I’ll begin with two graphs put out in previous articles.
First, the familiar graph going well back in geological time of the Earth’s temperature and the Carbon Dioxide levels. This graph has been assembled using proxies- physical characteristics such as tree rings which give and idea of temperature at the time and ice cores which can give the Carbon Dioxide content.
Note that at about 450m years ago the temperature dropped 12 deg C but the Carbon Dioxide level rose to about 4500 ppm.( parts per million.) Then from 150 million years ago the Carbon Dioxide level dropped steadily to the present day, while the Earth’s temperature stayed at about 22 deg C for most of that time. (About 7 deg C above where it is now!) Further places on the graph show that there doesn’t appear to be any correlation between the amount of Carbon Dioxide and the Earth’s temperature.
Since 1900 the Earth has been through three or four hot and cold periods. Below is a graph showing the temperature falling in the period after the second world war. All this time, the Carbon Dioxide level was rising.
The blue line shows the Carbon Dioxide rising steadily. The red dotted line shows a steady fall of 0.1 deg c over the 30 years period.
According to NOAA, the earth has cooled just a bit under 0.1 deg C in the 8 years from 2016 to 2022. Hadley and the MSU satellite show that from 1998 to 2008, the Earth’s temperature fell by 0.78 deg C. The US Climate Reference Network showed that the Earth’s temperature fell by 0.37 deg C between 2205 and 2023. It seems that the Earth’s temperature has been falling since 1998. Remember, all this time Carbon Dioxide levels were rising, and we were constantly told this rising Carbon Dioxide was warming the planet.
Of course none of this is enough to change the climate alarmist cult members.
So here is a bit more.
A meteor- the Chelyabinsk meteor was a super bolide that entered the Earth’s atmosphere over the southern Ural region in Russia on the 15th February 2013. The meteor was approximately 18m in diameter and weighed about 9,100 tonnes. Its speed on passing through the earth’s atmosphere was about 54,000km/hr. The light from the meteor was briefly brighter than the sun. The object exploded in an air burst at a height of about 30km . The explosion generated a bright flash , producing a hot cloud of dust and gas that penetrated to 26km above the Earth.
In 2012 NASA put up a satellite-Suomi, and put it an orbit enabling it to track anything in the atmosphere over the whole surface of the Earth. The satellite then tracked the dust from the meteor explosion. The dust was scattered evenly, but only in the Northern hemisphere, none in the Southern.
In the years after 2000 large number of big forest fires occurred in the northern hemisphere. Larger than normal amounts of Carbon Monoxide were emitted into the atmosphere, greatly increasing the amount there. The spread of the Carbon Monoxide was mapped by NASA satellites. Carbon Monoxide is of course, a poisonous gas, and regarded as a pollutant. As with the meteor dust, all the Carbon Monoxide was confined to the northern hemisphere.
Here’s another example closer to home.
The eruption of the Tongan volcano in January 2022 produced the largest underwater explosion recorded by modern scientific instruments. It blasted an enormous amount of water into the atmosphere- an estimated 150 million tonnes.
Below is the map of that water vapour a year later in December of 2022. What do you notice about it? All the water vapour is still in the southern hemisphere.
It appears that atmospheric particles emitted in either hemisphere stay in that hemisphere.
Here’s an explanation as simply as I can make it.
It’s all to do with the Coriolis effect. This was first explained by Gaspar Coriolis, two centuries ago.
The Earth is rotating about its axis. If you view the Earth from the North Pole it rotates in an anticlockwise direction. If you view the earth from the South Pole it rotates in a clockwise direction. Let’s concentrate on the northern hemisphere. If you are standing at the equator facing the north pole the earth is spinning in a clockwise direction. Hope you have got this. Just think about it for a minute. Now the equator has to move 40,000 km in one rotation while say a metre or two from the north pole the distance moved in one rotation is very small- a few metres. So any point on the equator needs to be travelling at 1600km/hr to complete a revolution in 24 hours. At the pole however the speed is tiny, perhaps something of the order of 0.0001 km/hr.
