve Davidson

            Thanks… very interesting paper. I agree, his 2007 paper in EIR Science is worth reading.

            Ironically, as a result of this discussion I wrote another article for CDN that involves Antarctic ice core sample data that you may find interesting.

            It is in the editorial phase right now so might not be published for a day or two. However, I published it on my “Inform the Pundits” blog and it can be read there right now.

            It is titled, “Climate cover-up at the National Academy of Sciences?”

            You can find the blog with a Google search for “Inform the Pundits”

          • Galtness

            Yeah, checked your article and found it interesting. That ‘fact’ gets kicked around a lot for those who take the time to look. I’m unconvinced that we have a truly accurate idea of CO2 concentrations ‘globally’ since they vary regionally and cyclically depending on time of day and time of year (and temperature, wind, etc…)

            If I bookmarked every interesting aspect I’ve found on the ‘settled science’ I wouldn’t be able to keep track of it all. It’s a shame because I read a somewhat technical paper awhile back that questioned climate ‘sensitivity’ due to the narrow band of light/radiation/photons that CO2 can absorb and emit. Very narrow as a part of the whole, and a mere sliver of what H2O does. Another I read had found that ‘feedback sensitivity’ (ocean release in response to higher temperatures) was more like ~7ppmv per +1dC instead of the ‘accepted’ number of 40ppmv used by so many. That one was written by a team that supports CC/AGW, as they were very careful in how they worded their conclusions. Kind of a “hey guys, don’t want to rock the boat, but…” tone.

            My own (non-scientific) conclusion based on the volumes I have read is that we had a tiny impact that may have accelerated an already naturally occurring and cyclical event, and that no catastrophe is likely – let alone imminent.

            Jaworowski mentioned Beck, and I read some criticisms of him – and his rebuttals – and it seems that his assertion that atmospheric measurements taken from 1812-1950(?) show a great variability where CO2 was at times (in places) on par or above what it is today. None could attack his findings with facts.

            It seems our friend CB has opted out of the discussion in light of the information I introduced. I’m not surprised, it happens all the time with talking points people when the proper response can’t be found on their page…

          • CB

            Nonsense. You haven’t explained why CO₂ measurements from ice cores match wherever they’re drilled if they are so unreliable.

            You know reproducibility is the main test of science, right?

            Yes, water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂!

            NASA says it’s also a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂, not a primary driver in and of itself:

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            (from “NASA – Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change”)

            Did you think you were the first Climate Denier to repeat this transparently false talking point?

          • Steve Davidson

            Up until 1998 the scientific indicators of human-caused global warming were very convincing. Since then the theory appears to have come on hard times. The CO2/temperature link, fundamental to the theory, looks to be breaking down. Without it the theory will fall like a house of cards.

            It appears as if the more data coming in against AGW these days, the more its proponents double down on their claims. A lot of research money is riding on that theory and everyone wants a piece of it.

            The AGW theorists are in danger of becoming the boy who called wolf to often. Eventually people stop listening and won’t believe it when they need to pay attention.

            It’s still ominous that CO2 is so much higher today than its historical average. We cannot allow CO2 emissions to go on indefinitely unchecked or it will eventually rise to the point of having real effects.

            For now, though, the IPCC has reached the age of retreat from its most dire predictions. Backing off on claims, as happened with AR5 for the first time, is only the beginning.

          • S Graves

            Where’s your evidence that ice caps cannot withstand levels of CO2 above 400ppm. You’ve have claimed this BS over and over with NEVER a single bit of evidence. But you ask others for evidence?? You have become a self parody, CB.

          • Steve Davidson

            Oh… btw… you said:
            “I think there is a causal relationship between CO₂ and polar ice caps
            because CO₂ increases temperature and increased temperature melts ice.”

            I agree that it makes perfectly good, logical sense. The idea is even supported by the current ice melt. It is based on solid physical reasoning.

            The weakness in the argument, though, is that recent real temperature behavior is not (and has not) followed the predicted pattern. Something is amiss.

            The current state of AGW theory reminds me of a famous Richard Feynman quote:
            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            In this case, the experiment is comparing the CO2 records with the global temperature records… they don’t match.

          • CB

            Maybe there were some mis-predictions over the last few years.

            So what?

            In the entirety of Earth’s history, polar ice caps have undergone a complete meltdown every time CO₂ passes where it is today.

            If you understand this, why would you expect a different outcome this time around?

          • Steve Davidson

            I’m unfamiliar with the history of the polar ice caps over geologic time. I’m unfamiliar with any data on CO2 that goes back further than 800K. That, I think, is pretty much the entire ice core record.

