INITIAL ARTICLE
CO 2 is not about to kill us . . .
by Denier(Some other dude) presents a doom and gloom scenario for the future of our planet and blames it all on the use of oil and coal, resulting in increased CO 2 in the atmosphere, causing runaway rampant warming from which we will all perish. This is the constant thread in his writings and is obviously something he fervently believes. It is his right to hold such beliefs.
The scientific study of climate change requires one to follow the evidence and keep a close watch on facts before coming to conclusions. The IPCC mandate is only to find human causes for climate change and to ignore all other possible causes.
Over the period 1980-1999, other planets and moons in our solar system experienced increases in atmospheric temperature along with our planet — showing outside factors were responsible. Humans are not guilty.
There are also many studies showing large climate variations which have no link to CO 2 levels in the atmosphere. A graphic example of this is the Ordovician-Silurian ice age, around 420-450 million years ago, with CO 2 levels as high as 7000 parts per million. According to Mr Hughes this was impossible, the earth should have been burned to a cinder.
Studies of the past 10,000 years consistently show most of this time temperatures were considerably higher than currently being experienced. The Holocene Optimum, around 5000-8000 years ago, was up to 10 degrees C higher than now in the polar regions. The earth bloomed. Forests spread over land which cannot support them now, including the Sahara. Ironically, during this time CO 2 levels were decreasing. According to the IPCC theory, temperatures should have cooled. They didn’t.
A new study based on Michael Mann’s data from 1500-2000AD shows a temperature increase of only 0.05 degC. Therefore no warming over 500 years — just temperature variation, starting with the Medieval warm period through the little ice age and back to warmer times.
The UK Met Office in conjunction with the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia state; “no warming for 16 years”. This is confirmed in the IPCC 5th assessment report, ch10, where they admit zero temperature increase since 1998. So we have two sources of static temperature from organisations which promote human-caused warming. It must be so.
Mr (other dude) should read the chapter on water in Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth, where he explains that fears of the oceans becoming toxic from CO 2 are misguided. The oceans contain much more CO 2 than the atmosphere does.
The claim that the nine or ten hottest years were in this century cannot be true as temperatures have decreased since 2003. There have also been several el nino weather patterns this century, which affect temperature.
Climate scientists rely on data from only 1500 weather stations to plot their models. In 1970, 15,000 weather stations were used. The culling began in 1990, with an imediate jump in temperature. Virtually all are in urban areas.
A study in Mexico city revealed an urban heat island effect of 5.6 degC per century. An American scientific organisation found an urban heat island effect of up to 11 degC in some cities.So in a way Mr (other dude) is right, human activity has caused global warming. In the cities anyway, where concrete and asphalt absorb solar heat during the day and release it at night. Cities also produce heat of their own. This is where the temperature increase comes from.
When NASA claimed the hottest decade was in this century, they were forced to re-evaluate the data with the result that the 1930s became the hottest decade over the last 100 years.
MY RESPONSE:
Staggering level of dishonesty
Re: CO 2 is not about to kill us . . . Dec 29 column.I find it frustrating that a climate change denier like Mr Denier would be given a headline on the opinion page of your newspaper.
Mr Denier’s article shows a staggering level of intellectual dishonesty and a complete misunderstanding of both the process and results of science.
He asserts as fact the completely unproven hypothesis of warming on other planets, completely disregards the timescale over which warming occurred during the Holocene Optimum, misquotes the results of a report which will not be officially released until September 2013 (and badly misinterprets the results of a leaked version of a draft report) and claims the UK Met Office stated there had been “no warming for the past 16 years” (they most certainly did not, although a British newspaper claimed they had in an article which has been comprehensively debunked).
To your newspaper’s credit, you attempted to provide “balance” by including a letter from an atmospheric scientist; however, in this case there is no balance to be had.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to global warming caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by human activity.
Publishing a column containing so many inaccuracies and falsehoods gives unwarranted credibility to climate change deniers. This slows the progress of the changes humanity must make to prevent the enormous impacts on our planet of unchecked global warming.
BACK TO HIM AGAIN...
Climate does change . . . ‘but not because of carbon dioxide’
(I am) called a climate change denier (Jan 2 letter). What high praise, and from an obviously educated person too. Unfortunately that conclusion is incorrect as I have never claimed the climate does not change, only that CO 2 is not causing said changes.
The IPCC, on the other hand, did claim such a thing when it trumpeted Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph claiming 1000 years of static temperatures culminating in a sudden upsurge during the late 20th century, of about 0.4 degrees C — which coincided with an increase in CO 2 .
According to them the Medieval warm period and the little Ice Age did not exist. Who then is the denier?
The data released by the UK Met Office, which originates from East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, show static and declining temperatures since the late nineties.
This is confirmed by data from the National Climatic data centre in the USA.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies data shows slight warming for the period. However, this data set contains estimated Arctic temperatures based on temperature readings from outside the polar region. That’s right, guesses.
The data shows no warming. My information is correct.
As to the Holocene, scientific data clearly shows multiple warm periods going back around 10,000 years of which the Holocene Optimum was the warmest. Temperatures were much higher than now. The current warm period is the coldest of them all.
Many scientists say the planet is simply recovering from the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.
I am sure those who are now suffering in the harshest winter for the last 70-100 years will be pleased to know that in fact it is warmer than it should be.
Incidentally, as of December 24, 2012 over 600 people have died from cold across Eastern Europe and Russia; 15 dead in the USA from extreme cold. The Northern Hemisphere is in the grip of the worst winter in decades, with temperatures up to 10 degrees C. below normal. No mention in the press though. Why not? If people had died of heat stroke we would have heard about it. One wonders.
MY RESPONSE:
Regurgitating internet bilge
One has to roll one’s eyes at Mr Denier’s desperate scramble to shoehorn evidence into his own predetermined conclusions.The first several paragraphs, above, are simply incorrect. Mr Denier needs to be a bit more careful with his research before regurgitating the bilge he finds on internet blogs.
The final “well if the planet is warming, how come it’s so cold over there?” paragraph is such gibberish that it barely dignifies a response, other than to point out that extremes in weather, both hot and cold, are exactly what the science of global warming predicts.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is warming and this is caused by release of greenhouse gases by human activity.
Who to believe? I’m with the climatologists who have dedicated their lives to studying the impact of emissions on climate using robust scientific methodology and reasoning, rather than Mr Denier who clearly hasn’t even bothered to check his facts or sources.
Good work. The thing that concerns me about Mr Denier's letter is that - other than the more egregiously silly bits, like the interplanetary shite - he uses enough acronyms and references to sound almost credible to someone with no prior knowledge. The almost credible-sounding deniers are the more dangerous ones, of course.
ReplyDeleteAnna McM
I was surprised the newspaper published it given the number of complete falsehoods (I won't call them lies because I suspect Mr Denier is just ignorantly repeating them without realising they're simply not true), especially as it got top billing on the Opinion page. That he made his gibberish sound factual was probably how he got past the fairly relaxed editorial standards of a regional newspaper.
ReplyDeleteI really hope he writes back to defend himself because I'm looking forward to unleashing both barrels on him, especially if he continues to assert his "information is correct".