We don’t notice this tremendous speed at the equator and elsewhere because the air is moving at the same speed, and we don’t fall off because gravity holds us to the Earth. Ok so we are standing at the equator looking towards the North Pole.
Air heated by the hot tropics rises and moves towards the North Pole. This air is moving at 1600km/hr in the direction of rotation of the Earth. Now you can see from the diagram below by the time this air gets to about the half-way mark the Earth there is moving at 1400km/hr.
So the air has moved further to the right than the earth has. By the time the air gets about ¾ of the way to the pole, the earth there is moving at 800km/hr so now the air at 1600km/hr is way ahead of the Earth. So the air moves in a curve (The red line). A fictitious force appears to be pushing the air to the right. The reverse happens when air travels from the North Pole to the Equator. The air starts out with a very slow speed to the right. (The speed of the Earth near the North Pole). By the time the air gets to the 800km/hr mark the Earth is ahead of the air, and by the time the air gets to the 1400km/hr mark the Earth is way ahead of the slow moving air. So air moving towards the equator moves to the left. (The green line).
Now if the earth was still-not rotating, the hot air high up in the atmosphere at the equator, would travel directly to the North Pole where it cools and falls and replaces the cool air that has headed to the Equator. So we would have a circulating cell. But the coreolis effect changes this circulation and the result is the formation of three smaller circulating cells.
These three cells are confined within certain ranges of latitude in the northern hemisphere and the equivalent in the south, and don’t move out of these ranges.
The net result is that air in the northern hemisphere stays in the northern hemisphere and air in the southern hemisphere stays in the southern hemisphere.
Comparison of the anthropogenic emissions in the northern hemisphere and those in the southern hemisphere
Diagram from Wiktor Kobylinski
The comparison is from burning of coal. Most would come from China and India, and this has increased. It is reasonable to say because of the much larger population, more vehicles. more planes, more industries, etc. that the emission of Carbon Dioxide from all sources, in the northern hemisphere far exceeds the emissions in the southern hemisphere.
So we can see the northern hemisphere (all the brown) in 2021 put out about 80% of all anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Now all those Carbon Dioxide emissions in the north stay in the northern hemisphere. So you would expect the northern hemisphere to be somewhat warmer than the southern hemisphere. This is because the climate alarmists tell you increasing Carbon Dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans is causing the Earth to warm. Some alarmists are actually saying the northern hemisphere is warmer. They probably know about the coreolis effect.
The media, particularly NZ TV, have never mentioned the RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES recorded in the northern hemisphere winters over the past few years. Anybody can check this on the internet. So it doesn’t appear that the northern hemisphere is warming.
Temperature measurements taken in both hemispheres of the Earth over the past two centuries particularly in Warsaw in the north and Sydney in the south show that the temperature changes in both hemispheres are very similar. So temperature changes on the Earth are global.
So what about Carbon Dioxide concentrations? Below are Carbon Dioxide concentrations recorded at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and Cape Grim in Tasmania. So one from the northern hemisphere and one from the southern hemisphere.
The Cape Grim on the right starts at 1975 and goes to 2020.
Taking the year 2020, going up from 2020 and across, Mauna Loa recorded about 409 ppm Doing the same with Cape Grim, it recorded about 407ppm. These readings are almost identical. The readings from Antarctica are very similar.
Carbon Dioxide readings are the same in both hemispheres!
Temperature readings are the same in both hemispheres!
But wouldn’t you expect them to be much higher in the northern hemisphere since there are many, many, tonnes more of anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere there? And don’t forget all these emissions are confined to the northern hemisphere.
But measured temperatures are the same in both hemispheres and measured Carbon Dioxide concentration is the same in both hemispheres.
The conclusion from this is that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are NOT causing temperature changes in the Earth.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
23 comments:
Great work Ian, however, your well founded logic will not deter the delusional climate alarmists from spewing their venom in order to protect their religious crusade.
There’s no really anything new here. The post fails to critique cogently the well-established findings of climate science = humans are the primary cause of warming since the Industrial Revolution (IR). It also appears to assume that climate scientists haven’t already considered and undertaken careful research to understand variations in temperature trends.