            When was the last the ice caps completely melted? It has to be further back than the Antarctic ice cores go. Is there a reference you can give me that records that and also records CO2 levels at that time?

            Can you direct me to the data that shows elevated CO2 levels and records that also show the ice cap was completely melted? I’m interested in seeing it.

            This is not an area of expertise for me, but I’ve always been under the impression that CO2 level changes over the last 800K are associated with interglacial warm periods. The Holocene epoch we are in now is one of those interglacial warm periods. It started about 11,500 years ago. The ice ages between them last much longer than the interglacial warm periods.

            800 thousand years is a long time, but is only an instant in geological time that goes back billions of years.

          • CB

            The proxies past 800,000 years ago are not quite as reliable as the ice core data, but show a steady decline in atmospheric CO₂ over the last 100 million years. It looks like there may be ice cores which yield useful data going back 1.5 million years (see “Oldest ice core: Finding a 1.5 million-year record of Earth’s climate”), but the oldest ice scientists have been able to find anywhere is around 8 million years (see “The Oldest Ice on Earth? | Ice Stories: Dispatches From Polar Scientists”).

            It appears that sometime between the initial southern continental glaciation 34 million years ago and 8 million years ago, the planet underwent a complete collapse of polar ice at levels of CO₂ somewhere between 800PPM and 300PPM, and perhaps multiple collapses.

            During the last 800,000 years, warm and cool periods match increases and decreases in CO₂ precisely. Part of the explanation for this is oceanic outgassing of CO₂ due to changes in temperature driven by Milankovitch cycles, but part of the explanation for the matching is the fact that CO₂ increases planetary temperature. They actually form a feedback loop that can be quite clearly seen in the rapid increase in both CO₂ and temperature at the beginning of each interglacial.

          • S Graves

            It appears that sometime between the initial southern continental glaciation 34 million years ago and 8 million years ago, the planet underwent a complete collapse of polar ice at levels of CO₂ somewhere between 800PPM and 300PPM, and perhaps multiple collapses.

            And the source is………..????? Remember, for your inane question ad nauseum to have any merit whatsoever, the complete melt down had to occur w/I 860y of formation…your definition of persist.

          • CB

            I just gave it to you. Let me do it again:

            “The Oldest Ice on Earth? | Ice Stories: Dispatches From Polar Scientists”

            It’s a very nice article from the Exploratorium and the first thing that comes up in google.

          • Steve Davidson

            You miss S Graves question…
            “34 million years ago and 8 million years ago, the planet underwent a
            complete collapse of polar ice at levels of CO₂ somewhere between 800PPM and 300PPM, and perhaps multiple collapses.”

            That line in NOT in the reference you gave, nor in any of it’s linked sources. S Grave is just asking where it came from.

          • S Graves

            Thanks for clarifying.

          • CB

            Are you saying polar ice persisted between its initial formation 34 million years ago and the deposition of the oldest ice on Earth, roughly 8 million years ago?

            If this is true, why isn’t there a single scrap of ice on Earth older than 8 million years?

            At the initial formation of the southern polar ice cap, levels of CO₂ were roughly 800PPM, and have steadily fallen since then.

            Let’s say you wanted to be cavalier with the only home humanity has ever known and set the threshold for polar ice sheet collapse at closer to 800PPM of CO₂.

            Why wouldn’t you think it would be a good idea to stop increasing atmospheric CO₂ before it gets to this point?

            I have asked S Graves all of these questions, and he ran from them like a coward. Will you do better?

            …apparently not.

          • Steve Davidson

            I wasn’t saying anything. Heck, I don’t know what happened to the ice caps more than 800k years back. I was only clarifying S Grave’s question.

          • CB

            S Graves has repeated the same claims over and over again, but has yet to provide a single citation for them. He doesn’t need your help clarifying his statements, he needs medication.

            If it’s so likely that polar ice caps can withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM, why do they appear to have melted completely 8 million years ago at levels lower than this?

            If you understand ice caps have melted each and every time in Earth’s history CO₂ went so high, why would you expect a different outcome this time?

            If you aren’t interested in the science, why did you bother writing an entire article claiming it’s been misrepresented?

          • S Graves

            Where in the article does it state “It appears that sometime between the initial southern continental glaciation 34 million years ago and 8 million years ago, the planet underwent a complete collapse of polar ice at levels of CO₂ somewhere between 800PPM and 300PPM, and perhaps multiple collapses.” I see nothing about a total collapse in this article.

            It is interesting that you now say this after belittling others for not knowing the science when it was just a few days ago you argued, and I quote you;

            Monday 3-31-14 10:22 PM “The southern polar ice cap melted away completely some 2 million years ago.”