I’ve noted before – and this hasn’t changed in the last few weeks – though water vapour is indeed a GHG, it is known to have minimal influence in the post-IR general upward trend in global warming.
There’s a good discussion by climate scientists of warming in geological time versus post-IR on Climate Feedback – web search "Pre-human changes in climate do not negate contemporary human influence on modern warming"
LFC
A great read thanks Ian
I’m a long time fan of Anthony Watts What’s Up With That (WUWT) blog mostly because it contains articles describing the science around Climate Change. The site also has articles highlighting the follies, lies and deceptions of climate alarmists. I also like that many of the comments are from scientists across many related climate change fields covering such things as biology, geology, physics and particularly astro-physics among other sciences.
That was not actually meant to be a plug for WUWT!
Anyhow, related or perhaps even a follow-on from your excellent post is one I recently read on WUWT. I have attached the link below. It explains the logarithmic nature of increasing levels of C02 on atmospheric temperature. As C02 levels rise its warming effect on atmospheric temperature reduces. This is evidenced by historical extraordinary high C02 levels during times of stable atmospheric temperatures. Further, the article debunks the relatively recent false narrative created by climate alarmists that it’s actually climate feedbacks’ that will cause our planet to fry and die. The article also contains other information about C02 we should all be aware of.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/17/negligible-future-warming-from-co2-ch4-n2o/
Note at time I wrote this comment WUWT website has had 519,498,186 views - no denying its popularity.
Name and qualifications please LFC.
As long as we live on a 40km thin skin of earth sitting on top of rotating molten rock 12,000 km in diameter, the atmosphere above us is going to change.
It's what it is - get over it and enjoy the evolutionary miracle that intelligent humans exist.
What on earth is actually the motive of the climate alarmists?
All I can think is destruction of Western Civilization, bankrupting us financially, wasting valuable time and effort on nonsense and setting us back into an era of loss in production of food ,energy and other basic commodities.
It makes the so called Dark Ages look quite enlightened when compared with this loony religion of Climate Alarmists we are cursed with.
We should be concerned about starving people , pollution of the oceans, junk food growth of undemocratic systems etc not this garbage science.
IB: I don’t believe my name and qualifications are particularly relevant to the discussion. As it happens, like you I am also a science graduate. But I don’t think that is particularly important.
Rather, I have referred to (non-MSM) websites such as Climate Feedback – in which research-active climate scientists explain the scientific consensus on AGW – and also a few times to peer-reviewed scientific papers. These have helped me to understand AGW and my hope is they may help others, too.
I have explained before why I remain anonymous on this blog – a blog which, as you know, allows for anonymity: My workplace would likely take a dim view of my comments on politics and race-based policies. I will add now, that I may have considered being non-anonymous re AGW comments were it not for some of the nasty comments here, such a being “a member of a cult” and the like. I don’t need that kind of aggro IRL.
LFC
I’m afraid anonymous that you have been misled by placing your reliance in Climate Feedback.
Scientists fight back against Facebook’s alleged ‘independent fact-checkers’ on climate – Climate Feedback is ‘effectively spreading the very misinformation that you purport to be trying to fight’
RB: We’ll have to agree to disagree about Climate Feedback. Its approach is well-explained: its editorials are reviewed by research-active climate scientists and the credentials of climate scientists giving commentary there is upfront. It also aligns well with other websites from national science agencies and articles from the peer-reviewed literature I have read.
I can well appreciate that AGW deniers may not like Climate Feedback for its contesting of dubious claims and misinformation out there in MSM and in social media. I certainly wouldn’t take anything written on Facebook at face value.
LFC
Sorry for having to burst your bubble Anonymous. You sound very earnest and place such store in Climate Feedback.