            So is it 2mm…8mm…34…it didn’t happen??? Where are you now?

            Getting you to admit you were mistaken is like interrogating a criminal…you have to coax out lots of statements so that eventually the truth emerges. I’ve been holding this one recent finding.

            West Antarctica Ice Sheet Existed 20 Million Years Earlier Than Believed. USB. Google it.

          • Steve Davidson

            You said:
            “It appears that sometime between the initial southern continental
            glaciation 34 million years ago and 8 million years ago, the planet
            underwent a complete collapse of polar ice at levels of CO₂ somewhere
            between 800PPM and 300PPM, and perhaps multiple collapses.”

            Where does this info come from? I’m not doubting you, nor am I from Missouri, but I’d still like to see for myself. 🙂

          • CB

            I just gave it to you. Let me do it again:

            It’s from the Exploratorium: “The Oldest Ice on Earth? | Ice Stories: Dispatches From Polar Scientists”

            NASA has a paper suggesting the Greenland ice sheet didn’t exist more than 2.7 million years ago, which puts the CO₂ threshold for Greenland’s ice sheet collapse even lower:

            NASA – “Researchers Find 3-million-year-old Landscape Beneath Greenland Ice Sheet”

          • S Graves

            Steve…she is not telling the truth. She knows that but continues to attempt to deceive and misdirect. Sad case.

          • CB

            Steve doesn’t need your help! He’s a big boy, he can handle himself.

            … so paternalistic!

          • S Graves

            How did you determine sea ice volume in ’79??

          • Steve Davidson

            CB’s numbers are accurate. They come from the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center and based on satellite measurements and modeling. Its a credible source.

            There has been a slight recovery of Arctic sea ice volume over the last year and according to the UW’s latest numbers sea ice volume is down 67%.

          • S Graves

            And before 1979? How much is it down from the MWP? I won’t engage you in the sort of phony, disingenuous questions a la CB.

            We have little in the record to demonstrate “normal” ice levels. She implies that “melting” is the cause of the decline and mentions no other factors. There are other’s as demonstrated by the literature. You can find them easily or I can help you
            Yes, volume is down since the beginning of the satellite era of monitoring which began an the end of a period of global cooling. Was that the “normal” extent. Maybe you know. Maybe CB’s numbers are accurate. But that’s QUITE a statement of faith. From my point of view, they are clearly someone’s best guess…and I think most experts would not claim them to be “accurate”.

            Here’s a new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews that finds Arctic sea ice extent and thickness was much less than present-day conditions and according to the authors,

            “Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years Before the Present) compared to present day conditions.”
            Cronin, et. al, Dec 2013.

            “CB’s numbers are accurate”. So the models provide “accurate” information…let alone data? Certainly modeling is important in making estimates about the past…since we have virtually no data. Additionally, ASI has varied significantly in extent and mass over time and is affected by factors other than just changes in temperature. Good you came to her rescue.

          • Steve Davidson

            To the question:
            “How much did it go down (or up) before 1979?”
            Answer: I don’t know. Nor do I know how much up or down from the MWP or the Holocene.

            I do not believe there are accurate measures of Arctic sea ice before the satellite era, but I could be wrong about that. I doubt the record is long enough to know what “normal” is.

            What I do know is the fabled Northwest Passage is navigable part of the year. I also know that early nuclear submarines in the 50s and 60s surfaced in open water near the North Pole. There are photographs of that.

            You are right to question the accuracy of model determined numbers – I certainly do – but they are the best we have and CB did quote them correctly, so wasn’t exaggerating anything. That is what I meant when I said “accurate”.

          • S Graves

            Thanks for the straightforward response, Steve. Yes, these numbers may be the best we have but, as we agree, we have little data about the volume of ASI before the late ’70’s. She went on to claim that it will be gone based upon a short term data sample and a simplistic linear trend projection. Note that anomalous winds were responsible for about a third of the ice compaction and out flux through the Fram Straight in the record low ’07. There just are other things at work than simple in situ melting, as she implies.

          • Steve Davidson

            Pure speculation…
            Sea ice goes up and down a lot on a regular basis on a multi-decadal basis due to natural causes and is at a low period right now. Anecdotal submarine photographic evidence from the 50s and early 60s suggests that ice was thin back then, but had recovered mass by 1979.

            Temperature rise from 1978-1998 is the cause of the current melt, but a causal link between CO2 and temperature over 800,000 years and up to the present day is weak at best.

            ENSO is the more likely culprit for the melt than CO2. It correlates better to the earth’s recent temperature profile than does CO2.

            I kinda doubt that sea ice will melt completely in 30 years. Its shown signs of recovery since its record low in 2012.