Poynter Institute: info@poynter.org Gentles, 20 April 2022 Complaint of breach of Poynter Institute principles on the part of the far-Left “Climate Feedback” propaganda website The “Climate Feedback” propaganda website alleges that you have certified its compliance with your “fact-checking” “principles”. “Climate Feedback” is one slimy tentacle in a writhing network of far-Left soi-disant “fact-checking” organizations whose true purpose to silencing those of us who, on sound scientific grounds, oppose the crippling of our energy infrastructure in the specious name of Saving The Planet from an imagined emergency or catastrophe arising from mildly warmer weather worldwide.
LFC you seem to be of the view that the science is settled by the experts. I think you (and our PM) should watch this and see how some real experts indicate it's far from settled, if anything it's a giant beat up. https://vimeo.com/924719370
Peter,
Just watched “Climate the movie”. Brilliant. Much appreciated. The climate alarmist movement is built on a lie. This movie should be compulsory viewing for our politicians.
RB: What you pasted there appears to me to be merely a submission to the Poynter Institute (if I may say so in rather intemperate language) and it is not – most pertinently – an actual decision by the Poynter Institute against Climate Feedback or its parent organisation Science Feedback.
As it is, Climate Feedback is accredited by the Poynter Institute: web search "Science Feedback accredited by Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network" Its parent organisation Science Feedback is a current, verified signatory of Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network: web search "Verified signatories of the IFCN code of principles"
If you go to the “About” page on the Climate Feedback website, you can read its aims (as part of Science Feedback), how it approaches its analyses, makes any corrections, and so forth. And also, as I said earlier: I don’t just rely on Climate Feedback. But as its work lines up with other credible sources (national science institutions, peer-reviewed journal articles) plus it summarises the established science in a readily digestible way, it is often a reliable website that is useful for specific aspects of AGW.
Finally, given words such as “far-left” and “propaganda” in that pasted text of yours, I will also add this: The physical world of physics, chemistry and biology doesn’t care about human politics and rationalisations. The inexorable processes of the physical world will occur regardless of human wishes. An historical example of humans beating their heads against nature is the Soviet Union in the early 20th century. Disapproving of Darwinism for ideological reasons, the Soviets attempted to run their agricultural systems upon the incorrect ideas of Lysenkoism (based on those of Lamarck). Lysenko was notable for lambasting the “bourgeois pseudoscience” of contemporary genetics in the West – using rhetorically spiteful language isn’t anything new. Before it was abandoned as dangerous pseudoscience itself, Lysenkoism contributed to massive famine in which millions starved. As the Soviets learnt, ignoring robust, well-established, evidence-based science is fraught with peril, regardless of political persuasion. Quite rightly, our current centre-right government isn’t ignoring AGW either in view of the fact that there is a very high level of consensus in the scientific community worldwide regarding AGW.
LFC
Anonymous, I suggest you watch the film Peter suggested “Climate the movie” where you will see the world leading scientists who, unlike those that get paid to protect their alarmist careers such as the political team at the UN IPCC and a whole host of other charlatans, hold an independent view.
RB: The film doesn’t appear to be on Vimeo any longer – I tried the link and also tried searching on Vimeo for it by title. Perhaps it didn’t adhere to Vimeo’s terms of service?
LFC
The movie is a great watch and makes it hard to believe how politicians including most of those currently in power in this country, can continue to ignore the growing number of experts challenging, with irrefutable evidence, the climate change narrative.
I found the movie on YouTube although it appears that those censoring that site may now have dealt to it too.
Anonymous,
You can find it on Youtube “Climate the movie”
Good on you for trying to find it,
RB: Thanks – it took a bit to locate it on YT but have a link to it now. I’ll probably view it in the weekend.
Mind you, I don’t find films/videos a congenial format for this sort of topic. Whatever the point of view, films/videos typically have fairly shallow analyses, little or no referencing of peer-reviewed sources and aren’t peer-reviewed themselves, of course.
LFC
RB: 1/4.
I have viewed the film with an open but questioning frame of mind. It has taken me quite some time. Below is a summary of my conclusions about each section, laid out as:
Time stamp of start of section. Topic. Evaluation. (#) for more information/(#*) includes peer-reviewed references/(#**) peer-reviewed article.
I’ve coded these two recurring fallacies/confusions to save space:
– {causality} a fallacious argument that because C1 causes result A, therefore C2 cannot cause A as well. An example of this fallacy: if water + cold in nature (C1) causes ice to form (A), therefore a refrigerator (C2) cannot cause water to form ice (A) as well.
– {r vs g} confusing regional climate with global climate.
0:00 An oddly emotive and self-contradictory opening.
– AGW isn’t inherently anti-capitalist: capitalist enterprises can exploit AGW mitigation technologies.
– The scientists speaking are/were themselves government funded, which on their reasoning means their own research is questionable. But this is a spurious argument anyway, as most science research is government funded.
– If (as the film implies) statements by Nobel prize winners = scientific truth, then AGW is true because Manabe, Hasselmann and Parisi won the Nobel prize for physics on AGW. And if (as in the film) we don’t limit Nobel prize winners to climate scientists, then there are at least 101 Nobel laureates who agree with AGW (1)
4:00 Steven Koonin repeats previous misleading statements that have been repeatedly answered (2*)
4:50 Dick Lindzen similarly has had his misleading and incorrect statements repeatedly refuted (3*)
5:30 Will Happer takes an highly sceptical/philosophical stance about science. Adopting such a stance would logically result in no action or policy capable of being taken based on science, as every scientific viewpoint is open to being contested. Happer is notable for having incorrectly criticised climate modelling (4*)
6:00 John Clauser is a fairly recent AGW denier. Notable physicist but not a notable climate scientist. Clauser believes incorrectly that cloud cover is the primary driver of GW (5**)
7:00 Past climate {causality}. Also, we are not dinosaurs and so on; the agriculture of current human civilisation is based upon the cooler, largely temperate climate since the last ice age. See for example discussion at (6*)
10:30 Patrick Moore: exactly, we use technology to adapt to our environment. It’s no contradiction that humans should act on AGW. Moore also ignores that there is an upper temperature limit for human health, a likely problem in the tropics along with disruption to tropical agriculture if AGW goes unchecked (7*)
11:00 Ice ages: see explanation of proximal causes by orbital changes along with distal causes by CO2 (8*)
11:50 The Holocene climate optimum was fairly likely cooler globally than the average for the previous decade; also {r vs g} and {causality} (9**). For the last 2000 years (10*). As for the temperature series from “central England”, this is the tiny area of greater London {r vs g} – as is Central Park, NY. Koonin and Happer seem not to understand {r vs g} and significant effects of “small” *global* temperature increases (11*)
14:40 Ross McKitrick, an economist not a climate scientist, has over a number of years come up with “inventive” criticisms of temperature measurements, for example (12). The urban heat island effect is well-known; in fact records are adjusted to take account of this otherwise spurious warming, usually reducing the warming recorded (13) and (14**). Willie Soon is also a non-climate scientist who has made incorrect, flawed claims about AGW and solar forcing (15)
18:30 Sea surface temperatures are affected by El Niño and La Niña; there is a steady increase in global ocean heat content (16*)
19:30 Satellite temperature records: radiosondes (balloon) measurements correlate well with satellite data showing a GW trend (17**)
20:00 Temperature records: see above at 14:40.
LFC
RB: 2/4.
22:20 Regarding CO2 simply as “plant food” and so “more is better” is a great oversimplification (18*)
26:00 Atmospheric CO2 as a cause of global warming {causation}: for modern times (19*) and over geological time periods (6*), including no “lag” in CO2 versus temperature in modern times and from ice cores taken from 800 million years ago to present (20*)
28:30 1930s U.S. as being “embarrassingly warm” {r vs g}. It also confuses weather with climate: weather is short term, days to months; climate is long term, a period of 30 years at least. See (2*); and for the period since the Industrial Revolution, see (21*)
29:20 Coming Ice Age on Time magazine in 1970s or that climate scientists were predicting this is incorrect (22*)
29:30 Climate models: for their predictive robustness for the modern era, see (23*)
32:00 Clouds recapped (5**)
32:40 Cosmic rays causing increased cloud cover and so GW: weak effect, if any (24). Also {causation}.