            That being said, both CO2 levels and sea ice melt are something to be greatly concerned about.

            Over the next decade or so should sea ice begin a recovery while CO2 keeps going up it will be another nail in AGW theory’s coffin. Same if temperatures begin to drop.

          • S Graves

            Little to disagree with. I will add that there is much more at work than CO2 and localized Arctic temperatures.
            From a NASA press release in Sept., 2007:

            “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

      • RGZ_50

        you know from squat why there are patterns of warming and cooling. Before there was this hysterical quasi religious fanaticism about global warming, there were ‘experts’ (collecting research grants) widely predicting global cooling and ridiculing anyone who didn’t accept their global cooling models.

        Let me ask you this, the Glaciers began to recede 12 – 15,000 years ago. How did THAT happen without man made Global Warming?

        • CB

          Over the last 800,000 years, climate has been driven primarily by Milankovitch cycles amplified by CO₂.

          Did you think CO₂ had to be produced by a human in order to cause planetary warming?

          Why would you think that?

          If there’s a stronger driver of long-term planetary temperature than CO₂, name that driver and a single previous point in Earth’s history it allowed polar ice caps to persist with levels of CO₂ like we have today.

          If such a point existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to name it?

          • S Graves

            CB!!! You are getting carried away with your own
            nonsense.
            You have told me in your own words that ice caps formed
            34mmy, grew in extent and mass with CO2 at levels almost twice what
            they are today. That’s your own words, CB. You further stated that
            “persist’ is defined as 860 years. Are you saying that the ice
            caps you state occurred during the period you suggest did all that
            and disappeared in 860 years? REALLY…you claim that? Show me a
            single scientist or peer reviewed paper that supports your vacuous
            position supporting your inane question. I will quote for you your
            very own opinion in your very own words if you have somehow again
            forgotten what it is.

    • jfreed27

      mememine is at it again. Part of the Koch’s flying monkey army of scoffers. You can’t fix stupid.

      • You’re suggesting “mememine” is paid to do this or under their direct direction to do so? How would you go about proving this?

        • jfreed27

          I do not know if he is paid; he may be a ‘volunteer, but he is loyal to the Koch’s cause-for-profit.

          And a comment from another blogger (which I cannot find) once listed several aliases he uses to blog. He was identified as some guy from Niagara Falls (don’t know how this was discovered).

          He repeats the same soft poison over and over, which is debunked over and over, and rarely, if ever, replies or ‘debates’.

          Some are paid ($1/2 billion per year from fossil fuels to Stink Tanks); some ‘enlist’. The Doubt Machine picks up followers.

      • Steve Davidson

        If there is anything in this article factually incorrect then please say so. It can be discussed. Calling people “Koch’s flying monkey army of scoffers” is counterproductive.

      • RGZ_50

        well, aren’t you cute. Free to snipe, but you don’t bring any facts to the table. If there’s any stupid to fix, you might want to start with the guy in the mirror.

  • Auberon

    If you think Google Translate is reliable, then you are monolingual – at best. At least get a decent translation before using it as a central plank in your argument. Also, you need to do more research on the efforts China is making to reduce its GHG emissions. They are substantial, though, obviously, insufficient. In other words, do your homework before weighing in on such important issues.

    • Steve Davidson

      I looked at two separate translations from two completely different sources before writing this article. The translations were essentially the same.

      The only folks that got anything wrong in translation are the ones claiming China’s government report even mentions climate change, let alone blamed it for anything. I suggest you find your own translator and prove it for yourself.

      The purpose of this article was not to document China’s efforts on climate change. I’m sure there are many. But China doubling it’s CO2 emissions since 2005 while U.S. CO2 emissions are declining kinda speaks for itself, don’t you think?

      I spend a great deal of research time before writing any article. It’s doubtful you’ll find a single factual error in it… you are invited to try!

  • Steve Davidson

    According to the reference previously gave by CB from the University of Washington’s Polar Ice Center, CO2 levels have not exceeded about 290 ppm in the last 800K years.

    That is a credible result from a respected source.

    What CB can’t seem to do is relate that data to her almost unrelated leading question:
    “If polar ice caps can withstand such high levels of CO₂ (above 290 ppm), why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of them doing so?”

    • CB

      If you understand CO₂ warms planets, and you understand a warmer planet will have less ice, why are you having difficulty relating an increase in CO₂ to melting ice?

      • S Graves

        Correlation is not causation.

  • S Graves

    1950. Is this a trick question? Or just a stupid one?

    • CB

      Now try a point before humans began adding massive amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, roughly 1750CE.

      …and try to pay attention to the thread you crashed.