36:00 Incorrect statement by Willie Soon that IPCC asserts that atmospheric CO2 is the only factor capable of affecting climate. Instead, IPCC gives clear evidence for *current* GW that it is caused primarily by CO2/AGW (15). Solar activity has had negligible effect in current GW (25*)
37:00 Extreme weather: the film presents a straw man argument. The IPCC’s stance aligns with the scientific consensus that the weather/GW trends are complex and difficult to untangle for now (26). As for U.S. and “central England” temperature records, {r vs g}.
39:50 Wildfires: causes are multiple, but contrary to the film, AGW is indeed an increasing factor (27*). U.S. wildfire data, {r vs g}.
40:25 Hurricanes: For the U.S. {r vs g}. Worldwide, the effect of GW on hurricanes is unclear; GW may affect intensity more than frequency of hurricanes; quite likely to increase hurricane rainfall (28*)
41:10 The film is correct that surface temperatures in Antarctica are largely stable. But other factors such as snowfall and glacier flow influence the mass of Antarctic ice caps (29*)
41:20 Droughts: causes are complex, and it is not just about rainfall, but also soil moisture and water flow and evaporation. Contrary to the film, droughts are increasing in frequency and intensity in agriculturally important regions globally (30*)
41:27 Polar bears: to assess their conservation status merely on (fairly uncertain) population numbers is inadequate (31)
41:33 Great Barrier Reef: the film misrepresents the true situation (32*)
LFC
RB: 3/4.
42:20 Government climate science funding and a great “science conspiracy”.
– The film provides no evidence for its assertions of a widespread “scam”, “cult” or collusion among climate scientists worldwide. This amounts to one long ad hominem attack against thousands of highly qualified, research-active and experienced scientists.
– As the film acknowledges, large U.S. government funding has occurred in the past in other areas (e.g. for the U.S. moon landing) and occurs now (e.g., medicine). So it should be no surprise that there is also significant funding for something as potentially significant to society as AGW.
– As the film acknowledges, large funding is also applied to other areas of scientific research and technological development. The argument here logically also undermines the credibility of John Clauser (satellites, U.S. $billions), Will Happer (optics, e.g. DARPA) and any other university- or government-agency-based scientist.
– This section of the film ignores the checks and balances of scientific discourse, communication and evaluation. Even were scientists in the U.S. universally compromised (highly unlikely), this “dark influence” would not apply nearly as strongly to scientists in other parts of the world, such as China, who would (and do) critically evaluate the scientific output of U.S. climate scientists.
– Taken to its logical extreme, this sort of conspiratorial belief undermines the modern scientific endeavour in its entirety.
– AGW mitigation and green energy: as there *is* robust scientific evidence for AGW, investment in this technology is rational and provides opportunities for capitalist enterprises.
– There are several studies, including peer-reviewed articles, of dubious conspiracy theories such as this (33**)
– The political polarisation of AGW denial and ideologically driven conspiracy theories is most marked in the U.S. The polarisation is far less evident in the rest of the world, including New Zealand (34**).
Notable omissions from the film:
– The overall retreat of glaciers in regions all across the world, which is a clear indication of GW rather than a stable temperature since the Industrial Revolution (35*)
– The isotopic “fingerprint” of human-emitted CO2 increasing atmospheric CO2 (36)
Finally, my overall impressions:
– Typical of the film format – and why I don’t rate this format highly – is there are no citations to the scientific literature backing up the claims that are made or the graphs that are drawn.
– The film has a scattergun approach of disparate contentions that fail to lead to any cross-supporting propositions and end up contradicting each other (e.g., Is there GW now? Is atmospheric CO2 rising? AGW deniers in the film at various points say yes and no).
– After checking against reliable sources, the film to me amounts to a slick reheat of old AGW denialist assertions that have been refuted in the past, sometimes multiple times.
More information:
(1) web search "101 Nobel Laureates Statement to Climate Summit World Leaders"
(2*) Climate Feedback article: web search "PragerU video on climate change repeats a range of misleading claims by Steven Koonin"
(3*) Climate Feedback article: web search "video from PragerU makes several incorrect and misleading claims about climate change"
(4*) Climate Feedback article: web search "PragerU post by Happer uses flawed reasoning to claim that climate models always fail"
(5**) See for example this article: web search doi:10.1073/pnas.2026290118
(6*) Climate Feedback article: web search "optimal atmospheric CO2 for dinosaurs and plants is harmful for humans current concentration is higher than homo sapiens have ever experienced"
(7*) Climate Feedback article: web search "CO2 coalition sponsored article in the washington times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change"
(8*) Climate Brief article: web search "explainer How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages"
LFC
RB: 4a/4.
(9**) doi:10.1126/science.1228026 (paywalled); full text with web search "a reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years"
(10*) Climate Feedback article: web search "current climate warming is rapid and occurring on a global scale, unlike past periods of regional climate fluctuations"
(11*) Climate Feedback article: web search "what's in a number? the significance of the 1.5°C warming threshold and reporting on its possible breach in popular media"
(12) Climate Feedback article: web search "analysis of deceptive temperature record claims"
(13) Climate Feedback article: web search "breitbart article falsely claims that measured global warming has been fabricated"
(14**) U.S. review in 2010 of temperature recording locations: web search: doi:10.1029/2009JD013094
(15) Climate Feedback article: web search "evidence greenhouse gasses cause global warming denied by Willie Soon in Tucker Carlson interview"
(16*) Climate Feedback article: web search "earth's surface continues to warm due to greenhouse gas emissions, contrary to claims"
(17**) pp. S30–S32 in doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0104.1 (open access [OA]) – web search "global climate 10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0104.1"
(18*) Climate Feedback article: web search "yes plants need carbon dioxide no that doesn't mean it's harmless"
(19*) Climate Feedback article: web search "scientific evidence indicates that modern warming is driven by CO2, contrary to Richard Lindzen's claim"
(20*) Climate Feedback article: web search "link between CO2 and earth's temperature is well-established despite claim"
** Also see this OA peer-reviewed article showing modern CO2 forcing cause of AGW is clear but differs from palaeoclimate: doi:10.1038/srep21691
(21*) Climate Feedback article: web search "wall street journal article questions decades of scientific evidence demonstrating elevated atmospheric-CO2 causes global warming"
(22*) Climate Feedback article: web search "1977 coming ice age Time magazine cover is a fake"
(23*) Climate Feedback article: web search "youtube video falsely claims that climate models systematically over-estimated warming"
** Also see this OA peer-reviewed article evaluating past projections of climate models: doi:10.1029/2019GL085378
(24) Climate Feedback article: web search "claim that cosmic rays are a crucial player for current climate change is unsupported"
(25*) Climate Feedback article: web search "solar forcing is not the main cause of current global warming contrary to claim"
(26) Climate Feedback article (response to a Financial Post article): web search "unsupported conclusions in claiming climate change isn't causing extreme weather"
(27*) Climate Feedback article: web search "of the many factors that cause wildfires the influence of climate change and human activities is growing"
(28*) Climate Feedback article: web search "here's what we know about how climate change impacts hurricanes and what we don't"
(29*) Climate Feedback article: web search "the antarctic's ice coverage is not increasing to record levels, nor is the continent getting colder"
** also for measurement difficulties and need for improvement, see doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0179-y (paywalled; an OA eprint accessible via Google Scholar)
(30*) Climate Feedback article: web search "water scarcity in a changing climate will drought get worse with warming"
LFC
RB: 4b/4.
(31) See IUCN’s webpage: web search "iucn ss polar bear specialist group"
(32*) Climate Feedback article: web search "coral cover in the great barrier reef improved in 2021 but that doesn't mean the reef is growing quickly"
(33**) Peer-reviewed article doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328 (paywalled) – find OA eprint full text via web search "uscinski climate change conspiracy theories".
(34**) Peer-reviewed article doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2 (OA)
(35*) Climate Feedback article: web search "data from glaciers around the world show most are shrinking as a consequence of global warming"
(36) NOAA article: web search "how do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans"
LFC
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.